Sunday's Hymn: Here, O My Lord I See Thee Face to Face

Here, O my Lord, I see Thee face to face;
Here would I touch and handle things unseen;
Here grasp with firmer hand eternal grace,
And all my weariness upon Thee lean.

This is the hour of banquet and of song;
This is the heavenly table spread for me;
Here let me feast, and feasting, still prolong
The hallowed hour of fellowship with Thee.

Here would I feed upon the bread of God,
Here drink with Thee the royal wine of Heaven;
Here would I lay aside each earthly load,
Here taste afresh the calm of sin forgiven.

I have no help but Thine; nor do I need
Another arm save Thine to lean upon;
It is enough, my Lord, enough indeed;
My strength is in Thy might, Thy might alone.

I have no wisdom save in Him who is
My Wisdom and my Teacher both in One;
No wisdom can I lack while Thou art wise;
No teaching do I crave save Thine alone.

Mine is the sin, but Thine the righteousness:
Mine is the guilt, but Thine the cleansing blood;
Here is my robe, my refuge, and my peace;
Thy Blood, Thy righteousness, O Lord my God!

Too soon we rise; the symbols disappear;
The feast, though not the love, is past and gone.
The bread and wine remove; but Thou art here,
Nearer than ever, still my Shield and Sun.

Feast after feast thus comes and passes by;
Yet, passing, points to the glad feast above,
Giving sweet foretaste of the festal joy,
The Lamb’s great bridal feast of bliss and love.

—Horatius Bonar

We sing this to a different tune at my church, but the tune below is apparently the more common one.

Other hymns, worship songs, sermons etc. posted today:

• Faith of Our Fathers! at Field Stone Cottage
• Love Divine, All Loves Excelling at Rosemary at Home
• How Deep the Father’s Love for Us at The Happy Wonderer
• Faith Alone - May 6, 2012 at The Upward Call
• Lord’s Day 19 at Tried With Fire 
• A Sunday Psalm: The Treasury of David - Psalm 4:4-5 at Theology for Girls
• Lord’s Day 19, 2012 at The Thirsty Theologian
• Sunday Psalm, a Psalm to Sing - Psalm 46 at Daily On My Way to Heaven

Have you posted a hymn (or sermon, sermon notes, prayer, etc.) today and I missed it? Let me know by leaving a link in the comments or by contacting me using the contact form linked above, and I’ll add your post to the list.

Round the Sphere Again: Jesus

As a Human Being
The theological significance of Jesus’ humanity (D. A. Carson at For the Love of God).

Steve Hays discusses Jesus’ resurrected and ascended body, especially what we don’t know for sure. (Triablogue).

On the Cross
Jared Wilson considers what it means that Jesus was forsaken by the Father (Gospel Driven Church).

Filfilling the Old Testament
He was the perfect and final Melchizedekian priest (D. A. Carson at For the Love of God), and so much more (Kevin DeYoung). 

The Servant's Suffering Was Substitutionary

From Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, “seven noteworthy features of the text that clarify the substitutionary character of the Servant’s suffering” in Isaiah 53:

1. The Servant is explicitly said to suffer ‘for’ others (pp. 54-56).
2. The suffering of the Servant brings great benefits to those for whom he suffers (pp. 56-57).
3. The Servant suffered willingly and deliberately, not as a passive victim of the actions of others (p. 58).
4. It is God himself who acts to lay the people’s sin upon the Servant and to punish him (pp. 58-59).
5. The suffering Servant is himself sinless and righteous (p. 59).
6. The Servant suffered not for his own sin, but for the sins of others (p. 60).
7. The phrase ‘guilt offering’ is used of  the suffering Servant (p. 61).

Putting it all together:

Plainly, Isaiah 53 teaches that God’s Servant willingly took the place of his people, bearing the penalty for their sins in order that they might escape punishment.

Several years ago I had a bloggy discussion/argument with someone over whether there was penal substitution in Isaiah 53. I tried to prove that there was, but I could have done a much better job if I’d read this book first. It seemed to me, way back then, that my opponent argued around the text rather than from it to make his points. You know, lots of reasons why doesn’t have to mean what it seems to mean, but no explanation of what it really does mean and why. It pleased me, then, to read here that those who deny penal substitution in this text are “guilty of special pleading.” Yes. Exactly.