O Lord, Grant a Strong and Firm Faith

Luther:

O my dear Lord Jesus Christ, you have said: Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you (Matt. 7:7). In keeping with this promise, give to me, Lord. I ask for neither gold nor silver, but for a strong and firm faith. While I search, let me find not lust and pleasure of the world, but comfort and refreshment through your blessed and healing Word. Open to me, while I knock. I desire nothing that the world cherishes, for by it I would not be uplifted even for so much as the breadth of a hair. Grant me your Holy Spirit, who enlightens my heart, and comforts and strengthens me in my cares and trials. He secures my right faith and trust in your grace to the very end. Amen. 

—Luther's Prayers (ed. Herbert F. Brokering; Augsberg: Minneapolis, 1994), 102.

New City Catechism

Here's a new catechism produced by Tim Keller and Sam Shammas— New City Catechism—adapted from Calvin's Geneva Catechism, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and especially the Heidelberg catechism. May it receive wide use and be blessed greatly by God!

You may download the app to your iPad for free. It also includes helpful videos explaining the teaching from Gospel Coalition teachers.

Our church, New Covenant Church in Naperville, has commended its use. And in this I rejoice!

Preaching and the Priority of Personal Communion

"Edwards' whole ministry, as that of the Puritans, was based upon the conviction that the usefulness of a preacher's work is invariably related to the nature of his inner life. Personal communion with God must come first."

— Iain H. Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987), 142.

Christian Political Witness

The upcoming theology conference at Wheaton College on "Christian Political Witness" will take place on Apr. 4-6.

Evangelical Christians are often superficial in their thinking about this matter, and about the relation between the church and state. It's an area where we desperately need to repent and need help from some frontline thinkers.

I'm especially eager to hear Peter Leithart's talk. 

Character in Leadership and Public Life

"Fairly regularly, we see debates over the meaning of character in leadership and public life. Most of it is nonsense. We know that character matters when we hire a baby-sitter. How can it not matter when we are calling a leader?"

—Albert Mohler, The Conviction to Lead: Twenty-five Principles for Leadership that Matters (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2012), 81. 

Heidelberg 450 Years Old and Going Strong

I'm convinced by these five reasons. So our family will be reading through the Heidelberg yet again, this year on the Lord's Day.

Happy birthday, Heidelberg! And, thanks, Kevin DeYoung!

The Cowardice of Concealing Convictions

Piper on cowardice in the pastorate:

We are surrounded in America by people like [the chief priests and elders in Matt. 21:23-27]. Instead of using their minds to come to strong convictions and let the chips fall where they will and suffer for what's true, they are repeatedly angling to get out of traps. Don't be like this, if for no other reason than because it is bad scholarship! If your mind, in studying the truth, leads you to a conviction that will get you into trouble, believe it! Speak it! There are so many pastors who conceal their convictions from their people because they are so afraid of conflict.

—John Piper & D. A. Carson, The Pastor as Scholar & the Scholar as Pastor: Reflections on Life and Ministry (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 58.

Deuteronomy, Romans, and Hammurabi

In an exegesis class on Deuteronomy at Wheaton College, Professor Dan Block was making the point that Deuteronomy is didactic material, not legal.

And in this regard, he said this today to the class: "Deuteronomy has more in common with Romans than with Hammurabi."

Choice.

Hypocrisy Defined

"If you try to do deeds 'for the glory of God' without treasuring the glory of God in your heart, it is a sham. The word hypocrisy was created precisely for the effort to say with deeds what we do not feel in our hearts."

—John Piper & D. A. Carson, The Pastor as Scholar & the Scholar as Pastor: Reflections on Life and Ministry (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 47.

The Formation of Believers' Identity

"Parents who constantly remind us that we belong to Christ, ministers who week by week pronounce absolution, fellow believers who communicate the love of God in word and deed—these are the means by which God's gracious Word comes to us and forms our identity as believers."

—Peter Leithart, The Baptized Body, 126.

Reflective Reading and Other Kinds of Reading

D. A. Carson:

For all that the web makes information gloriously accessible, it has two huge shortcomings. First, it is so democratized that it is more difficult than ever to distinguish between truth and error, between authoritative opinion and fatuous opinion, between speculation and learning. Second, it swamps us with brief information and opinion; it entices us into endless worthless discussion even on blogs that may themselves be valuable.  

One of the things that thoughtful scholar-pastors will do is preserve time for reflective reading of the best books. You can find out what those books are by having probing conversations with a variety of scholar-pastors who are more mature than you are—but be sure you seek out the opinions of several people, not just one. Through their books, get to know some epochal thinkers reasonably well. Slow down; read, take notes, think, evaluate.

Critical Interpretation of Scripture

D. A. Carson:

The essence of all critical thought, in the best sense of that abused expression, is the justification of opinions. A critical interpretation of Scripture is one that has adequate justification—lexical, grammatical, cultural, theological, historical, geographical, or other justification. In other words, critical exegesis in this sense is exegesis that provides sound reasons for the choices it makes and the positions it adopts. 

—Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 16.

Going After God's Heart in Prayer

In 2 Kings 20, Hezekiah falls ill and draws near to death. Isaiah the prophet tells him to set his house in order to prepare for his demise (v. 1). Hezekiah then prays, pleading his faithfulness and how he's done what is good in YHWH's sight (vv. 2-3). YHWH responds and sends a word to Hezekiah through Isaiah: "I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you" (vv. 4-5). YHWH says he'll add fifteen years to his life, and promises to deliver him and the city of Jerusalem out of the hand of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (v. 6).

Why does God hear Hezekiah's prayer? Look closely, listen carefully. Does God respond to Hezekiah's prayer in this way by acknowledging Hezekiah's fidelity and good deeds? He says he had heard his prayer and seen his tears, right? Yes, but he doesn't say, "I know you have been faithful; I have seen your good deeds." No, but he does go on to tell us that he has a regard for his name and covenant. Doesn't he?

Is this line of interpretation heading in the right direction? It seems so. Look at v. 6b. There YHWH tells us why he's going to heal Hezekiah and protect the city. He's repeatedly appealed to the same reasons throughout Kings and indeed throughout the whole of Scripture. What are the reasons that YHWH will act? He tells us unambiguously: "for my own sake and for my servant David's sake." Not for Hezekiah's sake does God do what he does, at least not as the deepest motivation for his acting. No, it's for his own sake: for his glory and fame. It's for his servant David's sake: recalling God's sure covenant promises to David, fulfilled in great David's greater son, the Son.

God hears our prayers for the sake of his name, and in line with what he's promised in his word. This ought to instruct our prayers. We ought not to plead our goodness as the basis for God to act on our behalf. But we should go right after God's heart, asking him to stand forth in mercy and might for his glory, for his honor—for his name's sake! If there's anything that resounds throughout Scripture loud and clear, it's that God does all that he does for his reputation and fame. This needs to get into our bloodstream and prayers. And God's name, since it's who he is, and betrays his character, includes his faithfulness to what he's spoken. He will keep his word! Let's depend on it. And let's pray prayers that highlight that unassailable word and God's unswerving covenant purposes and promises.

And not incidentally, this is why we pray in Jesus' name. All God's promises are "Yes!" in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). Jesus' name holds sway in heaven. Jesus' name is the name above every name. He's the king par excellence. He's kept the covenant, he's lived well, he's never sinned, he's been obedient to death on the cross, and he's risen to that exalted place at the right hand of God, as King of kings and Lord of lords! Forever, and ever! Allelujah! Allelujah!

Leitharted Instruction for Writers

A witty word for writers from Peter Leithart.

Hermeneutical Myopia in Centuries of Scholarship

In an introductory chapter on "a literary approach to Old Testament theology" in his book Dominion and Dynasty, Stephen Dempster speaks of the "hermeneutical myopia of the last few centuries of biblical scholarship." This hermeneutical myopia has come about through "presuppositions that magnify the texts and minimize the Text. One of the philosophical assumptions that has produced this situation has been a diminution in the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. . . ."

Dempster continues, saying that there has been "an enchantment with the minute details of the biblical text rather than with its more global features, which ipso facto cannot exist. The concern for studying smaller and smaller sections of the biblical text and the increasing specialization of scholars studying the minutiae of philology and morphology have resulted in a loss of perspective." [1]

I've found this to be commonplace in my dealings with biblical scholarship. In an effort to take the human authors seriously (so they say), extremely bright PhD types forget the Author behind the authors and the whole larger work—the whole canon, the big Book of which the smaller books are but chapters. So the Text of which Dempster speaks is the whole Bible. And the texts (individual books) are not rightly understood, more strongly stated, are distorted and twisted if it is not considered how they are to be understood in the light of the larger narrative framework provided by Genesis through Revelation. 

---

[1] Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 28.

How to Do Biblical Theology Evangelically and Doxologically

Regarding what biblical theology is, many have commented, even lamented, that the definitions on offer abound. Paul R. Williamson proffers one helpful and faithful way of thinking about biblical theology evangelically, to which I recently referred in another post. I reproduce it here again: 

Biblical theology is arguably best thought of as a holistic enterprise tracing unfolding theological trajectories throughout Scripture and exploring no biblical concept, theme, or book in isolation from the whole. Rather, each concept, theme, or book is considered ultimately in terms of how it contributes to and advances the Bible's meta-narrative . . . .[1]

Williamson’s definition comports well with a number of the emphases of other definitions given,[2] and it picks up a number of important elements that should be included in doing biblical theology. An evangelical biblical theology should be theological, holistic, whole-Bible, synthetic, follow Scripture’s storyline, and follow Scriptures own trajectories. After briefly discussing these key elements, I'll also go beyond Williams' definition and add two other essentials.

It should be theological because the Bible is primarily revelation about God, about his person, works, ways, and words. 

It should be holistic in that it takes into account the Bible’s historical and literary dimensions, that is, it considers genre, literary devices, linguistic features, historical methods, and the like. 

It should be whole-Bible since the Bible ultimately has one Author and one Mind behind it. In other words, the OT should not be sealed off from the NT, nor vice versa. The Bible is therefore understood as a unity—without sacrificing its diversity!—and neither the OT nor the NT is rightly fully understood apart from the other (even though each has its distinctive voice and distinctive contributions). 

Dovetailing with this whole-Bible emphasis, evangelical biblical theology should be synthetic. That is, it should seek to relate the distinctive and diverse parts of the Bible “to uncover all that holds them together,” all the while maintaining and not muting “the glorious diversity of the biblical documents.”[3] 

It should consider the Bible’s metanarrative as well.[4] Whatever else the Bible is, it is certainly a story with a definite beginning and ending. In between the beginning and ending comes progression or development or expansion of various sorts—embedded in a breathtaking array of literary variety. In this vein, evangelical biblical theology will take into account the Bible’s chronology in thinking about how the parts relate and develop theologically. In this regard, it ought to attempt “to uncover and understand how words and themes in earlier canonical texts are used in later canonical texts.”[5] 

Moreover, it will seek to follow trajectories warranted by Scripture itself, that is, by discerning aright what Scripture is and what it is doing, in its parts, and as a whole. This relates to the emphasis on following the Bible’s chronological storyline as words and concepts are traced across God’s covenant and redemptive revelation. These words and concepts or themes are traced when warrant is discerned in the text for doing so. 

So an interpreter trying to do sound biblical theology will want to provide canonical reasons for tracing out a text along a proposed trajectory. There are no infallible methods for doing this tracing, but warrant ought to be provided for one’s choice. A reasonable and reasoned warrant might include, for example, discerning key words or concepts deployed in similar contexts; or it might include, for example, discerning a later development of an earlier text that is part of the later text’s illocution.[6] 

Now not all of these elements in Williams’ definition and similar definitions need be emphasized equally when looking at a given chunk of text. As already stated, the text itself should set the agenda. But given that any given text is part of a larger Text, these elements will be likely emphases in doing biblical theology. 

Moreover, and I judge this to be all-important, what is not included explicitly in Williams’ definition, and what is often missing in treatments of biblical theology today, is that an evangelical biblical theology—because it is theological—ought to be not only descriptive, but also prescriptive and confessional.[7] I would even be prepared to argue that everything else that has been said about what biblical theology ought to be and do must aim at this prescribing and confessing. Otherwise, the biblical theology ceases to be biblical, and is worse than worthless.

[1] Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 17.
[2] See, for example, Carson, "Systematic and Biblical Theology," NDBT, 100-101; and B. S. Rosner, “Biblical Theology,” NDBT, 10.
[3] Carson, NDBT, 100-101.
[4] The OT is not the whole story, nor is the NT the whole story. The OT and NT together tell God’s whole story and together provide the full revelation of God.
[5] Carson, NDBT, 101.
[6] Richard Schultz sets forth a helpful way for working out the theological themes across the canon. See “Integrating Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Literary, Thematic, and Canonical Issues,” in vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (ed. Willem A. VanGemeren; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 185-205; see also Carson, NDBT, 97-98.
[7] For example, Carson notes this, NDBT, 101.

Then and Now

I'm toying with the idea here of regular posts of a then-versus-now variety. I'm not doing this because of the belief that the past—well, "them's were the good 'ol days." No, that's not my thinking at all. I do believe the past has many glories and lessons to instruct us, even guard us and warn us. But I also believe that scriptural eschatology teaches us that the best days lie still yet ahead.

Instead, I want to start a then-versus-now category of posts simply for the sake of gaining whatever illumination might come about from making comparisons, guarding against drawing the wrong conclusions, guarding against succumbing to the "them's-were-the-good-'ol-days" mentality. With the brief quotation that follows, perhaps you'll get a sense of what I'm after.

Speaking of some of the problems (like one church member in Northampton punching another) and the influence of Christianity in rural New England in the days of Jonathan Edwards, Iain Murray records:

Much that we take for granted today— such as the existence of a criminal class in society— was unknown in rural New England. One fight was the sensation of a generation. Everyone in Northampton knew that Joseph Hawley, the town lawyer, could never find enough work to live on in that occupation; he was also town merchant, besides, no doubt, [doing] his own measure of farming (Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, 88). 

Lawyers couldn't find enough work? Interesting. One fight was the sensation of a generation? Incredible. Now, it's quite easy to think of the stark contrasts of today, isn't it? Is this illuminating? You must decide for yourself. I find it so.

O Lord, You Are the Lord of Life and Death

Containing echoes of Rom. 14:7-8, here's a Lutheran prayer when facing death:

My dear God, if you want this to be the hour of death, let your will be done. Lord God, you are most precious to me. You know how gladly I would have shed my blood for the sake of your Word, but I may not deserve this honor. Your will be done. If it is your will, I shall die gladly. Only let your holy name be praised and glorified by my sufferings and death. If it were possible, dear God, I would live longer for the cause of your blessed and chosen people. But if the hour has come, then have your way. You are the Lord of life and death. Amen. 

—Luther's Prayers (ed. Herbert F. Brokering; Augsberg: Minneapolis, 1994), 101.

The Glories of Christianity

Edwards in his diary dated Jan. 21, 1723:

"I do not spend time enough in endeavoring to affect myself with the glories of Christianity."

—Jonathan Edwards, Letters and Personal Writings (vol. 16 in the Works of Jonathan Edwards; ed. George S. Clanghorn; New Haven: Yale University, 1998), 766.

What Is Biblical Theology?

What is biblical theology? As many have pointed out, well, it depends on who's answering the question. There are a variety of ways biblical theology has been defined.

In his Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God's Unfolding Purpose, Paul R. Williamson proffers a helpful and faithful way of thinking about biblical theology:

Biblical theology is arguably best thought of as a holistic enterprise tracing unfolding theological trajectories throughout Scripture and exploring no biblical concept, theme, or book in isolation from the whole. Rather, each concept, theme, or book is considered ultimately in terms of how it contributes to and advances the Bible's meta-narrative . . . (17).

But if one accepts this, one must move from the common tendency in academia toward atomistic handling of texts. Which many are unwilling to do. I suggest that not only should we be willing to move away from this tendency, but we must be willing. Indeed, faithfulness to the way Scripture intends itself to be understood requires this of us.

Musing Over the Word of God

John Piper on the practice of Christian meditation:

What does meditation involve? The word meditation in Hebrew means basically to speak or to mutter. When this is done in the heart, it is called musing or meditation. So meditating on the Word of God day and night [Ps. 1:2] means to speak to yourself the Word of God day and night and to speak to yourself about it—to mull it over, to ask questions about it and answer them from the Scripture itself, to ask yourself how this might apply to you and others, and to ponder its implications for life and church and culture and missions.

—John Piper, When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 124-125.

Political Philosophy Resources

Resources galore on political philosophy. Rejoice!

Powlison on Christian Resolutions

Look here.