vignettes from the great clear out (6)

several people have helped us today SO much, I can't quite believe what they accomplished between them! Praise the Lord for Christian friends who willingly gave up their time and energy on this very hot day.

Two gardens readied for our departure (from pretty parlous states), cupboards emptied and cleaned, things taken to charity shops, shipping cartons constructed and a lawnmower cord severed by exciteable mowing!

Also came across a little note from when I was reading The Shack. On p.90 we come across God (Father) listening to funk. Which reminded me of The Mighty Boosh - a couple of stellar episodes about jazz, exploring our ignorant prejudices about it as well as mocking its producers and enthusiasts.

Wasn't quite so convinced by some of the theological speculations in The Shack, it has to be said. For example, Young suggests that "fathering" was most lacking when creation was broken and that's why God appears as "Father" (p.94). But don't the eternal relationships within the Trinity shed some light the other way - towards our meagre understanding of what father-son means? Of course, I mused, that formulation seems to leave "woman" out of the picture, which is not good. James Jordan's provocative thoughts on hair and glory may give us some pointers here... [PART 1] and [PART 2] of his "liturgical man / liturgical woman" essay, another collection of not-wholly-convincing speculations slightly more to my taste!

UCCF is not dull

A very amusing tribute to theologian Wayne Grudem, in the style of Grease...

http://thebluefish.org/2008/02/my-karaoke-heroes-aka-south-west-relay.html

Some delightful book plugs inspired by various TV memes and bods buzzing around in 2008...

http://www.uccf.org.uk/media/top-10-books.htm

Kirk on resurrection in Christianity Today

A splendid article I need to mull on later, and work out how to pass on all its good points when people ask me tricky questions, which happens from time to time!

more recent Orthodox missiology

Well-meaning attempts at proclamation-in-power, or less well-meaning cynical manipulation of religion for secular political ends has dogged the Roman Catholic Church more than any other, but the Protestant churches have been by no means free from such taint, nor have the Orthodox.

Recent missiological writings from the mainstream and historic denominations have tended to shy away from exclusivist positions and from what evangelicals would recognise as direct proclamation of the gospel. The wording of many WCC documents, and the thoughts of today's Orthodox spokespeople on mission is often rather mealy. Alternately uplifting and hand-waving, these writings express an ambivalent view of cultural power.

On the one hand, we read of the great importance of "inculturation" (granted) which 'occurs when Christians express their faith in the symbols and images of their respective culture. The best way to stimulate the process of inculturation is to participate in the struggle of the less privileged for their liberation.'

Lovely, but why is Vladimir of Kiev still celebrated (nay, revered) by the Orthodox? A brute who was impressed by a showy Byzantine liturgical celebration (aimed straight at the elites of its day) and who forced his people to be baptized in a river, thereby 'accepting the Christian faith' on behalf of the Rus, and perpetuating in a new place a 'gospel' of power and a church so violently implicated in the workings of the earthly city that its integrity as a church has often been obscured...

[The quotation is from a 1982 WCC document, Mission and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation, recorded with approval by Ion Bria, a leading Orthodox missiologist and academic, in his Go forth in peace: Orthodox perspectives on mission (Geneva: WCC, 1986), pp.80-81.]

The Law (Torah)

I was mulling on this again, as I preached on Romans 7 recently. Some very helpful chat with Mrs L…

What is the Law to us Christians? (And what do we even mean when we say, ‘the Law’? – that’s a big question that turns on some technical points and also on the big sweep of redemptive history.)

Are we bound by its commandments?
No

Is it a spur to holiness?
Not profitably so

Is it a measure or guide?
Perhaps

So can we read it with profit, and if so, what profit?
Good question!

Think about Galatians 5, on the fruit of the Spirit (the good life, as it were). “Against such things there is no law”. In other words, what does the Law have to do with our ethics now? It has nothing to do with measuring or defining the good, Spirit-filled life. As Colossians 2 says of the Torah (or what sounds like at least part of Torah), “such things have the appearance of wisdom… but are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh”.

But can we only say ‘we don’t need the Law for our ethics now, thanks’ because it has already had such a tremendous influence, direct and indirect, on Western culture for hundreds of years? Is it indeed the case that the Law is OK as a guide to secular national life, but not for Christian ethics?

Of course, since New Testament ethics is hardly radically opposed to Torah in many areas we will find an amazing similarity between the Spirit-filled life and the Law. But is that because both come, as it were, independently from the same source, rather than one being a development or part-adoption of the other.

Hey, I almost sound like a Lutheran or Dispensationalist in those musings!

Iconoclastic Controversies!

Discussing what seminar papers we were going to write for today's NTI moot on 'Idolatry', and running through 'Are sin and idolatry synonymous?', 'Review Tim Keller's book Counterfeit Gods', 'Why does 1 John end the way it does?'we came across 'Assess the contemporary relevance of the iconoclastic controversies in the Orthodox church of the first millennium'. And of course that's the one I chose.

Better still, it's the perfect name for a Christian Rock band, n'est-ce pas? And the best track on their debut album would surely be 'Fallen into the eisegetical pits' (co-incidentally, a chapter from Greg Beale's meaty We become what we worship: a biblical theology of idolatry [2008]).

All comedy on this post courtesy of JR from Cornerstone.

part of a Frame

A Review of John Frame, The Doctrine of God (P&R, 2002)

Under the wider umbrella of a ‘Theology of Lordship’, Frame sets out his doctrine of God. This work is a sequel to The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (1987), or perhaps that work was merely the introduction to this one. Major books on the Word of God (in progress) and the Christian Life (P&R, 2008) also come under this umbrella, and are part of the multi-perspectival approach to doctrine advocated by Frame and Vern Poythress. So in fact it is inappropriate to speak of any work as ultimately ‘prior’ to the others, whatever the heuristic or pedagogical value in starting with the volume on epistempology, for example.  

So Frame says of metaphysics, ethics and epistemology that each presupposes and even determines the other two, and thus none is prior to the others (pp.196, and passim). Thus there is great validity in approaching a subject from various directions, each of which is admitted to be incomplete

The Doctrine of God (DG) is a mere 806 pages, including Frame’s helpful appendices, which review contemporary discussions of theology proper and respond to some incompetent attacks on his earlier works. This review pertains only to the first 18 of the 29 chapters, since I have not yet got through the rest of the book. This is simply a question of time, not any weakness in the presentation of DG – Frame’s writing is lucid and a real pleasure to engage with. It is hard to imagine how one might communicate the subtleties of his discussion any more helpfully for the educated layman.

Frame has already presented a detailed outline of the work (xi-xx) so I won’t summarise here. Basically, I agree with everything I have read so far. DG is steeped in Scripture, extremely reasonable and careful in tone, confident in all the right places and generally amazing. Regarding reasonableness, the section on 6-day creation (pp.302-12) is a prime example of Frame’s humility and alertness to the variety of positions that are permitted by the text of Scripture, while still making clear which position he tends towards. His overall confident approach, the theology of lordship, beginning with analysis of how the OT in particular presents God as Lord/LORD is a useful fresh take on the subject. When he speaks of covenant lordship he does not use the adjective as a banner as some might, but he actually discusses what that means, such as the aspect of ‘covenant presence’ – God is near/here to bless/judge (pp.95-101). Rather than enthuse too much more, I will spend the rest of this review on interesting questions thrown up by DG and on a few places where Frame has been slightly less careful than usual.

Natural Reason.

In his (probably correct) critique of Aquinas on natural reason (as prior to revelation; pp.224-5) Frame almost ends up as an unwitting critic of his own position (as expressed in his discussion of ethics, pp.195-6) that that situational (sensory, factual) knowledge is necessary for us to be able to hold normative (Scriptural) knowledge. For Frame, these different types of knowledge are arranged in an equal triad, but sometimes he comes close to saying that ‘situational knowledge’ is mere fodder. This undermines the internal equality of the triad’s perspectives.

Transcendence.

Frame convincingly argues that transcendence/immanence language in Scripture is not primarily spatial, but is about lordship and authority. But this does not in itself remove the ‘problem’ of how to conceive of ‘spatial’ transcendence/immanence. A footnote (p.105, fn.4) refers the reader on to chapters 24 and 25 so maybe my question will be answered there…!

Theodicy.

DG contains a superb account of the greater-good defence of a sovereign God in the face of evil. Frame disagrees with the privation theory of evil because it posits degrees of being (unwarranted from Scripture, and tending towards pantheism) and because it doesn’t actually absolve God, since in the universe posited by the privation theory an omnipotent God is still responsible for ‘non-being’ as much as for ‘being’. Of course, Frame’s second point there does not tell us whether or not the privation theory is true, only that it is insufficient to defend God. To me, there does seem to be something more real about the triune God than anything in his creation, and thus something is left of the privation theory if used as a support to the greater-good defence. I was pleased to see that a little later on Frame agrees (p.180, fn.41)! But he is not completely consistent in his formulations. The main text continues to maintain equivalence between God’s being and our being (e.g. p.217, ‘there are no degrees of reality… God is real, and we are real’) while also saying that there is a difference, too – ‘ours at its very best, even perfected by grace, is the goodness of creatures’(p.218). He notes a distinction between uncreated being and created being, and thus implies that evil as a species of the latter may indeed be ontologically different from the (uncreated) goodness of God. There’s hope for modified privation after all.

He briefly returns to theodicy in a neat discussion of concurrence (pp.287-88). All good, but driven by his (plausible) rejection of any ‘laws of nature’ and the corresponding definiton of a miracle as simply an unusual event brought about by God for various purposes (see esp. pp.258-61) Frame is reluctant to identify any events that have ‘no secondary cause at all’ beyond Creation, Incarnation and the regeneration of the believer. What about the return of Christ!? And I’m sure we could think of some miracles that involved the addition of matter to the universe at a particular point in history after the 6 days of creation…

Guidance.

On the question of the drawing of lots Frame is rather hesitant (p.52) but this is because he has moemntarily forgotten to be careful over the use of the phrase ‘God’s will’. Sure, we never use lots to decipher God’s moral will (it is revealed in Scripture), but why not to reveal or precipitate (as it were) his permisive will for our particular futures? On questions where there is no right or wrong choice, that is. Of course there is plenty of biblical precedent for a thorough scripturalist like Frame to take more comfort in flipping a coin over his choice of burger relish or house purchase, or whatever.

Gender.

A great many authors and speakers intimate, imply or even state that individual believers are the bride(s) of Christ. But I am surprised that Frame is one of them! ‘It is important for both male and female Christians to know, and to meditate deeply on the fact, that in relation to God they are female – wives called to submit in love to their gracious husband’. (p.385) Notice the plural wives there. I’m really sure about this. I think God relates to each believer as Father, Brother, Helper (and much more besides) but not as husband. That is his relationship to the church/Israel.

Simplicity.

Frame on the ‘simplicity’ of God (pp.225-30) brings to mind the Islamic discussion of the attributes of Allah, and early medieval Christian critique of said discussions as compromising Allah’s supposed unity. There is more to think about here when my head is clearer!

More please!

Sometimes Frame refers to controversial issues only in passing. This is not necessarily a problem – in a book on the doctrine of God, a paragraph and a list of useful secondary literature are adequate for the subject of human gender relations – but there were a couple of places where the brevity was more unfortunate. First, soteric pluralism gets only a couple of biblical quotes without any interaction with the exegesis of those passages by proper pluralists or woolly liberal Anglicans (pp.92-3). This ought to be a significant topic in the context of a theology based around revelation, covenant, etc. Second, Frame twice speaks of ‘the rejection of Israel’ without grounding his discussion. Once it’s a passing reference (p.86, fn.10) concerning the faith of the centurion, whose faith – greater than any Jesus had seen in Israel – is ‘a sign of the Gentiles election and Israel’s rejection’. The other occasion is in the midst of a discussion of election without the full benefits of salvation. Frame gives two examples – Judas, an individal, so raising no conceptual problems, ‘and national Israel, which, because of unbelief, lost its special status as God’s elect nation’ (p.49, fn.3). I’d want more clarity here. Maybe en masse they were “elected without the full benefits”, but if so, in what sense does particular “rejection” need to follow, if the election was never unto full (numerical or depth across the board) salvation anyway? After all, we already know of plenty of apostate and judged Jews in the OT. Hmm.

eschatological expectation

Is a fancy way of talking about looking forward to the end of the world. Rather too many Christians are rather too preoccupied with this, either wasting hours on numerology or so-called ‘interpretation’ of biblical prophecy, or peppering conversations and e-mails with dark hints as to imminent turmoil (as if there hadn’t been enough and wasn’t enough already) and apocalyptic upheaval across the globe. The fact that people have been confidently predicting all sorts of things concerning the return of Christ for centuries and have always been wrong so far does not seem to provide any sort of deterrent! Today’s rant was sparked off by this one from the 18th century, not usually considered a time of millennial fervour.

In a letter (c.1755) to William Perronet from his father Vincent, a leading Methodist, we read…

The season is by no means healthy: your B. Briggs has been ill at Canterbury; poor Charles, at the foundry; and poor Jacky at Shoreham. It is no wonder that individuals are in disorder; when all nature seems to be in confusion. Indeed we are only at the begninng of alarming providences; a few years will produce still greater events. Happy would it be for a sinking world if they could see that the end of all things is at hand; and would therefore grow sober to watch unto prayer!

I don’t remember the years 1745-1755 being particularly doom-laden, but, then, I am getting on a bit, I suppose… 

[Quoted in Kenneth G.C. Newport, ‘Methodists and the Millennium: Eschatological Expectation and the Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy in Early British Methodism’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 78:1 (1996), 103-22 (107). There are many other 18th- and early 19th-century examples given in the article, ranging from the more careful and scholarly to the more wacky and wide-eyed.]

Any number of similar portentious statements (sounding eerily like the stuff of seaside palm-readers) can be found on the Internet today. All rather cartoonish and silly in comparison to the excitement that real biblical eschatology should bring us. Of course there have been and are many millions of godly Christians inspired to zealous preaching and faithful living by the thought of imminent armageddon, but there are ways of thinking about what the Bible does say about the future that avoid wasting time on over-confident predictions and messing around with Daniel and Revelation. Less worrying about trying to interpret historical events and more focus on being with Christ and how that transforms us now would help.

Dawkins again

Wandering through Jesus College Chapel (a very odd building) a few weeks ago, we came across a little booklet by the Rev'd Dr Timothy Jenkins, Dean of Chapel, called "Closer to Dan Brown than to Gregor Mendel: on Dawkins' The God Delusion", which is a very elegant discussion of how TGD is a kind of popular theodicy, and Dawkins a sort of populariser of quasi-scientific bits and pieces.

Fascinating, erudite, well-written, occasionally pulling its punches (perhaps out of politeness) but an effective and oblique demolition nonetheless. Say what you like about those liberal Anglicans, they know a bit about why atheism is pants and are (sometimes) not afraid to say so.

Last Friday - Justification!

It was a tired and grumpy J that attended the NTI seminar on justification. Which was inappropriate, given the glorious truth of justification by faith alone, whether that is taken in the N.T. Wright sense or the mainstream traditional Reformed sense, as expounded by John Piper in recent debate with the aforementioned Bishop of Durham. (Thanks to Tim Chester for that useful link!)

I was confused about how to express my thoughts on imputed righteousness and had a headache, largely through exhaustion after a tiring three weeks of being drained by various pastoral situations at church in the hot weather, and partly through staying up past midnight liberating the Pacific and Europe from the Axis powers in Call of Duty: World at War with Phil. Amazing how a man almost thirty can be so captivated by such (well-executed) silliness! I think I'm a bad influence on Phil - he claims not to play WaW unless I'm there overnight...

Since the seminar I have read both Piper's The Future of Justification and Wright's Justification, and actually things seem a lot clearer now. The way that Wright ties in the covenant, eschatology, participation in Christ and much besides is very stimulating, and actually echoes a lot of the Sydney Anglican stuff (ironically) on biblical theology (Goldsworthy, Dumbrell et al) that has been feeding its way into the UK for a few decades. Abraham not Moses. One big story. New creation. That sort of thing.

Of course, Piper makes a lot of good points, too, but there's no doubting the narrowness of the picture he paints by comparison. I can feel a lifetime of wrestling with this and trying to teach it and live it coming upon me!

This Friday - justification!

This Friday at the NTI seminar we are looking at "justification". Can't wait to get to Sheffield via my gracious hosts in Leicester!

I wrote a very garbled "essay" on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which I fear I may have to take an hour to explain (not that I really can, as my head has been spinning with the subtleties) before we can really get our teeth into the subject...

Also on the menu are some sterling contributions from everyone else:

An Exegesis of Romans 3

Justification and Ecclesiology

Evaluation of Tom Wright on Justification

What are we to make of Old Testament declarations of innocence?

Merit or Maturity?

Ken Bailey’s exposition of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), which he more accurately titles “The Two Lost Sons”, contains some great criticisms of merit theology.

The younger son off in the far country does not repent (in Jesus’ definition of repentance) when he decides to return – he espouses a merit theology that plans to earn enough money (set me up as a skilled craftsman) to pay back to his father what he has squandered then he thinks he can restore the relationship. Of course when he meets his father, the old man has already forgiven him, humiliated himself, run the gauntlet on his behalf, and is offering full restoration! He is a son, not an employee…

The older son, angry when he hears why the party is being thrown, refuses to come in, and complains to his father (who, once again, humuliates himself publicly on behalf of one of his sons – the neighbours would have expected severe discipline if not disinheritance for the firstborn’s rudeness here) that he has always “served” him. This is the word for what a slave does. He conceives of the relationship to his father as master-slave, a relationship where the currency is merit. But Jesus wants us to see God in a relationship of love to his children, not distance from his employees…

the ugley vicar and Protestant unity

Forthright and entertaining, not to mention sharp-minded. A great blog to follow for those interested in Anglicanism and generally incisive observations/thoughts.

His recent posts on church unity (esp. how disuinity is the curse of Protestantism) have been very thought-provoking. I wish my brain were more alert right now so that I could process it all and regurgitate it in my own words - but his will have to do (very nicely of course)...

Unity, schism and private judgement

If not private judgement, then what?

Unity, the church and denominations

Overcoming schism, the nettle Protestantism must grasp

where I would be sure to be well fed

challenged, offended and generally encouraged. But Moscow, Idaho is just a little too far away and a little too pricey to get to. Shame really - one day it would be nice to do a grand tour of the US, get the flavour of the various states, revel in the scenery and the people and the diversityand the metropolises and the many great believers there.

where I would like to visit

If I was around in the area on a Sunday.

As the astute blog reader will know, I am torn between the post-theonomic-high-Reformed-literary analysis-covenant children-postmillennial appraoch, and the low-church-anabaptist-emerging-missional-anticlerical-household movement. It would be interesting and edifying to visit some of the former not just read about them!

Both schools, as it were, have an inclusive policy towards children and young people in the main worship meetings of their congregations and both favour alcohol in the Lord's Supper (neither of which things are generally features of mainstream evangelicalism in this country). I expect there are other similarities, too ;-)

what I would be doing

If I were still in the ocean of academia, as opposed to merely an interested observer who sits on the beach enjoying the view, occasionally paddling, but mostly staying on dry ground where it's possible to play the piano (and teach it, and idle around, and study theology and plant a church and do the washing up and the laundry whenever I should be doing something more important).

Prof Andrew Basden is a great bloke, judging from his writings and his beard. Perhaps I'll even get to meet him one day before the New Creation!

Flame-loving fans of Spurgeon

No mention of the Prince of Preachers could go past without a pointer to these SUPERB bloggers on pyromaniacs. Clear thinking and writing, always provocative and full of passion.

Culture and the Christian Faith

In an interview in Australia, Michael Horton had some very interesting things to say.

His call throughout for Christians to get back into the world, relating to unbelievers, doing their jobs well, being involved in cultural activities, etc is well put and surely completely correct. What was intriguing to me was that in his final paragraphs his views of ecclesial practice were shown to be rather myopic. He could only conceive of a modern magisterial reformed view...

Bible teaching and catechesis, and word and sacrament ministry. Then we could stop all this mid-week stuff and let Christians have those six days back that you find in the Ten Commandments...

or a modern evangelical subculture view (which he quite rightly criticises):

But now, we have an alternative culture going on so that a Christian can actually be involved in the Christian ghetto 24 hours a day, listening to Christian radio and Christian music, going to Christian functions, taking the kids to Christians sports to the point where they don't actually know a non-Christian. And no-one at their work would know that they're Christians because they don't have any deep relationships with any of their co-workers. They're so busy with other Christians all the time.

What about the idea that 'church' invades the week, that the subculture is open to non-Christians, that gospel conversation (not corny, but contextualized) saturates everything? Has Dr H not heard of the best of the missional/emerging church?

Prince Caspian (making of)

The recent Prince Caspian film has come in for a lot of stick – “Ben Barnes’ accent is tosh”, “the children are annoying”, “the Telmarine army is too small”, etc. I watched it again the other day and actually thought it was quite good. Most criticisms probably occasionaed by jealousy at the rather good performances by the younger actors and their obvious enjoyment of the project. 

The book is perhaps the weakest of the Narnia series, consisting of long flashbacks, and with quite compressed action (not that any of this prevents the imagination from having a great time with the material, of course) which the film expands on, even adding a long extra plot element, the attack on Miraz’ castle. Although ‘inauthentic’, that sequence is exciting, and effective in underlining the early gung ho hubris of Peter and is well done on screen. Even better is the conjuring of the White Witch – fabulous cameo from Tilda swinton and very effectively done. 

Not surprisingly the filmmakers didn’t know what to do with the almost surreal bacchic revelry that occurs at Lucy’s encounter with Aslan towards the end of the book, so they ommitted it altogether. For me the loss of this section and the generally scanty appearances of Aslan were the disappointments. Maybe they couldn’t take Lewis’ Christianization of classical cultural themes and figures? They prefer a Disneyfication instead.

The documentaries on the DVD certainly show that many in the production team do not understand Narnia, whether willfully or because of ignorance.

The message of Narnia is that ‘we’re all one’
No it isn’t. That’s the “message” of Disney.
At the end of the movie, the day is saved by nature
Well kind of… The next comment does spot who’s behind that…
it’s Aslan
OK…
and Aslan, really, is an animal
D’oh.
CS Lewis is showing us that we can learn from animals and that we can learn from nature
But ripped from its context of dominion, gody rule, as found in Genesis 1 and 2 (which the script even recognised – “Narnia was never right unless a son of Adam was on the throne”, they rightly retained from the book) this is mere tree hugging.

The endless pre-menu adverts were also advertising a (straight to TV) film set in a corny pseudo-Indian setting with elephants, white marble and petals, plus a bronzed girl band… “The Cheetah Girls: One World”, on the Disney channel… Hurrah for vacuous universalism – that’ll save us, yeah

Messiah with a twist for Easter

In 1992 a large group of African-American musicians (including some I’ve even heard of in my white British and Western European art music bubble) got together and produced one of my favourite bits of music – Handel’s Messiah: a Soulful Celebration. Sixteen numbers from the 18th century masterpiece have been, for want of a better word, ‘jazzed up’, to create something I like even more than the original (as a classical musician, am I allowed to say that?) I give it a clear 9.5 out of 10 and the oscar for best adaptation. Mervyn Warren seems to have worked hardest on the artistic side of the project, and what a result! 

Having enjoyed the album for the last 10 years, I’m now really getting into it.

The ‘Overture’ is now a partial history of Black music, from African forest drums to Hip-Hop and House, using all Handel’s themes, given new poignancy in the Negro Spiritual section and new fire in the Jazz Fusion passage. ‘Every valley’ starts in proper baroque vein, hilariously interrupted by brassy synth and drums before the rapper starts up. ‘Why do the nations?’ is a big band jazz scat whirlwind, and so on…

Best of all (and guaranteed to make me cry) is ‘But who may abide the day of his coming?’ The drama of this track is incredible. Patti Austin sings it better than any bloke ever could (pace Handel), the choral snippets and hints at polyphony in ‘gospel’ style are exceedingly fitting, somehow the electronic instruments just work perfectly on the baroque figures and harmonies. The tension mounts with repetitions, questions, quasi-improv, interjections in that way that only Black religious music can, and when it is almost unbearable (for he is like a refiner’s fire… tell me, won’t ya’ who’s gonna stand, for you got to stand, stand…), after the instrumental a la Handel, the confidence of the singing voice comes to rest in a glorious major chord not found in the original, decorating a theologically welcome addition, ‘I know, I know, I know, I will abide’.

Whoa. Tears in my eyes just thinking about this. For who can abide the day of his coming? Only those who trust in the Messiah’s sacrifice on their behalf. They will be refined by the fire of judgement, not consumed, and they can know that they will abide. Who else but Christ can give such a hope? Who else has the words of eternal life? Who else is risen from the dead?

The tomb is empty – Jesus is alive! Hallelujah!