Christ Church

Celebrating Christmas like a Puritan

Joe Harby on

Introduction

Socrates once famously said that the unexamined life is not worth living. In a similar vein, the unexamined holiday is not worth celebrating. Whenever we do anything on autopilot, it is not surprising that at some point we forget where we are going, or what we were supposed to be doing. And wmhen we are just cruising in a mindless tradition, it is a short time before sin takes over.

The Text

“And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it” (Is. 25:6-8).

Summary of the Text

As the prophet Isaiah prophesies the coming of the new covenant, he does so with the image of a glorious feast. The feast is prepared by the Lord of hosts Himself (v. 6). What kind of feast is it? He prepares a feast of fat things, he prepares a feast with aged wines, of meat full of marrow fat, and then some more aged wines. This is the picture we are given of the gospel—not a glass of room temperature water and a cracker. Right alongside this feast, in conjunction with it, He will remove the covering that kept us all in darkness for all those centuries. He will take away the veil over the nations (v. 7). The resurrection will come—and we have the down payment of that in the resurrection of Jesus—and death will be swallowed up in victory. The Lord will wipe away every tear, and all things will be put right (v. 8). As those who have accepted this gospel, we have accepted that all of this has now been established in principle, and as we live it out in true evangelical faith, we proclaim this good news. But there must be continuity between what we are saying and how we are living. And by this, I mean much more than that our words should be true and our behavior good. I mean that our words should sound like good news and our lives should smell like good news.

Like a Puritan?

Some of you have heard that the Puritans hated Christmas, that they were the original scrooges and grinches. But this, as is often the case, is grossly unfair to them. One of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, George Gillespie, a staunch opponent of the church year being used to bind the conscience, said this: “The keeping of some festival days is set up instead of the thankful commemoration of God’s inestimable benefits, howbeit the festivity of Christmas has hitherto served more to Bachanalian lasciviousness than to the remembrance of the birth of Christ.” In other words, a person might object to pepper spraying fellow shoppers without rejecting the blessing of Thanksgiving. He can object to a Mardi Gras orgy without objecting to the celebration of Christ’s resurrection. He can turn away from a drunken office party without denying the Incarnation. And there was, for the Puritans, the matter of compulsion also.

Remember the words of C.S. Lewis here: “There is no understanding the period of the Reformation in England until we have grasped the fact that the quarrel between the Puritans and the Papists was not primarily a quarrel between rigorism and indulgence, and that, in so far as it was, the rigorism was on the Roman side. On many questions, and specially in their view of the marriage bed, the Puritans were the indulgent party; if we may without disrespect so use the name of a great Roman Catholic, a great writer, and a great man, they were much more Chestertonian than their adversaries” (Selected Literary Essays, p. 116).

Preparing Hearts

This period of Advent is one of preparation for Christmas. If we want to celebrate Christmas like Puritans (for that is actually what we are), this means that we should prepare for it in the same way. Look at the whole thing sideways, like Chesterton would. Here are some key principles.

· Do not treat this as a time of introspective penitence. To the extent you must clean up, do it with the attitude of someone showering and changing clothes, getting ready for the best banquet you have ever been to. This does not include three weeks of meditating on how you are not worthy to go to banquets. Of course you are not. Haven’t you heard of grace?

· Celebrate the stuff. Use fudge and eggnog and wine and roast beef. Use presents and wrapping paper. Embedded in many of the common complaints you hear about the holidays (consumerism, shopping, gluttony, etc.) are false assumptions about the point of the celebration. You do not prepare for a real celebration of the Incarnation through 30 days of Advent Gnosticism.

· At the same time, remembering your Puritan fathers, you must hate the sin while loving the stuff. Sin is not resident in the stuff. Sin is found in the human heart—in the hearts of both true gluttons and true scrooges— both those who drink much wine and those who drink much prune juice. If you are called up to the front of the class, and you get the problem all wrong, it would be bad form to blame the blackboard. That is just where you registered your error. In the same way, we register our sin on the stuff. But—because Jesus was born in this material world, that is where we register our piety as well. If your godliness won’t imprint on fudge, then it is not true godliness.

· Remember that the architecture of our celebrations matter. In the medieval church they used to have a long, narrow nave for the people, then you came to a rood screen (as they called it) that would hide the “action” of the actual worship. When the Reformation happened, and Protestants inherited these churches, some oddities resulted —like a turtle trying to live in a conch shell. The wrong kind of penitential seasons are like a long nave that we have to look down in order to see the “happy stuff ” at the other end. At some point we must have a Puritan remodel.

Going Overboard

Some may be disturbed by this. It seems a little out of control, as though I am urging you to “go overboard.” But of course I am urging you to go overboard. Think about it—when this world was “in sin and error pining,” did God give us a teaspoon of grace to make our dungeon a tad pleasanter? No. He went overboard.

Read Full Article

The David Chronicles 29: The Witch of Endor

Joe Harby on

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

The miserable King Saul is now approaching the very end of his life, and he is terrified. In that terror, he casts about for a word of certainty, but what he is given provides no comfort for him.

The Text

“And it came to pass in those days, that the Philistines gathered their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said unto David, Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go out with me to battle, thou and thy men . . .” (1 Sam. 28:1-25).

Summary of the Text

The chapter begins with a Philistine determination to go to war with Israel (v. 1). Achish invites David to go, and David agrees. Achish then says that David will be his personal bodyguard (v. 2). We are then reminded that Samuel had died, and was buried. Further, Saul had suppressed the mediums and the necromancers (v. 3). The Philistines mustered their forces, and Saul gathered all his troops on Mt. Gilboa (v. 4). When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was terrified (v. 5). Saul then inquired of the Lord, but did not hear back—neither by dreams, nor by the Urim, nor by prophets (v. 6). So Saul asks his servants to find him a medium, and he is told that there is one at Endor (v. 7). So Saul took off his royal robe, disguised himself, and came to her and asked for her services (v. 8). The woman suspects a trap (v. 9). So Saul swore in the name of the Lord that she would be safe (v. 10). So she asked who she should summon, and Saul replies that Samuel should be brought up (v. 11). When the woman saw Samuel, she realized that her client was Saul (v. 12). Saul reassures her, and asks what she had seen. She replies she had seen a judge (lit. gods) coming up from Sheol (v. 13). When she describes him and his robe, Saul prostrates himself (v. 14). Samuel asks why he has been disturbed, and Saul tells him his dilemma (v. 15). “Why ask me?” Samuel asks (v. 16). The Lord is going to do what He spoke through me before (v. 17), only this time David is mentioned by name (v. 18). This all goes back to Amalek (v. 18). Within the next day, Israel will be defeated, and Saul and his sons will be with Samuel (v. 19). Saul collapsed at this information (v. 20). The witch appeals to him, asking him to eat (vv. 21-22). Saul initially refuses, but she and his servants prevail upon him (v. 23). She prepared a meal for them, they ate, and then departed (vv. 24-25).

Some Background

David is being set up—and it looks as though he might be in a really bad jam. But he is nevertheless trusting in the Lord. Saul is also in a dilemma. He tries to get help from the Lord, on his own terms, but when that fails, he turns away. The Lord did not speak to him by kingly means (dreams), or by priestly means (the Urim), or by prophets. These were lawful means of getting guidance and direction. Throughout Scripture, God gave Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Solomon dreams—but for Saul nothing. And Saul had no access to the ephod, which was with David in Ziklag, and he had murdered all the priests of Nob. He used to have a prophet, Samuel, but would not do what Samuel said. Saul takes off his kingly robe in order to meet a dead Samuel, dressed in his prophetic robe. Samuel tells him that his kingly robe will be removed for good within a day.

The Bible and Magic

Saul had rightly suppressed the practice of witchcraft in the land (v. 9). But there was still a demand for their services—they were still around. The law clearly forbade this kind of thing (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:10-12; 1 Sam. 15:23). But what kind of thing was it? Mediums consulted the dead, and necromancers spoke on behalf of the dead. The two went together (Is. 8:19). There was a great deal of spookaloo special effects involved— Isaiah speaks of wizards who “chirp and mutter.” So the indications are that the “familiar spirit” that this woman had was simply a demon who impersonated the dead. When she got the real deal Samuel, she was astonished.

But Samuel here was a prophet—one who foretold the future when he was alive and when he was dead. He was identified by his robe, the robe that Saul had torn as a sign that he was going to have the kingdom torn from him.

In our rejection of this prohibited wizardry (which must be a robust rejection), we must not make the deadly mistake of thinking that it is a choice between occult miracles on the one hand and the natural laws of Jeffersonian Deism on the other. Moses split the Red Sea. Moses had a staff that turned into a snake that could eat other staves turned serpents. Elijah made meal and oil last way past their natural limits (1 King 17:16). Jesus turned water to wine, walked on water, and raised the dead. What should we call that? Certainly not magic in one sense—but certainly magical in another.

What is the distinction? The basic distinction is between autonomy, rebellion, disobedience and manipulation on the one hand, and obedience and wisdom on the other.

Point of No Return

Earlier in this series we considered the possibility that Saul was saved. He certainly wrecked his life and his reign through his disobedience, and he got to the point where he could not hold things together. He was a tyrant, and he never escaped the consequences of his sins. But there is another hint here—Samuel tells him that within a day, he and his sons will be with Samuel (v. 19). This could simply mean that he will be dead like Samuel. But Samuel came up out of the earth, indicating he was from Sheol (Hades). If Samuel was in “Abraham’s bosom,” then there is a possibility that Saul would join him there among the forgiven.

Saul ended his life trying to “hear” from Samuel, and then he partook of a table of demons. His attempts to manipulate and control came to a sorry end. He took an oath “as the Lord lives,” telling a medium that he would not obey the law of God in her instance. The result should not be surprising. Thus always to compromisers.

Read Full Article

The David Chronicles 28: The Grave of Exile

Joe Harby on

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

Under continued pressure from Saul, David is forced to leave Judah and take refuge with Achish, who was the king of Gath. He had complained in the previous chapter that certain men were trying to force him to serve other gods (1 Sam. 26:19) which he was unwilling to do. He was willing, however, to look like he was changing sides. During this time, David was playing a high-stakes double game.

The Text

“And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul shall despair of me, to seek me any more in any coast of Israel: so shall I escape out of his hand . . .” (1 Sam. 27:1-12).

Summary of the Text

David said that if the situation continued unchanged, he would eventually be killed by Saul. This was not unbelief, but rather a knowledge of contingencies. If this, then that—knowing the final end result does not change the intermediate contingencies. As a result, David decided to take refuge with the Philistines (v. 1). When he sought refuge in Gath, it is likely that he negotiated this with Achish beforehand. Given that a couple thousand people were likely involved (the wives and families of 600 men), he probably didn’t just show up one day (vv. 2-3). The plan worked; Saul stopped hunting for him (v. 4). After a bit, David asked Achish to give him a town to live in (v. 5), and the king responded by granting him Ziklag. This is how Ziklag came to be a town in Judah (v. 6). This exile of David’s lasted for sixteen months (v. 7).

David began to raid three groups, enemies common to the Israelites and Philistines both (v. 8). One of the groups was the Amalekites, against whom God had required Saul to wage total war. But this was not “holy war,” or the ban, because David would bring back livestock. But he would kill all the adults, lest someone talk (v. 9). The other two groups were Geshurites and the Gezrites. The first group was mentioned in Josh. 13:2 as one still needing to be displaced, but we know nothing about the latter group. David would tell Achish that he had raided Israelites or their allies (v. 10), and he would leave no grown survivors (v. 11). Achish concluded that David had made himself utterly obnoxious to Israel, and that he would therefore remain the servant of Achish forever (v. 12). Achish thought that David had burned all his boats.

Some Background

Ziklag was a town that had been given to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. 19:5; 1 Chron. 4:30), and in Joshua 15:31, it is numbered among the towns of Judah. The town was about 25 miles southeast of Gath, which gave David the liberty of movement he needed.

Achish would of course have known about Saul’s pursuit of David, but would have had no reason whatever for suspecting David’s dogged loyalty to Saul. And David saw no reason why he should correct this assumption that Achish had naturally come to. Achish may have been a throne name and, if so, this may not have been the same king that David fooled with his pretended madness in chapter 21. After this exile of David’s, Israel had a curious relationship with Gath, which of course had been Goliath’s home town. After David became king, he was allied with Gath. When certain prophetic passages condemn the Philistines, the city of Gath is not mentioned in them (Amos 1:6-8; Zechariah 9; 2 Sam. 6:10). David was the kind of man who inspired loyalty everywhere he went, and a number of men followed him from Gath (2 Sam. 15:18). And Achish at one point takes an oath in the name of YHWH, which means that it is at least possible that he became a convert (2 Sam. 29:6,9).

The Grave of Exile

David, the future king of Israel, has to leave Israel first. Saul wants to kill him, but God intends to kill him a different way—a way that leads back to life. This is God’s way of doing things. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but had to go down to Egypt first—out of Egypt God called His Son (Hos. 11:1). The fact that Jesus was the antitype of this kind of “exile and return” sheds light on all the types found in the Old Testament. Jacob had to leave the land he was to inherit, and then come back with his family. Joseph was sold into exile in Egypt, and was so invested in this pattern of promise that he saw to it that his bones were returned from exile (Heb. 11:22). All of Israel was taken into exile in Babylon, and Nehemiah and Ezra led the return. And in the first part of 1 Samuel, we saw that the ark of the covenant went into exile among the Philistines, just like David here, and was then brought back. As a true king over Israel, how could David not have to spend time in exile?

The Day of Odd Beginnings

We are taught in Scripture not to despise the day of small beginnings (Zech. 4:10). But if we are close readers of the scriptural narrative, we must also master the art of not despising the day of odd beginnings.

David was strong enough as a leader to be able to handle grumbling in the camp. But do you think that any of the men who had urged David to kill Saul in the cave had occasion to say privately that “if the king had only listened to us . . .” Do you think Abishai thought that the move to Ziklag vindicated David’s refusal to take Saul’s life when the two of them had the clear opportunity? I have urged you many times to “read the story you are in,” but part of this task is understanding the role of contrary readings. Other people are trying to get you to read differently. They point to the very things that you think are lining up with Scripture, and buttressing your faith, and they point to those very same things as refutations. Running around the countryside in mortal danger, declining God’s opportunities offered up on a silver platter, having to go into exile in Gath, and then taking up residence in Ziklag. I mean, Ziklag? Really?

But the center of the new Israel, the center of Israel’s glorious period of monarchy, was right there in Ziklag. Do not despise the day of odd beginnings . . . but only if it is a God beginning.

Read Full Article

The David Chronicles 27: Forgiveness and Do-overs

Joe Harby on

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

The story in this chapter has many similarities to the story two chapters earlier, when David spared the life of Saul in the cave. In both instances, Saul was completely within David’s reach. In both cases, David was urged to take Saul’s life. In both situations, David took a token that would prove that Saul had been within his reach. In both cases, Saul would acknowledge the justice of David’s behavior. But there are striking differences as well, as we will see.

The Text

“And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon? . . .” (1 Sam. 26:1-25).

Summary of the Text

David’s old adversaries, the Ziphites, reported David’s location to Saul (v. 1). Saul pursued David with 3,000 men, the same number as before (v. 2). Saul camped by the hill Hachilah (v. 3), and David had scouts determine Saul’s location (v. 4). David comes there, and sees where Saul slept, with Abner next to him, and the 3,000 soldiers around (v. 5). David asks for someone to accompany him into Saul’s camp, and Abishai, David’s nephew, volunteers (v. 6). So David and Abishai go, and make it to Saul, who is sleeping with his spear stuck in the ground next to his head (v. 7). Abishai urges that he be allowed to pin Saul to the ground; two strokes will not be necessary (v. 8). David refuses, as he did before in the cave (v. 9). David had learned from the example of Nabal; God will take care of this (v. 10). David will not take matters into his own hand, but he does take the spear and a water pot (v. 11). They got away because a deep sleep from the Lord was upon the encampment (v. 12).

David got a good distance away (v. 13), and then called out to taunt Abner for his dereliction of duty (vv. 14-16). Saul recognizes David’s voice and calls him his son (v. 17). David asks, again, what fault he has committed (v. 18). Who is driving this, God or men (v. 19)? Why should the king waste his time looking for David (v. 20)? Saul confesses his sin, and invites David to return (v. 21). David invites someone to come fetch the spear (v. 22). He asks the Lord to apply the Golden Rule to him (vv. 23-24), and the chapter concludes with Saul blessing David (v. 25). This concludes Saul’s interactions with David.

Some Background

Abishai is David’s nephew, son of his sister Zeruiah (1 Chron. 2:16-17), and therefore Joab’s brother. Here David restrains Abishai, but a good portion of the rest of the David story will consist of his inability to control his relatives. He has a good start, but he does not continue. Abishai wants to successfully pin Saul to the ground, with the same spear that unsuccessfully tried to pin David to the wall. Abishai would not have to strike twice—as Saul had attempted to strike twice. The spear is the symbol of the Saulide pattern of rule, which is to say tyrannical, and David refuses to rule in that way. Rather, he takes that spear away, and demonstrates to Saul that he is not the kind of anointed king that Saul has been. His conscience smote him for cutting the robe; it did not smite him for taking away the tyrannical spear. In the cave, the encounter was arranged by providential chance. Here the encounter was entirely at David’s initiative. He has taken the lesson from Nabal, and is beginning to take the initiative—but without ungodly revolution.

Stories Have a Way of Unfolding

In the New Testament, we are told that Esau could not go back in time to undo the consequences of what he had done (Heb. 12:17). We may repent of our sins, and God will forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9). We are not always given the opportunity to repent the consequences of our sins. History matters, Biography matters. The way the story unfolds matters.

In the incident outside the cave, David had called Saul his father, and Saul calls David his son. In this episode, Saul calls David his son, but David does not reciprocate. He acknowledges that Saul is still the Lord’s anointed (v. 9), and he still calls Saul “lord” and “king” (v. 17). But he does not call him father. In the previous episode, Saul does not invite David to come home with him, and here he does. But the water is under the bridge, and Saul does not have an opportunity to restore what he destroyed. David does not take up the invitation. In the previous situation, Saul ended by predicting that it would go well with David (1 Sam. 24:20), while here he ends by blessing David (1 Sam. 26:25). This is a sad end to a tragic relationship.

David’s Argument

David says here, as he had said before, that certain “men” may be poisoning Saul’s mind against David (v. 19). This may be more than just tact on David’s part. Saul certainly had his own brain snakes, and bore the central responsibility (which David knows and says), but there is no reason to assume that there were not counselors around the king taking full advantage of this.

When David “calls out,” he calls out Abner. Abner deserved to die (v. 16) because he had not protected the Lord’s anointed. David, on the other hand, had protected the Lord’s anointed, and discharged Abner’s office better than Abner had. Abner’s failure to act meant he deserved death, and David’s refusal to act meant that he did not deserve death—and that he should, by rights, be in Abner’s position. David then compares Saul’s hunt for him as a king with 3,000 men hunting for a partridge (lit. a calling bird) in the mountains. What a waste.

What the Locusts Have Eaten

You have heard before that God takes you from where you are, and not from where you should have been. Our God is a gracious God, and there are many instances where He wonderfully restores what the locusts have eaten (Joel 2:25). God is a Healer, a Savior, a Deliverer, and His ability includes the ability to restore. Ask Him to restore what the locust has eaten. But do not think about this like children. Do not presume upon it. If you hear the Lord’s voice today, do not harden your hearts as the Israelites did in the wilderness—on the presumption that tomorrow (or the day after) you may ask God to restore. What Saul lost, Saul lost. As R.C. Sproul might put it, right now counts forever.

Read Full Article

The Fatherhood of God

Joe Harby on

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Revealed as Father

We are familiar with the story of the Exodus, the plagues and such. But why do the plagues culminate in the striking down of the first born sons of Egypt? In the Exodus, Moses came to Pharaoh to announce to him that Israel was the Lord’s son and that the Lord was Israel’s father. If Pharaoh didn’t let Israel go, then God was going to strike down Pharaoh’s first born, a proportional judgment (Ex. 4:21-22). Jesus taught us to pray to God as Father, “Our Father, who art in heaven. . .” (Mat. 6:9). So our relationship to God is, in one sense, the relationship of children to their Father.

A Fallen Image

This metaphor, that of fatherhood, is an image used by God to teach us something about what God is like, an image built into creation. Earthly fathers are a reflection of what our heavenly Father is like. This is problematic, since these are fallen images. And the fact that they are fallen can make the whole thing offensive. Many people hear about a God who is an omniscient, omnipotent version of their earthly dad and they say ‘no thanks.’The problem is that you can’t just edit fathers out of how we have been made. We were created in the image of God and so fatherhood and a need for fatherhood is built into us. Both good and bad fathers reveal something about God the Father.

Love

First, we need the love of a father. God has built this into our souls. This is how fathers, by common grace, instinctively feel about their children. Jesus shows us how the love of our earthly fathers points to the love of our heavenly Father in Luke 11:9-13, via the Jewish “Kal vaChomer” argument.

Delight

Second, not only do fathers love their children, they delight in them. Delight is really just the manifestation of this love. This is all a reflection of the ultimate father / son relationship – God the Father and God the Son (Mat. 3:17). Because fathers can allow their love to grow cold, what began as an intense love for their children does not manifest itself as delight, at least not in the conscious lifetime of their children. This leaves a void that only the heavenly Father can fill.

Pursuit

And lastly, because fathers love and delight in their children, they seek out their children. Loving parents will endanger themselves to save their children. God sought out Israel in Egypt, because Israel was his son. But our earthly fathers are fallen. And the same man who would have given his life to save his child in a house fire, will later sinfully sit and watch his children walk away from the faith with no effort on his behalf to pursue. But our heavenly father is not like this.

Ironically, our heavenly Father has pursued us by becoming a father to us. He has saved us though his fatherhood. He sent his own son, Jesus, so that he could become a brother to us (Heb. 2:14-17). And in becoming our brother, Jesus has shared his sonship with us, so that his father, God the Father could become our father (Gal. 4:4-7). Through this union with Christ we have God the Father as a perfect Father. We are loved, as the Son is loved. The Father delights in us, as he delights in the Son. The Father is pursuing us to deliver us, as he did his Son Jesus, and his son Israel.

He is a model for us to emulate to our own children. And he is the perfect fulfilment of the type that our own fathers were for us. Where we fall short in this work, our children still have a perfect father above us, to whom we must be pointing them. And where our own earthly fathers have failed us, we have a perfect father, who loves us, delights in us, and has pursued and saved us.

Read Full Article