If the “chief end of man” is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Catechism asserts in its opening clause, why is there no mention of this in the creation narratives? Eh?

Humanity is created, as male and female, and is instructed to fill the earth, subdue it, and assert dominance over all living creatures, as the image of God (Gen. 1:27-28). In the garden story, Adam is told not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but his purpose is only to work the garden and keep it (Gen. 2:15). He is not told to glorify God.

In Mark 6 Jesus sends the twelve out in pairs to call people to repentance, cast out demons, and heal the sick (Mk. 6:7-13). Perhaps because of their mission, the name of Jesus becomes widely known. Herod hears about it, and he comes to the conclusion that John the Baptist has been raised from the dead and is behind this public campaign for moral and religious reform (Mk. 6:14-20). Mark then tells the story of John’s wretched demise (Mk. 6:21-29).

Stefan Paas is a Dutch missiologist. Pilgrims and Priests: Christian Mission in a Post-Christian Society (2019) is a modified English version of a book originally published in Dutch. It is his attempt to answer the “big question” that logically precedes any missiological enquiry, namely, “What is your ecclesiology?”

It is certainly one of the big questions that needs to be asked—theoretically—before we set about trying to extend the reach and influence of the church. What is it exactly that we are extending? What is the church? What use is it in a progressively secular, post-Christian world? We know the role that the church has played historically, but in a rapidly changing cultural and indeed human context we find ourselves having to face up to the stark question: does the church have a future? So, yes, we need a credible and sustainable ecclesiology.

People who believe in the “internal consistency of Scripture,” Craig Bartholomew says, are likely to be troubled by a handful of sayings in the Synoptic Gospels that seem “at first glance” to mean that the “second coming” would happen during the lifetime of at least some of the immediate group of his disciples. Bartholomew examines the three basic forms that this teaching takes with the aim of demonstrating that “there are reasonable explanations for all three.”

This may not add up to very much, but I’ll give it a go….

The “gospel of Jesus Christ” begins, according to Mark, with the appearance of John baptising people from Jerusalem and Judea in the river Jordan. Mark sees this as some sort of fulfilment of what was “written in Isaiah the prophet”:

Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, a voice crying in the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. (Mk. 1:2-3)

Does Paul identify Israel’s Messiah with God in Romans 9:5? I’ve examined this passage a couple of times (see links below) and have been more or less of the opinion that the grammar says perhaps, but the development of thought says no.

Since we’ve been looking at Brian Simmons’ The Passion Translation, let’s start with his characteristically periphrastic take on the verse:

I continue with my thankless defence of Brian Simmons’ The Passion Translation against the battalion of “highly respected scholars” that Mike Winger has “hired” to wage war against it. Why do I do it? I don’t know. Partly because in an internecine theological spat like this there is invariably error on both sides, and although there is not much to be said in support of Simmons’ methodology, criticism of the translation has struck me as rather weak. But also partly because it provides an opportunity to draw attention to the fact that both The Passion Translation and conservative-Reformed commentary repeatedly miss the historical point of the New Testament. There. I said it.