Its not that often that I hear an evangelical preacher choose one of the miracle stories from the gospels or Acts as a sermon text. The epistles (or if we must go into the gospels, the parables) are generally thought much more useful for basing expository thoughts on. But where I have heard them, they fall into one of two general stereotypes (depending on whether you are at a charismatic or noncharismatic church):

The Charismatic Miracle Sermon

1. This miracle happened and so did loads of other ones
2. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever so God still wants to do loads of miracles
3. Jesus said “you will do greater things than I have doing” which means we ought to be performing even more impressive miracles than raising the dead
4. Altar Call – Come forward if you are ill to get prayer for healing.

The Noncharismatic Miracle Sermon

1. This miracle happened to prove that Jesus is God
2. We’re not God so we can’t do miracles ourselves
3. The apostles were a special case because the Bible wasn’t written yet
4. Altar Call – Come forward to become a Christian

Better Miracle Sermons?

Having spent the last two years studying Mark, and also a year of studying Acts, I’m convinced that we can do better than this. The miracle stories are a small piece of a larger story, and the context they are in both illuminates and is illuminated by the particular passage being studied. So here’s a challenge to any of you who are planning to preach on a miracle – surprise us with something different.

I’ve had a rather busy week, writing some essays and researching how to PInvoke the ACM API using .NET. But here’s some of the interesting sites I’ve been looking at this week:

– My team leader in my previous job, Richard Abbott, spends much of his spare time studying Hebrew and related languages. He has a growing collection of resources on his Old Testament Studies website. His recent article on Balaam was interesting.
– Sven was in fine form last week, insightfully pointing out key areas for reformation in the church as well as the delightful charismatic book of modern prayer (I especially liked the opening verse of the processional hymn). On a more serious note, his N T Wright-esque kingdom / eschatalogy article is worth a read.
– Mark Robert’s excellent series on the TNIV is well worth tuning in to. 9 posts in and he’s only just got round to discussing some of the issues of controversy.
– Tim Challies provoked some interesting discussion with his post on Three Views of Sunday
– Another new version of the amazing .NET open source implementation Mono is out. Where do they get the time to do all this?
– Two new (and free) guitar amp VST’s appeared this week: Tubester and Cortex.
– And finally, Andrew Fountain from Toronto has a remarkable amount in common with me – as well as being a former student at ECS, Southampton University he is a Calvinist from a reformed baptist background, who now attends a New Frontiers church. Check his site out.

My church appears to be trying an experiment next Sunday (27th of Feb).

In the morning a family service is advertised with the special feature of doughnuts. It is also promised to be short, and have lots of puppet shows and dramas etc.

In the evening, writer and theologian Dr. Sam Storms will be coming to speak. For an idea of his emphasis, see my recent review of his book One Thing.

Both meetings have been widely advertised, so now with bated breath we await to see what has the greatest crowd-pulling effect – doughnuts or theologians. No prizes for guessing which one I’m looking forward to the most. Will there, I wonder, be any visitors who come to both, or is this the beginning of the polarisation of the church into the eaters and the thinkers?

Over the last couple of years I have been doing a number of self-study theology courses with ICI (who badly need to find a more up to date photo for their homepage), which is the UK branch of Global University, a Pentecostal university. This last year I have been (very slowly) working my way through their course on Acts. As part of the coursework, I have to prepare my “testimony for a brief yet effective delivery of the gospel”.

In particular, I have to include three main points (you might notice hints of the strong Arminian bias of the course!):
– Though God made a perfect world, Satan persuaded humanity to sin, bringing bondage, disease and death to all (Rom 5:12).
– In spite of our sin, God loves us and made a way to save us by sending Jesus Christ, His Son, to take the punishment for sin (Rom 5:8; 6:23).
– God sets us free when we choose to believe and receive Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Lord (Rom 10:9-10).

Until now, I had refrained from pitching in to the considerable debate amongst Christian bloggers caused by Adrian Warnock posting his “simple gospel in 10 points”, but since I want to finish this coursework off properly, I plan to post my own slightly modified version of the ICI three point simple gospel some time in the next few days.

Two people have independently asked me whether it would have been possible for Jesus to have married and had children. (The idea behind the question being that there might be a theological reason why this should be unthinkable). This is the sort of question I don’t tend to bother answering, as hypothetical questions often cannot be answered with any degree of certainty, and the answer is in many ways quite irrelevant. But since I was asked, I provide a few thoughts here.

He Didn’t

The most important answer to this question is to say “he didn’t”. Thanks to books such as “The Da Vinci Code”, the idea that Jesus could have secretly got married and had children has far more credibility than it deserves (which is precisely none). As Craig Blomberg says in his review of the book “there is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus ever married Mary Magdalene (or anyone else) or ever fathered children.”

Personal Reasons

There were, of course, some very obvious reasons why Jesus would not want to marry and have children. He believed he was sent by God on a mission to die. Caring for a wife and children in the way that God intended a good husband to do would not be merely inconvenient, but impossible. Also, he required that people loved him more than their own families (Matt 10:37). This would hardly be an easy thing for his own wife to put up with!

There is no reason however to suspect that Jesus was in any way anti-marriage. The marriage service famously takes Jesus’ miracle in John 2 as an endorsement of marriage, but even without this episode we have evidence that he believed it was good. His thoughts on divorce showed how seriously he took it, and he appealed to creation as its basis (Matt 19:4-5). He was fine with Peter being married, and happy to visit and even heal his in-laws (Mark 1:30,31).

What God Has Joined Together

So what are the potential theological problems that Jesus getting married might cause? The first is that we don’t know what it would mean for the incarnate Son of God to “become one flesh” (Mark 10:8) with a finite fallen human being. The problem is not with the Jesus “becoming flesh”. He had already done that (John 1:14). In fact John argues forcefully against those who found this idea unpalletable in his epistles (1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7).

Neither is the problem that that the sex inherrent in “becoming one” is sinful. Though the Christian church may have been influenced by those who taught that the body was sinful and the spirit pure, this type of idea has no basis in Scripture. Sex was created by God, and is a good thing in the context of marriage. And the idea that Jesus should have close physical contact with sinful humans is also not a problem – he was a baby in Mary’s womb and nursed at her breasts. He touched the lepers and the children, he let a woman wash his feet with her hair and John lay his head on his chest. There was nothing distant about the way he interacted with humanity.

So it boils down to what exactly is meant by the husband and wife being “no longer two, but one”. This is more than just the oneness of a physical relationship – it is a joining by God, and somewhat mysterious. It is therefore not easy to say whether Jesus could theoretically have been joined to someone in this way. It is however, quite helpful that he was not, as Paul contrasts in 1 Cor 6:16-17 the ‘oneness’ that comes from having sex, and the oneness we have with Jesus. It would be awkward to say the least to have a wife that was “one with him” in one sense, and others who were “one with him” in another.

Grandson of God?

The second difficult issue is – what about the children? Would they be in some sense “divine”? Would they be born with “original sin?”. We might say that children born of sinners are sinners, just as people who touched an unclean man became unclean themselves. But Jesus had a power that transcended those normal rules. He touched the lepers and they became clean, rather than polluting him. And what would be the spiritual status of someone who was the son of the son of God? How would they then relate to both Jesus and God the Father as father? Answering these questions requires a good deal of unsubstatiated guesswork and I’m not even prepared to try.

Conclusion

So I’m pretty much back where I started. The important point is – it didn’t happen, and it’s probably a good thing. This means that all human beings must relate to Jesus in exactly the same way – as their Saviour and Lord. Salvation means for each one of us to become “one with him” and to be adopted into his family, relating to his Father as our own also, and to love him more than anything else.

Hermeneutics is the art of determining what the “meaning of a text” is for us. Often people with an understanding of hermeneutics are on the lookout for misuse of Scripture. I call these people the “hermeneutics police”. For an example, see this article (which I enjoyed). Now on the whole, these guys do the church a great service by exposing some real exegetical criminals. But just occasionally, I wonder whether they get a little bit carried away and only allow us to take one “main point” away from a text.

The Meaning of a Text

Quite often the hermenuitics police point out an illegal use of a text: “That’s not the point, the original author did not mean to say that.” But how do you know what you can or can’t use a text for? Didn’t some of the biblical authors themselves use texts in inconventional ways? I think there are a number of levels of teaching that can be drawn out from a passage, which I will enumerate below. I will use the story of the Saducees asking Jesus a question about the resurrection in Mark 12:18-27 as my example text.

The Main Point

Well this comes as one example in a series of questions posed to Jesus that were designed to either trap him or test him. In each case he demonstrates his wisdom and authority and puts his questioners on the back foot with his superior handling of Scripture. I would say therefore that Mark’s main point in this passage is to show us (by means of an illustration) Jesus’ wisdom and authority. But we should note that even though this is the “point” of the passage, it is never stated explicitly.

The Direct Teaching

The passage does actually directly teach us some stuff (i.e. spelled out unambiguously for us). For example we are told about the Saducees’ beliefs (v18). We also are taught that Jesus believed in the resurrection of the dead (v25). Taking it for granted that Mark is viewing Jesus’ teaching with approval, we could also say that this passage directly teaches the resurrection of the dead. It also directly teaches that there will not be marriage when we are in the resurrected state. Notice that these direct teachings are not the same as what we picked out as the “main point” above.

Inferred teaching

There are also some inferred points that we can pick up on. For example, if we were doing a study on angels, this passage might suggest that they do not have gender. It might infer something about an “intermediate state” after death – Jesus considered the Patriarchs to be living. These types of observation will make their way into systematic theology books, but we are now some way off what is the “main point” of the passage.

Illustrated principles

Then there are some principles that are illustrated by the passage. We might observe how Jesus deals with a hostile question – he answers using Scripture. We might suggest that this is a good model for resolving theological debates. We might also observe that though the Saducees did in fact know the Scriptures, they didn’t really “know” them, and nor did they know the power of God. This could be seen as an example of how it is possible to have a lot of theological and biblical knowlege but still be in the dark. Again these are not the “main point”, but would hardly be disputed as “valid points”, even though we acknowlege that the author’s intention is not explicitly to teach us these things.

Vaguely related stuff

There are of course all kinds of other directions we could go in. We could talk about polygamy – it was clearly unthinkable to the Saducees that a woman might have seven husbands in heaven. You could equally discuss the ethics of “Levirite marriage” and whether it should apply to Christians today. You could even take the phrase “You are badly mistaken” and aim it at whatever group of people you felt were misinterpreting Scripture.

Conclusion

So if you were to preach on Mark 12:18-27, which of the above could legitimately come out? If the “main point” is missing, I would say something is wrong. There needs to be a sense of context. I would not have a problem either with people making points from what I have called “direct teaching” and “inferred teaching” so long as they were not misrepresented as being the main point. But what about “illustrated principles”? Must their use be banned? I don’t think so. Again as long as we are clear that they are not the “main point” of the passage, and we show how what we draw out harmonises with other Scriptures, then these things can be very profitable to discuss.

So I’ll agree with the “hermeneutics police” on most occasions – preachers often take a passage and make it prove some very “vaguely related stuff”. But please don’t insist that we can never consider some of the “illustrated principles” and ponder how we might apply them to our own situation. My own hermeneutic position is that God actually does intend to speak to us in this way through Scripture. As long as it is not uncontrolled, then finding practical points for our own application is a legitimate use of Scripture.

Here’s a question to ponder. Suppose there was a controversial theological issue, on which you knew the basic for and against arguments and which side of the fence you were on, but had never studied in great detail. Suppose then that there were two thorough and carefully argued books written by acknowledged experts, one advocating the side you agreed with, and the other advocating the opposite position. And imagine that you had decided that to be fully informed you wanted to read both books. The question is: which book should you read first?

Arguments for reading the book you disagree with first:

It seems like the fairest thing to do. After all, you are already prejudiced against this view, so reading it second would seem like you weren’t really willing to hear what it had to say. It also will give you integrity as you discuss the issue with friends – you have read the best arguments against your own point of view. You might even go through a period of strongly sympathising with the opposing view, which would at least make you more understanding in future debates and discussions. Also, you might not even need to read the second book, if the one you disagreed with wasn’t persuasive.

Arguments for reading the book you agree with first:

You might end up changing your mind twice over the issue, when no changes were needed, in effect being “tossed around by every wind of doctrine”. You would be best able to critically read the opposing view if you were in full posession of all the arguments for your own first. Assuming that you are in a church that also holds to your initial view, you would avoid the potential for causing upset by advocating the opposing view without knowing all the counterarguments.

Another consideration – you might just read one:

With all the best intentions in the world, the fact is that you might only have time to read one book. Also, the chances are that the first book you read would enumerate all the arguments that the other book was going to present and refute them. It might sound so impressive that you can’t even be bothered to read the second book. So the one you read first could end up being the one that sets your future beliefs in the subject for some years to come (assuming that is, that you find it persuasive).

Leave your answers in the comments below.

(in case you’re wondering, the books that got me thinking about this are this one versus this one, and this one versus this one – although I have no immediate plans to read any of them)

Here’s a few things that have caught my attention this week.

– I have found another New Frontiers member who likes N T Wright. Check out Sven on Moltmann
– Michael Spencer wrote an article lumping all charismatics in with the Word Faith tele-evangelists, which I commented on, but has redeemed himself with an insightful article on subjectivity and objectivity.
– Piper fans might enjoy this
– Mark Roberts wrote an interesting article on church growth. I would be interested though for him to elaborate on why numerical targets are bad.

Outraged at my recent posting of the tentpeg song, Dr June Cale speaks his mind in the comments:

“I’m afraid this is the just the sort of thing I would expect from someone who pastors such a church as the Full Faith church. As I said in my comment in your guestbook, I am appalled that such behaviour as seen in the photos can go on, and that such songs as this can be used in your worship services. Honestly, I have never come across such a lack of discernment and I think your website visitors deserve an apology.”

He also posted some more of his caustic vitriol in my guestbook:
I was most concerned to see some of the manifestations in your so called Full Faith church as faith seems to be the last thing they are full of. As for the notices about pro-organ groups orgnising a battle, I could hardly believe such a thing could go on in the name of Church. I sincerely hope the gatherings have, like many of the genuine gifts, ceased long ago, and that that is the reason for the site not having been recently updated.

I would be grateful if you could provide some kind of response, either in this guestbook or on your weblog as I believe they are known.
Forgive me for not entering an email address – it is nothing personal but I don’t want to risk being infected with any viruses or should I say, “manifestations” from your site.

All I can say is that it is you, Dr Cale, who lacks the discernment. Your heresy hunting attitude causes you to write off all that is good in the modern church. If you don’t embrace the same manifestations as Full Faith, you are clearly from an apostate and dead church. I don’t even want to waste my time trying to reason with such closed-minded unbereans as yourself. You are clearly darkened in the futility of your understanding and are predestined to remain stuck in your parochial backwaters forever.

But hold on a minute, before I get too carried away. Don’t I remember you coming to Full Faith on more than one occasion, doctor? In fact, I have a funny feeling that you were our honoured guest, preaching behind more plants than the main Stoneleigh platform:

And don’t claim that you didn’t realise what our church was like. I have proof here that you were even dancing in a “Devenish” manner with the rest of the Full Faith apostolic team (even though someone has clearly tried to destroy the evidence):

I have posted another three articles to my theology page.
You are the Christ (Mark 8:27-33) – Peter calls Jesus “Christ” and Jesus calls Peter “Satan”.
Varieties of Gifts (1 Cor 12:1-11) – The temptation to focus on the definitions of the gifts can cause us to miss the whole point of this passage which is about the diversity of the gifts.
The Way of Love (1 Cor 13:1-13) – We all know we’re supposed to love, but what does it mean in practise?

I am working on some more Mark and 1 Corinthians articles as part of my ongoing studies in these two books. I have been using the NICNT Commentary on 1 Corinthians by Fee and the Pillar Commentary on Mark by Edwards to keep me on track, and they have both been extremely helpful. My next planned 1 Corinthians article will be on chapter 15, so I am looking forward to reading some of my N T Wright “Resurrection of the Son of God” book as part of my research for that.