bible | Weaver1has's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘bible’

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?

Tags:epistemology, bible, christianity, faith, theology, knowledge, enlightenment, philosophy
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!

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:

The way ‘gospel’ was used in the Old Testament
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.

Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

April 26, 2024

Tags:bible, christianity, God, jesus, major religions, scientific discovery, theology
Posted in theology, Turkish Theology | Comments Off on Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

‘I Believe That I May Understand’, How to Think Theologically

April 21, 2024

The picture on the left was taken from a wiki. It is a representation of a risen Christ. If there is a difference between Protestants and Catholics the cross is one of them. The Roman Catholic Church uses Christ on the cross and a lot of Protestants prefer an empty cross. One puts more emphasis on the Atoning work of Christ and the other puts more emphasis on the ‘resurrection of Christ’. Both images are necessary. Last Week I put a picture of John Henry Newman on my blog and I think I may have offended some readers. I’m sorry if this is how you felt. With anything we need to be grown ups about this and sometimes I may walk a route of the history of Christianity or even of religions. This blog is for everyone no matter what they believe. Just to be clearer the next paragraph explains my stand point on certain points of faith.

Before I continue, I want to begin by saying I am convinced that Adam and Eve were literal people. The reason for this position is very simple. Our Lord Jesus did not see Adam and eve any other way. Our Lord did not say that ‘Adam was generic’ therefore the fall is still seen as the Fall and hence go down a theistic evolutionary road. No, I reject that road because for me it is not helpful and goes against our Apostolic deposit, that Scripture is Holy given to us through the agency of the Holy Spirit. My proposition and presupposition have to stem from the gift of faith. As Anselm said somewhere ‘I believe that I may understand’. I start from the presupposition of worship in our Holy Trinitarian God.

This does not mean that this position is against rationality. It is not irrationality, but it is being human. We are not machines who just churn out answers at the press of a button. On the contrary from the position of faith and by the Holy Spirit we can start to try to work out how to fix this broken world because of sin. So then this brings me to the point that sometimes I may touch on scholars who do not agree with my or your point of view. By studying those we agree with and don’t agree with we are like that proverb:

As iron sharpens iron,
So one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)

Thus, Professor Gunton is not Herman Bavinck. In their teachings, one scholar may be seen as sour cheese to you and the other a very tasty delicacy. No matter which way we jump another proverb and I don’t know where I picked it up from:

‘You eat the meat and spit the bones out’

The ‘meat’ is the Word of God and the ‘bones’ are the left overs that not much good for anything.

Theology is about the study of God. Unfortunately, a lot of people are afraid to think about the Divine. There can be many reasons for this. Many Systematic theologies no matter what tradition tend to be prescriptive, and the thinking is done for them. As a believer in the faith there are some prerequisites. It is interesting that Karl Barth, when he wrote a very thin book called Dogmatics in outline it follows the Apostolic Creed, and he explains it. His real Dogmatics which was not completed also had a structure. The doctrines of the Christian faith have a natural structure thus they are not that difficult to follow.

Why am I saying these things. The truth is that I want you the reader to grow closer and closer to Christ in your faith. If you are an atheist who reads my blogs, then I pray for you because your soul is on the line. It maybe that a person is convinced that they are only made up of chemicals (star dust). If this is the case, then one is living in the 17^th and 18^th centuries in which reality was seen as clockwork and the human becomes insignificant in the name of progress. The 19^th century is more interesting because the whole movement of the Romantics was a reaction to this. People have imagination, they can think, feel, love, laugh, cry et al. People are more than machines. Whether you believe in God or not from the religious perspective, according to the book of Genesis, you have been created in the image of God.

Do you love God? Do you love your Bible? This is great if you do but unfortunately not everyone’s motives are pure who preach. As a believer you need to know why you believe in Jesus and why Christ is the foundation by the Holy Spirit. For myself I have a presupposition.

Christ of St John of the Cross, Dali, Salvador 1904

I believe and I want to know more about my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who died for me through his atoning work on the Cross. I believe in his resurrection and one day my hope is that I will meet my Lord again in the eschaton. Not all preachers and teachers of the Bible follow this. Many have crept into the various Churches around the world and corrupted them for self-gain. Holiness has gone through the window and utilitarianism has taken its place. I’m sure if John Calvin or Martin Luther came back to our time and place, they would be very angry and heartbroken. What looks like faith on the surface is actually corruption, evil and sin in God’s eyes.

This is why you need to think theologically yourselves by getting on your knees praying for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit so that you soul is not led away by the bright lights of sin and darkness, ‘having the wool pulled over your eyes’. In the real world I am sure that someone has probably stolen from you or pretended to be a friend but was actually a con artist. However, the con-artist needs salvation as much as anyone else no matter how low they have fallen.

I’m one of the lucky ones, If I can use that term loosely. I can read Greek and Hebrew at a very basic level to function. I have had a theological and master’s degree from a renowned college. I have read Karl Barth under Colin Gunton one of the great experts on Karl Barth. I have many smaller writings of John Owen; I have read Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and some of Saint Augustine. I now have the whole batch of Reformed dogmatics by Herman Bavinck… so on. But I am saying to you now, that as a Christian you are already doing theology. It maybe that you don’t like the word theology because it gives you the creeps.

As I said I am going though the book of Colin Gunton on learning to do theology through the theologians. It may be that as soon as I mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge that you switched off because he was a poet and got hooked on opium and was not a model parent and husband. Those things are actually true and yes, he became a great poet and then trashed his life. To tell you the truth this happens all the time in our news. Coleridge was however special in some ways. He knew he did wrong; he was sorry and later on in his life, he believed in the Trinity and confessed Jesus as his Lord, and he even had Martin Luther’s table talk by his bedside. He wasn’t trained as a theologian, but he questioned and read everything. A lot of the questions he had during his life have become common questions. For example, ‘free will’, various schools of thought have different explanations of this. In this blog I am not trying to win an argument, but I am attempting to offer you a way of thinking that allows you to keep your faith and at the same time to engage in discussions about your faith that you have just taken for granted. True Godly education takes a lifetime and into the beyond and even in the New Jerusalem our awe of God will get deeper and deeper as we meditate on what the Lamb of God did for us. We will see and feel even more indebted for the sacrifice God made for us so that we could be brought into the love of God by the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. So then never judge a book by its cover but by the contents in that book. Do not judge Coleridge on the beginning of his life but by the end of his life. No one is perfect and we have to be humble enough to learn even from the imperfect perfect things.

I can see why the late Gunton found Coleridge interesting. The enlightenment made people into mere machines, and this needed a push to get our humanity back. This is what Romanticism attempted to do. Coleridge went back to Martin Luther, back to the state of the will, back to the fall, back to the Atonement which was a reversal of Schleiermacher ever stood for and back to the Trinity. Even though Coleridge made a lot of mistakes a long the way, he came to understand that Christ is the Way, The Truth and the Life.

Some of these things I should have said at the start of this blog, but the truth is that as I write these blogs I have to study and go deeper myself. Then as a good teacher I still need to break these things down so that teenagers and adults can understand.

Reflection

Which theologians do you look up to as good examples? 😊 My heroes are Irenaeus, Augustine, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Herman Bavinck et al. You may also have a list of ones you don’t agree with Schleiermacher, Oregon, Pannenberg. Hmm I’m just having a bit of fun here, but I still hope you get the idea. I’m not so sure I agree with everything Gunton says such as that a lot of ills in our society stem from Augustine. This is quite a charge, and I haven’t made my mind up yet. So, I have done a lot of Biblical exegesis over these few years, and this gives me a change. Theology does not need to be ‘a stick in the mud’ on the contrary by engaging with these theologians no matter what your predisposition is, we can learn how to think about deeper spiritual issues and in the long term become more like Christ.

Tags:Atonement, bible, christianity, cross, faith, Gunton, jesus, Karl Barth, resurrection, theology
Posted in theology | Leave a Comment »

What is the Nature of Dogmatic or Systematic Theology? Looking at Augustine and J H Newman

April 13, 2024

Before I start talking about theology I just wanted to share with you a collage of the birds from our garden over Winter time. It is very difficult for some birds to survive the winter. They don’t fly South and they don’t collect stocks in the Winter time. When there is no deposit of food in the Winter and with the deep snow we feel it is important to give bird food.

How do we understand the nature of dogmatic theology?

From the point of view of the Fall we all make mistakes and we all sin. This is especially true for theologians through the centuries. Although we need to be empathetic to theologians, we also need to be critical because the Church at times has needed to be protected from false teachings. In the wake of a defense for the Gospel inadvertently theologians have made mistakes that have influenced the very foundations of society. So then in writing this Weeks blog I found it quite deep so because of this I am writing a simpler version of that blog for the non specialist.

Sometimes I imagine that I am a cowboy in the Wild West of the United States in some small town of no significance. I go to the bank and I put into the bank a 100$, £ or euros. I have deposited a 100 Euros into that bank and I want it to stay safe. Lo and behold the next day some robbers come, kill the sherif and plunder my deposit!

I have lost my hundred euros and the thieves go to the saloon, spend my money on women, food and alcohol. Not a pretty story but you now understand what a deposit is. A deposit is a thing of value which needs to be protected. In the same way the Church also talks about a ‘deposit of faith’. The deposit is what was passed down to the Church in the Apostolic teachings and their lives by the Holy Spirit. Various Churches see the deposit in different ways. Some think it is just the Bible such as Luther. Others see the ‘Apostolic Tradition’ as part of this deposit. I am not here to argue which is correct or not, I simply wanted to explain what it is.

Now in today’s lesson Gunton talks about St Augustine and J H Newman. We have all heard of Augustine, but Newman was a Roman Catholic theologian with Anglican roots coming from the 19^th century. Augustine Lived in the 4^th century and Newman lived in the 19^th century.

Augustine had a problem as sometimes he could lose arguments with his adversaries the Manichaeans, so he devised a way of keeping the Manicheans in their place. When Augustine would probably lose an argument, he would call on the authority of the Church to keep the adversaries in their place. He could do this because Augustine’s Deposit of the truth had Scripture and the Apostolic tradition so he could do this. The problem of this way of winning arguments would haunt the church in the future and the reality is that calling on authority isn’t needed if you are confident in the One you have believed in.

In theology balance is very important and how you tell the truth. In Newman’s day the Reformation and the Enlightenment had already taken place and there were a host of movements of ideas. Locke for example had reason and revelation as concepts. The problem was that in his view revelation as knowledge should always be in subject to reason. This reason was known as Rationalism and the idea was to base the whole of human knowledge on reason. Reason became mechanized and the human beings faith was not very high on the agenda. Explaining miracles away and seeing things in purely naturalistic ways had the effect of writing God our of human experience. This was a very serious situation.

Newman was concerned about this, and he argued very strongly that we are not like robots, but genuine human beings and all knowledge cannot be compartmentalized this way. We also have personal knowledge, and it may not be perfect knowledge, but it is still knowledge. Newman unfortunately moved on parallel lines with Augustine. Perhaps if he looked a little more closely at Coleridge who by then was an orthodox Anglican a better way of explaining the Gospel could have happened. Newman missed this opportunity even though his ideas were a hundred years in advance of the Roman Catholic Church. A lot of the questions Newman came up with and the importance of the Bible were discussed in the 2^nd Vatican council in the 1960s.

Reflection

What can we learn from this. When doing systematic or Dogmatic theology we need to consider the ‘Deposit of Faith’ and what it contains. Whether it is Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin, every theologian needs to take this into account. Some theolgians have been naughty such as Pannenberg and his use of Hegel for thesis, antithesis and synthesis or Aquinas’ use of Aristotle who was a pagan. This is my view. What do you think.

This first reading has now ended. This is my easy version of what I think Gunton wanted to say about Augustine and Newman. You do not need to read the next section unless you are up for a challenge. Thanks for reading this far.

John Henry Newman and Augustine on the use of authority

When thinking about the Apostolic deposit in relation to the Church and tradition where is it found?

Please make sure that you understand the following concepts before reading further.

Dictionary Key words

Dialectic = through the use of speech attempting to get closer to the truth.Organic = used as a metaphor to explain some spiritual truth

Doctrine = teaching for example, ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ means ‘teachings concerning the Trinity’

Deposit of faith = the original Apostolic teachings given to the Christian church. This can be expanded in some churches to include the original traditions or reduced just to the teachings of the Bible. There is debate here between Protestans and Catholics.

Dogma, dogmatic= teaching

Introduction

As I said last Week, we are going through Gunton’s book on learning about theology through the theologians. It looks like an easy task, but it is not. It requires some spade work sometimes:

J H Newman and his Theory of Doctrinal Development
Professor Gunton’s critique of Newman on the Apostolic Deposit of Faith and if the balance is correct.

John Henry Newman part 1

“John Henry Newman CO (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890) was an English theologian, academic, philosopher, historian, writer, and poet, first as an Anglican priest and later as a Catholic priest and cardinal, who was an important and controversial figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s,[11] and was canonised as a saint in the Catholic Church in 2019.” (Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman)

Dr James Merrick on the Theory of Doctrinal Development by J h Newman

Before looking at Guntons appraisal of J H Newman on this subject I felt it necessary to look at Newman’s teachings on this. I think James Merick has done a lot of the spadework so I will at what he has to say about it.

Merrick writes:”This task prompted him to write An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. In this essay he described the growth of doctrine as organic, like the growth of an acorn into a tree. An example of doctrinal development is the Scriptural depictions of Mary as the New Eve and Ark of the Covenant. This title required her holiness and moral purity, developing to the point that the Magisterium defined the dogma of her immaculate conception in 1854.

This process of doctrinal development had discernible characteristics one can use as criteria to distinguish development from corruption. However, as he worked through this task, Newman found that “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” (Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, 8). He became a Catholic in 1845. His study led him to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the only contemporary church that retained and faithfully developed the doctrines of his beloved early church.” Taken from media.ascensionpress.com/2019/10/18/st-john-henry-newman-and-his-critique-of-modern-ideas/

Evaluation

So, then Newman saw doctrine growing like a tree. Doctrine is seen as ‘organic’ from a seed you can get a tree. Merrick goes on to use an example:

“…development is the Scriptural depictions of Mary as the New Eve and Ark of the Covenant. This title required her holiness and moral purity, developing to the point that the Magisterium defined the dogma of her immaculate conception in 1854. (from ibid)”

In the second paragraph as Newman looked at the history of the Church, it brought him to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was the true church as it is supposed to have stuck close to the deposit of the Apostolic faith.

Guntons Critique of John Henry Newman on the idea of the deposit of the Faith Part 2

In some ways J H Newman was a hundred years ahead of his time but in other ways he wasn’t able to break free from authoritarianism which he possibly inherited from St Augustine somehow. For Gunton’s critique, he starts with Augustine’s ‘… unique combination of rationalism and authoritarianism.’ (Page 19) Augustines meeting with Manichaeism,… his confidence was shaken that the rationality of Christian truth needed some type of compensational tendency… Falling back on ecclesiastical authority thus Harnack wrote,”… the thousand doubts (Augustine’s doubts) excited by theology, and especially Christology , could only be allayed by the Church… The Church guaranteed the truth of the Faith, where the individual could not perceive it… Openly he proclaimed it: I believe in many articles of the Church’s authority; nay, I believe in the Gospel itself merely on the same ground.”( From page 19)

This is quite shocking what Augustine believed at this point. Authority comes Trinitarianly by the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. Here though authority has been invested in a formal Church. Gunton says that this problem in Augustine runs parallel with Newman when he says,”… That the Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic religion”(From page 20).

Gunton goes on to say about Augustine that, “The dialectic of faith and reason of trust in authority that drove how Augustine had reasoned also became the pattern for Westen Theology upto the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment.” (From page 20) The enlightenment didn’t help things either. Reason and revelation with lock became a problem in that revelation was made subordinate to reason. Reason took the place of the authority of the Church. Gunton says that in this sort of situation Newman was right to repudiate this situation.

What this means is that the Church gave too much emphasis to ‘authority’ as a rationale. The Enlightenment smashed this rationale. The problem was that in thinking about the Apostolic deposit, too many eggs were put into the Authority of the Church and this was a mistake, the same mistake Augustine made has come to haunt the Church.

In fact Newman in his Grammar of Assent moved behind Locke and Martin Luther back to Augustine thus he regurgitated past mistakes from the 4^th century.

Thus there are three areas rationalism goes wrong:

‘Rationalism can be an abuse of Reason… its purposes were never intended and is unfitted..
The tendency to hold that unless everything is known then nothing can be
Thirdly rationalism’s tendency is to reduce religion to morality or utility

The first mistake is to think of knowledge as impersonal and scientific. People have their own personal knowledge and the problem of rationalism here is in a way to dehumanize human knowledge.

The second mistake is to see everything in terms of closed systems. Unless everything in known nothing can be known.

Thirdly by giving primacy to reason religion is de mythologized (the important elements of mystery in religion is taken away) (from pages 21 to 23)

Newman did well to critique these elements in society in the 19^th century and yes in these pages one will find elements that show Newman could have said a lot more. However, as I said earlier Newman did well to spot these movements in the 19^th century.

There were problems with with Newman’s position, but this can happen in any century. For me as well as the above I found it interesting that some of the problems could have been alleviated if faulty shared presuppositions with who he was debating with didn’t get in the way.

Gunton finishes of by saying that if Newman had took on board what Coleridge was saying (except when he was in Unitarianism and hooked on opium). As Coleridge could see things more wholistically this could have helped Newman. Coleridge finished his life as an orthodox Church of England theologian. These are some of the date between the lives of the two theologians:

Coleridge

Born 21 October 1772

Born John Henry Newman 21 February 1801

Died 25 July 1834 (aged 61)

Newman

Died 11 August 1890 (aged 89)

When Newman was born Coleridge would have been about 28 years old. Thus when Newman was 20 years old Coleridge would have been 58 years old and he died at 61 years of age. Thus at this stage it is a possibility that Newman knew about Coleridge’s more mature thinking.

Reflection

Theologians along with road sweepers, weavers, teachers, doctors et al. We all make mistakes and theologians make mistakes too. From the little that I did read, that the contents of the Apostolic Deposit should rest more on Scripture. Then on early Church Fathers and not to be too dependent on one or two theologians calling the shots. What I mean is Augustine and Aquinas as major repositories of truth at the expense of faith. This also goes for Protestant theologians who put too much emphases on certain individuals even if it is Luther and Calvin. I have the greatest respect for these theologians, but the Fall has affected every person. The main point I get from this that Dogmatic or systematic theologians need to be aware of these pitfalls so that they do not make the same mistakes of the past.

Tags:bible, christianity, faith, religion, theology
Posted in theology | Leave a Comment »

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:

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:

literary and artistic movement marked chiefly by an emphasis on the imagination and emotions.
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 19^th century. The picture of theology and history in general in some ways looked rather bleak. Everything in the 19^th 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:bible, christianity, church, God, moral beings, theology
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:

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 5^th 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:bible, christianity, faith, God, theology
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:

Our Lords intention
The disciples trust.
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:bible, faith, God, jesus, jesus-christ
Posted in Lent, Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Lent 3: The New Covenant and the Hope of Christ’s Second coming in Glory

March 2, 2024

The Lord’s Supper Instituted

This Weeks reading is about the First Holy Communion, the first Eucharistic meal instituted, For Roman Catholics the First Mass Instituted. Different Churches understand this in various ways, but this blog isn’t about finding fault or to try to put any other tradition down. I am only interested in saying that Christ loves his Church. He loved his Church so much that he died for us and through his resurrection by faith we too can have eternal life and the forgiveness of our sins. Our Lord in the Christmas story was born by humble means, and this was the beginning of all the things he would do in His Incarnation. Then at the Easter story in the closing scene of the Incarnation, he paid our dept to God the Father so that we could in Christ come boldly before the throne of Grace. Within the story of the Last Supper, we also have a glimpse of the future when Christ will come back as the king of Kings:

The scene in the book of Revelations show Christ as the king of Glory. Christ in Matthew 26:28 is speaking about this day:

How Jesus as King is described in Revelations

¹² Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; ¹³ and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. ¹⁴ His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. ¹⁵ His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. ¹⁶ In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.

Our lord Jesus, The Son of God shows John the Apostle His power over everything:

¹⁷ When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, ¹⁸ and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. ¹⁹ Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. ²⁰ As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Revelation 1:12-20

From our point of view Holy Communion points to that great day of hope. As finite beings we have an infinite future in Christ. John the Apostle however is taken into Heaven itself and he sees this beautiful picture of Christ out Lord.

Let us now look at what Matthew 26. 26-28 teaches us

²⁶ While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Matthew 26:26

My translation would be:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread and having blessed it, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Matthew 26:26

I am not using ‘some’ because it only became ‘some’ when our Lord broke it. As believers we all belong to the same loaf, the same Church. The Lord commanded by saying ‘Take eat!’. In the Greek both ‘take’ and ‘eat’ are in the imperative mood. It is a command. I would assume because this is a Passover meal that the bread would be broken rather than torn. Unleavened bread is brittle therefore it would be broken. The text does not say Jesus tore some bread and gave it. In the original story of the Passover the people were in a rush hence they took it within the range of fastest cooking. When we also read this story of the Passion of Christ things happened very rapidly. The betrayal happened, the Apostles were going to be scattered, Christ was going to be killed. The events are speeding up. Yet this Passover meal was given the fulfillment of the meaning. The Church has seen this story as Christ being the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb. The book of Hebrews spells this out.

Verse 27

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; ²⁸ for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:28

So, on the eve of our Lord’s sacrifice, Christ gives us the second part of this institution. In the original context of the Passover, God’s people painted blood on the door of their houses so that the Angel of Death would Passover the house, so that no harm would befall that particular house. This Exodus was prophetically pointing to the Christ, the Lamb of God who takes the sins of the world away. When God the Father sees his Son’s blood, the Angel of Death would Passover us and we would not see this spiritual death of being separated from God for all eternity.

Here in verse 27 Christ gives a command ‘Drink it’. Christ the who came as a servant will not drink this again before he comes again in the End Times (the Eschaton). However the next time he comes, he will not come as a servant or slave but as the King of Kings. In his second coming every knee will bow to him willingly or unwillingly such as we find in the book of Revelations.

Verse 28

In verse 28 we can see the details of what this cup actually means. As I already said this cup which reminds us of the shedding of Christ’s blood is a reminder that the second and greater covenant is for the forgiveness of sins.

This is then the last time that our Lord would drink this cup of wine on earth as a servant. Next time Our Lord drinks this cup will be as the King of Kings, The Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Verse 29

²⁹ But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:29

Reflection

Christ loved us so much that he came from heaven to save us. By the gift of faith and with our promised Helper the Third Persons of the Holy Trinity a way has been made for the Church by which we can enter heaven itself by Christ as an eternal gift to God the Father. Forever sharing in the love of the Eternal Trinity. It is a mystery and I do not understand all the details but this is our hope and inheritance in Christ Jesus through faith and obedience. So then let us bow our knee and hearts to Christ who is the author and perfecter of our faith. Let us follow his example of obedience which we learned in his Incarnation and let us wipe our tears of sorrow away in the expectation of His second coming. Glory and Honour belongs to the Trinity from Generation to generation amen:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

who, although He existed in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant,

and being made in the likeness of men.

Being found in appearance as a man,

He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,

even death on a cross.

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him

the name which is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW,

of those who are in heaven

and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11

Notes

Verse 26

‘While they were eating’ (present active participle )

‘Jesus’ (Our Lord with his name in the Greek has a nominative definite article)

He took (2^nd aorist participle masculine singular)

After is not in the Greek

Blessed has been used for ‘Having given thanks ’ (Verb, Aorist, Active, Participle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine ) But that is in the Textus reseptus A K W Γ Δ Matthew 26:26

Blessed εὐλογέω (aor act ptcp nom sg masc) Blessed has stronger witnesses txt 𝔓45 א‎ B C D L Z Θ Matthew 26:26

For ‘having given thanks Alexandrinus is 5^th century’ and then later centuries

For ‘having blessed ’ P45 is 3^rd century then 4^th century, 5^th century and so on.

Tags:bible, christianity, communion, faith, God, jesus, passover, religion
Posted in Lent | Leave a Comment »

Lent 2: By the gift of faith reciprocating our Love towards God in a Fallen and at Times an Ugly, Greedy, Selfish World; Matthew 26. 14-26

February 23, 2024

Last Week we looked at the woman who anointed Jesus for burial. We learned that as a general rule of thumb all the Apostles and perhaps Judas the betrayer may have been oblivious of Jesus arrest, trial and crucifixion. Judas however we learned was the money man and he was a bit of a rat in the sense that he would use dark means to achieve it. He not only betrayed our Lord but he also betrayed the rest of the disciples. They ate, drank, slept at the master feet for three years. The Apostles and our Lord became a ‘family’ and they looked out for each others needs. The Apostles really felt this betrayal and it is no wonder that the Gospels paint this negative picture of him as the son of perdition. Lets read the text and quickly look at it:

Judas’ Bargain

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

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

¹⁷Now 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?” ¹⁸And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am keeping the Passover at your house with My disciples.”’” ¹⁹The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.

The Last Passover

²⁰Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve. ²¹And as they were eating, He said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me.” ²²Being deeply grieved, they began saying to Him, each one: “Surely it is not I, Lord?” ²³And He answered, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me. ²⁴The Son of Man is going away just as it is written about Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” ²⁵And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself.”

Verses 14-16

In these verse the heart and soul of Judas is laid out:

“What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?”

We can see here that our Lord carried a large sum on its head and Judas being a crooked businessman was out to claim his reward. Judas decided to be a rat in the rat race to make some serious money.

They offered him 30 pieces of silver. In those days what could you buy for 30 silver pieces?

30 pieces of silver was about 4 months wages. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_pieces_of_silver)

I don’t think Judas would steep so low as to want our Lords death even though he was a crook as it says retrospectively in Matthew 27:

³Then 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,

Judas was remorseful, he regretted what he did. He crossed the line even for his own personal ethics. It was enough for him to take the money back to the elders and then he killed himself. He committed suicide.

Verses 20 – 25

Judas after playing this dirty greedy trick continued with the pretense that he was a devout disciple of our Lord. He was sitting there with all the other disciples at the Passover meal that was going to have a new meaning. All the disciples were deeply grieved except Judas. In that upper room the disciples were searching their hearts. Judas asked the same question:

Judas: “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?”

Jesus: “You have said it yourself.”

This is on the eve of our Lords crucifixion and our Lord and the Apostles high point of the Jewish calendar. As Jews they were remembering the Jewish nation being saved from Pharaoh. They became slaves in Egypt and this story is how the Lord God had rescued them from slavery. Here now though in this story there is new meaning to it. The Messiah (The saviour of Israel and the world) was going to be the sacrifice to turn God’s wrath away from us so that we could could come into God’s presence as children of God. As the blood at the time of Egypt was splattered on the lintels of every Jewish home so would the blood of Christ be shed at Calvary so forgiveness would be possible between God and Man. This night the most important night was when our Lord told us how we ought to remember him and thus the institution of Holy Communion was established.

This then is the Passover meal for Christians and the highlight of the three years of our Lord with the Apostles. Satan had already entered into Judas Iscariot. Even Judas hasn’t any excuse because in those three years he heard our lord talk about the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Judas allowed his heart to fill up with greed for worldly pleasures. Judas’ heart was ripe for the picking and thus Satan entered Judas and our Lord was betrayed.

The other disciples were not perfect either but they still didn’t understand what was happening to them. Even though they also had their faults, they loved our Lord and although they ran away at the moment of the soldiers arresting our Lord… this is basic human fear for self-preservation. I believe they ran away because they were confused and didn’t fully grasp the enormity of this arrest.

This story for the Christian is of enormous importance and the Holy Spirit wants to show us the enormity of this situation. So what can we learn from this. I am going to sum things up in three points;

Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.
Guard your heart by taking on board the Lord’s teachings.
As a Christian Holy Communion demands of us to search our hearts and to be thankful

To him for the grace he has poured into us by the Holy Spirit to the glory of the father.

Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.

God loved us so much that he sent his Son into the world to die for us. From that point of view the Sacrament of Baptism is something we ought to remember on a day to day basis. Yes baptism always refers back to this event of events. The event that the Son of God paid the highest price for us. When we entered into the waters of chaos it represents that we are dying to our old selfish life and when we come out of the waters of chaos we no longer live for our selves but for Christ and in Christ and sharing in Our Lord’s resurrection. For example Romans 8, 1 cor. 15 et al. Although the Apostles at this moment were confused they soon wouldn’t be and by the Holy Spirit in Christ would change history and the final fate of the Roman Empire.

Judas however did not keep his eyes and devotion fixed on the Lord. On the contrary his greed led to his demise. Although he showed regret he did not show that he was sorry or repentant. Although he took his own life; we do not know why he took his own life. It may have been that he was sorry but it may also be that he was ‘found out’. He was a traitor within his community; rejected by the elders that did the dirty job of having our Lord murdered and rejected by the Apostles for his treachery. There was no other place for him to go. Judas built his own gallows always to be known as the son of perdition.

Judas was just an ordinary man but we ought to stop and think that in the right circumstances this could have been my fate or your fate. We only stand by grace.

Guard your hearts by taking on board our Lords teachings.

Our hearts and minds should forever be in the Gospels. Here for example in the Sermon on the mount Jesus lays out a plan for discipleship. The beatitudes are very very deep and if we pray before God with an open and honest heart in Christ by the Holy Spirit we will find full spiritual maturity. For example:

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

When we are brought to a place in which we realize that we cannot bring anything good to God through our own effort, only then can God start to work in us. God has done everything.

Even though we disobeyed and put our pride first:

God gave us life.
God gave his Prophets.
God gave his Son.
God gave us faith.
God gave us salvation.
God gave us love.
God made it possible in Christ to have an eternal relationship with the Trinity

We didn’t give anything back but from the gift of faith and grace.

We were able to:

Reciprocate Gods love through out gratitude
Love our neighbour
Love God
Joy
Friendship trust
Fellowship
Et al

Because of the gift of faith we show gratitude to God By

Loving our Trinitarian God
Loving our Neighbour
Loving his creation, animals, plants, rivers, the air we breathe et al.

Reflection

There are no perfect human beings except our Lord Jesus. Although he was perfect, humanity was guilty of crucifying the Lord of Eternity. Even at the Last Passover Christ was still pouring his love out on us. Jesus did not condemn Judas. Judas condemned himself by not seeing the ‘real riches’ that heaven had to offer. When we reflect on Lent it is important that gratitude flows out to Christ and to our brothers and sisters in the Church, and to the whole human race if it is possible.

Tags:betrayal, bible, christianity, jesus, judas
Posted in Easter, Lent | Leave a Comment »

Weaver1has's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘bible’

The Importance of Epistemology for Dogmatics or Systematics of Theology.

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

Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

‘I Believe That I May Understand’, How to Think Theologically

What is the Nature of Dogmatic or Systematic Theology? Looking at Augustine and J H Newman

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

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

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

Lent 3: The New Covenant and the Hope of Christ’s Second coming in Glory

Lent 2: By the gift of faith reciprocating our Love towards God in a Fallen and at Times an Ugly, Greedy, Selfish World; Matthew 26. 14-26

Categories

Tags

Year

Follow Blog via Email

Home

Bible Gateway’s Verse of the Day

Archives

Search

Posts Tagged ‘bible’

Subscribe to continue reading

Categories

Tags

Year

Follow Blog via Email

Home

Archives

Search