Lesslie Newbigin on John 3:16

"God's love is known to us because he has given is only Son that whoever believes might have life. The uniqueness and the universality are counterparts of each other. To reject both in the alleged interest of mutual tolerance among the world's religions is to deny the message at its center. If there are many different revelations, then the human family has no center for its unity...Each of us is - n the end - shut up in his own world of ideas. He must find God in the depths of his own being because there is no action of God by which he gives himself to be known by us.

The uniqueness ("his only Son") corresponds to the universality ("whoever") because God is love in action."

(p. 43, Lesslie Newbigin, 'The light has come: An exposition of the fourth gospel')

Laws of ritual purity

The laws of ritual purity, however, do not concern forbidden acts. They concern human conditions or states which occur despite human volition. Sometimes they are the consequence of actions which in themselves are meritorious. To be in a state of ritual impurity is never a sin; but the suffer of ritual impurity has to be careful not contact sacred areas or objects until he has rid himself of his impurity by the prescribed method of purification.

For example, an Israelite attends a family funeral. This in itself is a meritorious act, showing family feeling and respect for the dead. but proximity to a corpse causes a seven-day ritual impurity, which must be removed if the Israelite has occasion to enter the Temple...Or a husband and wife have sexual intercourse. But this act, though meritorious, since it fulfils the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and 'makes the loved companions to rejoice', causes one-day ritual impurity to both husband and wife, which they must remove before their next visit to the Temple. Other impurities are incurred by natural processes: menstruation and childbirth; others by misfortunes: leprosy and abnormal genital discharges. not one of these conditions is sinful. Many mistakes...would be avoided if this were better understood.

What the dietary laws and the ritual purity laws have in common is that they form part of the priestly code laid down in the Torah for the Israelites as a priest-nation. It is significant that none of these laws is included in the Ten Commandments, or in any of the lists which were made from time t time (notably the rabbinic Seven Noachide Laws) to express basic human morality. neither the dietary laws (kashrut) nor the purity laws were regarded as obligatory for non-Israelites. Nations or peoples castigated in the Bible for immorality...were never accused of breaches of purity, but only of basic morality

(pp.vii-viii, Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: the Ritual Purity System and its place in Judaism)

Israels as priests

Israelites are regarded as a priestly nation. Their purity code is that of a dedicated order, and therefore it does not aply to the rest of mankind, who, however, can opt to become Jews, whereby they become liable to observe the purity laws and also, from the moment of conversion, contract and convey uncleanness. Rabbinic Judaism considers that all humanity, whether Jews or not, are in covenant with God and are bound to keep the laws of morality as summarized in the Seven Noachian Laws, the first code of international law. To become converted to Judaism is not a matter of salvation, but of dedication. Those who are born Jews must function as Jews, but for other members of humanity, Judaism is a choice; just as it is a choice for a Catholic to become a priest or a member of a monastic order, by which he will become a priest or a member of a monastic order...

The whole purity code found in the Torah and elaborated in the rabbinic literature is thus a protocol for a dedicated group living constantly in the presence of God, whose Tabernacle is in their midst. It is a kind of palace protocol or etiquette, observed in the court of a monarch, but not required outside the confines of the palace. Even for Jews, once the palace was destroyed, most of the rules became inoperative, though they continued to be studied...

The Hebrew bible knows nothing of unclean Gentiles or unclean Gentile lands.

(pp. 9-12, Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism

Pick your own theology of baptism!

If baptism is an "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" (BCP), then we can ask three questions, from which I think you can identify different theologies of baptism.

Who makes the sign?

• God through the baptiser;
• The baptiser; or
• The baptised.

Is the grace

• already present;
• given by the act; or
• anticipated in the act?

What is the grace signified?

• A new status;
• A new nature; or
• Both.

I think most credo-baptists believe that the baptised makes the sign of an already present new status and new nature. The Reformed essentially believe that God through the baptiser makes the sign of an already present new status (although the sign is also of the new nature that may be either already present, given by the act, or anticipated in the act). The RC and the Lutherans seem to believe that God through the baptiser makes the sign of a new status and new nature which are given by the act.

I think I would say that God through the baptiser makes the sign (because the baptised is always described as passive in the NT), the grace is given in the act (because the NT seems to see baptism as achieving something), the grace signified is the new status (because that seems to fit the NT texts when interpreted in the light of wider theological convictions and experience - namely the once for all nature of the new birth and the reality that many baptised people do not believe). However I'd also say, with the Reformed, that the new nature may be either already present, given by the act, or anticipated in the act.

How would you answer the three questions?

NB I wouldn't usually chose to use the word grace in the way it is used in this standard definition. It makes grace sound like a 'thing'. Maybe we could use the word 'reality'.

Grace and the Mosaic covenant

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

You shall have no other gods before me...

Many people point to the preface to the Ten Commandments to demonstrate that obedience to the Ten Commandments was (solely) a response to a salvation already received.

I have two problems with this (other than the Pauline letters!):

1. Israel were not yet in the Promised Land. God may have unconditionally promised to bring the nation into Canaan, but he did not promise to bring every individual. A whole generation would perish in the wilderness because of their disobedience. Gordon Wenham himself comments "Israel is posed to take possession of the rest of their inheritance, but this depends on total obedience to the law and its demands".
2. Israel were tenants who could be dispossessed if they disobeyed. This is particularly clear in Deuteronomy, but even in the command to honour your parents there is an implicit warning that disobedience will lead to ejection from the land.

Transcending these problems is the absence of holiness in the people. Kiuchi comments "though it seems the Decalogue was given within a context of 'grace', would not the difficulty of observing it in addition to the severe punishments associated with such violations... mitigate against such a conclusion...the Israelites standing befoer hte Lord in Exod. 19 are as yet unredeemed (unsaved) from their sinfulness... the spiritual reality of the people showed that they were far from being saved from their own sinfulness" (pp.27-28, Leviticus (AOTC))

"the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)

Despising and judging

The penny dropped for me this week...

The weak Christian tends to judge the strong Christian. The strong Christian tends to despise the weak Christian. Ask yourself, "who do I despise?" "Who do I judge?"

I suspect most of us are a mixture of strong and weak, depending on the issue. Perhaps you despise the six-day creationists and judge those who don't regularly attend your small group... perhaps its something else.

I've been really helped to see that what Paul is so concerned about is eradicating from the church both despising and judging.

Paul reminds us we should "welcome" our brother and sister (v.1) because "God has welcomed him" (v.3). We are meant to imitate God in his grace... but not in his judgement. "We will all stand before the judgement seat of God" (v. 10), but that is precisely why Paul thinks we shouldn't judge our fellow believer. Having said that, Paul still sees judging having a role in church discipline, in particular if it is necessary (as a church leader) to excommunicate those "guilty of sexual immorality or greed...an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler" (1 Cor 5:11).

I once heard Tim Keller challenge those in his congregation that were self-righteous and those that were self-righteous about not being self-righteous. I need to hear both and give up both despising or judging and instead welcome all my brothers and sisters.

Four pointers on suffering

Four pointers on suffering:

1. The world's not right

2. We're not innocent

3. God's not indifferent

4. This life's not ultimate

(Sam Allberry)