There’s this article here by Joey Pipa, where he argues against paedocommunion. Paedocommnion is the belief that any baptized person who is not under church discipline ought to be welcomed to the Lord’s Supper. There was another article by Robert Rayburn posted alongside this one, arguing for paedocommunion. Rayburn’s main point is that the denail of paedocommnunion results in practices that are “invisible” in the Bible (non-communicant membership, tying communion to age-based maturity levels, etc), and so, Rayburn thinks, ought to raise suspicion that “credo-communion” as currently practiced in the PCA may be misguided.
Rayburn’s article is a positive statement of his own and not a response to Pipa, so... I want to respond to Pipa myself.
Pipa offers two reasons why paedocommunion is wrong. First, he says, “it assumes a wrong view of the membership of our children in the covenant.” What is this wrong view? “It confuses membership in the covenant with the right and privilege of coming to the Lord’s table.” Pipa then draws a distinction between those who are “heirs of the promise” (baptized children) and those who are “heirs of salvation” (those regenerated by the Spirit). This creates, in effect, two categories of covenant member.
There are two main things I would say here.
1) This distinction of those “regenerated by the Spirit” from those who are merely “heirs of the promise” is a distinction that ultimately belongs to the judgment of God, and the only discernable evidence we can have that someone is not participating in the regeneration of the Spirit is a manifestly rebellious life. And the proper response to such a life from someone professing faith is church discipline which, if carried all the way through, means excommunication from the table. I simply see no warrant in Scripture for presuming against the regeneration (in Pipa’s sense of the word) of covenant children such that they are in principle barred from communion. If they are persisting in rebellion, excommunicate them formally. If they are not, they are part of the covenant people and that ought to be shown, which leads to the second point:
2) Pipa makes a disjunction between “membership in the covenant” and “the right and privilege of coming to the Lord’s table.” The problem with this disjunction is that the Lord’s table is itself constitutive of membership in the covenant people. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 says, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Notice the logic in v.17, we are one body because we all partake of the one bread. The covenant people are a real flesh and blood people, and their real and visible boundary is their shared covenant meal. It’s those who commune with Christ and with his people who belong to Christ and his people. Lack of eating together implies a lack of fellowship. Do we really mean to say that children who are marked as heirs of the promise and are (even in Pipa’s view) “legally” members of the covenant are not invited to fellowship with Christ simply because they can’t fully understand what’s going on? Well, adults can’t fully understand what’s going on either.
Pipa’s second argument against paedocommunion is that it “assumes a wrong view of the sacrament, namely that there is a blessing in the physical eating and drinking.” He goes on to say that sacraments benefit us in exactly the same way as preaching: the benefit is in the word, and is appropriated by faith. There is no benefit in any sacrament without faith.
I agree that without embracing them in faith, sacraments can only ultimately issue in judgment. But it does not follow that sacraments are simply teaching tools (as Pipa implies). I would argue that they are not really even teaching tools at all, except incidentally. They are signs, and a sign biblically is an act of God that attests to something. The Lord’s Supper is not there to teach us about the death of Christ, it’s there to seal and attest the death of Christ for us and to mark out the family of God. The Lord’s Supper proclaims the death of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:26). It isn’t a lecture, it’s a memorial meal that testifes to the blood of the covenant for us and announces to us and to the world that we are the body of Christ, because we are those who eat his flesh and drink his blood. And doing it “in remembrance” of Christ does not point first of all to a mental reflective act performed by the participants (which some actually use as a reason against mentally unsophisticated children partaking), but to the objective fact that the meal is a memorial of the death of Christ, just like a Christmas dinner is eaten “in remembrance” of his birth. Who wants to kick the kids out of Christmas dinner because they don’t sufficiently understand the Nativity story?
The question is not really whether a very young child receives a blessing by way of the physical act. The question is whether that child is to be counted as part of the family of God and invited and encouraged to act like one, by sharing in the sign of the people of God and embracing the testimony of that sign in faith. Are they counted as part of the people of God or not? Reformed Christians (and Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist) all answer yes and give the sign of this when it comes to baptism.
But what Pipa interestingly did not even mention is the main argument that I usually see against paedo-communion, which is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 about participants “examining” themselves and “discerning the body.” Maybe Pipa didn’t try to use this passage because he realizes that Paul is there admonishing people who are in sin, not setting a barb-wire fence around the table or setting a litmus test. Some of the Corinthians were getting drunk and despising the poor among them. That is, they were not walking worthy of the gospel and were failing to discern the body of Christ, which includes the poor equally with the rich. For the Corinthians to “examine” themselves would mean for them to prove themselves (that’s what the verb [dokimazo] actually means), to act in accordance with their profession. It isn’t an internal mental act that Paul is after here but a behavior. And likewise, to discern the body means to treat the body of Christ with love (not to understand Reformation-era arguments about transubstantiation, consubstantiation, the real presence, etc). Nothing Paul says here has anything to do with young children being somehow unqualified for communion with the people of God.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Monday, December 24, 2012
Mary A Trinitarian?
Christmas is about the incarnation, about the Word becoming flesh to dwell among us. But that's no excuse for exegetical mayhem! So I want to make a quick note about the angel's annunciation to Mary, which story we find in Luke 1:30-34.
"And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."
We tend to read this and see in the name "Son of the Most High" and "Son of God" a full-blown Trinitarian orthodoxy. The Angel is telling Mary that God incarnate, the second person of the Trinity, is going to be conceived in her. Well in hindsight, that is what is happening, but it isn't what the angel meant and it isn't what Mary understood. No one on earth at this point had conceived of anything like the Trinity. That aspect of who God is was not realized until at least Jesus' Upper Room discourse, perhaps not until well after Pentecost, and definitely not clearly articulated and defined until Nicaea in 325AD.
So what did the angel mean, and what did Mary understand? The text gives us two hints. Jesus' "sonship" is related to two things: 1) His inheritance of the throne of David, and 2) His conception owing to the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary.
I would suggest that at least in this passage, Jesus being the "Son" means not that he is the second person of the Trinity and God himself incarnate (though he is), but that he is the messianic king and that he is a new Adam - the inception of the new creation.
One of the main things that the title "Son of God" means, in Old Testament terms is, basically "king." That comes from II Samuel 7:14, where God covenants with David and with David's house, and says: "I will be to [your son] a father, and he shall be to me a son." So for the angel to announce that Mary's son would be the "Son of the Most High" and inherit the throne of his father David is simply a fulfillment and expansion of this promise, not a reference to the Trinity.
But second, Jesus is called the "Son of God" because it's by the power of the Holy Spirit that he is conceived, without an earthly father. Who else was created by the power of the Spirit, without an earthly father? Adam. And in fact the gospel of Luke itself goes on to refer to Adam in Jesus' genealogy as the "son of God" (Luke 3:38). Jesus is a new start for the human race. He is - as far as his humanity is concerned - a new creation by the Spirit, and so a new "Son of God."
To what extent if any Mary understood that she was literally the "God-bearer" we may never know. But that isn't what the angel's announcement is about.
"And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."
We tend to read this and see in the name "Son of the Most High" and "Son of God" a full-blown Trinitarian orthodoxy. The Angel is telling Mary that God incarnate, the second person of the Trinity, is going to be conceived in her. Well in hindsight, that is what is happening, but it isn't what the angel meant and it isn't what Mary understood. No one on earth at this point had conceived of anything like the Trinity. That aspect of who God is was not realized until at least Jesus' Upper Room discourse, perhaps not until well after Pentecost, and definitely not clearly articulated and defined until Nicaea in 325AD.
So what did the angel mean, and what did Mary understand? The text gives us two hints. Jesus' "sonship" is related to two things: 1) His inheritance of the throne of David, and 2) His conception owing to the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary.
I would suggest that at least in this passage, Jesus being the "Son" means not that he is the second person of the Trinity and God himself incarnate (though he is), but that he is the messianic king and that he is a new Adam - the inception of the new creation.
One of the main things that the title "Son of God" means, in Old Testament terms is, basically "king." That comes from II Samuel 7:14, where God covenants with David and with David's house, and says: "I will be to [your son] a father, and he shall be to me a son." So for the angel to announce that Mary's son would be the "Son of the Most High" and inherit the throne of his father David is simply a fulfillment and expansion of this promise, not a reference to the Trinity.
But second, Jesus is called the "Son of God" because it's by the power of the Holy Spirit that he is conceived, without an earthly father. Who else was created by the power of the Spirit, without an earthly father? Adam. And in fact the gospel of Luke itself goes on to refer to Adam in Jesus' genealogy as the "son of God" (Luke 3:38). Jesus is a new start for the human race. He is - as far as his humanity is concerned - a new creation by the Spirit, and so a new "Son of God."
To what extent if any Mary understood that she was literally the "God-bearer" we may never know. But that isn't what the angel's announcement is about.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The Great Commission for who?
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has a seven-point statement that they call "Essentials of our Faith." According to their own explanation this is "is an irenic statement of historic
evangelicalism. The purpose of "Essentials of Our Faith" is to define
core beliefs of the Christian Faith. It expresses historic Christian
beliefs common to all true believers and churches throughout the world."
The last point says this: "The Lord Jesus Christ commands all believers to proclaim the Gospel throughout the world and to make disciples of all nations," and it goes on to imply that it is getting this from the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20.
I don't write this to pick on the EPC, but to offer it as an instance of the Great Commission being used as an imperative to every Christian everywhere, for all times, to evangelize. It's used that way all the time, as if the mission of every Christian is to go around evangelizing, and if that's not how you spend your days you're in some kind of disobedience.
There is a lot to say about this, but here are just a few things to think about:
1) This commission is given specifically to "the eleven disciples"(v.16). It's a commission to the apostolic "core group," and if we want to understand it as a conscience-binding and immediate command to every regular old Christian today, we need more than just this passage.
2) And on that note, I am not aware of a single imperative in the whole New Testament for regular believers - in the Pauline churches, say - to evangelize their neighbors. It may be taken for granted that they will, or at least that word of their faith and love will spread, but it doesn't seem that evangelizing is some kind of necessary discipline or an integral part of sanctification as far as the NT is concerned.
3) The Great Commission includes the command to baptize. So it's always strange to me that those who would use it to compel lay people to evangelize never encourage them to baptize their converts. Baptism is understood as part of the church's ministry as the church, but for some reason evangelism is taken as the duty of every individual believer.
To build off the Great Commission the idea that "Christ commands all believers to proclaim the gospel throughout the world" seems more than a little irresponsible, especially for a statement claiming to be the "essentials of our faith."
The last point says this: "The Lord Jesus Christ commands all believers to proclaim the Gospel throughout the world and to make disciples of all nations," and it goes on to imply that it is getting this from the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20.
I don't write this to pick on the EPC, but to offer it as an instance of the Great Commission being used as an imperative to every Christian everywhere, for all times, to evangelize. It's used that way all the time, as if the mission of every Christian is to go around evangelizing, and if that's not how you spend your days you're in some kind of disobedience.
There is a lot to say about this, but here are just a few things to think about:
1) This commission is given specifically to "the eleven disciples"(v.16). It's a commission to the apostolic "core group," and if we want to understand it as a conscience-binding and immediate command to every regular old Christian today, we need more than just this passage.
2) And on that note, I am not aware of a single imperative in the whole New Testament for regular believers - in the Pauline churches, say - to evangelize their neighbors. It may be taken for granted that they will, or at least that word of their faith and love will spread, but it doesn't seem that evangelizing is some kind of necessary discipline or an integral part of sanctification as far as the NT is concerned.
3) The Great Commission includes the command to baptize. So it's always strange to me that those who would use it to compel lay people to evangelize never encourage them to baptize their converts. Baptism is understood as part of the church's ministry as the church, but for some reason evangelism is taken as the duty of every individual believer.
To build off the Great Commission the idea that "Christ commands all believers to proclaim the gospel throughout the world" seems more than a little irresponsible, especially for a statement claiming to be the "essentials of our faith."
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Dashed Infants
The Imprecatory Psalms - the ones that pray down curses on enemies, are sometimes embarrassing to the church today. Our Lord told us to love our enemies, so how can some of the Bible's own model prayers and songs model for us what appears to be the very opposite of loving our enemies? One of the most notorious is Psalm 137, which is a Psalm written by the exiles in Babylon, where they long for Zion and their lost home. The Psalm closes with a curse pronounced on their Babylonian captors:
"O daughter Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall be he who repays you with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall be he who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!"
- Psalm 137:8-9
It sounds like the Psalmist is giddy at the thought of a particularly morbid vengeance. I'm not going to write a whole treatise on what we're supposed to do with these Psalms, but I thought of this one in particular because in studying Isaiah 13, which is an oracle against Babylon, I noticed this:
"Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes" (Isaiah 13:16).
It might soften the impression Psalm 137 creates to realize that Isaiah had made this pronouncement before the exile, and so the exiles in Babylon, perhaps recalling Isaiah's words (notice v.8 of the Psalm), were not so much expressing a personal and petty desire for payback so much as recalling and affirming the Lord's promise.
The other reason this was on my mind, though, is because I just read the chapters in The Brothers Karamazov where the brother Ivan makes his case against God. Basically, his case is a blunt and devastating statement of the problem of evil, and he makes the point especially by pointing to the suffering of innocent children. What Ivan comes down to is that even granting that there is a God, and granting even further that all wrongs will be righted in the end, it isn't worth it. It's true that atheism has its own problem of evil, but Ivan's case is made basically on Christian premises, which makes it that much harder to answer.
Helpful answers can be given, even if they aren't final and won't satisfy everyone. But it's a problem that goes beyond Imprecatory Psalms, and definitely beyond what I want to try and deal with on a blog. That would be silly.
"O daughter Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall be he who repays you with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall be he who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!"
- Psalm 137:8-9
It sounds like the Psalmist is giddy at the thought of a particularly morbid vengeance. I'm not going to write a whole treatise on what we're supposed to do with these Psalms, but I thought of this one in particular because in studying Isaiah 13, which is an oracle against Babylon, I noticed this:
"Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes" (Isaiah 13:16).
It might soften the impression Psalm 137 creates to realize that Isaiah had made this pronouncement before the exile, and so the exiles in Babylon, perhaps recalling Isaiah's words (notice v.8 of the Psalm), were not so much expressing a personal and petty desire for payback so much as recalling and affirming the Lord's promise.
The other reason this was on my mind, though, is because I just read the chapters in The Brothers Karamazov where the brother Ivan makes his case against God. Basically, his case is a blunt and devastating statement of the problem of evil, and he makes the point especially by pointing to the suffering of innocent children. What Ivan comes down to is that even granting that there is a God, and granting even further that all wrongs will be righted in the end, it isn't worth it. It's true that atheism has its own problem of evil, but Ivan's case is made basically on Christian premises, which makes it that much harder to answer.
Helpful answers can be given, even if they aren't final and won't satisfy everyone. But it's a problem that goes beyond Imprecatory Psalms, and definitely beyond what I want to try and deal with on a blog. That would be silly.
Monday, December 17, 2012
I'm supposed to be teaching a Sunday School series on Isaiah in the Spring, so one reason for starting this blog was to have a place to write out thoughts as I study for it. All these posts will obviously be provisional and of a thinking-out-loud nature, so I would love love interaction in the comments, but I realize that's probably setting my hopes too high.
So, first, the postcard scene in Isaiah 11, where the wolf and lamb are pals. What is it really about? Here's the passage:
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
and their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den."
(Isaiah 11:6-8)
The standard view seems to be that this gives us a preview of conditions after the 'Second Coming' of Christ, a kind of restored Eden, where vegetarianism prevails and all the world is idyllic. It's a very literalistic interpretation, but I'm not sure it's the right direction to go. It's a scene that opens with the appearance of the royal Davidic king ("There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse..." v.1) and description of his endowment with the Spirit (v.2), and his ministry of salvation and judgment (v.3-4), and his character (v.5). Then we hear about the wolf and the lamb.
Now, what then does all this animal imagery refer to? I think it's best understood as a picture of peace between the nations, and specifically of the peaceful union of Israel with the Gentiles. Whether there is a more literal fulfillment to come in the post-resurrection world with regard to animal biology we probably can't even guess, but I think the immediate reference here is to the political (crude word, sorry) effect of the coming king.
I don't think any Christian would deny that ch.11, as it opens, has reference to the first coming of Christ, at least in principle. He is the climactic branch from the root of Jesse on whom the Spirit rested (following lesser branches who would come, like Hezekiah and Josiah). The usual move, though, is to say that the first and second comings of Christ are collapsed here by the prophet into one vision, so that some of it has reference to Jesus' first coming and some (like the animal verses) to his second coming.
Here's why I'm skeptical of that view. First, v.10 says that "In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner for the people - of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious." What day is this? According to Paul, it's a day that he was already seeing in his own time. He quotes the verse in Romans 15:12 to help explain the work that God was doing among the Gentiles through Paul's ministry. So in Isaiah 11, if the verses (6-8) about the animals are surrounded by statements that have a first-century fulfillment, we probably ought to assume that vs.6-8 were also being realized already in Paul's day.
Second, 11:1-10 appears to be a vision of the same thing as 2:2-4. The parallels are many. Both refer to the "holy mountain of God", both have "the word of the Lord going forth", both talk about judging and “deciding disputes” (same verb), and in 11:10 we have the nations "inquiring of Yahweh" as in 2:2-4. Finally, both visions picture a cessation of enmity: in 2:2-4 between nation and nation, and in 11:1-9 between wolfs/lions/bears and lambs/goats/cows. I think that gives us a hint as to what the animal imagery refers to: Peace between the nations, between Israel and the Gentile aggressors.
In Isaiah 5:29-30, the prophet refers to the invading Assyrians as lions roaring over prey (and cf. Jeremiah 5:6 which is even more explicit). The prophets regularly speak of the pagan nations in that way. Think of the vision in Daniel 7 where the successive world empires are pictured as a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a monster. So there is good prophetic precedent to think that if Isaiah 11:6-8 is symbolic, it's symbolic of peace with Gentile aggressors. The lamb and goat and cow are priestly animals, used in the sacrificial system, and represent the people of Israel - God's flock.
For the wolf and the lamb to lie down together when the anointed king comes to reign means that the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, and they can be grafted together into one body in peace. Something like that happened when the King came, right? It says so in Ephesians 2:11-22.
Of course, it begs the question of why there are still so many problems between the nations. If Jesus came to bring about the peace described in Isaiah 11:6-8, where is it? First, I've been suggesting that it refers mainly to peace between the people of God (thought of by Isaiah as Israel, naturally) and its pagan oppressors. To the extent that the newly constituted people of God include Jews and Gentiles together in one body, that goal is realized. But second, and here's where perhaps more sober application comes in, prophetic visions are not magic. They are offered to faith, and an unfaithful church should not expect to see - at least in its own time - the fullest realization of all that passages like Isaiah 11:6-8 might imply. We are to be as faithful as we can, and wait in hope, and trust God that all that the church and the world experience will in the end finally vindicate all of God's words.
So, first, the postcard scene in Isaiah 11, where the wolf and lamb are pals. What is it really about? Here's the passage:
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
and their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den."
(Isaiah 11:6-8)
The standard view seems to be that this gives us a preview of conditions after the 'Second Coming' of Christ, a kind of restored Eden, where vegetarianism prevails and all the world is idyllic. It's a very literalistic interpretation, but I'm not sure it's the right direction to go. It's a scene that opens with the appearance of the royal Davidic king ("There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse..." v.1) and description of his endowment with the Spirit (v.2), and his ministry of salvation and judgment (v.3-4), and his character (v.5). Then we hear about the wolf and the lamb.
Now, what then does all this animal imagery refer to? I think it's best understood as a picture of peace between the nations, and specifically of the peaceful union of Israel with the Gentiles. Whether there is a more literal fulfillment to come in the post-resurrection world with regard to animal biology we probably can't even guess, but I think the immediate reference here is to the political (crude word, sorry) effect of the coming king.
I don't think any Christian would deny that ch.11, as it opens, has reference to the first coming of Christ, at least in principle. He is the climactic branch from the root of Jesse on whom the Spirit rested (following lesser branches who would come, like Hezekiah and Josiah). The usual move, though, is to say that the first and second comings of Christ are collapsed here by the prophet into one vision, so that some of it has reference to Jesus' first coming and some (like the animal verses) to his second coming.
Here's why I'm skeptical of that view. First, v.10 says that "In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner for the people - of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious." What day is this? According to Paul, it's a day that he was already seeing in his own time. He quotes the verse in Romans 15:12 to help explain the work that God was doing among the Gentiles through Paul's ministry. So in Isaiah 11, if the verses (6-8) about the animals are surrounded by statements that have a first-century fulfillment, we probably ought to assume that vs.6-8 were also being realized already in Paul's day.
Second, 11:1-10 appears to be a vision of the same thing as 2:2-4. The parallels are many. Both refer to the "holy mountain of God", both have "the word of the Lord going forth", both talk about judging and “deciding disputes” (same verb), and in 11:10 we have the nations "inquiring of Yahweh" as in 2:2-4. Finally, both visions picture a cessation of enmity: in 2:2-4 between nation and nation, and in 11:1-9 between wolfs/lions/bears and lambs/goats/cows. I think that gives us a hint as to what the animal imagery refers to: Peace between the nations, between Israel and the Gentile aggressors.
In Isaiah 5:29-30, the prophet refers to the invading Assyrians as lions roaring over prey (and cf. Jeremiah 5:6 which is even more explicit). The prophets regularly speak of the pagan nations in that way. Think of the vision in Daniel 7 where the successive world empires are pictured as a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a monster. So there is good prophetic precedent to think that if Isaiah 11:6-8 is symbolic, it's symbolic of peace with Gentile aggressors. The lamb and goat and cow are priestly animals, used in the sacrificial system, and represent the people of Israel - God's flock.
For the wolf and the lamb to lie down together when the anointed king comes to reign means that the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, and they can be grafted together into one body in peace. Something like that happened when the King came, right? It says so in Ephesians 2:11-22.
Of course, it begs the question of why there are still so many problems between the nations. If Jesus came to bring about the peace described in Isaiah 11:6-8, where is it? First, I've been suggesting that it refers mainly to peace between the people of God (thought of by Isaiah as Israel, naturally) and its pagan oppressors. To the extent that the newly constituted people of God include Jews and Gentiles together in one body, that goal is realized. But second, and here's where perhaps more sober application comes in, prophetic visions are not magic. They are offered to faith, and an unfaithful church should not expect to see - at least in its own time - the fullest realization of all that passages like Isaiah 11:6-8 might imply. We are to be as faithful as we can, and wait in hope, and trust God that all that the church and the world experience will in the end finally vindicate all of God's words.
I can think of three excuses for starting a blog. First, I have a couple weeks of break and this will give me something to do. Second, some other people have suggested that I start one, so there is something other than pure personal presumption playing into this. Third, for several years I've been writing substantial notes on Facebook, so I have some reason to think this won't be yet another one-or-two post blog that dies before having a chance at life. And that brings me to the title, which you'll notice is HoffBlogII, as in, "the second HoffBlog."
What was the first Hoffblog? Not mine. I meant for the title to be simply "HoffBlog," but that title was already taken by someone called "Todd Hoffman" who I kid you not created his own HoffBlog back in 2005, and in all these seven years has made exactly one post which reads simply, I quote, "Test." So, I am obliged to be "HoffBlogII", and there is no deeper meaning, sorry.
It would be the height of foolishness to say how often I'll post. I'll post when I feel like it and when I have something to say.
What was the first Hoffblog? Not mine. I meant for the title to be simply "HoffBlog," but that title was already taken by someone called "Todd Hoffman" who I kid you not created his own HoffBlog back in 2005, and in all these seven years has made exactly one post which reads simply, I quote, "Test." So, I am obliged to be "HoffBlogII", and there is no deeper meaning, sorry.
It would be the height of foolishness to say how often I'll post. I'll post when I feel like it and when I have something to say.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)