James's Weblog

I've just noticed the really obvious.

It isn't just the lack of an exception clause that makes Mark 10 different from Matthew 19. The question Jesus is recorded as being asked is different too.

Matthew 19: Is divorce lawful for any reason?
Mark 10: Is divorce lawful?

Matthew 19: Except for unfaithfulness (notwithstanding the debate about how to translate that word)
Mark 10: Yes - but not that way from the beginning.

The difference in the question helps a lot with the difference in the answer. Matthew has focussed on the precise nature of the exception. Mark has focussed on the intended permanence of marriage which makes any premature ending a tragedy. Because that is Mark's focus, he doesn't appear to preclude exceptions - whether there are exceptions is not his interest.

The debate has often gone on: Should someone experience a personal call from God to pastoral ministry before they start out? Some say yes (DMLJ), others have said that there is no evidence for this in Scripture, and the wisdom of the church is what counts.

Does it help to consider the parallel debate about assurance (or, more properly, reflex faith). Can I know that I have faith or not? The Roman Catholic church teaches that this cannot be known. Scripture, by contrast, tells us to be motivated in certain ways by our reflex faith. This presupposes that it is possible to have this kind of assurance.

I've just read a beautiful phrase from my friend Dan Young.

The gospel should not "be watered down or diluted to taste, like orange squash".

Helpful for the vivid way it puts it!

What are we to disciple?

The object of “disciple” is “all nations” (panta ta ethnE), not “those of all nations” (hoi ek pantOn tOn ethnOn). So we are to disciple nations qua nations.

By the time we get to “baptising” the object is simply “them” (autous).

I love the recent "Couldn't Help Noticing" entry from Matthias Media. Entitled Department of Biblical Mythbusting Part 1, it challenges, in a helpful way, a very common assumption. That assumption is that the Bible teaches that it is more spiritual to pray at a time which is of maximum inconvenience.

Helpful. And relieving

Has anyone met a self-evidently correct explanation of Luke 17:37 that can cut through the pages of depate there are. I’m not overwhelmingly persuaded by anything I’ve met.

The two questions I’m left asking are

• What does the proverb mean?
• How does it fit into 20-36?

I've often wondered why Jesus sent Legion into the herd of pigs. Lots of obvious things have come to mind for a while - it shows the size of the demonic force just defeated for one.

Thinking about the Exodus made me wonder. God destroyed the Egyptian army by plunging them into the sea in Exodus 14. Jesus destroyed a demonic army by plunging them into the sea in Mark 5. Co-incidence, or is Mark teaching us that because of Jesus' crucifixion those demons "whom you see today you shall never see again" (Exodus 14:13)?

I’m preparing a sermon for a wedding on 1 John 4:7-11.

Having found a way of laying the text out in a way that I think is quite helpful, I thought I’d share it…

The lecture from David Jackman on preaching that I referred to in this entry has been published online.

It's available free from this page on the Proclamation Trust's website.

Enjoyed a stunningly helpful and refreshing lecture from David Jackman at the Proclamation Trust's Evangelical Ministry Assembly.

He had a particularly helpful illustration on the difference between preaching that is expository and preaching that merely delivers our theological framework.

Is the Bible in the driving seat for the sermon - it decides the course the sermon takes?
Or is the Bible in the passenger seat? A useful point of reference, but ultimately we decide where the car goes, not the Bible.

I'm sure that oversimplifies things slightly, but a helpful illustration nonetheless