Recently, I found myself in a situation where unsavoury things were being said in a semi-public group. I felt trapped as a Christian. I knew that I didn't want to be identified with what was happening but also was embarrassed about lacking the know-how to dissociate from the comments.
Church reminded me of this situation when the preacher spoke about Jesus' wish to remain incognito at times. The priest contrasted that with our wish sometimes to be incognito when we should be taking more affirmative stand for the gospel and its implications. Although the priest's comment wasn't germane to the bible passage, it was germane to my situation and I felt appropriately chastened by it.
It's good when one can go to church and have one's sin brought to one's attention knowing that the rebuke of the Lord is always designed to be merciful!!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
God's Good Gift
What view do the Scriptures take of the everyday things of life? Sunday's readings (30th Sunday after Pentecost, an ordinary* Sunday) give an answer to that question: Song of Songs (2:8-13, intimate love), Psalm (45, marriage), James (1:17-27, God's good gifts) and Mark 7:1-8;14-23 (all foods are clean). Each of these passages either declares a particular thing good (Song of Songs, Psalm) or generalises about the goodness of creation's gifts (James and Mark).
However, Song of Songs and the Psalm go further. Both are passages have more than one apparent level of meaning.
If we examine Psalm 45 at first glance the psalm is a song about the King's marriage to his Queen. But the New Testament in Hebrews 1 takes the words of Psalm 45:6-7 and applies them to Jesus. So this Psalm is a Messianic Psalm. One writer has made the excellent point that all the kings were "messiahs". They were all anointed to rule for God, which is the essence of what Messiahship is. In any case, Psalm 45, since the advent of Christ into the world, has now taken on a completely new meaning, a meaning found only in Jesus the Anointed One.
The Song of Songs passage also has two meanings because at one level it celebrates committed young love but at another, the OT saints and the church have always extended its meaning beyond human love to that of the love between God and humankind. However, I rather incline to the view of James Hamilton who argued that all the OT is pervaded by a messianic motif and that Song of Songs is the music of that motif.
So while the good gifts of creation abound for the enjoyment of humankind, they are also gifts that cannot be divorced from the Giver, Who has given us His greatest gift, Messiah Himself.
*Note: Ordinary Sundays are not "ordinary" as opposed to special or extraordinary ones but Sundays in terms of their order, 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. See here.
However, Song of Songs and the Psalm go further. Both are passages have more than one apparent level of meaning.
If we examine Psalm 45 at first glance the psalm is a song about the King's marriage to his Queen. But the New Testament in Hebrews 1 takes the words of Psalm 45:6-7 and applies them to Jesus. So this Psalm is a Messianic Psalm. One writer has made the excellent point that all the kings were "messiahs". They were all anointed to rule for God, which is the essence of what Messiahship is. In any case, Psalm 45, since the advent of Christ into the world, has now taken on a completely new meaning, a meaning found only in Jesus the Anointed One.
The Song of Songs passage also has two meanings because at one level it celebrates committed young love but at another, the OT saints and the church have always extended its meaning beyond human love to that of the love between God and humankind. However, I rather incline to the view of James Hamilton who argued that all the OT is pervaded by a messianic motif and that Song of Songs is the music of that motif.
So while the good gifts of creation abound for the enjoyment of humankind, they are also gifts that cannot be divorced from the Giver, Who has given us His greatest gift, Messiah Himself.
*Note: Ordinary Sundays are not "ordinary" as opposed to special or extraordinary ones but Sundays in terms of their order, 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. See here.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
A Sophisticated Pentecostal View
The number of views re Spirit-Baptism is amazing and is well-catalogued here by Sam Storms. One would have to conclude from this variety that the subject of the Holy Spirit Baptism is not an easy one!!Douglas A. Oss in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views presented a case for a Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of the present work of the Spirit that is more sophisticated than what is normally given. He argued that just as the Holy Spirit's work in the Old Testament is both "inner-transforming" (in anticipation, Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27; 37:14) and "empowering" (Num 11:24-27 etc; Judg 14:6.19 etc) so it is in the New Testament.
Oss raised the important issue as to whether the writings of St Luke and St Paul have different emphases regarding the Spirit and he answers that affirmatively. Their emphases are different but complementary. St Paul focuses strongly on the "inner-transforming" nature of the Spirit while St Luke focuses almost exclusively in Acts on the empowering of believers for proclamation of the gospel.
Therefore, Oss contended that it is an error to conflate these two different works of the Spirit.
The prophet Joel specifically sees the Day when the empowering by the Spirit will be universalised (Joel 2:28-32), which occurred on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21) when the Spirit filled the 120 (pace those who say it was only the 12 apostles). Luke's emphasis on the Holy Spirit as empowerment is borne out by the writer's mention of Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit after his water baptism (Lu 4:1) and returning after His temptation in the power of the Spirit (v.14) to speak in the synagogue at Nazareth with "the Spirit upon Him" (v.18). Interesting too that Luke phrases the "prayer" material in his account (ch 11) to climax with the words, "how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him" (v.13, cf Matt 7:11, where Matthew has "good gifts").
Luke ended his gospel account with Jesus promising the disciples that they would be "clothed with power from on high" (24:48) and opens Acts repeating the promise of power (1:4-5,8). Not that Luke was completely unaware of the regenerative power of the Spirit (Acts 15:8-9) but his main emphasis is on empowerment.
On the other hand, St Paul also knows the empowering of the Holy Spirit for he warns against quenching the Spirit and despising prophesying (1 Thess 5.19-20).
Hence, Oss' conclusion is that Pentecostals believe all Christians receive the Holy Spirit at conversion but a charismatic receiving of the Spirit is also available to all the saints of God, a filling that needs to be constantly renewed (Eph 5:18).
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Table Waiters
In the Acts 6 where the seven deacons are to be picked, one of the criteria used for their selection is that they are to be "full of the Holy Spirit" (v.3).
These deacons were ostensibly picked to wait on tables but two of them at least did more than that. Stephen, one of the seven, is described as being "full of faith and of the Holy Spirit". Why the two things I wonder? Why isn't full of faith enough?
That designation reminds us that it's important not only to have faith but also to be full of the Holy Spirit even if it's only to wait on tables!!!
This man so full of God, so full of the Spirit performs "great signs and wonders among the people" (v.8). His opponents not able to withstand "the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke" (v.10) have him falsely accused dragged before the Jewish council to defend himself.
In Acts 7, the angelic Stephen (6.15) castigates those hearing his defence as those who resist the Holy Spirit (v.51) and then being "full of the Holy Spirit" sees the glory of God and Jesus at his right hand (v.55-56).
The next time we are chosen to be a "table waiter" we need to ask, am I full of faith AND full of the Holy Spirit?
These deacons were ostensibly picked to wait on tables but two of them at least did more than that. Stephen, one of the seven, is described as being "full of faith and of the Holy Spirit". Why the two things I wonder? Why isn't full of faith enough?
That designation reminds us that it's important not only to have faith but also to be full of the Holy Spirit even if it's only to wait on tables!!!
This man so full of God, so full of the Spirit performs "great signs and wonders among the people" (v.8). His opponents not able to withstand "the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke" (v.10) have him falsely accused dragged before the Jewish council to defend himself.
In Acts 7, the angelic Stephen (6.15) castigates those hearing his defence as those who resist the Holy Spirit (v.51) and then being "full of the Holy Spirit" sees the glory of God and Jesus at his right hand (v.55-56).
The next time we are chosen to be a "table waiter" we need to ask, am I full of faith AND full of the Holy Spirit?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Distinguishing Initiation From Empowerment
Along with a number of writers, it is easy to agree that baptism with the Holy Spirit (Spirit-Baptism) is an experience of entry into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12.13).
That's why, so it is said, that Spirit-Baptism is closely connected to water-baptism (e.g., Acts 2.38; 9.17-19) and with repentance and trust in Christ (Acts 19.4,5) which is based on a 'receiving of the Word' Acts 8.4 & 14,15) because each in its way is part of the same spiritual reality.
Reception of the Word about Christ moves one towards the initiating waters of baptism (Acts 8.35-38) and the filling of the Spirit seals that covenant with God (Eph 1.13).
The very fact that Jesus is heralded by John the Baptist (in all 4 gospels) as the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit is evidence that Spirit-Baptism is mightily important. John believed Spirit-Baptism defined Jesus' ministry as contrasted with his (Jn 1.26; 33). In John 7, Jesus cries out at the Feast of Tabernacles re the Spirit flowing out of the hearts of thirsty Jesus believers (v. 38-39). (But the account mentions that only after Jesus' glorification is the Spirit to be given in this sense.)
Nonetheless, although believing the Spirit Baptism is tied to initiation into the body of Christ, is not to say that it is identical with initiation. In this respect, the Pentecostals are correct. The cases in the Acts (particularly ch 8 and 19) distinguish between initiation and Spirit-Baptism although a distinction does not mean a separation (Acts 2:38).
That's why, so it is said, that Spirit-Baptism is closely connected to water-baptism (e.g., Acts 2.38; 9.17-19) and with repentance and trust in Christ (Acts 19.4,5) which is based on a 'receiving of the Word' Acts 8.4 & 14,15) because each in its way is part of the same spiritual reality.
Reception of the Word about Christ moves one towards the initiating waters of baptism (Acts 8.35-38) and the filling of the Spirit seals that covenant with God (Eph 1.13).
The very fact that Jesus is heralded by John the Baptist (in all 4 gospels) as the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit is evidence that Spirit-Baptism is mightily important. John believed Spirit-Baptism defined Jesus' ministry as contrasted with his (Jn 1.26; 33). In John 7, Jesus cries out at the Feast of Tabernacles re the Spirit flowing out of the hearts of thirsty Jesus believers (v. 38-39). (But the account mentions that only after Jesus' glorification is the Spirit to be given in this sense.)
Nonetheless, although believing the Spirit Baptism is tied to initiation into the body of Christ, is not to say that it is identical with initiation. In this respect, the Pentecostals are correct. The cases in the Acts (particularly ch 8 and 19) distinguish between initiation and Spirit-Baptism although a distinction does not mean a separation (Acts 2:38).
Did You Receive When You Believed?
Being a former Pentecostal (third-generation) but now longing for my present denomination (the Anglican Church of Australia) to experience the wind of the Spirit in new ways, this post reflects on the account of John the Baptist's disciples found by St Paul in Acts 19.1-7.
These Ephesian disciples prompt St Paul to ask, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And the question for us must be, 'What was it about the behaviour or demeanour of these disciples that led St Paul to ask that question?' I say that because I cannot imagine Anglican or Reformed or Baptist believers being asked this question by one of their leaders!
Surely today we would answer: 'Why do you ask such a strange question? Of course I have received the Holy Spirit otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian believer at all.' And Paul's own writings would seem to support that position for he does say in Romans 8.9 that any who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to Christ. So, being a Christian and having the Spirit are concurrent.
However, we are still left with Paul's question to these Ephesian disciples.
We can only infer from that question that when people received the Holy Spirit, things happened. Those around saw something occur (and consequences followed). As John Piper (staunch Calvinist in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards) has said, the receiving of the Holy Spirit in the Acts is "experiential".
That leaves open the problem as to why many Christian believers today do not know of any experience of the Holy Spirit's having "fallen on them" (Acts 8.16).
We will address this issue in the next post.
These Ephesian disciples prompt St Paul to ask, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And the question for us must be, 'What was it about the behaviour or demeanour of these disciples that led St Paul to ask that question?' I say that because I cannot imagine Anglican or Reformed or Baptist believers being asked this question by one of their leaders!
Surely today we would answer: 'Why do you ask such a strange question? Of course I have received the Holy Spirit otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian believer at all.' And Paul's own writings would seem to support that position for he does say in Romans 8.9 that any who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to Christ. So, being a Christian and having the Spirit are concurrent.
However, we are still left with Paul's question to these Ephesian disciples.
We can only infer from that question that when people received the Holy Spirit, things happened. Those around saw something occur (and consequences followed). As John Piper (staunch Calvinist in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards) has said, the receiving of the Holy Spirit in the Acts is "experiential".
That leaves open the problem as to why many Christian believers today do not know of any experience of the Holy Spirit's having "fallen on them" (Acts 8.16).
We will address this issue in the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)