I’ve recently begun a series of posts on ‘Expository Preaching and its Alternatives’.  So far, I’ve glanced at Calvin and Spurgeon.  I have a number of others in mind to look at, including Charles Simeon.  In the meantime, I was interested to read this post over at Soulah Gratia.  The post summarises and recommends J.I. Packer’s early (1960) essay on Simeon which happens to be reprinted in Volume 3 of Packer’s Collected Shorter Writings - ‘Honouring the Written Word of God’.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) is widely regarded as the ‘Prince of Preachers’. Converted at the age of 15, he began preaching soon afterwards. In 1854, at the age of just 19, he was called to the pastorate at New Park Street Chapel, Southwark, London. Throughout his life - and well beyond - he published a weekly sermon. These were bound up in annual volumes - The New Park Street Pulpit, and then (following the move to purpose-built premises) the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit.

Although Spurgeon is sometimes depicted as a pulpiteer whose main qualities were his wit and humour, this is an extremely inadequate portrayal. It is true that he had a wonderful facility for illustration and anecdote, for simile and metaphor, but the prevailing sense one gets when perusing his sermons, his autobiography, or any of his other voluminous writings, is of a man who was deeply earnest about the gospel, and profoundly committed to the reformed faith.

The particular aspect of Spurgeon’s preaching that I want to comment on is the fact that his method was textual, rather than expository. He did not generally take a paragraph, say, of Scripture, and expound it. And he did not preach series of sermons. He did not preach through books, or even parts of books, of the Bible. He preached on isolated texts - often just single verses - almost at random.

This is not because Spurgeon despised exposition. In a lecture entitled ‘On Commenting’ (included in Commenting and Commentaries) he noted that preaching in the ancient church consisted largely of the exposition of substantial passages of Scripture. He remarks, ‘I could almost wish that the custom were re-established, for the present plan of preaching from short texts…is very unsatisfactory. We cannot expect to deliver much of the teaching of Holy Scripture by picking out verse by verse, and holding these up at random.’ Yet that is precisely what he did himself, till the end of his days! And Spurgeon’s remedy for the lack of expository preaching was not to re-instate it, but rather to recommend an alternative in the form of giving a ‘running commentary’ on a passage of scripture during divine service. He he devoted considerable energy to these. Although it is Spurgeon’s sermons that are known and honoured to this day, he said that as a rule he spent much more time preparing his expositions than his discourses.

It seems, then, that Spurgeon’s practice of preaching from isolated, unconnected verses was maintained almost reluctantly, in compliance with the normal preaching habits of his day. In Preaching and Preachers, D.M. Lloyd-Jones, however, identifies another reason why Spurgeon avoided consecutive exposition:-

[Spurgeon] did not believe in preaching a series of sermons; indeed, he opposed doing so very strongly. He said that there was a sense in which it was impertinent for a man to decide to preach a series of sermons. He held that the texts should be given to the preacher, that he should seek the Lord in this matter and ask for guidance. He held that the preacher should decide but pray for the guidance and the leading of the Holy Spirit, and then submit himself this. He will thus be led to particular texts and statements which he will then expound in sermonic form.

But, as Lloyd-Jones adds:-

I cannot see why the Spirit should not guide a man to preach a series of sermons on a passage or a book of the Bible as well as lead him to one text only.

We give thanks to God for the influence of C.H. Spurgeon in his own place and time and well beyond. He was a great Christian soul, and a great preacher. However, no human being is beyond criticism, and we cannot but think that his chosen approach to preaching was less than ideal, and certainly not a model to be widely followed in our own day.

Ever since I came to a living faith in Christ at the age of 19, I have been persuaded of the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible.

I also acquired at that time a real desire to study the Christian faith in general, and the Bible in particular.  This led me to my local library where a book that caught my eye was the Bible Handbook by G.W. Foote and W.P. Ball (don’t you just love that pair of names?).  On looking at the book more carefully when I reached home, I realised that it was not at all the kind of thing I was expecting.  Far from being an informative guide to the Bible it turned out to be a compilation of supposed errors and contradictions as uncovered by two ‘freethinkers’.  Well, I thought I would have a good look at these alleged problems and inaccuracies.  I examined carefully any number of bible passages that were supposed to be problemmatic but came to the settled conclusion that the difficulties were apparent, rather than real.  That doesn’t mean, of course, that I found answers to all the questions or solutions to all the problems.  But I did find that the whole exercise confirmed my belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible.

So why, I ask myself, have I always found myself slightly uneasy with the notion of ‘inerrancy’ as applied to Holy Scripture?  The word seems to suggest a kind of precision that is simply not in keeping with the nature of the Bible itself.  ‘Inerrancy’ is applicable to a telephone directory, but not to a psalm.

The lines of battle have tended to be more sharply drawn in the United States than in the UK.  In 1976 Harold Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible, in which he insisted that anything less than belief in the detailed inerrancy of Scripture was a defection from evangelicalism itself.  Lindsell ‘named and shamed’ leading individuals and institutions who he thought were departing from the faith in this regard.  Many American evangelical organisations purged from their ranks those who did not subscribe to unqualified inerrancy.  In 1978 a group of evangelical scholars and theologians met to agree ‘The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy’.  This statement affirmed that

‘being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individuals lives.’

But, as Roger Olsen tartly points out (in A-Z of Evangelical Theology), the statement then goes on to qualify inerrancy in ways ‘that seemed to critics to kill it with the death of a thousand qualifications.’  For example,

‘We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.  We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citation.’

But if inerrancy has to be qualified in all these kinds of ways, then was it the right word to use in the first place?

I was interested to read the thoughts of John Stott on this question.  Stott gives a number of reasons why he too is uncomfortable with the word ‘inerrancy’:-

1.  Scripture is so rich and varied - both in content and form - that it cannot be reduced to a string of propositions that can be simply labelled ‘true’ or ‘false’.

2.  The word ‘inerrancy’ is a double negative, and single positives and better than double negatives.  Evangelicals can, and should, agree, that the Bible is true and trustworthy.

3.  ‘Inerrancy’ sends out the wrong signals and develops the wrong attitudes.  ‘Instead of encouraging us to search the Scriptures so that we may grown in grace and in the knowledge of God, it seems to turn us into detectives hunting for incriminating clues and to make us excessively defensive in relation to apparent discrepanices.

4.  It is unwise and unfair to use ‘inerrancy’ as a shibboleth by which to identify who is evangelical and who is not.  ‘The hall mark of authentic evangelicalism is not subscription but submission.’

5.  It is impossible to prove that the Bible contains no errors.  When faced with an apparent discrepancy, we should avoid both premature negative judgment and contrived harmonisation, but be prepared to suspend judgment until further light is given to us.

(Stott, Evangelical Truth, 73f.)

Text: Mt 6:11

The Lord’s Prayer is a wonderful prayer: wonderful in its simplicity, and wonderful in its comprehensiveness.  Its several petitions have been likened to the colours of the rainbow.  And, like the colours of the rainbow, there is a definite order here: we are taught to pray first about God’s things (his honour, kingdom, and will), and only then about our things (daily provision, pardon, protection).

Just six words, but full of meaning:-

1.  ‘Bread’ stands here for the basic necessities of life: food, shelter, clothing.

It’s good, isn’t it, that God is interested in these everyday aspects of our lives?  Supposing God had said, “Don’t bother me about bread, I’ve got a universe to run?  Come back and see me on Sunday when we can talk about really important things like the kingdom of heaven.”  But God is not like that.  He is not just a Sunday Father, interested only in our spiritual welfare.  He is an everyday Father, concerned about our stomachs as well as our souls.

But we are taught here to ask for the necessities, not the luxuries of life.  Now, of course, the example of Jesus himself shows us that there is a place for the occasional feast.  We too can welcome luxury, comfort and relaxation as occasional guests, but if we allow them to take up permanent residence in our lives they will enslave us.  This prayer is for enough, not for more than we need:-

Prov 30:8f ‘Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread.  Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.”

2.  ‘Today..daily’. This petition teaches us to pray for our daily bread, bread for the coming day.  It teaches us to live one day at a time, and not to be over-anxious about the distant and unknown future.

When Jesus taught his disciples this petition, it is likely that his mind was going back to the story of the manna in the wilderness (Ex 16:1-21). The children of Israel were starving. and God sent them the manna, the food from heaven; but there was one condition–they must gather only enough for their daily needs. If they tried to gather too much, and to store it up, it went bad. They had to be satisfied with enough for the day.

‘In Jesus’ day, labourers were commonly paid each day for the work they had achieved that day; and the pay was frequently abysmally low that it was impossible to save any of it.  Therefore the day’s pay purchased the day’s food.  Moreover, the society was largely agrarian: one crop failure could spell a major disaster.  In such a society, to pray “Give us today our daily bread” was no empty rhetoric.  Living a relatively precarious existence, Jesus’ followers were to learn to trust their heavenly Father to meet their physical needs.’

Even in modern Britain, we receive reminders (the Foot-and-Mouth crisis of a few years ago, for example) of just how vulnerable our own food supply is; just how dependent we really are.  But why wait for a crisis to drive us back to a God to whom we owe everything?

3.  ‘Give us today our daily bread.  Jesus did not teach us to pray: “Give me my daily bread.” He taught us to pray: “Give us our daily bread.”  In uttering this petition we have the needs of others, as well as our own needs, in mind.  Especially because we know that so many people do not have daily bread.

   You cannot pray the Lord’s Prayer and even once say “I.”
   You cannot pray the Lord’s Prayer and even once say “My.”
   Nor can you pray the Lord’s Prayer and not pray for one another.
   And when you ask for daily bread, you must include your brother.
   For others are included … in each and every plea,
   From the beginning to the end of it, it doesn’t once say “Me.”

We offer this petition, then, in the spirit of Gal 6:9f  ‘Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.  Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.’

4.  We are thus taught to pray to God for our daily bread.  And he has richly answered our prayers.  Few of us here have suffered even one day of real hunger in our lives.  Few of us have ever lacked clothes to wear.  Few of us have ever been without a roof over our heads.  But what if God does not give us our daily bread?  What if God says ‘no’?

Do you remember the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the book of Daniel?  Remember the reply they gave to King Nebuchanezzar when he threatened to throw them into the blazing furnace?  Dan 3:17f “If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king.  But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”
 
The God we serve is able to provide us with our daily bread.  But even if he does not, let us resolve to continue to love and serve our heavenly Father who has given us not only so many temporal blessings to enjoy, but also every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.  And though moth and rust destroy our earthly goods, our treasures in heaven are safe.

Phil 4:11-13  ‘I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.  I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.  I can do [all this] through him who gives me strength.’

Hab 3:17f.  ‘Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Saviour.’

Text: Exodus 17:8-16

We stand, as it were, at a mid-point between two vast continents.  Behind us lies the immense unalterable past, with its pleasures and regrets.  In front of us looms the equally vast future, with all its hopes and fears.  The question for the people of God as they move forward into this unexplored and largely unknown new territory is this: Can God be trusted?  All we have is his promise, and sometimes that promise seems to hang by the slenderest of threads.

This was the problem facing the Israelites in the days of Moses.  The Lord had rescued them out of slavery in Egypt and had promised that he would bring them to their own land, a land flowing with milk and honey.  But can he be trusted to guide them?  How are they expected to know where to go?  Ex 13 tells us that the Lord guided them by means of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.  Yes, but Can God be trusted to provide for them?  Where are they supposed to find food and drink in a desert?  Exodus 16 & 17a, tells how the Lord gave them manna and quails, and water from a rock.

Now comes the next challenge.  God has guided and provided.  But will he protect them?  They find themselves under attack from the Amalekites.  Joshua is delegated to organising a fighting unit to repel the enemy.  Moses, on the other hand, takes up his position on top of a hill.  He raises his hands, and the Israelites prevail.  He grows tired and his hands drop, and the Amalekites gain the upper hand.  Moses is given a stone to sit on.  Aaron and Hur position themselves on either side to support his hands, and the battle is won.

The people of God learned a vital lesson that day.  When Moses lifted up his hands to the throne of the Lord, God gave victory to his people.  God didn’t want them to forget this lesson, and so he caused an altar to be built to commemorate the event.  The name of the altar was ‘the Lord is my banner’, “for hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD,” v16.  The Lord also sure that a written record was kept of the events of that day, and so it is that the account has been handed down to us, as an encouragement to God’s people in all ages.

1.  Fight as if everything depended on you

When the Amalekites attacked, Moses might have thought, “We can leave this to God.  He can defeat the enemy by himself; he doesn’t need our help.”  But no: Moses said to Joshua (v9), “Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites.”  Of course God could have done the job himself.  But his usual method is not to fight for us, but with us us.

Need I remind you that ours is a spiritual battle?  Jn 18:36  “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight…But my kingdom is from another place.”

Eph 6:12  ‘Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.’
 
I remember in my early days as a Christian being very struck by some words of Bishop Ryle: ‘I fear much for many professing Christians.  I see no sign of fighting in them, much less of victory.  They never strike one stroke on the side of Christ.  They are at peace with his enemies.  They have no quarrel with sin. - I warn you, this is not Christianity.  This is not the way to heaven.’

But to be a true Christian is to be a soldier.  Chances are that when you were baptised, no sooner had you been signed with the sign of the Cross, than you were given the following charge, ‘Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world and the devil, and continue his faithful soldier and servant to the end of your life.’  That was the moment you put your armour on, and you will not take it off again until you take your last breath.  ‘In heaven we shall appear, not in armour, but in robes of glory.  But here our arms are to be worn night and day.  We must walk, work, sleep in them, or else we are not true soldiers of Christ.’ (Gurnall)

2.  Pray as if everything depended on God

There’s Moses, perched on top of a hill.  In his hands is his staff, symbol of God’s power.  He lifts his hands towards heaven.  While his hands are raised towards the throne of God, Joshua and his fighters prevail.  Whenever his hands fall, ground is lost to the Amalekites.
 
Restraining prayer, we cease to fight,
Prayer keeps the Christian’s armour bright,
And Satan trembles when he sees
The weakest saint upon his knees.

While Moses stood with arms spread wide,
Success was found on Israel’s side;
But when through weariness they failed,
That moment Amalek prevailed. (Cowper)

No surprise that when Paul describes the Christian warfare, and the various parts of the Christian armour, he immediately goes on to underline the importance of prayer.  Eph 6 - ‘Put on the full armor of God, with the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit.  And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.’

The fact is, of course, that prayer itself is a kind of battle.  Moses seems to have had more of a struggle than Joshua.  At any rate, it was Moses the prayer who grew weary, rather than Joshua the fighter.  Prayer is opposed by our bodies, which relax into lethargy and plead the excuse of tiredness.  Prayer is opposed by our minds, which entertain any number of ainless thoughts and trivial imaginings rather than steadily focus on the things of God.  Prayer is opposed with raging fierceness by the devil, who would prefer the Christian do anything - study the Bible, preach, evangelise - rather than pray.
 
But pray we must, for prayer is God’s chosen means of carrying on his work in the world.  Don’t ask me to explain it: prayer is a profound mystery.  But it’s also very simple.  Certainly, everything that I’ve learned about prayer over the past few years can be summed up in one word: ‘Ask’.  I learned this from James, who says, ‘You do not have, because you do not ask God.’  I learned it from my Saviour, who said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.  “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?  Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?  If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!’

We stand, as it were, at a mid-point between the past and the future.  And every celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a link between what God has achieved already, and what he will accomplish in the future.  For we remember the Lord’s death (the past) until he comes (the future).  Can God be trusted to give his people victory?  Yes, because Jesus has won the victory over sin, the world and the devil.  Can God be trusted to give his people victory?  Yes, because Jesus will return, not as a lamb to the slaughter, but as King of kings and Lord of lords.  What better motivation can we have, to fight as if everything depended on us, and to pray as if everything depended on God.  Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory.

‘Off with our shoes, please, for the Holy Trinity is holy ground. Away with figured syllogisms and ordinary arithmetic: here, logic and mathematics do not suffice. The need is rather for a listening ear, an obedient heart (Jn 7:17), rapt adoration, a careful engagement with the Holy Scriptures.’ (Prof Kenneth Grider, Christianity Today).

The doctrine of the Trinity has exercised the greatest Christian minds. Augustine was once walking along the seashore, deep in meditation on the Trinity, when he came across a small boy digging a trench in the sand. ‘What are you doing?’ he asked. ‘I want to empty the sea into this trench,’ came the reply. Augustine asked himself, ‘Am I trying to do the same thing as this child in seeking to exhaust with my reason the infinity of God and to collect it within the limits of my own mind?’

It is true that attempts have been made to find earth-bound analogies to the Trinity: body, soul and spirit; water, steam and ice; solids, liquids and gases. But all these are inadequate.

The word ‘Trinity’

The word trinity means ‘tri-unity’ or ‘three-in-oneness’. The word is not found in Scripture. As Warfield comments: ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture.’ Yet orthodoxy considers that the reader of God’s word is forced to conclude that (a) there is one God; (b) God is three persons; and (c) each person is fully God.

The word itself comes from Tertullian. He is said to have coined some 509 new nouns, 284 new adjectives, and 161 new verbs in Latin. Happily, not all of these caught on. But some of this terminology is reflected in expressions still used to define and explain the doctrine of the Trinity: (a) Trinity: this word was itself invented by Tertullian (b) Persona: this was introduced to translate the Greek word ‘hypostasis’; it is thought that in the expression ‘one substance, three persons’, Tertullian was trying to communicate the idea of a plurality of roles played by a single actor; (c) Substantia: this word expresses the fundamental unity within the Godhead.

In the Old Testament

A fundamental axiom of the OT is the unity of God, Deut 6:4. However, superimposed on this strict monotheism are hints of plurality: in the plural form ‘Elohim’; in the use of ‘us’ and ‘our’ as spoken by God; and in the personage of the ‘Angel of the Lord’. See Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 31:11-13; Psa 45:6-7 (cf Heb 1:8); Psa 110:1 (cf Mat 22:41-46); Isa 6:8; 48:16; 63:10; Hos 1:7; Mal 3:1-2.

In the New Testament

Again, in the New Testament the unity of God is everywhere assumed, 1 Cor 8:4; Eph 4:4, 6; Jam 2:19. But the threeness of God comes across repeatedly, as at our Lord’s baptism, Mar 1:9-11; and at the giving of The Great Commission, Mt 28:19. See also Joh 14:26 15:26 2 Co 13:14 Paul’s prayer, Eph 3:14-21; The upbuilding of the church, Eph 4:4-16; 1 Pe 1:2. The Annunciation, Lu 1:25-37.

‘One essence, three persons’

The relationship between the ‘oneness’ and the ‘threeness’ of God was formulated in the so-called Athanasian Creed. However, all such attempts to relate the unity and the threeness of God are approximations, and as such are open to criticism. Augustine wrote, ‘When one asks: What three? human speech suffers from a great lack of power. Nevertheless, we say: Three persons, not in order that we should say this, but that we should not be silent.’

Yet the term ‘person’ as applied to the Trinity is inadequate. It has come to denote for us self-conscious autonomy - a meaning which if applied to the Trinity comes perilously close to tritheism. There are not three individual personalities in God.

Father, Son and Spirit

The Father is first in order of manifestation, the beginning and source of all things, Gen 1:1. He is the fountain of all grace. He is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, Eph 3:14, of all people, as the source of their being and provider of their needs, and especially of the redeemed, whom he adopts as family members, with all the privileges, rights and duties which such membership implies, 1 Cor 6:17-18; 8:6; Eph 4:6; Lu 12:30, 32.

The Son is second in order of manifestation, the medium of all things, including creation and judgement, Jn 5:22. He is God manifested in the flesh, the saviour of the world, Act 5:31; 13:38.

The Son is often referred to as the one ‘through’ whom all things were created, Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2. The Son was an active agent in carrying out the plans and directions of God the Father.

The Spirit is third in order of manifestation, the divine agent who communicates, applies and seals the blessings of the Father and the Son to the redeemed, Eph 2:18. He is the helper and sanctifier of the redeemed, 1 Co 6:11; Gal 5:16.

The Holy Spirit’s activity in creation is often viewed as completing, filling, and giving life to all that God has made. Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4. The Heb. ‘ruach’ can mean ‘breath’, ‘wind’, or ’spirit’, depending on the context.

The co-operation of the Trinity in redemption

This is illuminated in the following texts: Joh 1:1; 3:16; 17:3; Eph 1:1-14; Rom 8:32.

The resurrection of Jesus was a manfestation of Trinitarian power:-

1. The Father, Acts 2:23-24.
2. Jesus himself, Jn 2:19.
3. The Holy Spirit, 1 Pet 3:18.

All three persons of the Trinity have a hand in our justification; Rom 8:33; Acts 13:39; 1 Cor 6:11. ‘God the Father justifies, as he pronounces us righteous; God the Son justifies, as he imputes his righteousness to us; and God the Holy Ghost justifies, as he clears up our justification, and seals us up to the day of redemption.’ (Thomas Watson)

I’ve been blogging, over the past day or so, in response to various questions about the Holy Spirit that I’ve been asked to discuss with a small group from my church.

Here I want to put it all together in some kind of order.

Introduction

We should feel a little nervous about discussing the person and work of the Holy Spirit. We should, no doubt, focus less on analysis and more on obedience:-

Ga 5:25 Let us keep in step with the Spirit.
Eph 4:30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God.
Eph 5:18 Be filled with the Spirit.
Eph 6:18 Pray in the Spirit.
1Th 5:19 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire.

1. Why do we talk so little about the Holy Spirit, compared to God the Father and Jesus?

(a) Because we have reacted to the preoccupation of some with the extraordinary ministries of the Spirit. We are sensitive - perhaps over-sensitive - to the dangers of fanaticism. We need to ask yourselves, however, whether fanaticism is the greatest danger facing the church today. Are we not too comfortable and complacent, and does not the Holy Spirit challenge this?

(b) Because he is a ‘shy sovereign’. His role is not to testify about himself, but about Jesus, Jn 15:26. We might almost say of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit what someone once said of the doctrine of the Trinity: it is not so much heard in Scripture, as overheard.

2. What examples are there of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament?

The ‘Holy Spirit’ is named as such only three times in the Old Testament: Psa 51:11; Isa 63:11, 12. The concept of ‘progressive revelation’ reminds us that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, like a number of other doctrines, is present in the Old Testament only in embryonic form.

If the Christian era is identified as ‘the ministry of the Spirit’ (2 Cor 3:8) then it is to be expected that the New Testament will convey a clearer and fuller revelation of the person and work of the Spirit.

Nevertheless, his activity is apparent in the Old Testament in a number of important ways:-

1. Creation, Gen 1:2; Psa 33:6.
2. Revelation, Isa 61:1-6; Mic 3:8.
3. Enabling for service: craft, Ex 31:2-6; leadership, Judg 6:34; strength, Judg 15:14f; Isa 11:2.
4. Inward renewal, Psa 51:10-12; Eze 36:25-27.
5. Future outpouring, Joel 2:28f.

3. Who is the Holy Spirit?

(a) His personality:-

This becomes clear in the NT, as in Jesus’ promise of ‘another Counsellor’, Jn 14:16, and the fact that the Spirit:-

1. Speaks, Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 28:25.
2. Teaches, Jn 14:26.
3. Witnesses, Jn 15:26.
4. Searches, 1 Cor 2:11.
5. Determines, 1 Cor 12:11.
6. Intercedes, Rom 8:26f.
7. Is lied to, Acts 5:3.
8. Can be grieved, Eph 4:30.
9. Can be insulted, Heb 10:29.
10. Is referred to as ‘he’, Jn 16:13.

(b) His divinity:-

1. Lying to the Spirit is lying to God, Acts 5:3f.
2. Linked with the Father and Son in benedictions, 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-6; and in the baptism formula, Mt 28:19.
3. Called ‘the seven spirits’, Rev 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6, partly because seven is a number of divine perfection and partly because the Spirit ministers in his fullness.
4. Called the Spirit of the living God, 2 Cor 3:3; 1 Pet 4:14.
5. Sovereignty is ascribed to him, 1 Cor 12:11.
6. Has divine attributes such as omnipresence, Psa 139:7ff; 1 Cor 12:13; omniscience, 1 Cor 2:10; omnipotence, Lu 1:35; Rom 8:11; 15:19.
7. OT refs to God are in the NT shown to be refs to the Holy Spirit, Ex 17:7 w Heb 3:7-9; Isa 6:3,8-10 w Acts 28:25-27; Psa 78:17,21 w Acts 7:51.

4. What does the Holy Spirit do?

(a) His work is often represented by symbols:-

1. Fire, Lu 3:16; Acts 2:3; 1 Thess 5:19. Warms, energises, purifies, illuminates, consumes, spreads.
2. Wind, Jn 3:8; Acts 2:2. Empowers, refreshes, independent, invisible.
3. Oil, Lu 4:18. Consecrates, comforts, heals.
4. Water, Jn 7:38. Cleansing, reviving, satisfying, fertilising, freeness, abundance.

(b) In the New Testament generally the Holy Spirit is active in:-

1. the definitive revelation of Christ to and through the New Testament writers.
2. the illumination of human hearts to receive and respond to this Revelation.
3. the new birth, whereby we are enabled to trust Christ, and to become members of his body.
4. the witnessing to the fact that we are Christ’s forever.
5. the sanctifying transformation of us into Jesuslikeness of character.
6. the fitting and equipping of the saints for service.

(J.I. Packer, Keep in Step With the Spirit)

(c) In relation to Jesus, the Holy Spirit is involved in:-

1. Conception, Mt 1:18,20; Lu 1:35
2. Public ministry, Mt 4:1; Mar 1:12; Lk 3:22; 4:1; Jn 1:32; 3:34; Acts 10:38
3. Life and work, Lk 4:1,14
4. Atoning death, Heb 9:14
5. Resurrection, Acts 2:24; Rom 1:4; 8:11; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 3:18
6. Apostolic ministry, Acts 1:4; 2:4
7. Scripture, 1 Cor 2:13; 2 Pet 1:21
8. Christian age, 2 Cor 3:8

(d) In relation to Holy Scripture:-

1. All the books of the Bible owe their origin to him, Mt 22:43f; Heb 3:7; Acts 28:25.
2. The writers were ‘borne along’ by the Spirit’s influence, 2 Pet 1:21.
3. The Holy Spirit alone gives conviction of the truth of the Bible’s message, 1 Thess 1:5; causing it to be recognised as the word of God, 1 Thess 2:13; causing its promises to be confirmed experientially, 1 Thess 1:6ff; Psa 34:4,6,8; and causing its truth to change the individual’s life for the good, 1 Thess 1:9f; 2:14; Psa 119:9,11.

(e) In relation to the Christian life:-

‘Whatever individual Christians have, are, and enjoy, in contradistinction to the worldly and unconverted, they owe to the agency of God the Holy Ghost.’ (Ryle, Old Paths, 268)

1. he gives us new birth when we believe in Jesus
2. he brings to maturity in us Christlike graces such as love, faith and hope
3. he gives us a role within the body of Christ and equips us for ministry.
4. he enables us to understand and believe the Scriptures, which testify to Christ
5. he prays for us when we do not know how to pray, just as Jesus prayed for his disciples
6. he will give life to our mortal bodies at the last day, just as Jesus was raised victoriously from his grave.

(f) The distinguishing marks of his work:-

1. The Spirit of God in his work in men raises ‘their esteem of that Jesus who was born of the Virgin, and was crucified without the gates of Jerusalem’, confirming ‘their minds in the truth of what the gospel declares to us of his being the Son of God, and the Saviour of men.’

2. The Spirit of God ‘operates against the interests of Satan’s kingdom, which lies in encouraging and establishing sin, and cherishing men’s worldly lusts.’

3. The Spirit causes ‘in men a greater regard to the Holy Scriptures, and establishes them more in their truth and divinity…The devil never would attempt to beget in persons a regard to that divine word…The devil has ever shown a mortal spite and hatred towards that holy book the Bible.’

4. The Holy Spirit always works as the Spirit of truth, ‘he represents things as they truly are.’

5. The Spirit produces in men ‘a spirit of love to God and man.’ He brings them to ‘high and exalting thoughts’ of God. He ‘works in them an admiring, delightful sense of the excellency of Jesus Christ’, and he constrains them to love others and earnestly to seek their salvation.

Edwards, Works, II, 266ff, as summarised by Murray, The necessary ingredients of a Biblical revival II, 26.

5. What does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit? When does it happen?

It is both a free gift, 1 Thess 4:8, and a solemn responsibility, Eph 5:18. There are certain attitudes which open the way to the blessing of the Spirit. We are to ask, Lu 11:13, to thirst and drink, Jn 7:37, to repent, Acts 2:38, to obey, Acts 5:32, to have faith, Jn 7:39; Gal 3:1-5,14. On the other hand, certain negative attitudes can oppose the work of the Spirit. He can be lied to, Acts 5:3, resisted, Acts 7:51, grieved, Eph 4:30, and quenched, 1 Thess 5:19. ‘It is a great mystery that the creature should be able to assert his petty will against that of the Creator, to turn away from the Spirit’s leadings, and in some sense nullify the Divine. Yet the Scripture assures us that this is indeed the case.’ (Leon Morris, Spirit of the Living God, 97)

Constitutes a significant step, or series of steps, of growth in the Christian life, together with a deeper fellowship with God, a greater effectiveness in prayer and Bible reading, a new joy in worship, and a new empowering for ministry.

Cannot be tested exclusively or even principally by emotional excitement or physical effects.

Is linked to a deepening of fellowship with the Lord.

Should not be allowed to overshadow the decisive spiritual change that takes place at regeneration.

Is not a once-for-all experience. Indeed, the whole of the believer’s experience in this life is but the ‘first-fruits’, Rom 8:23; the ‘down-payment’, 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14, of what lies ahead. ‘This is profoundly important. It means that in the gift of the Spirit the believer receives something of the powers and the life of the world to come. His life in the Spirit is literally “out of this world”. It is a preview, a foretaste of the blessedness set before us.’ (Leon Morris, Spirit of the Living God, 96)

Admits of various degrees.

May include the use of new spiritual gifts, or increased effectiveness in the use of old gifts. Does not always result in speaking in tongues.

It is not a ‘quick fix’. Does not offer an easy short cut to holiness. The Christian life continues to be a battle against indwelling sin.

6. Are all the gifts of the Holy Spirit described in the Bible still as relevant today?

The New Testament has various lists of ‘charismata’ (spiritual gifts):- 

Nelson’s complete book of Bible maps & charts : Old and New Testaments. (Rev. and updated ed.). Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.

These lists are so varied that we may well suppose that none of them is exhaustive.

(a) Arguments against the continuance of miraculous gifts

Those who hold the view that miraculous gifts were limited to the apostolic age draw attention to the pattern that is established in Heb 2:3-4. First, the word of the gospel preached by Christ; which is then confirmed to believers as a result of the apostolic ministry; which itself was attested by apostolic miracles and by the distribution of spiritual gifts by the apostles.

‘With the writing of the New Testament, and its availability to believers, God’s revelation was closed. Three of the original gifts of the Spirit, namely the revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy and charismatic knowledge, have now fulfilled their purpose. With the appearance of the New Testament they have, in accordance with 1 Cor 13:8, been removed from the list of early Christian charisms and have ceased to be.’ (Q in Grossmann, Stewards of God’s Grace, 14)

The gifts ‘are seen to be in operation up to the end of Acts, but not afterward, for while, for example, the gift of healing is found throughout Acts, we have no trace of anything of the kind afterwards; on the contrary, Epaphroditus is spoken of as dangerously ill, Timothy is given medical advice, and Trophimus is left at Miletus sick. The same contrast is seen if we take the epistles of St Paul written before Acts 28 (1 & 2 Thess, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, Rom) and compare them with those written during the Roman captivity. In the former, there are 25 references to the Jew, and only one in the latter, 22 references to tongues, and none in the latter, nine allusions to gifts as opposed to two; thirteen references to prophecy as a gift, with none in the latter.’ (Griffith Thomas, The Holy Spirit of God)

‘These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church of the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church, and they necessarily passed away with it.’ (Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, 6). It should be noted, however, that Warfield argues against latter-day miracles almost entirely in historical, rather than biblical grounds. And on those grounds, his evidence is rather compelling.

‘The Church in its infancy had no complete Bible (Old and New Testament). It had no extensive body of Christian literature, such as we have today. Christian hymnology, too, was still in its infancy. Numerically also, the Church was rather insignificant. It was, moreover, the object of scorn and derision from every side. In that situation God graciously provided special supports or endowments, until the time would arrive when these were no longer needed.’ (Hendriksen, commenting on 1 Thess 5:19)

Some regard the gift of tongues as one of the ‘sign-gifts’ (the others being prophecy, gifts of healings and workings of miracles). These, it is suggested, served a unique function during a time of great change in the church, when the Mosaic order was giving way to the age of the New Covenant, and the Gentile nations being opened up to the gospel.

(b) Arguments in favour of the continuance of miraculous gifts

1 Cor 13:10 (‘when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears‘) is a key text in the debate about the cessation of the charismata. Does is refer to (a) the completed Scriptures; or (b) the life to come? Or does it refer to neither?- is Paul simply appealing to a general principle, that the coming of the complete leads to the disappearance of the incomplete? The idea that it refers to the completed canon is Scripture appears forced and unnatural. The idea that it refers to the life to come is supported by v12, if that verse can be thought of as continuing and extending the thought of v10.

There is, in fact, ‘no exegetical warrant for claiming that any of the gifts have ceased. They are God’s characteristic endowments for Christian service in the New Testament age, arguably the most fundamental way ministry occurs (Acts 2:17-21; 1 Cor 1:7). Against the view that maintains, from the lack of the more supernatural gifts throughout much of church history, that these charisms were limited to the apostolic age, three points must be noted: (1) these gifts did not end at the close of the first century, but continued well into the third; (2) their subsequent diminution can best be attributed to a growing, unscriptural institutionalization of the church and an overreaction to the abuse of the gifts in heretical (most notably Montanist) circles; (3) even then, no era of church history was completely without examples of all the gifts.

The twentieth century resurgence of the gifts cannot be attributed to the arrival of the last days, since for the New Testament “the last days” refers to the entire church age. They may, however, reflect a recovery of more biblical, spontaneous, and all-inclusive worship and ministry.
In short, attempts to attribute all current charismatic phenomena to the devil or mere human fabrication are misguided. Still, there is no guarantee that any alleged manifestation of the Spirit is genuine; each must be tested. First Corinthians 14:39-40 concludes Paul’s treatment of the topic with remarkably clear commands, which, if obeyed, could go a long way toward eliminating divisiveness in the church over the gifts. On the one hand, none of the gifts should be forbidden, even tongues (v. 39). On the other hand, “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (v. 40), as illustrated by the regulations for prophecy and tongues in verses 26-38. A growing number of charismatics and noncharismatics alike are beginning to heed these twin commands, but many still do not, to the detriment of the unity of the church and the success of her mission.’ (Blomberg, in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology)

One plea of many who discountenance miraculous gifts today is that even if they were possible, they would be unimportant. ‘Miracles might occur today’, it is often conceded, ‘but only very rarely; they are not to be looked for or expected; they are of minimal importance; the whole subject of miracles does more harm than good.’ But over against this minimalist position, others have argued persuasively that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit are very much needed in our own time:-

[At the present time], the church would seem to need the benefits of spiritual gifts more than ever before. For at a time when Christians of all traditions realize deeply the imperfections of the church, Christ has given gifts ‘for the perfecting of the saints’ (Eph 4:12, AV). At a time when the continued existence of the Christian ministry is at stake, with panic, uncertainty and surrender on every hand, there are gifts ‘for the work of ministry’ (Eph 4:12). At a time when Christians are ashamed at their divisions but embarrassed by misdirected efforts to heal them, gifts are available ‘until we all attain to the unity of the faith’ (Eph 4:13). At a time when heresy and half-truth and doctrines of men bewilder Christians, God has given his gifts, ’so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.’ (Eph 4:14f). (Bridge & Phypers, Spiritual gifts and the church, 30f.)

(c) Evaluating miraculous gifts

The Scriptures teach that as the Gospel Age progresses there will be an increase in counterfeit manifestations from false christs and false prophets, Mt 24:24; Mar 13:22; 2 Thess 2:9; Rev 13:13-14.

There is, therefore, a pressing need to evaluate spiritual gifts using scriptural criteria:-

1. Is Jesus attested as Lord? 1 Cor 12:3.
2. Is the church edified? 1 Cor 14:26.
3. Do they lead to peace, rather than to disorder? 1 Cor 14:32f.
4. Do they possess the character of witness to unbelievers? 1 Cor 14:24.
5. Are they exercised in love? 1 Cor 13:1.
6. Do they lead to God being glorified? 1 Pet 4:11.

(Based on Grossman, Stewards of God’s Grace, 90f)

7. Should everyone speak in tongues?

In earliest times, people spoke the same language. This unified language was used in rebellion against God in the building of the tower of Babel, Gen 11:1ff. God quelled this rebellion by confusing the people’s language and by scattering them over the face of the earth, Gen 11:9. In the future life, the unity of language will be restored in the praise and service of God, Rev 7:9-12; cf Zeph 3:9; 1 Cor 13:8. Some foretaste of this is found in the NT church in the miraculous gift of tongues at Pentecost, Acts 2:4,11. This was a remarkable sign of the universality of the gospel message. In the worship of the church, tongues plus interpretation also bears witness to the promise of the future eradication of language differences. In private prayer, a token is given in the gift of tongues of the final victory over the effects of the fall, which included a broken fellowship with God. (Based on Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1069ff)

Classic Pentecostal churches regard tongues-speaking as the unvarying accompaniment of the baptism in the Holy Spirit:- ‘If we only wish to perform the barest minimum essential for life everlasting, then once we have repented of our sins and accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour, we may live and obtain life eternal. But how much more there is for the serious Christian! How much more rewarding is the life of commitment and service a dedicated child of God may participate in…For surely the unknown tongue is the initial, audible evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit.’ (Quoted in Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 10)

More recent developments within that tradition - the Charismatic movement, Third Wave, etc., tend to have a reduced emphasis both on a two-stage description of the Christian life (accepting Christ and being baptised with the Holy Spirit) and on the expectation that all will speak in tongues.

The matter is determined by the clear teaching of Scripture. When Paul asks, in 1 Cor 12:30, ‘Do all speak in tongues?’, the clearly-implied answer is, ‘No.’ It is just as he has stated in 12:11 - the Holy Spirit ‘apportions to each one individually as he wills.’

Grossmann warns: ‘Where people regard glossolalia as a sign clearly indicative of Spirit baptism and so of a higher status in the kingdom of God, it is easy for an unhealthy anxiety to develop, producing a passion for this charism and attempts to bring about a “breakthrough” by the use of various exercises and forms of psychological conditioning. Frequently the result which follows is an ecstatic counterfeit experience, associated with crying, shuddering, shaking, falling down, clapping and shouting. Such phenomena can be a sign of demonic activity, but often they indicate mere human adjuncts resulting from an urge to be accepted, psychological instability, a breakthrough of repressed emotions or something of that sort…’ (S. Grossmann, Stewards of God’s Grace, 112)

8. Should we pray to the Holy Spirit? Or do we pray in the power of the Spirit, through Jesus to the Father?

The Bible does teach a certain order in the operations and activities of the members of the Trinity. For example, according to Jn 14:26, the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father in the name of the Son.

The usual norm is to address pray to the Father, as Jesus both practiced and taught.

Occasionally, it seems that the risen and exalted Christ was addressed in prayer, 2 Cor 12:8-10.

The Holy Spirit is never directly addressed in Scripture. He has no proper name. He points away from himself, to Jesus. We do not pray to him; he prays for us, Rom 8:26f.

Nevertheless, ‘prayer to the Spirit will be proper when what we seek from him is closer communion with Jesus and fuller Jesuslikeness in our lives.’ (Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit, 261.

B.M. Palmer, in his great work on Theology of Prayer, puts it thus:-

‘Prayer may undoubtedly be offered to each of the Three Persons, for two substantial reasons: The first is, that however they may be discriminated, they cannot be separated one from the other. The three do not make one God, as by composition; they are the one God, through the indivisible essence or being which is the equal property of each. If, therefore, divine in the supreme sense, each Person may equally be the immediate object of address, though not the exclusion of the others…The second reason is, that in the functions which they discharge, each is supreme in his own work, and must stand in immediate relation to the creature who is to be saved…It would seem fit, therefore, that each may be immediately addressed in all that concerns his specific work. The natural mode of communication, however, would be to the Father, through the Son and by the Spirit; these prepositions simply indicating the co-ordination of the parties to the covenant, and of their several offices.’ (199f)

In fact, many of the classic hymns about the Holy Spirit are in fact addressed to him:-

‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ (‘Come, Holy Spirit’)
‘Come down, O Love Divine’
‘Spirit of wisdom, turn our eyes’
‘Holy Spirit, hear us’
‘O breath of God, breath on us now’
‘Holy Spirit, truth divine’
‘Spirit divine, attend our prayers’
‘Come, Holy Ghost, our hearts inspire.’
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
‘Breath on me, Breath of God’

Well, let it be said that ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ is no longer very new.  It has been around for perhaps 30 years, and was first labelled as such by Prof J.D.G. Dunn in the early 1980s.  Nor is it a single perspective, but several, although it has to be said that they have a certain amount in common.

The leading concepts are:-

1.  Covenantal Nomism.  This is the idea that 2nd Temple Judaism (i.e. the Judaism of the time of Paul) taught that you are in the covenant from birth/circumcision.  Any subsequent failure to observe the law places you outside the covenant, but if you repent, God will be merciful and receive you back.  2nd Temple Judaism, it is said, was gracious, not legalistic, forgiving, not harsh.

2.  Solution to Plight.  The New Perspective proponents believe that Paul underwent his conversion experience apart from any supposed prior struggle.  Covenantal nomism did not require any solution such as Christ, so therefore the appearance of Christ to Paul must have come as a solution before there was any plight.  The old Christian assumption, that the movement is from the plight of failed law-keeping to the solution of God’s grace in Christ, does not accord with the experience of Paul.

3.  Boundary Markers.  If Pauline Christianity was not about law in any fundamental sense, it was concerned with certain aspects of the law as they affectected relationships between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.  The boundary-markers separating these groups were: Sabbath observance, dietary rules, and circumcision: these were the aspects of the law, rather than the law as a whole, that bothered Paul.

4.  Reformation Spectacles.  Paul has been seriously misunderstood because he has been interpreted through Luther’s ‘reformation spectacles’.  Luther, it is claimed, projected onto Paul’s view of Judaism Luther’s own conception of late medieval Roman Catholicism.  In Luther’s view, it is argued, both Judaism and Catholicism were crippled by legalism.  Therefore, of course, the solution was the same: the free grace of God in Christ.  The New Perspective is critical of the supposed anti-Jewish flavour of reformed thought as well as of the Reformation itself.

Based on Paul Zahl, ‘Mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul.  Themelios, Vol 27:1 (Autumn 2001) 5-11.

It has long been assumed that the chief emphasis in Romans is on justification by faith.This was challenged in 1963 by Stendahl, who argued that pre-occupation with justification by faith was due to the church’s morbid conscience, based on the moral struggles of Augustine and Luther, which the church has read back into Paul. Justification, according to Stendahl, ‘is not the pervasive, organising doctrinal principle or insight of Paul,’ but ‘was hammered out by Paul for the very specific and limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel.’ Paul concern is not for his own salvation, for he experienced no qualms about his, but rather the salvation of the Gentiles, that they could come to Christ directly and not through the law. Consequently, the climax of Romans is chapters 9-11, with Paul’s reflections on the relation between the church and the Jews, and chapters 1-8 are just a preface to this. Romans is about God’s plan for the world and about how Paul’s mission to the Gentiles fits into that plan.’

There is some truth in this. Of course, justification is not Paul’s exclusive pre-occupation. But Rom 1-8 can scarcely be reduced to a mere ‘preface’. Stendahl’s antithesis is too sharp.’Paul was indeed deeply exercised, as the apostle to the Gentiles, about the place of the law in salvation and about the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the one body of Christ. But he was also evidently concerned to expound and defend the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone. In fact, the two concerns, far from being incompatible, are inextricably interwoven. Only loyalty to the gospel can secure unity in the church.’ (Stott)

After all, Romans does deal extensively with the problem of sin and guilt. In Rom 1:18-3:20 it is Paul (not Augustine or Luther) who establishes universal guilt. In Rom 7 it is Paul, again, who speaks of his own sin of heart.

E.P. Sanders, in his 1977 work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, argued that the prevailing picture of Palestinian Judaism as ‘a religion of legalistic works-righteousness’, and of Paul’s gospel as directly antithetical to this, is completely wrong. Sanders describes the Judaism of Paul’s day as ‘covenantal nomism’ - meaning that God had brought Israel into a covenant relationship with himself by grace, and then asked for a response of obedience to the law. Judaism’s ‘pattern of religion’ is thus twofold - ‘getting in’ by God’s gracious election, and ’staying in’ by obedience to the law. Disobedience was readily atoned for by repentance.

Sanders asserts that Paul’s starting point was not universal guilt before God, but the universal saviourhood of Christ. For Paul ‘the conviction of a universal solution preceded the conviction of a universal plight’. Salvation is a transfer from the bondage of sin to the lordship of Christ. The means of transfer is ‘participation’ with Christ in his death and resurrection. The reason salvation must be of faith is not to obviate human pride, but because if it were by law Gentiles would be excluded. The resulting saved community is ‘one person in Christ’. ‘It will readily be seen that in this attempted reconstruction of Paul’s gospel the familiar categories of human sin and guilt, the wrath of God, justification by grace without works, and peace with God in consequence, are conspicuous by their absence.’ (Stott)

Sanders elaborated and defended his thesis in Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (1983). There can be little argument with his assertion that Paul is concerned with the equal standing of Jews and Gentiles, both under sin and the ground on which they change that status - faith in Jesus Christ. More questionable is his statement that ‘the supposed objection to Jewish self-righteousness is as absent from Paul’s letters as self-righteousness itself is from Jewish literature.’

John Stott raises five issues:-

1. The fact that the language of ‘weighing’ (merits against demerits) is not found in the literature of Palestinian Judaism does not prove that the concept is not present.

2. It is not surprising that in Judaism entry into the covenant was seen as depending on God’s grace. It is just so in the OT. But there is a great deal in Jewish literature about works-righteousness as the basis for ’staying in’ the covenant, and against this Paul would have waxed vehement. For him, we both begin and continue by grace alone, Rom 5:1f.

3. Even Sanders concedes that one exception can be found to his these - 4 Ezra. In this book covenantal nomism is replaced by legalistic perfectionism. But may not the lapse into legalism have been more prevalent than Sanders admits? And might not Palestinian Judaism have been more pluralistic than Sanders supposes?

4. Once again, it is not unlikely that the popular forms of Judaism varied widely from the written forms studied by Sanders. The practicing faith of many Anglicans may be very different from the form represented the Book of Common Prayer.

5. We know that Paul had a horror of boasting. This has traditionally been taken as a rejection of self-righteousness. Sanders, however, interprets it as directed against Jewish pride in their favoured status, Rom 2:17, 23, which would be incompatible with the equal standing of Jew and Gentile. But the distinction is too neat. It is clear from Phil 3:3-9, for example, that Paul rejected a self-righteousness that was compounded from both status-righteousness and works-righteousness.

In conclusion, self-righteousness is, in fact, so universally pervasive that it would be astonishing if Palestinian Judaism were the one exception to this degenerative principle. Jesus himself combatted self-righteousness, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector, and in that of the labourers in the vineyard. He saw little children as models of the humility that receives grace as a free gift apart from merit.

It is universally agreed that the Letter to the Romans is antithetical; that it was written over against some alternative. But what was this alternative that Paul was rejecting? We must let Paul speak for himself, and not allow traditions old or new to get in the way. And what Paul says is that ‘no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law’, 3:20, and that sinners are ‘justified freely by his grace’, 3:24.

Some modern scholars think that Paul’s thinking is inconsistent, even self-contradictory, especially in its treatment of the law. Paul is thought to teach both that the law has been abolished, and that it has a permanently normative character. But careful exegesis will show the extent to which Paul rejects the law as a means of salvation, but accepts it as a guide to holy living.

James Dunn has articulated the ‘new perspective on Paul’. According to Dunn, when Paul declared that no-one could be justified ‘by the works of the law’, he was not thinking of ‘good works’ in a general sense, but of circumcision, sabbath observance, and food laws, which functioned as ‘identity markers’, defining Israel’s sense of distinctiveness and privilege over against the surrounding nations. Accordingly, Paul was negative about ‘the works of the law’ not so much because they were thought to merit salvation, but because they led to pride and exclusiveness in relation to the Gentiles. But again, exegesis shows that Paul does not limit his references to ‘the law’ and ‘the works of the law’ to these boundary markers, and does not just attack favoured status but all boasting in good works.

Nevertheless, the ‘new perspective’ does offer a timely insistence that the Gentile question is central to Romans. ‘The redefinition and reconstruction of the people of God, as comprising Jewish and Gentile believers on equal terms, is a critical theme which pervades the letter.’

Based on Stott, The Message of Romans, 24-31.

According to the Network Participant’s Guide, the traits of a prophet are that s/he is discerning, compelling, uncompromising, outspoken, authoritative, convicting, and confronting. Phew! no wonder the gift of prophecy can sometimes seem too hot to handle! Such a set of traits raises important questions about the authority of the prophet, and how this relates to other kinds of authority within the church.I’m going to argue that that the authority (and therefore the accountability) of the prophet is similar to the authority (and accountability) of the teacher.

For, firstly, although prophecy is not the same as teaching, the two gifts are related. Notice how they are linked in Matthew 23:34, Acts 13:1, 1 Corinthians 12:28 and elsewhere. Both prophecy and teaching involve a declaration of the mind of God. Teaching is the explanation and application of the mind of God as revealed in Scripture for all time and all situations. Prophecy is the more immediate declaration of the mind of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit for a particular time and situation. Although teaching is primarily a rational activity, based on careful study, we should expect it to have a prophetic impact, so that hearers feel, “this is God’s word for us;” or, “this is what we must do”. Conversely, although prophecy is primarily an inspired activity, based on immediate revelation, we should expect it to have a rational impact, so that hearers think, “this makes sense;” or, “this is in line with Scripture”.

Then, secondly, both prophecy and teaching are subject to scrutiny. Neither gift is self-authenticating, and neither is infallible. Teaching has authority only in so far as it accurately represents the mind of God as revealed in Scripture. And something similar must be said of prophecy: whereas inscripturated prophecy carries with it the authority that we ascribe to Scripture as a whole, extra-biblical prophecy, along with the other charismata, needs to be tested and controlled, 1 Corinthian 13:9; 14:29. The prophet’s transmission of a divine message is no more infallible than the teacher’s interpretation of the Bible. In each case, we have this treasure in earthen vessels. One consequence of this is that it will normally be unwise for a prophetic utterance to be delivered as if the Lord himself were speaking in the first person (”Thus says the Lord…”). A prophet may feel more or less confident about the content of his message, but, generally, an appropriate preface would be something like, “I think that what God might be saying in this situation is…” Another consequence is that prophecy, though not to be despised, is to be tested, 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21. The partner gift of the discerning of spirits is relevant here, 1 Corinthians 12:10, as is a more general scrutiny of the prophetic utterance by ‘the others’ who are present, 1 Corinthians 14:29. Then again, the prophets themselves have a responsibility for what, when, how, and to whom they speak, for ‘the spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets’, 1 Corinthians 14:32.

Moreover, thirdly, both prophetic ministry and teaching ministry need to be recognised and affirmed by the church. In the case of public teaching, this is done through selection, training and ordination/licensing. In the case of the prophetic ministry, the process is not so formalised, but Network does provide a tried and tested framework. And, in any case, just as those who are exploring their aptness to teach are often able to begin by testing and exercising their gift in the relative safety of a small group, so might it be for those with a prophetic gift. Such a relatively structured approach might seem to contradict the pattern of open ministry that we find in 1 Corinthians, but we know enough about the difficulties of that church to suggest that its pattern is not the only one to follow: it might work for some relatively small and homogenous groups, but for larger, mixed congregations it could become a recipe for undisciplined mayhem. I’m not suggesting there could never be a place for spontaneous prophetic utterances from those not previously recognised as having a gift of prophecy (see Numbers 11:29; Joel 2:28; 1 Corinthians 14:1), but I do think that in the interests of good order we ought to regard these as exceptional, at least until we acquire more experience in receiving and responding to prophecy.

But, lastly, both prophecy and teaching need to be allowed to challenge as well as console. The teacher seeks to follow Paul in not hesitating to proclaim the whole will of God, not just those bits of God’s counsel that the audience wants to hear. Similarly, the prophet is aware that it requires boldness, as well as humility, to utter unpopular truths; it costs nothing and achieves little merely to toe the party line and offer a few reassuring platitudes. If we are serious about renewal we may also have to get serious about reformation: that is, we may have to challenge at some stage the prevailing doctrinal and ecclesiastical structures. But there are ways and means of doing this. Therefore, I say again: the prophetic ministry should be under similar controls as the teaching ministry: both should be recognised, nurtured and tested by the local church; both should be under, rather than over, Scripture; both should be as private or as public as the situation requires. The prophet has as much reason as the rest of us for praying with the Psalmist, ‘Set a guard over my mouth, O LORD; keep watch over the door of my lips.’ (Psalm 141:3)

Beyond such basic understandings and guidelines as these, I think we might be prepared to take a few risks, expect to make some progress and perhaps a few mistakes, and be willing to learn from our experience, always keeping God’s written word before us as our infallible guide.

“Lord, speak to me, that I may speak
in living echoes of thy tone.”