Category: James Jordan

Posted on

Teaching New Psalms and Hymns

Jim Jordan has some advice on  how a pastor should introduce new hymns and psalms to his congregation. In his Rite Reasons No. 19 he writes:

To teach new psalms and hymns, you need someone with a strong voice, preferably a man because the male voice is more powerful. (Since this involves teaching/training in the Word, it may be inappropriate for a woman to take this role anyway; but if the ox is in the ditch, so to speak, I don’t think it would be wrong to use a woman here.)

Have the leader sing through the first stanza. Then have him sing each line and the congregation sing it after him. If there are hard lines, do them twice. Then have the congregation sing the whole first stanza, and then go back and do the whole psalm or hymn. Use it again for a couple of weeks, so that the congregation becomes familiar with it.

Posted on

LORD, YHWH, and I AM

Old Testament scholars generally differ in how God should be addressed both in the liturgy of the church and in doing Biblical or Systematic theology. James Jordan has argued that in Genesis 14:18-20 “the name of God in use among the nations was God Most High’” (Hebrew, `el `elyon; in Through New Eyes, p. 176). Though, as Leithart has argued convincingly “‘God Most High’ or simply ‘Most High’ are frequently used by Israelites as titles for Yahweh.” The main point being that both names manifests “that the covenant-keeping God of Israel, is also the Highest, the exalted King of the nations and their gods, who casts down all who exalt themselves against Him.”

In Waltke’s Old Testament Theology, he argues that the title “LORD” has messianic implications since Paul refers to Christ as Lord in Romans 10:9-13, nevertheless, it establishes a less intimate “relationship with a person than using his or her name” (Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Biblical Theology, 11). He prefers to use God’s name as it proceeds from His own mouth, namely, “I AM.” Since the gospels reveal that before Abraham was born, “I AM” existed, hence, God is both present and eternal. As Waltke summarizes: “He is both ‘I am here” and ‘I am eternal’ ” (Ibid. 11).

Posted on

Quote 3, James Jordan On the Sacraments

God’s affirmation of the material world is seen in the fact that He uses physical water to introduce people into His kingdom, and by the fact that we eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood in the Lord’s Supper. Many Christians, however, cannot embrace such physical ideas. Water baptism, is thus reduced to a mere symbol instead of a powerful communication from God, and so are the bread and wine of the Supper. Such a reduction was not the view of the Protestant Reformers, who sought to correct the magical views of the Papal Church, without denying that God really acts through such material means.

Jordan, James. Creation in Six Days, pg. 73.

Posted on

James Jordan on Gnosticism

I have recently read through James Jordan’s Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis 1. Though I am not certain I concur with all his conclusions, nevertheless Jim Jordan offers a compelling case to reject current scientific and theological denials of the traditional view of creation.1 One of my earlier posts generated some interesting discussion here.Perhaps most compelling and pervasive leitmotif of Jordan’s arguments derives from his remarkable insights into the influence of gnosticism in contemporary thought. According to Jordan, “gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicize and de-physicalize the Christian religion.”2 On pages 82-95 Jordan analyzes carefully Meredith Kline’s Framework theory. He concludes that the framework theory has also succumbed to a form of gnostic thinking by allowing extra-biblical data form the bases of its thesis as opposed to God’s direct revelation to man.

Jordan does not simply attack what he considers to be erroneous interpretations of Genesis 1, he also gives a brief history of how gnosticism has affected the Reformed tradition in the area of the sacraments and worship. On page 72 he briefly touches on the consequences of gnostic thinking in our churches. Here are several signs that gnosticism has entered into our churches:

Whenever the ritual of the Lord’s Supper becomes a means of devotion and contemplation rather than an action performed in God’s presence. Whenever the Supper is restricted from small children because they have not reached some ‘age of reason.’ Whenever the sequence of the covenant renewal in worship is ignored and only the performance of certain ‘elements’ is considered important. Whenever the body is regarded as unimportant, so that we no longer need to kneel in worship, or greet one another with a holy kiss.3

Some may have strong disagreements with his position that Joseph was deeply involved in the writing of Genesis, nevertheless, his chapter on the influence of Gnosticism makes the entire volume a worthy read.

Footnotes

  1. The traditional view defended by the majority of the Reformed church throughout the centuries is the literal six-day view of creation [↩ back]
  2. Creation in Six Days, pg. 71 [↩ back]
  3. Page 72 [↩ back]
Posted on

James Jordan on Gnosticism

I have recently read through James Jordan’s Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis 1. Though I am not certain I concur with all his conclusions, nevertheless Jim Jordan offers a compelling case to reject current scientific and theological denials of the traditional view of creation. a One of my earlier posts generated some interesting discussion here.

Perhaps most compelling and pervasive leitmotif of Jordan’s arguments derives from his remarkable insights into the influence of gnosticism in contemporary thought. According to Jordan, “gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicize and de-physicalize the Christian religion.” b On pages 82-95 Jordan analyzes carefully Meredith Kline’s Framework theory. He concludes that the framework theory has also succumbed to a form of gnostic thinking by allowing extra-biblical data form the bases of its thesis as opposed to God’s direct revelation to man.

Jordan does not simply attack what he considers to be erroneous interpretations of Genesis 1, he also gives a brief history of how gnosticism has affected the Reformed tradition in the area of the sacraments and worship. On page 72 he briefly touches on the consequences of gnostic thinking in our churches. Here are several signs that gnosticism has entered into our churches:

Whenever the ritual of the Lord’s Supper becomes a means of devotion and contemplation rather than an action performed in God’s presence. Whenever the Supper is restricted from small children because they have not reached some ‘age of reason.’ Whenever the sequence of the covenant renewal in worship is ignored and only the performance of certain ‘elements’ is considered important. Whenever the body is regarded as unimportant, so that we no longer need to kneel in worship, or greet one another with a holy kiss. c

Some may have strong disagreements with his position that Joseph was deeply involved in the writing of Genesis, nevertheless, his chapter on the influence of Gnosticism makes the entire volume a worthy read.

  1. The traditional view defended by the majority of the Reformed church throughout the centuries is the literal six-day view of creation  (back)
  2. Creation in Six Days, pg. 71  (back)
  3. Page 72  (back)