Christian readers need to continually remind themselves: the Old Testament believers had no developed doctrine of the afterlife. In much of Christianity the idea of the afterlife — of rewards and punishments in the world to come — dominates the thinking of believers. In Christianity, this has become such a commonplace idea we must consciously remind ourselves that it is missing (for the most part) from the thinking of the Old Testament writers.
It’s not just Christians who may be surprised — or even shocked — by the absence of this theme. There are some observers who have theorized that religion exists as a way of addressing the fear of death. If that were the case, it would be impossible to account for the Jewish religion in Old Testament times (or: the religion of the ancient Greeks at the time of Homer, either. Just read The Iliad sometime.).
Because the believers of Old Testament times had no developed doctrine of the afterlife, they tended to see the issues of right & wrong / rewards & punishments as playing themselves out in this life. For example, you can see this clearly in the book of Proverbs: do right and things will go well for you, do wrong and you will suffer.
Forgiveness — the pardon of sins — is a central issue in Christianity. Jesus has made it so — and has taught us to pray: “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.”
Yet, it is also such a difficult issue. When there is a deep wound, the pain is still there, and the anger still arises. In times like this, we wonder: do the words mean anything? When time and time again, you have to pray “Lord, give me the grace to forgive my enemy” you have to wonder if there is ever hope for you. There have been many times, when I have wondered this about myself. And, I know I’m not alone in having this problem.
Those people who have done things that have caused wounds — especially those who have done it quite deliberately and knowingly — are hard to forgive. Many people have been treated unfairly and unjustly. People have been abused. And, the problem with forgiveness is that it seems to say that all that was okay. To let go of the anger and the outrage seems to give in to injustice — to give permission for the abusers to do it again.
How would we want other people to think of you? Wouldn’t you want them to think the best? For some people it becomes an obsession: wondering what other people think of them. It is a source of anxiety and shame. Most of the time the truth of the matter is: they don’t spend much time thinking about us at all. And, how much does it matter anyway? Should it?
How do we want God to think of us? That can be a disturbing line of thought. Many people I know were raised in a hellfire and brimstone religion, where the angry judgement of God was a prominent theme. Human sinfulness & depravity was held up as the basic fact of human nature. We are sinners. And, God is holy. God is offended and angry over our sin. God must condemn us. It is only right.
This message, resonates with something deep inside us. We know we are not the people we should be. We are often ashamed of ourselves. And, we can’t help but reason: God must know of flaws and errors that we don’t. We are quick to condemn ourselves. Why wouldn’t God condemn us? In fact, it is hard for us to imagine that God would think more highly of us than we think of ourselves. Isn’t it?
That is why the message of God’s love is always so hard to believe. If we are sometimes tempted to worry about what other people think of us — how much more worrisome the thought of what God might think of us.
This is one of several items I re-blog every once in a while. And, here’s why. It illustrates one of the huge gulfs between contemporary Methodism and the original Methodism that arose under the leadership of John Wesley. Methodism originally combined: serious Biblical study, impassioned preaching, a personal experience of faith, a serious discipline for spiritual formation and the service of God in the world.
This is from a letter by Adam Clarke to a young man contemplating the ministry. Readers will find this advice a bit (ehem!) challenging. Actually, I think it is good advice myself, though I’d (of course) update the reference works, and have to acknowledge I’m quite a bit more “rusty” on biblical languages (and thus much more reliant on secondary sources) than I wish I were.
First (after the divider rule) I quote Adam Clarke at length. Then (after the next divider) I give some reflection on why I think these remarks are important. (I’ve done some re-formatting. I found this letter in a brief biography of Adam Clarke’s life which had been written by his son-in-law, Samuel Dunn and included in a compendium of Clarke’s writings called Christian Theology.)
“I would lay down two maxims for your conduct:
Never forget any thing you have learned, especially in language, science, history, chronology, antiquities, and theology.
Improve in every thing you have learned, and acquire what you never had, especially whatever may be useful to you in the work of the ministry.
“As to your making or composing sermons, I have no good opinion of it.
“Get a thorough knowledge of your subject: understand your text in all its connection and bearings, and then go into the pulpit depending on the Spirit of God to give you power to explain and illustrate to the people those general and particular views which you have already taken of your subject, and which you conscientiously believe to be correct and according to the word of God. But get nothing by heart to speak there, else even your memory will contribute to keep you in perpetual bondage. No man was ever a successful preacher who did not discuss his subject from his own judgment and experience. The reciters of sermons may be popular; but God scarcely ever employs them to convert sinners, or build up saints in their most holy faith. I do not recommend in this case a blind reliance upon God; taking a text which you do not know how to handle, and depending upon God to give you something to say. He will not be thus employed. Go into the pulpit with your understanding full of light, and your heart full of God; and his Spirit will help you, and then you will find a wonderful assemblage of ideas coming in to your assistance; and you will feel the benefit of the doctrine of association, of which the reciters and memory men can make no use. The finest, the best, and the most impressive thoughts are obtained in the pulpit when the preacher enters it with the preparation mentioned above.
“As to Hebrew, I advise you to learn it with the points. Dr. C. Bayley’s Hebrew Grammar is one of the best; as it has several analyzed portions of the Hebrew text in it, which are a great help to learners. And Parkhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon exceeds all that ever went before it. It gives the ideal meaning of the roots without which who can understand the Hebrew language? Get your verbs and nouns so well fixed in your memory that you shall be able to tell the conjugation, mood, tense, person, and number of every word; and thus you will feel that you tread on sure ground as you proceed. Genesis is the simplest book to begin with; and although the Psalms are highly poetic, and it is not well for a man to begin to acquire a knowledge of any language by beginning with the highest poetic production in it; yet the short hemstitch form of the verses, and the powerful experimental religion which the Psalms inculcate, render them comparatively easy to him who has the life of God in his soul. BYTHNER’S Lyra-Prophetica, in which all the Psalms are analyzed, is a great help; but the roots should be sought for in Parkhurst. Mr. Bell has published a good Greek grammar in English; so have several others. The Greek, like the Hebrew, depends so much on its verbs, their formation and power, that, to make any thing successfully out, you must thoroughly acquaint yourself with them in all their conjugations, &c. It is no mean labor to acquire these; for, in the above, even one regular verb will occur upward of eight hundred different times! Mr. Dawson has published a lexicon for the Greek Testament, in which you may find any word that occurs, with the mood, tense, &c. Any of the later editions of Schrevelius will answer your end. Read carefully Prideaux’ History. The editions prior to 1725 are good for little; none since that period has been much improved, if any thing. “Acquaint yourself with British history. Read few sermons, they will do you little good; those of Mr. Wesley excepted. The Lives of holy men will be profitable to you.
“Live in the divine life; walk in the divine life, Live for the salvation of men.”
— Adam Clarke, “Clarke in the Pulpit and in Prayer.”
Before I go any further, let me add one quick note: it seems likely to me that Clarke emphasizes studies in Hebrew in this passage because it could be assumed that this young man already knew Greek and Latin — education being a bit different in those days than it is now. Nowadays, no such assumption can be made, and the study of ancient Greek should be emphasized first.
But, here’s why I think this is good advice:
(1.) Content must take precedence over form. Preaching has become empty and boring for lack of fresh content, fresh insight arising from the preacher’s immersion in the Scriptures and the life of prayer. The absolute first rule of public speaking (to my mind) is: have something to say. No amount of borrowed illustrations or quickie sermon helps will make up for this deficiency. Training in Homiletics cannot help if there is no deep insight from Scripture and prayer and life.
I agree that not everyone will be an Adam Clarke. And, his advice is quite off-putting in that way. Not all of us (certainly including myself) will achieve the command of ancient languages that Clarke achieved. No, not everyone is going to develop the passion for ancient languages that he had. On the other hand, bear in mind, that this man was one of Wesley’s local preachers! He was not a scholar working in a secluded University. He was engaged in ministry and preaching. And, look what he produced! Reading should be wide. All knowledge — granted it is legitimate knowledge — is relevant to the preacher’s task.
(2.) The absolute second rule of public speaking (to my mind) is: speak with passion and enthusiasm. You have to care. You have to think that what you have to say is important. It needs to show that you do. Preachers can only become preachers through deep, sustained Bible Study and prayer. All other knowledge they can gain is bound to be of benefit.
(3.) My third rule would be this: Live the life of faith. Then, you can talk about it. As Clarke says: ““Live in the divine life; walk in the divine life, Live for the salvation of [others].” But, you can never be a preacher by studying preaching. The preacher must preach from the overflow.
There are times when we may feel we’ve lost our way. The future seems uncertain and the direction we need to take unclear.
But, there are also times when we feel confident that we know the way — that we know the will of God — at least reasonably well. Psalm 25:4,5 suggests that we really don’t know the way unless we seek to know it. It further suggests that the process of seeking God’s will may take me some time and effort.
I have been discussing this Psalm as a Psalm for the “Waiting Times” of our lives (here and here and here). Verses 4 and 5 show us the positive value of these times of waiting: it’s a time to seek God’s will and direction.
Oddly enough, Christians often have a difficult time talking meaningfully about spirituality.
It is as if words fail us at this point. We are at the edge of a mystery. We are talking about the ways of God — and the ways in which humans find connection with God. We are not used to thinking of this as something which is open to analysis and investigation. After all: “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8 NRSV).
I have commented here and here about the themes I see in Psalm 25, but I haven’t said a word so far about the structure of the Psalm. This hardly seems right. It is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. But, I wanted to give you an idea why I find this Psalm so interesting.
The structure is interesting too. This is one of those alphabetic psalms. The first verse begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the next verse with the next letter, and so forth. (Other alphabetic psalms are 9, 10, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119 and 145.) The last verse of Psalm 25 is outside this structure.
Hello Mr. Adams, I read with interest your comments on Calvin's comments on John 3:16 on your web site. I was wondering what your thoughts are on Jesus' words as recorded in John 6:44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (NKJV) (It is unfortunate that English editions tend to translate the Greek as "draws" rather than the more accurate "compels" — especially since it is also translated more accurately as "dragged" elsewhere.) Have you considered that perhaps Calvin's "on the other hand" was intended to recognize what the whole of scripture says about this issue? He just may have been appealing to theology that is rooted in scripture itself.
In the first place, I would like to point out that my correspondent is attempting to play one Scripture off another. So, we are playing dueling Scripture passages here. Since the meaning of John 6:44 seems closely tied to its context, using it to fend off the idea of God’s universal love in John 3:16 (which seems to me to have a more general meaning) is a bad idea.
The context here has to do with the relationship of the Father and the Son. Jesus is claiming that the Jews are rejecting him because (in actuality) they have rejected the Father.
So, the context of this passage is not a discussion of whether God has chosen to send the mass of humanity to an eternal Hell, while choosing to arbitrarily save (by compulsion: “dragged”) a few. The context concerns why these particular Jews have not been drawn to Jesus as Messiah and Son, while others have. And, Jesus asserts here that it is because they have first rejected the Father and the testimony of the Scriptures.
Jesus denounces their claim to knowledge of the Father. He asserts that their resistance to the Father & the message of the Scriptures is the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the Son. The point is made repeatedly. “And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form…” (John 5:37). “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.” (John 5:39). “How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?” (John 5:44). “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:46, 47). And, earlier in chapter 5 it is stated the other way around: “Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:23).
Thus the point is that the Jews who are rejecting him are doing so because they have first rejected the Father. But, Jesus asserts that those who acknowledged the Father were “drawn along” into acknowledging the Son.
My correspondent is right in saying that ἕλκω can mean “dragged.” It is a stronger word than is evident in our translations. In John 21:6 & 11 it is used of the drawing of fish in a net, in John 18:10 of the drawing of a sword, in Acts 16:19 & 21:30 of forcibly dragging the apostles through the streets, and in James 2:6 of being dragged into court.
But, the context tells us what Jesus means. Those who acknowledge the Father and the testimony of the Scriptures are compelled to also acknowledge the Son. However, the same word (ἕλκω) is also used in John 12:34 where Jesus says : “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (NRSV) If ἕλκω always means “forcibly dragged” then this passage would have to mean that all people (πάντας) are saved — universalism — something Calvinists do not generally affirm. Yet, in Matthew 23:37 (parallel in Luke 13:34) Jesus says: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” Thus, it appears, that Christ desires to draw to Himself people who are nonetheless unwilling to come! And, they do not. It is not that God chooses to arbitrarily save a few by divine compulsion. Though the Cross of Christ, He draws all. But, all do not come.
John Fletcher (1729-1785)
And, here, I think is where we get to the crux of the matter. The Bible continually assumes human moral responsibility. These Jews were responsible for their rejection of the Father and their rejection of the testimony of the Scriptures. It is everywhere assumed that a choice can be made, and that people can be held responsible for their choices.
The early Methodists objected to Calvinism on practical grounds, and not simply on theoretical grounds. Fletcher opposed what he called “Solafideism” because it was antinomian (“against the Law of God”): it undermined human moral responsibility through an appeal to God’s unconditional election to salvation.
Clearly, if you are saved, and you can’t be un-saved, and it is solely God’s choice — then it doesn’t matter what you do. Nothing is riding on it. While classical Calvinists never drew this conclusion, some people were willing to follow the logic of Calvinism to this inevitable conclusion. And, this is one of the things Arminians and Wesleyans and Methodists have always found objectionable: allowing an appeal to grace to undermine our responsibility to respond to God. A call to repentance, for example assumes the ability to respond. And, so forth.
In many, many ways the Bible continually assumes both the capacity to respond and the responsibility to respond. And, to my correspondent’s question “Have you considered that perhaps Calvin’s ‘on the other hand’ was intended to recognize what the whole of scripture says about this issue?” I have to give a terse: “No.” And, a too-quick harmonization of one Scripture with principles a person thinks they have derived from another is always dangerous. What do we mean by a “theology that is rooted in scripture itself”?
John Calvin (1509-1564)
I think Calvin came to his theological views, to a large extent, by way of Augustine. Certainly Augustine also appealed to Scripture for support of his views (though he was no Bible scholar), but his views were also shaped by the controversies of his day and the personal issues they raised for him.
None of us comes to the Scriptures in a vacuum. The notion that one simply shakes out all of the Bible’s teachings on the floor and arranges them systematically like a jigsaw puzzle is a mistake.
All of us have been influenced by preachers and Bible teachers. And, I wouldn’t say that is a bad thing — far from it. It’s a good thing. Not everything Augustine or Calvin said is wrong. I agree with much of what they said. They both can be read (critically) to great benefit. But, I also believe some legitimate objections can and should be raised against much of what they said.
Look folks: not everything Wesley or Fletcher or Clarke or their followers said is right, either. Nevertheless, if we read critically we can benefit from the insights of all.
The themes in this section of the Gospel of John resonate well with the themes I am often addressing at this web site. Jesus calls his followers into a life of obedience — and promises the power and presence of the Holy Spirit to them.
In the Gospel of John, we see Jesus preparing his disciples for the days to come with a long discourse: it begins in Chapters 13 and runs through chapter 16, with a closing prayer added in chapter 17. The passage I’m discussing today is just a brief snippet from that longer discourse. This passage is memorable because in contains of the promise of the Holy Spirit. But, it is framed on either side by a challenge to keep Christ’s commandments.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” — John 3:16 (NRSV).
JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS (my responses have a white background):
John Calvin (1509-1564)
“’That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.’ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”
Um. Okay. I think I’m with you there, brother John.
“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”
Whoa! What do you mean “on the other hand”? Umm… Now you seem to be dodging out of it all by appealing to a theology that is rooted in something else, John. Here you are clearly leaving exegesis behind and trying to reconcile the verse with a preconceived theology. How can ‘life’ be promised to those incapable of receiving it? It can’t. How can God ‘invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers’ (as you say) if God is choosing to withhold the ability to believe from some? You can’t have it both ways. I mean, I know you’re a logical guy, John. Isn’t it possible that Augustine was wrong in the Enchiridion — where this same logical inconsistency can be found?
“Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.”
What! Now you seem to be having problems with your earlier statement that [faith] ‘frees us from everlasting destruction.’ Do you mean: ‘faith bestows life upon us’ (as you said earlier) or: ‘life’ (through grace) bestows faith upon us? Now you are saying that redemption precedes salvation, because the ability to believe is itself the result of that salvation. If the ability to believe is wholly the decision of God, then it is God who has determined the issues of life and death. It is your theology that has dictated that: “redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation” — not the text itself. I agree that part of the message of this verse is ‘that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves’ but it is also a universal offer of eternal life (thus, it says: “whoever”) — a possibility your theology does not seem to allow for! In my opinion, making sense of this verse requires a concept of Prevenient Grace, which allows fallen humans to respond with faith to the offer of life. Otherwise, from your point of view, the verse should read either:
“For God so loved the elect that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who belongs to the elect and, thus, has faith, may therefore believe in him unto eternal life.”
or more simply:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has eternal life may believe in him.”
But, surely you see, don’t you, it doesn’t say either of those things. You’ve turned it around backwards. This is no longer the Scripture with which you began.
(Start gathering the wood again, boys, I think there’s another heretic in town.)
