Tom Wright on the Kingdom

When I was a student in music, going through A-levels and then my undergraduate degree, there was a phase that just about every student went through, when we loved the music of Benjamin Britten. Somehow each of us in turn ‘discovered’ this man’s music and fell in love with it. We appreciated it because it was our access to ‘modern’, aka 20th-century music, but carried enough undertones of romanticism and beauty not to alienate us unlike Schönberg or Stockhausen. Enamoured students would present seminars on the Four Sea Interludes or (in my case) The Turn of the Screw. We had to tell our professors how great this man’s music was – who were probably secretly bored stiff with hearing about Britten but wore a smile as we got through our phase.

Well, maybe I’m having a bit of a Tom Wright phase – I think many students of theology experience this – but the man really does know how to communicate. And what he has to communicate isn’t tosh. It’s some of the best New Testament scholarship in this or the last century.

Wright’s latest book is called “How God Became King” and I stumbled across a video linked from the N.T Wright page. The link to the video is: http://www.calvin.edu/january/2012/NTWright.htm – and it’s seriously worth a watch.

The Bible and the Question of the Afterlife

I love it when you find that the Bible constantly addresses long-held suppositions you’ve had even when it comes to the Christian faith. For me, something has been crystalising over the years with regard to this question of the ‘afterlife’, or more appropriately, what-happens-when-you-die.

There is a basic supposition which I feel is incorrect, which lies behind the questions asked by many both within the faith and outside it, and in the answers given by those from within the faith. The questions run something like this: “What do Christians believe about the afterlife?” “Where do you go when you die?” “What will heaven be like?” The answer in its basic form can sound something like this: “Put your faith in Jesus and when you die you’ll go to heaven.” With no more needing to be said after that.

Lying especially behind the last question but often behind all those statements is the following supposition: the ultimate destination of Christians is a disembodied existence in heaven which will be eternal because it will be enjoyed by our immortal soul/spirit. Maybe that’s not what you’ve grown up to believe; perhaps it was only me. Or perhaps it was only me and all the people I’ve ever had the conversation with: “what do you think heaven is going to be like?” We have that conversation because we want to know what it’s going to be like in the place we’re going to spend the rest of eternity, after-we-die.

As you might imagine, I now think there is far more to it than that, and indeed some aspects of that picture I now consider plain wrong.

For a start, it would be wrong for us to defer to the Platonist’s problem of an immortal soul needing to be liberated from the prison of a human body. First of all no verse in the Bible suggests that our soul is innately immortal. On the contrary, “God alone possesses immortality,” (1 Tim 6:16) so any immortality that comes into our possession must have been given by God – everlasting life is His alone to give and without it we are mortal creatures in every respect – spirit, soul and body. I mention this Platonic idea because it has often crept into Christian doctrine and influenced us to think that because we have this immortal bodiless part of us, that will be the part that endures through eternity with Him in heaven. I do not think this is the case.

So if we don’t want to defer to Plato’s problem but rather take the Bible at its word, I rather think our answer to the questions “What do Christians believe about the afterlife?” and “Where do you go when you die?” would look rather different. For a start there is no Biblical word for ‘afterlife’ – it’s not something it brings into question. The fact of the matter is that because of sin, ‘after life’ there is death! But of course what people mean is ‘after death’ – what is there? If we answer the question with believers in view for now, then the answer I think from the Bible’s standpoint could look something like this: the soul is carried away to ‘paradise’ (Luke 16:22; 23:42-43) for a period of waiting which in some ways can be likened to sleep (1 Thess 4:13-18) until the time of the resurrection. This takes place in two phases (which we won’t worry about for the moment) after the return of Jesus to the earth (Rev 20). Our existence then is in a newly-embodied state, in brand new ‘resurrection bodies’, an existence which will be eternal and which won’t just be ‘in heaven’ but will rather be in BOTH the ‘new heavens and the new earth’.

I realise all this needs rather more exposition than the one paragraph I have just given it, and more than the few Scriptures I have poked at to back up what I’m saying. There is a time and place for that and hopefully it will be on this blog (though I realise how often I say that without making it good…yeah sorry about that). For now I just wanted to lay out briefly how I see my theology reshaping to conform to the pattern I see in Scripture; from the classic statement of the Gospel to the true New Testament statement of what happens to us when we die…and then rise again. The resurrection is immensely important, and not just that of Jesus, but of everyone else as well, in helping us understand the plan of God, the justice of God, the creation of God, and all sorts of other things. I expect when I eventually get to the end of NT Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God I’ll be in a better position to explain some of those things. It’s taken me a year and a half so far. I’m a slow reader and read about a zillion books at a time.

To come back to the questions that I presented at the opening, I addressed the first two above. The third one, “what do you think heaven will be like?” requires yet more answering. On the one hand if we want to fit it into the scheme above we should really have to ask “what will paradise be like while we wait there; and what will the new heavens and the new earth be like?” though in part I believe we are responsible for the answer to the second half of that as we rule and reign with Christ. But taking the question another way, we already ought to know what heaven is like, because we are citizens and creatures thereof! (Phil 3:20) It is His will being done (Matt 6:10). We are actually seated there now with Christ! (Eph 2:10) I personally believe we have more responsibility than we presently know to be able to state what heaven is like and then to be praying it comes to earth! That is God’s whole plan in a nutshell: heaven on earth. We shouldn’t be asking “what will heaven be like?” as if we can’t wait to escape there but “what should earth be like?” with the answer that it should be like the heavenly places that we are seated in and citizens of now!

Hopefully, there will be more to come on this. According to Hebrews 6 the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment (judgment here I think best understood as ‘verdict’) are foundational doctrines, yet I think they are often neglected these days. We need much more to understand that our final destination is not a disembodied state in heaven but in the new heavens and the new earth, with brand new resurrection bodies, ruling and reigning with Christ!

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10)

Revelation 19:10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (NASB)

This verse is one that I have heard quoted a few times and interpreted in different, interesting ways, but none of the interpretations I have heard have quite convinced me. The part of the verse I am really referring to is the very last bit: “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” It’s an unusual wording to get our heads around. One interpretation used by (I have to say) one of my favourite authors/speakers/leaders, and upon which he based an entire (and otherwise extremely good!) book, makes the ‘is’ in the middle into a kind of equals sign, so: “For the testimony of Jesus = the spirit of prophecy.” His interpretation then applies to testimony in general, and how sharing a testimony can act as a kind of prophetic word so that what was shared in the testimony has the potential to happen for someone else too.

I would not debate the certain possibility that spiritually, this could indeed happen. As I said, I think the book and the man that wrote it is wonderful, but I have to say I don’t quite think that’s what this verse is getting at.

What could it be then? “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” What is the guy talking about? For a start, John has just tried to worship this kind of angelic being who is talking to him – whether he supposed it was Jesus or not, I don’t know. All we know is that the being then says he is actually a fellow servant with John and with those who hold the testimony of Jesus. So here the testimony is first mentioned in this context. Within the wider context of Revelation and indeed the New Testament the word seems to me to hold quite a strong courtroom connotation which is sometimes lost in modern usage (to ‘witness to Jesus’ these days is to tell your neighbour about Him over coffee, or something; not wrong, but just not the full idea contained in the Greek word or the New Testament usage thereof). The judicial usage suggests that these brethren have a truthful testimony which they can share in heaven’s court (and maybe doing so on earth makes it heard in heaven anyway) which leads to a verdict rendered in favour of the saints and against the accuser (see especially Revelation 12:10-11). This, I think, is a bit more of what it means when it speaks of the ‘testimony of Jesus’.

So why is this ‘testimony of Jesus’ the ‘spirit of prophecy’? What does this phrase now mean?

To me, at least in this verse, another word I can think of for spirit is ‘essence’. Not that it’s a suitable alternative to the Greek word, it merely helps lead us towards what I think this verse is saying. The Greek word itself is ‘pneuma’, which can simply mean ‘breath’ or ‘wind’ as well as ‘spirit’. So we could say that the life-force of prophecy, its very breath, is this: to testify, bear witness to, Jesus.

This I think begins to fit the context rather well – always a good sign when interpreting a verse. There’s been a lot of prophetic stuff going on! John’s been blown away with some of these incredible revelations. And so when at this point this fellow has been instructing him in writing down these true words of God and John thinks it appropriate to worship this being, he tells John not to do so but to worship God. And then in saying this phrase “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” I would think that the emphasis would have been heard on ‘testimony of Jesus’, in other words, what ultimately all this prophecy is leading to, is a revelation, understanding and knowledge of Jesus through witness to Him, because ultimately that is what true prophecy is about.

Because that is what true prophecy is about, is it not? I don’t have a lot of time for prophetic words that go nowhere near Jesus and don’t make me want to worship Him more. And in fact very often such prophetic words might often come from people who would rather you worship them. But the spirit of true prophecy, the essence of what it is to really prophesy, is to bear witness to Jesus. “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Or perhaps a helpful retranslation in summary would be: “For the spirit of prophecy is to bear witness to Jesus!”

I hope this makes sense. I just thought it might be worth sharing as a helpful lead into thinking about this verse!

I’ve encountered the Original Greek, but he just helped me continue the journey

First of all, welcome to the new look site. Of course, it’s just another theme from WordPress. I like ‘em.

Secondly, I have a final exam tomorrow for New Testament Greek, which I have been learning for a year. It is incredible, fascinating, illuminating, to even discover some of the basics of the language and understand what they spoke. For me I get a lot from discovering the links between language then and now, knowing that our vernacular today has roots way back into ancient history. So ‘ballo’ means ‘I throw’ – because you would throw a ball! And about a trillion other examples (many of them much more meaningful, too).

I have learnt about the behaviour of language in general as well as New Testament Greek in particular. Our class has been shown a great many ‘gems’ that are uncovered in the New Testament when the original language is investigated. (Conversely we have learned how some of them are covered in most modern translations!)

But the thing that has most struck me is that my journey of discovery isn’t over yet.

I mean, in several senses, of course it isn’t, it would be arrogant for me to suggest that it is over already. As a believer in such a magnificent, awesome, holy God, I should expect that only eternity presents sufficient bounds for understanding and knowing Him. Secondly, I’ve only been studying Greek since September – I’m not an expert yet (much as I might like to pretend that I am!).

But that intriguing and wise character that is the ‘Original Greek’, it turns out, doesn’t stand at the end of the road in terms of discovering God and His nature through the New Testament (nevermind his distinctly older and more shadowy companion, Ancient Hebrew). If you thought that once you could argue from the New Testament using perfect koine Greek, you’d be the best theologian in the world, you’d have another think coming. No amount of scholarship can save us, can it? It’s the message behind the words that we’re after, not the words themselves, however helpful they may sometimes be. Mr Greek is a thoroughly useful guide on the journey, but if we really use our understanding correctly, we will continue to seek Jesus, and our understanding of God through Him. That is the believer’s journey. I suppose the journey of many scholars ends with Mr Greek, but for those knowing God and trusting Him, this is just a tool, albeit a useful one, for continuing our pursuit of Him.

Our journey is relational, not formulaic, and it’s important we remember to keep it that way. I’m going to continue to use what I’ve learnt this year (and hopefully continue to learn over the coming months and years) to pursue the One who captured my heart long before I even knew so many words in English. If you too are entertaining the idea of engaging this language, I would encourage you to do so! It’s just worth bearing in mind that you can be a Greek scholar and still be biased in one theological direction or another. Our anchor, Jesus, will help us to keep the right focus as we journey through life.

Trigg over and out.

Relational versus Functional approaches to the Bible, Theology, and God

I often feel that these thoughts I have ought to be properly expanded in a much more formal way but this is going to have to remain a ‘thought’ for now, and we could even throw it open for feedback.

Reflecting as I have been on the various arguments that often run to and fro between theological camps, particularly between Calvinisticly-Reformed believers and Arminians/open theists, as well as other polar tribes, I feel that perhaps what lies behind the two approaches and which often create the immovable loggerheads are two different starting points, two different convictions on which to base one’s arguments.

On the one hand (eg. Calvinistic/Reformed) I perceive to take a very functional, orderly approach to Scripture, where everything is seen to be neatly tied-up theologically in the Bible, and it is by reading literally from there that we can apply whatever we read systematically, with little need for nuance, variation, or otherwise. This is well and good, however I would suggest that it is only a post-Enlightenment Western society that would condition the presupposition that this is of course the way that we are meant to approach Scripture.

On the other side then where I sit, the approach is not first to find the functionally sound answer to my problem from a text of Scripture (though without question the God-breathed Scriptures are helpful for us when we’re in trouble!). I mean to distinguish this because a functionally tied-up answer with a verse of Scripture to quote may not deal with the whole situation; my approach then I humbly suggest fits with 1) a generally earlier, more Jewish approach which is relationally centred and doesn’t depend on the rationalistic processes of the Enlightenment and 2) the passion and heart of God as revealed through Jesus for relationship, with God and with one another. In other words, Scriptures are best understood through relationship with God, communing with Him and discovering in that context what He has said and how He wants to say it now.

Hence why you will find differences cropping up. The first approach sounds very ‘correct’ and certainly it shouldn’t be debunked – finding out what Scripture says about something is a valuable part of the journey. But I would suggest that with God the full journey is about relationship, and figuring out what God’s character is like should be one of our highest aims and ideals. So where on one side there is no problem with saying that God predestines some people to salvation (and therefore leaves some out of it) because this is what Scripture is perceived to say about what God DOES (His actions – ie. a functional approach), I have a problem with this because my highest value is knowing His character, and what He is like, and believing in a God who is love and in love bestows free will and wants everyone to be saved really doesn’t fit with the picture that was discovered by functionally approaching Scripture and trying to take it literally (which can often lead to grave misunderstanding when the context is not taken into account etc. etc.)

So, there’s my first problem of many with the (I would say unfortunately) all-too-pervasive and widely-accepted theological presuppositions that are preached every Sunday which I feel stem from too much emphasis on the Reformation principles and from a post-Enlightenment system of logic, and not enough from the Biblical context of relationship and indeed the Jesus-centric interpretation of Scripture. But I’m sure I’ve got a lot to work out on this yet, and that others will have helpful feedback and discussion points to raise which I hadn’t thought of

“All things under His feet” – what does this look like?

In Ephesians 1 (well and 2 & 3…and in fact the whole letter) Paul presents a stunning picture of the cosmic reign of Christ and how it plays out into history now. We find in this letter some of the most amazing statements of His rule and authority, stemming from what He has done for us.

But it can be tempting to read into some of these passages some of the many ideas that have risen up since they were penned, from Greece and Greek thought, from Augustine, from Calvin. As far as Greek thought goes, another read of the passage would simply reveal how what we treat as very ‘Greek’ thoughts (eg. ‘chosen’, ‘predestined’ vv. 4-5) are couched in deeply-rooted Jewish terms and ideas (eg. ‘adpotion’, ‘Beloved’, ‘redemption’ vv.5-6), and therefore can be looked at in that context, as we remember that Paul was always of the Jewish school of thought, not Plato’s (unlike many of his sincere devoted commentators today in the Reformed camp…just saying!).

I could take time to go into all the wonderful ideas in this passage, and their misconstruals, but to begin with one particular idea which has been on my mind for a while, what does it mean when it says that ‘He [God, the Father of glory] put all things in subjection under His [Jesus’] feet’ (v.22)?

I heard this question asked once, and it was framed in the description of our present experience, where it doesn’t look like everything is under Jesus’ feet – if it were, we wouldn’t have wars, famine, strife, suffering… etc. etc. Unfortunately I felt that the answer given at the time was less than satisfactory, or a bit fuzzy at best, seeming to say that, yes, everything really is under His feet, and we don’t necessarily understand that, but it’s what the Bible says.

It’s much simpler than that, actually. God has revealed Himself in Scripture and gives us the Holy Spirit to help us interpret. So we might just have a better chance than saying, “we might not understand it, but that’s it.”

The verses in question hearken back to two main Old Testament quotes. The first is Psalm 8:6 which says of the ‘son of man’, ‘You make him to rule over the words of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.’ This is referred to in a number of places, including Hebrews 2 which, speaking of mankind says that ‘now we do not yet see all things subjected to him. But we do see…Jesus…’ (Heb 2:8-9) ie. there is going to be a process involved in seeing this prophetic envisioning of all things being under man’s feet, and it’s not complete yet. But we can fix our eyes on Jesus as we go our way seeking it to be fulfilled.

Because so far this has talked about man, not Jesus. Our question is about things being under Jesus’ feet; and indeed the ‘son of man’ in Psalm 8 COULD perhaps be seen as the Son of Man – Jesus.

In which case I should first make the point that in Ephesians and especially in these verses we see redeemed humanity in Christ, the head, ‘filling up’ His body, being the fullness of Him (Eph 1:23). So in a sense as much as it applies to all things being under Jesus’ feet, they’re going to be under the church’s feet.

The second thing then is to mention the second Old Testament reference quoted here: Psalm 110. In that case it is much more clearly Messianic, and all over the New Testament is immediately applied to Jesus: ‘The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’ Ah, now we have it: all things under Jesus’ feet. But that doesn’t necessarily answer our question.

Psalm 110 appears to be straightforward, as does Ephesians 1:22 – all things are under Jesus’ feet. But we’ve already seen that the Psalm 8:2 reference involves humanity, and according to Hebrews isn’t necessarily fully inaugurated yet. We also notice the language of the Psalm ‘until…’ – there is process involved here too. And in the context of Psalm 110, when you read on through it, you find that Jesus’ enemies under His feet looks like an army being sent out to battle, ruling in the midst of God’s enemies, their enemies (Psalm 110:2-3).

Sound familiar? Because this is how also Ephesians itself ends: ‘Finally, be strong in the Lord…put on the full armour of God…’ Ephesians itself instructs us to think, act like soldiers against ‘spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places’ (Ephesians 6:10-12).

So really, arguably, Paul’s argument isn’t primarily that all things are under Jesus’ feet, end of discussion. He ends the discussion in chapter 6 with a call to arms! He has the same view that Psalm 8, the writer to the Hebrews, and Psalm 110 have: Things are BEING put under Jesus’ feet, His authority is being extended, as His army is sent out to rule in the midst of His enemies!

Be blessed.

Did the Father turn His face away?

Stuart Townend has written a number of great hymns which have gained widespread usage across the church in the last few years. One of them is called “How deep the Father’s love for us” which speaks of the cross and the power of it for us. It’s a good song, but one that a number of us in Ichthus (and I know a few others too) take issue with because of one line built on a famous bit of classic evangelical theology.

How deep the pain of searing loss
The Father turns His face away

The line describes the pain of the cross, and then goes on to state that the Father turned His face away from His Son, something that many in evangelicalism believe. I had a friend just the other day talk about it as though it’s completely central and Biblical, and crucial to the idea of atonement. But is it? I’m not so sure. This will sound blasphemous to some. But with a brief run down of some of my reasons I hope people will hear what I mean (even if they still do not agree).

On the cross, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” This famous line quotes Psalm 22:1, a prophetic psalm which proceeds to envisage the sufferings of the cross with amazing clarity. This line has led to theologies being created around the idea of ‘Penal Substitution’ (which I’m not going to go into specifically, for the sake of space) that the Father and Son were somehow ‘separated’, torn apart, removed from one another, at the cross. The Father turned His face away…and so on.

On the face of it it seems right to talk in that way, using Jesus’ cry as a starting point. And as I said it has become quite a central idea to the whole doctrine of atonement in many peoples’ minds. There are issues to be addressed, like how God reacts to bearing the sin of the world, and what that looks like in the Godhead. Some would on this issue suggest that the presence of sin on Jesus implicitly necessitated God’s face being turned away (though we remind ourselves that Jesus is God, therefore correct it to the Father turning His face away) – but even then on occasion in the Old Testament God didn’t turn His face away, and stared right at the sin, seeing how detestable it was, and ready to judge it (eg. Jeremiah 16:17).

And so as I have indicated, I question the specific idea of whether the Father really turned His face away, for various reasons:

1. Jesus never addressed His Father as ‘God’ in all His years of ministry – or even before that (Luke 2:49). It was always “My Father, my Father, Father this, Father that.” He did speak of “God” when speaking to others, teaching them how to serve Him and love Him, but even that was rarer than speaking about the Father. So in this crucial moment, if I were to believe that the Father had forsaken the Son in the way that is taught, I would have thought He would cry, “My Father, my Father…” With its echo to Psalm 22 this would have had all the more poignancy, but He doesn’t. He simply cries what was already there in Psalm 22. A direct quote. Meant to hearken the minds of any hearers back to Psalm 22. To this psalm we will return in a moment. Also, each of the accounts (Matthew and Mark) record the words in a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic. Jesus wanted it to be heard specifically differently from the way He usually spoke about Father – therefore (I think) withdrawing from the notion that it would be possible to entertain the idea of Father turning His face away.

2. Having said this on the cross, there are two other occasions on the cross when He addresses Father – highlighting still further the distinction from His quote of Psalm 22. One is “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) According to the Old Testament, God would not hear the one He has hidden His face from (eg. Isaiah 59:2). How could He then forgive? Or had He not turned away at this point? When did He turn away? The other is Jesus’ final words – so if the Father had turned away, He would have had to have turned back for these words in order to heed them (and I don’t think anyone has ever doubted that He heard this final cry) – “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46) – which interestingly, quotes another psalm (31:5).

3. Various other New Testament Scriptures make it look like Father went with Jesus all the way to and through the cross. We might come to the point of Jesus making His way to the cross and say, “right, He’s having all the sin of the world put on Him, so surely the Father is going to look away now.” But to His disciples, He said in so many words, “When you all run away from me and leave me alone, I won’t be alone, because My Father is with me.” (John 16:32).

4. 2 Corinthians 5:19 tells us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. It was a wholesale involvement with Christ in the middle. Perhaps putting this statement together with Psalm 22:1 we could suggest that “God was in Christ experiencing God-forsakenness.” An incredible mystery, but one that I think is much more Biblically grounded than the idea of the Father turning His face away from the Son (equally a mystery but also more philosophically problematic what with less Biblical grounding – can God even be separated or would that not cause everything to fall apart??).

5. Isaiah 50:4-9 is part of one of the so-called ‘servant songs’ of Isaiah and speaks (in verse 6) in terms very much prophetic of the cross (prior to the even more prophetic song in 52:13-53:12). Yet all through it is the constant refrain that “The Lord God helps me…” eg. in verse 7!

6. But in case you thought that all of the above did not quite solidify the case enough for you, and you still felt that interpreting Jesus’ one cry on the cross “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” to mean that the Father and Son were separated at the cross and that the Father did indeed turn His face away (both of which would be interpretation, not directly drawn from the text), take a look again at that Psalm to which Jesus wanted to draw the attention of His hearers, and verse 24: “He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” David might have felt forsaken, but he ultimately knew that God’s face was not really hidden from him. How could our construal be any different in applying it to Jesus?? The weight of sin caused Him to experience God-forsakenness, yet ultimately that psalm reminded Him and His hearers that the Fathers’ face wasn’t turned away, and thus He could pray, “Father forgive…Father, into Your hands…” Because when He cried to Him for help, He heard…

Now, maybe I’m being a nit-picker, but I believe in the ‘jot-and-tittle’ of the Scriptures – getting the nuances right, not rushing to conclusions, making sure we’re Biblically based and Biblically balanced. If we’re going to teach the cross, it’s fundamental that we get it right, and I would ask that we consider this case a little more carefully, for as much as we might like to sing that song and hear that line, I argue that there is nowhere in the Bible that says that the Father’s face was turned from the Son, nor are any of the attendant ‘separation’ ideas necessarily involved. Of course, God wants us to take sin and its effects seriously, and I don’t think the case for doing so is one bit maligned by questioning this particular aspect. No doubt the wrath of God is visible at the cross; it’s the fact that God-become-man is right in the middle of it that is so startling.

To me, Jesus’ highly-stylised (if we can use that word) quotation of Psalm 22:1 forces us to think of His quote in a certain light, and is especially meant to draw our attention to what is going on, NOT in that the Father’s face had at that point turned away (for presumably, Jesus WOULD have known WHY that would be, whether He liked it or not), but to draw attention to the events as described in the Psalm, and to encourage Himself and His hearers that ultimately, He has “not hidden His face from Him,” and even more beautifully, that the declaration can confidently be made, that “it is finished,” that “He has done it.” (Psalm 22:31)

New article: Bible translations

Hi readers.

I’ve created an Articles pages where you will find some (usually rather extended) entries that it might be better to have preserved on a page rather than pushed down the line of random blogs. Kicking it off I’ve put up a (rather verbose) article on modern Bible translations – with a healthy sidelong glance at the King James – appropriate I think as this year (2011 in case you hadn’t realised) is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.

Go check it out there and enjoy!

1611 – the genealogy

I expect this will be a year for a great many “Bible blogs” both from myself and fellow Christian bloggers (as well as a few atheists I expect), being as it is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.

I thought this would be a good way to kick it off: the witty “ship of fools” site “tweeted” the following just now:

“Wycliffe begat Tyndale; and Tyndale begat Coverdale; and Coverdale begat Matthew; and Matthew begat Great; and Great begat Geneva, and Geneva begat Bishops; and Bishops begat King James. And in this wise came about the birth of the KJV in 1611, 400 years this year.”

Fun

Reading the Bible…

The problem when we read the Bible is, we want the answers to our questions to be handed us on a platter. The only thing handed over on a platter in the Bible is the head of John the Baptist. Ben Trigg.