So I went to the Church of England newspaper website where you can download bits of recent editions for free, hoping there might be a review of Pierced For Our Transgressions. My interest was caught by a large headline 'Revisiting the Atonement' with the subheader 'Andrew Gregory reviews a major new work from a leading theologian.'

Not 'Pierced', then. Oh no. Something called 'Jesus, our Redeemer' by Gerald O'Collins. The bit highlighted in the middle of the page reads, 'More controversial still for many evangelicals will be O'Collins' rejection of penal substitutionary understandings of the atonement.'

Hmm. Seems to me that 'Pierced For Our Transgressions' is a timely book, among all its other many virtues.

Looking for inspiration? Check out the 100 best April Fool's Jokes and if you're not sure how gullible you are, them the Hoax Photo Test is for you.

Someone warned me that when spring comes here, it comes fast, and they were right. Two weeks ago we were in the middle of the nastiest snow of the winter. This time last week the daffodils were barely showing green. Three days ago they were in full bloom.

I didn't even notice the magnolia budding, but today you can see it in all its glory:

On Wednesday it was so warm that I sat outside to eat my lunch and got sunburnt on my nose!

A number of bloggers have posted recently about speed reading and various techniques which may help those of us who still have 60-something books on the list we're trying to read by May.

But it was refreshing to come across this by Ellen Davis, on the merits of slow reading:

In addition to imaginations fit for the reading of Scripture, students also need literary skills, and these are often of a different kind than their earlier studies have required of them. Most new seminarians are schooled in textbooks, operators' manuals, and plot-driven novels. They know how to skim for content, yet relatively few of them are experienced with literary complexity. Moreover, the Bible is the last place they expect their reading skills to prove inadequate, since most entering students think they know what is there, even if they have never actually read it. So the first task that confronts them - or should confront them - is to learn to read in a radically different way. One of my students in the introductory Old Testament course put the problem succinctly about eight weeks into the first semester: "When we started, I thought the problem was that I read too slowly. Now I see that the problem is, I read too fast." Making mileage through the text invariably impedes movement into what Barth rightly calls "the strange new world within the Bible." Slowing down, we can begin to see how the (sometimes frustratingly) complex literary artistry of the Bible conveys theological meaning.

Different texts, different speeds.

To skim or to savour? For content or for transformation?

Lets learn to read our bibles more slowly.

By way of a vague answer to Justin's question about my last post (though please do leave comments with more specific answers/other thoughts too), I was just reading this from Meredith Kline in 'Images of the Spirit'.

In the broad parallelism that we have traced between the Genesis and Exodus creation episodes, Aaron's priestly investiture corresponds to the original creation of man in the image of God's Glory. The priestly vestments had the Glory-cloud for a pattern. This becomes readily apparent once we have recognized that the tabernacles too was a replica of the Glory-cloud, for there are striking similarities between the tabernacle and the priestly-vestments.

...

The tabernacle... serves as an intermediate link in a remarkable symbolic series: the tabernacle is a replica of the Glory-Spirit and Aaron's vestments are a replica of the tabernacle - and thus also of the Glory-Spirit.

That Aaron's garments were designed to be a likeness of the earthly tabernacle and of the heavenly Glory-tabernacle is evidenced by their materials, form, function, general purpose, and the ritual connected with them.

From James Jordan's commentary on Judges, 'God's War Against Humanism'.

An investigation of the Biblical material reveals that there are judgesses and queens in the Bible, and though there are not many, nobody seems to be surprised about it. There are also prophetesses, and again though they are few, nobody seems to be surprised about it. But there are no priestesses. The reason for this is found (as usual) in Genesis 2 and 3.

The woman was made to be a helper to the man in his work. That work was the work of dressing the garden, understanding it, ruling over it, seen first of all in the naming of the animals (Gen. 2:15-20). Man's second work was to guard (in English Bibles, "keep") the garden (Gen. 2:15). The woman at his side was part of what he was supposed to guard; indeed, the woman is a kind of symbol for the garden as a whole, as the analogies in Canticles make clear [I like this bit!!]. When Satan attacked, however, the man failed to guard his wife (though he was standing next to her during the whole conversation - Gen. 3:6, "with her"), and thus failed to guard the garden (Gen. 3:1-6). As a result, man was cast out as guardian, and angels took his place (Gen. 3:24).

Guarding is man's priestly task, as shepherding is his kingly task. It is precisely because it is the bride who must be guarded, that the woman cannot be a priest. She is not the priest; rather she is what the priest (imagine the Divine Bridegroom) guards and protects. Thus, the woman may not take up a leading liturgical role in worship, for she cannot represent the Groom to the Bride (1 Cor. 14:34).

In the Bible, sexuality goes all the way down. The woman is made distinct from the man, altogether. Thus, there are not female prophets in the Bible, but rather there are prophetesses; there are not female deacons, but there are deaconesses (a separate group); there are not female judges, but there are judgesses. The male prophet and the male king both stand as representatives of the Groom to the Bride. The female prophetess and queen cannot take that position, but stand within the Bride as counsellors. Since all humanity are feminine before God, as the Bride, there is nothing wrong with a queen or prophetess giving direction to men. The one thing that is excluded is the central liturgical function of imaging the Groom.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with women as rulers in any area of life except the Church. And there is nothing wrong with women as teachers in any area of life, including informal teaching in the Church. Women may teach men in Sunday School, but they may not assume the liturgical/symbolic role of leader in formal worship, in the presence of the sacrament, before the throne of God.

Amen to that.

Meredith Kline's works online here.

HT Josh James

A few jottings I made in last week's class that I forgot to blog about at the time. These may give a flavour of Dr Poythress' style...

I don't think any of us really know where most of our ideas come from...

Grammatical-historical exegesis, in order to be scientific and rigorous, is also superficial.

I once heard a Puritan preacher...

I didn't think he was quite that old!

We could almost think of land as a sacrament - as a means of experiencing God's presence and blessing.

How do you make that an interesting lecture?

Professor C. L. Seow just treated the poets class to a 2 hour close reading of the Hebrew text of Job 1-2 - which was fascinating in itself - with a long digression on the history of interpretation of Job's wife. There is a significant tradition of interpreting her words, literally 'Bless God and die' positively. According to Professor Seow, the first negative translation, 'Curse God and die' was Luther's.

But what was especially fascinating was the way Professor Seow traced the interpretive tradition through art work from early bas reliefs, through to mediaeval, renaissance and later works. One painting, by Georges de la Tour, was especially interesting. The painting had been thought to represent the angel coming to rescue Peter from jail. Here, obviously, the angel was thought to be comforting and warm. Then someone noticed the broken pot on the floor by the naked man and realised this was actually intended to be Job. As a result, the painting was given the title 'Job's wife mocks him.' Yet the woman is the same figure who was once thought to be angelic, bringing relief and escape to Peter. How much more likely (particularly given the long tradition Professor Seow has identified) that de la Tour wanted to show Job's wife comforting him.

I was reminded of a lecture I went to at SBL on mediaeval representations of the Song of Songs. The lecturer there made the point that modern scholars tend to ignore large parts of the history of interpretation because we only focus on texts. But music, art, sculpture and, no doubt, other media also convey historical interpretative traditions we would do well to take notice of. Particularly when we're looking at periods of history when texts were rarely possessed but paintings could be seen week by week in church.

(courtesy of Jordan)

Batter my heart, three person'd God; for you
As yet but knocke, breathe, shine,
and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand,
o'erthrow mee,'and bend
Your force, to break, blowe
burn and make me new.
I, like an usurpt towne, to'another due,
Labour to'admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in mee,
mee should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weaks or untrue.
Yet dearly' I love you,'and
would be loved faine
But am betroth'd unto your enemie:
Divorce mee,' untie,
or breake that knot againe,
Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I
Except you enthrall mee, never shall be free,
Nor ever chast, except you ravish me.

Holy Sonnet XIV

When the bible talks about Christians as stones, being built into a living temple, what kind of stones do you imagine? Grey granite, yellow sandstone, dull blocks of whatever kind of stone they build with in Israel or your native land?

What about gemstones? Diamonds and rubies? Sapphires and amethysts?

Well we know the new Jerusalem will be built out of such stones (Rev 21:19-21) and Paul says that his work is building with precious stones (1 Cor 3:12). So it seems to me we should be thinking of ourselves as far more glorious stones, making a far more glorious temple, than I've previously imagined.

...and catch a glimpse of God's glory.

More from Jordan:

If you have a diamond ring, hold it up. Notice the fire within? Each of these stones is a tiny image of God's glory, His fire. The High Priest, whose chest was covered with such fiery stones, thus had his own personal glory-cloud, an image of God's.

It is because gemstones so pointedly reflect God's glory that we regard them as beautiful. It is written on the heart of man to appreciate glory, and it takes a great act of the will to pervert this attraction. We delight in a beautiful sunset, in the sound of rushing water, and in gemstones, because [in] each of these images [is] the very glory of God Himself. Fallen man may not want God, but he does want God's glory.

Not only can we see gemstones as frozen pieces of glory, but we can also see them as frozen pieces of the rainbow. The rainbow is, of course, a manifestation of glory, being made of light and all colors. It appears in the heavens, like the glory of God, and the Bible shows it encircling God's throne.

Because it reminds us that our Bridegroom is coming, of course.

Here's what I said about this last year.

I thought I'd done a proper blog about this before, but it seems not.

This is a book to read if you want your eyes opened and your mind expanded. This is a book to read if you're concerned about taking every thought captive for Christ. This is a book to read if you want to start to see things the way the Bible portrays them. This is a book to read if you feel bogged down in the world's way of thinking and you're looking for a way out.

Through New Eyes
James Jordan

You probably won't agree with every conclusion Jordan makes, but you'll have learned more things you didn't realise you didn't know than you thought possible. You'll read the bible through new eyes and you'll look at the world, yourself, and our great God through new eyes too.

Okay, here's a bit I just read that will illustrate the way Jordan works:

Why is this shell [i.e. the firmament described in Genesis 1] called “heaven”? Because the phenomena that appear in the sky are signs and symbols of things in the original heaven. Clouds remind us of God’s glory cloud. Rainbows remind us of the rainbow around His throne. Stars speak of angels. The sun speaks of Christ. The blue speaks of the heavenly sea before the Throne. And so forth.

I shall never look upwards to the heavens in the same way again!

Don't forget to click on the link to help me build up credit at the bookstore!

Today it was warm enough to sit outside as I was reading through some papers. It's not the first day we've had like that, but since the last was followed by the nastiest snow of the winter, I don't think that really heralded spring.

As I left home this morning I noticed that the daffodils outside our neighbour's front door are starting to show yellow. The sky is a proper blue with cotton wool clouds. The trees are budding like anything. Birds are singing and all in all, I think it would be fair to say that springtime is bursting out all over.

Pleasingly, the job I'd set myself to do today took significantly less time than I'd expected, so I've caught up on a few other bits and pieces and I shall now go home and watch American Idol with a clear conscience.

You've got to love a paper that comes with the title 'A Very Rough Sketch of an Idea I'm Excited About'. And I'm looking forward to hearing Tommy Keene talk about this paper on Thursday. Meanwhile, here are some of my favourite quotes from other people that he gives:

But think of Adam and Eve like an imaginary number, like the square root of minus one: you can never see any concrete proof that it exists, but if you include it in your equations, you can calculate all manner of things that couldn't be imagined without it.

Philip Pullman, The Golden Compass, a.k.a. Northern Lights

And this very pleasing bit from Van Til, which is one in the eye for all those systematicians who think every argument can be ended by saying 'In the beginning, God.'

A Christian will engage in no speculation... He does not even start his thinking with God as his master-concept in order to deduce his 'system' of truth from this master concept. His thinking is always and only an attempt to integrate the various aspects of biblical teaching. In doing so he is deeply conscious of the fact that every 'concept' he employs must be limited by every other 'concept' he employs, and that therefore his 'system' is an effort to restate in his confession the truth as it is in Jesus.

Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology

I don't know whether it's because the sun is shining or because I've declared an unofficial Spring Break, but I am filled with a sudden urge to start making things. Following my discovery of the craft blogs I listed yesterday, I have now discovered the most delicious website for buying handcrafted items and craft supplies direct from the individuals who make them.

Etsy is like a marketplace for crafters. You can search for items/shops by category, by location, by time listed, or (and this is my favourite) by colour. When you find an item you like, you are directed to the individual 'shop' where you can see other items for sale and make your purchase. Easy, beautiful and lots of fun. This is one of the best designed websites I've come across in a long time - worth checking out even if it doesn't sound like your kind of thing!

Jordan quoting Bavinck:

God...

is compared to a lion, Isaiah 31:4; an eagle, Deuteronomy 32:11; a lamb, Isaiah 53:7; a hen, Matthew 23:37; the sun, Psalm 84:11; the morning star, Revelation 22:16; a light, Psalm 27:1; a torch, Revelation 21:23; a fire, Hebrews 12:29; a fountain, Psalm 36:9; the fountain of living waters, Jeremiah 2:13; food, bread, water, drink, ointment, Isaiah 55:1; John 4:10; 6:35, 55; a rock, Deuteronomy 32:4; a hiding place, Psalm 119:114; a tower, Proverbs 18:10; a refuge, Psalm 9:9; a shadow, Psalm 91:1; 121:5; a shield, Psalm 84:11; a way, John 14:6; a temple, Revelation 21:22 etc.

Jordan himself:

All this can be boiled down to a simple fact: The universe and everything in it symbolizes God. That is, the universe and everything in it points to God. This means that the Christian view of the world is and can only be fundamentally symbolic. The world does not exist for its own sake, but as a revelation of God.

From 'Through New Eyes', chapter 1

1. Biblical symbolism and imagery is not a code.
2. Biblical symbols do not exist in isolation.
3. We must always have clear-cut Biblical indication for any symbol or image we think we have found.
4. The heritage of the Church in systematic theology and in the history of exegesis is always a check on wild speculation.
5. Biblical symbolism must be interpreted in terms of Biblical presuppositions and philosophy.

Next time I go to New York I want to go here.

In fact, I want to go to all these places.

I've just come across this blog which is full of fabulous things, inspirational ideas and helpful tutorials. If your life could do with being a bit more beautiful, check it out. There are a whole host of links to other lovely sites too.

*sigh* So little time, so many books to read, so few projects completed.

The Theologian has recently updated with a number of new articles. There are interesting papers here on doctrinal, biblical, ecclesiological and pastoral matters. Worth checking out.

You can also find my paper on the words of institution of the sacrament here, if you're interested.

Hooray!

I've just booked my flights for this summer. I'm going to be in the UK from Wed May 16th to Fri Jun 29th and I'd like to see everyone!!! Email me now or nearer the time if you'd like to arrange to meet up.

From James Jordan's 'Apologia on Reading the Bible' (see previous post).

One of the errors I encountered in seminary was the notion that all pastors should develop their sermons out of an in-depth exegesis from the original Hebrew and Greek. Virtually nobody ever does this, of course, but it was held out as an ideal. There is nothing ideal about it, however. Preachers need to pass on the heritage of the church to their people, with a pastoral eye to their psychological and spiritual situation. If they get their homilies by borrowing from Spurgeon, or from other people's outlines - what's wrong with that?

I've just spent a very pleasurable half hour or so reading this article by James B. Jordan. It's a sort-of defence of Jordan's hermeneutic but really, just a plea for better bible reading. Jordan's not writing for academics and he mainly avoids technical jargon. Anyone who wants to understand their bible better should read this article!

Here are some of my favourite bits:

In the ancient world... few people could read, and there was no easy way to write very much. Reproduction was by hand copying. Thus, writers were constrained to make every jot and tittle count. They did this by the use of literary structures such as chiasms (ABCBA) and palistrophes (huge chiasms that cover vast reaches of text). They did this by the use of symbolic numbers and numerical structures. They did this by the use of symbolic names. Particularly in the Bible, since it is a cumulative book, they did it by means of allusions to pre-existing literature. In this way, they could say a lot in a small compass, for the alert reader (the only kind there was back then) knew to pore over the text for additional depths. Nowadays we rarely encounter this kind of writing.

Jordan makes several observations based on an essay by C. S. Lewis, 'Experiment in Criticism'. His point is that we need to learn to read the literature of the bible in a 'literary' way.

Basically, the literary reader is a person who is open and receptive to the text, and allows himself to be molded by it. The unliterary reader is a person who uses the text for his own purposes, whether that purpose be the gathering of information or sheer recreation.

Now Lewis rightly points out that there is nothing immoral or wrong about appreciating narrative at the unliterary level... But: The Bible is literature, and those who wish to deal with it in depth need to become "literary" readers.

"The first demand any work of any art makes upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive." Critical evaluation comes afterward.

The kind of openness to the text that Lewis sets out as the chief desideratum for good reading is, I believe, the same thing as Christians mean by "waiting on the Lord". That is why, I believe, so much relatively good exposition has come from pastors and saints, and so little good has come from technically-oriented scholars... Time and again, when modern commentators fall flat, we can turn to the fathers of the early church, to Luther and Calvin, to Matthew Henry and Arthur Pink, and find real insight.

Lest I be misunderstood, I want to return to a point Lewis made above. Being an unliterary reader is no shame and no problem. The Bible can be read, appreciated and used profitably in an unliterary manner. The Spirit communicates to all believers with and through the Word. Most people are not called to become mature, literary readers. There are plenty of other callings equally spiritual and indeed, some good literary readers of the Bible are themselves not believers, which is why we can use some Jewish and liberal commentaries with profit.

One other random piece of advice I have is this: If you want to get better at reading the Bible, cultivate a taste for good literature and classical music. Good literature stimulates our awareness of narrative, idea and symbol. It also encourages us to read openly and slowly. Classical music trains us to become aware of "long lines" of extended development in time. While popular music comes in simple tidbits, classical music comes in complex and extended forms. I believe that listening to classical music acts to create a subconscious awareness of and sensitivity to the interplay of details over a span of time. I don't believe it is possible to read the Bible without this sensitivity.

Serious reading is an art. One does not acquire it overnight, nor is there a list of ten rules you can master that will unlock the depths of the Scriptures. It is like any other art, largely a matter of becoming sensitized to the literary form of the Bible.

How do you become a better bible reader?

1) Read the Bible more
2) Read great literature (prose and poetry)
3) Read books on reading
4) Listen to classical music (I don't really do this one)
5) Read the Bible more

The 427 people who've visited the site since I set this up are spread across an extraordinary geographical range. America I expected, London and the rest of the UK obviously, but Saudi Arabia? Iran? North Africa? South America? India? Who are these people and how have they stumbled across the blog?

See the results for yourself here. There's also a link at the side of the page that you can check any time.

This is a very helpful guide to the American grading system which I am linking here for future reference. (When is the next Hebrew quiz?)

Warning: this link is only for teaching staff. Students (particularly those of a nervous or gullible disposition) should not click. You have been warned.

HT: Digital Brandon!

Why is it that the BBC website (and thus its radio player) is down today? Just when I need it most in the background, keeping me going.

I seem to have lost any ability I ever had to construct coherent sentences. Right now I feel like I know everything there is to be known about Philo's interpretive principles and methods, but can I write an essay about it? Apparently not. Can I write a series of incoherent ramblings with notes? Oh yes. Do I have examples to illustrate my points? Of course. Can I be bothered to transfer those examples into the essay? Not right now. Footnotes? Who wants footnotes? Or page numbers?

Who was it who said that writing was easy? All you have to do is sit in front of a typewriter and open a vein. Can't remember, can't be bothered to check.

And once this one's done (hollow laugh) just two more, and all those reading books still staring at me every time I go to my desk. And in two months time, it'll all have to be done somehow.

ETA Posh new BBC Radio website and radio player - that's what all the problems have been about. Seems to be working now though. Hooray.

At least it was sunny today. And warm. Almost like summer.