Jesus never used the title "friend" for himself

I am in the process of choosing worship songs for this Saturday's church worship service when I was looking at this one by Matt Redman, "Once Again."

Whilst I could use the song, I am not all too comfortable with it, because of these two areas, especially the second one.

For one, I felt the phrase "once again", which is also the title of the song, hence its focus, is superfluous. Why once again? Why is it necessary that once again I am thankful or once again I lay down my life or once again I am full of praise for him? Why once again? I just am...alright, I suppose he meant it to be a never ending rendition of thankfulness and praise to God.

And secondly, I'm not sure if I would use the word "friend" for Jesus. Don't misunderstand me, I do regard the Lord as my friend but I felt that the meaning of the word friend now is more sentimental than it was then in the New Testament times. Therefore, by singing "thank you for the cross, my friend," I feel like I'm not honoring him and his sacrifice for me on the cross.

I remember I was at a bible conference several years ago when D.A. Carson commented that Jesus never referred to himself as our friend. And that is true. Jesus called us his friends but did not refer to himself as our friend. But of course, we can say it is implicit because friendship works both ways. But isn't it interesting he never called himself our friend?

With that I went searching for a journal article on the topic and found one titled, "Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John," written by Gail R. O'Day. And this is what I learnt, and I quote:

Even though there is a consistency of vocabulary across the centuries used to discuss friendship in antiquity, there is no consistency of emphasis or definition...Each ancient writer, including the New Testament writers, developed the friendship traditions in different ways depending on his or her own community setting. (And what more in comparison to its usage in our time now?)

The Gospel of John is a pivotal text for the discussion of friendship in the New Testament. The vocabulary of friendship, especially the noun philos and the related verb phileöy is found at key moments in the narrative.

The word "friend" in John carried many associations for John's first readers. Modern readers cannot completely recapture those associations, but they can at least recognize that John did not create the theme of friendship out of whole cloth. Awareness of cultural embeddedness helps modern readers see that friendship is not a universal term for all times and cultures. Most contemporary friendship greeting cards, for example, adorned with roses, kittens, and butterflies, do not exhort the card's recipient to "lay down one's life for a friend." Jesus' words in John 15:13 seem unprecedented for a modern friend.

Two friendship motifs from the Greco-Roman world provide a promising framework for regarding Jesus as friend in John: Jesus' love for others that is embodied in his death and Jesus' boldness in speech and action...frank speech was encouraged as a mark of honest instruction, dialogue, and training...not engaging in flattery to further their own ends.

Jesus' friendship is the model of friendship for the disciples, and it makes any sub-sequent acts of friendship by them possible because the disciples themselves are already the recipients of Jesus' acts of friendship.

(Comments in parentheses mine.)

So you see, our modern understanding of friendship may not do justice to the friendship that Jesus was referring to.

As such, I am not too comfortable in singing it simply, "thank you for the cross, my friend"...but then it does describe the first motif above, him laying down his life for us.

pearlie
Source: Gail R. O'Day, "Jesus as friend in the gospel of John", Interpretation (April 1, 2004, p144)

Book madness, again

I took part in the recent Logos.com March Madness and D.A. Carson won, again. I could not find the annual winner list but he won consecutively three years in a row, 2013 to 2015. The champion for 2012 was N.T. Wright, and the few years before that, March Madness were on volumes rather than persons.

Anyway, I always look forward to Logos.com March Madness because books at 75% deals are a big deal. However, I didn't think I would get any of Carson's since I already have many of them, both printed and electronic.

But I just noticed a "just-a-few-days-left-deal" email in my inbox and thought I'd check it out anyway. And know what? I ended up buying three books! Sigh...

And the thing is I have all the three in printed copies!

Well, the reason why I got them was because I have been trying to read A Call to Spiritual Reformation since 4th Jan but right now the book is still less than half read sitting on the table in my living room. It's now more than three months since I've started on it and I have not picked it up for the last two.

So I thought I should get the electronic copy with the 75% deal. And I thought since I'm at it, I might as well get a couple more. Sigh...


A Call to Spiritual Reformation, Priorities from Paul and His Prayers
by D.A. Carson


A Model of Christian Maturity, An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10 - 13
by D.A. Carson


Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and His Confrontation with the World
by D.A. Carson

pearlie

Author Shopping

I mentioned about my tendency to go author shopping sometimes. It happens when I like an author and I would buy several of their books all at one go.

Which authors have I done such book shopping on? These are based on my ebooks purchases. Print books not included.

N.T. Wright - I just bought his Simply Christian, right after I finished reading Simply Jesus. Ok, this does not count since I only bought one, but I have bought his other books all at one go before.

Anchee Min - Chinese historical fiction.

Kent Hughes - Preaching the Word Series, I think I've purchased all of his OT commentaries. I stop short at completing my NT set because I calculated that at the rate of my reading, I will not have enough time in my lifetime to finish reading them all.

Dallas Willard - books on Christian living and spirituality.

Francine Rivers - biblical historical fiction.

Randy Alcorn - eschatological fiction.

I don't remember for sure which authors I did mass shopping on their print books but these two without a doubt: DA Carson and CS Lewis.

pearlie

My 2015 Goal: A Year of Fervent Prayer

Ok, I'm at the moment quite gung-ho in my wanting to be serious about prayer. I only hope it can be sustained throughout the year and throughout my life.

From yesterday's post, I've actually finished reading Brother Lawrence's The Practice of the Presence of God, it's not long, and I loved it! It will be useful to refer frequently to what I have highlighted to remind me to always live from the center of Christ.


A Call to Spiritual Reformation, Priorities from Paul and His Prayers
by D.A. Carson

I've also just started reading D.A. Carson's A Call to Spiritual Reformation, albeit from a print copy, which will be a challenge. And since I've named my 2015 goal as A Year of Fervent Prayer, I would like to post my learning on prayer as much as I can here.

My first lesson comes from a section in Chapter 1 Lessons from the School of Prayer: much praying is not done because we do not plan to pray.

This is an important as well as a difficult lesson for me because I'm not a good planner and worse than that I'm weakest as far as discipline is concerned (#34 in my Gallup Strength theme sequence). However, since I have used my Maximizer (a strong #7) successfully in making me go to the gym every workday in most of 2014, I will also use it to help me to plan my prayer and to keep the schedule, which I suspect will still not be so fixed or scheduled.

Carson said, "We do not drift into spiritual life; we do not drift into disciplined prayer. We will not grow in prayer unless we plan to pray. That means we must self-consciously set aside time to do nothing but pray...Wise planning will ensure that we devote ourselves to prayer often, even if for brief periods: it is better to pray often with brevity than rarely but at length. But the worst option is simply not to pray--and that will be the controlling pattern unless we plan to pray. If we intend to change our habits, we must start here."

With that, I want to start small and this is what I plan:
1. Say a brief prayer the moment I wake up before I get out of bed
2. Pray when I'm commuting alone
3. Begin every workday with 15 minutes of prayer (need to find a place though since I'll surely be disturbed in my cubicle)
4. Spend 15 minutes in prayer before I retire in bed at the day's end

Ooh...that sounds like a lot! I'll see how I will fare and will give a report in a week's time.

It will however be a good thing to be reminded of what Brother Lawrence said in his Ninth Letter of The Practice of the Presence of God: "One does not become holy all at once."

And Carson says this, "If God is the one 'who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose' (Phil 2:3), then of course he is the God who by his Spirit helps us in our praying."

Amen to that!

pearlie

The Love Test

Pastor Marvin's sermon today is a continuation from last week, a second and closing part to the topic of "Test Every Spirit", based on 1 John 4:1-8. (The mp3 sermon for Part 1 is here. I will append this section with today's sermon when the link is up.)

He refers to Jonathan Edwards's four ways to test the spirits taken from these verses in the 1 John epistle. They are:
1. The identity test
2. The association test
3. The biblical test
4. The love test

Check to link provided above for Test #1. For the other three tests, as promised, I will post the link when it's up.

What I like to bring up right now is my thoughts today on Test #4, the love test.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."
1 John 4:7-8 (ESV)

What Pastor Marvin said this morning reverberates with me because I have been evaluating my relationship with some people.

There are many kinds of love in the world. But the most popular one of them all is the love of self. If you look around, you are bound to see Narcissus everywhere. Think about it, no matter where you go and whomever you speak to, most people will be for themselves, and only themselves. Seldom will they ever be for you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against being for yourself and taking care of yourself. I am referring to the downright selfishness and conceit of humankind, those who seldom spare one thought for another. Those whose actions and words are only self-serving. They may sound like they care for you, but sadly, they don't sound at all genuine. It's only a façade. They only think and do for themselves.

But God loves us so much that he gave us his only son to die for us that we may live. God's love is supreme and whatever message we hear must be tested against this love of God that commands us to love one another because God is love.

But love is not easy. In its purest form, it's hard to understand, to live out and to practice. But love we must.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."
Luke 10:27 (ESV)

And who is your neighbor? Jesus's subsequent parable makes it very clear that your neighbor is whomever you come in contact with. And we are to love them with the love of God.

How we understand the love of God is then a very, very important thing.

Check out D.A. Carson's two excellent volumes on:
1. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God
2. Love in the Hard Places

I have read these books some years ago and it is now a good time for me to dig them out from the shelves and read them again.

We need to really know and experience the love of God and we need to test every spirit with the love of God, to ensure we listen to the right things and live our lives right in Christ.

pearlie

DA Carson is back in KL (9-11 Sept 2013): The God who is There

pearlie

Carson's PDF books online

I found where all of Carson's publications are listed out in The Gospel Coalition website. Some of them are available in PDF form - you can recognise them by their url address http://s3.amazonaws.com as you mouse over the links.

Andy Naselli listed seven of the PDF links here. I have download both volumes of For the Love of God in PDF. Sweet!

pearlie

Love in the hard places

D.A. Carson wrote a book entitled Love in Hard Places. The book is described:

Too often the Christian version of popular culture's sentimental view of love is that, of all things, Christians should be nice. After all, people ask, isn't the Church about forgiveness? Aren't Christians supposed to love others without condition? This book not only focuses on the aspects of Christian love that are not easy--such as when it comes to loving our enemies, and even forgiving those loved ones who have hurt us--but also helps readers understand, then, what biblical love really is. As author D. A. Carson points out, thinking seriously about Christian love soon embroils us in reflection on justice, revenge, war, the authority of the state, forgiveness, hate, and much more. This book shows some of the important ways in which the love of Christians is a reflection of the love of God, and enables believers to develop an appropriate understanding of how to love in the hard places of life.

I read it some years ago, and it is time I read it again. Except that I have too many things to do and books to read. For one, I badly need to finish Goldsworthy book on Biblical Theology so I can get on with my book review assignment. But learning to love, especially when it is hard to love, is so important.

Maybe I can sneak in a minute or two every now and then.

pearlie

Three Sermons

Been listening to several sermons today:

The ABC of Godly living in an unholy world
by David Monro

Trials of Life
by Stephen Um

Trials
by D.A. Carson

pearlie

What is tolerance?

I heard in one of Carson's sessions the topic of tolerance*. He brought up a very interesting point where he felt that our contemporary understanding of tolerance has gone wayward.

If you think about it, isn't it logical that one can only be considered tolerant when - not only does one not agree with another, differing views are laid out full view of each other but tolerated with grace and aplomb.

That in my opinion is tolerance.

Accepting another person's differing views even though it goes against one's beliefs or principles for the sake of giving way is not tolerance. It is but syncretism, a fusion of differing beliefs - something that is impossible.

This came up because I was in the midst of helping Calvin with his homework when he was required to decide if the result of tolerance was that the "opinions of others are easily refuted".

I felt that it was my duty as a parent to explain what real tolerance is, which I did. But I also added that if he goes according to my explanation he will definitely be considered wrong in class.

What Calvin did was quite surprising. He actually asked me to explain both sides again, and proceeded to make his own mind. I checked his homework later and discovered that he had placed the "opinions of others are easily refuted" under the result of tolerance.

I shall not say that it is entirely correct because the idea or concept behind that phrase is just not complete. Scanning through the list, I find that the lesson was badly structure to the extreme:

Identify in the following if tolerance is practiced or not during a team-work session:
1. Dissatisfied with the task set

2. Improvements visible in relationship between team members

3. Having the spirit of give and take in the division of tasks

4. Work can be completed speedily

5. The existence of tension and the deterioration of relationship among members

6. Work is slow to complete because of tension

7. Patience if work is not evenly distributed

8. Opinions of others easily refuted


I am alright with taking #2 and 3 as the result of tolerance and #5 and 6 the result of intolerance.

#1, 4 and 7 in my opinion are just irrelevant. More than irrelevant, they must not be tolerated:

1. A dissatisfaction with the task set may be totally valid. What should one do if he is required to kill 10 cats? Be tolerant and do it anyway?

4. Work that is completed in no time could be the result of performance, skill or even with minimum quality. It can be done with or without tolerance.

7. What does the issue of fairness has to do with tolerance? What if it is because you are disliked for whatever reasons and therefore more burdensome work is given to you? What if you voiced out against the organisers because you rightly do not agree with the way they do things and that caused you to be given the dirtiest and most dangerous part of the job? Be tolerant and do it anyway? What if I as an organiser pocket 90% of the funds received but only does 10% of the work? Be tolerant and do your 90% anyway?


This is so wrong and yet they are teaching it in school. Oh dear.

So that leaves us with #8.

8. The way I see it, for example, I can easily refute you if you tell me Jesus was not resurrected. I don't even have to think about it, for I will flatly refuse to agree with you, but I can still tolerate you and be your friend. I will listen to you, talk to you, have a meal with you and help you when you need help but I will never ever agree with you on that score. This is toleration.

Bringing #8 back into context, what if the opinions of others in the team is totally whacked out - say, the leader of the group is an extremist and in his opinion, the best way of doing things is through torture? Tolerate? By no way!

I know I am going to the extreme in taking Calvin's schoolwork but this is serious business - it has to do with the formation of my son's character, and I need to have my say in it as a parent.

pearlie

* Let me know if you need the link to Carson's session. I am not including it now for lack of time - I have to hunt it down amongst the whole lot of downloaded Carson mp3s I have in my Carson folder.

He emptied himselfJohn 1:1-18

We did the remaining of John’s Prologue in bible study. And truth be told, I was not as prepared as I wish I was for this lesson. I had my plate so full for the week that by the time I sent out the last of the reports, it was already 8.00pm. Calvin and I went for a quick dinner and made it just in time for bible study at 8.30pm. I had to depend on the morsel of readings I had here and there over the week.

Therefore, my strategy was to discuss more on the theological themes of the passage, and discuss them we did. It was a profitable discussion.

After giving a sum-up of our last lesson, we went through the verses generally. Soon the focus was on v.10-14, with questions in the line of: what does “Word became flesh” mean? Why did God has to become flesh?

One of us was in the impression that even though Jesus was man, he still had the full essence and attributes of God: omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. When Jesus took on the body of a man, shouldn’t he still have those powers because he is still God, and his “quality” of being God should not be diminished. We discussed this quite at length. Philippians 2:5-8 was brought up.

Philippians 2:5-8 (NASB)
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

We concluded that Jesus in his obedience to the Father gave up what he had, emptied himself and became in the likeness of man. We began to wonder at our Lord Jesus who was so willing to give up his Godly attributes to become man. He had to do that in order for his ultimate act of love on the cross. But after resurrection, though he remained in bodily form, some of the Gospels indicate that he regained his Godly attributes.

Pastor brought up the fact that we need not worry about the "reduction" of Jesus' being when he became man. He was in the very essence still fully God, though now fully Man. He was still within the Trinitarian unity of one God.

We also discussed a bit about the ultimate sin of mankind – it is not only disobedience or even the collective of bad things we have done – at its very core, it is idolatry. This word, idolatry needs some explanation here in this part of the world, where idol worshipping is practiced at large by Taoists and Hindus. One of us asked if idolatry mean plainly that. But it is more than that, it is not merely choosing the God that we want to worship, it is the choosing of God that fits our bill, it is as what Carson has termed it to be: the de-godding of God, the thingemefying of God. Or as C.S. Lewis has termed it: “putting God in the dock”.

We must never take God for granted. As such, we must also not put too much emphasis on God’s love for us that we become the more important one. As much as God loved us so much that he gave us his son, it was for the glory of God, according to His purpose and will.

pearlie

Oops ... have I drowned them?John 1:1-2

In quoting Leon Morris in his Commentary on the Gospel of John (NICNT, 1995, p.3), "I like the comparison of John's Gospel to a pool in which a child may wade and an elephant can swim," I may have just put some into the deeper end!

Take a look and see how I might have drowned them.

John's Prologue (1:1-18)
I began the bible study with 3 discussion questions:

1. What is a Prologue, and its function?
· προ-λογος, pro-logos: for-word
· An introduction to a piece of writing or work of art
· It sets the stage and prepares the audience
· It gives a preview to what's ahead

2. What did John’s Prologue achieve for John?
· It introduces his audience to the entire Gospel of John

3. Study the Prologue and highlight:
· Key words/phrases
· Repeated words/phrases
· Unique construction and usage of words/phrases
· Allusions to any other parts of Scriptures

The third discussion question was useful because it helped draw out a lot of key themes in the Prologue that served as a preview for John's message in the Gospel. It also helped instil a good habit in studying the bible.

We then plunged into the verses. For good or bad, I actually began with a warning, and a promise: I warned them that tackling the first two verses in John will take some doing, but promised them that I will only do such detailed for these two verses. I also vowed that I will only do these very two verses in Greek, and none other. I explained why I am doing it and with that I moved on.

John 1:1
εν αρχη ην ο λογος,
en arche en ho logos,
In the beginning was the Word,

και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον,
kai ho logos en pros ton theon,
and the Word was with God,

και θεος ην ο λογος.
kai theos en ho logos.
and the Word was God.

εν αρχη ...
- Alludes to the OT: αρχη denotes “the beginning”, an absolute one; the opening verse of Genesis; therefore the expression would be a well-known one
- Might allude to Mark, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mk 1:1): while Mark introduces the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, John begins with Jesus before time began

... ην ο λογος ...
- In the beginning, the Word was already in existence - the verb “was” is most naturally understood of the eternal existence of the Word; the Word continually was
- There never was a time when the Word was not
- It makes very clear that the Word was not created - it is of utmost importance
- The Word may have its background in the Greeks and Jews

... και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον ...
- The preposition προς denotes a relationship between two different parties, as such “the Word” is a person, distinguished from the Father
- “The Word was with God” is probably as good a translation as we can manage for a difficult Greek expression
- Not only did he exist in the beginning but he existed in the closest possible connection with the Father

... και θεος ην ο λογος ...
- A careful translation is demanded by the Greek structure
- Word order in Greek is employed especially for the sake of emphasis
- ο λογος : has an article, the Word is the subject
- Two key questions:
(1) why is θεος in the front: Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes the Father has
(2) why there is no article to θεος: Jesus Christ is not the Father
- This phrase alone is compact and beautiful – one of the most elegant tense theological statements one could ever find.
- Martin Luther: the lack of article is against Sabellianism (και ο λογος ην ο θεος, and the Word was the Father) and the word order is against Arianism (και ο λογος ην θεος, and the Word was a god)
- All that can be said about God may fitly be said about the Word
- This statement should not be watered down – “the Logos was divine”
- John is affirming that he is God
- c.f. 1:18, 20:28

The movement in the declaration:

The Word has his own personal existence --> his own personal character in relation with the Father
--> but they are one

The group recognised that this one simple verse of 17 words (both in the general English translation and Greek) is so packed with theological truth: that Jesus is eternal, he is personal and he is God. I acknowledged that I have brought them through quite a lot, but when I asked them if they found that they have at least learnt one wee bit as compared to before, when they merely read it as a verse in the bible, there were some nodding heads. I was glad - I then reiterated I will not make them suffer so much from then on.

John 1:2
He was in the beginning with God.

I highlighted that verse 2 is a repetition of the first two portions of the first verse, and then told them that even as I was preparing for the lesson, I had a question. Taking into consideration that John repeats himself for the sake of emphasis, why did he only repeat the first two phrases, when the last phrase of the first verse is just as important?

I wondered if it was to reinforce the first verse or as a reason for the third phrase of verse 1. But Ann gave a very convincing possibility. John repeats only the first two phrases of verse 1 and then takes the remaining of the Prologue to expound the third phrase - which concludes with v.18: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

And now that I look at it, v.18 is quite a reminiscent of verse 1.

*In the beginning was the Word
*No on has seen God at any time

*and the Word was with God
*the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father

*and the Word was God
*He has explained Him

I concluded the bible study with an application question:

How does understanding John 1:1-2 make a difference in your walk with God?

Again, I will quote Morris:
"It is both simple and profound. It is for the veriest beginner in the faith and for the mature Christian. Its appeal is immediate and never failing ... years of close study of this Gospel do not leave one with a feeling of having mastered it, but rather with the conviction that it is still "strange, restless, and unfamiliar."

How utterly true.

But my last words for the group before they dispersed were, "Please come back next week!"

pearlie
Photo © 2008 Joseph Hoban

Bibliography:
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Leicester: Apollos, 2006.
Mounce, William D. Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Goosebumps, anyone?

Have you ever thought about what gives you goosebumps?

I was listening to Carson this morning and I had them. It made me think because it was something seemingly small and yet big in deeper thought of it.

If you have listened to Carson enough, you would have realised that he always begin his Scripture reading with, “This is what Scripture says”. I really like that. And after he completes the reading, “This is the Word of the Lord”.

I have only been in this new neighbourhood church for a little more than a year, but this habit had caught on: our Scripture readers, will always end the readings with, “This is the Word of the Lord”, by which the congregation would respond, “Thanks be to God”.

Carson in this particular session commented that he did hear some soft murmur after his reading. He proceeded to explain what it was and requested the congregation to do it together. Believe or not, I had goosebumps with that. Something trivial I thought to cause goosebumps but if you think about it, it is a big thing – a corporate body of the Christ, hears the Word of the Lord, and give thanks together in one voice.

Imagine hearing God speaking in person to us all, the body of Christ, in the new heaven and new earth.

Goosebumps, anyone?

pearlie

Introduction to the Gospel of John

We had our first bible study session on the Gospel of John today, and I must say it was fruitful. There were just the eight of us - about 10% of the size of the congregation - which I was told is the norm.

A Short Introduction
We discussed the different genres of the New Testament:
1. Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
2. Historical - Acts of the Apostles
3. Epistles - letters of Paul, Peter, etc.
4. Apocalypse - Revelations

A Summary of the Four Gospels

Click to view

The Gospel of John
This Gospel is among the most debated books in the bible - particularly on its authorship, date of writing and time length of writing.
1. Authorship - generally believed to be John, the apostle, the brother of James and the son of Zebedee
2. Date - c. A.D.66-98
3. Structure - its basic structure seems fairly simple until you start to hink about it; there is complexity wrapped in simplicity is the reason why scores of studies on John's structure have been published in the last two or three decades. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC, 1991, p.103)
4. Style - written in simple Greek, distinctive dialogues, discussions and long discourses, features the way people misunderstand Jesus (e.g. Nicodemus and "being born again", double meanings (e.g. Jesus being lifted up), dualism (e.g. light and darkness).
5. In the Synoptics but not in John - Jesus' baptism, temptation, exorcisms, pithy parables, much reference to the kingdom of God, the Transfiguration, institution of the Lord's Supper.
6. In John but not in the Synoptics - turning water into wine, raising of Lazarus, the "I am" sayings, explicit affirmations of Jesus' pre-existence, the piercing of Jesus' side.

Questions Raised Up
1. I brought up the fact that the epistles were written before the Gospels. Like how I was surprised when I first found that out, the group was too and asked multiple questions about when what was written, and when Paul was converted. I just found a Timeline of Christianity in Wikipedia, of which I will definitely highlight next week. It lists out a lot of information and you would need to wade through it to find what you need. However, it did not indicate the year Paul was converted. I found out somewhere that it the year is circa A.D. 36. Close?

2. I also highlighted that the Gospels in general are not written chronologically. The evangelists wrote the Gospels for their set purposes and structured them in a way to achieve that. Someone asked which Gospel then would be the most chronological one. I promised her I will l find that out but now that I think about it, how does one define "most chronological" - it just is or it is not. I found a very interesting diagram here. It is labelled "sample" all over though - I wonder which area of that diagram is a sample, and what is it a sample of?

Finally, I also found a good summary of the books of the New Testament here, referenced to Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. The internet is such a good place to find information, but only if we know what's good for us. Anyway, I have started a repository of bible resources for studying the Gospel of John here. Do let me know if you have some good resources I can include or link to.

Finally, to draw the study of the day to a close, I made it a point to appropriate what we learn into practicalities. I referred the group to Carson's session on "What is the Gospel?". His main concern is the danger of reducing the Gospel to something assumed. If the pastors and leaders of the church assumes the Gospel and proceed to be concerned with everything else other than the Gospel -- be it evangelism, the poor, happiness, prosperity, doctrinal debates, dangers on the left, dangers on the right, and what have you -- we will train a new generation to downplay the gospel and focus zeal on the periphery. Though some of these are not only important but are commandments of God, they are not the Gospel.

It is worth listening to. The mp3 is found here and the transcript, if you would rather just read it, is found here.

We begin with John's Prologue next week! But first we have homework ;)

pearlie

Pertinent Questions

Friday will come with a blink of an eye. I had better get started on preparing for bible study on the Gospel of John. I began reading Carson and Moo’s An Introduction to the New Testament section on John. I started asking questions and was surprised to discover that I had asked very basic but pertinent ones I do not think I had considered before.

Why is it important to know about the structure, author and date of writing of books in the Bible?

The answers I have are very simple yet fundamental. Can it be more than being able to know its emphasis through the structure, its authenticity through its author and its reliability through its date of writing?

pearlie

Is your heart set on heaven?

I have been thinking about heaven lately, with D.A. Carson on Revelations and the article on what Tom Wright think heaven is.

I have some thoughts too. I have read about the new heaven and new earth, that there will be no tears, pain, or sorrow. There will be no sin, lies, suffering, hunger, hatred, envy, cheating, and the list goes on. I was wondering how will that play out in the new heaven and new earth.

Will we suddenly take on a more robotic-like demeanour and just be unable, try as hard as we might, to do the bad things that we are so accustomed to?

Does it mean we will not know, remember or understand hatred or pride or lies or revenge any longer?

Revelation 21:1-4
1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

As I thought about it, I began to think otherwise.

We should still know what it means to lie, to be revengeful, to hate, to be proud and to greed. Why shouldn't we? These things are so much a part of our lives - we try to keep away from them, we pray against them and we ask for forgiveness when we have succumbed to them.

In the new heaven and new earth, we should still recognise these things. But we will have no room or time for them. The new age would have dawned and God Himself will be among us. All will be in perfection in His presence. Even though we are free to do what we want, we will not have the need to hate or lie, or to yell or cry. The very depth of our needs and in the innermost part of our desires, God Himself has fulfilled us. Being perfectly fulfilled by a perfect Being, what more do we have in need?

Doesn't this remind us of the Davidic psalm?

Psalm 23:1-3
1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters. 3 He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.
And for this very reason, heaven is not a place for unrepentant sinners.

But if you think about it, I wonder if God will "be in" hell as well, where his judgement resides, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

We have heard all too often the non-believers who will in jest say they will be just as happy in hell. They will be free to do whatever they want as compared to the goody-two-shoes Christians and their lovey-dovey stuff. How then do we not reconcile the picture of hell as seen in the Gospel of Matthew with the very fact of God's presence - that within his holiness and goodness, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. I do not think it will be out of regretful feelings but by being in the purity and perfection of God's presence, they will be so out of place that they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth.

In the same way, as I have mentioned before, on this side for us, how we would be at rest in the new heaven and new earth will depend on how we build up our treasures of love, wisdom and knowledge of God. These will be the treasures we store for ourselves in heaven, "where either moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt 6:19-20).

Is your heart in heaven?

Colossians 2:1-3
1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

pearlie

Four Epiphanies

Pastor Chris was so animated and excited with his sermon today and with his excitement and message, he has brought up in me four points of epiphanies.

Firstly, he told us about this video. It opened my eyes to see what was happening in other parts of the world and that God can use just anybody for his purposes. It reminds me of this: “to those who use well what they are given, even more will be given. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away” (Luke 19:26, NLT). If little kids can be used by God so marvelously, what excuses do we have?

Secondly, it was confirmed in my heart what I think I am to do as far as evangelism is concerned. I will post this at length when I have further thought it through.

Thirdly, Pastor reminded us that there is a reason why we are where we are. The reason why we are in this church is obviously not our doing. Yes, I knew about the church being near our home. Yes, I suggested to SH one fine day to go visit. Yes, we made the decision to stay on with the church. And yes, we made the decision to transfer our membership – which we have done during the recent Easter service. But it was God who put us here. I felt that God has picked us up from where we were not used to a place where he can use us, and be a blessing to others.

Fourthly, I think I can finally confirm that my question on prayer is quite settled. Needless to say, I have been struggling on the subject for too long a time, not so much on “how and when to pray?”, but “why pray?” – since God is all-sovereign and whatever we ask, we ultimately seek his will be done anyway. This was again brought up during bible study on Friday and the group were so gung-ho in wanting to pray for me – that I find answers and start praying fervently. It is not that I do not pray, I do but I can do better. The answer came by unexpectedly yesterday. I was googling for something and chance upon Vitali’s blog. After reading what I googled for, I scrolled down and viola! There before me was a post entitled “Why pray?” God does have a sense of humour, doesn't he?. Vitali said what I needed to hear:

"Why pray if God knows what you will ask him before you actually do? Moreover, God will only grant your request if it is according to his will, but if it is according to his will, he will do it anyway even if you don’t ask him".

What I learned when preparing for the study is that this question keeps been asked again and again and again. I have heard it been answered by people whose teaching I really respect, e.g. Tim Keller, Don Carson, etc. So what's the answer?

There is none.

There is no answer. Any explanation you will try to give will not make sense in one way or another. The only way to understand it is that while our prayer has appearance of us asking God for something and trying (in a way) to change his mind, the only thing that changes in prayer is us.

What did this discovery did to me personally? After a few days of struggle, somehow, I feel liberated. I have struggled with prayer for a long time, but now that I know there is no good explanation for why we should pray, I feel free to pray simply out of obedience to God's Word. And, somehow, I feel humbled by the fact that not everything can be understood by our limited minds. Well, I knew that already, but this time this understanding (that I can't understand everything and must rely more on God) came really home to me.

There is no answer. It is indeed liberating for me. While God is sovereign, we can still change his mind, only and only if he remains sovereign. Sounds impossible? This is our God we are talking about here.

pearlie

What am I most excited about?

I am officially on a 6-months-fast from buying any more books. These books are the result of my latest book binge via STM Book Services through its yearly Eerdmans special order.

And I must quote BK who just posted that: Martyn Lloyd-Jones provides a great caution against the danger of living "a kind of second hand spiritual life on books ... We may do this for years without realising that we are living on books instead of living on Christ." A timely and important reminder.

I am currently listening to Carson on his exposition of the book of Jeremiah. The message that came through to me is this: what am I most excited about in life? It must be none other than the Gospel of Christ - his saving grace, his act of atonement, the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. If anything else were to eclipse this fundamental crux of life - I have committed idolatry.

pearlie

Holy WednesdayJesus is Lord

Carson in his teaching session on Revelations 13 strongly calls for us to lead a life that reflects what Christ has done on the cross - we must live a life that either proclaims that Jesus is Lord or the beast is lord. There are no two ways about it: it is one or the other.

So what have I been doing?

Do I think, say and do things that reflect Christ? Do they testify to the truth that is in Christ? Do I passionately endure and be faithful to the gospel of Christ? Do I bear up under the pressure in faithfulness to display godliness and obedience to the gospel of Christ? How I live bears testimony to who rules my life.

If the answer is no, it is then without a doubt that the beast is lord. The beast is lord if I have tacked God to only when I am free, the beast is lord if I have a need for prayer only when I am in trouble, the beast is lord if do not take pain to think and reflect what the cross means, the beast is lord if I abbreviate the cross to just an ornament I hang around my neck, the beast is lord if I reduce the cross to just a piece of wall fixture in my church.

Indeed, Jesus is Lord: what is my testimony?

Ephesians 2:13-16
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

pearlie
Photo © 2008 Vivek Chugh

In chunks

As I was saying, I am currently listening to sermons and bible lessons in mp3s, in chunks as I zip my way here and there and everywhere in my old beat-up car. It is slow, I know and I also end up listening to certain portions several times over (long story but I have to break up the mp3s into chunks so that I don't have to listen to them from the beginning everytime I start my car). I find that I am learning so much with the spare time I have. It is so much better. Rather than to have my mind wander off aimlessly as I manoeuvre the roads or to fill it up with trash listening to the radio, I can now learn, think, discover and be amazed with God, my Strength and my Redeemer. I have grown tired with the limited selection of CDs I have anyway.

I have just started on Carson's teaching sessions on Revelations. I was on his first session on Rev 4 yesterday and Rev 5 today. I have just finished the first chunk and looking forward for more chunks later when I drive home after work.

My dad, who is a lay-preacher was telling me that based on his experience, he finds that what preachers usually repeat are illustrations and stories. That to me, is not very good a practice because illustrations and stories are usually the only thing the people will remember, if they remember anything at all, and therefore, a good preacher has to have a good variety of them, so that he does not repeat them too often.

But, because of the proliferation of sermons in mp3s, I have found that Carson, who is an excellent speaker by the way, uses similar illustrations, in different settings, in different sermons, in different topics. And it works for him, the illustrations serve for him as good analogies almost all the time.

In his Rev 5 session, in order to explain the distinctive use of the apocalypse genre, he used the examples of limericks: where he says that only in the English language, are limericks possible (Really? Is that true?) He used this limerick, apparently written to good-naturedly poke fun at Dr C.H. Dodd:

There was a professor called Dodd,
Whose name was exceedingly odd;
He spelled, if you please,
His name with three "D's,"
When one was sufficient for God.

I love it! I did a search - Carson also used this limerick in his speaking session on Justification by Faith. True but it works.

pearlie