A Firm Foundation 3

you communicate that the people that aren't here yet are more important than the people that have been diligent to be here on time.

So I don't want to do that.

I got my room.

Okay.

Well, if any are just joining us, though I don't think that that's the case,

we are in a series on Scripture.

And when we were together last, we observed that the Bible is at the heart of our faith,

yet also at the center of much controversy.

Specifically, it is controversial in its claim, believed and heralded by Christians, to be God's Word.

And as such, authoritative in all that it tells us.

True and trustworthy in all that it proclaims.

Last time, we took the entire time, and we were yet pressed,

to set out what we described as strong grounds for affirming this confidence in Scripture's authority.

For those of you then with us, you will recall that we reflected upon the Trinitarian ontology of Scripture.

That is, how the Father, Son, and Spirit are personally involved in the production of Scripture.

And what entailments this bears for the character of Scripture.

And we concluded that the Trinity is so profoundly involved in the being of Scripture,

that the character of Scripture is invested with the divine character.

Strong grounds, it seems to me at least, for maintaining the divine authority of Scripture.

And warrant for responding to the Bible just as we would to God Himself.

And yet, we acknowledge that at many points, the Bible is not the world's obvious candidate for divine authority.

True and trustworthy in all that it affirms.

Indeed, if we're honest, it's not always the obvious candidate for such status in Christian impression.

There are many a dear brother and sister in the Lord who struggle with no small anguish and confusion.

Who are familiar with the strong grounds for affirming the Bible's divine character.

Yet, at points, struggle to reconcile this conviction with what they find in its pages.

Perhaps at points where Scripture does not seem to comport with the confident pronouncements of modern science.

Or the assured results of critical historical scholarship.

Or perhaps with some of our most dogged moral sensibilities.

Or perhaps that, in parts, Scripture seem out of step with current, adamantly held, social norms.

Well, it is chiefly to those of us for whom such gnawing difficulties remain a reality

that I want to direct some comments this morning.

And specifically, to offer some considerations which, while acknowledging that problems will remain,

I hope will render any persisting problems just a little less problematic.

That's my hope.

And really, what I want to offer this morning is a single consideration for our reflection.

Again, time will prevent much more than suggestiveness, but hopefully this line of thought

will, like a pinch of yeast for your own reflections.

Just stick with you.

Here's the thought.

I want to suggest that what we find true of the incarnation,

God coming down in the flesh,

what we find true of the incarnation,

we should expect also to find true of inscripturation.

Okay?

Because it is a parallel case at the relevant point.

Corbyn can't miss this, so I'm going to repeat.

This is my thesis, okay?

I want to suggest that what we find true of the incarnation,

we should expect also to find true of inscripturation.

Because it is a parallel case at the relevant point.

Okay?

So, let's first consider the incarnation.

There is a paradox at the heart of the incarnation.

God coming in the flesh.

For God coming in the flesh was simultaneously a revealing and a concealing.

It was a revelation of God.

John 1, 14.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory.

Revelation.

John 14, 9.

Remember when Philip queried Jesus,

show us the Father and it's enough.

He said, oh, Philip, how long have you been with me?

And yet do you ask, show us the Father.

For he who has seen me has seen the Father.

Revelation.

Revealing.

But precisely because the incarnation involved a revelation of God in human flesh,

it was also a veiling.

For it disguised, so to speak, deity in the garb of humanity.

It involved the humiliation of the Son.

That is, assuming the humble estate of humanity.

This was a stooping with respect to God's splendor.

As Philippians 2, 7 tells us, he, speaking of Jesus, the Word, the Son,

he emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant.

Being made in the likeness of men and being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself.

So he emptied himself, not of his deity.

He remained God.

If one is God, one cannot cease to be God.

It's just not even possible for God to cease to be God.

He didn't empty himself of his deity,

but rather he emptied himself of the visible manifest marks of his glory,

which would have drawn conspicuous attention to his deity.

That had been laid aside.

And he looked forward to its restoration in heaven,

where his disciples would see it fully manifest again.

As he said in John 17, 24,

Father, in his prayer, high priestly prayer,

Father, I desire that they also, my disciples here with me, us subsequently,

Father, I desire that they also be with me where I am

in order that they may then behold my glory.

So there would be a time when his glory would be manifest.

But while in the flesh, the glory of the Godhead was concealed.

As Isaiah the prophet foretold,

he has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon him,

nor appearance that we should be attracted to him.

He was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Isaiah 53, 2 and 3.

Thus, and this is the point,

it was easy to miss of the revelation because of the veiling.

It was easy when God came in flesh to see only the flesh.

You remember the comments from those around him?

Is this not the carpenter's son?

The son of Mary?

Are not his brothers and sisters among us?

And they took offense at him.

Mark 6, 3.

They missed it.

They could not see beyond this Nazarene.

Acts 6, 14.

That was those who contended with Stephen,

how they dismissed Jesus.

This Nazarene.

As John writes,

he came to his own,

and they received him not.

John 1, 11.

When revelation came in flesh,

they saw simply the flesh,

and nothing more,

and were scandalized at the suggestion

that it was anything more.

Indeed, even for his closest disciples,

his life of humiliation,

culminating in the cross,

the bottom rung of his humiliation,

as Philippians 2 tells us,

created such an excruciating sense

of incongruity

that the status of Jesus

as God's anointed

was given up.

We had hoped

that it was he.

Remember those on the road to Emmaus?

We had hoped

that it was he.

Notice the tense.

Their hope was in the past.

Luke 24, 21.

Others thought the claim

that Christ was God's anointed,

appearing as he did,

was so abhorrent

that it made a mockery

of God's very nature,

and was blasphemy

worthy of death.

This was Saul of Tarsus' position,

and many with him.

Such was the veiling,

even as God was being revealed.

So, so it was

with the incarnation.

All right.

Well, how about

the parallel case

of inscripturation?

Inscripturation.

How about the parallel case

of inscripturation?

As inscripturation,

that is,

the word of God

becoming written language.

Inscripturation.

Making it into,

yes.

Yep.

So, good.

Helpful clarification.

Elizabeth, thank you.

As with the word incarnate,

so with the word inscripturated.

Both involve the same sort

of humiliation,

the same sort of emptying,

the kenosis,

the emptying,

the self-emptying.

Just as in the incarnation,

God's word became human flesh.

So, in scripture,

God's word comes in human words.

Thus, the Bible is,

like the incarnation,

deity in the garb of humanity.

It is the voice of deity

in the voice of humanity.

Just as God came in the flesh,

embedded in the culturally

and historically situated,

okay,

Jesus resembled Mary.

Oh, I see it.

Yes.

He spoke in a Galilean accent,

okay,

culturally and historically situated,

et cetera.

We could go on

and describe all these things.

So,

God comes in his word,

embedded in the culturally,

historically situated,

okay,

spoken through the culture

and in the accent

of a first century fisherman,

Peter,

and an eighth century B.C.

fig picker,

Amos,

and all the scripture writers.

Do you see the parallel case here?

And this parallel results

in a similar paradox.

While God's words

are revealed in scripture,

they are simultaneously concealed,

for they are disguised.

They come in the garb of,

manifestly,

human words.

And it should come

as no surprise

that just as many

only saw

the humanity of Jesus

and did not see it

as the vehicle

for deity

and were scandalized

at the suggestion

that it could be,

so many see

only the humanity

of scripture

and myths of the deity.

It appears to them

simply human,

all too human

to be any candidate

for divine revelation.

It does not come to us

with the appearance

of the divine.

It has no form

or comeliness

and we esteem it not.

Indeed,

there has been an impulse

even among those

who honor it

to deny

that it can be

lackluster

at any point

and argue

that at such points

its luminosity

needs to be preserved

through some means,

usually seeking

a deeper allegorical meaning.

meaning.

So,

for example,

a meaning

that would be

worthy of divinity.

So,

for example,

origin,

probably the,

certainly

the greatest

first theologian

that tries to put together

and actually creates

a systematic theology,

first one in the church

after the apostles,

let's say after Paul.

He just thought,

you know,

as I read scripture,

some parts of it

just seem

utterly unimpressive.

Even banal.

And this was just

utterly incongruous.

I can't reconcile this

with this being

God's word.

So,

I have to,

I have to find

some other way

to understand it.

So,

let me just understand it

allegorically.

There must be a meaning

that's utterly profound.

Here,

how about this one?

So,

you can,

you can see the impulse

and it derives

from the tension

of just,

just the,

the,

the pressure

to somehow

find God's word

at every point

luminous.

Okay?

Did he

passprate himself?

He did,

yes,

thank you.

I,

I would have

completely missed

mentioning that

had you not

reminded me.

Thank you.

Origins is a remarkable

story and you've

just heard the sneak

preview of the

remarkable nature

of it.

Yes,

he did.

But,

he,

yeah,

he,

well,

no,

I won't get into that.

Well,

recall Augustine,

okay?

Recall

Augustine's

barrier

to

considering

scripture

as God's

word

because

he found

them,

as he

puts it,

unworthy

in comparison

with the

dignity

of Cicero.

Now,

remember,

Augustine was

trained

as a

rhetorician

and

Cicero's

some pretty

fine Latin

and when he

first encountered

the scriptures

not yet

converted,

he looked at

that and he

said,

oh,

you've got

to be

kidding me,

you Christians.

This

is the best

God can do?

It doesn't

even match

the elegancies

of Cicero.

You must

be joking.

And he

stumbled at it.

Interestingly,

the only way

that he was

able to get

over that

was following

the cue

of Milan,

of Ambrose

of Milan,

who said,

oh,

no,

no,

Augustine,

no,

no,

no,

no,

no,

that's just

on the

surface.

You need

following

origin.

Just here,

here's the

allegorical

meaning.

So ironically,

what actually

got Augustine

over the hump

of being able

to accept

scripture was

what I think

is probably

a problematic

view of

scripture and

one that he

at least

refined.

If he didn't

completely abandon

later in life,

he at least

came to a

deeper appreciation

of scripture.

But interesting,

this was a

real problem

for Augustine.

That was a

quote from

Confessions

3.5.9

for those

of you

who are

looking.

Jerome was

the same.

I mean,

this is really

common in the

early church.

Jerome was

just so

committed to

Cicero.

He just

loved the

Latin that he

didn't even

bother to read

his Bible

very much,

even as a

Christian.

He said,

it's not

really literary.

Then he

had this

terrible dream

where he

died and

went to

heaven and

he tried to

get in and

he said,

oh no,

you're not a

Christian,

you're a

Ciceronian.

So that's

Jerome's

story.

But I

mean,

we could go

on and

on and

on,

lots of

examples of

people kind

of being

scandalized at

the plainness,

the banality,

the lack of

luminosity of

scripture.

But the

scripture is

involved in

the same

emptying as

the sun.

Again,

empties itself

not of

divinity,

rather the

visible manifest

marks of

its glory.

And to

appreciate this

is to

expect the

veiling,

to not

expect the

scriptures to

be perpetually

transfigured,

gleaming with

the evident

marks of

glory,

shimmering and

radiant in

manifest deity.

It was only

rarely so with

the word made

human flesh.

Think of

Jesus'

earthly career.

One brief

moment on the

Mount of

Transfiguration,

there,

then the

resurrection,

a couple of

hints,

moments,

this remarkable

instant,

perhaps a

momentary

unveiling.

Remember when

he was about

to be taken

captive in the

Garden of

Gethsemane?

I am he.

Boom.

Fall over

backwards.

Every once in

a while,

you get this

lightning bolt

that comes out

and shows you.

But for the

most part,

it's hidden.

As with

hidden in the

word made

human flesh,

should we

expect otherwise

with the

word made

human words?

It is no

accident that

the precursor

of the written

word,

the scriptures,

the spoken

and preached

word of

the apostles,

heralded by

the apostles who

gave us the

written word,

evoked the

same reaction

as the

incarnate

word.

Scandal.

As Paul

writes,

foolishness to

the Greeks

and a

scandal to

the Jews.

1 Corinthians

1.23

It did not

conform to

their associations

and expectations

of divinity.

It proclaimed

a God who

stoops,

not struts.

A king,

but one whose

crown was

of thorns.

Lifted high,

but not upon

a throne.

rather upon

a cross.

Triumphant,

not over

the Roman

occupiers,

but over

our spiritual

occupiers.

Sin,

death,

the devil.

Such a word

did not

impress.

It did not

conform to

their prior

judgments

of how it

ought to

be.

No,

no,

we know

the marks

of divinity

and that's

not it.

They would,

it seems,

have him

always

transfigured.

They did not

see the glory

of God

hidden

in his

countenance.

They stumbled

at the scandal.

It is

revealing that

when Paul

came to

Corinth,

many were

utterly

unimpressed

with him

as

word

bearer.

They thought

such a

word bearer

incongruous

with a

divine

message.

Surely

that should

come in

Ciceronian

prose when

it comes.

The

medium

did not

fit their

expectations

of a

divine

message.

But the

apostle knew

that God

conveyed

his,

you remember

the phrase,

wonderful,

isn't it?

Conveyed his

treasure

in earthen

vessels.

That is,

common

pots

of

unimpressive

clay.

Just the

common

house

stuff

you keep

in the

garden.

2 Corinthians

4,

7.

And he,

Paul knew,

ironically,

that the

weakness,

fear,

and much

trembling in

which he

came to

them,

1 Corinthians

2,

3,

the weakness,

fear,

much trembling

of the

medium,

in his

case,

himself as

the messenger,

actually

did

comport

with the

message.

For both

were

cruciform.

And this

is the

point that

Paul makes

again and

again in

2 Corinthians.

No,

no,

no,

you think

that the

medium of

the message

is supposed

to be

all this

magnificent,

you know,

lovely

Grecian

phrases

of rhetoric.

But no,

it's

cruciform,

just like

the message

itself.

The medium

bears the

same marks

of the

message.

It's

cruciform,

both involved

and emptying.

In God's

wisdom,

he has

chosen to

use the

foolish things,

really those

apparently foolish

to us,

apparently foolish.

He has put

his treasure

in earthen

vessels.

the gospel

in the

words of

fig pickers

and fishermen.

That's what

he's chosen

to do.

A stumbling

block to

those scandalized.

Yet,

as he tells

us,

the power

of God

unto salvation

to them

that believe.

Romans

1.16,

1 Corinthians

1.18.

So,

in

some,

if we

appreciate

the

parallel

features

of

incarnation

and

inscripturation,

the word

made flesh

and the

word made

words,

and grasp

some of

the implications

of the

emptying

involved,

while this

does not

clear up

all the

problems,

it helps

us understand

why we

might expect

them,

why we

would expect

scripture's

divinity

to be

veiled

in its

humanity.

So,

will we

be led

astray

by misguided

expectations?

let us

not,

with respect

to scripture,

be as

those who

looked for

Messiah

in a

mold quite

foreign

to God's

purpose

and Christ's

reality.

Let us

not be

among those

scandalized

by the

jarring

contrast

of the

Christ

with their

conceptions

of what

the Christ

should

surely

be.

eke

homo,

behold

the man,

there he

was,

deity

verily

though

veiled,

eke

logos,

behold

the word,

deity

verily

though

veiled,

same

case.

well,

let me

pause

there

and

throw it

open

for any

questions,

comments,

clarifications,

maybe cavils,

who knows,

that's fine

too,

that's fine

too,

and to

make sure

that we're

on the

same page

here,

or at

least see

these pages,

and then

after a little

time we'll

continue on

considering some

other practicals

of what

happens if

we still

have

problems,

what are

some

stances

that we

want to

take.

So any

comments or

questions or

clarifying,

does this make

any sense?

what you're

saying makes a

lot of sense

to me because

I really

struggle with

when you

know the

glory of

God,

I mean in

your head you

know the

glory of

God,

but you

don't feel

the glory of

God,

even this

week I've

been struggling

with that all

week long,

it's like,

why do I

know how

magnificent

God is as

much as I

think?

But how

does it not

translate into

my soul as

well as it

should?

And I think

this is why,

so I'm really

glad.

Yeah,

yeah,

okay,

good,

yes.

He did this

on purpose

so that we

could come

to him,

yet bring

himself down

to our

terms,

which is

wonderful and

beautiful that

he did,

but it helps

me understand

that my

soul wants

to get

more.

Yes,

yeah.

Yeah,

absolutely.

And again,

it's probably

vital,

it's probably

necessary that

something,

you have to be

careful about

talking about

necessity when

it comes to

God,

better to say

fitting,

it seems

very fitting

and maybe

necessary.

Think again

of the parallel

case of the

incarnation.

So many,

many,

many people

will talk

about,

what they

call the

scandal

of

particularity.

They'll

say,

wait,

you

Christians

are,

you point

to something

so local

and you

suggest it's

of universal

significance.

You're

talking about

some person

who's a

Galilean,

you know,

a long time

ago,

in a place

far away,

and how can

something so

particular

be of

universal

significance?

it's what

philosophers

call the

scandal

of

particular.

But if

you understand

what is

actually being

done,

it's

critical

that

Jesus

became a

true,

that the

Son became

a true

human

person.

person.

And in

order to

do that,

you have

to be

particular,

because there's

no such

thing as a

generic,

universal

person.

There just

isn't.

People only

come in

particular

cases.

So insofar

as God

wants to

become a

person,

it has to

have all

the particular

ities of

what people

do.

he had

to be

from

somewhere,

so he

was from

Galilee.

He had

to be a

gender,

so he

was male.

He had

to speak

some

language,

culture,

so he

had accent.

He had

body odor.

He had

all these

things.

But in

order for

him to

identify with

us as

humanity,

he had

to be

that.

so it

had to

be some

place that

seemed so

parochial.

So the

claim that

this thing

so parochial

actually has

universal

significance is

hard to

swallow.

But if you

figure out,

it had to

be that

way.

What do

you

Enlightenment

people want?

What is a

generic person?

Exactly.

He didn't

pay the

debt to

God.

Yes.

Because we

couldn't do

it.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Not Ambrose,

but Anselm.

I suffer

from depression

and I

pray or

we were on

a ride

yesterday and

we talk

godly talk

and I

gotta tell

you,

after our

walk and

after our

lunch,

I still

felt like

garbage.

Gotta find

a better

friend,

Raul,

who can

I don't

feel good

all that.

Sometimes I

go to church

and I

leave flat.

That's God

working in

that sanctification.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh,

let me just

notice the

incarnation,

the

particularity,

but again,

in

scripturation,

if you're

gonna put

it in

a human

language,

it's gotta

go into,

we don't

have generic

language,

you know,

what's an

angelic language,

how is an

angelic language

gonna go,

you know,

I don't,

what,

what,

what,

what,

it's gotta

go into

something that

is,

that is

particular.

It's gonna

be in

some sort

of cultural,

historical,

you know,

limitations of

fig pickers and

fishermen,

or,

you know,

that's the,

it's gotta be in

some,

so that's gonna

scandal,

it's gonna

scandal everybody

coming from

some vantage

point,

and that's the

way,

if you're gonna

put it in

human words,

those are

human words,

you know,

so,

I won't forget

you,

but,

oops,

sorry,

once,

once I get

Matt,

you were just

beaten out by

Susie here,

but I'll come

back to you

as a second

Matt,

yeah,

yeah,

yeah,

yeah,

yeah.

So,

you talked

about how

both in

incarnation and

scripturation,

God's glory,

that God

removed the

visible marks

of his glory,

but isn't it

kind of paradoxical

when he also

removes his

marks of glory,

but also,

I guess,

asks us,

or requires us

to fear God and re-fear God's glory.

Like, yeah, I was just wondering

how can we then fear God

when God is...

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Right.

Well, it is not that we have no access

to his glory,

but that becomes this progressive process

that his spirit works.

So if you were...

A good passage maybe to look at

would be in 2 Corinthians 3

where he talks about

how the spirit removes the veil.

Remember?

And a veil is over...

And it's talking about when reading Scripture

or seeing Jesus.

It's actually in this context.

And that the Holy Spirit removes a veil.

So what is actually there

but has been concealed

becomes more manifest to us.

And then he uses this image.

He says,

it is as if we gaze at Christ

as in a mirror.

And we take on that image of glory

from one degree of glory to the next.

So that as we behold his glory,

we become more and more like that

as we behold the glory of God

in the face of Jesus Christ.

So there is this progressive revealing to us.

And some of it,

again, it's an unveiling.

Maybe we didn't see any glory in the cross.

I mean, how could you?

It's not evident how that would be glorious.

But as we come to appreciate

and the spirit actually takes the veils off our eyes

and we see that that actually,

the cross.

When Jesus says in John 17, 3,

he says,

Father, glorify me now.

He's actually talking about the cross.

Not that after the cross,

I'm going to get through that

and that's not going to be very glorious.

Then I'll be glorified.

But the cross is actually the apogee,

the high point of his glory.

That's the most concentrated manifestation

of what God is like.

But we wouldn't see that as glorious at first,

certainly not in the culture in which it happened.

You wouldn't even speak of crucifixion

in polite company.

But as the spirit gives us eyes to see,

kind of like he did Saul of Tarsus,

and that thing that was so contemptible and horrid

and even blasphemous at the suggestion

became something in which he gloried in.

Glory alone in the cross of Christ.

So that's kind of how that works.

Matt, you had one.

Your class so far has reminded me

of a type of stumbling block for some people.

Oh, scripture just seems so banal or mundane

or doesn't relate to anything I care about.

And somebody might point, for example,

to a lot of the book of Leviticus.

Do this with the liver.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

How can this be the word of God?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So I appreciate that.

Though that's not what I typically think about.

I, you know, wrestle in this regard more with,

I'll use an example of Genesis 1,

which is I look at it,

oh, you know, very beautiful poem

or a piece of literature,

you know, that Cicero, you know.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I don't have any problem with the formula

like I do with Leviticus.

My problem is with the context.

Right, right, right, right.

How can this be the word of God?

So I think of those as two different stumbling blocks

that different people might have.

Right.

And again, content, I mean, form and content.

Some of the things that Jesus said were scandalous.

There's the content, too, not just his appearance.

Appearance is the total.

You know, so I don't want to,

I don't think that these principles ignore content at all.

I think that they take up content also.

But let me just pick up a couple more points.

Within this framework,

how might we respond when we encounter difficulties?

In other words, when Scripture seems not at all divine,

but merely human, all too human,

how do we respond when we find ourselves there?

Well, I want to propose that we respond with,

first, faith.

Trust him,

even in the midst of unanswered questions.

May our attitude be as the anguished father

of the demon-possessed boy.

I believe, Lord.

Help me overcome my unbelief.

Mark 9, 24.

And there is a way to question

within a framework of faith,

as with Mary to the angel at the Annunciation.

Remember?

Remember?

How can these things be?

She said, Luke 1, 34.

Full of faith,

despite honest questions.

How can these things be?

It's interesting.

Virtually the same question was uttered by Sarah,

Abraham and Sarah, Sarah,

in Genesis 18.

Remember?

You will bear a child.

Ha ha, she laughs.

That's never going to happen.

Or Zachariah.

Remember when it's revealed

that Elizabeth is going to bear a child.

And they're reproved for their attitude.

So there is a way that you can ask questions

within a framework of faith.

And then there's a way that is different from that.

So when the...

So do you think that in Luke,

Zachariah asked the angel along the way,

and then Mary did it the right way?

Yes.

Because he was made mute,

but she wasn't.

Yes.

And both of them questioned what was happening.

Yes.

And they never understood that.

Yeah, yeah.

It's a different attitude.

One comes from faith.

A faith.

And again, with Sarah,

hey, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, Sarah,

nothing's impossible with God.

So...

And I think Mary knew that and trusted

if you read the Magnificat,

you know, what she says,

it becomes clear.

But she just said,

okay, how?

What am I supposed to do?

I mean, I am a virgin.

So, yeah, very different attitude.

So we can ask our questions,

but within a framework of faith.

And, you know,

when the Bible seems nothing but human

and we can't see the divine,

don't be scandalized and stumble.

As Jesus says,

blessed is he who does not stumble at me.

Matthew 11, 6.

So when we find ourselves standing in a fog

that we can't see through,

let's remember ourselves

that we stand upon rock.

His word to us.

Matthew 7, what is it?

22.

You know, his words.

That's the rock.

And remember, in his case,

the verily amen

was not uttered by his hearers in judgment.

That judgment he has already rendered.

Remember, Jesus often says,

contrary to the custom,

verily amen,

surely, assuredly, I say to you,

and we all, you know,

and then he'd make a statement.

Usually somebody would make a statement,

and if people, you know,

we kind of do this now,

and if people thought,

yeah, that seems right,

amen, verily, it's true.

Jesus does it differently.

He just starts his statement,

verily amen,

and then just says it.

You know, the judgment's

already been rendered,

and we just need to remember that.

Let's trust him,

the one so worthy of our trust.

Surely, Peter's response

is well adapted to this question, too.

To whom would we go instead?

Who's more worthy of our trust?

For he alone has the words of life.

John 6, 68.

So, in our doubt-ridden quandaries,

respond in faith.

But also, let's respond in hope.

Hope.

Remember the eschatological reality

of where we are.

Now, we see through a glass darkly,

1 Corinthians 13, 12.

We see darkly.

Realize that our problems

are a calendar issue.

They will one day be resolved.

Don't demand that all be revealed

and unveiled now.

Don't demand that the Bible

be transfigured.

its glory made manifest now.

That, remember,

that was Satan's temptation

to Jesus at the temple top.

Remember, unveil yourself now.

But Jesus kept God's calendar.

Kept God's calendar.

And sometimes we can show

the Corinthian immaturity.

Can we not?

They thought it was time of glory,

not suffering.

Have what theologians call

an over-realized eschatology.

And we can have over-realized expectations

about the word.

It, the word,

is in its sojourn of suffering.

It's kenosis.

It will have its vindication.

It will have its exaltation.

When it will be truly glorified.

But that is not yet.

So let's wait in hope.

Abide till I come, Jesus says.

And suffer now.

That's right.

As Jesus told his disciples,

what I am doing,

what I am doing,

you do not now understand.

But afterwards,

you will understand.

John 13, 7.

And might we not equally,

at times,

say,

what you have written,

I don't now understand.

But let's,

at such times,

remember the but afterward.

But afterward.

Afterward.

An afterward

of full understanding

to come.

And be patient,

awaiting that coming day.

We can do that.

So,

we respond in faith,

and in hope,

but also,

in love.

We got problems

with the Bible.

We got issues.

Okay,

that's fine.

We all do.

Busy yourself,

loving God,

and neighbor.

This is the best environment

for truth

to prevail

and get rooted

in your life.

certainly,

it doesn't happen

by obsessing

over the problem.

2 Timothy 1, 13

is relevant here,

where he says,

retain the standard

of sound words,

he's talking about truth,

in,

in,

in,

the faith and love

which are in Christ Jesus.

In other words,

the sphere

or the environment

in which truth

is nourished

is the community

of faith

where mutual love

is at work.

And part of this,

I think,

is that there

we will be constantly

witnessing the power

of the faith

and love

born of the gospel word

that keeps transforming lives

all around us.

And that helps

to give us confidence

in that word,

even where we,

we don't quite understand

or have problems

with it.

And this,

seeing how the word

just dramatically

changed people's lives.

It's,

it's,

it's a proleptic

vindication.

In other words,

it's a,

it's a little vindication

in advance

of the final invocation.

It's kind of a sneak

preview

of the vindication

that the word

will have.

little,

little transfigurations

where the divine

shows through

the human

in advance

of the great unveiling.

In,

in the days

when biblical criticism

was harrowing

the faith

of many a Yale student

and questions

were many

and urgent

and answers

were few

and pretty slow

of arrival,

Henry B. Wright,

after whom

Wright Hall

is,

is named.

He's kind of a minister

on campus

godly man.

He observed

that amidst

all this solvents

to their faith,

what most kept

the faith

of Yale students

intact

was their involvement

in Yale Hope

Mission.

Yale Hope Mission

was where

they busied

themselves

in reaching out

in loving service

and gospel witness

to the down

and outers

as they called

them then.

We would say

the underprivileged.

Okay?

Many of whose lives

were dramatically

transformed,

just wonderfully

reclaimed.

And in the process,

the faith

of the witness

bearers

was fortified.

And it gave

them some ballast

and staying power

amidst all this

German higher

criticism

that was coming

in like a flood

and dislodging

their footing.

It was kind

of like

the man

more blind.

He's asked

all these questions

by the cross

examination.

I don't know,

but I do know

this.

I once was blind

and now I see.

And that gives you

some pretty good

ballast

in the midst

of unanswered

questions.

And if we see

that more and more

as we're busy

about loving others

and God

and the transformation

that that brings,

it'll give us

some ballast.

So,

love.

So,

faith,

hope,

love,

and finally,

humility.

Our judgments,

I mean,

we were born yesterday.

I always tell my daughters,

what do you know?

You were born yesterday.

Listen to your father.

But, you know,

our judgments

and they roll their own,

oh, gee.

Our judgments

are finite

and fallible

and deeply

dyed

by our sinfulness.

Accordingly,

epistemic humility

becomes us.

Humility about

what we can know

and how we know things.

It becomes us.

I can't see

how to solve

this particular question.

But,

why would I think

that I should be able to?

You know,

okay,

I guess,

God,

I don't need to know,

at least right now.

You know?

And,

realize that

part of our frustration

may come

from presumption.

I was just talking

to you

the other day

and,

you know,

we were talking

about the problem

of evil.

You know?

He said,

I can see

no good reason

why God

would act

or speak

in this way.

therefore,

he must have none.

Therefore,

he must have none.

I tried to gently

point this out.

But,

note

how

breathtaking

is the hidden

premise there.

God

could have

no good

reasons

for anything

that I would not

be acquainted with.

That's the hidden

premise.

you think,

that really

is breathtaking

an assumption,

a premise.

So,

sisters and brothers,

surely in these

matters,

as in most

matters,

humility

becomes us.

Humility

becomes us.

As David

reflected,

oh Lord,

my heart

is not lifted up.

My eyes

are not raised

too high.

I do not

occupy myself

with things

too great

and too

marvelous

for me.

But,

what I can do,

I can't do those