Comments for Christ Church Blackburn http://christchurchblackburn.org.uk An evangelical Anglican church set in the heart of Blackburn. Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:09:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 Comment on Ministry trainee post 2011-12 by John Bidwell http://christchurchblackburn.org.uk/2009/02/ministry-trainee-post/comment-page-1/#comment-718 John Bidwell Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:09:01 +0000 http://christchurchblackburn.org.uk/?p=263#comment-718 The RSS feed does not work on this site. Regards John The RSS feed does not work on this site.

Regards

John

]]> Comment on Sermon: Psalm 67 by John Bidwell http://christchurchblackburn.org.uk/2008/11/psalm-67/comment-page-1/#comment-13 John Bidwell Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:04:23 +0000 http://christchurchblackburn.org.uk/?p=169#comment-13 The sermon was interrupted from as though Israel was the Church. This would be the position of the majority of theologins today. Most commentaries also take this view. When the psalm was scribed, the start of the Church was still a few centuries in the future. The writer of the psalm would no doubt have in mind the promise of Genesis 12 that through the offspring of Abram all nations would be blessed. It seems to me that whilst the Saviour is in view, this psalm points to the future at Jesus's second coming when He sets up His Kingdom. He is then anointed King of the Jews, and indeed King of the nations. The Millennial reign of Jesus is a less commonly held view of the future, but one which fits the Bible's metanarative (the big picture) better and demands a literal interpretation of the Bible. The psalm points to a time in the future when God's blessing to Israel will be seen and understood by the nations. This is not a selfish psalm where Israel wants to blessed primarily, but that Israel wants the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob to be praised by all nations. Bless us Lord, not for our sake, but for your glory, is the sentiment. Do you think that the Gospel would be heard and understood better if we accepted that Israel means Israel? Israel is God's people and the Church is God's people, but Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel. The sermon was interrupted from as though Israel was the Church. This would be the position of the majority of theologins today. Most commentaries also take this view. When the psalm was scribed, the start of the Church was still a few centuries in the future.

The writer of the psalm would no doubt have in mind the promise of Genesis 12 that through the offspring of Abram all nations would be blessed. It seems to me that whilst the Saviour is in view, this psalm points to the future at Jesus’s second coming when He sets up His Kingdom. He is then anointed King of the Jews, and indeed King of the nations.

The Millennial reign of Jesus is a less commonly held view of the future, but one which fits the Bible’s metanarative (the big picture) better and demands a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The psalm points to a time in the future when God’s blessing to Israel will be seen and understood by the nations. This is not a selfish psalm where Israel wants to blessed primarily, but that Israel wants the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob to be praised by all nations. Bless us Lord, not for our sake, but for your glory, is the sentiment.

Do you think that the Gospel would be heard and understood better if we accepted that Israel means Israel? Israel is God’s people and the Church is God’s people, but Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel.

]]> Comment on Sermon: Joshua 5:13-6:27 by John Bidwell http://christchurchblackburn.org.uk/2008/11/sermon-joshua-513-627/comment-page-1/#comment-7 John Bidwell Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:57:41 +0000 http://christchurchblackburn.org.uk/?p=234#comment-7 The destruction of Jericho was so severe that modern archeological excavations hardly reveal any evidence of the city. There is a present day city of Jericho but it is a mile or so away from the old Biblical site. Joshua put a curse on anyone who tried to rebuild Jericho. 1Kings 16 v 34 describes what happened to Hiel of Bethel who tried it. Any references to Jericho after this must refer to the relocated city. Jericho is mentioned in the Gospels of course. There is huge symbology in the account; the Arc (the Law) surrounding the city 7 x 2 times before destruction; the man with a drawn sword (symbolic of the Word); the presence of priests as part of the militia which is not a conventional battle tactic, and the odd method by which the walls were destroyed is fascinating. Rehab's house was part of the city wall. Any comments. The destruction of Jericho was so severe that modern archeological excavations hardly reveal any evidence of the city. There is a present day city of Jericho but it is a mile or so away from the old Biblical site.

Joshua put a curse on anyone who tried to rebuild Jericho. 1Kings 16 v 34 describes what happened to Hiel of Bethel who tried it.

Any references to Jericho after this must refer to the relocated city. Jericho is mentioned in the Gospels of course.

There is huge symbology in the account; the Arc (the Law) surrounding the city 7 x 2 times before destruction; the man with a drawn sword (symbolic of the Word); the presence of priests as part of the militia which is not a conventional battle tactic, and the odd method by which the walls were destroyed is fascinating.

Rehab’s house was part of the city wall. Any comments.

]]>