A Barthian & Calvinian Devotional Moment

This is the kind of stuff every Christian should appreciate Karl Barth for:

Lecture V

(Art. 203)

The Way Of Man

2. By revealing Himself to man in Jesus Christ, God brings against man the accusation that his own way is the way of ingratitude towards God's grace. Man, unfaithful to his calling, which is to serve God's glory, makes himself the lord of his life, as if he were God. What he does thereby, he would have to be, without prospect of deliverance, if God withdrew His hand from him, viz. deprived of his own glory, i.e. a prisoner to the contradiction of his own nature, lost in a world which has ceased to have a lord and therefore ceased to have a meaning for him and subject to vanity. Man's own way is the way of sin, i.e. of offence against God, which only God can make amends for. [Karl Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God According to the Teaching of the Reformation: Recalling the Scottish Confession of 1560, The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Aberdeen in 1937 and 1938, p. 7 (Nook edition)]

And follow this with John Calvin:

Book One

The Knowledge of God the Creator

Chapter 1
The Knowledge of God and That of Ourselves are Connected. How Are They Interrelated

I. Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God
Nearly all the wisdom of we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he "lives and moves" [Acts 17:28]. For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves; indeed, our very being is nothing but subsistence in the one God. Then by these benefits shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself. Indeed, our very poverty better discloses the infinitude of benefits reposing in God. The miserable ruin, into which the rebellion of the first man cast us, especially compels us to look upward. Thus, not only will we, in fasting and hungering, seek thence what we lack; but, in being aroused by fear, we shall learn humility. For, as a veritable world of miseries is to be found in mankind, and we are thereby despoiled of divine raiment, our shameful nakedness exposes a teeming horde of infamies. Each of us must, then, be so stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness as to attain at least some knowledge of God. Thus, from the feeling of our own ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and---what is more---depravity and corruption, we recognize that the true light of wisdom, sound virtue, full abundance of every good, and purity of righteousness rest in the Lord alone. To this extent we are prompted by our own ills to contemplate the good things of God; and we cannot seriously aspire to him before we begin to become displeased with ourselves. For what man in all the world would not gladly remain as he is---what man does not remain as he is---so long as he does not know himself, that is, while content with his own gifts, and either ignorant or unmindful of his own misery? Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.

2. Without knowledge of God there is knowledge of self
Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.... [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion V. 1, edited by John T. McNeil, 35-7]

We could reflect on the methodological disparities that inhere between Barth and Calvin reflected in the varied ways that they discuss the same issue; i.e. knowledge of self, only through knowledge of God in Christ. But let's not. Instead I want to do more of a devotional reflection at the behest of these two teachers of the Church of Christ.

Humanity lives in a state of contradiction, constantly! We see the fall out of humanity living out the 'contradiction of their own nature' everyday. Of course, what's the problem? I mean the world can recognize, with utmost fealty to their own natures that they alone are the master's of their universe; even if that results in the hellish and deleterious havoc we see played out in the world over and again. At least they are master's of their universe, at least that's what they think.

So what's the answer to this sorry state of affairs? Jesus. And yet having knowledge of ourselves is not enough, which is what both Barth and Calvin know; that stops short, if we stop there. The answer isn't to have knowledge of ourselves, full stop; the answer is to have knowledge of ourselves in the face of Jesus Christ. Because what comes loaded in this knowledge is a recreation of ourselves in an through the humanity of Jesus Christ; through his resurrection.

Anyway, I don't have anything more profound to offer than what I just did. But I think the two quotes from Barth and Calvin are worthy of our prayerful and thoughtful reflection, this day.

I am really just a Christian who likes to read the Bible ...

Me

Is it too much to ask, I mean all I really want to do is read the Bible for all it's worth! This has been my aim ever since I started really walking with the LORD again back in 1995 (I had a lull with the LORD that lasted for a few years right out of high school, but prior to that I walked with Jesus ... but in more simple ways, yet real, than he has been cultivating in me since 1995). What prompted me to start reading the Bible in systematic ways, was the suggestion of my parents when I started a season of very hard times (depression etc.) in life; but, and here the LORD works in surprising ways, it was also James Dobson of Focus on the Family. He had a guest on his show, and this guest had found an old Bible of his deceased Grandpa; and in the front leaf of the Bible this man said that his Grandpa had kept track of his Bible read throughs for his whole life, and that he had read the Bible well over a hundred times. This started me on a trek that I have been on since. I am about to finish reading through the whole Bible for my 28th time since I started in 1995. The frequency of read throughs have ranged from 2 times a year to even 3 times a year, with a few times where the read through has slowed to just over once a year. In this time, though, I concurrently read the New Testament when I am reading through the Old Testament, as a result I have probably read through the NT hundreds of times since 1995. Anyway I share this to get at what motivates me. What motivates me to read the Bible is my love for Jesus (that he loved me with first), and a realization that I need him. I don't read the Bible so I can find proof texts for Evangelical Calvinism; I read the Bible because I love Jesus. I am a Christian, what we are calling 'Evangelical Calvinism' is a sub-set of my Christianity; it is a self-identification that says that I think certain contours of thought best proximate a way to read Scripture. But at the end of the day, my self-identification is not an end in itself; the only end I want to be associated with is Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega! So for me, to read the Bible for all its worth means that I am drawn into a deeper abiding relationship with Jesus Christ. I am still that guy from 1995 who simply started reading the Bible because I knew that I needed to hear from the LORD of the Bible and have a real life encounter with him---I have not been disappointed! I am really just a Christian who likes to read the Bible.

Being a Passionate Christian

[Disclaimer: When I reference 'theologian' throughout this post I am referring to the whole gamut and continuum that that word can mean ... so whether you are a professionally trained theologian or an unprofessionally untrained lay theologian, I am referring to all stripes---or, I am referring to all Christians.]

Passion. Passion and Theology often don't mix, in fact a hallmark of genuinely scholarly Theology is usually to be dispassionate. To suspend one's own person from the mix, to remain unaffected by the ideas one is studying; and thus, purportedly have the capacity to provide objective analysis of whatever the topic under consideration might be. Clearly, there is place for seeking to accurately represent ideas, paradigms and parameters within theological discourse. But to remain unmoved and dispassionate about the truths contemplated and articulated by genuinely Christian Theology is balderdash, in no uncertain terms!

A Compelling Picture of Passion

Christian Theology is indwelling and inhabiting the life of God in Christ; it is thinking from the center of God, who is Jesus Christ, with the Spirit. Thus Christian Theology should always be an activity in doxology (worship, the attribution of worth toward the other---in Christian Theology the only One worthy of worthship is our God in Jesus Christ!). If we are living our lives from the life of Christ I don't see how the would-be theologian can be dispassionate. I am not referring to a personality trait, per se; or an emotional high and low. But I am referring to an uncontained zeal for the things of the LORD. Living the kind of life that has a fervency and verve that results in putting Jesus first, and others second (so a proper order, understood in dialectic balance). It is this kind of mode that ought to affect the Christian Theologian in the same way that God's life affects Godself in Triune love; the kind of love that causes the second person of the Trinity to penetrate the depths of his creation by incarnating to the point of death, even the death of the cross. So Christian Theology should be cruciform in shape, because God's life is cross-shaped; at least this is what Jesus' hands and side bear witness to---this seems passionate to me. I am obviously going a little stream of consciousness here, but hopefully you're getting what I'm getting at.

I am tempted to critique why I think folk are not passionate about theology, even as theologians at points. But, this would only be to hit upon a well rehearsed theme here at the blog, and so I will forgo why I think certain modes of theology are less capable of being passionate, in the Christian sense of passion, that is.

Why am I passionate? What drives me? I am hopeful that I am passionate about the things of the LORD because 'he first loved me that I might love him!' I am passionate because I have been through existential depths and dark seasons of the soul (not just the cancer, but definitely that too), both emotionally (years of depression and anxiety for example ... thankfully those years seemed to have faded, but to take on a different shape now) and physically (so the cancer). This seems to be the pattern of Jesus' life being played out in my life (and all of our Christian lives); moving from death to life, being constantly given over to Jesus' death that his life might be made manifest through the mortal members of my body (our body as Jesus' body, and as individual members of that cf. I Cor. 12.27).  I have doubted the existence of God (like many), which was an absolute nightmare for me; I have doubted everything you can doubt (not like Descartes though ;-), but not because I wanted to. It was this kind of doubt that overtook me for years and years, but the result was one that led me in the end to say 'where else can I go, for you alone have the words of eternal life.' This is what motivates me, this is why I am passionate; because I know that my sanity and life are grounded in and through Jesus Christ, I don't have anywhere else to go dangit! I love Jesus with every inch of my recreated-resurrected humanity from his. That's it, that's what drives me; that's where any passion I have comes from. I love Jesus so much I can't stand it; I need a new body to really express the depths of this love and passion ... that's my hope! And this is my passion, what's yours?

The Flesh is Irreparable

Maybe you can relate; there is nothing about the flesh, the sinful man, the sinful nature, this body of death that is repairable! I have been walking with Jesus (by his grace) for years and years and years, now; one would think that the further in we get, the easier fighting sin would get. But that was the whole point of this:

³ For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, ..." ~Romans 8:3 (ESV)

The flesh remains ugly, deceptive, and gross (don't kid yourselves!); we need to do this,

¹¹ So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. ¹² Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. ¹³  Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness...." Romans 6:11-13 (ESV)

Sorry, I often am writing to myself with my posts; if this happens to encourage you, then that is even more of a blessing! 

You Don't Need To Be an 'Egg-head' to be a Theological Thinker

Don't be an 'Egghead', you might break!

Trained theologians clearly have their place for the church of Jesus Christ (cf. Eph. 4:11ff), but, of course, not all Christian folk are going to be 'trained theologians'. This is a constant tension for me though; my desire is for all Christians to learn to think deeply and theologically about all of life. To inhabit the life of Christ by the Spirit so much, that we cannot but help to interpret all of life's circumstances through the lens of Christ's life. And yet, I so often don't see people moving in this direction; it isn't that everyone needs to be up on all of the cutting edge theological discussions, but it is that all Christians are commanded and exhorted to quit thinking like babies, and in fact grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. So I have this tension; I want all people to be theologians, but I have to balance this out with the realization that not all Christians are called to be professional (so called) theologians. Thomas Torrance provides some good balancing words on this kind of tension:

[I] have been wonderfully blessed with a mother and a wife who have a profoundly Christian, and indeed a remarkably theological, instinct. My mother had little academic training in theology, but her life and her understanding were so tuned in to the mind of Christ that she knew at once where the truth lay and was quick to discern any deviation from it. This is also very true of my dear wife, who is imbued with an unerring theological instinct, evident again and again in her reaction to ideas put forward by preachers or teachers. At the end of the day that was the test I put to my students, as I read their essays and examinations or listened to them in the chapel. 'Has this person a genuinely theological instinct or not? Is his or her thinking spontaneously and naturally governed by the mind of Christ?' That is much more important than being theologically learned, much more important than being able to offer a formal academic account of some doctrine or historic debate in the church. What really counts in the end is whether a person's mind is radically transformed by Christ and so spiritually attuned to the mind of Christ, that he or she thinks instinctively from the depths of their mental being in a way worthy of God. [Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 445]

I similarly, like Thomas, am blessed with a dear wife who has these theological instincts. It is this kind of 'tacit knowledge' (another theme, or the same theme that TFT is appealing to here with his 'instinct knowledge') that we come to as we are in a submitted, even repentant posture towards our God through Christ, because we indeed love him (because he first love us in Christ I Jn. 4.19). Torrance's perspective is one that I must always keep before me; the goal, for the edification of the saints, is to equip them in ways that help to cultivate a life of instinctual, Holy Spirit given, Christ conditioned 'lights' that are constantly being switched on throughout our daily lives.

Not everyone is called to be a professional theologian, but everyone is called to love God in Christ. And cultivation of this call will result in this kind of instinctual discernment that lays everything at the feet of Jesus before proceeding (whatever it is). It will be a life characterized by utter dependance upon the One who raises the dead, such that life will only make any sense (in every waking and sleeping moment) as it is lived from the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. The ground of this instinctual knowledge of God is found nowhere else but in the gracious and loving demonstration and reality of that in the mediatatorial humanity of Jesus Christ 'for us'.

Do you have this kind of theological instinct? If not, why not? It is time to get moving, the days are short, and the coming of Jesus is at hand (cf. Heb. 5--6 & Heb. 10:24ff).

Thinking Like a Christian: Obedience Unto Death

Here is Alan Torrance (nephew of Thomas Torrance and son of James Torrance) developing Barth's understanding, basically, of what Thomas Torrance has called Theological Science (which is developed further by Torrance in his so called 'epistemological inversion'); which has to do with how we know things or persons (in brief). Here is Alan Torrance:

[T]his requires a reassessment of the question of truthfulness such that it is conceived neither in terms of successful, objective reference projecting across the gulf between the human and the divine (i.e. in terms of a 'correspondence theory of truth'), nor in terms of internal consistency within a system of propositions or ideas (i.e. in terms of a 'coherence theory of truth'), but in terms of what is customarily assumed to be a quite foreign category, one that is subjective and ethical, namely obedience --- the obedience of thought and of mind. Theological truthfulness is a form of intellectual obedience before the Reality of God. Here, Barth comes close to interpreting truth in 'performative' terms. However, the truth-performance connection here is not bound up with any autonomous human performance, but with the divine speech-act performed in and through the ambiguous event of God's Self-veiling/unveiling in the human context. Truthfulness is ultimately to be found, therefore, in and through the divine event of Self-communication in the Church, where the obedience of the human hearer is included within the divine speech-act and where God is 'heard', and therefore conceived, in a creative divine act of the reconciliation of the human mind to himself. [Alan Torrance, Persons In Communion: Trinitarian Description And Human Participation, 14]

Obedience Unto Death

Once again, as I have frequently noted here, the engagement of the reality of God (coram Deo) cannot be detached from God's own Self-givenness in his Self-revelation in Jesus Christ. This calls for a certain posture and attitude toward the reality of God that is participatory, personal, and present in and from the life of God mediated to and for us in the humanity of Christ (I Timothy 2:5,6). The reality of God is outside of us, and comes apocalyptically to us in the person of Christ (along with the Holy Spirit). We only hear from God, moment by moment, through his Word for us; and this then becomes the 'place' wherein dogmatic knowledge and formulation comes to the fore. That is, through a loving intimate relationship with God in Christ by the Spirit. We are not Lord, he is; and this must shape the way we speak and act theologically. Here is how A. Torrance follows his development of Barth here, by quoting from Barth's Church Dogmatics:

... what is under debate in dogmatics is the Church's fundamental relation of obedience to its Lord in respect of its proclamation ... A dogmatics which it (the Church) might  not pursue, in whose enquiry it did not wholly participate as in the enquiry about its whole existence, a dogmatics which might let itself be crowded into the corner of religious intellectuals or the intellectually religious, could only be a poor, useless and tedious dogmatics which it would be better not to pursue at all. We pursue dogmatics because, unconstrained by the fact of the Bible, we cannot shake off the question of the obedience of Church proclamation. The question of its obedience includes that of its truth. But the question of its truth can be put only as the question of its obedience. As the question of its obedience it is the question of its dogma. [Karl Barth, CD 1.1, 274-5 cited by Alan Torrance, Persons In Communion: Trinitarian Description And Human Participation, 15]

Thomas Torrance calls this approach 'repentant thinking'; the point is that unlike most of propositionally-philosophically-analytically derived approaches to 'knowing' (and knowing God), this paradigm believes that Christian truth, in particular, only comes as we are conditioned and put 'under' and brought into the environs of truth as it is opened up in Jesus Christ. We don't first construct a matrix and then try to fit God into that matrix; instead we are the ones placed into the matrix of God in Jesus Christ. This requires, at least, an analogy of faith (V. an analogy of being), or analogy of relation; or as A. Torrance will develop in this book an 'analogy of communion'. So we obey because God first loved us that we might love him.

There are many contemporary applications of this for the American (Western) Evangelical church, but I will have to put this off for another time.

Wimpy Christianity: "We Have Christian Individuals, But Do We Have a Christian Church?"

Thomas Torrance asks very perceptively (as usual) whether or not we actually have a Christian church? He makes the point that we indeed have Christian individuals, but what does this mean when we inhabit an un-Christian church culture? The following Torrance quote comes from his lectureship at the University of Edinburgh, New College in Scotland where he lectured for many years. Understand that as he gave his lectures this takes us back some 40 to 50 years; but his concern then is of course, and more so, just as much of a concern today---especially in the American Evangelical church of which I am a part. Here is what Torrance asked his students:

[W]hat does this have to say to us today about what we call 'evangelical Christianity'? We have been concerned with evangelising men, women, and children as individual human beings, calling for repentance and personal decision for Christ as Lord and saviour, and rightly so. But have we been concerned with the evangelising of the mind of the society in which these people live? If not, how can a Christian church put down roots in an unevangelical society and remain genuinely Christian? I believe this is where evangelical Christianity today has failed terribly. By and large, as far as I can see, even the mind of the church, let alone the mind of society, is still secular in that it shares the mind of the secular society within which it exists. We have Christian people, but do we really have a Christian church? We have people who profess to believe in Christ as Lord and saviour, but do we have a church that is so imbued with the mind of Christ that its members individually and as a community think instinctively in a Christian way? Thomas F. Torrance, "Atonement," 444-45.

Torrance's concern is something that I have been burdened with for quite awhile now. I think the mission field (as one of my other teachers, Ron Frost has said) has actually come to us right in the church. There is such a dearth of sound Christian teaching with an emphasis on lively doctrine (which should produce worship) that I think it can truly be said that the American (Western) Evangelical church, by and large, is lost. That seems to be a hard teaching and critical diagnosis, but if we don't make prescient diagnoses then we are bound to live in the captivity of our society and cultures and not bound by captivity to Christ!

So the goal for pastors and Christian teachers is to teach and model Christ crucified in a way that produces a tsunami and sea change such that there is a communitarian repentance of thought. We not only need to be evangelists to the individual, but we need to evangelize thought patterns and the systemic structures of our society through prophetic and witness oriented evangelism that penetrates down into the depths. Here is something Torrance said to his students in this regard:

[T]here often came a point in my classes when I felt that the students wanted to throw the books at me, as the inner struggle between the gospel and the frame of mind they brought to it became intense. Let us make no mistake about it: divine revelation conflicts sharply with the structure of natural reason, with the secular patterns of thought  that have already become established in our minds through the twist of our ingrained mental alienation from God. We cannot become true theologians without the agonising experience of profound change in the mental structure of our innermost being. Thomas F. Torrance, "Atonement," 443.

The way forward requires courage, and a resolve to disentangle oneself from secular thinking; this resolve must be present first and foremost in the leadership and teaching office of the church. This is a painful process that requires sacrifice, work, and time; or as Jesus said, it requires 'that we take up our crosses daily and follow him'. This isn't an option, by the way, it is a mandate from the one we call Lord! It's time to step up to the mic for a sound check; are you present and accounted for, or are you just going to be another wimpy who continues to feast at the secular table of "having it your way?"

Little William and Jesus: How is this Fair?

Sorry my posts haven't been the most upbeat lately, but the cross is where we have been living lately; and we aren't the only ones. And when I say 'cross', I mean experiencing forms of human suffering--in all of its shades and variations. On that theme let me reflect upon the question of fairness and God.

Little William and His Dad

I have walked through cancer, and lived to tell about it (at least up until today); by God's grace! But so many others don't enjoy the same experience as I have; especially those afflicted with Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor-sarcoma (the kind of cancer I had)---you don't normally live through this disease to tell the tale. Such is the case, so it appears at this point (all things are possible with God, and he could without a doubt intervene in the life of this little guy I am going to be referring to throughout the remainder of this post), for a little boy named William. William was diagnosed, as I recall, with DSRCT cancer just after I was (I was back in November 2009); he has been through crazy chemo therapies, surgeries, stem cell transplant, etc. Just recently it seemed that William was in clear, but as is so often the case; William's cancer has come back with a vengeance! Here is his mom's most recent post and reflection (entitled Terrible, terrible truth) on William's plight:

From Mommy, Loiss.

Hi all. I want to thank everyone for the love, prayers, supportive words, and loving thoughts.

As my mom mentioned in her post on Friday, we are inpatient at City of Hope.

I don't have any creative, frilly, beautiful words to describe or poeticly phase what it is that we are all going through. All I can say is that my baby is nearing the end, and that my heart hurts to the extreme.

Williams little body is so weak, frail and heart breaking. BUT his heart and spirit stay true to the warrior he is. The tumors are starving his body, they are causing him pain, and they have hijacked his organs, but William keeps on keepin' on. Even through the pain, the heartache, the fear, the reality I still see the strong, silly, fun loving, caring and kind nature of Sir. William

William's comfort is the number 1 concern for everything and everyone. He is getting a continuous IV cocktail of pain medication and Ativan to help calm and relax him.

Randell and I have bridged the conversation regarding death and heaven. The first conversation was the hardest and William stated that he was not yet ready to talk about it. The next day he opened up a little more and he asked questions about heaven, why people died, who would be waiting for him, how he would talk/communicate with us when he wanted to ask us something. He asked if God gave the angels special powers and if so, if God would allow him to use his special powers to keep firefighters and pilots save. He cried a lot, we all cried a lot. He is scared about dying, we are doing everything we can to ease his fears and give him peace.(see the original posting here, with pictures).

 William's mom, Loiss, describes the situation the only way it really can be when she writes "I don't have any creative, frilly, beautiful words to describe or poeticly phase [sic] what it is that we are all going through." How is this fair? That seems to be a totally honest and genuine question. How is it fair or right that little William, or any little child, should endure the amount of chronic suffering that he has and is? The only answer I can come up with is that it is not! When Jesus came he didn't come to mete out fairness; in fact he came to contradict fairness (our conception) with something greater; his love! Fairness has an immediate orientation, an immediate gratification; God's love in Christ by the Spirit has an eternal orientation. The LORD sees what we will look like, and what we will be doing in the corridor of consummate and beatific vision; he sees the way that we will be worshiping and ministering in his presence for all eternity as participants in his life through the ongoing mediation of Christ for us as our high priest. He sees our sorry and angst; our dark seasons of the soul; our wandering moments through the love of his Son, Jesus Christ. It is this vantage point that throws our 'perspectives' into relief; that is not to say that the existential pain and suffering have been vanquished in this in-between time (remember 'death is the last enemy' to be put under Jesus' feet). But it is to say that all things have been made new and given redemptive life in and through the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.

What I am writing about is the life of 'faith', not sight, that we have been called to engage God through in and through the faith of Christ for us. My point in this post will not necessarily serve as a comforting balm to Williams' parents, family, and friends, but it is the truth. There is nothing really left to do, but what Jesus did in his so called 'Passion'; all we can do is seek to bear the burden of William in and through the cry of Jesus, the cry that Jesus cried in the Garden; and the cry that He cries for William and his parents right now. It's not an empty cry, but it is the cry that Jesus cried at Lazarus' grave (even though he knew that he was just about to raise him from the dead); Jesus Wept! So even in the midst of the greater and more exceedingly powerful reality that we all know is the truth for William and all those who trust in Jesus for salvation; we still weep (but not without hope)! There is nothing fair about sin and suffering; but in the midst of it, Jesus continues to break into these circumstances with his redemptive embrace. William most likely is on the cusp of experiencing something that will last an eternity ... even though this is the truth, we still cry.

A Reflection: On Suffering and the Cross

Life is really hard! We have been going through it lately; my cancer, unemployment, less than desirable employment ("but it's a job" kind of job), financial struggles, our daughter's recent accident and emergency brain surgery (and now really hard recovery; esp. mentally and emotionally for her, and us!). We all have trials and tribulations; in fact the New Testament is clear that this is our lot. Indeed it is the muck of this life that is 'working for us a far more exceeding eternal weight of glory'. And yet Jesus said, 'take heart, I have overcome this world!' So we try to take heart; not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit!

So what's the meaning of all of this? Jesus wondered this in Gethsemane; he cried out for another way, but there was none. As participants in Christ, constantly being given over to his death that his life might be manifested in our mortal bodies, having the sentence of death written upon us that we might not trust in ourselves but in the One who raises the dead, experiencing the tribulation of Christ that we might experience his comfort so that we can comfort others with the same comfort we have been comforted with ourselves; these are some of the reasons, the blessings, the purposes and points of suffering now. Indeed, this is it! We are participants with Christ all the way down; in his death, and now, AMEN!, resurrection life. But we live in the in the between time; praise the LORD that in his wisdom, he has met us right where we are, in our suffering and despair. Martin Luther understood this; he understood that the place, the person where we know and meet God is in the midst of the cross of Christ. This is God's grace, wisdom, and love demonstrated; he has become sin that we might become the righteousness of God in him. He has penetrated the depths of our wounded and dead selves so that we might penetrate the wonders of his life giving throne of Grace; next to the Father. Luther understood that we can quit striving to have relationship with God through what man perceives as glory; that is through the praise of others. Luther understood that it's not the fancy ideas of men that get us into the heavenlies, but, indeed, it is the putting to death of humanities' ideas, and bringing humanity into HIS ideas, his life wherein we know God. We don't have to perform, or orchestrate anything for this to happen; we're born into the muck of sin and disorder. This is the grace of God in Christ; this is the wisdom of God in Christ! He has come to us, become us, and through adoption made us what he is by nature, by grace. It is when things 'look' the most sideways that we, by faith, look beyond and see the One who is right side up for us in the midst of trial and the dark nights of the soul. Here is what Randall Zachman has written on Luther's theology of the cross:

In the context of theologia crucis, faith means believing with certainty that God’s Word is true even when the whole world, the heart of the believer, and even God himself contradict the truth that is revealed in the Word, particularly the Word of promise. Thus, when God begins to show mercy, God does so by first revealing wrath (in law); when God makes alive, God does so by slaying. The same contradictions apply especially to those who have already come to faith. God promises the forgiveness of sins, yet our conscience feels nothing but sin and wrath; God promises life, yet we see nothing but death. Faith, therefore, is the art of believing the Word while experiencing, seeing, and feeling the opposite. We believe that Christ is the Son of God, even though we see and abandoned man on the cross; we believe that God cares for the church, even though we see nothing but a church persecuted by the world and apparently abandoned by God; we believe in eternal life, even though we see and feel nothing but death.

However, the primary locus of the theology of the cross is the experience of trial or tribulation (Anfechtung), when the very heart and conscience of the believer sense that God’s promise of grace and forgiveness is a lie. The believer must regard the promise of forgiveness as true and certain even though the conscience testifies to the contrary.

But under the cross which we experience, eternal life lies hidden. . . . We, too, experience the cross, and death appears to us, if not in fact, yet in our conscience through Satan. Death and sin appear, but I announce life and faith, but in hope. Therefore, if you want to be saved, you must battle against your feelings. Hope means to expect life in the midst of death, and righteousness in the midst of sins.

This is the very meaning of being simultaneously righteous and a sinner (simul iustus et peccator): to believe that we are righteous coram Deo even though we feel like condemned sinners.

Within the context of the theology of the cross, the grace of sanctification and its attestation in the testimony of a good conscience would necessarily be subordinated to the grace of justification and the promise of the forgiveness of sins. This is because the testimony of the good conscience confirms one’s faith in the promise, whereas the theology of the cross emphasizes that testimony of the conscience that contradicts faith in the promise; that is, Anfechtung. Therefore, although Luther continually insisted upon the necessity of sanctification and of the testimony of the good conscience, within the framework of theologia crucis he could not help but consistently subordinate the grace of sanctification to that of justification.

Luther’s concentration on the theology of the cross also accounts for his refusal to involve the Reformation directly in the external reform of the church. The Word of God does not deal with external, temporal things, but rather with invisible, eternal things; and such invisible things are revealed under an external appearance that contradicts what is being revealed. The theology of glory, in contrast—such as Luther found in the papacy—emphasizes externals to the point of neglecting the invisible truths revealed by the Word: indeed, to the point of calling God’s Word a lie. Thus, those in the Reformation who would introduce concern for externals—such as Karlstadt with his rejection of idols and the papal mass—misunderstanding the whole nature of the Word of the cross, and divert the attention of believers from the invisible, eternal things of God’s promises to the visible, temporal things of human reason and senses. Yet it is precisely reason and the senses that must be mortified if we are to believe that the Word of the cross is true.

Luther’s theologia crucis also explains his suspicion of those, such as the Anabaptists, who emphasized the external holiness and moral behavior of the church. If the Word of the cross reveals the truth of God under a contrary appearance, then one would expect the true church not to look like the church at all, but rather to look like God-forsaken sinners. The “synagogue of Satan,” on the other hand, with its theology glory, would look like the true church of God and would demonstrate a superior holiness externally—as in the monks and friars—but inwardly it would be rejected by God. The theology of the cross would therefore lead one not to stress the conformity of the appearance of the church with its faith, but rather stress the ways in which the appearance of the church denies its claim to be the people of God. The church looks like a gathering of sinners rejected by God and the world, whereas it is in truth the beloved people of God. The church cannot be judged by its appearance, but only by whether it has the Word of Christ crucified. Hence the primary task of the church is to preach the Word of God, while letting externals take their course. [Randall C. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith, 9-10]

There is a lot in what Zachman highlights in regards to Luther's theology of the cross (try to absorb it all at some point). But what I want to stay focused on is knowing God; seeing God in Christ, even when everything looks just the opposite! Isn't this how most of life looks? Just the opposite of what religion and even forms of Christianity tell us it should look like. We shouldn't be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon us; for to us it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but to suffer for his sake. Unfortunately, it's when we are in the depths, that usually we are right where the LORD wants us; if only so that we will look at him, and ultimately look more like him as he transforms us from glory to glory. amen.

No Apologies: The Christian Faith

So called Christian Apologists of our day give way way too much credence to their supposed counter-parts; the new Atheists (and whoever else antagonizes)! I grew up in this kind of Fundamentalist sub-culture (ironically some of the most ardent apologists for the Christian faith today would not self-identify as Fundamentalists; like N. T. Wright; Richard Bauckham; Michael Licona; and a host of others not so well known); the kind of culture that lives out of fear, fear that the Christian antagonist might turn a leaf over and find the Jesus code or some such thing (something that in

their mind would overturn the veracity of the Christian faith in one fell swoop). Granted, much of our Christian ecumenical dogma comes from the musings of early Christian apologists; but I think it is too quick to suggest that there is an immediate parallel between those apologists and the apologists of our day. Most of the Patristic apologists fought Christian heresy, and sought to hash out a Christian grammar where there was none. Today, Christian apologists seek to establish a foundation for the rationality of the Christian faith by demonstrating through evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that he was a real person, and that the Jesus the Apostles and the early Church proclaimed was not a fabrication.

But who is convincing who? I thought Christians were already Christians?! And I thought Pagans were already Pagans?! And that the Pagan is a Pagan because she loves herself, and thus fabricates myths and idols that reflect herself and thus something to worship (herself). If this is the problem, then what good does it do to spend hours and hours and hours and hours of study and debate; and thousands and thousands of dollars promoting such things? That said, I am not naively suggesting that there aren't any responses to the unbeliever; or that we shouldn't be able to help along Christians who have doubts themselves. I am not suggesting a retreat into a blind pietistic fundamentalism; I am suggesting that the conversation needs to be reset!

Christians need more self-confidence in and through the confidence that comes through constant and continual encounter with the living Word of God, Jesus Christ! We don't need to shore up our beach heads of doubt and fear by trying to meet the questions that the unbeliever has fabricated for the Christian to answer; we answer to Jesus, and we take our cue from him. We think from him. The categories of thought that we think Christianly through are determined as we press into him; not Richard Dawkins or Bart Erhman, for goodness sake!!!

What do the contemporary Christian Apologists think will happen if we simply ignore these so called new Atheists and Christian critics; will they win (whatever that means)? Isn't this the advice our parents gave us as kids when other kids with big mouths were trying to bully us; didn't they say to ignore them (since they are just seeking any kind of attention they can get)?

I think Christian Apologists, even if they have a confident intonation in their voices; promote a culture of fear and angst amongst Christians. Why? Because these Christian Apologists have given way too much credence to their so called counter-parts. And the average Christian sees this and thinks "wow, these antagonists must really have something important to say against Christianity!"

My prescription: We need way more Christian Theologians, and way less "Christian Apologists!" This is not a false dichotomy!

¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Romans 1:16

¹⁸ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written:


   “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
   the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
 
 ²⁰ Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²² Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

  ²⁶ Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. ²⁷ But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. ²⁸ God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, ²⁹ so that no one may boast before him. ³⁰ It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. ³¹ Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” I Corinthians 1:18-25

There is no power in any thing other than proclaiming what the world (e.g. 'The New Atheists' and Biblical Critics, like Ehrman) considers weak and foolish; the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We need abduction not deduction. I just think we don't like being called fools; that explains the whole Apologetic faith to me.

PS. I know most of the Christian Apologists intentions are good; but because they have failed to engage the Christian Faith as Theologians and theologically, they must seek other ways to close that gap between "their faith" and its factual reality---so they think. I had doubts, severe doubts quite some years ago; I turned to these kinds of Christian Apologists. In the end they gave me a God who I had to constantly defend, and a Scripture that I made true; I finally became too exhausted by this mode, and thankfully was introduced to 'Christian Trinitarian Theology' ... what a relief! If you are still struggling along with the Christian Apologists; won't you join me in the refreshing waters of Trinitarian Theology (my favorite instance of this is Evangelical Calvinism)?

A Classic Calvinist thinks I need to repent: God's Impersonal Glory V. His Personal, 'In Christ'

*Here is a short post I originally wrote when I was in the midst of battling my cancer. It was given impetus by interaction I had been having, at that point, with a guy who attends The Master's Seminary (John MacArthur's seminary in Southern California). He believed (and probably still does) that I was in sin because I was having an ongoing dialogue with the LORD about my cancer; I told this fellow that at points I was angry with the LORD, and didn't understand why he would let this happen to me. This fellow thought this was a sinful response; i.e. because I was voicing my

frustration and anger with the LORD, in personal discussion with Him (the LORD), as my LORD. This guy from Master's was sure that I was harboring a sinful attitude, and thus in need of repentance. Here's that post (it was supposed to be the beginning of a series of posts, but I never got to those).

As a result of an email I recently received, I am going to do a series of posts on God’s glory and suffering — this will be a slow series, and will depend on my state of mind in the near future (in other words I am processing all kinds of stuff right now). I think it is very important to have an understanding of God’s glory that is shaped by His life of love in Christ by the Spirit. Which means that glory is not a principle outside of love and personal relationship; but in fact it is its inverse. In other words, God’s glory cares about intimate and personal details (like the sparrows or us). I’m afraid that there is thinking out there that sees “God’s glory” as an impersonal force that has nothing to do with “us;” when in fact the Incarnation says just the opposite.

In other words, what’s at stake here is how we correlate something like: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God” with Jesus Christ’s revelation of God’s glory as He ministered His life to those around Him while on earth (or even in His mediation to Israel in salvation history). I think there are competing things going on between the “Westminster Shorter Catechism’s” understanding of “glory and glorify,” and who we see revealed in Jesus Christ in the Incarnation. This will be the jumping off point for the posts ahead . . .

The Problem of Sin, and Its Answer: Good Friday, Holy Saturday and ...

I don't know about you, but I grow weary of sin; I (we) face an ongoing battle every breath that we take. Whether it be perverse thoughts, dark deep secrets that plague the conscience, actions that result in destruction for you and all those related to you, systemic evil that permeates the very fabric of society (this is probably most insidious since we are conditioned by it in ways that give it a normalcy and thus societal and then personal acceptance); the Apostle can relate,

²³But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. ²⁴O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:23, 24

 We battle on. But how do we know what we battle; how do we gauge the target, how do we even know that there is a target to hit? How do we realize that evil isn't some just mysterious lurking principle 'out there' that ultimately is outside of me, and not something that actually implicates my very being to its deepest depths---even when I engage in the evil 'out there' occasionally or situationally? How do I know, even if I can index concrete and ongoing instantiations of evil 'out there, that the evil is indeed me? And that this all encompassing wickedness and deprivation consumes my inner self, which organically shapes my outer self---since really ourselves (body/soul) are integrated wholes. In other words, I am sin to the depths, and the reason there is sin, evil, wickedness 'out there'; it is mostly because it has a context 'in here', in me. But how can I say such things, how can I ground such assertions beyond some sort of psychological intuition? We know that we are blind when the impression of light intensifies our darkness; when Jesus acts the way he does, and did, we know we are indeed blind. We come to the realization that for all our good, for all our posturing toward ourselves; that the next to the last word is that we live in a state of No, or blindness to the fact that what we see the Apostle Paul giving voice to can only come when faced with the depth of our problem as we participate in the life of Christ. The One who took our No, our blindness, and indeed our sin unto himself 'by becoming sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him' (II Cor. 5:21). As Calvin so perceptively knew, we only truly have knowledge of ourselves (and our abysmal state), when we first have knowledge of God through Christ, God the Redeemer.

It is this that John Webster masterfully elucidates as he engages Karl Barth's vision of a christologically conditioned knowledge of sin in its most depth dimension. Let me quote Webster, who is commenting on Barth's Church Dogmatics & Ethics, and the moral anthropology embedded therein:

[B]arth's Christological determination of sin is not so much an attempt to dislocate 'theological' from 'empirical' reality, as an argument born of a sense that human persons are characteristically self-deceived. Human life is a sphere in which fantasy operates, in which human persons are not able to see themselves as they truly are. The 'man of sin'

thinks he sits on a high throne, but in reality he sits only on a child's stool, cracking his little whip, pointing with frightful seriousness his little finger, while all the time nothing happens that really matters. He can only play the judge. He is only a dilettante, a blunderer, in his attempt to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, acting as though he really had the capacity to do it. He can only pretend to himself and others that he has the capacity and that there is any real significance in his judging. (CD IV/1, p. 446.)

This theme of concealment surfaces frequently in paragraph 60 (and elsewhere). Believing ourselves to see clearly, even allowing ourselves to suppose our sight to be sharper than that of our fellows, we are blind to the reality of our own selves. Barth acutely perceives that moral earnestness frequently rests upon clouded vision and lack of self-awareness and self-distrust. And so, once again, we return to the Christological basis for the treatment of human sin: 'Compared with Him we stand there in all our corruption ... The untruth in which we are men is disclosed ... We are forced to see and know ourselves in the loathsomeness in which we find ourselves exposed and known.'

Human sinfulness, then, entails an ability to disentangle ourselves from our acts in such a way that they are no longer really ours. As Barth puts it in a passage in Church Dogmatics IV/2, we allow ourselves to believe that:

The sinful act is regrettable but external, incidental and isolated failure and defect; a misfortune, comparable to one of the passing sicknesses in which a healthy organism remains healthy and to which it shows itself to be more than equal. On this view, the individual --- I myself --- cannot really be affected by the evil action. I do not have any direct part in its loathsome and offensive character. In the last resort it has taken place in my absence. I myself am elsewhere and aloof from it. And from this neutral place which is my real home, I can survey and evaluate the evil that has happened to me in its involvement with other less evil and perhaps even good motives and elements; in its not absolutely harmful but to some extent positive effects; in its relationship to my other much less doubtful and perhaps even praiseworthy achievements; and especially in my relationship to what I see other men do or not do (a comparison in which I may not come out too badly); in short, in a relativity in which I am not really affected at bottom. I may acknowledge and regret that I have sinned, but I do not need to confess that I am a sinner.  (CD IV/2, p. 394)

These clarifications of the forms of human self-deception (which are by no means intended to underrate the ambiguity of the moral situation) are an important background to Barth's treatment of original sin. His objection to some formulations of that doctrine is, at heart, that they are deficient in their account of positive evil. And his refusal of an independent locus peccati, his rejection of anything other than a Christologically determined account of sin, is directed by precisely the same concern. Far from averting attention from evil as fact, Christology is intended to furnish a means of clarifying our vision and dissolving our illusions about our own moral integrity. [John Webster, Barth's Moral Theology: Human Action in Barth's Thought, 69-70.]

The Apostle Paul concurs with this kind of assessment about the deleterious effects of sin upon a life that knows that it only knows its true state of affairs because of the One who finally has given the last word  to our No-being by his Yes to the Father for us---viz. a Yes that is given concrete form through his death, burial, and most importantly resurrection-ascension. The Apostle Paul, with his eyes wide open, as we noted earlier, gives a final sigh of relief when he writes:

 ²⁵I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Romans 7:25

The Apostle knew, that he knew sin, not ultimately because of the Law; but ultimately, because of Christ who penetrated deeper than the Law could on its own---viz. into the cavernous depths of the human soul which left to itself continues to look at evil and wickedness as if its 'out there', while all along failing to realize that they've never even seen sin and evil and wickedness in its most grotesque form; that's because they've never presumed that maybe, just maybe the most insidious form of evil, in the end, dwells where they can't peer, where they dare not, in themselves.

Why Charles Spurgeon is Wrong: On the Atonement and God

I just read this over at the Pyromaniacs, from Phil Johnson's weekly practice of posting quotes from his teacher, Charles Spurgeon. There are some things that Spurgeon writes and preaches that are edifying, but I am afraid the following will be representative of something that might only be half-baked; or maybe not baked at all. The concern I have with the following quote is the concept of God that must be present in order for Spurgeon to write what he does; let's take a look at that right now, and then pick it up afterward with a brief comment:

[O]h! my hearers, if you are trusting in the unconditional mercy of God, you are trusting in a myth. Has someone buoyed you up with the thought of the infinite goodness of God, I would remind you of his infinite holiness. Hath he not declared that he will by no means spare the guilty? No debt due to God is remitted unless it be paid. It must either be paid by the transgressor in the infinite, miseries of hell, or else it must be paid for him by a substitute. There must be a price for the ransom, and evidently, according to the text, that price must be a soul, a life. Christ did not give his body merely, nor his stainless character, nor merely his labors and sufferings, but he gave his soul, his life, a ransom. Oh! sinner, Almighty God will never be satisfied with anything less than thy soul.

"... Has someone buoyed you up with the thought of the infinite goodness of God, I would remind you of his infinite holiness. . . ." 

Here is a classic example of how a classic usage of Divine Simplicity can run awry; wherein the modes of God's attributes are played off against each other as if there is a schism in God's actions towards his creation (and I think without proper nuance thus implicating God's being ... even though Divine Simplicity is intended to thwart my concern). Anyway, unlike Spurgeon's usage of this, I think a proper Christian Trinitarian construing of God's life is one that grounds all of God's activity from his interpenetrating life of self-giveness one for the other (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all living in koinonial 'fellowship' one with the other ... it is this kind of life that shapes His holiness [or which is His holiness], His justice, His mercy, His creating etc.). If this is the case we never concluded what Spurgeon has about God's holiness somehow working against or trumping God's goodness; these aren't competing realities. God's life is loving grace to begin with; everything else is butter after that! Meaning, God's wrath and justice must be understood to only come within his very life; which again is love, full of grace and truth. Spurgeon is wrong on this point.

"...  No debt due to God is remitted unless it be paid. It must either be paid by the transgressor in the infinite, miseries of hell, or else it must be paid for him by a substitute. There must be a price for the ransom, and evidently, according to the text, that price must be a soul, a life. . . ."


Here we have, even for the Baptist, Spurgeon, the lingering effects of Covenant Theology; such that (to be crude), the atonement is framed in a purely forensic and monetary mode. So that Jesus in the Incarnation and Atonement becomes nothing more than the instrument or Divine debit card by which God purchases the elect for himself; allowing him at that point (once the demands and the conditions of the Law have been met) to love his brand new people, but not until these conditions have been met. Jesus then becomes subordinated and abstracted from God's life, placing a rupture between God in eternity and Jesus in creation-time; Jesus becomes who he is dictated to become by creation itself.

I could say more, but on this Good Friday, it grieves me to think that folk accept what Spurgeon (and others like him) has to say about such things uncritically. I think this could be devastating to the Christian's daily walk and spirituality 'in Christ'.

Good Friday

¹⁷ And He, bearing His cross, went out to a place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha, ¹⁸ where they crucified Him, and two others with Him, one on either side, and Jesus in the center. ¹⁹ Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was:

JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

²⁰ Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

²¹ Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”’”

²² Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

²³ Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. ²⁴ They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:

“They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.”

Therefore the soldiers did these things.

 Picture HT: Darren

²⁵ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶ When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” ²⁷ Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

²⁸ After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” ²⁹ Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. ³⁰ So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

³¹ Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. ³² Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. ³³ But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. ³⁴ But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. ³⁵ And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. ³⁶ For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” ³⁷ And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”

³⁸ After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. ³⁹ And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. ⁴⁰ Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. ⁴¹ Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. ⁴² So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby. John 19

The Christian Triune God of the Old Testament

I just finished up II Samuel in my Bible reading. It is in this rich Old Testament book that the Christian reader will find as an explicit reference to our Triune God as anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, compare II Samuel 23:1-3 with the so called Pauline Trinitarian Benediction in II Corinthians 13:14:

23 Now these are the last words of David.

Thus says David the son of Jesse;
Thus says the man raised up on high,
The anointed of the God of Jacob,
And the sweet psalmist of Israel:

² “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me,
And His word was on my tongue.
³ The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
‘He who rules over men must be just,
Ruling in the fear of God.

II Samuel 23:1-3

And,

 ¹⁴ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

II Corinthians 13:14

God has always been Triune, whether the student is reading the Old Testament or New Testament. I was just struck, once again, by this passage in II Samuel; I hope it strikes you as well!