Grace Grows Best in Winter
God, through the winter, is working grace in us, though now we may not see it. In this way we might liken winter to night. It is ominous because it is lightless. But if you’ve ever sat near a field on a hot summer night you can hear the corn growing. We are growing in the night. But to grow we must stand. We must endure the night. We must face the blinding snow. And amid it we must look to Christ in whom we are rooted and grounded.
In the fall I visited Lowe’s and spoke to the clerk about planting grass seed in a few places where my lawn is more dirt than turf. His advice was simple; don’t waste your time or money. Planting in the cold season (or just before) is counterintuitive and counterproductive. Grass and plants don’t grow in the winter. I left the store that day without seed but thinking to myself, there are some things that grow in winter. Several years ago, a friend sent me a book with Samuel Rutherford’s famous quip, “I see grace groweth best in winter.” Grace grows in winter, but what does that mean?
Life has ebbs and flows or seasons of summer and winter. Yes, there are transitions like spring and fall but they are just that, transitions. We are either moving into winter or out of it and into summer. These are the seasons of life. Some winters are hard. Some are harder than others. But God gives us winters in order that grace might grow. For that to happen we need to remain rooted during those months of bitter cold and biting snow. I like the tree analogy because we are prone to wander and seek the summer. A tree is rooted. Paul calls this withstanding and standing.[1] But standing or staying rooted is hard. It means facing the snow rather than turning from it. Not everyone is used to that sort of thing. But if you faint in the winter your strength is small.[2]
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Does It Really Matter Whether Adam Was the First Man?
It has been my contention that the identity of Adam, and his role as the physical progenitor of the human race, are not such free or detachable doctrines. The historical reality of Adam is an essential means of preserving a Christian account of sin and evil, a Christian understanding of God, and the rationale for the incarnation, cross, and resurrection. His physical fatherhood of all humankind preserves God’s justice in condemning us in Adam (and, by inference, God’s justice in redeeming us in Christ), and it safeguards the logic of the incarnation. Neither belief can be reinterpreted without the most severe consequences.
Evangelical Christians have generally resisted the demythologization of the Gospels whereby, for example, the resurrection of Jesus is interpreted as a mythical portrayal of the principle of new life. Indeed, they have argued strongly that it’s the very historicity of the resurrection that is so vital. However, when it regards the biblical figures of Adam and Eve, there has been a far greater willingness to interpret them as mythical or symbolic.
The simple aim of this article is to show that, far from being a peripheral matter for fussy literalists, it is biblically and theologically necessary for Christians to believe in Adam as a historical person who fathered the entire human race.
Adam Was a Historical Person
Textual Evidence
The early chapters of Genesis sometimes use the word ’ādām to mean “humankind” (e.g., Gen. 1:26–27), and since there is clearly a literary structure to those chapters, some have seen the figure of Adam as a literary device, rather than a historical individual. Already a question arises: must we choose? Throughout the Bible we see instances of literary devices used to present historical material: think of Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night, or the emphasis in the Gospels on Jesus’s death at the time of the Passover. Most commentators would happily acknowledge that here are literary devices being employed to draw our attention to the theological significance of the historical events being recounted. The “literary” need not exclude the “literal.”
The next question then must be: does the “literary” exclude the “literal” in the case of Adam? Not according to those other parts of the Bible that refer back to Adam. The genealogies of Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1, and Luke 3 all find their first parent in Adam—and while biblical genealogies sometimes omit names for various reasons, they are not known to add fictional or mythological figures. When Jesus taught on marriage in Matthew 19:4–6, and when Jude referred to Adam in Jude 14, they used no caveats or anything to suggest they doubted Adam’s historical reality or thought of him any differently than they did other Old Testament characters. And when Paul spoke of Adam being formed first, and the woman coming from him (1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:11–14), he had to be assuming a historical account in Genesis 2. His argument would collapse into nonsense if he meant Adam and Eve were mere mythological symbols of the timeless truth that men preexist women.
Theological Necessity
We can think of these passages as circumstantial evidence that the biblical authors thought of Adam as a real person in history. Circumstantial evidence is useful and important, but we have something more conclusive. The role Adam plays in Paul’s theology makes Adam’s historical reality integral to the basic storyline of the gospel. And if that is the case, then the historicity of Adam cannot be a side issue, but part and parcel of the foundations of Christian belief.
The first exhibit is Romans 5:12–21, where Paul contrasts the sin of “the one man,” Adam, with the righteousness of “the one man,” Christ. Paul is the apostle who felt it necessary to make the apparently minute distinction between a singular “seed” and plural “seeds” (Gal. 3:16), so it’s probably safe to assume he was not being thoughtless, meaning “men” when speaking of “the one man.” Indeed, “the one man” is repeatedly contrasted with the many human beings, and “oneness” underpins Paul’s very argument—which is about the overthrow of the one sin of the one man (Adam) by the one salvation of the one man (Christ).
Throughout the passage, Paul speaks of Adam in the same way he speaks of Christ. (His language of death coming “through” Adam is also similar to how he speaks of blessing coming “through” Abraham in Galatians 3.) He is able to speak of a time before this one man’s trespass, when there was no sin or death, and he is able to speak of a time after it—a period stretching from Adam to Moses. Paul could hardly have been clearer: he supposed Adam was as real and historical a figure as Christ and Moses (and Abraham). Yet it is not just Paul’s language that suggests he believed in a historical Adam; his whole argument depends on it. His logic would fall apart if he was comparing a historical man (Christ) to a mythical or symbolic one (Adam). If Adam and his sin were mere symbols, then there would be no need for a historical atonement; only a mythical atonement would be necessary to undo a mythical fall. With a mythical Adam, then, Christ might as well be—in fact, would do better to be—a mere symbol of divine forgiveness and new life. Instead, though, the story Paul tells is of a historical problem of sin, guilt, and death being introduced into the creation, a problem that required a historical solution.
To remove that historical problem of Adam’s sin wouldn’t just remove the rationale for the historical solution of the cross and resurrection; it would transform Paul’s gospel beyond all recognition. Where did sin and evil come from? If they were not the result of one man’s act of disobedience, there seem to be only two options: either sin was there beforehand and evil is an integral part of God’s creation, or sin is an individualistic thing, brought into the world almost ex nihilo by each person. The former is blatantly non-Christian in its monist or dualist denial of a good Creator and his good creation; the latter looks like Pelagianism, with good individuals becoming sinful by copying Adam (and, presumably, becoming righteous by copying Christ).
The second exhibit that testifies to the foundational significance of a historical Adam to Paul’s theology is 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 and 45–49. Again, Paul unpacks a tight parallel between the first man, Adam, through whom came death, and the second or last man, Christ, through whom comes new life. Again, Adam is spoken of in the same way as Christ. Again, Adam is seen as the origin of death, as Christ is the origin of life.
At this point in 1 Corinthians, Paul is at the apex of a long argument dealing with problems the Corinthian Christians had with the body. As the ultimate answer to their pastoral problems, Paul set out to give them confidence in the reality of their future bodily resurrection by demonstrating the historical fact of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. The historical reality of Jesus’s resurrection is the linchpin of his response. That being the case, it would be the height of rhetorical folly for Paul to draw a parallel between Adam and Christ if he thought Adam was mythical. For if the two could be parallel, then Christ’s resurrection could also be construed mythically—and Paul’s whole letter would lose its point, purpose, and punch.
If I have accurately represented Paul’s theology in these passages, then it is simply impossible to remove a historical Adam from Paul’s gospel and leave it intact. To do so would fatally dehistoricize it, forcing a different account of the origin of evil requiring an altogether different means of salvation.
Is There a Third Way?
Denis Alexander has proposed—substantially elaborating on a theory put forward by John Stott (Understanding the Bible, 49)—that there is a way of avoiding the sharp dichotomy between the traditional view of a historical Adam and the view that such a position is now scientifically untenable (Alexander, chs. 9–10). That is, while we should definitely see Adam as a historical figure, we need not believe he was the first human. According to Alexander’s preferred model, anatomically modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, with language in place by 50,000 years ago. Then, around 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, God chose a couple of Neolithic farmers, and to them revealed himself for the first time. Thus he constituted Homo divinus, the first humans to know him and be spiritually alive.
It is an ingenious synthesis, to be sure, deftly sidestepping the theological chasm opened by denials of a historical Adam. But it has created for itself profound new problems. The first is raised by the question of what to make of Adam’s contemporaries, those anatomically modern humans who, Alexander says, had already been populating the world for tens of thousands of years. He wisely maneuvers away from understanding them as anything less than fully human, emphatically affirming that “the whole of humankind without any exception is made in God’s image, including certainly all the other millions of people alive in the world in Neolithic times” (238). To have stated otherwise would have landed him in a particularly unpleasant quagmire: the aboriginal population of Australia, who, according to Alexander, had already been living there for 40,000 years before Adam and Eve were born, would otherwise be relegated to the status of non-human animals. And presumably the parents of Adam and Eve, also being non-human animals, would then—along with the Australian aborigines—be a legitimate food source for a hungry Homo divinus.
In avoiding all that, Alexander’s proposal founders on, if anything, even more hazardous terrain. The crucial move is made when he explains what exactly set Adam and Eve apart from their contemporaries. When they were born, he suggests, there was already a vast Neolithic population to be found in God’s image. What then happened to set Adam and Eve apart as Homo divinus was simply that “through God’s revelation to Adam and Eve . . . the understanding of what that image actually meant, in practice, was made apparent to them” (238). It was not, then, that Adam and Eve were now freshly created in God’s image; they had already been born in God’s image, children of a long line of bearers of God’s image. The difference was that they now understood what this meant (a personal relationship with God).
The first problem with this is biblical. In Genesis 1 and 2, it is quite specifically Adam and Eve who are created in God’s image (the event of Gen. 1:27 being presented afresh in Gen. 2:18–25). It is not just that some beings were created in God’s image, and that this could later be realized by a couple of their descendants. Quite the opposite: Genesis 2:7 seems to be an example of the text going out of its way to emphasize a direct, special creative act to bring the man Adam into being. That problem might be considered surmountable, but it has created a second theological problem that seems insurmountable. It is that, if humans were already in the image of God before Adam and Eve, then we are left with one of two scenarios.
Read More -
Is God’s Word Only Found in the Bible?
Scripture alone is sufficient for our salvation, but we also know and practice that the written Scriptures alone are sufficient for our daily lives and practices as well…Advice given by worldly-wisemen may sound convincing, but if they are not found in the written word “expressly set down or necessarily contained” (explicitly or deduced from Scripture), it is to be rejected.
In the perennial classic, The Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian comes across a man named, “Mr. Worldly-Wiseman.” Mr. Worldly-Wiseman lived in a town called “Carnal Policy,” otherwise known as Ways of the World, and it was a close neighbor of the City of Destruction (where Christian was originally from). Mr. Worldly-Wiseman was a perceptive man and recognized that Christian was in need of some help on his difficult journey. So Mr. Worldly-Wiseman asked Christian, “If I give you counsel will you take my advice?” Christian responded, “If it is good counsel, I will.” This was a great attitude for Christian to display, as he should be discerning of any advice given to him.
However, Mr. Worldly-Wiseman did not have good advice. He told Christian that his way was burdensome because of the book he read. Mr. Worldly-Wiseman reviled Christian’s book and told him another to be rid of the burden on his back. Mr. Worldly-Wiseman’s suggestion was to go to a man named Legality who lived in a village called Morality. If you’ve read the story, you know that Christian never arrives because this hill was too vast. It was also not the way that the book in his hand instructed him to go. Christian learned the hard way by not trusting what was not written in the book.
Why the Hair-Splitting?
What does the question, “Is God’s Word only found in the written Bible?” even mean? Is the Bible truly authoritative for life? Why ask these kinds of questions to people in the pews? I do find it necessary to bring this truth to the pew, for there are many problems within Christianity. Specifically, certain denominations and Christian universities openly deny that the written word of Scripture is God’s final word of authority.
This is important for it has tremendous pastoral implications. Outside of Christianity, we see many religions that reject a written document and prefer passing down faith through other means. Some of these methods involve narratives, legends, rituals, etc. Christianity, on the other hand, is different as it is a word-based religion. Christianity also has a God who covenants with His people through His written word. We see this in Exodus 24:4, 7, “And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel… Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” We also see this in Exodus 34:27, where God commands Moses to write so that He can covenant with His people, “And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Thus is also true in Isaiah when he says, “To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” Isaiah 8:20. So while many people take away from God’s word (some take it away entirely), do people actually add to God’s word?
Read More
Related Posts: -
Living with Adversity – and Purpose
The truth is, we are here for something greater and something nobler than just to exist – just to take up space. We are here to fulfill God’s purposes in our lives. And that DOES mean making an impact on the world and on others. And of course it also means pleasing and glorifying God.
The contrast could not be greater. Simply flicking channels on the television can show up the most glaring differences. On the one hand you might come upon a documentary or program about folks going through horrific suffering and hardship. It might be the suffering people of Ukraine, or someone dealing with years of recovery from a horrible accident, or those who have gone through years of abuse, and so on. Many are scarred for life.
And then you get various brainless reality TV shows, such as “The Housewives of…” where you seem to have a collection of narcissistic, rich, selfish airheads who seemingly spend their whole lives drinking expensive champagne, throwing lavish parties, and arguing with one another.
Or it could be shows like “Botched” which features a regular supply of brainless bimbos whose only desire in life is to have the world’s largest breasts, or to look just like a Barbie doll, or some other bizarre thing. Even when doctors warn them that such procedures are dangerous and may kill them, they insist on going ahead, spending tens of thousand of dollars (or more) on boob jobs, Botox, nose jobs, etc, etc. They have scars too, but only where the breast implants went in.
Such seemingly empty and vacuous people live for absolutely nothing but themselves. They seem to be completely without purpose in life – at least any worthwhile purpose. The idea that we are here on planet earth not to serve ourselves and pamper ourselves but to actually serve God and others never occurs to them.
And the only thing that I really wonder is this: which is worse, the folks featured in these shows, or the millions of people who slavishly watch these shows every day? Both groups seems to live for nothing, and seem to have no purpose in life. It is just eat, drink and be merry. It is hedonism on steroids (or botox).
Spiritual Reflections
I often wonder about fellow Christians and just what they are living for. So many seem to have no real sense of meaning or purpose. Yes, they will go to church once a week – maybe – and they might flick through their Bibles once in a while. And they will pray, mainly when things start going really wrong.
But they seem just as purposeless and without passion for the things that matter as any non-Christian. So let me bring together some various thoughts and experiences I have had over the past few days. Some of these things I have recently shared on the social media. They include:
-If you are like me and easily despair, thinking you are offering little to the kingdom, think again. We all have a divine calling and God will use us for his purposes. The saints of old may have also despaired, yet look at how they are still being used even today. As I discuss in my new piece: Recall that John Bunyan’s classic work was written while he was imprisoned, and it was not published till 1678. How many millions of people have been blessed by that great book? I have been greatly helped by Roger Scruton who in turn was greatly helped by Bunyan who in turn was greatly helped by earlier writers.
-Sometimes it seems like things go pretty smooth and easy for a few weeks, but then all hell seems to break loose: one attack after another, one difficulty after another, one calamity after another. All you can do is cry out to God and tell him you don’t think you can handle it any more. All you can do is call out for his help. And he does get you through, and with the help of his people. Case in point: I was going through the other day, and a few posts by friends helped get me through, including this meme that a friend had just posted: “When the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears and delivers them out of all their troubles” (Psalm 34:17).
Read More
Related Posts: