The Future of BeginningWithMoses.org

It's been a long time since we last updated BeginningWithMoses.org - essentially because all our circumstances have changed since we set this project up seven years ago. With a not entirely clear timescale we're in the process of handing over the site to a new editorial team and waiting on a major technical overhaul which should make it all look shiny and work better. 

Peter Leithart - Theology of Missions

Leithart: at First Things:
...The Bible provides a theology of missions that is neither accommodation to existing culture nor total war that leaves the existing culture in smoking ruins. Mission is more like cultivation, a process of nurturing the hidden but unforeseen potential within a culture. Mission, we might say, is like water. Tertullian said, Nunquam sine aqua Christus—Christ is never without water. Neither is the Church; neither is her mission.

“Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided into four rivers” (Genesis 2:10). It is the Bible’s first reference to rivers, and the first use of the number four, a number that eventually becomes associated with universality—the four corners (Isaiah 11:12), the four winds (Daniel 7:2), the four cornerstones of a house, the four horns of the altar. Genesis 2:10 is the first missionary text in Scripture, the first hint that Eden’s garden is not destination but source, the first faint suggestion that Adam is to move from the garden to bring its life to the ends of creation....

Biblical Theology for Kids! The Bible is about God and what he has done.

Now some people think the bible is a book full of rules, telling you what you should and shouldn’t do. The Bible certainly does have some rules in it. They show you how life works best. But the Bible isn’t mainly about you and what you should be doing. It’s about God and what he has done.

Other people think the bible is a book of heroes, showing you people you should copy. The Bible does have some heroes in it, but most of the people in the Bible aren’t heroes at all. They make big mistakes (sometimes on purpose), they get afraid and run away. At times they are downright mean.

No, the Bible isn’t a book of rules, or a book of heroes. The Bible is most of all a Story. It’s an adventure story about a young hero who comes from a far country to win back his lost treasure. It’s a love story about a brave Prince who leaves his palace, his throne – everything – to rescue the one he loves. Its like the most wonderful of fairy tales that has come true in real life!

You see, the best thing about this story is - its true. There are lots of stories in the Bible, but all the stories are telling one big story. The story of how God loves his children and comes to rescue them. It takes the whole bible to tell this story. And at the centre of the story, there is a baby. Every story in the bible whispers his name. He is like the missing piece in a puzzle – the piece that makes all the other pieces fit together; and suddenly you can see a beautiful picture.

And this is no ordinary baby. This is the child on which everything would depend. This is the child who would one day – but wait. Our story starts where all good stories start. Right at the very beginning….

ht: Ant Adams: Biblical Theology for Kids

Sabbath by Andrew Shead

Sabbath in the Pentateuch - Genesis 2:1-3

‘Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their array, so that on the seventh day God had completed his work which he had done. He ceased on the seventh day from all his work which he had done, and God blessed the seventh day, and he sanctified it, because on it he ceased from all his work which God had created by making it’ (author’s translation).

There is no mention of the Sabbath here, nor of rest. Instead we read of the ‘seventh day’ of creation, and of God ‘ceasing’ from his work. We should be careful not to read back into this passage more than it actually says.

The passage begins by describing all the work of creation as ‘complete’, and associates this completion with the Seventh Day (the capitals differentiate this Day from any other seventh day). God’s ‘work’ is always carefully defined: the retrospective phrase ‘which he had done’ refers to the previous six days’ work only, as does the verb ‘created’ ( br ), which is picked up from 1:1 and reused to close the account. Was God doing another type of work on the Seventh Day, such as the work of sustaining his creation? We are not told (but cf . John 5:17).

‘Blessing’ is associated in Genesis 1 with fruitfulness and dominion, both of which are expressions of what it means to be created in the image of God ( 1:26 , 28 ). We may conclude from its use in v. 3 that, just as God blessed what he created, he also blessed the fact of his creation: its completeness and its ongoing existence.

When God ‘sanctified’ the Seventh Day because on it he ceased creating, he was not celebrating or commemorating days one to six, but declaring his new state of not creating to be blessed and holy . This is suggested by the close link between ‘God had completed’ and ‘he ceased’. The end of God’s creative work brought about a new type of time, blessed and set aside, presumably in order that what was created could now be. The Seventh Day was to be a day for fruitfulness, for dominion, for relationship.

The created order is not commanded to sanctify the Seventh Day; the reason given involves God alone. The creation simply moves into the Seventh Day by default.

Read the rest of this paper by Andrew Shead at BeginningWithMoses.org

Have you got the whole story - Mike Cain

Whenever I am asked to give a series of apologetic talks I try and make it clear to those who have invited me that I am not coming just to win an argument about the reliability of the Bible or merely to leave people with the impression that the reality of suffering need not rule out the philosophical possibility of there being a God. I don't want people to walk away with the idea that theism is a plausible hypothesis; I want to confront people with the Christ who is Lord of the Universe. If people are going to feel the full force of His claim on their lives then they will need to see how he fits within the unfolding story of salvation from creation to new creation. It is as simple as that. They won't know how to make sense of the details of claims of Christ until we set those claims within the context of the unfolding story of the Bible. Because of this my habit has been to start any series of apologetic type talks with this overview of the Bible.

I do it with the following aims:

1) I want the Lord's revelation of Himself to set the agenda for the discussion. We may well have move on to issues such as the reliability of the Bible, suffering and pluralism, but if you start with God's agenda I have found people ask their questions in the light of what the Bible actually says rather than in the light of some documentary that they once saw on channel 4.

2) I want the first talk to set the context for the subsequent talks. So when we move on to, say, the problem of suffering or the uniqueness of Christ I want to be able to show people how to make sense of those things within the Bible's unfolding story. So, for example, when we talk about suffering, go from creation to new creation via the cross in a way that sets the problem of suffering firmly within the plan of salvation and underlines the coherence of the Christian world-view; when we talk about the uniqueness of Christ, show how it is the unfolding story of the Bible that painted the early church into a corner when it came to their convictions about who Jesus is.

3) I want to show people that the worldview of the Bible is coherent and that it does in fact make sense of the world. It is easy to get sucked into the sort of apologetics that assumes we just have to win the intellectual battle and so spend all our time "clearing away the intellectual barriers that prevent people from approaching the Gospel" without ever getting round to proclaiming the Gospel itself. I t is the Gospel that is compelling and which melts hearts and transforms minds, so this talk is an attempt to usher people through the "intellectual barriers" and show them the view from the other side - to show them what the world looks like when you look at it through the lens of the Gospel. It does, of course, give rise to questions and objections, but it means that when we revisit the "intellectual barriers" people know what is at stake and, we pray, the power of the Gospel is at work in them because they have, at least seen the view.

4) I want to show people that we are not talking about a bit of private spirituality that can be slotted into your existing worldview, but that when we are talking about the claims of Christ we are talking about the one by whom and for whom all things were made. Calling people to turn to Christ means calling people to turn from their old worldview and to embrace a whole new one that has Christ at its centre. Doing apologetics in a "biblical theological" sort of a way, means we are constantly talking to people on the level of total world view and not giving them a handful of spiritual fragments to make of which what they will.

5) Doing apologetics in a "biblical theological" sort of way means we are underlying the fact that our God is the God of history who has stepped into history and is taking history to its climax. He is not the result of philosophical speculation - which is the impression that some apologetics can leave you with.

Read the rest of this paper by Mike Cain at BeginningWithMoses.org

Adam in Romans by Jonathan Gibson

This paper discusses the degree of Adam’s importance in the argument of Romans. It commences with a presentation of the purpose and argument of the epistle, followed by a brief assessment of allusions to Adam in 1:18-23 and 7:7-12, before focussing in on the connections of 5:21-21 to various parts of the letter. In doing so, the measure of Adam’s importance is explored in six sections of Romans: 1:18-4:25, 5:1-11, 5:12-21, 6:1-8:39, 9:1-11:36 and 12:1-15:13. It is concluded that whilst scholars assert Adam’s importance in the letter, they do not deal explicitly with the degree of his importance, thus highlighting the need for further research in this area. This paper concludes that Adam is of foremost significance in the edifice of Paul’s argument to ensure a correct understanding of the gospel – and also the law – in order to bring unity to the church at Rome.

The seventeenth century Puritan, Thomas Goodwin, said, ‘In God’s sight there are two men – Adam and Jesus Christ – and these two men have all other men hanging at their girdle strings.’ Whilst most commentators assert Adam’s importance in the argument of Romans, this essay will explore the degree of his importance. We concur with Kreitzer that the Apostle Paul assumes Adam’s historicity and therefore this will not be our concern; neither will the issue of original sin. After presenting Paul’s purpose and argument, followed by a brief discussion on the passages concerning allusions to Adam, we will focus in on 5:12-21 and its connections to the argument of Romans. In doing so, the measure of Adam’s importance will be presented, along with some concluding reflections.
Paul’s purpose in writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles in Rome is multi-faceted: self-introduction (1:1-6); strengthen the church (1:11; 16:25); explain the gospel, particularly in relation to the role of the law (1:1-5, 15-17; 3:19-20, 31; 5:13-14, 5:20; 7:7-25; 8:2-4); resolve the Jew / Gentile conflict and bring unity (3:22, 29-30; 11:17-24; 12:3-13, 16-18; 15:1-7); ensure support for his Spanish mission (15:23-24).

Paul’s argument in Romans is united by the overriding theme of the gospel, which frames both ends of the letter (1:1, 9, 15; 15: 16, 19; 16:25). At the heart of the epistle is the issue of Jew / Gentile conflict in the church, and in particular the Jewish opponents who accused Paul of proclaiming a fictional gospel of justification that was outside the realm of proof, required no change in one’s life, and provided no security for the future.

Read the full paper by Jonny Gibson at BeginningWithMoses.org

Why the law then? A Biblical Theology of Law in Galatians (Chris Poteet)

There is arguably no issue more fiercely debated within orthodox evangelicalism as that of Paul's teaching regarding the Christian and law.1 The debate has been around for centuries, and I am no position to say that I have come to an understanding that has been absent in church history. Actually, my understanding of the relation of law and gospel is similar to that of the reformers—in particular Martin Luther. He saw that the Mosaic Law had a temporal role in God’s plan of redemption, and he tended to stress what is commonly called the "second use" of the Law which is to drive the unbeliever to Christ.

Paul, I believe, espoused this position in his monumental letter to the Christians at Galatia. In chapters 3-6, he gives us a redemptive-historical perspective on the purpose of the Mosaic Law and life led by the Spirit in the New Covenant. Correctly understanding this perspective can, I believe, move Christians who are divided on the issue to a more fruitful discussion.

The structure of this essay revolves around my exegesis of Galatians 3:23-25. I will first provide the background of Galatians, and I will then analyze 3:23-25 through exegesis and contrasting various positions in Christendom on this passage. The essay concludes with a discussion on life in the Spirit over the age of Law and the Law of Christ as Paul explains in chapters 4-6.

Continue reading Why the law then, by Chris Poteet at BeginningWithMoses.org. Chris Poteet blogs at Imperishable Inheritance.