Archive for the ‘Turkish Theology’ Category

« Older Entries

The Importance of Epistemology for Dogmatics or Systematics of Theology.

May 12, 2024

Version 1 Easy version

We go about the world as if we know.

Truth be nature’s strong resolve.

Fumbling in the darkness on the backflow

We think we can see but only overcome.

Realizing in the end deep secrets of woe

Falling on our knees to the One Who really knows

Paying our Attention to the Holy Trinity

On our knees realizing only God Really shows

(Poem by Hasan Cemal, the Blogger)

The world is made up of science, ethics and aesthetics.  For us to really understand what nature is doing we need to have strong foundations for the work to go ahead.   Metaphors and the study of knowledge are such foundations.  The Enlightenment had its own foundations and to summarize Gunton said:

“In sum, it can be concluded that according to what was until very recently the almost unquestioned mainstream doctrine, knowledge is something,

(I) possessed by an individual, who

(2) stands over against something which is conceived to be spatially distant. The spatial distance is bridged by bringing either the mind into conformity with the world (‘realism’) or the world into conformity with the mind (‘idealism’). In either case,

 (3) the intellectual bridge between the two is provided by the foundational axioms which are conceived to link the mind with the world” (From ibid page 53)

This then was an over simplistic mechanical view of knowledge, and it has been abandoned by many scientists and theologians. So in the old days Copernicus looked through his telescope and saw our solar system. The scientist was studying the object on his own and he came to this decision on his own.  Michael Polanyi said that this was the old way of doing science and he didn’t actually do this.

Copernicus looked and experienced this beautiful sight, that the earth was moving around the sun.  After he experienced it then he could write about it.  You experience it first then you seek to understand it.  You believe it first then you seek to understand it.  It is faith seeking understanding in Anselmian and Barthian language.

So, then the enlightenment with its emphases on some of the above has led to an impasse.  Using Frankenstein as a metaphor we can describe the effects of enlightenment epistemologies.  Although Coleridge was wrong in his early days going down the road of seeing the material world as God, and Unitarianism (Belief in a god without the Trinity). He hit the nail on the head that the world is made up of Science, Ethics and Aesthetics. The Enlightenment was a lopsided view of Science, Ethics and Aesthetics!  From this vantage point Barth did Christendom a favour by taking on this lopsided view of human knowledge.  As human beings we are filled with awe and wonder in our Trinitarian God that he filled this world at the beginning of creation with Science and Ethics, and Aesthetics, only for Adam and Eve’s sin to turn God’s Handy work into something other (death, the disease of sin and outright rebellion against God). 

Gunton shows us that Barth purposefully chose to go against the road of the Enlightenment.  Barth shows us that Humanity is not at the centre of the universe.  Humanity has shown us that without the fear, awe, and respect of God; In this place of secularism there is much destruction of human lives and the spoiling of nature itself.  Human greed is everywhere built into the very foundations of human civilizations, not only the West, East, West, North and South and all the directions in between.  We now turn to page 53 in search of an alternative foundation to that of the Enlightenment. 

Gunton puts forward to theories here:

  • Barth’s theology is in part a conscious attempt to replace the Enlightenment project with something different.
  • The second is that the Enlightenment project has failed, because it does not register with the way we actually live and understand this world.

(The above points were taken from the Theology of the Theologians and simplified, Colin Gunton page 53)

The scientist and theologian are no islands but part of a community that works together to find out the truth, whatever that truth maybe:

  • “The conclusion, then, is that in the absence of intuited intellectual foundations built, so to speak, into the structures of rationality, we have another foundation: the communities, for example, of science or of literary interpretation. It is in and through communities of persons that knowledge becomes possible and takes form. The community is in that respect the only foundation, because it is the matrix within which, as a matter of fact, our cognitive enterprises become possible.” (from page 57)
  • When we look at the writings of Barth, even at his commentary on Philippians we see the importance of the term ‘in Christ’.  Gunton mentioned some of these things in this chapter I looked at today:
  • for Barth, the fundamental reality of our being is our indwelling in Christ. But, to leave that on one side, the point for our purposes. (page 54)
  • Here Barth is quite explicit that theology must take elements of truth from both realism and idealism if it is to come to terms with the actual relation of the knower to God. (page 55)
  • Accordingly, if the Anselm book really was as important as Barth repeatedly says it was for his understanding of theological method, we must expect to find after it an emerging conception which builds upon and transcends the therapeutic dialectics of the 1920s (Page 58).
  • Barth intends to set before us a conception of the knowledge of a personal God by free and thinking persons. The talk is of active human knowledge in the context of a relationship, one indeed in which there is a measure of reciprocity. ‘There is a reciprocity of relationship between [God] and these objects. Man can therefore perceive and consider and conceive God …’ (p. 58). Again, the words are carefully extracted, but they make the point that here is personal knowledge, knowledge taking shape in a particular relationship: ‘the event between God and man which we call the knowledge of God’ (p. 179). but inevitably, it is an asymmetrical reciprocity. (From page 59)

Reflection

Obviously, Karl Barth thought through his epistemology and via Anselm came to use epistemology on foundations other than Enlightenment epistemology but still could borrow from it.  Knowing God is a personal thing, it is not abstract.  One cannot abstract relationships.   When at work or with our friends and neighbours there is a certain amount of trust or not to trust and so it is with a lot of knowledge.  This is why people such as Coleridge and Kierkegaard are so important to theology.  They pointed beyond a mechanical abstract knowledge to love.  Love is also a type of knowledge as one needs to get to know the other personally. Love does not need to be reciprocal for example if one dies for a stranger but most times for there to be true love there has to be reciprocity.

Just to remind ourselves this was about looking at the foundations of our knowledge on what grounds a dogmatic or systematic theology can follow.  I found this chapter four groundbreaking because when we write good theology we need to be on our knees in prayer.  Along the way we learned that epistemology has moved on since the enlightenment and choices need to be made.  If you are a scientist reading this my question would be: How do you include the human aspect in your everyday working.  Even if you reject God; Are you the Scientist who interrogates an object at a distance or do you get personal with it? 

There is much to think about here especially with the doctrine of God and of Creation and Karl Barth did make mistakes yet no theologian worth his salt should walk away from the issues he raised.  Gunton has taught us a lot in this chapter, actually I heard a lot of this at university from him but at the time I didn’t really ‘get it’ (understand it).  Better late than never!

Hard version

Version 2; Below is the more technical version of what I wrote.

At certain times the Sciences and Humanities touch each other and overturn old ideas for new ideas.  Michael Polanyi was such a man.  Although he was a science man in and out, his ideas within epistemological frameworks as metaphors have influenced such minds as T F Torrance and Professor Gunton.  The reason why Polanyi was so important for the modern Scientific community is the fact that the foundations of the Enlightenment have been found to be wanting and does not match the real world.  Relational knowledge as opposed to an object being scrutinized at a distance as a metaphor is dying a death.  It is interesting that faith seeking understanding is a concept that is shared in theological and Scientific communities. 

Within the Sciences and humanities epistemology is one of those things that needs to be looked at.  The enlightenment had a serious impact on the foundations of knowledge especially in the West and with the Enlightenment.  This in someways has fed into theology and has led to an impasse in which English theology and German theology just did not understand each other as Gunton says:

“For the most part and despite exceptions, the English find it difficult to come to terms with the theology of Karl Barth. A recent paper by Daniel Hardy identifies the strongly naturalistic bent of English thought as the chief culprit: The English norms [sc. of knowledge] involve the use of naturalistic human knowledge as determinative of what can be believed. Employing these norms in interpreting Schleiermacher and Barth, however, makes them and indeed most important theology seem either to conflict with or to stretch the bounds of what is considered possible? Naturalism’s predominance brings it about that where Earth is concerned a frequent English reaction is one of puzzlement that someone should commit intellectual suicide in so spectacular a fashion. It is indeed difficult to take seriously one who appears to be hell bent on intellectual self-destruction. But it is also true that English naturalism is a variation, albeit a particularly dismal one, on a common Western tradition of rationalism.” (From theology of the theologians; pages 50-51)

Gunton sums up the main features:

“In sum, it can be concluded that according to what was until very recently the almost unquestioned mainstream doctrine, knowledge is something (I) possessed by an individual, who (2) stands over against something which is conceived to be spatially distant. The spatial distance is bridged by bringing either the mind into conformity with the world (‘realism’) or the world into conformity with the mind (‘idealism’). In either case, (3) the intellectual bridge between the two is provided by the foundational axioms which are conceived to link the mind with the world” (From ibid page 53)

So, then the enlightenment with its emphases on some of the above has led to a cul-de-sac, an impasse.  From my point of view the humanness of the human had changed into some sort of Frankenstein.  I am using Frankenstein as a metaphor here describing the effects of enlightenment epistemologies.  Although Coleridge was wrong in his early days going down the road of pantheisms and Unitarianism. He hit the nail on the head that the world is not only made up of truth (Science) but it is also made up of goodness (ethics) and beauty (humanities and arts).  The Enlightenment was a lopsided view of Truth, Goodness and Beauty!  From this vantage point Barth did Christendom a favour by taking on this Frankenstein.  As human beings we are filled with awe and wonder in our Trinitarian God that he filled this world at the creation of Truth Goodness and Beauty only for the Fall to turn God’s Handy work into something other (death, the disease of sin and outright rebellion against God). 

Gunton shows us that Barth purposefully chose to go against the road of the enlightenment.  Barth shows us that Humanity is not at the centre of the universe.  Humanity has shown us that without the fear, awe, and respect of God; In this place of secularism there is much destruction of human lives, civilisation and the spoiling of nature itself.  Human greed is everywhere built into the very foundations of human civilizations, not only the West, East, West, North and South and all the directions in between.  We now turn to page 53 in search of an alternative foundation to that of the Enlightenment. 

Alternative Foundations

Gunton puts forward to theses.

  • Barth’s theology is in part a conscious attempt to replace the Enlightenment project with something different.
  • The second is that the Enlightenment project has failed, because it does not register with the way we actually go about the world cognitively, and that therefore Barth’s theology is to an extent justified by its fruits.

(The above points were taken from the Theology of the Theologians, Colin Gunton page 53)

How then is knowledge understood. In the critical period, one of the features of epistemology was that of ‘spatial difference’. 

As Gunton explains it as “the essence of knowledge is the proposition, in which the distant object is described in words which attempt to mirror what is there. The emphasis is on ‘knowledge that’ rather than knowledge by acquaintance.” (page 54)

Gunton continues and shows another way though the works of Michael Polanyi.  I quote the whole paragraph because it is vitally important that we understand it:

“In the Polanyian approach the reverse is the case. The central metaphor here is that of ‘indwelling’. The knower

knows the world by indwelling body, tools, concepts and the like, which, by being known tacitly, become the bridge by

which other parts of the world can be known. It is tempting to speculate that the origin of the metaphor — and it must be remembered that it is a metaphor, so that the limits of its explanatory power are recognised — is ultimately in the Fourth Gospel, where we find an extended use of the notion of knowledge by indwelling.9 (It is when this fact is overlooked that there is talk of a ‘Gnostic’ bias in that gospel.) (page 54 continued)”

Gunton shows that this idea can be seen in the Trinitarian idea of perichoreses, “that the Father and the Son Know each other by asymmetrical indwelling”:

 So then not having the previous ontology of distance we have one of ‘acquaintance’.  And… ‘Knowledge is a relation of knower and known before it is propositional.’ Page 54 continuing Gunton writes ‘According to Polanyi, all knowing is a form of faith seeking understanding: faith in his case meaning a committed orientation to and indwelling within the world and our language.’ (From page 54)

This just shows how amazing T F Torrance was as a theologian, that here in the epistemological world, epistemology was borrowed from the sciences and has taken us beyond the Enlightenment.  Gone then are the days when a Scientist sits in a laboratory on his own interrogating the distant object to get its truths out.  The scientist and theologian are no islands but part of a community that works together to find out the truth, whatever that truth maybe:

  • “The conclusion, then, is that in the absence of intuited intellectual foundations built, so to speak, into the structures of rationality, we have another foundation: the communities, for example, of science or of literary interpretation. It is in and through communities of persons that knowledge becomes possible and takes form. The community is in that respect the only foundation, because it is the matrix within which, as a matter of fact, our cognitive enterprises become possible.” (from page 57)
  • When we look at the writings of Barth, even at his commentary on Philippians we see the importance of the term ‘in Christ’.  Gunton mentioned some of these things in this chapter I looked at today:
  • for Barth, the fundamental reality of our being is our indwelling in Christ. But, to leave that on one side, the point for our purposes. (page 54)
  • Here Barth is quite explicit that theology must take elements of truth from both realism and idealism if it is to come to terms with the actual relation of the knower to God. (page 55)
  • Accordingly, if the Anselm book really was as important as Barth repeatedly says it was for his understanding of theological method, we must expect to find after it an emerging conception which builds upon and transcends the therapeutic dialectics of the 1920s (Page 58).
  • Barth intends to set before us a conception of the knowledge of a personal God by free and thinking persons. The talk is of active human knowledge in the context of a relationship, one indeed in which there is a measure of reciprocity. ‘There is a reciprocity of relationship between [God] and these objects. Man can therefore perceive and consider and conceive God …’ (p. 58). Again, the words are carefully extracted, but they make the point that here is personal knowledge, knowledge taking shape in a particular relationship: ‘the event between God and man which we call the knowledge of God’ (p. 179). but inevitably, it is an asymmetrical reciprocity. (From page 59)

Reflection

Obviously, Karl Barth thought through his epistemology and via Anselm came to use epistemology on foundations other than Enlightenment epistemology but still could borrow from it.  Knowing God is a personal thing, it is not abstract.  One cannot abstract relationships.   When at work or with our friends and neighbours there is a certain amount of trust or not to trust and so it is with a lot of knowledge.  This is why people such as Coleridge, Kierkegaard et al. are so important to theology.  They pointed beyond a mechanical abstract knowledge to love.  Love is also a type of knowledge as one needs to get to know the other personally. Love does not need to be reciprocal for example if one dies for a stranger but most times for there to be true love there has to be reciprocity.

Just to remind ourselves this was about looking at epistemic grounds for writing a dogmatic or systematic theology.  I found this chapter 4 groundbreaking because when we write good theology we need to be on our knees in prayer.  Along the way we learned that epistemology has moved on since the enlightenment and choices need to be made.  If you are a scientist reading this my question would be: How do you include the human aspect in your every day working.  Even if you reject God; Are you the Scientist who interrogates an object at a distance or do you get personal with it? 

There is much to think about here especially with the doctrine of God and of Creation and Karl Barth did make mistakes yet no theologian worth his salt should walk away from the issues he raised.  Gunton has taught us a lot in this chapter, actually I heard a lot of this at university from him but at the time I didn’t really ‘get it’ (understand it).  Better late than never!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Turkish Theology, theology | Leave a Comment »

The Gospel, The Ευαγγελιον in the Old Testament; The Reason for the Apostles Use of this Particular Special Theological Word

May 5, 2024

The truth is that we all want to hear good news. Some good news I saw today was the Green Wall of Africa.  The United Nations with local populations south of the Sahara have started to make central Africa green again.  This not only brings wealth to Africa but also community.  The strange thing is though, when we look at most news sources it is usually bad news.   So then in the world there different types of news, good and bad.  It makes me feel happy to see hope of a better future filling Africa, I wish I could say the same thing about other parts of the world.  In a sense then good news is also rather psychological.  For good news to be good your have to ‘feel’ in your heart and in your mind that it is good news.  One has to be convinced that the news is true, authentic and that it can change something in one’s life for the better. 

The ancient people were no different to us.  They also liked to hear good news.  Perhaps there was a hunting expedition for food, and they were able to trap some meat to eat for a month, or that it was a great harvest so it was less likely that the villagers would go hungry next Winter.  They had basic needs for survival and we are no different.  It is sometimes easy to forget our basic needs of food, heat and warmth.  This Winter was interesting in Finland.  The temperatures in Southern Ostrobothnia dropped to about -32 c and we were running out of wood.  In fact I went outside and chopped wood.  The electric pump does not work that well at these temperatures.  It was certainly good news that I had an axe!

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

So then whether you are religious or not, you must be curious what people thought two or three thousand years ago.  Yes, the Bible has writings that old and even if you don’t accept it as Scripture, it does not mean it has no value to you.  It is true that I see Scripture as God’s word to us, but I think if you find Shakespeare’s Macbeth interesting, something made up then; how much more valuable then might the Bible be?

At this point you have to make a choice; either you believe what I say, or you have a ‘better’ explanation. I respect your viewpoint, but I think I also have a valid point too.

Gospel in its most basic kernel means good tidings or good news.  There are two things we want to discover:

  1. The way ‘gospel’ was used in the Old Testament
  2. How it is used and modified by the Apostles (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)

Why did the Apostles choose the word Gospel (ευαγγελιον)? 

I am taking a break this Week from the theology of the theologians and want to follow through and learn about the idea of the Gospel came from.  Obviously, we need to do research in the Hebrew Old Testament and the LXX (the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament.)

Background of the word  Gospel, euangelion  see also bsr in the OT.

Twice it can mean ‘reward for bringing good news’ and in the piel (grammatically) it is represented in the lxx as ευαγγελιζω (to announce good news)

1 kings 1 42; ​While he was still speaking, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came. Then Adonijah said, “Come in, for you are a valiant man and bring good news.” 1 Kings 1:42

Explnation

There was some trouble in Jerusalem with planning and scheming for the throne of Judah and Israel.  A conspiracy was going on to usurp King Solomon’s right to become king.  Adonijah was expecting good news from Jonathan that he would be the next King and not Solomon.

‘Bring news’ here is in the piel grammatical form.  Piel is intensive here showing the happy expectation of kingship for Adonijah.  It did not turn out the way Adonijah had foreseen! The word ‘good’ is a modifier of the type of news that was expected.

Notes:

וְט֥וֹב = good 

תְּבַשֵּֽׂר׃ = bring news (V‑Piel‑Imperf‑2ms)

Ευαγγελιζω is also a compounded word. The English word euthanasia which means a calm death has the same preposition ‘Eu’. Eu or Ευ means ‘good’.  We find the second part in angels (messengers) who ‘announce’ the news. 

See also

“They cut off his head and stripped off his weapons, and sent them throughout the land of the Philistines, to carry the good news to the house of their idols and to the people.” 1 Samuel 31:9

The next verses are of special relevance to C E B Cranfield

​Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of good news,
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
Lift it up, do not fear.
Say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your God!” Isaiah 40:9

Then,

​“Formerly I said to Zion, ‘Behold, here they are.’
And to Jerusalem, ‘I will give a messenger of good news.’ Isaiah 41:27

And,

How lovely on the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace
And brings good news of happiness,
Who announces salvation,
And says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” Isaiah 52:7

Again,

​“A multitude of camels will cover you,
The young camels of Midian and Ephah;
All those from Sheba will come;
They will bring gold and frankincense,
And will bear good news of the praises of the LORD. Isaiah 60:6

Also,

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
Because the LORD has anointed me
To bring good news to the  afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to prisoners; Isaiah 61:1

Then in Nahum

Behold, on the mountains the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace!
Celebrate your feasts, O Judah;
Pay your vows.
For never again will the wicked one pass through you;
He is cut off completely. Nahum 1:15

Again Psalms,

​I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness in the great congregation;
Behold, I will not restrain my lips,
O LORD, You know. Psalms 40:9

And again,

Sing to the LORD, bless His name;
Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. Psalms 96:2

Explanation

In Judaism in the Old Testament and into the second Temple period, The Mesiah was God’s appointed king on earth, and he reigned from Jerusalem.   It was seen as good news because the time of the Messiah ushered in the Kingdom of God.  As we read the Gospels, we find that the people in Judah were looking for a king that would push the Romans out of Palestine.  The people were looking in the wrong place as in Christ, God became a man and died on a cross so that our sins could be atoned for.  The good news is that in Christ people can be brought into a right relationship with God.  This is God’s good news… God who is love has reached out to humanity even with the Fallen nature of the human race while, we were lost in sin, completely separated from Him.  This Week was a little different because I felt it was important to put a correction on Christianity.  We hear the word Gospel banded around a lot that we lose its true spiritual significance.  Not only that the word in popular culture can and has been stripped of its deep spiritual meaning and used in a secular manner.

I hope next week to return to The Theology of the Theologians as we look at chapter 4 and the study of knowledge.  Anyone who does a dogmatic or systematic theology has to be aware of how facts need to be interpreted. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Gospel according to St Mark, commentary by C E B Cranfield, page 35

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Easter, theology, Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

April 26, 2024

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in theology, Turkish Theology | Comments Off on Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

Talk about God through the Theologians; A reflection on the late Professor Gunton’s book chapter 1

April 7, 2024

This Week I was looking at the first chapter of Theology of the theologians by the late Colin E. Gunton.  Gunton raises the question of if it is feasible to think in terms of an English systematic theology.  Hmm this is an interesting question but I prefer British theology as not a German Theology.  At the end of the day I think the Europeans need the Brits as much as the Brits need the Europeans for theology.  Then again Theology belongs to the whole gamut of humankind.  Reading that first chapter reminded me of my days at King’s and how I miss those days listening to Colin Gunton teach us, especially about Barth and Irenaeus.

Even before reading the book, there were some photos of various theologian on the front cover.  At the top section of the front cover, we have Edward Irving, Robert Willis Dale, John Owen and PT Forsyth.

On the bottom of the cover, we have Luther, Karl Barth and Coleridge.

In the English speaking world, they all had something to contribute to the Church.  They had their flaws as we all do but they also had their ideas:

  • Edward Irving’s teachings were certainly a precursor to Azusa Street Pentecostal church.  He also got kicked out of the Church of Scotland for the heresy that Jesus was born with sinful flesh.
  • Robert Willis Dale was instrumental in helping the poor and helpless in society in Birmingham and my idea is that he was a precursor to the welfare social systems we find around the world.
  • John Owen was a solid Bible teacher, who was also Oliver Cromwell’s personal minister.
  • PT Forsyth who by some is seen as a precursor to the ideas that Karl Barth came up with. He certainly saw the evils of WW1.  It made him think about the incarnation and the atonement and God also put his money where his mouth was… That God was also willing to suffer for his creation…
  • Martin Luther is famous for Justification by faith alone and hatched the egg that Erasmus laid.  In other words Erasmus made it obvious that there was corruption in the Church.  Luther was responsible to start the Reformation and inadvertently the Roman Catholic Church had to look at itself with the counter Reformation.
  • Karl Barth is known for his Church Dogmatics, and he did strange things such as to make our Lord the subject and object of God’s Mercy and God’s Wrath.
  • Coleridge one of Gunton’s favourites, the one who set off the Romantic Period in the UK in his later life made significant moves into thinking about the Trinity and Culture

Rationalism

Rationalism according to the Oxford dictionary via Google search engine says:

  1. the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

“scientific rationalism”

Philosophy

the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.

Theology

the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion.

Then we had the Counter Rationalist movement of Romanticism:

  1. literary and artistic movement marked chiefly by an emphasis on the imagination and emotions.
  2. the quality or state of being romantic.  (From Merriam webster.com)

As can be seen some serious things have happened over the last couple of hundred years and the modern world, we live in is still dealing with these issues.  We cannot escape culture and religion because it touches on what it really means to be a human.  Hermann Bavinck had one of the coolest heads on these issues.  If one over emphasizes rationality over against emotion or vice versa then we are missing the point.  As human beings we have the power to think but also to feel. (From Reformed Dogmatics; pages 264-269; Herman Bavinck; edited by J Bolt) 

Today the situation for humans has got even worse.  We are no longer people but data!  We all have our social security numbers and if we lose them, we cannot access necessary services for living.  People who fall out of the system are in grave danger of being isolated or even being found dead under a bridge or perhaps frozen to death.  This is a serious problem and charitable and religious organizations have stepped in such as the Salvation army.  If a person is only data, then from one perspective, they are passively deemed not important and the innate importance of being human, created in the image of God becomes a problem.   In Western society, as progress marches forward people are becoming less and less human to the point of becoming ghosts inside the system of progress.  When officials contact people, they can hide behind the face of the computer.

So then because of these reasons I have given, we need to return to look at how to become human again.  Being human includes rationality but also feeling.  We cannot over emphasize one over the other.  This is why Gunton’s work is so important… Gunton had done a lot of the dirty spade work in finding out why our Western cultures are in melt down.  His book, The One the Three and the Many gives us direction and it shouldn’t be read just by theologians; it should be read by all Christians, atheists, agnostics and by other religious and non-religious traditions who have an ability to bring about social change for the better.  If we could put the bit in the mouth of the Western cultural horse and somehow turn the beast in the right direction so that we can find our humanity again.  To learn to love our Trinitarian God and our neighbour again.

Theology through the theologians

Gunton starts where Karl Barth also started, in the 19th century.  The picture of theology and history in general in some ways looked rather bleak.  Everything in the 19th century was in turmoil and the French Revolution sent shivers throughout Europe. In this period, we had two great movements of thought within Europe; Rationalism with Kant who caused a break between thinking and doing, then the counter movement of Romanticism that emphasized feeling over against pure reason.

John Henry Newman

Obviously when we are looking at God it has also something to say about human nature and culture.  Even not saying anything about God is saying something about God.  I was also rather taken aback when I read the following on page 9:

 “For Newman, talk of the oneness of God is one thing, the product of philosophical reflection, while the threeness is a matter of authoritative revelation. Speculation about the relation of the one and the three is forbidden:“…the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is mere juxtaposition of separate truths, , which to our minds involves inconsistency, when viewed together; nothing more being attempted by theologians, for nothing more is told us.”

If Newman really did say “Trinity is a mere juxtaposition of separate truths” then this is very serious and is an act of irrationality of the highest order.  I know that Roman Catholic theology uses Aquinas’ theology, and he would never close his mind to this type of thing.  It seems to me some sort of defensive position for the Trinity.

Juxtaposition means: ‘the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side often to compare or contrast or to create an interesting effect’ (From merriam-webster.com). 

In the advance of the onslaught of modern rationality and pantheism this by John Henry Newman was a copout (Hiding behind the walls of authority).  In fact, Newman was wrong and as Gunton said, if Newman had read a little more perhaps, he may have come to another view.  

What Gunton had said earlier on in this book is that we need to see examples from our tradition such as Anselm and Irenaeus as people who thought outside the box and did not allow philosophy to contain theological ideas.  Not allowing philosophy to run on parallel line to theology. Rather being able to see the bigger picture of reality.  Being systematic in thought does not necessarily mean that one has to give in to being over systematized. 

“…Why is it that I wish to recommend the odd figure of Coleridge as a model for an English systematic theology? (From page 10) … Yet Coleridge’s quest for truth was not one which divorced it from practical concerns. Far from it, for in many ways a moral concern was very much at the centre, as we shall see. One form the quest for truth took was in his engagement with the thought of that prince of modernity, Immanuel Kant. Kant, as we are often reminded, stands at the watershed of modern thought, as is revealed above all else in the breach he engineered between the truth of being and the truth of doing. Coleridge took up his moral thought, and developed from it the possibility of a unified — and theological — view of reality. Of course, there was an element of wish-fulfilment in his assertion that he could not believe Kant really meant what he said about the impossibility of metaphysics. But Kant served as a first step, as a liberator from the mechanistic view of reality that threatened to sweep all human values off the face of the earth. Freedom, human freedom, was Coleridge’s concern, as it was Kant’s. But rather than assert it against the blank wall of the empty universe — as the Kantian Sartre was later to do — he used it as a starting—point in a search for a universe containing the possibility of personal truth.” (pages 10-11)

For Gunton Coleridge in his later life was someone who evolved into having a more mature theology of the Trinity.  In fact, Coleridge was in some way looking for the truth of God and sometimes he went down the wrong tracks.  He got himself addicted to opium, he was highly influenced earlier on with Pantheism and Unitarianism.  Somehow though he was able to break out of this straight jacket that led him nowhere.  Gunton says the following about Coleridge:

I can see why Gunton found Coleridge very interesting… Coleridge was able to breakthrough the many walls of culture and find the importance of the Trinity.  Coleridge is not hiding behind any wall of authority to make a point about the Trinity.  

Gunton finishes this chapter off by looking at the present reality and if it is a possibility to have a home grown (British) Systematic theology with the ability to converse with other traditions. 

Reflection

The way we do theology is important because what we believe to be true affects what we think it is to be human.  At the moment in the various Western societies people are not being treated fully as social beings but as commodities.  Rabbi Sacks book on Morality is a correction for this situation, but also, we need to think through how to do theology because there has to be a balance between the created order and the infinite.  Many times, this balance is broken, and it has led to catastrophes in the real world.

I think what the late professor Gunton wants us to do is to step outside of our laurels and take the doctrine of God seriously.  The Trinity is an enormous subject that affects our world view about everything and the whole of reality.   Sin has indeed entered our world through the Fall and even these theologians we are talking about had their own idiosyncrasies, but these faults spurred them on to go deeper.  Coleridge for example had a great mind but got hooked on drugs.  By faith he was able to move forward and find God and became a fully fledged Christian.  Because of his experiences we are able to critique those who would want to put God on a side burner. 

Going on a Tangent

I also found it fascinating that Coleridge was also affected by the French Revolution negatively.  It was a very big thing that happened and even Herman Bavinck took this very seriously.  For me when thinking about political systems.  The French Revolution was all about human endeavour and purely secular.  God was written out of the constitution.  There are flaws with this system because as Rabbi Sacks says:

“…If we continue to adopt the French model of rights and stop believing in the existence of a significant arena of individual responsibility, we will lose the sense of common morality that finds its natural home in families and communities. We will be left only with the market and the state. The market cannot deliver distributive justice. The state cannot deliver dignity and resilience, civility and responsibility, for and in its citizens. The state can deliver much: health, welfare, education, defence and the rule of law. But it cannot deliver the active citizenship that creates, daily, in myriad local contexts, the face-to-face care and compassion that constitute the good society. Remove the moral matrix of civil society and eventually you get populist politics and the death of freedom in the name of freedom. It is the wrong road to take.”  (From Morality; pages 128-129 Rabbi Sacks: )

The British system is quite unique but the authority in the crown is placed before God as the ultimate authority.  This is why the British system works.   The questions about God and the state are very real thus eventually the French system may lead to more suffering as it is based on purely secular grounds.

Returning to the Trinity

In this chapter Gunton raised questions about the nature of systematic theology and if it is at all possible. We looked at this through some theologians.  In the next chapter we will look at the nature of Dogmatic theology looking at it through the eyes of Professor Gunton.

I also stepped outside of the remit of ‘theology through the theologians’ as well because more work needs to be done across all religious tradition for the benefit of humanity.  Obviously work starts in our own back yard but it needs to take the whole world into consideration so that together we become more human; faithful to God, faithful to each other, loving, caring, reaching out to others when they are impoverished…   God created this world and he created us, and there is a relationship between the two lets continue reflecting on what this might entail.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Lent 5: The Tangent of Tangents; When Heaven Touches Earth

March 13, 2024

The Infinite God breaks into our space and time in Jesus; God becomes a man and lives a life completely devoted to God, to the point that the command of God would lead our Saviour to a Cross and to die on it.  Three days later he takes his life back, according to the will of God the Father and our Saviour lives now and for ever as Fully God and Fully man.  The Trinitarian mystery that promises that at the resurrection real human life continuation in the fulfillment of the divine epochs known as the Eschaton (end times).  This is really interesting stuff, but I want to start from our mundane understanding of time.

Time is a serious subject and it impacts our lives on a daily basis.  When I think about time, I have come to the conclusion that 70 years is really a very short period to be alive.  What can be achieved in 70 years. Not a lot but as a general rule of thumb which doesn’t fit everyone’s experience:

  • We are born and grow up
  • We get a job
  • We may get married
  • We raise children
  • We become grandparents
  • We die.

These movements are known as the stages of life and it doesn’t make much of a difference where we live.  Although there are worldly sweet spots such as Japan in which you might even make it to a 100 years of age. 

In human innovation great strides have been made in measuring what we call time.  The world has its time zones and it is now possible to know what time it is anywhere in the world.  We can even radio carbon objects to know when they were created.  So then in human culture we can say that there is time.   In human culture or science I suppose that time has to have a beginning and an end. 

What do you think time is?

Do you agree with what I said?

Or have you got your own ideas about time?

Your point of view is also important as it may in someways differ to my ideas of time. 

Whatever the case might be, I’m moving on this premise that time has a beginning and an end.  Theological time takes this into account but we now need to think in terms of timelessness.  To think about a time when there was no time and there will be time with no end.  These are important questions and I know that theses have been written on this.  I’m not going down that road, but I am going down a road.  The road of faith. 

The Time of Lent

The time of lent is a good time to remember that God loves you.  God is your Creator and if you are from a Faith Tradition such as a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu Sikh, Zoroastrian et al, then you know that life is a gift.  From this universal standpoint I can see the image of God in every human being and in John’s Gospel it says:

​“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16

This fact fits perfectly with the account of the creation of Man and Woman at the beginning of out time on earth.  Although Man and Woman had a good start, we know that a little bit later into the story, evil, corruption, sin, pride, lust also enters into Man.  God’s perfect world was not perfect anymore and we all find ourselves with the effects of selfish greed in which Man fell into temptation and wanted to be ‘like God’.  Adam was already like God and without sin.  The problem was that he wanted to be ‘The Man’. The Man in control of his own destiny without God.  From reliance to independence. 

This is why God had a plan.  Man was his own worst enemy and he became a slave of his own incompetence.  Many people value material things, fast cars, a nice partner or partners, money, wealth, power over others.  They become worse than rats in the rat race and will walk over anyone to get their way.  The truth is that such people are not independent, but they are slaves of sin.  They are trapped in these 70 -100 years of life before death takes them.  As billionaires they cannot take their billions with them, and I too will one day die and not blog anymore. 

We now turn to Karl Barth. Karl Barth wrote his Church Dogmatics and I think there are over one and a half million words.  When I looked at the Index of the Church Dogmatics, he had given the faithful preacher tools for preaching at Lent time and the following section will my reflection of what he said about time, so please continue reading and I hope you find it uplifting and challenging.  The Bottom line is that God loves His Church.  Whether you are in a church or not makes no difference to me as there many Christians who cannot go to a church because it cam be dangerous.  Perhaps you are from a part of the world where you could lose your life, or that you could end up in prison for your faith in Jesus:

Karl Barth Chose to quote John 8. 46 – 59.  This section is basically about Revelation and the Identity of Jesus.  He was accused of being demon possessed and all sorts of things.   There certainly is a dimension of theological time here:

46 ​Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 ​He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
48 ​The Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49 ​Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. 50 ​But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. 51 ​Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” 52 ​The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ 53 ​Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” 54 ​Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; 55 ​and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 ​Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 ​So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 ​Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 ​Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus  hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:46-59

“As Karl Barth says Irenaeus had no problem of seeing Christ in the Old Testament:

Irenaeus' writings on papyrus

One of the most outspoken representatives of recognition of the identity of the Old Testament and the New Testament, i.e., of the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament also, is Irenaeus, who especially in the fourth book of his chief work is never tired of speaking as follows . . . From the beginning there were those who recognised God and prophesied the coming of Christ, and if they did so, it was because they received revelation from the Son Himself (C.o.h. 7, 2) . . . Abraham’s rejoicing (v. 56), so to speak, descended to his posterity, who really saw Christ and believed in Him—but again the rejoicing ascended to Abraham, who once desired tosee the day of Christ (7, I). (I, 2, p. 74 f. The Time of Revelation.)”  (Taken from CD, INDEX, page 363, (Irenaeus fragments of Payrus, All photos taken from wikipeadia)

All I am trying at this point is to show you that in the Christian tradition, prophecy in the Old Testament was taken very seriously.  When it came to Christ; He is the Centre and the Reason of Revelation.  Our Lord Jesus Christ is pre- temporal as Barth would say.  Before the creation of the world there was no human time.  We did not exist.  A lot of decisions were made in God’s  Trinitarian infinite timeless time.

Barth Continues to say:

“God is pre—temporal . . . It may sound trivial to say that God was before we were, and before all the presuppositions and conditions of our existence. Yet in its unqualified, literal sense it is profound and decisive. God was in the beginning which precedes all other beginnings. He was in the beginning in which we and all things did not yet exist. He was in the beginning which does not look back on any other beginning presupposed by this beginning itself . . . We are not from eternity, and neither is our world. There was a time when we and the world did not exist. This was the “ pre-time,” the eternity of God In this time God wrote His decrees and books, in which everything is marked down that is to be and occur, including every name and the great and small events of the bearer of every name . . . This pre-time is the pure time of the Father and the Son in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit . . . If we understand eternity as pre-time—and we must understand it in this way too—we have to recognise that eternity itself bears the name of Jesus Christ (v. 58; Eph. I“; I Pet. 11“). Note how in all these and similar passages the eternal presence of God over and in time is established by reference to a pre-time in which time, and with it the existence of man and its renewal, is foreseen and determined. What is to be said about time and its relation to eternity derives from the fact that eternity is also before time. (II, 1, pp. 621—623. The Eternity and Glory of God.) (Taken from CD, IBID, continued)

Reflection

So my friends ‘we have traveled a long way in time(no pun intended’ 😊).  As I said at the beginning our Timeless God in the Person of Jesus Christ came into the world, into our space and time to set us free from sin and death.  In this 5th Sunday of Lent let us meditate on God’s time that Jesus died on the cross to save you and me and to bring us into fellowship with himself.  We do not become gods but we find the joys of heaven touch our circle of life.

If you are not a Christian, the door is always open for you.  In prayer by faith ask Our lord to come into your life.  It means putting the old life away and taking on the new life by the Holy Spirit and with the Holy Spirits guidance we can grow in the beautiful knowledge of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

If you are a Christian, I hope and pray that you reflect on the timelessness of our Trinitarian God and you are brought into a deeper knowledge of what it means to follow Christ.

If you are from another religion, then I can say God loves you as he created you in his own image.  I hope and pray that at least even if you do not agree with Christianity that you could be more sympathetic to Christians.  That even despite the times Christians do not show the love they ought to do.    The golden rule is found in all religions in some form God has called the human race to love one another.  War, murder in all its forms is a betrayal of this. 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Lent, Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Lent 4: Where is the Centre and Focus of Our reliance?

March 10, 2024

All good things come to us through the gift of our Creator and we ought to remember and be thankful for what he has done for us.  On the one level as human beings we rely on God to make the crops to grow and for the water that we drink.  These are basic necessities.  Our Lord Jesus spoke to us through the basic necessities to look beyond the literal food we eat and to come closer to the Giver of life.  Upto this point Muslims Jews and Christians would agree with the goodness of God for his creation. 

The differences start to come when we look at the identity of Jesus.  Many Jews but not all Jews would want to disown Jesus as their Messiah and Muslims see him only as a Prophet.  Christians on the other hand see in Christ’s identity that he is Fully God and Fully man , the second Person of the Holy Trinity.  This last view is my view.   Intellectually everyone in the world must make their minds up of who Jesus is.  Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic, Communist, Democrat, Republican et al. 

This story that we start with is the Feeding of the Five thousand not including women and children who were probably there too.  This story is a sign, it is a road sign to something very significant.  The people who were fed saw Jesus as the Messiah and the King of Israel.  Questions are however raised:

What kind of King would Jesus be?

Ultimately where should our reliance for life be put?

Five Thousand Fed
​1 ​After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias). 2 ​A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick. 3 ​Then Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat down with His disciples. 4 ​Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. 5 ​Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming to Him, *said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” 6 ​This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do. 7 ​Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little.” 8 ​One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, *said to Him, 9 ​“There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?”

10 ​Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 11 ​Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks, He distributed to those who were seated; likewise, also of the fish as much as they wanted. 12 ​When they were filled, He *said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.” 13 ​So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. 14 ​Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
Jesus Walks on the Water
15 ​So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone. NASB John 6:1-15

The feeding of the five thousand was close to the time of the Passover.  There were many who were sick and this crowd followed our Lord up the side of a mountain.  A sign was about to take place.  John prefers to use the word signs rather than miracle thus in these signs John has something very important to teach us about the Lord Jesus.  There are many lessons to be learned here. 

  • First of all, our Lord always had compassion for the sick even here at the nth hour of his incarnation with death about to face him around the corner.   
  • Then our Lord was teaching the disciples that the great provider is in heaven even in the most difficult situations.
  • Thirdly through this sign we see that Christ is indeed the King of Kings (But what kind of King would he be?)
  • Obviously, it wasn’t the kind of king that the people wanted as they had the intention of taking him prisoner to make him king.

What does Kingship really mean for the Christian?

John here shows us a sign that is amazing.  Our Lord fed thousands of people with some fish and bread.  Not every one can do this.  Only God can do this, as it necessitates creating something as in this case from something very small.  Different people interpreted this miracle in various ways:

  1. Our Lords intention
  2. The disciples trust.
  3. The people’s interpretation of Kingship.

Our Lords Intention

4 ​Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. 5 ​Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming to Him, *said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” 6 ​This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do.

It doesn’t say but I think possibly our Lord felt compassion for the crowd and this was going to be a test to the disciples.  Our Lord says:

“Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?”

This was a loaded question as there are no shops on the top or side of a mountain!

The time was coming closer to the last Passover meal our Lord was going to eat and this was a precursor to this great event.  I sometimes wonder how these two events are linked.  One thing I do know is that feeding the fives thousand with a few loaves is an unsurmountable situation.  This event needs total reliance on our Lord. 

The disciples trust.

The Apostles had now been with our Lord for almost three years, and they had seen at firsthand what our Lord Jesus could do.  They followed through with his instructions. They showed complete trust here.  It does not mean that they still didn’t argue because they did.  Especially with Satan working in the heart of Judas Iscariot later on, in the passion narratives. 

Our Lord gave thanks for the food.  This is a very important lesson that all good things come from God.  All bad things don’t come from God.  Because of the Fall bad things can come from the world, from our own pride selfish desires or from Satanic influences. No Our Lord as the Second Person of the Trinity in his human form as a real human being thanked God the Father for what was about to take place.

The peoples interpretation of the sign of fish and bread

The people came to a correct assumption that our Lord was the Prophet, The Messiah. They became aware of Who he was. He is the Messiah the Son of God. They got excited but the crwds got the function of Kingship very wrong.  They saw in the Son of God someone who could liberate them from the Romans.  From a natural perspective as a human being I cannot really blame them.  The Romans used to crucify many Jews who fell out of favour with the authorities this includes simple things such as stealing.  The crowds could not see beyond their basic needs.  They missed the point that all good things come from God including our daily food physically and spiritually.  We need both to survive.

Anyhow they got our Lord’s identity correct, but they read into the situation that Jesus was to be an all-conquering King who would destroy the Romans. Our Lord did not come to destroy people because the fact is that God’s judgement already rested on every human being because of the Fall. No, our Lord came to set us free from sin.  They were going to force our Lord to be a king by force. This happened before with another king in Jewish history, King Saul. According to the story the people got what they wanted but this was not God’s choice.  Here in this story our Lord escaped because his kingdom is a kingdom of peace that sets people free from sin.

Karl Barth said in the preaching section of the Church Dogmatics index:

“ROMANs 51-11 (IIb)

“We have peace with God . . . ” (v. 1). Many serious and penetrating things result from this peace, as emerges in Rom. 5—8. But they result from the fact that we have this peace. Only half-serious and superficially penetrating things can result from a lack of peace with God, or from a supposed peace that we have or think we have in some other way than “ through our Lord Jesus Christ. ” The Christmas message is: “ Peace on earth to men of (God’s) goodwill. ” And what is meant is the peace with God which is included for all the children of men in the child who was born there and then. (IV, 2, p. 273. The Direction of the Son.)

Jesus Christ fought His enemies, the enemies of God—as we all are (v. IO; Col. 121)—no, He loved His enemies, by identifying Himself with them. Compared with that, what is the bit of forebearance or patience or humour or readiness to help or even intercession that we are willing and ready to bring and offer by way of loving our enemies? But obviously when we look at what Jesus Christ became and was for us, we cannot leave out some little love for our enemies as a sign of our recognition and understanding that this is how He treated us His enemies. It is indeed a very clear commandment of God which points us in this direction from the cross of shame. (IV, I, p. 244. The Judge Judged in Our Place.)

It is God first Who is for man, and then and for that reason man is for God. God precedes therefore and sets man in the movement in which he follows. He says Yes to him when man says No, and thus silences the No of man and lays a Yes in his heart and on his lips. He loves man even though he is an enemy (v. 10) and thus makes him the friend who loves Him in return. (IV, 2, p. 580. The Awakening to Conversion.)” (Taken from the Church Dogmaics, Index, page 361, 1988 version, Karl Barth)

Barth is correct here in his estimation that it is God who made the first move to save us from the clutches of evil.   We talk about ‘free will’ but my view is that without the Holy Spirit breathing life into us spiritually somehow, we would continue to walk around ‘thinking we are free’.  Human beings tend to put money, career, fame, fortune and power et al, as the more desirable things.  We then forget our Creator, our family, other human beings, animals, nature and so on.

Reflection

Complete reliance on God entails obedience. This is only possible through our Economic Trinitarian God; The Trinity is a mystery no one actually understands fully but by faith we can confess Jesus as our lord. By believing in our hearts by the work of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus died for us on the cross, and relying on His victory over death, we too as sinful human beings, in Christ can be brought before the throne of God in the New Jerusalem, the City of Our God.

God is indeed for us, and we need to start taking stock of our souls of what is important and not important.  Our Lord gives us freedom and this freedom comes through complete reliance on Him by the Holy Spirit.  If you put money, career, fame, fortune and power et al, as the most important things, I can prophecy that at the end of ones life, can be full of regret.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Lent, Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Judas’ Betrayal

March 28, 2023

Judas’ betrayal seriously affected the Apostles in some ways.  It was one of ‘their own’ that betrayed Jesus. I have heard scholars suggest that in the text the Apostles were too harsh on Judas.  Perhaps he didn’t want Jesus to die which is suggested by his remorse yet objectively he did betray the Lord Jesus, the King of Israel and God Incarnate.  I found three sections in Matthew about the betrayal and one section in Acts.  The sections I will be going through are:

  • Matthew 26:14-19
  • Matthew 26:47-50
  • Matthew 27:1-10
  • Acts 1:15-26

Although I will be going through the Greek text I want to keep things simple so that we can grasp the meaning of the story and you can make up your own mind if the Gospels are too harsh on Judas or not.  My own point of view is that the Gospels are God’s word to us, ‘Scripture’. 

Before we move into the first section it is important to realize that somehow Judas had his own agenda. The story we already looked at when the woman anointed Jesus for his burial.  In Johns version of the story he was a thief:

“Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.” John 12:6

When thinking about this what makes a thief a thief and how do they operate?

So negatively:

  • They use stealth so that nobody can identify them.
  • They steal in order to make a profit while the victim can be at a loss in cost and emotional turmoil.
  • They tell lies as a way of concealment.
  • Although a thief cannot be trusted they find ways to get peoples trust based on false premises.

Judas because of his clandestine lifestyle from my point of view was an ideal target for Satan.  He was an ideal target because he pretended to trust Jesus and at the same time had his own idea of what the Messiah was supposed to be. For him as a Zealot:

  • His king was supposed to be strong and powerful
  • His King was supposed to put the Romans in their place.
  • A king is supposed to act as judge which would mean killing.
  • A king is supposed to stand proud over his subjects and keep them in their place.

Our Lord Jesus was a disappointment to his version of the Messiah king. Our Lord Jesus was the direct opposite:

  • Our Lord was humble and meek not strong and proud
  • Our Lord came to change hearts not murder by force of arms
  • Our Lord healed people rather than destroy them.
  • The emphasis for Israel was on mercy, not the sword.
  • Jesus came as a lamb not as a forceful ruler.

Judas was a Zealot with ideals that wanted to have the Romans kicked out of Judaea.  Background reading also shows that Zealots were not happy with the Leaders of Israel at the time. 

Then in Luke it says that Satan entered into Judas:

“And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve”. Luke 22:3

Indeed from what we have written Judas was the prime candidate and it was all self-inflicted from a greedy heart.  Judas was disappointed perhaps he wanted to be the Messiahs right hand man, the one who wielded the sword of judgement. Perhaps he dreamed of being a superstar someone who people looked up to and admired and dare I say it even worshiped.  It never happened; Jesus spoke about death on a cross not a revolt that would usher in ‘a forced kingdom of God with ‘Roman slaves’.

Section 1

14 Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?” And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him. 16 From then on he began looking for a good opportunity to betray Jesus.

17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” 18 And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.”’” 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. Matthew 26:14-19

The facts here are:

  • Judas colluded with the authorities. (Secretly)
  • He got a payment. (at the expense of Jesus arrest and death)
  • He worked actively in stealth mode to get Jesus arrested.

Section 2

47 While He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people. 48 Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him.” 49 Immediately Judas went to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. 50 And Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then they came and laid hands-on Jesus and seized Him. Matthew 26:47-50

The facts here are:

  • Judas gave instructions to the mob on how Jesus was going to be arrested
  • Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
  • Although Jesus knew what was happening, still called Judas ‘friend’.

Section 3

1 Now when morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus to put Him to death; 2 and they bound Him, and led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate the governor.

3 Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!” 5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10 AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER’S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME.” Matthew 27:1-10

The facts here are:

  • Judas was upset that Jesus was going to be killed.

Evaluation

What was the aim of Judas?

Perhaps:

  • For the money (a small amount compared to the oil that Jesus was anointed with by Mary)
  • As a Zealot to force Jesus to bear arms
  • He was angry with Jesus and wanted some revenge and discomfort for Jesus for personal reasons of animosity.

We really don’t know.

Section 4

15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,

AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;

and,

‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’

21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1:15-26

The facts here are:

  • Judas was sorry for what he did and killed himself for the betrayal, he couldn’t live with himself.
  • The Apostolic place was also ‘an office’.  The Apostles looked for the right candidate for the Job.

Reflection

From my point of view Judas was a victim of his own greed and false dreams of grandeur. Yes, he was a thief and a lot of the time he worked in a clandestine manner to hide his real motives.  Sadder still metaphorically speaking, it is also true that there can be a little Judas in every heart.   Yes, Satan entered into Judas so let us by faith learn from his mistakes and cling to Jesus our Lord and be filled with His Holy Spirit. 

Posted in Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Part 1: Exodus;20.7; The Third Commandment: Learning to honour God’s Special, Personal name Trinitarianly

September 25, 2022

This Week we are going to look at the following verse:

“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. Exodus 20:7 (from; NASB; Olive Tree software)

This was taken from wikipeadia by Mohammed Moussa. (The link is in the Bibliography)

Our Christian traditional lives are lived in an untraditional world and sometimes we find that members of the Church are persecuted for their beliefs.  This commandment is important because God’s honour is violated on a daily basis.  Some people blaspheme God’s name unknowingly (lack of knowledge) others do it knowingly. Even believers who should know better from whatever Church do it and they know they shouldn’t.  This is the first part in a two-part series.  In the second part we will look at the teachings of Herman Bavinck.  The second part will come out either next Week or the Week after as I am also going through the Sermon on the Mount.

7 לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לַשָּׁ֑וְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יְנַקֶּה֙ יְהוָ֔ה אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂ֥א אֶת־שְׁמֹ֖ו לַשָּֽׁוְא׃ פ Exodus 20:7

Taken from Bible hub: see Bibliography

Firstly

There are lots of things happening in this verse and although I am not a complete expert, I can say there are two verbs here working in tandem to show the seriousness of the LORD’s saying.   When I am commenting here, we need to realize that I am emphasising how English, and Hebrew are ‘not the same’. First, we have the qal.  It is in the active voice but imperfect.  In English the imperfect usually means as an action that isn’t completed or finished.  The qal in the Hebrew usually means incomplete action that can be in the past or the future or not even have a time stamp on it at all!

 In English “Imperfect” comes from the Latin imperfectus “unfinished”, because the imperfect expresses an ongoing, uncompleted action. The equivalent Ancient Greek term was paratatikós “prolonged”. From wiki; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect

In Hebrew the imperfect can also mean something that happens in the future.  Here though the qal has a secondary use because of the (‘not’).  When it is used in a negative command ‘it is emphatic’. 

With the piel ‘will (not) leave him unpunished’ (is in an intensive form).

Notes

Emphatic = expressing something forcibly and clearly.  (from Google; Oxford languages)

Intensive = ‘unpunished’ This particular person who commits the crime has a price to pay no matter what.

The command with the qal and the piel verbs working together this way means that God is saying something very strong and everybody needs to listen.

Secondly

We have repeating words:

  • Not; The not tells us that this is a negative command.
  • Vain; we will look at this a little deeper
  • The LORD (Tetragrammaton); The general word for God ‘Elohim’ is not used here but God’s personal name. 

The meaning of vain in this context

The following has been taken (scanned) from the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament for ‘vain’ in Exodus 20 verse 7:

“…This noun appears fifty-two times in the ot most often in Ps (fifteen times) followed by Ezk (eight times), Job (six times), Jer (five times, only in the adverbial phrase /ashshaw’ *‘in vain, vainly, to no avail,’ and always preceding the verb: 2:30; 4:30; 6:29; 18:15 (perhaps); 46:11).  The most familiar use of shaw’ is in the third commandment, ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain”’ (Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11).  Literally the sentence reads, ‘*You shall not lift up the name of the Lord your God lashshaw’,” the same construction as noted above in the Jer passages. Before examining the decalogue reference it will be instructive to observe how the word is used elsewhere.

That the primary meaning of shaw’ is *‘emptiness, vanity’’ no one can challenge. It designates anything that is unsubstantial, unreal, worthless, either materially or morally. Hence, it is a word for idols (in the same way that hebel ‘‘vanity”’ is also a designation for (worthless) idols, for example). Psalm 24:4 may then be rendered, *‘He who has not lifted up his mind to an ‘idol’.”’ Dahood (Psalms, I, AB, p. 151) lists the following passages: Ps 26:4; 31:6 [H 7]; 119:37; Isa 1:13; Jer

18:15; Job 31:5 with this implication, although some are dubious, the last one and Isa 1:13 especially. Not only are idols *‘deceptions’’ but so too the words of a false prophet which whitewash and sugar coat a gloomy situation (Lam 2:14, Ezk 13:6-9, 23). The evidence points to the fact that taking the Lord’s name (i.e. his reputation) ‘‘in vain”’ will surely cover profanity, as that term is understood today, or swearing falsely in the Lord’s name. But it will also include using the Lord’s name lightly, unthinkingly, or by rote. Perhaps this is captured by the Lxx’s translation of /ashshadw’ as epi mataio “‘thoughtlessly.””

Bibliography: Childs, B., The Book of

Exodus, Westminster, 1974, pp. 388, 409-12.

THAT, II, pp. 882-83.

V.P.H”

(From: Theolological Wordbook of the Old Testament; Moody Press; page 908; Victor P Hamilton)

The personal name of God

The Tetragramaton made up of y,h,w,h is a most Holy name in the Old Testament therefore I like to use ‘the Lord’. In Jewish usage they say Ha-Shem (which means ‘The-Name’).  When we read Genesis in the first creation story, we find Elohim used a lot but then later on God’s personal name is used.  So perhaps some of the liberal theologies that talked about E or P hadn’t taken into consideration the personal, religious depth of these Holy Scriptures of the Tanach / Old Testament (form and redaction criticism).  Here before us in these verses on the 10 commandments we have a covenant between the personal, living Lord God and Israel. 

A covenant and a contract are not the same thing.  A contract can be between two businessmen who strike a deal, and it is not personal at all.  For example, in the eyes of the Lord God, marriage is a covenant, and a promise is made before the Highest authority, our Creator.  This is not a business deal it is personal and it is done in sacrificial love.  In a business deal one is after profit in a covenant you are giving out of love for the other and death is the limit.

Reflection

“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. Exodus 20:7

When it says that we should not take God’s name in vain.  As we read earlier:

‘It designates anything that is unsubstantial, unreal, worthless, either materially or morally’.

As believers within a Trinitarian framework, we should not take God’s name in vain.  God is described by many names in the Old Testament and New Testament.  I read somewhere (possibly Rabbi Sacks but I cannot remember where) that we live in a tradition in an untraditional age.  He was talking about Judaism, but this actually applies to Christianity and all the mainline religions.  This is a very powerful and true statement because society at the moment is taking secularism to its logical conclusion.  Although society pays lip service to the religions there is an onslaught of normalizing anti-religious values.  The human being for a long time in secular society has not been seen as having been created in the image of God but that humanity came to be through chance (evolution).  

Professionals from religious backgrounds are also being attacked through the changes in law.  One example is that if one takes seriously the Biblical teachings of a husband and wife (male and female).  If a teacher in class was to say he believes this, he/she could lose his job. There is a normalizing movement in the background going on and it is alienating the religious freedoms that were promised.  These promises came about originally in Europe because of religious persecution.

How can religious communities fight back against this normalizing.  For Christians we take the Bible seriously and we listen to the 10 commandments.  In this commandment we ought to be very careful how we use God’s name.  We believe in a personal God, and He has a personal name, let’s not abuse this name because this covenant we are in, is about love not power. 

Even though our faith is being trodden on; on a daily basis we are called to love our neighbour.  Our neighbour could be our enemy, but we ought to love regardless.  We need to remember as Paul said in Ephesians that we were also once alienated from God but by God’s gift of faith we were brought into the Church.  We do not stand in judgement over people with different lifestyles to our own but nevertheless we have a right to our opinions and ways of life too.

Next time we will look at Bavincks teachings on the third commandment.  This was a precursor because I felt it was important to look under the cars bonnet (figuratively speaking).

Bibliography

New American Standard Bible (Olive Tree Software)

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament; Moody Press; part 1; page 908; Victor P Hamilton

Hebrew Old Testament; Exodus 20:7  (Olive Tree Software)

Links

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/20-7.htm

https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/verb_imperfect.html#function

image of Sinai taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai#/media/File:Mount_Moses.jpg

Posted in Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Jesus’ relationship to the Law and the state of the Human Heart

June 19, 2022

Jesus said:

“

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfil. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-20

”

At the time of Christ, the world was in movement and flux, and we know that there were many thriving religious communities thinking about the end times.  The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us this to be the case.  There are many verses in the Bible especially the Pauline epistles that on the surface look like they are anti-law. Jesus was certainly not against the law but rather he was the fulfilment of the law.

We need to remember that there are various aspects of Jewish Law.  There is the ceremonial and the moral.  The 10 commandment and the moral law will never change but the other laws became obsolete.   I am not doing very well in explaining this, but Herman Bavinck certainly looked at this detail.  It is important for us to look at the nature of the law as this will influence how we look at Jesus our Lords interpretation of the law.

From this point I want to cover an earlier blog because it has direct importance for our understanding of how Jesus perceived the law.

We cannot always see everything; The legal people of Jesus time completely missed the point; We also need to humble ourselves

When we look at the content of the law Bavinck mentions the three branches:

1.       Ceremonial

2.       Judicial

3.       Moral

He hits the nail on the head when he says that the law has not been abolished but fulfilled.  Bavinck ebbs the Bible when he says:

 “The shadows vanish when the body is present. What was merely a type in the Old Testament is now exactly what is completely spiritualized and realized. The form has changed; the essence is the same. All sacrifices and priests culminate and find their full realization in the one sacrifice and in the one high priest, in the same way that all the prophets and Davidic kings find their purpose realized in Christ.” (From Reformed Ethics; Herman Bavinck; edited by John Bolt; page 222)

Digression

I’ve just completed writing my commentary on Hebrews 7 and 8 and I can see Scripture from their imbibed in Bavinck here. From https://weaver1hasonline.international/

The reality of the law is here through Christ.  Heaven has broken into this earthly shadowy world.  The earthly tabernacle, the Levitical high priesthood and the sacrifice are only shadows of the reality.  If you read Hebrews chapters 7, 8 and 9 you will see this to be the case.   The prophets and the Davidic kings are correct as well.  In the book of Hebrews there is a shift of accent who the messiah is in light of the Prophets and the Psalms (Royal, Messianic Psalms).    We find this pattern in the quotations of the Old Testament in the argument of Hebrews.  (My own opinion is that Apollos wrote Hebrews) So, the whole Law in the Old Testament including the ceremonial, judicial and moral law finds its realization and fulfilment in Christ. (Page 222).

God and the Moral Law

Having said this when Bavinck talks about law from this moment it will be about the ‘moral law’.   This should not surprise us as he is writing his Reformed Ethics.  Focusing on the moral law Bavinck finds three types of interpreters in scholarship:

1.       “According to some this law is based solely on God’s will: something is good only because God says it is good.

2.       For others the law is based entirely on God’s being.

3.       And for a third group the moral law is based partly on God’s nature—such as the first table of the Decalogue—and partly on God’s free will, as is the case with needing to celebrate the Sabbath on the seventh day, the prohibitions of polygamy and theft, and so on.”  (Taken from page 223 of Reformed Ethics)

So, then we will find out whether or not the law is based on:

1.       God’s will.

2.       God’s being and or not

3.       God’s nature.

Sometimes what looks like a dispensation such as Hosea marrying a prostitute or Moses killing an Egyptian.  I think this covers aspects of ‘God’s will; What God allows.  They are only examples.  Herman is just giving us an outline he is not giving reasons why these things happened. (From Page 223). ’These and more are interesting facts, but Bavinck does not go into detail as he is moves on to the relationship of Law to God’s being (nature).

What Bavinck says about Gods Nature and Gods Law page 223

The law is unchangeable because God in his nature is unchangeable.  Bavinck explains the law is spiritual and he gives us some references as well.  He starts from our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and also quotes St Paul and Psalms.  As well as these we can take into account (which Bavinck he also quotes):

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matt 22.37)

Both Jesus and the faithful followers of Christ see the law as spiritual.   Matthew chapter 5 is cited, and this is correct as Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it (verse 17 for example.  This reference is mine and is not found on page 223).

Bavinck then give us some examples of what this content of the law actually means, and he summarizes this:

“Nothing, then, can be added to it (the law) or taken away from it (the law), because the law orders us to love God and our neighbour, which is everything and includes everything.” (Page 223)

So, then we are to be perfect just like our Heavenly Father.  So how does the law work?

In Bavinck’s own words concerning the law:

“(a) all prohibitions include their opposite as a commandment, and vice versa—divorce is prohibited, so chastity is commanded.

(b) under the heading of a Virtue or vice all corresponding items are included—for example, the commandment to honour one’s parents encompasses love and obedience, including those toward other authorities.

 (c) with an external sin, its source and cause are also condemned—for example, the prohibition against murder includes anger (cf. Matt. 5:22; 1 John 3:15) and even the pretence of anger (cf. 1 Thess. 5 :22).” (Reformed Ethics; Herman Bavinck; edited by John Bolt; page 223)

So, who can keep the whole law without sinning?  The answer is no one.  Bavinck understands the nature of the law that it includes aspects also that are ‘unwritten’.  This is a very important point.   With the interpretation he gives all have failed to reach the perfection of the law.  The Master theologian shows that here isn’t a single man on earth except Christ could fulfil this law.

Old Reflection

On content of the law Bavinck has managed to capture the essence of what the law of God actually means but I wonder why he didn’t tackle the question of how we can approach God’s presence under such heavy circumstances.  I think he will probably do this in section of his book in ‘Converted Humanity’ which he will, but I think the beatitudes’ are seriously important for the believer.  Especially the fist one of Jesus’ sayings:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:3 NASB

If you actually go through all the sayings of Jesus in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 one comes to a realization that no ordinary person will ever reach these standards.  When we come to God, we need to realize that we are spiritually dead (running on empty).   Jesus gives the oracles of God and according to the Law we are all locked up in sin.  Our best is never good enough.  This was a seriously bitter pill for the pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes to swallow.  However, we should not point the finger just at them this includes all of us whoever we are.  This was difficult for the Pharisees and Sadducees because as far as they could see, they kept all the written laws.  I actually think they did but then a bombshell hit; This also includes all the laws that were unwritten!

We have all sinned and for Christians there is only one way, Jesus Christ.  In Jesus God became a man, lived among us and died on a cross. On the third day by God’s Authority, he conquered death.  We can only approach God if we first realize we have done wrong and ask God in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit for forgiveness.   Jesus is at the door of your heart.  Making Jesus Lord in your life means taking on a new way of living.

—

Mini reflection

So, from my point of view essentially for Jesus the essential interpretation of the law ought to be spiritual rather than ceremonial.  When we look at the beatitudes, we see a staircase into the Divine Presence.  We need to realize in our selves there is essentially nothing that is good enough to allow us into God’s presence.  The prophets emphasised humility before a Holy God on the other hand those who practised the law and the ceremonies got puffed up with self-importance.  Jesus pointed out the pharisees and the Sadducees because they were the (spiritual) religious leaders of the day.  For me giving a 21st century twist on the pharisees and the Sadducees; we see them in every walk of life trampling on those who are needy and giving bad advice on how to best serve God and relating to their neighbours.

Jesus our Lord was purifying the essentials when it came to the law:

  1. Love towards God
  2. Love towards the neighbour

As I read somewhere else in Herman Bavinck that Faith is the root and good works flows from this by grace. 

We are now ready to go back to Jesus’ sayings:

“

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfil. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18

”

As I said earlier Jesus interpreted the law as spiritual.  What does Calvin have to say about this?

[The Following has been copied from The Ages Library]

“

<400517>Matthew 5:17. Think not. With regard to the perfection of his life,

Christ might justly have maintained that he came to fulfill the law: but here

he treats of doctrine, not of life. As he afterwards exclaimed, that “the

kingdom of God is come,” (<401228>Matthew 12:28,) and raised the minds

of men with unusual expectation, and even admitted disciples by baptism,

it is probable, that the minds of many were in a state of suspense and

doubt, and were eagerly inquiring, what was the design of that novelty.

Christ, therefore, now declares, that his doctrine is so far from being at

variance with the law, that it agrees perfectly with the law and the

prophets, and not only so, but brings the complete fulfillment of them.

There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to

declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any

new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people

immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the

preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the

expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from

what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and

accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many

respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never

have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light

and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to

them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what

insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing

new.

Besides, Christ saw that the greater part of the Jews, though they

professed to believe the Law, were profane and degenerate. The condition

of the people was so decayed, every thing was filled with so many

corruptions, and the negligence or malice of the priests had so completely

extinguished the pure light of doctrine, that there no longer remained any

reverence for the Law. But if a new kind of doctrine had been introduced,

which would destroy the authority of the Law and the Prophets, religion

would have sustained a dreadful injury. This appears to be the first reason,

236

why Christ declared that he had not come to destroy the Law. Indeed, the

context makes this abundantly clear: for he immediately adds, by way of

confirmation, that it is impossible for even one point of the Law to fail,—

and pronounces a curse on those teachers who do not faithfully labor to

maintain its authority.

The second reason was, to refute the wicked slander which, he knew was

brought against him by the ignorant and unlearned. This charge, it is

evident, had been fastened on his doctrine by the scribes: for he proceeds

immediately to direct his discourse against them. We must keep in mind

the object which Christ had in view. While he invites and exhorts the Jews

to receive the Gospel, he still retains them in obedience to the Law; and, on

the other hand, he boldly refutes the base reproaches and slanders, by

which his enemies labored to make his preaching infamous or suspected.

If we intend to reform affairs which are in a state of disorder, we must

always exercise such prudence and moderation, as will convince the

people, that we do not oppose the eternal Word of God, or introduce any

novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care, that no suspicion

of such contrariety shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men

shall not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty. In short, we must

endeavor to oppose a profane contempt of the Word of God, and to

prevent religion from being despised by the ignorant. The defense which

Christ makes, to free his doctrine from slanders, ought to encourage us, if

we are now exposed to the same calumnies. That crime was charged against

Paul, that he was an apostate from the law of God, (<442121>Acts 21:21)

and we need not, therefore, wonder, if the Papists endeavor, in the same

manner, to render us odious. Following the example of Christ, we ought to

clear ourselves from false accusations, and, at the same time, to profess the

truth freely, though it may expose us to unjust reproaches.

I am not come to destroy. God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the

coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be

different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a

perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning,

with his own people.

“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts, and I will remember

their iniquities no more,” (<243133>Jeremiah 31:33, 34.) f370

237

By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that,

on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it

shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words,

when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by

quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality,

what had hitherto appeared only in figures.

With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ

has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a

devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice

of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to

ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it

was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more

fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from

ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of

shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are

not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred

tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to

break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel,

when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that

both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.

So then I also found it interesting that there is a quotation from Jeremiah:

“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts, and I will remember

their iniquities no more,” (Jeremiah 31:33, 34.)

”

Reflection

As far as Jesus’ teachings are concerned Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and by faith, we have had God’s law ‘written on our hearts’ by the Holy Spirit.  There is nothing here external about the law as it has been written onto the tablet of our hearts.  The truth is we were dead twigs and the Holy Spirit brought us back to life that we can once again worship a Holy God.  The Sermon on the mount drills down into the intentions and attitudes of the human being and shows the filth of fake worship towards God.  Jesus also gives us the remedy that by believing in Him and obeying him, through the beatitudes by the Holy Spirit we can once again worship in Spirit and truth.

Posted in JesusLifeAndTeachings, Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Do Pets Go To heaven? Dealing with the death of our pets.

May 14, 2022

Will Leo our Pet rabbit go to heaven at the Eschaton?

This week we lost a pet Rabbit. His name was Leo and we had him for about seven years.   I have to say that Leo has taught me a lot about love and compassion.   I’m not one of these people that believes that animals don’t have sentience.   I believe that animals were created by God. I also believe that there are animals in heaven. 

And why do I think this? 

Well, for example? 

Elijah was taken to heaven by a chariot of horses and animals, obviously in the Bible had a certain amount of intelligence. For example, when God commanded a donkey to speak to its owner, or the owner would have been killed by an Angel, or the time when the Ravens were commanded to go and feed Elijah. So, animals are very very pecial. Now for a lot of people they want to know if their pet is going to heaven. 

My own personal opinion is that I actually believe that pets can go to heaven.   I never really thought of it that deeply, but when you’ve been working with a pet and you’ve taken care of them and they’ve been your friend. And you see them every day and you do things with them. The thing about Leo was that he was bilingual. We spoke two languages. We spoke in Finnish, and we spoke in English. 

Every day I used to cut very fine apple for him because he wasn’t well and I’d say Leo,

“Where could the apple be? Where could it be?  He got really excited, and he would run around looking for it. He just he just ebbed with intelligence. 

But the main question today is: 

Is Leo in heaven?

Is there a possibility that Leo is in heaven?

Is there a possibility he’s going to be here after the resurrection at the end times? 

My conclusion is actually yes. 

I actually believe that animals, pets, especially, Comeback. It’s actually an indirect route in Scripture But I think that it’s a very interesting route. 

The first place I would probably start is before the Fall. One group God created the heavens and the earth We saw that.   When he created each part, he’d said that it was ‘good’. It was good. It was good so from God’s perspective when he created everything, it was good. It wasn’t bad. And I think that it’s important to start here even after the Fall. The world still gives us our food. It rains for us. 

You know, lots of good things come to us from the earth. So, it’s still good within some Christian traditions. It seems to be a little bit gnostic. 

What I mean is that when it comes to the material world, there’s a negativity about the material world that that it’s somehow bad. Just because there was a fall Doesn’t mean that everything is bad, they’re still good there. 

Now it is the case that. The main the main people Group that are going to find this salvic salvation or are believers who believe in Jesus Christ Where does that leave the theater? 

The theater that where we live the theater is our world. We’re on the stage and each of us has to play a part. I got some information from Herman Bavinck in his volume four of the reformed.  In there, after we’ve had our salvation, and that work is concluded. 

Even the world itself, the universe itself. Will be renewed. The world itself is going to be ‘born again’. 

It’s going to be regenerated. It’s going to be renewed. if the world is going to be regenerated and renewed, what does that actually mean? 

What a boring place it would be if there weren’t any animals. You know after the eschaton and we’ve gone to be to live with the Lord. My main drive really now is to go through that section of a Bavincks writings And to think about how creation is going to be re renewed. 

Obviously, it doesn’t directly say that Leo is going to be in heaven but if the whole world is regenerated.

Anyhow, the main thrust now is going to be to go through that section, and you might find you don’t have to read the whole section, but I just need to dig deep into what he actually says. 

I’m going to look at the verses a lot more closely than usual. The reason I’m going to look a lot more closely is because I want an answer to my question. Is Leo going to be with us in the resurrection? 

And that that to me is an important question. And I think that there are lots of people who’ve been thinking about other pets going to heaven. I have to say that the church doesn’t want to give any sort of answer to that sort of question for me it’s a very, very important question. 

My pet rabbit or our pet rabbit has brought me to the conclusion that animals have got lots of love and empathy and they’ve got a lot of feeling power. They have soft logic, but they also show filial love and devotion to their masters (good masters). 

Humans have hard logic. That’s why in a sense that we were created the image of God. The reason why this world ended up in a mess is because of the fall because of sin; Because we’re selfish, we put ourselves first, but it was never meant to be that way. 

Leo and the New Creation

In the end of time what will happen to this world and all the creature in it?

There are two extreme views:

  • The world will carry on the way it has forever
  • The world will be completely destroyed and replaced by a new one.

Scripture rejects both these views and is somewhere in the middle. 

  • The first view builds on the work of Aristotle into the present age.
  • The second view presumes that there is nothing worth salvaging in this world.

Both these conclusions are wrong, and we need to follow through what Scripture says.  The argumentation that I will be using is found in the Reformed Dogmatics volume 4 written by Herman Bavinck.

At the Eschaton of the Day of Judgement, Scripture is very graphic and there will be perishing but not complete dissolution of the elements.  This second part we will touch on later but not yet. Let us consider some verses:

20 To hear the groaning of the prisoner,

To set free those who were doomed to death, Psalms 102:20

—

4 And all the host of heaven will wear away,

And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll;

All their hosts will also wither away

As a leaf withers from the vine,

Or as one withers from the fig tree. Isaiah 34:4

—

6 “Lift up your eyes to the sky,

Then look to the earth beneath;

For the sky will vanish like smoke,

And the earth will wear out like a garment

And its inhabitants will die in like manner;

But My salvation will be forever,

And My righteousness will not wane.

7 “Listen to Me, you who know righteousness,

A people in whose heart is My law;

Do not fear the reproach of man,

Nor be dismayed at their revilings.

8 “For the moth will eat them like a garment,

And the grub will eat them like wool.

But My righteousness will be forever,

And My salvation to all generations.”

9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD;

Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago.

Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces,

Who pierced the dragon?

10 Was it not You who dried up the sea,

The waters of the great deep;

Who made the depths of the sea a pathway

For the redeemed to cross over?

11 So the ransomed of the LORD will return

And come with joyful shouting to Zion,

And everlasting joy will be on their heads.

They will obtain gladness and joy,

And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

12 “I, even I, am He who comforts you.

Who are you that you are afraid of man who dies

And of the son of man who is made like grass,

13 That you have forgotten the LORD your Maker,

Who stretched out the heavens

And laid the foundations of the earth,

That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor,

As he makes ready to destroy?

But where is the fury of the oppressor?

14 The exile will soon be set free, and will not die in the dungeon, nor will his bread be lacking. 15 For I am the LORD your God, who stirs up the sea and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name). 16 I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’” Isaiah 51:6-16

—

17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;

And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

18 “But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;

For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing

And her people for gladness.

19 “I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people;

And there will no longer be heard in her

The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.

20 “No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,

Or an old man who does not live out his days;

For the youth will die at the age of one hundred

And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred

Will be thought accursed.

21 “They will build houses and inhabit them;

They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

22 “They will not build and another inhabit,

They will not plant and another eat;

For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people,

And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.

23 “They will not labor in vain,

Or bear children for calamity;

For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD,

And their descendants with them.

24 It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. 25 The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the LORD. Isaiah 65:17-25

—

22 “For just as the new heavens and the new earth

Which I make will endure before Me,” declares the LORD,

“So your offspring and your name will endure.

23 “And it shall be from new moon to new moon

And from sabbath to sabbath,

All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the LORD.

24 “Then they will go forth and look

On the corpses of the men

Who have transgressed against Me.

For their worm will not die

And their fire will not be quenched;

And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” Isaiah 66:22-24

—

Bavinck makes the point that ‘abad’ (to perish) when used on its own never means an absolute destruction of the substance of the world.  Indeed, when it comes to the judgement of God Hell does not only mean being separated from their creator but that they will live with this ‘ever conscious torment’.  The soul and spirit are not destroyed. 

He then looks at the word ‘create’ (bara).  He makes the point that it does not always mean ‘God creating from nothing’ (ex nihilo).   Bavinck then gives us a set of single verses:

17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;

And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. Isaiah 65:17

—

20 You have seen many things, but you do not observe them;

Your ears are open, but none hears. Isaiah 42:20

—

7 Everyone who is called by My name,

And whom I have created for My glory,

Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.” Isaiah 43:7

—

16 “Behold, I Myself have created the smith who blows the fire of coals

And brings out a weapon for its work;

And I have created the destroyer to ruin. Isaiah 54:16

—

18 “I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;

I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,

19 Creating the praise of the lips.

Peace, peace to him who is far and to him who is near,” Isaiah 57:18-19

Activity for the above verses

Perhaps you should find every reference ‘to create’ in the above verses and see how they are used.  In the verb ‘create’ one can see ‘create’ is used in other contexts that do not have ex nihilo (out of nothing) as the driver of the verb.

Reflection

I find it interesting that he chose the Hebrew verbs ‘to create’ and ‘to perish’.

We found out that God does not always create out of nothing.

We also found out that when God Judges and works in the affairs of humans it never means the complete annihilation of substance but rather ‘purification’.

The master Theologian continues to explain that even when the world of Noah was destroyed by water, it was the corruption in the world.  In the same way when we look at the destruction of the world by fire it is a purification, and we are created new, but we haven’t lost our soul, but it has been transformed through a resurrection body.  Corruption needs to put on incorruption.  We as the human race needed to be purified first and through repentance and faith we are continually being purified by the Holy Spirit. 

According to Bavinck ‘the physical world’ will also be born again ‘regenerated’.  Through the death and resurrection of Christ in the end even the physical theatre in which we live in will be born again.

So, Bavinck wrote:

“For that reason, it also frequently alternates with planting, laying the foundations of, and making (Isa. 51:16; 66:22). The Lord can say (Isa. 51:16) that he begins the new creation by putting his word in Israel’s mouth and hiding them in the shadow of his hand.

In the same way, the New Testament proclaims that heaven and earth will pass away (Matt. 5:18; 24:35; 2 Pet. 3:10; 1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1), that they will perish and wear out like clothing (Heb. 1:11), dissolve (2 Pet. 3:10), be burned with tire (3:10), and be changed (Heb. 1:12). But none of these expressions implies a destruction of substance. Peter, for example, expressly teaches that the old earth, which originated as a result of the separation of waters, was deluged with water and so perished (2 Pet. 3:6), and that the present world would also perish, not-thanks to the divine promise—by water but by fire. Accordingly, with reference to the passing of the present world, we must no more think of a destruction of substance than (we would) with regard to the passing of the earlier world in the food. Fire burns, cleanses, purifies, but does not destroy. The contrast in 1 John 2:17 (“the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live forever”) teaches us that the first statement does not imply a destruction of the substance of the world but a vanishing of the world in its present, sin-damaged form. Paul, accordingly, also states very clearly that the present form (to oxnua, to schema) of this world passes away (1 Cor. 7:31). Only such a renewal of the world, for that matter, accords with what Scripture teaches about redemption. For the latter is never a second, brand-new creation but a re-creation of the existing world. God’s honour consists precisely in the fact that he redeems and renews the same humanity, the same world, the same heaven, and the same earth that have been corrupted and polluted by sin. Just as anyone in Christ is a new creation in whom the old has passed away and everything has become new (2 Cor. 5:17), so also this world passes away in its present form as well, in order out of its womb, at God’s word of power, to give birth and being to a new world. Just as in the case of an individual human being, so at the end of time a rebirth of the world will take place as well (Matt. 19:28). This constitutes a spiritual renewal, not a physical creation.”  (From Reformed Dogmatics; Herman Bavinck; page 717; Translated by John Vriend; edited by John Bolt.)

In Christ God became a man and he died for us so that we might live.  This was a physical death, but he also had a physical resurrection.  When Jesus returns, it is a physical return.  Our election proceeds from the ‘the first born of the elect’.  Our election is ‘in Christ’ as Ephesians puts it.  As Karl Barth would put it ‘the Judge (God) was judged (God was judged) in our place’.  It so follows that Jesus is the true ‘image of God’.

The great reversal is taking place in human history.  When God created the earth, it was perfect.  Sin came into the world through the agency of Adam and Eve. However, God being rich in mercy and loving his ‘own creation’ came into this world to make things right.  Humans can be born again “regenerated” but in the end creation itself will also be purified and made perfect again. 

My own opinion

When God had created nature which included plants, animals, and humans he said that ‘it was good’.  This to me is a baseline for salvation.  God didn’t say that creation was bad, no he said it was good.  Recently our pet rabbit died and yes, I believe he has a soul:

“Every living thing has a soul, but humanity is special because God breathed into Him

10 In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? “Job 12:10

Animals can show filial devotion to their masters.  Archaeologists all over the world have found animals buried with their masters throughout human history.  I know why that is.  The masters and their pets had a true bond of love and affection.

With these evidences, I believe I will see our pet rabbit again.  

Creation groans for the end times when it will be born again even as we as believers can be born again by the Father sending his son and the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Posted in Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries