Gallery & Co. and the Uselessness of OT Sacrifices

After a quick lunch in Singapore’s CBD with tired lawyers and their heavy eyebags, full of chat that was tear-inducingly hilarious, I walked over the Singapore River to Gallery & Co. (facebook. City Hall Wing, National Gallery Singapore, 1 St. Andrew’s Road, Singapore 178957) to work on Hebrews 10:1-18.

Along one side of cafe/cafeteria are French doors that let in the afternoon light (and some heat). Aside from the occasional blast of hot air from the outside, a good place to work.

mugging Hebrews 10:1-18 with a Sarnie's flat white coffee at Gallery & Co, National Gallery of SingaporeHebrews 10:1-18 is an absolutely fascinating end to the section on the superiority of Jesus as better high priest, ministering in a better tabernacle, having brought about a better redemption, mediator of a new and better covenant.

The passage totally rams it home that it’s not just that Jesus and what he does is greatly superior, but that frankly, the Old Testament stuff just never worked.

A friend’s Jewish (not Talmudic) law professor recently argued strongly in lectures that the way forward in Jewish-Christian relations would be for Christians to acknowledge that the Jews were saved by the Law, while the Gentiles were saved by Jesus. But he fails to realise that the Law was never the solution in and of itself – it was always pointing to the real and final solution in Christ.

The sacrifices made daily and yearly weren’t just limited in atonement, they did nothing at all (how could they?). It is impossible that the mere blood of bulls and goats should be able to take away sin. And if they could not take away sin, then not only were the worshippers not cleansed from their sins, their consciences were still impure, and the regular sacrifices merely reminded them of their miserable position (Hebrews 10:1-4). So the Law actually begs the question: what is the reality to which sacrifices are merely a shadow (and not in a Platonic way)?

mugging Hebrews 10:1-18 with a Sarnie's flat white coffee at Gallery & Co, National Gallery of SingaporeThis is all I had to show for 2 hours of work. 😦

Further, sacrifices are just second best, and a far far second. What God really wants is obedience, not sacrifice. And no human, pre-Jesus had been perfectly obedient, hence the need for sacrifice. When Jesus appeared (in accordance with (in fulfilment of, as a type of David in) Psalm 40:6-8a),  he was perfectly obedient, and by his sacrifice, he did away with the need for any more sacrifice (Hebrews 10:5-14).

Even better, there is total forgiveness of sins, so no more sacrifice is needed! And in typical typological trajectory, Psalm 40:8b (“your law is within my heart”) has been fulfilled in us believers, as promised in Jeremiah 31:33, by the gift of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost (Hebrews 10:16). So, as never before, we are now able to obey. And we look forward to the Day when we will do so completely.

Absolutely awesome possum.

…………………….

Gallery & Co. cafe
beans: Sarnies
coffee: a pity this was overextracted – somewhat bitter and astringent
milk: foam a little too thick
price: $6 (but mine was on the house)
air-conditioning: yes but balmy
free wifi: yes
power sockets: scattered

Other specialty coffee cafes near Orchard Road to sit and do work in

Dal.Komm Coffee, Sidney Greidanus’ “Preaching Christ from the Old Testament”

Dal.Komm Coffee, Centrepoint, Orchard Road, Singapore

After: Ephesians with med students; post-: loads of catch-up chats with parachurch workers, there was a bit of a breather to sit down for a mug of K3 cafe latte at Dal.Komm Coffee (a Korean joint, apparently famous for being in a famous Korean sitcom) and to binge-read Sidney Greidanus’ Preaching Christ from the Old Testament.

D.A. Carson demonstrated that there is little scope for clearly delineating objects/themes of continuity and discontinuity in the Old and New Testaments.

Perhaps, then, Greidanus’ theories, undergirded by biblical evidence (some more convincing than others), might be the way forward.

Dangers

  • danger of Christomonism – replacing God with Christ; “the impression that faith in Christ had replaced faith in God or that faith in Christ had been added to faith in God as though an increase in the number of items in one’s faith meant an increase in salvific effect”. Rather, “Christ is not to be separated from God but was sent by God, accomplished the work of God, and sought the glory of God.” “Today some would use the divinity of Christ as a way of preaching him from the Old Testament. Some speak of “Christophanies”…like the Angel of Yahweh, the Commander of the Lord’s army, and the Wisdom of God are…identified with Christ…but this…short-circuits the task of preaching Christ as the fullness of God’s self-revelation in his incarnate Son…when the New Testament authors speak of Christ as God, their intent is not to suggest that Christ can be identified with a number of figures in the Old Testament, but to witness to the divinity of Jesus.”
  • danger of “preaching the Old Testament in a God-centered way without relating it to God’s ultimate revelation of himself in Jesus Christ“. We need to realise that we “cannot understand God unless we understand who Jesus was and is.”
  • danger of focusing on Jewish methods of interpretation. The New Testament writers interpreted the Old Testament in unique ways that were different from rabbinic practices. They were conscious of interpreting the OT “(1) from a Christocentric perspective, (2) in conformity with a Christian tradition, and (3) along Christological lines.”
  • danger of using the NT as a textbook on biblical hermeneutics. “Simply to copy their methods of interpretation in preaching on specific Old Testament passages is to go beyond their intent.”

However, he follows the advice of Longenecker who opines that:

  • where NT exegesis is based on a revelatory stance, where it evidences itself to be merely cultural, or where it shows itself to be circumstantial or ad hominem in nature, do not reproduce such exegesis
  • where NT exegesis treats the OT in a more literal fashion, with historico-grammatical exegesis, then we can reproduce such exegesis

Sidney Greidanus' As I was saying to MK (via the magic of the internet, while taking a break from Greidanus), an old friend in Sydney: we’d all grown up with the constant refrain of Spurgeon crashing through hedge and ditch to get to Christ, and of teachers chanting that “Christ is the prism” and “Jesus is the lens” through which we must interpret the OT, etc etc. but hardly anyone ever explained in detail what that looked like, or what principles ought attend such an outing.

Everyone would of course express shock at anything that smelled of a “character study”, yet we were hard-pressed to explain the difference between that and apparently-ok application questions in OT studies asking:”So how can we be/not be like David?”

According to Greidanus, the overall map to Christ should look like this:

  • first, understand the passage in its original historical context: (i) literary – what genre of literature is this? How does it mean what it means? (ii) historical – what was the author’s intended meaning for his original hearers? (iii) theocentric – what does this passage reveal about God and his will?
  • next, understand the message in the contexts of canon and redemptive history as sensus plenior – (i) canonical interpretation – what does this passage mean (not just in the context of the book, but) in the context of the whole Bible? (ii) how does the redemptive-historical context from creation to new creation inform the contemporary significance of this text? It will reveal continuity as well as discontinuity (as noted above). (iii) consider the Christocentric interpretation – what does this  passage mean in light of Jesus Christ? What does the passage reveal about Jesus Christ?

Sound Blending, Dal.Komm Coffee, Centrepoint, Orchard Road, SingaporeAnd Greidanus suggests that the specific legit routes to Christ would be:

  • redemptive-historical progression – the context of the Bible’s metanarrative or Story is the “bedrock for preaching Christ from the Old Testament”. Every OT text and its addresses are seen “in the context of God’s dynamic history which progresses steadily and reaches its climax in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and ultimately in the new creation.” OT narratives can be understood at 3 levels: (i) personal history, (ii) national history, (iii) redemptive history.Eg. the story of David and Goliath. (i) personal history – David with only a sling and a stone killing giant Goliath. Ooooh, courageous boy, commentators coo. But that’s not the point. (ii) biblical author actually goes to great lengths to show that this is an important part of Israel’s national/royal history. David, God’s anointed king, delivers Israel and secures its safety in the promised land. (iii) the essence though is not just Israel’s king defeating the enemy but the Lord himself defeating the enemy of his people (1 Samuel 17:45-47). This leads straight to Jesus’ victory over Satan.
  • promise-fulfilment – this is embedded in redemptive history. (i) take into account that God usually fills up his promises progressively – in installments, (ii) in interpreting the text, move from the promise of the OT to the fulfilment in Christ and back again to the OT text “in order not to miss the full impact of the prophetic message as a basis for the hope in the promise of God”.
  • typology – this is quite different from allegorical interpretation. Typology “functions within redemptive history because God acts in redemptive history in regular patterns. The New Testament writers are able, therefore, to discern analogies between God’s present acts in Christ and his redemptive acts in the Old Testament…Typology is…characterised by analogy and escalation…but also by theocentricity, that is, both type and antitype should reveal a meaningful connection with God’s acts in redemptive history”. Types are “persons, institutions, and events of the Old Testament which are regarded as divinely established models or prerepresentations of corresponding realities in the New Testament salvation history”. To guard against the danger of eisegesis, genuine type can be identified by: (i) literary-historical interpretation first, (ii) looking for type not in the details but in the central message of the text concerning God’s activity to redeem his people, (iii) determining the symbolic meaning of the person, institution, or event in Old Testament times. If it has no symbolic meaning in the OT times, it cannot be a type, (iv) noting points of contrast between the OT type and the NT antitype. “The difference is as important as the resemblance, for the difference reveals not only the imperfect nature of OT types but also the escalation entailed in the unfolding of redemptive history”, (v) in moving from the OT symbol/type to Christ, carry forward the meaning of the symbol even as its meaning escalates…do not switch to a different sense. Eg. God providing manna in the desert symbolising God’s miraculous provision in keeping his people alive, should not be linked to “daily bread” but Jesus as “the bread of God” (John 6:33), (vi) not simply drawing a typological line to Christ but preaching Christ.
  • analogy – this is more general than promise-fulfilment and typology. The “pivotal position of Christ in redemptive history enables preachers to use analogy to direct the Old Testament message to the New Testament church. For through Christ, Israel and the church have become the same kind of people of God: recipients of the same covenant of grace, sharing the same faith, living in the same hope, seeking to demonstrate the same love.”  Look for: (i) analogy between what God is and does for Israel and what God in Christ is and does for the church, (ii) similarity between what God teaches his people Israel and what Christ teaches his church, (iii) parallels between God’s demands in the Old Testament and Christ’s demands in the New Testament.
  • longitudinal themes – tracing themes from the Old Testament to the New. Ask: (i) what truth about God and his saving work is disclosed in this passage? (ii) how is this particular truth carried forward in the history of revelation? (iii) how does it find fulfilment in Christ?
  • NT references
  • contrast

……………………

Dal.Komm Coffee
The Centrepoint, 176 Orchard Road
#01-01/02, #01-03/04,#01-05/06, #01-102/103
Singapore 238843

Review of regular K3 cafe latte:
coffee: good chocolate and cherry bod
milk: pity the foam was so thick you needed a spoon to tunnel through to the drink
air-conditioning: yes, and quite fierce in some parts of the cafe
free wifi: yes
power sockets: yes at tables along the walls

Other specialty coffee cafes near Orchard Road to sit and do work in

Chinese New Year, and Continuity and Discontinuity in Biblical Theology

Chinese New Year passed with the usual surfeit of steamboats and lo heis and barbecues and restaurant feasts and CNY tidbits.

homemade pineapple tarts with melty crusts and Anzac biccies with bak-kwaWas glad to get back to merely nibbling on a colleague’s homemade pineapple tarts and some Anzac biccies (because of Australia Day) studded with bak-kwa, instead of being pressed, on pain of seeming discourteous, to sample a plenitude of snack jars as we visited friends over the holidays.

Double-treat Tuesday -

Ecstatic too to be back to smoothie bowls for breakfast and to be cracking on with the second volume of “Justification and Variegated Nomism“. Nom nom.

The lecturers at the Cornhill Training Course used to be adamant that every single passage of the OT should point to Christ, citing Luke 24:27. I thought this an unwieldy sledgehammer that resulted in all sorts of dodgy exegesis. Yet, I also thought that the insistence of some folk at St. Helen’s Bishopsgate on holding tightly the tension of the biblical narrative (and so being very hesitant in going to Christ), while dealing quite well with an OT passage’s position on the salvation-historical timeline, did not adequately take into account our position on that same timeline.

How then to read, teach, and preach the OT now? Could some part of the answer depend on one’s conclusion on the continuity and discontinuity between the testaments?

  • What should we, who live on the other side of the cross/resurrection/ascension, make of the Old Testament ?
  • Which laws should we follow and which ones should we ditch?
  • What about infant baptism (as continuity from saved-as-a-household x circumcision)(see eg. pg 3 of Themelios April 2016)? What about keeping the Sabbath (on Saturdays)?
  • What is the biblical warrant for any of that?

 This didn’t make it as one of my Heresies of the Month back in London. But since it will be a lifelong task to comprehensively consider the continuity and discontinuity between the OT and NT, let’s get this party started.

dragonfruit smoothie bowl with Korean strawberries and Chilean blueberries

 I do not think the usual tripartite division of the law into moral, civil, ceremonial laws works well:

  • they are not biblical categories – no Bible writer thought in those categories
  • therefore, they impose an alien framework on the text

The first port of call, perhaps, would be a careful reading of how NT writers treat the OT.

D.A. Carson, in “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New” (p393, Justification and Variegated Nomism), concludes that for Paul, this is a “both-and”. That is,

“Paul thinks of the gospel he preaches a simultaneously something that has been predicted in times past, with those predictions now fulfilled, and something that has been hidden in times past, and now revealed.

…there is no evidence that Paul himself was aware of any tension between these two stances…the two stances…genuinely lock together…

…Paul assess the significance of Israel and the Sinai covenant within the larger biblical narrative…the law’s most important function is to bring Israel, across time, to Christ…

…the Old Testament, rightly read in its salvation-historical structure, led to Christ…

…the law is upheld precisely in that to which it points…”

Yet, Carson is insistent that we need to see too “how radically Christocentric Paul’s reading of the Old Testament really is…”

Andy Naselli’s done a good summary here.

cast-iron shashuka - tomatoes, chickpeas, bayleaves, cabanossi, eggsa quick shashuka lunch straight from the hot cast-iron pan

Right. So are there any general principles that one can draw on what continues and what doesn’t, and can this be applied to any OT text faithfully?

Akan datang.

Chinese Lunar New Year Reunion Steamboat Dinner

Good morning, Vietnam

It is well past noon when we hurry down a dusty alley in Danang, Vietnam. On one side of the alley, bored women, sequestered behind their piles of brown dried meats and mounds of maroon meat floss, fan themselves in the afternoon heat.

banh xeo, Danang

Where the alley turns right into another row of bored dried-meat vendors, sits a bánh xèo institution. There is a ravenous silence around the sterile stainless steel tables as we stuff rice paper with fresh herbs and leaves and cool raw cucumbers and a tumeric-laced “crepe”, itself already bursting with tasty bean sprouts and shrimp and pork, and dip the whole fat roll into bowls of tangy satay-style sauce.

Little time for chit-chat. Much has already been said about external persecution – beatings and destruction of property and threats, and about internal strife – denominational division and sheep-stealing. Now we need to ride on to Hoi An to meet another group of brothers and sisters.

Hoi An will be our third stop. We are somewhat exhausted from bumpy roads and hard beds, but encouraged by God’s work.

Hoi An lanterns

That evening, after dinner, I speak about the importance of trusting God’s word in the Bible,  of the Bible being both a divine word and a human word, and as a human word – capable of being understood by the normal means of comprehension and consideration of context. Context to be considered: literary context, book context, historical context, and whole Bible context. I see furrowed brows during the hour-long session and pray that God would use this poor dry attempt to somehow help his people.

Untitled

God deigns to use his weak vessels. Over little piles of hến trộn the next day, brothers talk about how struck they are that God’s word is primarily about God and what he is doing in the world, and about changing our fallen view of the world – not about going off to do something; and sisters say how mortified they are that they’ve been doing character studies on the life of Joseph.

Oh, that they will see the stupendous banquet that awaits them as they dig properly and heartily into the Scriptures. How much firmer they will be able to stand, knowing that the unspeakable sovereignty of our Father and the eternal salvation wrought by his Son, and the glorious hope of the new creation.

And this we pray too, for ourselves.

Making Dumplings and Pedagogical Approaches to Teaching Bible Reading / Bible Study / Bible Interpretation

What pedagogical approaches are there for teaching people to read the Bible for themselves? I asked several people as a small assembly line of chatterers produced dumplings for dinner.

making dumplings on the second day of Chinese New Year, Singapore(Dumplings, Chinese dumplings and other ones in the same skinned family – Latvian and Russian pelmeni eaten with sour cream and Mongolian Бууз (buuz) slick with the oil of boiled mutton and Georgian khinkali, are best contained a delicate membrane that just about holds the filling in but can be broken with a decisive chomp. Too thick a skin and poor granny might be chewing till kingdom come. Also, when chopsticks are the utensils of choice, the food needs to be bite-sized to avoid all sorts of ungainly contortions (or perhaps that’s just me).

Lucky Peach magazine’s recent dumpling obsession under the banner of Dumpling Month, has resulted in a nice cluster of anecdotal articles on dumpling diplomacy (complete with recipe for shui jiao), the familial socialising that comes with communal making of jiaozidumplings shaped to look like mice.)

Biblical interpretation is mostly about good comprehension skills, yet at the same time it is about God’s word being used by God’s Spirit as a sword for God’s people. So the first and most important thing about biblical interpretation is prayer – depending on God to enable us to understand what he is saying in his word.

But what about comprehension? How can comprehension be taught? Whether or not unique to the school programme I was in, but I don’t remember being formally taught to read or understand a passage. It was just something picked up as we went along.

An English teacher, while rolling out the dough, admitted that even in the normal education stream in Singapore, understanding a passage isn’t a priority in most Singapore schools. Rather, students learn how to ace exams by knowing how marks are allocated for certain sorts of questions. This might explain the dearth of constructive political-social discussions online and offline.

making dumplings on the second day of Chinese New Year, Singaporeugly dumplings

This is very preliminary sketch of things. Have to train a few groups in “Bible reading” and Bible study leading in the next few months, and typing things out helps me think. Wish someone else more competent could do it, but here I am. So, future me, here are some very vague, possibly confused, thoughts about how I might go about it. Please edit as mistakes become apparent:

Session 1 – Priority of God’s Word (Why do Bible study at all?)

Several people have suggested that we dive straight into the skills bit and skip all this “boring doctrine”. But I think that understanding the divine origin of God’s word, and the implications of that undergirds the whole of the human life. Most people would agree its priority in the Christian life, but what exactly does this mean?

There is so much to talk about, including:

    • the trustworthiness of the word because of its divine origins;
    • the necessity of the word because of our sinful creatureliness (cf. John 1:18 – cue cheeky question of “if Christ is the Word of God, then Christians are those who believe in Christ, not in the Bible” etc. Nope, false dichotomy.);
    • the sufficiency of the word to accomplish God’s purposes in the world and in us (1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 2 Corinthians 3:12 – 4:6). Therefore we focus on planting the word faithfully, not ensuring the fruit, eg. the experience the word should produce, the community that the word should gather, the repentance that the word might extract;
    • the power of the word to do this (2 Timothy 3:15-16);
    • confidence in the word – clarity and purpose (cf. reader-response);
    • the ultimate authority that lies in the word (cf. the Pie of Ultimate Authority); and
    • as a warning against bibliolatry, how the Bible is merely the means to an end and not the end.

Maybe Timothy Ward’s excellent Words of Life: Scripture as the living and active word of God as set reading? Or some David Jackman? Jackman’s always good.

Here’s one facet:

  • Q: What is God’s plan for the world? His will and plan is, in the fullness of time, to unite all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:10).
  • Q: Since we Christians are part of “all things”, how are we to be united to him? Once we were separated from Christ and far off, but have now been brought near and united with each other and in Christ through his blood (Ephesians 2:11-22). But that’s not all – we are to maintain the unity of the Spirit, build up the one body of Christ until “we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-16)
  • Q: What does God give us to enable the body of Christ to be built up? Bible (apostles, prophets), people to tell us about Jesus (evangelists), people to proclaim Christ/teach us about Jesus from the Bible (shepherds, teachers) (Ephesians 4:11-16)
  • Q: Why are these necessary for the building up of the body?
  • Q: Who builds the body of Christ?
  • Q: How do they do it?

-> Q: What does this tell us about the usual way God accomplishes his plan for the world?

-> Q: What then are we seeking to accomplish in our times of Bible study?

-> Q: Why would the idea that “everyone can make the Bible say anything they want” be blasphemous?

-> Q: What specific ways would this change the way we personally lead Bible study this year?

 When I was little, Bible study was a chore that you avoided the best you could. But the reality is that it’s not just necessary for growth as much our daily food and water, it’s also like sweet fresh water after you’ve crawled about in a hot acrid desert, or, when you’ve come in from the snow, stamping your feet and sniffling, a steaming pot of slow-cooked stew, rich with red wine, bobbing with tender beef chunks and good carrots and tomatoes .

working on God's word in the Bible with some reference material - Timothy Ward's "Words of Life", Andrew Sach and Richard Alldritt's "Dig Even Deeper", Andrew Sach and Tim Hiorn's "Dig Deeper into the Gospels"Session 2 +++ – Grammatical-Historical Bit and Expositional (Book) Context (What is he saying and why is he saying it?)

God chose to make his official communication through human agents, using human language, expecting human minds to comprehend the same…but not without hard work.

Ask an evangelical minister for book recommendations for a toolkit to interpret the Bible and you get:

As a young Christian, neither of the first two books worked very well for me. It was all very well to have a catalogue of tools to use and a few worked examples, but I still couldn’t understand how they were to be deployed. “It’s more of an art than a science.” they said. Oh thanks very much, I said then, could I have someone hold my hand please? (The latest in the Dig Deeper series is really very useful in this regard, I think.)

Many years on now, I find myself agreeing that it’s more of an art than a science. But let’s see how much of a process we can put on it to help others.

It is clear that to understand the Bible correctly, we need to understand what the human author of that particular passage is saying. God chose to work through prophets and apostles and they wrote at a specific time, to a specific people, in a specific situation.

So our interpretation would have to be two-fold:

(i) working out what the human author is saying; and

(ii) understanding, as far as is necessary, the historical context into which he is writing. working on God's word in the BibleQ: How do I work out what God, through a historical author, is saying?

Here goes an attempt at a process (although I suspect one usually moves back and forth between most of these points in any ordinary reading exercise):

  • read through the whole book once preferably, if you are distracted by such things, without editor-imposed headings and sub-headings
  • note any obvious themes, statements of purpose for writing
  • hypothesize a structure to the book (how the Gospel writers build their argument/evidence for Jesus as the Son of God etc, or for Paul’s epistles, perhaps his argument flow)
  • hypothesize a structure to the given passage
  • work through individual chunks to test hypothesis – bearing in mind the genre of the book or of the specific chunk, dealing with the grammatical stuff like nouns, verbs, tenses, cases, use of metaphors and idioms, and using the usual comprehension skills (eg. in Dig Deeper‘s terminology, “linking words”, “repetition”, “narrator’s comment”, “tone and feel”, “quotation / allusion”) or equivalent in the language in use for that study (Chinese? Tamil? French?)
  • work through the details – this is somewhat controversial in certain circles: my SLOB leader was adamant that one must not spend alot of time working on the details, whereas a lecturer at The School was convinced that the main point of what the author was saying was dependent on the details and the more elusive our understanding of them was, the harder we needed to work at them. I suspect it’s the more-art-than-science thing of knowing when to pursue the details and when to leave them alone because it is unlikely they will contribute much to the main point.
  • check hypothesis of structure to given passage
  • from the structure, hypothesise the main point, that is, the thrust of the given passage

Q: What do we do with the historical context and the expositional/book context? Check how the hypothesised main point might fit into author’s context, intended audience, and the overall purpose of the book as a whole. After all the breaking up of a book into passages for bite-sized studies is artificial.

  • How would this passage link to previous chunk?
  • How would this passage help to develop the purpose of the book (if stated)?
  • What would be missing if this section was not here?
  • Why is this here? What would change if this passage was moved somewhere else in the book?

So:

Q: What does the passage say?

Q: Why is the passage saying this?

Q: Why is it saying it here?

Then come to a conclusion as to the main point of the given passage. Write what some people call a purpose statement – stating the aim of the human author in this chunk of the book. Ensure that it is a clear and specific sentence, not something that can be applied to any other part of the New Testament (eg. not “God loves you and his son died for you.”)

But we need to hold our horses – a nice succinct purpose statement is not the point of Bible study; responding rightly to what God has said is (see Session 4).

(Pedagogical approach-wise, wonder if, instead of doing endless exegetical exercises, we could just work through the text together with the leader modelling how he/she was thinking about it as we went along. Very NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) “pseudo-science”, but it’s certainly the way I personally learn best.)

not quite shashuka Session 3 – Redemptive-historical Context Hmm, it’s really artificial to break all this up into different sessions, but seeing that I have only an hour for each session…

All Scripture (and all of us) fit in somewhere on God’s timeline for the world. Knowing where our particular book fits in eschatologically would help us understand not only what God was saying to his people then, but also what he is saying to us now as we head towards the consummation of all that he has promised.

Loads of biblical theology (“the study of how every text in the Bible relates to every other text in the Bible”) books to choose from here: Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel and Kingdom and Vaughan Roberts’ God’s Big Picture trace the storyline through the Bible with themes of kingdom and covenant, Michael You’s Read Mark Learn: Bible Overview studies at St. Helen’s Bishopsgate, and Thomas Schriener and D.A. Carson have a good number of books and articles on this between them.

Session 4 – Living in Light of God’s Word

The main point of the main point is to understand God’s word so that our minds can be changed and we can live differently. Michael You has said in several of his talks that broadly, there isn’t that much that God wants to tell us:

  • he wants us to acknowledge that he is God and we are not;
  • he wants us to see that reality is quite different from what we might think. Our baseline is usually that this world is all there is, will continue forever. But the world isn’t like that – God exists, he made this world, this world will come to an end, whether you like it or not, and Jesus will return to judge;
  • he wants us to change our worldview that shapes how we think and how we act. If we think that this world is all there is, then we want more money, and to get that we will decide on a well-paying job even if we have to work all days of the week. Even if we were brought up in a Christian family, most of us have a worldview that tells us that we have security because of the things of this world. But the reality is that this world is passing away and God wants us to want the new world to come. We must want what God wants, his goals, eternity, new creation.
  • God is not an arbitrary spoilsport. He cares for us with his infinite power and love and he wants us to be assured that we can leave our lives in his hands.

Our right response to God’s word will totally transform our lives. Will this work? Pray so. Now to get some dinner.