The Riddleblog: Recent Episodes
None
Messianic Prophecy or a Guide to the End times?
Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks is one of the most intriguing passages in all the Bible. It is often described by commentators as among the most difficult passages to interpret in all the Old Testament. Many of our contemporaries understand this passage as a map to the end times. But I think the passage makes much more sense when understood as a messianic prophecy foretelling the coming of Jesus, the Messiah. Yes, the passage does tell us much about the end times (in a big picture kind of way), but it does so through the lens of Jesus’s work in fulfilling the six conditions set forth in the prophecy–finishing transgression, putting an end to sin, atoning for iniquity, ushering in everlasting righteousness, sealing both vision and prophet, and anointing a most holy place. As we will in this and in the essay to follow, these things were, in fact, accomplished by Jesus through the strong covenant which he makes with the many (i.e., the people of God whom the Father chooses to save). If Gabriel’s revelation to Daniel does speak to the end times, it does so in the form of a messianic prophecy, foretelling with an uncanny accuracy the suffering and obedience of the one who fulfills it–the Lord Jesus.
Many of us grew up in churches influenced by dispensationalism. We learned this passage well because it was thought to serve as a guide to the end times. The prophet Daniel supposedly foresees a time (the 70th and final week of the seventy weeks) when Israel is back in the land at or about the time the Gentile church is removed from the earth (the Rapture). The Rapture also marks the dawn of the so-called seven year tribulation period, during which the Antichrist (on this scheme, the one who makes a covenant with Israel) turns upon the Jews in their rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, leading to a final battle (Armageddon) which culminates in the return of Jesus. Although this is the view which dominates much of American evangelicalism, this interpretation is wide of the mark for several reasons we will address in this and the next installment of our exposition of Daniel’s remarkable prophecy.
Daniel’s “Weeks”
Despite the difficulty and intrigue associated with Daniel’s “seventy weeks,” the passage can be properly interpreted if we spend the time to understand the context in which it is given, as well as developing the biblical theology which underlies the prophecy. The first matter we ought to tackle is the meaning and chronology of the “seventy weeks” to which Daniel refers. What are these weeks? When do the weeks begin, and when do they end? Are we to take the seventy weeks as a literal period of time, or are the seventy weeks better understood symbolically in light of the previous visions recorded earlier in Daniel?
I’m thinking here of the visions of four great empires found in Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a metallic statue interpreted by Daniel), and Daniel 7 (a vision given to Daniel of four great and mysterious beasts). The four metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s statue and the four beasts in Daniel’s vision predict the rise of the four great empires of the ancient near-eastern world: the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. As will see shortly, these prior visions provide the context for the vision of the seventy weeks–a context often overlooked by those who see the prophecy as focusing on the time of the end, instead of upon the dawn of the messianic age.
We will concentrate then on the time-frame revealed by Gabriel to Daniel–the box top to the puzzle, if you will. How should we understand these “seventy weeks?” Why are they broken up into periods of “seven” weeks, “sixty-two weeks,” and then one “week.” “When do the weeks begin?” “How long are they?” and “when do they end?”
Framing the Weeks–Daniel’s Prayer and the End of the Exile
The best answer to these questions is found by looking to the context given us by Daniel himself in the prayer which opens the chapter (vv. 1-19). Although frequently overlooked when wrestling with this passage, the context set forth in Daniel’s prayer is decisively covenantal and indicates that the vision of the seventy weeks given to Daniel is a direct answer to his plea for Israel in light of the realization that Israel’s seventy years of exile in Babylon were soon to come to an end (as predicted by the prophet Jeremiah). As Daniel cries out in repentance, pleading with YHWH to remember his covenant with Israel, the angel Gabriel immediately appears (vv. 20-23) and reveals the seventy weeks prophecy in verses 24-27. Any attempt to make sense of the seventy weeks apart from the context of YHWH’s answer to Daniel’s prayer will certainly miss the mark.
Daniel’s prayer–focusing upon the end of Israel’s exile after seventy difficult years in Babylon–is intended to remind the people of Israel (on whose behalf Daniel is praying) of YHWH’s faithfulness in returning his people from exile back to the land of Judah as promised. YHWH is Israel’s covenant Lord who always keeps the word given to his prophets (i.e., Jeremiah). The prophecy of the seventy weeks is not intended to be a map to end times dealings between Israel and Antichrist at the time of the end, but is instead intended to give the exiled Jews in Babylon the wonderful hope that they will indeed return to their land and rebuild the then destroyed temple of YHWH. But even as Gabriel reveals to Daniel that Israel’s exile is about to end (confirming Jeremiah’s prophecy), the angel points beyond Israel’s current plight (exile in Babylon) to the dawn of that glorious messianic age for which Israel has longed.
As Gabriel is about to reveal to Daniel, behind the seventy years which Israel (Judah) has endured in exile in Babylon, is a much greater period of exile–an exile from God’s presence when Adam and Eve were cast from Eden because of human sin and rebellion. When the seventy weeks are over, this greater exile will also come to an end. But as Gabriel now reveals, it will take the saving work of a Messiah to accomplish this. This end of exile is still future (to Daniel) which means the messianic age has both a beginning (the coming of Jesus) and an end (the second coming of Jesus). But there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in this prophecy about a future seven-year tribulation period, a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the time of the end, or an end times antichrist, except that the Roman prince (Titus) who will desecrate the Jerusalem temple and bring about a terrible time of desolation serves as a type (a “forerunner”) of an end times antichrist.
The Jubilee and the Promised Sabbath Rest
So, we will spend our time focusing upon the seventy weeks decreed by YHWH in light of those often overlooked biblical passages which lay in the background of Gabriel’s revelation to Daniel. These passages would have been very familiar to Daniel, and the prophet would have made the immediate connection between Gabriel’s words, the prophecy of the seventy weeks, and these biblical passages, yet which we may not be so apt to make. But carefully considering these passages will give us the context in which we should understand the number of years revealed by Gabriel (seventy weeks). This will take us to a discussion of Leviticus 25 and the year of jubilee to be celebrated in Israel in the fiftieth year after seven sevens of years (49) have elapsed. Keeping the 49 years followed by a jubilee year (the 50th year) in mind, we can look ahead and quickly figure out that seventy-sevens amounts to ten of these jubilee years followed by a final jubilee which is to be celebrated at the end of seventy weeks, (the ultimate jubilee, if you will).
The jubilee year grows directly out of Israel’s covenant with YHWH and its chief sign, the Sabbath. Sabbath observance was perhaps the most visible element of Israel’s covenant with YHWH–the people work for six days and rest on the Sabbath. Israel’s exile may be about to end (which is great news for Daniel and the exiles then living in Babylon), but the even better news coming from Gabriel is that one day there will be an ultimate jubilee when all of God’s people–those redeemed by the one who makes a strong covenant–will at long last enter their Sabbath rest in the presence of YHWH (the box top to the redemptive historical puzzle). The greater exile will end because the guilt of human sin has been dealt with once and for all. Next time, Lord willing, we will take up the specific things the covenant-maker must accomplish to bring these seventy weeks to their fruition–the six things I mentioned a bit ago associated with the messianic mission of Jesus. We will also unpack some additional details in these densely-packed verses.
Israel’s Exile Will Come to an End
With this in mind, we turn to our text, verses 20-27 of Daniel 9. Knowing that the time of exile is about to end and very concerned for the future of Jerusalem and the people of God, Daniel confesses his sins and that of his people (vv. 1-19). At the end of this prayer, Gabriel appears to Daniel with an answer to the final petition offered by Daniel in verse 19: “O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.” As Daniel prays for Jerusalem and the people of God in exile, YHWH hears and sends Gabriel with YHWH’s answer. We read in verses 20-21,
while I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the Lord my God for the holy hill of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.
Daniel was able to immediately identify this angelic presence as that of Gabriel from the vision given Daniel in chapter 7.
The content of YHWH’s answer to Daniel’s prayer is the prophecy in verses 24-27. We read in verses 22-23,
[Gabriel] made me understand, speaking with me and saying, “O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.”
Daniel has spent his life as an exile in Babylon serving both Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus (two of the greatest men of that age). He was given extraordinary wisdom and insight by YHWH to preserve him during this time. When Daniel intercedes for his people (almost acting as a priest), YHWH will graciously give to his servant Daniel a panoramic view of what the future holds for Israel, Jerusalem, the temple, and beyond. This revelation centers in the person and work of a coming Messiah–Jesus. In Daniel’s prayer we see the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:8 on display. “Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”[1] God has called Daniel to this life in exile, and in his grace and mercy, gives Daniel an answer to his pleas for Jerusalem. Daniel will see Israel’s future and the messianic age.
Seventy Weeks Are Decreed
The “seventy weeks” vision reveals that God has already determined the fate of his people and Jerusalem. In verse 24, Gabriel tells Daniel, “seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” With these words, Gabriel reveals two important facts to Daniel. First, Daniel is given the precise time-frame covered in the vision (seventy-sevens). Second, Gabriel spells out those things which must be accomplished before the seventy weeks are complete, namely the six things to be accomplished by the covenant maker mentioned in verse 27: finishing transgression, putting an end to sin, atoning for iniquity, bringing in an everlasting righteousness, sealing vision and prophet, and anointing a most holy place. When these things are complete, the prophecy will have run its course.
There are two additional things to consider in light of Gabriel’s revelation in verse 24. The first is that two important biblical passages lay behind Gabriel’s use of “seventy weeks.” A second thing we must consider are the theological themes to which these two passages speak, namely covenant, exile, jubilee, and Sabbath. As we have seen when considering Daniel’s prayer in the previous installment (vv. 1-19), the number seventy was used by Jeremiah in vv. 11-12 of the 25th chapter of his prophecy in reference to Israel’s time of exile. “This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.” According to Jeremiah’s prophetic prediction, Israel’s time of exile in Babylon is seventy years. This limited period of exile is YHWH’s covenant curse upon Israel because the people of Judah rebelled and disobeyed their covenant Lord through idolatry and unbelief.[2]
Aware that the seventy years of exile foretold by Jeremiah were coming to an end, Daniel prays for his people, pleading with YHWH to remember his covenant promise. But as becomes clear in Daniel 9:24-27, Gabriel expands this time period from seventy years of exile (for Judah) to seventy “sevens” of exile decreed by God. In this prophecy, Gabriel is speaking of a time of exile much longer and quite different from that which Judah faces in Babylon and which is about to end. The Jewish exiles are about to return home and rebuild the city and temple. But a greater exile remains. This is the exile of the sinful and rebellious human race from the presence of YHWH. It too will come to an end after “seventy weeks.”
The Jubilee In Leviticus 25
The other biblical passage which is in the background of Gabriel’s revelation to Daniel is Leviticus 25 and the institution of the jubilee year in Israel once the people possessed the promised land (the conquest). In Leviticus 25:8–12, we read the following:
You shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall give you forty-nine years. Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; in it you shall neither sow nor reap what grows of itself nor gather the grapes from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you. You may eat the produce of the field.
Gabriel’s choice of seventy “sevens” clearly reflects the jubilee pattern of Leviticus 25–a pattern which reflects the covenant YHWH made with Israel at Mount Sinai to possess the land of promise. The people of Israel counted seven sevens of years, so that the fiftieth year was declared a jubilee year. When the jubilee year came, liberty was proclaimed throughout the land during which time the land was allowed to rejuvenate, all monetary debts were forgiven, slaves were set free, and God promised to bless both the land and his people. While this was commanded in Leviticus 25, there is no record elsewhere in the Old Testament of the jubilee year actually being observed. But the jubilee year is clearly what is in view when Gabriel speaks of seventy “sevens,” not just seven sevens.
When the jubilee is kept in mind, it becomes clear that the seventy sevens decreed by God are simply ten of these jubilee cycles–ten being an ideal number when the final jubilee is realized (after the seventy sevens decreed by YHWH). No more debts will remain, all slaves will have been freed, and the land will be renewed so that it might flourish without ill-effects of the curse. Add to this the fact that the number seven has an obvious connection to the Sabbatical pattern (six days of work followed by a seventh day of rest), we are led to the inescapable conclusion that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are hardly a random number, but instead reflect a number of important redemptive-historical themes associated with Israel’s history and expectation (covenant, exile, Sabbath, jubilee).[3]
These factors are kept in mind as we interpret the prophecy given Daniel. When we do so, the prophecy of the seventy weeks is clearly a vision of God fulfilling the promised blessings by removing the ground for the covenant curse–human sin. This indicates that the prophecy is overtly covenantal and messianic in nature and points to an age after the decreed time has passed–the ultimate jubilee and the everlasting Sabbath. To put it another way, the “Seventy sevens” decreed by God indicates that at the end of this period of exile (when the six conditions having been fulfilled), the ultimate jubilee will arrive along with the eternal Sabbath rest promised to the people of God.
The Seventy “Sevens” – Literal or Symbolic?
The question which now must be addressed is “how are we to understand the seventy sevens–as literal years (70 x 7 = 490), or as a symbolic period of time?” For many years, I held that Daniel was referring to the seventy sevens as literal–a span of seventy sevens of years minus the seven years of the seventieth week–the total time being 483 years. If you start with the coming of Jesus (about 30 CE) and work backward, you come up with a date about 453 BCE (very close in time to the ministries of Ezra and Nehemiah). This is important because in verse 25, Gabriel tells Daniel exactly when the seventy weeks begin. “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one a prince there shall be seven weeks.” Assuming that the weeks of Daniel are literal years, we are very close in time to the decree made by the Persian king Artaxerxes to Ezra to rebuild the temple in 458 BCE.
But as we find in Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah the original decree allowing the Jews to leave Jerusalem and return to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple as foretold by Jeremiah (and hinted at in Daniel 1:21) was given by Cyrus in 538 BCE, not the decree of Artaxerxes in 458. This means the 490 years do not reflect a literal period of time, since the time period in view is longer than 490 years. This fact pushed me to consider a symbolic reckoning of the seventy sevens.[4] According to Gabriel, the seventy weeks decreed begin when Cyrus issues his decree in 538 BC. Clearly, this is the event which commences the seventy weeks, not the later decree by Artaxerxes.
Although this point is easy to overlook, those who insist upon a literal interpretation of the 490 years–so that the years decreed begin in 458/445 BCE (depending upon your view)–and then work ahead to Jesus’s messianic mission coming to its end about CE 30, have already violated their stated method of interpretation (understanding the prophecy “literally”) because Gabriel never refers to “years” but to “weeks.”[5] The moment you assume that the seventy “weeks” are actually “years” (because it is rather obvious Jerusalem was not rebuilt seventy weeks after Gabriel’s prophecy), you have already moved beyond a literal interpretation.[6]
In light of these points, I think it is clear that Gabriel is using the word “weeks” in a symbolic way, especially when we consider that the numbers “seven” and “seventy” reflect significant theological themes well known to the people of Israel–exile, Sabbath, and jubilee. In this prophecy of the seventy weeks then, Daniel is given a panoramic vision of the future course of redemptive history which transcends and explains the original meaning of these things as understood by the Jews of his day. Gabriel’s vision reveals that when the seventy “sevens” have run their course all of the six things accomplished by the covenant maker of verse 27 will bring about an end of the exile of his people, and usher in the ultimate jubilee and the eternal Sabbath. The point of the prophecy of the seventy weeks is that a Messiah is coming, and he will accomplish everything necessary for all of God’s covenant promises to become a reality as expressed in the vision given the apostle John in Revelation 21:9-27.
How Do the “Seventy Weeks” Unfold in Biblical History?
When the numbers are seen as symbolic and then viewed against the backdrop of the four great empires predicted in the earlier visions of Daniel 2 and 7, the prophecy comes into very sharp focus. Gabriel speaks of the coming of an “anointed prince” after a specified time, “there shall be seven weeks.” These seven weeks very likely point us to the ministry of Ezra, who in 445 BCE will lead the people of Judah in the rebuilding of the temple and the renewal of the sacrifices. Ezra comes from a priestly family and can trace his lineage back to Aaron (Ezra 7:1-5). The word translated as “prince” is used elsewhere by Daniel of a great leader or priestly figure (cf. Daniel 11:22).[7] This was also the era of Nehemiah (who rebuilt Jerusalem and its walls) and the prophet Malachi, the author of the final Old Testament canonical book. After Malachi’s prophecy, YHWH fell silent until the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce that she was pregnant with the Messiah through the power of the Holy Spirit. The first “seven weeks” then, run from 538 BC until the time of Ezra, about 445 BC.
The second group of weeks (sixty-two) mentioned by Gabriel is found in verses 25-26.
Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
Since the second group of weeks (the sixty-two weeks) commence with the rebuilding of Jerusalem (it shall be rebuilt) and run until the coming of an anointed one who will be cut-off and shall have nothing, we are on solid ground by interpreting this period of time to begin in the days of Ezra, and end with the messianic ministry of Jesus, the “anointed one” who, in his crucifixion for our sins, was “cut off” (i.e., put to death), immediately after the sixty-two weeks end.[8]
The Messiah “Cut Off”?
We also should take note of the fact that the verb used here, “cut off” is kārat, which is used in Genesis 15:10, 18 in regard to the covenant ratification ceremony when the animals were cut in two in Abram’s dream. The animals were “cut off” (i.e., killed).[9] A similar verb is used by Isaiah to refer to the suffering messianic servant yet to come (Isaiah 53:8). “By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?” In light of the larger purpose of the seventy weeks prophecy, there can be little doubt that it is Jesus who was “cut off” as a means, in part, of accomplishing the six things which bring seventy weeks to their fulfillment.[10]
That this sixty-two week period brings us from the days of Ezra (about 445 BCE) to the time immediately before the public ministry of Jesus (30 CE), is also evident when Daniel speaks of a “prince to come” who, as a consequence of the coming of the Messiah, will destroy the city–i.e., Jerusalem, at or about the time the anointed one is “cut off” (crucified).[11] The historical record is clear that Roman armies, led by Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in CE 70. The people of Israel subsequently were driven to the ends of the earth in the great diaspora. Jesus himself foretold of this in Luke 21:20 using language taken directly from Daniel 9:26. “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.” What Daniel foretold, “its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed” is fulfilled by the Roman siege of Jerusalem in CE 70 with frightening accuracy.[12] Desolation decreed–indeed. Read the account of this in Josephus’s Jewish Wars to see the horrors of the Roman siege and the degree of in-fighting among the defenders.
The first two groups of weeks then take us from Cyrus’s decree in 538 BCE until the time of Ezra about 445 BCE (the “seven weeks”). The “sixty-two weeks” take us from Ezra up to the coming of Jesus (30 CE). After the sixty-two weeks end, comes the cutting off of the Messiah and the Roman sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in of CE 70. But Gabriel tells us that there remains “one week,” i.e., the seventieth week, and this week centers upon one who makes a strong covenant with the many. It is to this final week of Daniel’s prophecy we turn next time.
The Messiah Will Come
When YHWH hears Daniel’s prayer and sends Gabriel to reveal to Daniel the prophecy of the seventy weeks, we are given a truly remarkable vision of the future of Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple (both will be rebuilt). The seventy years of Israel’s exile will soon come to an end. But a greater exile remains, and Gabriel explains how YHWH will put an end to it through the coming Messiah, who will finish transgression, put an end to sin, atone for iniquity, bring in an everlasting righteousness, seal vision and prophet, and anoint a most holy place. But the Messiah (Jesus) will be cut-off (crucified) and the fourth and fiercest empire foretold in the visions in Daniel 2 and 7 (Rome), will once and for all leave Jerusalem and the temple desolate. But still, the covenant maker prevails, so that once the seventy weeks have run their course, we will enter the ultimate jubilee; we owe no more debt to God due to our sin (it has been forgiven), we are set free from slavery (to sin and the sinful nature), and the heaven and earth will be restored (the land of promise in Palestine will be extended to include the whole earth). And then at last, we will enter our eternal Sabbath rest in the presence of God because our time of exile has come to an end.
This is what Gabriel reveals to Daniel in the prophecy of the seventy weeks–a Messiah (whom we know to be Jesus) who frees us from sin and the curse (exile) and who grants us eternal rest in the presence of the Father–the ultimate jubilee and the eternal Sabbath.
_______________________________________
[1] Steinmann, Daniel, 451.
[2] Meredith Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Oswald T. Allis, ed. by J.H. Skilton. (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974)452-469.
[3] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 452-469.
[4] See the helpful discussion of this in, Steinmann, Daniel, 452-465.
[5] The Hebrew text omits, “days” which indicates an unspecified seven-fold period and not a literal seven day week. See Steinmann, Daniel, 445.
[6] Steinmann, Daniel, 452.
[7] Baldwin, Daniel, 189.
[8] Young, Daniel, 206.
[9] Baldwin, Daniel, 190.
[10] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 304-305.
[11] Young, Daniel, 207.
[12] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 305.
The following is an excerpt from B. B. Warfield’s sermon “Prayer as a Means of Grace” reprinted in a volume of Warfield’s collected sermons, Faith and Life (Banner, 1974).
Prayer as a confession of weakness . . .
In its very nature, prayer is a confession of weakness, a confession of need, of dependence, a cry for help, a reaching out for something stronger, better, more stable and trustworthy than ourselves, oil which to rest and depend and draw. No one can take this attitude once without an effect on his character; no one can take it in a crisis of his life without his whole subsequent life feeling the influence in its sweeter, humbler, more devout and restful course; no one can take it habitually without being made, merely by its natural, reflex influence, a different man, in a very profound sense, from what he otherwise would have been. Prayer, thus, in its very nature, because it is an act of self-abnegation, a throwing of ourselves at the feet of One recognized as higher and greater than we, and as One on whom we depend and in whom we trust, is a most beneficial influence in this hard life of ours. It places the soul in an attitude of less self-assertion and predisposes it to walk simply and humbly in the world.
After discussing the nature of prayer, Warfield speaks of the proper attitude to be taken in prayer . . .
The soul in the attitude of prayer is like the flower turned upwards towards the sky and opening for the reception of the life-giving rain. What is prayer but an adoring appearing before God with a confession of our need and helplessness and a petition for His strength and blessing? What is prayer but a recognition of our dependence and a proclamation that all that we dependent creatures need is found abundantly and to spare in God, who gives to all men liberally and upbraids not? What is prayer but the very adjustment of the heart for the influx of grace? Therefore it is that we look upon the prayerful attitude as above all others the true Christian attitude—just because it is the attitude of devout and hopeful dependence on God. And, therefore, it is that we look upon that type of religious teaching as, above all others, the true Christian type which has as its tendency to keep men in the attitude of prayer, through all their lives.
Prayer is an exercise of God’s free grace in Christ . . .
And that teaching alone which calls upon man to depend wholly on the Lord God Almighty—our loving Father who has given His Son to die for us—for all the exercises of grace, will make Christians whose whole life is a prayer. Not that other Christians do not pray. But only of these Christians can it be said that their life is an embodied prayer. In so far as any Christian's life is a prayerful life, pervaded by and made up out of prayer, it approaches in its silent witness the ideal of this type of teaching. What other attitude is possible to a Christian on his knees before God but an attitude of entire dependence on God for His gifts, and of humble supplication to Him for His favour? But are we to rise from our knees only to take up a different attitude towards God?
Says one of the greatest thinkers of modern times: "On his knees before God, every one that has been saved will recognize the sole efficiency of the Holy Spirit in every good work . . . . In a word, whoever truly prays ascribes nothing to his own will or power except the sin that condemns him before God, and knows of nothing that could endure the judgment of God except it be wrought within him by the Divine love. But whilst all other tendencies in the Church preserve this attitude so long as their prayer lasts, to lose themselves in radically different conceptions as soon as the Amen has been pronounced, the Calvinist adheres to the truth of his prayer, in his confession, in his theology, in his life, and the Amen that has closed his petition re-echoes in the depths of his consciousness and throughout the whole of his existence." That is to say, for us Calvinists the attitude of prayer is the whole attitude of our lives. Certainly this is the true Christian attitude, because it is the attitude of dependence, and trust. But just because this is the attitude of prayer, prayer puts the soul in the attitude for receiving grace and is essentially a means of grace.
The myth of “dry as dust” Calvinism exposed . . .
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
III Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.
For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.
_________________________________
The third error promulgated by the Dutch Arminians and dealt with by the authors of the Canons is an error which is also tied to the modified governmental theory of the atonement. As devotees of the governmental theory see it, the death of Christ does not merit or accomplish anything in particular. Rather, through the death of Christ, God’s love and moral governorship of the universe is displayed, since the death of Christ supposedly shows us how seriously God regards human sinfulness.
As the Arminian theologian Limborch states, “the death of Christ is called a satisfaction for sin; but sacrifices are not payments of debts, nor are they full satisfactions for sins; but a gratuitous remission is granted when they are offered.” Notice the slippery language used by Limborch, since he speaks of the death of Christ as a "satisfaction," yet when doing so, means something far different than do the biblical writers (and the Reformed confessions) when they use the same term. For Limborch and the Arminians, “the atonement is a satisfaction.” But it is a "satisfaction" only because it demonstrates how seriously God takes sin, since God has arbitrarily determined to accept it as such.
Notice in the Arminian scheme what the atonement is not. The death of Christ is not the payment in full of the debt we owe to satisfy God's holy justice because of our sins. Nor is the atonement a payment for sin which is in any sense directly connected to the retributive justice of God, in which sin must be punished to the exact degree that it is an offense to God's holiness.
Previously the Canons set forth in great detail the biblical teaching that even a single sin requires infinite punishment, since even a single sin is an offense to God’s infinite holiness. For the Arminian, however, God decides to accept the sacrifice of Christ as a "satisfaction," just as he arbitrarily decided to accept the blood of bulls as a sacrifice for sin under the Old Covenant. These are not seen as a payment, or necessary to satisfy his retributive justice. Instead, God’s act in accepting these things indicates that the purpose of the sacrifice and the satisfaction is merely to demonstrate that God takes sin seriously, and that in the cross his justice is displayed. In the Arminian system, there is no necessity whatsoever for Christ to die if sinners are to be saved. The cross may be the best way, but not the only way.
Additional fallout from Arminian's governmental theory of the atonement arbitrarily linking the death of Christ to God’s saving purpose, is now addressed by the Canons. This is the contention that the atonement is not necessary if any are to be saved, and that the death of Christ is not required to secure faith for the elect. According to the Arminians, even after the Fall of Adam, men and women supposedly retain a measure of free-will sufficient to secure their salvation.
In classical Arminianism, the cross, as a demonstration of God’s love and justice, is not effectual, but only provisory. Since the atonement supposedly secures prevenient grace for all, the Arminian contends that the death of Christ is for all people in general, but for no one in particular. Therefore, the cross of Christ does nothing for anyone until such time as a person uses their free-will and "appropriates" and "co-operates" with this universal grace, which then enables them to come to faith. The death of Christ is of no avail for anyone. It merely makes provision for all who choose to believe. Those who use their free-will and co-operate with grace, can thereby come to faith in Christ, and finally receive the benefits of his death. This, of course, finds no support in Scripture which teaches that Adam’s fallen race is dead in sin.
As we have seen throughout Dort’s Second Head of Doctrine, the saving operations of God are nowhere in Scripture said to be directed to fallen humanity in general, but are always directed to the specific individuals whom God intends to save (the elect). We have also seen that the Scriptures teach that the wills of all men and women are not free, but remain in bondage to the sinful nature. Therefore, people cannot exercise their free-will and come to faith in Christ, since they are enslaved to sin. They do not want to believe the gospel, nor embrace the Savior through faith.
The Scriptures clearly teach that until we are “made alive in Christ” (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13), until we are drawn to Christ (John 6:44; 65), until we are born again (John 3:3-6), and unless and until we are transformed from bad trees into good trees, we cannot believe (Matthew 7:15 ff). It is the death of Christ, which, in a certain sense, can be said to purchase faith for the elect. God alone can change the human heart from a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. Only God can change us from a tree which can only bear bad fruit, into a tree which bears fruit in keeping with repentance. He does this for all those for whom Christ has died. In that sense then, it is the death of Christ which secures faith for the elect as well as repentance (the fruit of faith), since it is the death of Christ which effectually turns aside God’s wrath toward his elect, thereby enabling him to grant them eternal life and the new birth, which inevitably manifests itself in conversion, i.e., “faith and repentance.”
Yet, the Arminian stubbornly refuses to admit this. They cling to the notion that for the cross of Christ to be of any benefit whatsoever, the sinner must use their own free-will and "appropriate" the death of Christ and apply its saving benefit to themselves. What the Arminian will not accept is that this is the very thing sinners cannot do! Paul puts it rather plainly, I think. “No one seeks for God, no not one” (Romans 3:11).
Fortunately, the Scriptures tell us that it is God who seeks sinners. He seeks them through the proclamation of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:18 ff), which effectually secures for God’s elect—all those who do believe—a satisfaction of God’s wrath and anger toward these elect sinners, thereby purchasing faith and repentance for all of his elect.
Arminians leave us with a God who cannot save unless we willingly cooperate with his grace. They leave us with a cross that does not forgive our sins until we appropriate it for ourselves. The Arminian atonement only makes provision for us to use our free-will and come to Christ. Therefore, the Arminian has “too low an opinion of the death of Christ.” They “do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.”
While this was certainly a problem in 17th century Holland, one liberal Protestant theologian has written this about our own age. “America is very much in favor of this Pelagian idea that every individual can always make a new beginning, that he is able by his individual freedom to make decisions for and against the divine.” The transformation of much of American evangelical theology into psychology (an evaluation of feelings and motives)–coupled with the American notion that the essence of all religion is to be located in personal morality and spirituality and is not a matter of belief and doctrine--is also a pernicious fruit of the Pelagian heresy. Since, he says, “Pelagianism said that good and evil are performed by us; they are not given. If this is true, then religion is in danger of being transformed into morality” (Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, 124-125).
If Christianity is essentially a matter of the exercise of the will, and the focus falls upon the correct choice, it is almost inevitable that Christianity will degenerate into a system of ethics without emphasis upon a preached gospel.
This helps explain, in part, why so much of the American religion focuses upon choices and action, not sin and grace, and why the Reformed distinctives of total depravity, unconditional election, and particular redemption, rub against the deepest grain of the fabric of American life, which is intrinsically optimistic, and Pelagian.
Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:
- Look for the return of the Blessed Hope Podcast season three on 1 Corinthians in mid-August. I’ve managed to research and write the script for chapters 7-10 and will start cranking out new episodes upon my return from vacation.
- The Blessed Hope Podcast has made a successful “migration” from Google podcasts over to YouTube podcasts. If you enjoy the Blessed Hope pod, please consider liking and subscribing.
Thinking Out Loud:
- What happened in Butler PA, sure gives new meaning to the phrase “dodged a bullet.” I am very thankful Trump’s life was spared. So far in my lifetime JFK was assassinated, so too were RFK and MLK, Gerald Ford survived two bungled assassination attempts, and Reagan was nearly killed. Assassinations create a generational national trauma, and I am so thankful that our nation is not facing such a thing now.
- Joe, you stubborn old geezer, turn over the car keys already! (update: Biden must have read this and then decided to drop out)
- The stray kitty who moved into my yard a dozen years ago pays no attention to various cats and critters who come into the yard and eat her food. But one cat—a new skinny all black cat—drives her crazy. She goes from full nap to absolute screeching fury whenever it gets near her food bowl. I wonder what that is all about. The mind of a cat . . . unfathomable.
- A sure sign that ours is a fallen race is that you cannot buy an equal number of hot dogs (usually six) and buns (usually eight).
Recently Read:
James Hallas’s 2019 book, Saipan: The Battle that Doomed Japan is a well researched and thorough volume covering an important battle, conducted in the mid-Pacific from June 15 until July 9, 1944. The Battle of Saipan (which is often obscured by the shadow of D-Day) is one of the key battles of the War in the Pacific, yet few know anything about it. My recent post on The Other D-Day: Operation Forager prompted me to pick Hallas’s volume from my shelf of purchased but “not yet read” books and give it a go.
There were a number of significant “turning points” in the Pacific theater: Midway, the Guadalcanal campaign, the relentless march of American forces up through the Solomon Islands into the Marshalls and the Marianas (including Guam, Tinian, and Saipan). The Japanese saw the Marianas as the anchor of their inner defense ring. If they could hold on to them, perhaps the Americans would tire of the protracted bloody war and offer Japan some sort of peace agreement. But if the Marianas fell to the Americans, Japan would suffer a calamity unsurpassed in the war to date.
I’ll leave the details of the battle to Hallas to tell, but those considering tackling Hallas’s book, here is some of the ground he covers.
Students of the Pacific theater of World War Two know that casualty rate for Marines and soldiers who landed at Tarawa and at Peleliu was about 25%, so we tend to speak of them as very “costly battles” which modern historians often contend were unnecessary (especially in the case of Peleliu). The casualty rate on Saipan was about the same. On the 77,000 who landed on the island, about 3,250 Americans died, with an additional 13,100 wounded (which does not include naval casualties of about 200 more). Japanese losses were at least 30,000, with 10,000 additional civilian deaths. Hallas details the brutality of the battle in vivid and gory detail—throughout the book he describes the graphic nature of injuries and deaths among both American and Japanese combatants. I grant that it is important to understand the horrific nature of that sort of fighting, but I am not sure I needed to know in such graphic and repeated detail what swords, bullets, grenades, and artillery rounds can do to a human body.
Hallas describes the ferocity of the Japanese defense of the island, based upon the willingness of the Japanese soldier or sailor to die for the Emperor either at the hands of the “American devils,” or by suicide (usually by grenade). Hallas’s narrative is especially gripping when he describes the final Gyokusai (Banzai) charge of the island’s defenders on the night of July 7, when between 3-4 thousand of the remaining Japanese soldiers and sailors charged through weary and unprepared American defenders, accounting for a significant number of those Americans killed and wounded in the invasion. Low on weapons and ammunition, the Japanese used swords, spears, and hand grenades in their attack on American positions which continued without let-up or mercy until the attackers were killed or committed suicide. When the Gyokusai was over, so too was the battle for Saipan. But the scene of the dead of both armies left behind was grizzly.
Hallas mentions the Battle of the Philippine Sea and the “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot” tangentially, and only insofar as it relates to the invasion of Saipan. But given the massive loss of most of Japan’s remaining naval and army aircraft while attempting to come to the aid of Saipan’s defenders, in addition to a number of major naval units (including three aircraft carriers), it took time for the Japanese to fully realize the extent of their crushing defeat. The destruction of much of the remaining Japanese fleet and air power, coupled with the loss of the Marianas meant that for all intents and purposes, Japan was finished—”doomed” as the subtitle correctly indicates. Yet, as Hallas points out, the Japanese seemed completely incapable of accepting the obvious, and only deepened in their resolve to fight to the end. That was the worst possible take-away from the battle.
The loss of Saipan meant that the Japanese home islands were now in reach of the brand new American B-29 bombers and that destruction on a massive scale was about to fall upon Japan’s cities from the sky. Japan’s war minister (Hideki Tojo) resigned in disgrace when Saipan fell, while the Emperor now worried out loud about what was soon to come—the B-29 raids on Japan began in November of 1944. Chuichi Nagumo (who led the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Japanese fleet at the Battle of Midway, had been relegated to a desk job on Saipan (after the disaster at Midway) committed suicide, along with the island’s commander, General Saito.
The difficulties, delays, the shortcomings with amphibious equipment, and the suicidal fanaticism of the Japanese defenders were not lost on American war planners. If the Japanese would fight like this to keep Saipan, what would it be like to invade Japan? It is ironic that both atomic bombs which fell on Japan came from B-29s which were based on Tinian Island, just five miles north of Saipan.
Hallas’s Saipan is all in all a good book. The gore is tedious (even if some of it is necessary). The book truly suffers from a lack of good maps (there is one on the inside fly of the cover, but that is it). Thankfully Google maps covers Saipan and you can consult your phone whenever you want to figure out where something is taking place.
This is a much overlooked battle and well-worthy of your consideration. Hallas is a good place to start.
Recommended Links:
- Paul Helm on “perfect being” theology — a new look at the ontological argument
- Scott Clark on how the confessional Reformed churches regard Doug Wilson
- Why are the Russian occupiers of Ukraine so hostile to Evangelicals? Russia goes after evangelical churches
- Evidence that The Angel of the Lord did indeed wipe out 185,000 Assyrians
- The ancients went down to the sea in ships, and did it better than we thought: The ancient mariner
- A new poll shows 63% of Americans are embarrassed by our two presidential candidates. I’m not embarrassed, but I am angry that the two political parties have given us two contenders (one senile, the other a self-absorbed narcissist), neither of whom should ever be president again
Other, Sorta Recommended Links:
- This comes as no surprise: Too much tech causes dane bramage
- Want to buy your mansion in heaven before you get there? That can be arranged in advance
- What did our ancestors name their dogs? Medieval dog names
- The Garden of Eden was in Florida? That means Adam was the original Florida Man
- When animation gets it right: Marge Simpson walked like an Egyptian
- No, it didn’t happen on Amtrak: Snakes on a train. And it could be much worse: Snakes in your britches
- When critters do meth, it must mean that the apocalypse is at hand
- Bacon ice cream? McDonald’s experiment with AI goes poorly. I think I might like bacon flavored ice cream
Previous Musings: June 2024 Musings
Video: Here’ssome good ole “boogie band” toe-tapping fun. I saw Alvin Lee and Ten Years After several times in the early seventies—always a great live band and a favorite for me and my buddies. I did see him again in the early 2000s with his touring band—a great show, much like the one captured in the video.
What follows is an excerpt from season three, episode ten of the Blessed Hope Podcast which covers chapter six of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
Only Americans could love Judge Judy–the über-mom, as I call her, because of her uncanny ability to make grown men look like disobedient children. Yet I’m sure that if the Corinthians had the technology we have, they too would love Judge Judy. The public airing of personal grievances makes for great theater. This explains Judge Judy’s huge audience in contemporary America. Public quarreling and exposing one’s laundry before an audience was also popular in first century Corinth. To Paul’s chagrin, the Corinthians joined right in.
Roman courts of the first century distinguished between criminal trials and civil disputes. In chapter 6, it is clear that Paul is speaking of civil matters involving litigation (lawsuits or “small claims”),[1] not criminal matters (i.e., murder, assault, theft, etc.). Criminal trials were formal legal procedures and in many cases a jury was present.[2] In Corinth, common legal disputes were usually settled in large public buildings called basilicas which were part of the city’s agoura (marketplace). Whenever the court met to deal with a civil case, the public often gathered to take in the spectacle of well-known townsfolk accusing each other of all kinds of wrongdoing before the court, while a leading citizen appointed by a magistrate served as judge.[3]
Although the public airing of personal disputes could attract large audiences in cities like Corinth, Paul urges Christians not to participate. Christians are to settle their small-claim disputes against their brothers and sisters in the church based upon the wisdom and power of God as revealed in the cross of Christ and in the command to love one’s neighbor. Paul’s rationale is grounded in his eschatology–those who will one day judge the world need to learn to settle their disputes in a God-honoring manner, and not resort to a public spectacle like that found in the courts of Corinth.
________________
Paul’s anger at the church’s failure to discipline erring members (church discipline) might in some way be reflected in the fact that Corinthian Christians had become used to settling their disputes before civil magistrates rather than addressing the matter in the church. It is important to keep in mind that civil litigation of that period was often a matter of those with wealth and power using their influence to obtain a favorable verdict through favors received from “judges” or based upon their ability to hire skilled public speakers (rhetoricians) as prosecutors when a poorer defendant could not afford a skilled defense. Bribery of court officials was common.[4] As one writer points out, lawsuits of this period were often the means for one party to solve their grievances with others while further elevating their own social status at the expense of the reputation of the losing party.[5] A classical case of one upmanship, and something we might expect to find in the courts of Corinth, where public status and reputation was everything.
Witherington points out the significance of the ease of “gaming the system” in order to better understand Paul’s discussion in the balance of the chapter. “The importance of this for 1 Corinthians 6 is that at the very least one or both of the Christians going to court were probably well-to-do and hoping to exploit the judicial system to their advantage.”[6] This would fit with Paul’s sarcastic charge made in verses 4-6 of chapter 4, that the Corinthians were puffed up and fancied themselves to be rich. The issues Paul raises in chapter six then naturally flow out of his previous chastisement of this congregation.
Ever the realist, Paul knows full well that sinful people are going to have personal disputes with one another. The issue he raises in light of the Corinthian willingness to participate in this unjust system, is how should Christians settle disputes when they do arise? Paul is emphatic that any disputes of a personal nature (like that of a small claims court) arising among members of the Corinthian church must be settled within the church, and not in the civil courts outside the church.
Note: The Blessed Hope Podcast has made a successful “migration” from google podcasts over to YouTube podcasts. If you enjoy the Blessed Hope pod, and if you use YouTube podcasts, please consider liking and subscribing.
_____________________________
[1] Thiselton, 1 Corithinians, 419.
[2] Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, 117.
[3] The details of such court proceedings are spelled out in Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, 162.
[4] Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 223.
[5] B. Linman, “Appoint the Despised as Judges, (1 Corinthians 6:4),” Tyndale Bulletin, 48:345-354.
[6] Witherington, Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, 163-164.
Setting the Scene for Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
The ninth chapter of the Book of Daniel contains one of the most debated and difficult passages in all the Bible–the famous vision of the seventy weeks is found in verses 24-27. This vision, given to Daniel through the Angel Gabriel, is often taken to be a prophetic revelation focusing exclusively on the end times. While the vision does indeed extend to the time of the end, the focus in the opening verses of the chapter is explaining how is it–if, as Israel’s prophets have foretold, the seventy years of exile in Babylon are about to come to an end–that God will extend this time of exile for seventy more weeks. The news of an extension of Israel’s exile (a form of covenant curse) takes a surprising turn, as Gabriel now reveals to Daniel. As promised, God’s people will return to Jerusalem and rebuild both the city and the temple. How then can the people still be said to be in exile?
The Critical Questions
In Daniel 9, the root cause of this extended time of exile is revealed to be human sinfulness. Because God is holy, human sin must be dealt with once and for all before the time of exile finally and ultimately comes to an end. As Gabriel now reveals to Daniel, this is the work of the coming Messiah, who will truly restore Jerusalem, the temple, and the sacrifices, but will also put an end to sin, atone for wickedness, and bring in an everlasting righteousness. Although many take the prophecy of the seventy weeks to predict specific events at the time of the end, Daniel 9 is better understood as one of the most important messianic prophecies in all the Bible. It foretells of a coming Messiah who will overcome all his enemies and ours, and who will once and for all put an end to the guilt and the power of human sin. It is this covenant-making Messiah–not a future Antichrist–who is the key figure of the seventy weeks.
If such an understanding of Daniel 9 is correct, why do so many believe the passage to be a map to the end times? The very nature of this passage–with its mysterious numbers of weeks, the important themes it addresses, and the historical and doctrinal questions it raises–has provided fertile soil for all kinds of bizarre interpretations and problematic doctrines. What are the “weeks” and how long do they last? When do the seventy-weeks begin and when do they end? How do we calculate such things? Because of such factors, this is admittedly a difficult passage to interpret. Much of the difficulty goes away, however, if we interpret the passage in light of Daniel’s previous visions (especially those in chapters 2 and 7), and in light of Israel’s own history and covenantal dealings with YHWH.
Unlearning The Popular View
For some of us, it will be hard to unlearn what we’ve been taught as orthodoxy. Many of us are very well familiar with the widely-held view in American evangelicalism that this passage teaches us to expect a future seven-year tribulation period and an end-times Antichrist, who makes a peace treaty with Israel before suddenly turning on God’s people, setting the stage for the final battle of Armageddon. Sadly, this interpretation is based upon a serious misreading and misunderstanding of Gabriel’s message relayed through Daniel the prophet. As I hope will become clear, this amazing prophecy is best interpreted in light of Daniel’s prayer (the first 19 verses of the chapter) as well as in light of the two previous visionary dreams: Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a metallic statue in Daniel 2, along with Daniel’s vision of four mysterious beasts (chapter 7). Both of these visions foretell of the rise of four great empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome), and, as we will see, these visions define the time and the nature of the seventy sevens of exile decreed for God’s people, now revealed by Gabriel to Daniel.
Daniel 9 as a Messianic Prophecy of the Ultimate Jubilee
Once we realize that Gabriel is not speaking exclusively of events at the end of time–although the vision of the seventy weeks does extend to the end times, even to eternity–it quickly becomes clear that Gabriel’s revelation to Daniel is best understood as a messianic prophecy which predicts a glorious messianic age yet to come, an age which centers around the coming Messiah (especially his person and his work), who is also the same figure who was led into the presence of the Ancient of Days in the vision recounted in Daniel 7. In effect, the prophecy is given in response to Daniel’s prayer of repentance which opens the chapter and which will serve as our text. The ninth chapter of Daniel is unique in that it opens with Daniel taking the initiative in offering a heart-felt prayer of repentance to YHWH on behalf of Israel (vv. 1-19). This prayer, in turn, leads to one of the most important prophetic revelations in all the Bible (certainly in all the Old Testament)–a vision of “seventy weeks” decreed for the people of God (vv. 20-27).[1]
We will concentrate upon Daniel’s understanding of Israel’s seventy years of exile in Babylon (vv.1-2), before we turn to Daniel’s confession to YHWH of his own sin and the sins of his people, Israel (vv. 3-6). We will then consider the contrast Daniel draws between YHWH’s righteousness and Israel’s sinfulness (vv. 7-11), before taking up Daniel’s discussion of God’s judgment upon Israel (vv.12-14) and Daniel’s prayer that YHWH will at some point turn his anger away from Jerusalem (vv. 15-16). Finally, we will consider Daniel’s petition/plea that once again YHWH make his face to shine upon Jerusalem and the temple (vv. 17-19).[2]
Then, in future expositions, we will take up in some detail verses 20-27 and consider the specifics of what amounts to a messianic prophecy of Jesus’s active and passive obedience (his suffering on the cross and his life of perfect obedience). The Messiah’s actions fulfill the prophecy given by Gabriel and ushers in the ultimate Jubilee. According to Leviticus 25, the Jubilee Year (every 50th year) follows after “seven times seven years” (49 years). Upon the declaration of a Jubilee Year, all slaves are to be freed, all debts forgiven, and God shows his mercy to his people. The focus in the prophecy upon the seventy weeks clearly points to the Jubilee Year, but also ties the prophecy to the eternal Sabbath (our entrance into rest in the presence of YHWH), which is why the weekly Sabbath was given to Israel in the Law (the fourth commandment), because a day of rest (the Sabbath) served as God’s chief sign to his people that the blessings of his covenant will be gloriously realized in heavenly rest (what we commonly speak of as “eternal life” and “heaven”).[3] So, there are a great many elements in this passage which are overlooked when it is treated exclusively in terms of an end times prophecy, and not considered as focusing upon the dawn of the messianic age and the ministry of Jesus.
Setting the Times
As we have seen throughout the visions given Daniel, the chapter opens with Daniel giving us both the date and the setting. We read in verses 1-2,
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans—in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.
There is much packed into these two verses. Darius the Mede (Cyrus) began his rule over Babylon on March 28, 538 BCE, almost immediately after Belshazzar’s death (Daniel 5). This would place Daniel’s prayer and Gabriel’s visitation shortly after Daniel had been miraculously delivered from the den of hungry lions (as recounted in Daniel 6).[4] No doubt, Daniel was very thankful for his deliverance from the lions as well as being vindicated by YHWH before all those who mocked his faith and doubted YHWH’s power.
The timeline here is important. Recall that Daniel had been taken to Babylon in 605 BC and the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BCE. This was approximately the same time in which the prophet Jeremiah had been active in Israel. No doubt, Daniel talked with many of those present and heard firsthand about the gory details of the temple’s destruction and the plight of the people. We do not know for sure if these exiles brought Jeremiah’s prophecies with them (The Book of Jeremiah as we know it was not complete until about 550 BCE), or if these prophecies arrived from Jerusalem later. But Daniel knew of them and considered Jeremiah’s prophecy to be the word of God, because such writings of the prophets were regarded as “canonical” (Scripture) simply because YHWH had given his very words to the prophet to proclaim to YHWH’s people. The common notion that the content of God’s word was determined by religious officials huddled together in secret conspiracy is completely bogus.
Christ not Antichrist!
It is also worth noting that this is the first time in his prophecy Daniel uses YHWH as God’s name. Daniel usually speaks of “the Most High” or “The Most High God.”[5] But since this entire chapter, especially verses 24-27, is covenantal in both content and context, this is an important point to notice and consider, especially when we come to verse 27 and read of someone who shall “make a strong covenant with many for one week.” Many of our evangelical Christian friends believe that Daniel is here speaking of a future Antichrist making a seven year peace treaty with Israel (marking the beginning of the so-called tribulation period), when in fact, it is YHWH’s Messiah who makes (“cuts”) a covenant with his people, not Antichrist. Get this wrong and you end up confusing Christ’s work in cutting a covenant with his people through his shed blood (v. 27) with the work of Antichrist making a treaty with Israel. This is why pointing out such details (that the context is covenantal) earlier in the passage is very important in properly interpreting the seventy weeks in verses 24-27. YHWH’s covenant with Israel is a theme which appears throughout Daniel’s prayer and again in Gabriel’s revelation.
Jeremiah’s Prophecy
That Daniel refers to Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding Israel’s exile is remarkable, especially when we consider that it was uttered in the very same year (605) that Daniel was taken captive. In Jeremiah 25:11-12, the prophet proclaims YHWH’s word as follows.
This whole land [Judah] shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.
Judah will become a ruin and a wasteland for seventy years, during which time Judah, along with other surrounding nations, will serve Babylon. Daniel and his three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) are living proof of this, serving Nebuchadnezzar at court in Babylon. We have seen throughout our time in Daniel (and earlier in Ezra and Nehemiah) the pinpoint accuracy of this particular prophecy from Jeremiah.
There is another specific prophecy of the seventy years in Jeremiah’s prophecy, this one given later (597 BCE), after an initial group from Judah was taken into captivity (which included people like Daniel). In Jeremiah 29:10–14, we read the following:
For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.
At some point after seventy years have passed, YHWH will bring his people back to the land of Judah and restore the people’s faith and fortunes. This implies the restoration of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. YHWH will turn his people back to him and away from idolatry–something we see especially in the ministries of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the prophet Malachi. The exiles are to hope for this great day when they are set free to return home and rebuild their city and temple.
The End of the Exile in Babylon Is Coming to an End
Daniel has been in Babylon for most of this time (605-539 BCE is sixty-seven years). As we know, he was likely instrumental when Cyrus (a Persian) defeated the Babylonians and captured Babylon and made Daniel one of his chief advisors before issuing his famous decree to allow the Jews to leave Babylon, return home, and rebuild Jerusalem and its temple. Daniel knew the promise from Jeremiah’s prophecy that YHWH–the faithful covenant keeper–had promised to release his people and let them return home after seventy years had passed. Daniel also knew from Jeremiah’s prophecy, as well as from the two visions given him, that YHWH also promised judgment upon Babylon.
By simply looking at the calendar, there is now a sense of urgency on Daniel’s part. Babylon has just fallen. Its king (Belshazzar) was struck down by the judgment of God a short time before the events described in this chapter. Daniel knew that the end of the seventy years was at hand, just as Jeremiah had predicted.[6] The time elapsed from when the first group of exiles was taken to Babylon from Judah in 605 BCE, until their release in 538, is sixty-eight years. And so knowing the time was near, in the prayer which follows (vv. 3-19) Daniel prays for Jerusalem’s restoration along with that of his people, their land, and their temple.
Daniel’s Prayer
By invoking YHWH as the God of the covenant, Daniel personally seeks God’s favor in prayer. And yet as many have noticed, Daniel virtually assumes the role of mediator on behalf of his people. It is remarkable that Daniel does this since he is not a priest, yet makes intercession for his people. In some ways we can see in this (in seed form, perhaps), the future priesthood of all believers, when any and all of God’s people can intercede in prayer for others. In verse 3, the prophet tells us, “then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.” These gestures are the signs of deep mourning brought about by the condition of Daniel’s people (exiles from Judah) and genuine repentance (an awareness that YHWH’s people must turn from their sin as a condition of covenant blessing). Daniel pleads for mercy, i.e., that God would show his favor.
But if Daniel is to pray for his people, he must begin by praying on his own behalf. Daniel is as guilty before YHWH as anyone for whom he is praying. He tells us,
I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules.
In this prayer Daniel uses virtually the same words Nehemiah will use later, (Nehemiah 1:5).[7] He begins by confessing that YHWH is great and awesome. This is a bold confession that YHWH is mightier than all pagan gods who are nothing but the figment of sinful human imagination. Daniel’s confession includes yet another reminder of YHWH’s covenant made with his people which YHWH keeps and which includes the promise that YHWH will bless those who trust in him (showing his boundless love to them, even as sinners) and who are therefore obedient (keep his commandments). Yet, those who confess this of YHWH do so, knowing that they nevertheless fall short of YHWH’s righteous demands in his law. Those whom YHWH loves, are those who confess (in addition to his greatness and faithfulness to his covenant) that they are sinners, who do wrong, act wickedly, rebel, and turn aside from God’s Law. Daniel confesses that all those who seek YHWH must trust in his promise, repent of their sins, and seek to obey YHWH’s commandments.
Israel’s Sins
The gravity of the people’s sins against YHWH cannot be overlooked. Even though YHWH has kept his covenant promise, the people of Israel have repeatedly broken theirs. In verse 6, Daniel laments that “we have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.” It is the people of all Israel (all twelve tribes, and not just Judah), who together with Daniel have sinned, done wrong, acted wickedly, rebelled, and ignored God’s commandments.
In doing so, the people of Israel have “not listened to God’s prophets,” whom YHWH has repeatedly sent to call his people to repentance. It is the prophets, who, in effect, bring the indictment from YHWH and the heavenly court to the covenant breakers, the people of Israel. By rejecting the prophets whom YHWH has sent, and in not repenting for their sins, the people of Israel come under God’s covenant curse and now find themselves as exiles in Babylon, far from home, and forced to live in a pagan land, under the thumb of a pagan king in oppression and shame.
Israel’s sin is easily seen when contrasted with YHWH’s righteousness. Daniel begins to confess this contrast in verse 7.
To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you.
If YHWH is righteous, then the people of Israel are in shame for acting treacherously against him, as spelled out in verse 8. “To us, O Lord, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you.” Israel’s history is the history of a sinful people who continually rebel against a loving, patient, and merciful God.
YHWH Is Merciful
Although the people of Israel sinned and acted treacherously, “to the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God by walking in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.” YHWH is gracious and forgives the sins of those who certainly do not deserve such kindness. The list of Israel’s sins is long: rebellion, not obeying the voice of God, not walking in accordance with his will revealed through the series of prophets God has sent to warn his people to repent. Despite all of this, God remains gracious, even though no one in Israel can claim innocence. As Daniel confesses in verse 11, repeating the previous list of sins, “all Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside, refusing to obey your voice. And the curse and oath that are written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out upon us, because we have sinned against him.”
YHWH’s Covenant Promises
The covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai is a national covenant between YHWH and his people Israel. The Sinai covenant reflects both the works principle in the covenant of works which God made with Adam in Eden (the Ten Commandments reiterate the substance of God’s prior covenant with Adam in Eden), and the covenant of grace, in which after the Fall, God promises to provide a remedy for human sin through the work of a messianic redeemer. In the Sinai covenant there are promised blessings for obedience and threatened curses for disobedience for Israel as a nation. Daniel brings this to mind in verse 12 of his prayer, when he recalls YHWH’s longsuffering mercy coming to an end in light of Israel’s shameless sin and idolatry. “He has confirmed his words, which he spoke against us and against our rulers who ruled us, by bringing upon us a great calamity. For under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what has been done against Jerusalem.” Judah is in the fix it is in–the land and the temple in ruins and many of its citizens held as exiles against their will in Babylon–because Judah broke the covenant which YHWH faithfully keeps.
In verses 13-14, Daniel spells this out.
As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us; yet we have not entreated the favor of the Lord our God, turning from our iniquities and gaining insight by your truth. Therefore the Lord has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous in all the works that he has done, and we have not obeyed his voice.
But if YHWH directs the affairs of men and nations, and directed the Babylonians to bring God’s judgment against Judah, then God can bring judgment on Babylon, while at the same time, restore the land of Judah and the city of Jerusalem.
Knowing that the seventy years of exile have nearly run their course, in verses 15-16, Daniel pleads,
and now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and have made a name for yourself, as at this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly. “O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us.”
If God rescued Israel from Egypt and the Pharaoh, then certainly he can rescue his people from their current captivity in Babylon under Cyrus. YHWH can so order things that Jerusalem itself might be restored and the shame his people feel be lifted from them.
Daniel Makes Intercession for His People
Daniel continues his intercession on behalf of his people in verses 17-19.
Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord, make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate. O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.
It is YHWH who made covenant with his people and promised his blessing to those who fear him and call upon his name–which Daniel now does as the time of exile (the seventy years foretold by Jeremiah) comes to an end.
But even as Daniel was speaking, we read in verses 20-21 that,
while I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the Lord my God for the holy hill of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.
The content of Gabriel’s vision will be revealed in verses 24-27 in the vision of the seventy weeks in which Daniel will get confirmation of God’s mercy and favor in that a messianic king and priest will come to atone for sin and put an end to human wickedness. Daniel will also learn that Jerusalem will be rebuilt, the temple restored, and that YHWH’s chief foe (Antichrist) will be forever and finally defeated.
The Ultimate Jubilee to Come
Yet, Daniel will also learn that even though Judah’s seventy years in exile in Babylon are almost over, there is a much greater exile which remains in effect. Seventy weeks are decreed by God and must run their course before this exile ends. And only then, after a time of great distress, will God’s people finally enter the ultimate Jubilee, when all slaves are set free (we are all slaves to sin), all debts are paid (the guilt of sin will be forever removed), and God’s favor is poured out upon his people when we enter our eternal Sabbath rest. It will take Jesus the Messiah to accomplish these things for us and bring this greater exile to an end.
Daniel earnestly prayed for Jeremiah’s prophecy to be fulfilled with the completion of Judah’s seventy years of exile in Babylon. As Daniel realized that it was his sin, as well as the sin of his people, which had brought Israel under the covenant curse and into exile in Babylon, he confessed his sin and interceded for his people. And as he was doing so, God in his grace sent the Angel Gabriel to explain to Daniel that Israel’s seventy years of exile was about to come to an end, but there was a greater exile still ongoing (the mysterious seventy weeks of vv. 24-27). This exile is banishment from the presence of God because of human sin and requires that God send a covenant mediator. The mercy and forgiveness YHWH has shown to Israel will be apparent to all when YHWH sends his Messiah to make a strong covenant with the many–because, as Daniel puts it, “to the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness.”
This promise to remove all guilt of sin and provide a perfect righteousness reflects the kind of forgiveness and righteousness of which the Apostle later speaks in Romans 4:4-7.
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness . . . Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.
Paul’s promise holds true for all who trust in Jesus Christ–God justifies the ungodly through the death and merits of Jesus, received by faith alone. And when the merits of Jesus become ours through faith, only then will our exile end and only then do we experience the ultimate Jubilee on that glorious day when we enter our eternal Sabbath rest, finally at home in the presence of the Ancient of Days and the one like a Son of Man, who makes a strong covenant with his people because mercy and forgiveness belong to him.
_________________________________
[1] Baldwin, Daniel, 181.
[2] I am utilizing the outline given in, Steinmann, Daniel, 434-442.
[3] See Meredith G. Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Oswald T. Allis, ed. by J.H. Skilton. [Nutley, NJ]: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974, 452-469.
[4] Steinmann, Daniel, 434.
[5] Steinmann, Daniel, 435; Kline, http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/the-covenant-of-the-seventieth-week/
[6] Kline, http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/the-covenant-of-the-seventieth-week/
[7] Steinmann, Daniel, 437.
[8] Kline, http://www.meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/the-covenant-of-the-seventieth-week/
The “migration” from google podcasts to YouTube Podcasts is now complete!
Here’s the link: “The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger”
Having considered the marks of the church, we now move on to consider the attributes of the church.
There are four classical attributes of the church as expressed in the Nicene Creed which are held in common by all major Christian traditions. These are: 1). Unity, 2). Holiness, 3). Catholicity, and 4). Apostolicity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformation churches all confess these same attributes, yet understand them in fundamentally different ways. The Lutherans, for example, add “invisibility” to the four marks expressed above as a polemic against Rome’s claim of the visibility of the true church (Rome claims to be the true church because of its visibility).[1]
James Bannerman, a Scottish Presbyterian, who wrote what many consider to be the definitive volume on Presbyterian polity (The Church of Christ) offers a number of reasons why discussing the marks of the church should be done before considering the attributes of the church. He lists the four attributes of “Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.” But then notes that these “belong . . . to the Christian Church, in consequence of the Church holding and professing the true faith of Christ.”[1] Herman Bavinck also considers the marks before addressing the church’s attributes since, as he contends, it is important to distinguish a true church from a false church since this determination defines how we are to understand the attributes of the church.[2]
As some Reformed theologians point out, the classical attributes are not merely descriptive but also function as exhortations. According to Heyns, unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity “provide, not only a factual description of the current situation, but also a factual command: they set the ideals to be realized, the objectives for which the Church must strive. They are both a gift and a mandate.” Heyns also adds that these attributes are to be viewed in terms of the already/not yet.[4] As attributes of the church militant, they point ahead to the church triumphant in which all four attributes will be fully realized.
The seminal biblical text when discussing the attributes of the church is 1 Corinthians 1:1–2. Paul opens the letter with an important declaration about the nature of the church.
I Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.
First, Paul speaks of unity as an attribute of the church when he identifies the church in Corinth as a “church of God,” composed of those who are called together with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus. Second, Paul identifies holiness as an attribute. Paul says the Corinthians are the sanctified but also called to be holy. This speaks both of the church’s status (holy) but also the importance of reflecting such holiness in the life of the church (aspirational). Third, Paul speaks of the church’s catholicity. The apostle declares that the Corinthian Christians are called together with all those who in every place call on the name of Christ. Finally, Paul speaks of the church’s apostolicity–they are authoritatively addressed by Paul, who was called by the will of God to be an apostle.
The First Attribute in the Creed: Unity
Roman Catholicism understands unity in terms of the church as an external, visible organization united in the Pope. “Where the Pope is, there is the church” (ubi papa ibi ecclesia). Also, “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[5] In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, the second chapter begins with Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) connecting the primacy of Peter with the unity of the church. That is not accidental. At the end of the chapter he states: “The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[6]
The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist. Timothy (Kallistos) Ware (an Anglican convert to Eastern Orthodoxy) writes:
In its teaching upon the visible unity of the Church, Orthodoxy stands far closer to Roman Catholicism than to the Protestant world. But if we ask how this visible unity is maintained, Rome and the east give somewhat different answers. For Rome the unifying principle in the Church is the Pope whose jurisdiction extends over the whole body, whereas Orthodox do not believe any bishop to be endowed with universal jurisdiction. What then holds the Church together? Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments . . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of his flock. The act of communion therefore forms the criterion for membership of the Church.
Ware concludes that “Orthodoxy, believing that the Church on earth has remained and must remain visibly one, naturally also believes itself to be that one visible Church. [7]
The Reformed Understanding of the Attribute of Unity
The Reformed understand the attribute of unity in terms of both the invisible and visible church. Members of the invisible church enjoy common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love (cf. Ephesians 4:5-6). God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly, in part, but not exclusively, through external organization. The Belgic Confession, Article 27 (of the Catholic Christian Church), states “We believe and confess One single catholic or universal church—a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.” Throughout article 27, the Belgic Confession speaks of the church in the singular. The article concludes by confessing that the church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”
In regard to the invisible church, Bannerman writes that the unity which is characteristic of the church is “a spiritual unity.” The church’s members are, “one and all of them, united to Christ, and united to each other in the communion of the Holy Ghost.” Regarding the visible church, Bannerman contends, “its members are united together in an outward fellowship of privilege and ordinance . . . by means of an external profession . . . .” Its unity “is lower in its character; for it is an outward and not a spiritual union. And it is less complete in degree . . . .”[8]
In speaking of such spiritual unity, Herman Bavinck adds . . .
This unity, though primarily spiritual in character, nevertheless exists objectively and really, and it does not remain completely invisible. It manifests itself outwardly—albeit in a very imperfect way—and at least to some degree comes to light in that which all Christian churches have in common. No Christianity exists above or beneath religious differences, but there is indeed a Christianity present amid religious differences . . . . That which unites all true Christians is always more than that which separates them.[9]
According to Louis Berkhof,
Protestants assert that the unity of the Church is not primarily of an external, but of an internal and spiritual character. It is the unity of the mystical body of Jesus Christ, of which all believers are members . . . . All who belong to the Church share in the same faith, are cemented together by the common bond of love, and have the same glorious outlook upon the future. This inner unity seeks and also acquires, relatively speaking, outward expression in the profession and Christian conduct of believers, in their public worship of the same God in Christ, and in their participation in the same sacraments.
Berkhof concludes that unity applies to the visible as well as invisible church, but cautions that the Reformers “did not find the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, but in the true preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments.”[10] Michael Horton’s discussion of unity focuses on the unity of Christ and his church without their being merged, as in some Totus Christus conceptions. Totus Christus refers to the head and the body–the whole Christ.[11]
Biblical Considerations
Everyone agrees that the church is one, but there’s strong disagreement as to what, exactly, that means. What does Scripture say about the church’s unity? First, there’s strong evidence for the Reformed insistence that the foundation of unity lies in believers’ union with Christ, by the Spirit, through a common bond of faith, hope, and love. These things are facts and reflections of our covenant theology. A number of biblical tests bear this out . . .
- John 17:20–2: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, hat they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” Jesus prays to his Father that all believers may be one. Whatever this unity is, it is evidently a divine gift. If Jesus our High Priest prays for such unity, then we can safely assume the church possesses this oneness in some sense. One aspect of this unity is that it is enjoyed “in us,” i.e., in union with the Triune God.
- 1 Corinthians 12: Unity in diversity is a crucial theme as Paul likens the church to a body with many parts. In the midst of the variety of gifts, service, and activities, there is “the same Spirit,” “the same Lord,” “the same God,” and a “common good” (12:4-7). It is “one and the same Spirit” that makes the church “one body” (12:11-13).
- Ephesians 2:11-22: The unity Paul speaks of has been accomplished once-and-for-all in Christ’s “flesh,” “through the cross.” It is a fact. Paul refers to the Jew-Gentile church in the singular (as a household, structure, holy temple, and dwelling place for God)—it has been built on the apostolic foundation, by the Spirit.
- Ephesians 4:1-16: The “unity of the Spirit” is something to be maintained (4:3), which presupposes that it already exists. Paul tells us what it is: one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father (Ephesians 4:3-6).
Many of these texts (and others) indicate that the unity we share in fact has all sorts of visible, practical consequences. As things we do, however, they are also exhortations and aspirations in addition to being assertions of fact.
- In John 17:20-21, Jesus speaks of believers’ unity as being like the unity of Father and Son. Obviously, this isn’t an ontological unity of substance. Presumably, it reflects the unity of purpose and love between Father and Son mentioned often in John. This points to something expressed in action. The purpose of the unity is that “the world may believe that you have sent me.” How would the world know this without outward expression?
- In 1 Corinthians 12:21-26, the given unity by God to his people means we all ought to honor and care for each other, and to suffer and rejoice with one another.
- In Ephesians 4:1-16, Paul’s statements about the unity that “is” in Ephesians 4 is part of a larger section calling Christians to live a life worthy of their calling and to bear with one another (4:1-2). They must maintain the given unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (4:3)—this sort of unity is something to be pursued. The unity of the faith and of knowledge of Christ, mature manhood, etc., are something toward which we grow; i.e., they are aspirational.
Although baptism and the Supper are gifts of God, we are called to perform these rituals and hence to give outward expression to our unity.
Heyns speaks of unity of fellowship as follows: “Those who are Christ’s Church experience a common fellowship in suffering (Heb 10:33), in consolation (2 Cor 1:7), in adversity and endurance (Rev 1:9), in continual intercession for one another (Eph 6:18; Rom 8:26-27; 15:30; 1 Thess 5:25), and in diligent mutual care (1 Cor 12:26).”[12]
While unity of organization of some sort, is surely one of the things we strive for, the elements of aspirational unity described above do not depend upon a single, worldwide ecclesiastical structure centered in the Papacy–a standard Roman polemic.
The discussions of unity in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 2, 4, both mention church officers, but as gifts to his church that is one (1 Corinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11-16). Nothing in these texts suggests that the officers constitute the unity as Rome believes. Rather, officers serve the one church.
In 1 Timothy 3:1-13, which gives qualifications for officers, nothing points in a different direction. If anything, it indicates that the church as household of God already exists, and the way to behave in it is to appoint qualified officers (3:14-15). Similar in Titus 1:5-9.
Obviously, it would be impossible to express our unity without believers being brought together in institutional structures. But a single, worldwide body is not necessary for such unity. Christians and churches can express much unity across ecclesiastical lines. We can and do participate in each others’ sacraments, etc.
Practical Implications
It is hard to deny that the church has failed in a great many ways to pursue this unity. It has often been quick to fight and divide and too content to live with division. Bavinck puts it starkly:
As Christians we cannot humble ourselves deeply enough over the schisms and discord that have existed all through the centuries in the church of Christ. It is a sin against God, in conflict with Christ’s . . . prayer . . . and caused by the darkness of our minds and the lovelessness of our hearts.[13]
This is why schism is such a serious matter. Bavinck points out that “guilty of schism are those who, though leaving the foundation of doctrine intact, nevertheless break with the church on subordinate points of worship or church government.”[14]
But what are our obligations in our present circumstances in light of the importance of unity? To begin with, confessional Reformed churches in North America have formalized ecumenical relations one with another (so-called “ecclesiastical fellowship), they have formed NAPARC, and they engage in joint ventures (e.g., Great Commission Publications, Trinity Psalter Hymnal), welcome each other’s ministers to their pulpits, fonts, and tables, etc. Is there obligation to pursue more?
What about Kuyperian ideas on the pluriformity (diversity of practice along cultural lines) of the church? Berkhof notes that “the only attempt that was made so far to unite the whole Church in one great external organization, did not prove productive of good results.” He adds,
it is quite possible that the inherent riches of the organism of the Church find better and fuller expression in the present variety of Churches than they would in a single external organization. This does not mean, of course, that the Church should not strive for a greater measure of external unity. The ideal should always be to give the most adequate expression to the unity of the Church.[15]
Heyns doesn’t like most arguments in favor of the pluriformity of the church, but he does think it’s valid as based on national diversity.[16]
Next time, we take up the attributes of holiness, catholicity,and apostolicity.
_____________________________
[1] See Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1970), III.408 ff.
[2] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 70.
[3] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:307-325.
[4] Heyns, The Church, 112-13.
[5] Cited in Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.285; 4.323.
[6] Ratzinger, Called to Communion, 72.
[7] Ware, The Orthodox Church, 238-39.
[8] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 53-54.
[9] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.321.
[10] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 573.
[11] Horton, People and Place, chapter 6.
[12] Heyns, The Church, 119.
[13] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.316.
[14] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.319.
[15] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 573-74.
[16] Heyns, The Church, 125-126.
These are familiar words to many, but are always worth reading . . .
We clearly see how destitute and devoid of all good things man is, and how he lacks all aids to salvation. Therefore, if he seeks resources to succor him in his need, he must go outside himself and get them elsewhere. It was afterward explained to us that the Lord willingly and freely reveals himself in his Christ. For in Christ he offers all happiness in place of our misery, all wealth in place of our neediness; in him he opens to us the heavenly treasures that our whole faith may contemplate his beloved Son, our whole expectation depend upon him, and our whole hope cleave to and rest in him. This, indeed, is that secret and hidden philosophy which cannot be wrested from syllogisms. But they whose eyes God has opened surely learn it by heart, that in his light they may see light (Ps. 36:9).
But after we have been instructed by faith to recognize that whatever we need and whatever we lack is in God, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the Father willed all the fullness of his bounty to abide (cf. Col. 1:19; John 1:16) so that we may all draw from it as from an overflowing spring, it remains for us to seek in him, and in prayers to ask of him, what we have learned to be in him. Otherwise, to know God as the master and bestower of all good things, who invites us to request them of him, and still not go to him and not ask of him—this would be of as little profit as for a man to neglect a treasure, buried and hidden in the earth, after it had been pointed out to him. Accordingly, the apostle, in order to show that true faith cannot be indifferent about calling upon God, has laid down this order: just as faith is born from the gospel, so through it our hearts are trained to call upon God’s name (Rom. 10:14–17). And this is precisely what he had said a little before: the Spirit of adoption, who seals the witness of the gospel in our hearts (Rom. 8:16), raises up our spirits to dare show forth to God their desires, to stir up unspeakable groanings (Rom. 8:26), and confidently cry, “Abba! Father!” (Rom. 8:15).
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.20.1
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
II Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.
For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ “has become the guarantee and mediator” of a better—that is, “a new”—“covenant” (Heb. 7:22 9:15), and that “a will is in force only when someone has died” (Heb. 9:17).
_______________________________
In the “refutation of errors” section of each head of doctrine, the Canons take up some of the more technical and specific teachings of the Dutch Arminians which prompted the Synod of Dort to be called in 1618. The second error identified under the second head of doctrine is the Remonstrant (Arminian) notion that the death of Christ did not actually establish a covenant of grace between God and his elect, but that the atonement merely makes provision for God to into enter into such a covenant with his creatures on the ground of God’s choosing—whether that be faith or works.
This reluctance to understand the covenant of grace as necessarily tied to Christ’s mediatorial work is fallout from the Arminian view of the atonement, which is a species of what is known as the “governmental theory.” The so-called governmental theory of the atonement teaches that the death of Christ supposedly demonstrates God’s love, along with his right to order his universe as he sees fit. In this scheme, the cross of Christ is not seen as a satisfaction of God’s justice, and therefore, a necessary act if sinners are to be saved. Instead, the cross is understood in terms of God’s arbitrary decree that a sacrificial death would be accepted as a payment for sin instead of some other equally valid way.
This means that it was not necessary for Christ to die if God’s elect are to be saved, but that God determined to do things in this way since his rule over the universe and his love for sinners would be most clearly manifest. As the moral governor of his universe, God saw fit to save in this manner. But he was under absolutely no necessity of doing so.
Let us be careful to not lose sight of the forest through the trees. The essence of the Arminian view of the cross is that the death of Christ is not a satisfaction of God’s justice in punishing sin—the Arminians believe this would make God a cruel and angry deity who must exact his pound of flesh. They say the cross is a demonstration of God’s love for a lost and fallen world, as well as a display of his wisdom and justice—but not a satisfaction for sin. God did not have to save sinners in this way, but he did determine that if he were to save, this would be the best way to do it.
This view stands in sharp contrast to the Reformed understanding, in which it is argued that God did not have to save any, but in his grace he determined to save a vast multitude. Once he so determined, the cross is the only possible way for any to be saved because God’s holy justice must be satisfied. While the Reformed contend that the death of Christ was nothing less than a picture of God’s love for a lost and fallen world, the cross is certainly that and more. The cross of Christ is also a glorious demonstration of God’s justice in that Jesus dies for the sins of the elect, the guilt of which is imputed to him. In the cross, both the love and justice of God are openly displayed for all to see (cf. Romans 3:21-31). We need not, as the Arminian does, sacrifice God’s justice to supposedly magnify God’s love. Paul doesn’t.
For the Arminian, the cross of Christ is not in any sense necessary. The death of our Lord is merely the best way among a number of possible choices for God to display his love and moral governorship over the world that he has made. Rather, the cross was an arbitrary choice on God’s part, and this means was chosen since it accomplished what God wanted to accomplish without violating human freedom.
Despite the Arminian contention that the death of Christ magnifies the love of God, the fact is that if there were any other way to save sinners, and then God sent Christ to die in unspeakable anguish, God is not loving, but utterly cruel. In demonstrating the weakness of this position, one theologian uses the following analogy. It would make no sense at all for a child’s parents to kill their other children in one child’s presence as a means of demonstrating how much the parents loved the surviving sibling. An arbitrary death does not convey love, but evil motives.
According to the Arminian view of the cross, Jesus dies a horrific death to show the world God’s love and moral governorship, yet the cross does not actually accomplish anything or satisfy God’s wrath and anger toward sin. So, while the Arminian contends that Reformed Christians believe in a cruel God who elects some and not others, as well as a God who must exact a precise payment for sin to satisfy his holy justice, in reality it is the Arminian who offers us a cruel God. In the Arminian scheme, God punishes his own son, needlessly, when there were other possible ways to do the same thing.
As B. B. Warfield points out, if the cross were not necessary to satisfy God’s justice, why did God not accept some other way, such as our repentance or our good works? God could have done so, and accomplished the same thing without Christ having to die. That these possible ways of salvation were not chosen, reveals just how arbitrary the whole Arminian conception truly is.
To be more specific, this section of the refutation of errors is dealing with the fact that the Dutch Arminians were arguing that the covenant of grace was just such an arbitrary way for God to save his people. God determined that the death of Christ would establish the covenant of grace as the best way for God to save. But the Canons are quick to note that the Scriptures speak of Christ’s mediatorial work, not as an arbitrary decision by God, but as an absolute necessity if any are to be saved. “For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and mediator of a better--that is, a new-covenant (Heb. 7:22; 9:15), and that a will is in force only when someone has died (Hebrews 9:17).”
Here again, the critical factor is the question “why does Christ die?” According to the Reformed tradition, Christ's death is a necessity, and it is absolutely effectual in that it accomplished exactly what God intends–the salvation of his elect. But for the Arminian, the death of Christ is arbitrary, provisory, and exemplary of God’s love and justice, when it is anything but.
Clearly, we are dealing with two different approaches to the gospel. The Reformed confess that God’s grace and love are magnified in the fact that he goes to such remarkable lengths to satisfy his justice toward sinners who do not at all deserve it. This preserves grace alone. The other way is that of the Arminians, who argue that Christ did not need to die, but that God thought it the best means of enticing sinners to exercise their free-will and believe in Christ. Since the latter is “synergistic,” grace alone is sacrificed, and the cross does not actually save anyone.
Take a moment to read these remarkable words, now sadly unfamiliar to many
**In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,**
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed by ORDER and
in BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS
JOHN HANCOCK,
PRESIDENT.
Yet Another Vision
Who is Antiochus IV Epiphanes and why should we care?
If we were Jews we would know the answer to this question immediately–Antiochus Epiphanes and the Macabbean Wars (167-141 BC) are the historical background of the Jewish holiday “Hanukkah” (which means “dedication,” or more specifically, “re-dedication”). The reason why we as Christians should care about Antiochus is because the prophet Daniel had another vision which is recounted in chapter 8, this time of a ram and a goat. But the “Little Horn” also reappears (we first read of him in Daniel 7:8) and his role is central in this vision, pointing us ahead to a future antichrist. In this visionary dream, YHWH gives Daniel a prediction of yet another terrible time for the people of God then exiled in Babylon.
This vision informs them that at some point before the dawn of the messianic age, yet after the exiles have indeed returned from Babylon to Judah to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple, the rebuilt temple will be desecrated by a “Little Horn,” who, in this vision, is none other than Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The temple will be cleansed and the altar rebuilt by Judas Maccabaeus, the famed Jewish rebel leader who recaptured Jerusalem from Antiochus’ forces and then restored the temple. This event, Hanukkah,celebrated by Jews ever since was foretold with uncanny accuracy by Daniel, and recounted for us in the 27 verses of the eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel.
Amazing Accuracy
This vision is important to us for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the accuracy of Daniel’s prediction of yet another terrible desecration of YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem. This desolation will occur long after the Jewish exiles then held in Babylon (at the time Daniel is given this vision), have, in the future, returned to Judah and are once again established in the land of promise. Daniel’s vision predicts the coming of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (some 350 years yet future to Daniel), but it also depicts him as a type (or a foreshadowing) of a series of antichrist figures yet to come. As we saw in the vision recorded in Daniel 7, this series of antichrists includes the self-deifying emperors of Rome (the “Little Horn” of the fourth beast of the visions in Daniel 2 and 7), and which culminates in a final end times antichrist foretold by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.
Critical scholars will simply not accept miraculous predictive prophecy, so they contend that an unnamed Jew living in Judah writing as the “prophet” Daniel composed this book and at some point shortly after the Maccabean Wars (after 167 BC), because, critical scholars say, Daniel’s prophecy is far too accurate to have been given three and a half centuries prior to the events foretold. Yet Jesus, John, and Paul see Daniel’s visions as predictive prophecy with Jesus applying to himself the title “Son of Man” in the Olivet Discourse, John seeing Daniel’s fourth beast and its “Little Horn” as the Roman empire (Nero in particular), while Paul sees the “Little Horn” as a foreshadowing of an end-times Antichrist (the “man of sin”) and a final apostasy.
The Past Sets the Stage for the Future–The Maccabean Wars
In order to fully appreciate the significance of Daniel’s vision in chapter 8, we begin with the historical events which Daniel predicted, before we take up the details of the prophecy. We do this to better understand the accuracy of the events foretold in Daniel’s vision. We begin with a brief history of the Jewish temple from Daniel’s time until the days of the Maccabees. Then we will consider the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean Wars of 168-160 BC, before turning to Daniel’s vision (vv. 1-27 of chapter 8), which, as we will see, predicts these events in remarkable detail and accuracy.
As for the Jerusalem temple, it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC. Many of the Jewish inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem were taken into exile in Babylon. Daniel had been taken captive in 605 BC, so he was present when these exiles arrived in Babylon. No doubt, he heard firsthand accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Daniel also knew the prophecy of Jeremiah (specifically Jeremiah 25:11-12) in which the prophet foretold that the Jews would remain in exile in Babylon for 70 years. We have seen in the first half of Daniel’s prophecy (chapters 1-6), that Daniel lived until the Jews were released to return home by Cyrus (Darius the Mede) in 538 BC. We also know from Ezra and Nehemiah that work on rebuilding the temple begun under Zerubbabel was finally completed in 516 BC–the so-called “second” temple. During the days of Nehemiah, Jerusalem’s walls were rebuilt and dedicated to YHWH in 444 BC.
Judah and Jerusalem remained under Persian control from that time until the days of Alexander the Great, who drove out the Persians from Judah and even threatened to destroy the temple in 332 BC when the Jews refused to honor him as a deity. Talked out of destroying the temple, Alexander died soon after (323 BC) with his kingdom divided into four parts, with the Ptolemies taking control of Judah and Jerusalem. The Ptolemies were Hellenized Egyptians (Greek in culture). Cleopatra (who died in 30 BC) was the last of the Ptolemaic rulers, who were soon after assimilated by Rome. The Ptolemies had little interest in Judah and Jerusalem, so while they ruled Jerusalem, there was a long period of relative peace.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes – Forerunner of Antichrist
In 198 BC a Seleucid king (Antiochus III) came to power, driving out the Ptolemies. The Seleucids ruled another of the four subdivisions of Alexander’s Greek Empire to the northeast of Judah. As one of the staunchest defenders of Alexander’s legacy, Antiochus III desired to turn the Jerusalem temple into a Greek pantheon. Refusing to go along with such blasphemy, the Jews revolted against Antiochus III’s edict, but were quickly crushed, although Antiochus III soon lost interest in his temple remodel project. After his death, however, his son, Seleucus IV Philopator, came to power in 187, but was soon assassinated only to be replaced by his very zealous brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Antiochus IV immediately sought to implement his father’s policies of Hellenizing the Jews–demanding they give up Jewish culture and worship, for Greek culture and worship of Greek gods. The Jews revolted again, leading to what we now know as the Maccabean Revolt, or the Maccabean Wars of 167-160 BC.
Antiochus banned Sabbath observance and circumcision throughout Judah (the very heart of Jewish religious practice). He also ordered that a statue of Zeus be erected in the temple courtyard so that Antiochus’s priests could begin sacrificing pigs (regarded by the Jews as unclean) to Zeus on the altar previously used for sacrifices to YHWH. One of the high priests, a man by the name of Mattathias, was ordered to sacrifice one of these pigs to Zeus, but he refused, and then killed the Seleucid priest who ordered him to do so. The Jews rallied behind Mattathias and his five sons, which led to this second, more successful revolt. One of these five sons was named Judas Maccabaeus (whose nickname was “The Hammer”). It was he who led the Jews to drive out the Seleucids from Jerusalem. Judas Maccabaeus oversaw the cleansing of the temple, and by December of 164 BC, the altar was rebuilt and dedicated once again to YHWH. It is this tremendous victory and demonstration of faith and courage which the Jews celebrate down to this day as “Hanukkah.” It is this revolt and the coming of Antiochus IV Epiphanes which is foretold in the vision of a ram, a goat, and a “Little Horn” in Daniel 8.
Daniel tells us this vision was given him in the third year of Belshazzar’s reign (about 548-547 BC). This was about the time that Cyrus defeated the Lydian king Croesus–the uber-wealthy king known for all his gold coins. His name is a metaphor for wealth – “richer than Croesus”) This was Cyrus’ last major conquest before defeating Babylon and killing Belshazzar in 539 BC as recounted in Daniel 5. This time, Daniel’s prophetic vision includes two common animals (not the scary creatures of Daniel 2 and 7). The ram and the goat represent the Persian and Greek empires respectively. Babylon and Rome are omitted. There is also no mention of the coming Messiah, because this vision centers around a “Little Horn,” who comes on the scene before the messianic age and who, as it turns out, is none other than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who blasphemes YHWH, desecrates the second temple, and who persecutes the people of God (the Jews).[1]
Although this “Little Horn” is not the same “horn” figure associated with the fourth beast in the vision in chapter 7, Antiochus is also a type of antichrist, and anticipates both the rise of the little horn of the fourth kingdom (the self-proclaimed emperor deities of Rome), as well as the end-times Antichrist foretold by Paul in 2 Thessalonians. But Daniel’s vision in chapter 8 does not contain only bad news. God’s people are presently held in Babylon, but the vision reveals that the exiles will return home and rebuild their temple–a theme taken up again in the next vision (Daniel 9), before the coming of the Messiah, and the rise of the fourth beast (Rome). Yet, this vision also warns the Jews that the temple will be desecrated again, before YHWH rescues his people and restores his temple to its former glory.[2]
Jerusalem Under Greek Rule
With these historical details in mind, we are in a good position to turn to the text of Daniel 8 and take up the details of this vision, which focuses upon the Greek period of rule over Judah and Jerusalem. In the opening verse of the chapter, Daniel gives us both the time and the setting of the dream. “In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.” The year is 547 BC and this was Daniel’s second vision. Daniel was in Babylon during this time, but the vision takes place in the winter capital of the Persian empire (Susa). He tells us in verse 2, “and I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal,” which is near Susa. This geographical information tells us that in Daniel’s vision (even though Belshazzar is still ruling in Babylon) the Persian empire has already risen to power (the second beast of Daniel’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s visions in chapters 2 and 7).
In verses 3-4 Daniel describes the first animal he sees.
I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.
Given the fact that Daniel was transported in his dream to Persia and the Ulai canal, the ram is easily identified as the Persian Empire. The two horns of the ram are the two earlier kingdoms which combined to form the Persian empire–the Medes were a people living on the Iranian plateau who dominated the Persians until the time of Dairus the Mede (Cyrus), who united both kingdoms into the Medo-Persian, or simply the Persian Empire.
Even as Daniel was given this vision, Cyrus was directing Persian armies north toward the Caucasus Mountains, west into Asia Minor where the Persians had recently conquered the Lydian kingdom (Croesus) and south, into what is now the Persian gulf region where Iran and Iraq now share a border. The ram charging in three directions reflects the rapid expansion of the Persian empire (soon to defeat Babylon) as well as the fact that no beast (empire) could stand before Cyrus’ armies, which did whatever the king wished. This empire became great indeed.
In verses 5-7, Daniel sees another creature–a male goat which attacks and defeats the ram. Daniel recounts,
as I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his powerful wrath. I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled on him. And there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power.
This is yet another visionary foretelling of the third empire of Nebuchadnezzar’s and Daniel’s prior visions. The goat is the Greek empire which arose suddenly under Alexander’s leadership, and which soundly defeated the Persians in a series of major battles in Asia Minor and what is now northern Iraq.
Alexander the “Not So Great”
The speed of Alexander’s conquest is represented by the fact that the goat’s feet did not touch the ground. The decisiveness of Alexander’s defeat of large and well-equipped Persian armies at Granicus (Asia Minor) and Gaugamela (Iraq) is represented by the fact that when the goat struck the ram, the ram’s two horns were broken. But the goat’s decisive victory over the ram was not without consequence, as Daniel reports in verse 8. “Then the goat became exceedingly great, but when he was strong, the great horn was broken.” This which is a prophecy of Alexander’s death in Babylon at the young age of thirty two (the cause of which is the subject of endless speculation, from poison to West Nile virus).
Alexander’s empire remained strong for more than a century after his death, also reflected in Daniel’s vision. After the horn was broken (Alexander’s death), “instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.” This is a prophecy of the rise of four kingdoms from the divvying up of the Greek empire, two of which are the Seleucids (Seleucus was placed over Syria and Mesopotamia, which is modern Iraq) and the Ptolemaic (Ptolemy ruled over Egypt from Alexandria). We are immediately harkened back to the leopard with four heads of Daniel’s previous vision in chapter 7. In between these two empires lay the hapless province of Judea with its small kingdom of Judah and the city of Jerusalem. Whenever these two kingdoms fight with one another, Judah is caught in the middle. This difficult circumstance sets the stage of what follows–the return of the “Little Horn.”
The “Little Horn” Appears
In verse 9, Daniel recounts how “out of one of them [i.e., one of the four horns] came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.” This “Little Horn” arises from the remnants of the Greek empire (the third beast of the visions in Daniel 2 and 7), not from the fourth beast of the previous vision (which is Rome). This is compelling evidence that the “Little Horn,” while tied to a particular person at a particular point of time (Antiochus IV in 167 BC) is not an isolated threat. When this “Little Horn” appears here in chapter 8, his destruction does not mean that there will be no others to follow in his wake, imitating him. The “Little Horn” will be followed by a series of other “horns.” These “Little Horns” are two different threats (Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second vision (chapter 8), the Roman Caesars in the first (Daniel 7).[3]
The “Little Horn,” which grew strong, refers to Antiochus IV’s rise to power, and the reference to points south and east refers to his attempt to occupy the “glorious land,” a reference to Judah, and used elsewhere of Judah by Ezekiel (20:6, 15) and Jeremiah (3:19). The very name Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” points to his lust for power. The royal name which he gave himself “Epiphanes,” (“appearing,” i.e., “a divine manifestation”) indicates he thought of himself as a divine gift. He ordered the striking of coins which bore his image and identified himself as “King Antiochus, God Manifest.” Humble fellow. He began as a small, and seemingly insignificant figure when compared to Alexander, but grew large in the vision by his oppressive treatment of the Jews.[4]
According to verse 10, this horn “grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.” “The host” likely refers to angels. The reference to the stars, perhaps, represent God’s people just as they do in Abraham’s vision in Genesis 15. As Daniel will go on to say in his final vision, (Daniel 12:3), “and those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” Antiochus tramples some of these stars, which refers to the people of God (the Jews at the time of the Maccabean wars) under his oppressive rule.
The “Little Horn” occupied Jerusalem, desecrated the temple, and tried to put an end to Sabbath observance as recounted in verses 11-12. Daniel tells us, the Little Horn
became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper.
In Joshua 5:14-15 we read of a figure described as commander of the Lord’s army (the preincarnate Jesus), now identified by Daniel as the “prince of the host.” Disrupting the religious practices of the people of God, corrupting their sacrifices to YHWH, and seeking to replace the law of God with Greek and pagan customs and practices, topped off by his building of a statue of Zeus, the face of which, (and this will come as no surprise), resembled Antiochus himself–is a direct challenge to the authority of the Ancient of Days and the one like a Son of Man. To desecrate the temple where YHWH is to be worshiped is to attack YHWH himself.[5] Antiochus’ efforts actually succeed for a time.[6] He is truly an antichrist figure.
YHWH Limits the “Little Horn”
But how long will this go on? Will the Little Horn truly overcome YHWH’s people and ultimately ruin his temple? In verses 13-14, Daniel is given his answer when overhearing one angel speaking with another.
Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”
YHWH has set a limit to the horn’s action–at first glance a period of time just short of seven years (2,300 days). Some take this to refer a period of divine judgment (the trampling of the temple underfoot) which runs from 170 BC, the death of Onias III (the high priest), until Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the temple in December of 164.[7]
But the qualification “morning and “evening” seems to tie this “trampling underfoot” specifically to the cessation of the daily sacrifice for sin brought about by Antiochus’ actions, which instead makes this a period of 2,300 morning and evening sacrifices (two sacrifices a day), which is actually a period of 1,150 days. This interpretation is confirmed, I think, in the next chapter when Daniel speaks of the angel Gabriel appearing to him at the time of the evening sacrifice (9:21). If this interpretation is correct, the time during which Antiochus prohibited sacrifices in the temple is exactly 1,150 days, which is an exact time (which has been plausibly defended) or else a very close approximation of the time. One of these latter two seems to me to make the most sense.[8] YHWH allowed Antiochus to disrupt the sacrifices for just over three years, before the sanctuary “shall be restored,” as it was by Judas Maccabaeus in 164 BC.
The Angel Gabriel Appears
As is the pattern in these dreams so far (chapters 2, 4, 7), Daniel seeks an interpretation of what YHWH revealed to him. “When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it.” Having already outlined the history of the Maccabean Wars, and Antiochus’s action as “Little Horn,” denouncing God’s Law, his temple, and his people, we are in a position to treat the interpretation given Daniel by none other than the Angel Gabriel. Picking up with the second half of verse 15-17, Daniel tell us, “and behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, `Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.’ So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face.’” Having Gabriel come near him and then speak, terrifies Daniel, and he collapses.
Gabriel reveals the time limit which God has set. “But he said to me, Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.” “The end” as used here, is not necessarily the last day when Jesus returns, but probably refers to the end of the 1,150 days (the number of days the horn tramples the temple), an event still some 350 years future to Daniel. The difficulty in grasping this becomes clear in verses 18-19, when Daniel explains “and when he had spoken to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground. But he touched me and made me stand up. He said,Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation,’ [the Little Horn’s desecration of the temple] for it refers to the appointed time of the end.’” “The end” of this particular vision (Daniel 8) is the restoration of the temple and the rebuilding of the altar and the renewal of daily sacrifices for sin in the temple.
In verses 20-23, Gabriel explains the role the two animals played in the vision given Daniel.
As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king” [Alexander]. As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power [including the Seleucids and the Ptolemies]. And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise.
The Little Horn will be exceedingly clever (“bold in face”) in defeating his enemies.
In verses 24-25, Gabriel describes the horn as one whose
power shall be great—but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand.
This is exactly what we have seen in the reign of terror of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a man who names himself “God manifest,” who makes a statue of Zeus to look like himself, and who wages a futile war on YHWH and his people by desecrating YHWH’s temple and ending the sacrifice for sin, all the while seeking to overthrow YHWH’s word and commandments, replacing them with Greek (pagan) practices. Paraphrasing the famous philosopher Dirty Harry (played by Clint Eastwood) , Antiochus IV Epiphanes “is a legend in his own mind.”
YHWH Directs All Future Events
With the explanation complete (v. 26), Daniel obeys Gabriel’s final instructions. “The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.” What he has seen has left him in a state of mental and physical exhaustion. “And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.” After the last vision (chapter 8), the color left him and his head was alarmed. After this vision he was overcome and sick for days. Such is the life of a prophet.
What, then, do we take with us by way of application? Again, this vision reminds us that YHWH’s prophets predict the future with great accuracy because YHWH is sovereign over all people and nations. A Persian and a Greek empire will arise. The Jews will return home and rebuild their city and YHWH’s temple. But there will come yet another time when YHWH’s people are persecuted (not seventy years in exile, but 2,300 mornings and evenings in their own land). YHWH’s temple will be desecrated by one who thinks of himself as a “god” and defies YHWH and his word. He will get what is coming to him.
But far from a passing despot long lost and buried in the annals of history, Antiochus IV Ephiphanes serves as a warning to us–that such historical figures who hate God and his people will arise throughout the future course of redemptive history, eventually culminating in that one man about whom Paul warns us in 2 Thessalonians 2. This “man of sin” (a figure who makes Antiochus IV seem pious), will appear immediately before the day of the Lord–the day of Christ’s return. We know him by his title, “Man of Sin,” or “Antichrist.” Beginning in verse 3, Paul tells us, “for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first [the apostasy], and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God [in the New Testament “temple” always refers to the church], proclaiming himself to be God.”
When Christ Returns, Antichrist Is Slain
Sound familiar? The Man of Sin’s fate will be the same as that of his forbears (including Antiochus), the “Little Horn” of Daniel 8. Paul asks the Thessalonians,
do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
Just as Antiochus came to power and was permitted to run amuck for a short time, only to meet his end, the same will be true for the Antichrist. The difference is that Antichrist will be destroyed by Jesus himself, on that glorious day when our Lord returns to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. However fierce he may be, the “Man of Sin” is no match for that one like a Son of Man who has already defeated death and the grave by his bloody cross and his empty tomb. Our Savior Jesus has ascended to the very throne of heaven, where he rules all things and directs the affairs of people and nations. With but a word (the breath of his mouth), Jesus will destroy the Antichrist and all those who do his bidding, on the day our Lord returns (at his second advent), the day for which we long, and the day in which all our hopes are fully and finally realized.
_______________________________________
[1] Steinmann, Daniel, 389-391.
[2] Steinmann, Daniel, 389-391.
[3] See the defense of the “four kingdom” view in, Steinmann, Daniel, 144-157.
[4] Goldingay, Daniel, 209.
[5] Baldwin, Daniel, 175.
[6] Steinmann, Daniel, 403.
[7] This is the view of Luther and Calvin, Goldingay, and Young.
[8] Steinmann, Daniel, 405-406.
Below is an excerpt from B. B. Warfield’s sermon “The Conviction of the Holy Spirit” reprinted in a volume of Warfield’s collected sermons, Faith and Life (Banner, 1974).
We approach now the center of our subject and perceive what it is that the world is convicted of by the demonstration of the Spirit. The Saviour pointedly discriminates between the three elements: As to sin, as to righteousness, as to judgment. Conviction of the world is the work of the Holy Ghost. Conviction as to what? (1) As to sin. The world which as yet knows not sin is convicted of it as the first and primary work of the Holy Ghost. It is not without significance that this is placed first. There is a sense in which it underlies all else, and conviction of sin becomes the first step in that recovery of the world, which is the victory. Once convicted of sin, another conviction is opened out before it. (2) It may then be convicted of righteousness, that is, of what righteousness is and what is required to form a true righteousness, and (3) it may be convicted of judgment, that is, of what judgment is, what justice requires and its inevitableness. These two together form the correlates of sin. It is only by knowing sin that we can know righteousness; as it is only by knowing darkness that we know light. We must know what sin is and how subtle it is, before we can realize what righteousness is. We must know how base the one is before we can know how noble the other is. We must know the depth that we may appreciate the heights.
In like manner we must know sin in order to know judgment. We must know sin in its native hideousness that we may understand its ill-desert, and perceive with what judgment the sinner must be judged. So, too, we must know righteousness to know judgment. Not only the depths of sin, but also the heights of righteousness are involved in the judgment. Sin on the one side, righteousness on the other; these give us our true conviction of judgment. And the work of the Holy Ghost in the world is declared to be conviction; and by convicting men He conquers the world. The Gospel is preached and it everywhere brings a crisis to men. Shall they hear or forbear? Some hear; to some it is hid; but on all the conviction takes effect. Sin is made known; righteousness is revealed; judgment is laid bare.
And men convicted of their sin have but a choice of the righteousness or judgment.
What follows is an excerpt from episode three of season three of the Blessed Hope Podcast which covers Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
What was characteristic of Paul’s preaching was its content–Christ and him crucified. Even though he was not worldly-wise, nor did he seek to impress the Greeks, nevertheless, in verse 4 of 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks of his preaching as accompanied by “a demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” Readers of 1 Corinthians have long debated what Paul means by this.
The context tells us that Paul does not mean by this demonstration of the Spirit’s power what we might call “signs and wonders” as contemporary Pentecostals contend. Rather, “the power of the Spirit is linked with the proclamation of the cross.”[1] Or, as Ciampa and Rosner put it, Paul’s stress upon his own weakness being overcome by the power of God in his preaching of Christ crucified, means that “power here is about moral conviction, not miraculous display.”[2] God’s power supplants the preacher’s weaknesses.[3] Paul said much the same thing to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 1:5, “our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.”
No doubt there were signs and wonders present in the apostolic age. Paul speaks of miraculous signs a number of times in his letters (Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, 29; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 3:5) including later on in this letter. There may indeed have been signs and wonders when Paul first came to Corinth, but signs and wonders are not mentioned in Luke’s account of Paul’s arrival in Corinth in Acts 18. Luke only says that Paul went first to the synagogue and preached Christ to the Jews gathered there. Nor is there any hint that miraculous signs is what Paul means here when speaking of the demonstration of the Spirit’s power.[4] Paul links the power of the Holy Spirit directly to preaching the cross of Christ, not to speaking in tongues, miracles, or healing [5]. Sensational demonstrations of power are what Jews were demanding and such signs would certainly impress Greeks. Instead, they get a message which is to their minds a stumbling block or foolishness, yet through which God’s power is evident.
How is it then that when the unimpressive Paul preaches to Greeks seeking wisdom and Jews seeking signs that people respond with faith to the offensive and scandalous preaching of the cross? The answer is that the power of the Holy Spirit points beyond himself to Christ crucified, transforming a message of shame and humiliation into a manifestation of the power of God to save sinners.
The Spirit’s power is manifest in the fact that Jews and Greeks, who were dead in sin, and who could never understand God’s wisdom if left to themselves, have now been united to Jesus Christ through faith. The demonstration of the Spirit’s power must be seen against the personal weakness of Paul. It is the message, not the messenger, which is emphasized. Through Paul’s preaching of Christ’s cross, God exposes the worldly wisdom of the Greeks which kept people from the kingdom of God. The demonstration of the Spirit’s power is seen in the fact that there is a growing church in Corinth! Through the scandalous message of the cross (where God’s wisdom and power are revealed and wherein the Spirit manifests his power), God effectually called many Jews and Greeks to faith. This is how the power of the Spirit is made manifest. Those dead in sin are given new life, and granted faith through the preaching of the cross, not through seeking after Greco-Roman wisdom.
__________________________
[1] Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, 78.
[2] Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 118.
[3] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 87.
[4] Contra Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 95. Fee correctly regards this as conversion, but contends it is evidenced by speaking in tongues as a demonstration of power.
[5] Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, 78.
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.
For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: “I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them” (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: “When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand” (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the church.
_________________________________
In rejecting the Arminian errors regarding the death of Christ, the authors of the Canons now turn to the weakest point in the so-called “universal atonement” position. In the Arminian scheme of redemption, the death of Christ does not actually save any of those for whom Christ is said to have died. What many regard as the strength of the Arminian view–its universalism and emphasis upon the assertion that “Christ died for all” without exception–is seen by the Reformed not as a strength, but as a serious departure from biblical teaching. Yes, the Scriptures teach that Christ died for all those given him by the father. The Scriptures do not teach that Jesus’s death makes the entire world potentially “saveable” if only sinners do what is required of them.
Exposing this error is what the authors of the Canons are getting at when they state the error in view is the Arminian notion that God supposedly appointed Christ to die for sinners, yet without any fixed or definite plan to save any one particular sinner by name. Under the Arminian conception of salvation, the death of Christ is said to be “for all,” because the atonement only makes the entire world “savable” upon the condition of faith in Christ. But notice, this means that the death of Christ does not actually save anyone. The atonement is said to be “for all” because it can potentially save all. In fact, as the Arminian understands fallen human nature and prevenient grace (to be discussed in part two), all can potentially believe, despite the fall of Adam.
Under this conception, the death of Christ actually saves no one, nor does it secure anything for our salvation, until such time as it is “appropriated” or “applied” by the sinner to themselves through the means of faith. This is a very important point. This gets to the heart of what many Reformed theologians have pointed out as the most distinguishing characteristic of the Reformed understanding of the plan of redemption, and that which sets the Reformed conception of salvation apart from all other branches of the Christian family. According to B. B. Warfield, “the saving operations of God are directed in every case immediately to the individuals who are being saved. Particularism in the process of salvation becomes the mark of Calvinism” [Warfield, Plan of Salvation, 87].
The Reformed Christian does not believe that the death of Jesus makes the whole world “savable.” Rather, the Reformed Christian believes and confesses that God actually saves his elect through the death of Christ, and that God’s grace is directed to the specific individuals whom God intends to save. In other words, those whom God has chosen are the particular individuals for whom Christ is said to have died.
This, of course, stands in sharp contrast to the universalism of the Arminian system, which argues that Christ dies for no one in particular, but for everyone in general. This distinction colors everything that we as Christians believe about sin and grace. Does God direct his saving activity to the specific individuals he intends to save? Or does God direct his saving operations to no one in particular, and only to the world in general (impersonally)?
At the end of the day, this is the fundamental difference between the Reformed Christian and the Arminian. This is the particular atonement of the Reformed, versus the universal, non-specific view of salvation of the Arminian. The Reformed see the death of Christ as effectual, securing the salvation of the elect (and particular elect individuals). The Arminians, on the other hand, see the death of Christ as merely provisional. Christ’s death makes salvation possible for the whole world, but it saves no one specifically.
Before we get to the specifics of the Arminian error in regards to the death of Christ, we need to back up for a moment and identify the underlying presuppositions of the Arminian scheme of redemption. There are several we must keep in mind.
First, the Arminian begins with the assumption that human freedom is the starting point for any truly biblical theology. As Methodist theologian John Miley once put it: “Freedom is fundamental in Arminianism.” And because human freedom is the Arminian fundamentum, the entire Arminian system of thought is developed accordingly.
With human freedom assuming a central role for the Arminian, Miley goes on to note that the logical consequence of building upon this starting point is that the Arminian must hold “accordingly the universality and provisional nature of the atonement, and the conditionality of salvation. In this matter,” says Miley, Arminianism “is thoroughly synergistic” [John Miley, Systematic Theology, II.275].
If we begin with the notion that human freedom is central to our system of theology, we must necessarily conclude that the death of Christ is not effectual and actually accomplishes God’s eternal purpose, which is the salvation of God’s elect. Instead, we must conclude that the death of Christ is merely provisory. The atonement makes a universal provision for the salvation of those who exercise their freedom, and who use the freedom given them to come to faith in Christ. This means that it is not the death of Christ which saves, but it is the sinner who saves himself by coming to Christ in faith.
Thankfully, Dr. Miley is crystal clear here—Arminianism, of necessity, requires a salvation conditioned upon a cooperative act of the human will in conjunction with the grace of God. Therefore, Arminianism is necessarily synergistic.
In the strictest sense then, consistent Arminianism denies what is known as sola gratia (grace alone) since we are not saved by God’s gracious act in this view, but we are saved by human cooperation with the grace of God, which is only provisional and ineffectual until we act upon it. This is why Arminianism at best is semi-Augustinian, and much more likely semi-Pelagian.
A second presupposition we must consider is the Arminian conception of the fall of Adam and the doctrine of prevenient grace. For the Arminian, the fall of Adam introduced sin into the world, in terms of Adam’s bad example (in the more crass Pelagian versions) and in the universal human tendency toward sinfulness. The problem is that this seriously underestimates and depreciates what the Scriptures actually teach about human sinfulness.
The fall of Adam does not merely leave us with the bad example of Adam for all of his children to follow. Nor does the fall introduce a universal tendency toward sin. When Adam fell into sin, he plunged the entire world into guilt and condemnation. Furthermore, Adam's act of disobedience was imputed, or reckoned, to all of his descendants, since Adam acted for us and in our place as our federal head (cf. Romans 5:12-19). This means we are guilty for Adam’s act of sin (by imputation). We are all born with something much worse than a mere tendency to sin. We are guilty before God since Adam acted on our behalf as our representative. In fact, according to the Scriptures, if left to ourselves we can do nothing but sin. As we have seen, the Canons have already set forth this point in some detail.
With these two presuppositions in place, the Arminian necessarily begins the discussion of sin and redemption with an overly optimistic assessment of human nature. According to Arminians, the fall is real and serious. The fall does indeed create in human nature a tendency toward evil, but the fall does not leave us totally enslaved to sin, and therefore unable to do any good at all, as the Reformed believe (and as Scripture teaches).
Directly connected to this conception of the fall is the Arminian teaching regarding what is commonly called “prevenient grace.” As the Arminian sees it, Adam’s descendants are born with the tendency toward sin, and by acting upon this tendency, we incur God’s wrath because of our actual sins. But since God is gracious, God grants to all men and women a measure of grace which enables them to believe in Christ despite this tendency to sin. In the words of one Methodist theologian, prevenient grace is necessarily connected to the death of Christ. “Human will, because of the Fall is not free, but through Christ’s atoning work there is a universal grace which restores human freedom” (Thomas Langford, Practical Divinity: Theology in the Wesleyan Tradition, 33).
Through the death of Christ, God is able to provide a measure of grace for all, which enables men and women (if only they will) to overcome their tendency toward sin, and to come to faith in Christ. This supposedly gives the Arminian the ability to argue for both universal human sinfulness (because of the fall) and universal grace which is secured through the cross of Christ.
But as B. B. Warfield once pointed out, when you look at this closely, the Arminian’s assertion of grace alone is strictly theoretical. When “push comes to shove” we are still left with the teaching that those who are saved, are saved not because God saved them when they were dead in sin, but because they used their free will to take advantage of God’s “provisional” grace so as save themselves with God’s help! There is simply no way around the fact that in the Arminian system if anyone is to be saved, it is because they used their free will to cooperate with God’s provision in Christ, no matter how loudly they may declare that they believe in “grace alone.”
The Canons are correct to remind the Arminian that they will have a very difficult time finding even a single biblical text which remotely hints at an ineffectual, provisional and prevenient grace, which enables us to save ourselves. As we have seen, the Arminian will look in vain for a single biblical text which attributes to the fallen human will the ability to come to Christ apart from a prior act of God upon the sinner. For Paul it is as simple as “but God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13).
The Reformed distinctive that God’s redemptive acts are directed to the specific individuals whom he intends to save, is found throughout the Scriptures. In Ephesians 1:3-14, Paul is clearly speaking of specific individuals who have been chosen “in Christ” from before the foundation of the world. As Paul puts it here, God chose us before the world began in Christ to be holy and blameless. In love, we are told, God predestined us and in Jesus Christ we have redemption from our sins through the shedding of his blood. Paul goes on to say that those same ones chosen in Christ, and redeemed by his blood, are the same ones sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Not only does this passage point out the Trinitarian nature of salvation—the Father decrees to save his elect, the Son accomplishes redemption for those who the Father chooses, and the Spirit applies Christ’s benefits to those whom the Father has chosen and for whom the Son has died—it also clearly teaches that there is a specific group in view who are chosen, redeemed and sealed.
In this passage we clearly see that redemption is on behalf of those chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless. These are specific individuals in view—those chosen by the Father—not the “world” generically. We see nothing of the Arminian scheme here which would have us to believe that the Father wants to save all, but can only save those who exercise their free will. The Son dies for all, effectually saves none, and whose death can only be of avail for those who use their free will to come to him in faith. The Spirit calls all, but the only ones who come are those who are willing and who let the Holy Spirit have his way with them. This is, of course, patently absurd, but is what the Arminian believes.
The same emphasis upon the salvation of specific individuals is found in Romans 8:28-30 in what is often called the “golden chain” of salvation. As Paul declares:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Here again we see a group of specific individuals that God has foreknown (i.e., “foreloved”), which corresponds perfectly to the same group described by Paul in Ephesians 1 as those “chosen in Christ.” These same individuals are also said to be predestined, called, justified and glorified. The same people who are foreknown by God, are the same people whom he brings safely to glorification. Again, there is nothing approaching the Arminian scheme in the passage here in which God foreknows those who will use their free-will to believe, and only then are they said to be predestined. There is nothing here of a calling which is ineffectual or dependent upon the will of a fallen rebel in Adam. Paul knows nothing of a verdict of not-guilty, which can subsequently be reversed if the justified sinner commits certain sins or else ceases to believe. For Paul, all those foreknown by God, will end up being glorified. It is clear, then, that God directs his grace specifically to the individuals he intends to save.
John 17 is also replete with multiple references in which Jesus speaks of a certain and definite number of people given him by the Father before the world began. Indeed, Jesus says that he has revealed himself not to the world, “provisionally,” but effectually to those “whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word” (John 17:6). There is clearly a certain and specific number of individuals involved—those given him by the Father. As Jesus himself goes on to say in his prayer, “I pray for them,” that is for those given to him by the Father, but “I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” It is clear from our Lord’s great high-priestly prayer that from eternity past the Father has given a definite and certain number of sinners to Jesus Christ (the elect) and that our Lord’s redemptive work is to accomplish what is necessary for them to be saved. Jesus is quite clear here. I am not praying for the world but for those given me by the Father. At least in our Lord’s mind, his redemptive work was to be performed not for the world generically or impersonally, but specifically for those given him by his Father.
This conception also helps explain that a text such as 1 John 2:2, which is often considered by Arminians to be the death knell of Calvinism, is in fact, additional evidence that the Reformed understanding of the death of Christ is indeed the biblical one. As John says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Here John says, Jesus’ death is for the sins of the whole world. How, then, can the Reformed understanding of the atonement be true? Christ dies for all. Right?
But consider the passage more closely. John is describing our Lord’s priestly office and he specifically says that Jesus is the paracletos, the “defense attorney” or “counselor” who speaks to the Father in our defense. Several things are in view here. First, John says that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. A propitiation is an offering made to appease the wrath of an angry god. In this case, the death of Jesus is said to turn aside God’s wrath towards sinners. There is not even the slightest hint here that Jesus makes some kind of “provision” for sinners, since John says that his death actually and effectually turns aside God’s wrath toward those for whom he is dying. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins.
So what is the result if the Arminian position that Christ dies for all without exception is indeed the correct interpretation of 1 John 2:2? First of all it means that Jesus dies to turn aside God’s wrath toward all sinners, but that all sinners are not saved. This means that either Jesus’s death cannot cover certain sins such as unbelief, when John says that Jesus died for “all of our sins” which seems to admit of no exception, including the sin of unbelief, or else, we must conclude that Christ turns aside God’s wrath toward sinners who then perish eternally after God’s wrath toward them has been turned away.
Think about this carefully for a minute. For the Arminian, Jesus dies for people he does not actually save. If Jesus dies for someone’s sins but they die in unbelief and are lost, then either Christ’s death is not sufficient to remove all sin, or else the person is punished for their own sins after Christ has supposedly paid for them on the cross. If this is true, we cannot at all say that it is Christ’s death which saves us. The Arminian scheme necessarily moves the ground of our salvation away from the death of Christ to our act of faith which appropriates the death of Christ. This obviously creates tremendous problems!
Second, as the high priest, Jesus not only lays down his life as a propitiation, but he also is the advocate or defense attorney for all those for whom he dies. John clearly indicates that Jesus intercedes for those for whom he dies. If he dies for all without exception he intercedes for all without exception. But consider the following dilemma raised by the Arminian notion of a conditional and provisory salvation. Can Jesus’s prayers go unanswered by the Father? Can Jesus pray for someone, and not have the Father answer the prayer of his own dear Son? Indeed, let us not forget that John has already noted that our Lord does not pray for the world generically, but only for those given to him by the Father.
In fact, in the very same Epistle of First John, John says, using the exact same phrase, that “the whole world” is under the control of the evil one (John 5:19). Now we must ask, “can the phrase `the whole world,’ as used in this verse actually mean each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age?” Is each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age under the control of the evil one? Of course not. John uses the term rhetorically in 1 John 5:19 to mean a “great many” or a “vast amount.” This then, is how we must view the phrase the “whole world,” in 1 John 2:2. Jesus died for our sins, and not only for ours, but for those of a great many scattered throughout the world. And for these, his propitiatory death and high priestly intercession are indeed effectual.
Consider the Arminian alternative. Jesus dies for people he does not save. His death does not save. Even worse, our Lord intercedes for those for whom he dies but his prayer for them is not answered and they perish anyway. Thus, what may appear at first glance to be a text which supports the Arminian understanding of the gospel, actually exposes the weakness of the entire Arminian scheme.
This is why the authors of the Canons insist that we declare that Jesus died for a fixed number of people that he knew by name from before the foundation of the world, namely the elect. If not, the very work of Christ is called into question and the ground of salvation is moved from the cross to our faith. This is injurious to the character of the gospel itself. As the authors put it, “the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10).”
Either God alone saves, or else God requires our help. And this is where Arminianism inevitably leads us. It is now up to us.
I believe that as Jesus Christ has once come in grace, so also is He to come a second time in glory, to judge the world in righteousness and assign to each his eternal award: and I believe that if I die in Christ, my soul shall be at death made perfect in holiness and go home to the Lord; and when He shall return in his majesty I shall be raised in glory and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity: encouraged by which blessed hope it is required of me willingly to take my part in suffering hardship here as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, being assured that if I die with Him I shall also live with him, if I endure, I shall also reign with Him.
From “A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith”
A Remarkable Vision of Four Great Empires—Metallic Statues and Fierce Beasts
In chapter 7 of the prophecy which bears his name, Daniel is given a vision which maps out the future course of the four great ancient Middle-Eastern empires with uncanny accuracy. Daniel’s vision dates from 550 BCE–the first year that Belshazzar was king of Babylon–but covers historical developments until the rise of the Roman empire four centuries later.
In this amazing vision, Daniel sees four fierce and frightening beasts which represent the same successive empires which Nebuchadnezzar had seen in the vision of the metallic statue which YHWH had given to him (and recounted in Daniel 2): the Babylonian empire, the Persian empire, the Greek empire (under Alexander the Great and his successors), and then finally the fourth and most powerful and frightening beast of all, the Roman empire.
The “Ancient of Days” and the “Son of Man”
What makes Daniel’s vision so much more than a mere lesson in ancient Near-Eastern history is that this vision is given five centuries before these events actually occur. In this vision, Daniel is also given a glimpse of the heavenly court in session. He sees one whom he describes as “the Ancient of Days” presiding, with one “like a Son of Man” being led into his presence, possessing a glory beyond all human comprehension with thousands and tens of thousand attendants. Daniel sees what so many of God’s people across the ages have desired to see–a glimpse of what heaven is like and what transpires in God’s presence.
What readers of the New Testament know, which Daniel did not, is that this “one like a Son of Man” whom Daniel sees is none other than Jesus Christ. When interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the metallic statue, Daniel describes what he sees (Daniel 2:44–45).
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.
Coming a generation later, Daniel’s dream recounted in chapter 7 reveals the missing element of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream–who or what is the stone which crushes the metallic statue, especially the fourth empire? Daniel reveals that it is YHWH who directs all of human history to the ends to which he has determined through the person and work of the Son of Man (Jesus)–the mysterious stone seen by Nebuchadnezzar. No human empire, no matter how great it may appear to human eyes, will escape YHWH’s verdict which will be meted out in the heavenly court on judgment day, when Jesus returns to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. God will crush all the kingdoms of this world which rise to challenge his divine authority. Daniel, certainly, did not comprehend the full meaning of what he sees in his vision, but with the 20/20 vision of New Testament hindsight, we know that the one who Daniel saw was none other than the heavenly glory of the Lord Jesus–that “one like a Son of Man.”
The Fourth Great Beast — The Roman Empire and Its Imperial Court
In both visions (Nebuchadnezzar’s in chapter 2, and Daniel’s in chapter 7), the fourth empire (Rome) plays the critical role as a future oppressor of God’s people. The fourth beast (empire) of Daniel’s vision is the most frightening of all and does terrible harm to the people of God. Yet YHWH will inevitably bring each of these empires to ruin (including Rome). The reassurance that God controls and judges these empires is of great comfort to Daniel and the Jewish exiles then in Babylon who have been under the oppressive heel of a pagan empire (Babylon–the first beast) which forcibly took many of them from their homes in Judah seventy years or so previously.
Daniel’s vision maps out the future course of history as it impacts God’s people presently living in exile in Babylon, who will eventually return to their homeland and rebuild Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple (a matter addressed in a later vision in Daniel 9). It also reminds Daniel that as he stands before the greatest men of his age (i.e., the great king Nebuchanezzar and successors such as Belshazzar) that these men rule only by YHWH’s permission. No matter how cruel, powerful, or indestructible these oppressors may appear to be, even while pursuing their own ends, they are also accomplishing YHWH’s sovereign will.
While still future to Daniel, the content of these visions are much more than a history lesson for us–they remind us that God is in control of all human affairs and that human history will, one day, come to that end to which God has decreed. Therefore, Daniel’s visions grant God’s people in every age and under the most dire of circumstances the most important thing any of us can possess in times of trial and uncertainty–hope. This vision tells us that YHWH wins in the end, no matter how bad things look, and no matter how things may appear to us. YHWH is in complete control of all people and nations. For as Daniel has witnessed in this vision, the Son of Man’s kingdom is everlasting, unlike all the great empires which arise. His kingdom will endure forever, long after all the kingdoms of the world are destroyed.
A Brief Recap of Daniel 7:1-14
Before we consider the second half of the vision in chapter 7 (verses 15-28), we begin with a brief recap of the first half of the chapter. In a night vision (a dream), Daniel saw four frightening beasts. The first (v. 3) was like a lion (the symbol of Babylon) with wings like an eagle which were plucked off, informing us that YHWH limits its conquests. This beast is made to stand and given a man’s mind (which recalls Nebuchadnezzar restored to sanity after his breakdown). The second beast (v. 5) was like a bear with three ribs in its mouth–symbolic of three smaller empires it devoured previously. This is the Persian empire. It was made to rise and was directed to devour as YHWH directs it. A third beast appears (v. 6). This one was like a leopard with four wings, symbolic of the speedy rise of the Greek empire, which, under Alexander the Great defeated the Persians. This beast had four heads–possibly symbolic of the four kingdoms (the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms) into which it was divided after Alexander died. Or, more likely, this empire extended to the four corners of the earth (the four points of the compass), but had one head, Alexander. This beast too was given its authority to conquer by YHWH.
But it is the fourth beast which frightens Daniel the most. He tells us in verse 7, “after this `I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.’”
This beast corresponds to the fourth empire of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the metallic statue, the feet of iron mixed with clay which devours all who oppose it. Daniel does not compare this beast with any earthly creature, for no earthly creature is as frightening, nor as powerful.
Unlike the other beasts, it has ten horns, symbolic of its great power and ferocity. The very sight of this creature frightens Daniel. What is more, in verse 8, Daniel tell us, “I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” This “other horn” seeks to control the actions of the beast, but is restrained, and therefore able to pluck up only three of the ten horns. But its boastful speech (“great things”) coupled with the fact it possesses eyes and a mouth suggests that this is a king or ruler arising from this fourth empire. We will learn more about this horn momentarily, but it is clearly an antichrist figure of some sort, speaking blasphemies against God, and waging war upon the saints (the people of God).
In sharp contrast to the tumult surrounding the creatures and the empires they represent described in verse 2 when “Daniel declared, `I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea,’” the scene in the vision shifts to the heavenly court, already in session, and where there is peace and order in contrast to the chaos brought about by the four beasts. Daniel attempts to describe what he sees in verses 9-10, but words fail him.
As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.
This is one of the few glimpses we are given in all the Bible of YHWH and the glory surrounding his heavenly throne. The highly symbolic language here (YHWH does not really have white hair or a beard) points to holiness, righteousness, and final judgment. The attendants are the angels and redeemed saints.
Suddenly, this courtroom scene is interrupted by the “little horn” and his blasphemies. According to verses 11–12,
I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
While the little horn continues his blasphemies, Daniel is given a graphic view of the fierce beast upon which the horn appears being killed, destroyed, and burned with fire, which is the same fate as the beast described by John in Revelation 19:20-21. This beast is Rome and the little horn is a symbol of Roman’s future emperors (especially Nero–who is the very image of antichrist) blaspheming God and waging war upon God’s people. Nero, you may know, put both Paul and Peter to death in Rome during his reign. But YHWH will vindicate both his servants and his righteous cause once and for all on the day of final judgment, which makes perfect sense in light of what Daniel sees next, as the vision shifts back from the little horn to the Son of Man.
In verses 7:13–14 of Daniel 7, Daniel recounts that
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Daniel now catches a glimpse of Jesus (who throughout the New Testament identifies himself as the “Son of Man”). The Son of Man–in complete and utter contrast to the beasts and their empires which Daniel attempts to describe in verses 2-8–possesses a glory far beyond anything seen on earth, as well as an everlasting dominion and kingdom.
All nations and peoples of the earth will one day serve this one whom Daniel sees, clearly described in the closing chapters of the Book of Revelation, as well as ably summed up by the Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:6–11, when Paul says of this Son of Man,
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Paul’s perspective on Jesus’s coronation is that after our Lord’s suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension, while Daniel’s has none of that yet in view–focusing upon Christ’s heavenly glory.
Daniel Reacts to What He Has Seen
We left off last time with Daniel’s reaction to what he saw as recounted in verses 15-16. “As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me. I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things.” The prophet was almost overwhelmed by what he had seen–his head “alarmed him.” No doubt the creatures and the “little horn” frightened him because of their great ferocity and power, as well as Daniel witnessing how that power would be used against the people of God. Recall that Daniel’s frame of reference is being taken captive as a youth against his will, and along with his people (Judah) being taken into exile in Babylon under the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar. Judah’s capital was destroyed and YHWH’s temple sacked and devastated. Daniel knows full well of what these beasts were capable. The fourth beast will bring far more harm than Babylon had.
The answer given Daniel by an unnamed fellow witness (probably one of the angels present) of the great heavenly events must have brought the prophet comfort–but only for a moment, since this information only stirred Daniel’s curiosity all the more. In verses 17-18, the witness gives Daniel the “Cliff Notes” (summary version of) what Daniel had seen. “‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’” In effect, the witness summarizes the first half of Daniel’s vision (vv. 2-8) in verse 17, and the heavenly scene (vv. 9-10; 13-14) in verse 18.[1] We know from the New Testament that these saints are the people of God–those looking forward to the coming of the Messiah in the Old Testament, along with baptized believers in Jesus Christ in the New.[2]
Who or What Is the Fourth Beast?
Daniel was no doubt comforted by the fact that the Ancient of Days and one like a Son of Man will conquer these four kings and destroy with fire their kingdoms which arise from the earth and oppress and persecute the people of God–again unlike the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man who know no such creaturely limitations as do all human kings, human kingdoms, human power, and human armies. But once his head is no longer alarmed, and his fear is calmed by the heavenly vision and the reassurance that the fourth beast will not ultimately triumph, Daniel’s curiosity is piqued. What is this fourth beast? What will it do to the people of God? Will it destroy them and thwart YHWH’s purposes?
The prophet tells us in verses 19-20,
Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet, and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that seemed greater than its companions.
The fourth beast is so frightening and different from the others, Daniel wants to know more about it–especially the iron teeth and bronze claws, as well as the blasphemous little horn which spoke great things (boasts and claims to divine glory and prerogatives), and which attempted to overcome the others. The parallels between this beast and the fourth beast in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream are quite obvious.
If redemptive-history is essentially the story of God saving sinners through the person and work of Jesus Christ, whose saving work is revealed to God’s people in the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, then one of the continuing subplots throughout redemptive history is the struggle between Christ and the Antichrist, a struggle which the Antichrist wages in vain. A major revelation of that subplot unfolds in the second half of Daniel 7, when Daniel’s attention shifts back to this “little horn.”
He Makes War on the Saints
According to verses 21-22, Daniel reports that “as I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.” In this short declaration from Daniel, we have a big picture and panoramic image of the future course of redemptive-history once this fourth empire arises. At some point when the fourth beast appears (the rise of the Roman empire and its self-proclaimed divine emperors), in addition to speaking great things (blasphemies against God and claims to divine privileges and prerogatives) this “little horn” wages war upon the saints–even prevailing over them for a time, until YHWH comes to rescue his people at the time of judgment.
The first question then is who or what is this “little horn?” Calvin identifies the horn as the series of ten Caesars who persecute God’s people.[3] Many commentators identify the horn as Antiochus IV Epiphanes (since he is clearly the “little horn” mentioned in Daniel 8), who wages war on the Jews during the time of the Maccabean Wars, and who sacked and desecrated the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in 168 BC.[4] Still others believe Daniel is referring to the Antichrist spoken of as a present reality in the New Testament age, who by “speaking great things” perverts the Gospel and the Word of God. As many of these same commentators argue, this “antichrist” does not reach his full power and fury until the time immediately before the second coming of Christ.[5] With this I concur.
The Blaspheming “Little Horn”
What Daniel sees–a blaspheming “little horn,” which wages war on the people of God–is certainly characteristic in many ways of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but is not completely fulfilled by his reign of terror in Jerusalem during the Maccabean revolt in 168 BC. It is also clear from Revelation 13:1-10, that Daniel’s “little horn” is in view when, in verses 1-2, John describes the beast which he had seen.
And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.
Furthermore, the beast John sees in verses 5-8 of Revelation 13, manifests many of the same characteristics as the little horn of Daniel’s vision.
And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Clearly then, Daniel’s fourth beast and John’s “beast rising out of the sea” are one and the same. This is Rome and its series of self-proclaimed ruling deities (i.e. Nero) who ruled from the city with seven hills (Rome) and who waged war on Christ’s people in a series of horrific persecutions in various portions of the Roman empire, graphically described in the church father Eusebius’s Church History.
Is He the Man of Sin Mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12?
Yet, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Paul speaks of a figure known as the “Man of Sin” which is also an echo from Daniel’s vision here. This man of sin is an end-times foe, who deceives the people of God in connection with an end-times apostasy, which occurs immediately before the “Day of the Lord” (i.e., that day when Jesus returns to judge the world, raise the dead and make all things new). So, the “little horn” of Daniel 7, likely does not refer to any specific person, but to a series of individuals who will arise until Jesus returns, speaking blasphemous things, claiming divine rights and privileges for themselves, waging war upon the people of God, and which will finally be manifest in an end-times antichrist. Thankfully, Daniel is told of the ultimate fate of this series of God-hating persecutors of the saints in verse 22, namely, that despite antichrist’s efforts, the time came “when the saints possess the kingdom of God.”
But what of the frightening activities of the fourth beast? The witness tells Daniel in verses 23-25,
Thus he said: “As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces. As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.”
No doubt, this is the Roman empire–far and away the greatest empire of the ancient world. Unlike the other three empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece), Rome was not displaced by another empire, but fell from internal troubles, economic woes, overreach, and bad public policy. The ten horns are symbolic of the great power of this kingdom, with ten kings rising and ruling, while the little horn seeks to rule the entire kingdom, but is prevented from doing so, and is able to displace only three of the horns.
What sets the little horn apart from the others is the fact that it speaks against the most high (the Ancient of Days), and it wears out the saints through prolonged persecution. The horn also shall seek to change the times–which is perhaps a reference to the Jewish feasts and holy days,[6] or to an arrogant attempt to change times and seasons set in place by God.[7] As for the law, Daniel’s readers would have certainly understood this to refer to the Law of Moses–including the Ten Commandments, the “holy days,” the feasts and the ceremonies.[8] As for the duration of the fourth beast’s rule, Daniel sets it at “a time, times, and half a time,” which, as we will see when we get to the famous messianic prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27, is interpreted by John in Revelation as a reference to the entire period of time between our Lord’s first and second advents–which is half of the ideal time span (seven) of human history.[9]
When His Time Comes . . . And Goes . . .
But the witness does not leave Daniel with any doubt as to the final outcome of these events. He reports the explanation of this fellow witness in verses 26-27. “But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’” There might be chaos on the earth: upheaval of empires, political intrigue, war, the persecution of God’s people, the toleration for a time of the blasphemy of God by the little horn (antichrist). But the heavenly court has already announced its verdict–“and the time came” when the fourth beast will lose its dominion and will be destroyed. Today, we go to Rome to visit the ruins of this once great empire. YHWH’s kingdom will endure forever and in the end all people and nations will serve him. In fact, we participate in this kingdom through Word and Sacrament every Lord’s Day.
When it is all over, Daniel can only confess in verse 28, “Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart.” He now knows that YHWH wins in the end.
Only Christ’s Kingdom Is All-conquering and Everlasting
What, then, do we say in terms of application? Earthly kings and tyrants conquer by the sword. They use military, political, and economic power to conquer their enemies and extend their kingdoms. They hate the church of Jesus Christ because God’s people confess that Jesus is our Lord, not them. But as Daniel so powerfully reminds us, all such kingdoms are doomed to fail. They will be destroyed by Jesus Christ, who establishes his everlasting kingdom by a life of perfect obedience, by suffering and dying, by rising again from the dead and in doing so conquering our greatest enemy, which is death. And the time came when that same Jesus ascended into heaven, to take his place at the right hand of the Ancient of Days, to preside over the heavenly court, and direct all the creatures of the world to that end for which he created them. And the time will come when that same Jesus returns to earth to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.
Until that day, we live our lives with one eye on the heavenly scene revealed by Daniel (our source of hope for what happens in this life) and the other on daily life. We fight against all beastly kingdoms by trusting in this same Jesus to save us from our sins, by living lives of gratitude before him, and proclaiming the Gospel of his kingdom to any and all who will listen.
_____________________________
[1] Steinmann, Daniel, 365.
[2] Steinmann, Daniel, 365.
[3] Calvin, Commentaries on Daniel, II.55.
[4] Goldingay, Daniel, 179-181.
[5] Steinmann, Daniel, 371; Young, Daniel, 158.
[6] Steinmann, Daniel, 374.
[7] Young, Daniel, 161.
[8] Baldwin, Daniel, 162.
[9] Steinmann, Daniel, 375.
Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:
- The Riddleblog and the Blessed Hope Podcast are in modified suspended animation as we are celebrating family birthdays, seeing grand kids, doing some household projects, and getting ready for our annual trek to the Eastern Sierras (see my Instagram account if you are curious about any of this).
- I’m also hard at work on 1 Corinthians as I get ready for the second half of season three of the Blessed Hope Podcast when we pick up with 1 Corinthians 7:1. There are some important and controversial issues to tackle in the second half of Paul’s first Corinthian letter! Stay tuned . . .
Thinking Out Loud:
- My rant against both political parties and their fossilized unfit candidates continues . . . We are slouching toward the worst presidential election of my lifetime. We’ve got MAGA folk using messianic and redemptive language of Trump, yet oblivious to the blasphemy of it all. We’ve got Biden mumbling, fumbling, wandering off during the G-7 meetings, and freezing up like an old, old, man (which he is). Put not your trust in princes has always been biblical counsel. Any temptation to ignore that counsel is long gone.
- A full 25% of Americans are now considered “double haters” and dislike (really dislike) both presidential candidates, the highest percentage ever.
- I could not agree more with the following: “Bottom line, never trust a man whose uncle was eaten by cannibals” — Sen. Joni Ernst to Sen. John Kennedy on a hot mic after a press conference.
- Which couple is worse? Frank and Marie Barone, from Everybody Loves Raymond, or Frank and Estelle Costanza from Seinfeld. As I get close to 70, I worry about turning into one of the two “Franks.” Thankfully, the missus will never be a “Marie” or an “Estelle.”
Currently Reading:
Michael Horton’s new book is not for the faint of heart. Let the reader be warned. This is not an easy read, but well-worth the effort. This is a ground-breaking volume (the first of three in a series, “the Divine Self”) which seeks to answer the question, “what accounts for the rise of those among us, who claim to be spiritual, but not religious?”
The reason Horton takes us so deep into the past to cover ground most of us have never encountered, is precisely because those identifying as “spiritual, not religious,” is hardly a new phenomenon. The “divine self” is ancient, wide-spread, and highly influential in those empires, civilizations, and cultures (i.e., Greece, Persia, Egypt) from which most modern cultures trace their intellectual roots, religions, cultural artifacts, and literary canon.
Horton introduces several terms new to many, such as the “Axial Age,” “locative,” “Orphism,” and “Theurgy.” I am now better acquainted with the world of Plato, Orpheus, Porphyry, Pythagoras, and a host of others than before. I’ve never been a fan of Origen (the famed allegorizer) who failed to allegorize Matthew 19:12 and hence, castrated himself. I appreciate his brilliance, but not his unorthodox theology which Horton examines. According to Horton, Origen’s platonizing tendencies introduced a spiritualizing exegesis into the Christian community in Alexandria (also the home of Philo and Plotinus, both indebted to Platonism and Pythagorean numerology). From Alexandria, this religion of the divine inner self spread like a pathogen, and infected segments of the church and continues to reinfect across time. These related yet distinct movements see the soul as a participant in the divine, depreciates history for present experience, and looks to ecstatic encounters with a divine “something or other” as a self-authenticating ground for the “spiritual” (which Horton correctly identifies as mere superstition).
When the “The Divine Self” series is completed, Horton will have given us the framework from which to develop effective apologetic arguments against the spiritual non-religion which dominates our age. The book is extremely well-researched and its conclusions are compelling.
The volume is way too expensive (Westminster Bookstore has the best price I’ve seen). The price is set by the publisher, not the author. But kudos to Eerdmans for providing footnotes, not endnotes! Endnotes in scholarly tomes are the work of the devil!
Just a personal note—I read a draft version early on. I am blown-away by how much Michael’s arguments and research have been refined and greatly expanded as the sources and his thesis came together. Well done, Michael! Your Magnum Opus!
Recommended Links:
- I think Yuval Levin is the wisest and most brilliant political theorist around. His new book American Covenant is a must read. Here’s why
- Our old friend Ben Sasse on American education, Alligators, and the new Hamilton Center at the University of Florida. Outstanding!
- Another essay making the case for “none of the above” on the presidential ballot
- Richard Gamble reviews Christian Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism. Gamble makes the case that there is no case for Christian nationalism
- Speaking of Christian nationalism, here’s a directory of churches to avoid: Directory of Christian Nationalist Churches
- If you were wondering, here’s a list of the 100 largest churches in America, and a list of the 100 Fastest growing churches
- Some folks in Pompeii did escape Vesuvius’ fury. Some ancient records tell the story
Not-So Recommended Links:
- Dead guy wins election in New Jersey
- Sure beats a trip to the dentist/oral surgeon: A new way to replace lost teeth
- NewScientist’s list of favorite science fiction books. I’ve read but one, Xamyatin’s We. Favorite Science Fiction books
- There is a Papal saint for everything: Saint Influencer
- The attack of the feral chickens. Sounds like a bad 1960’s “monster movie.”
The Previous Edition of Musings: May 2024 Musings
The Angel Hernandez Gallery:
Left to right: 1). Angel’s selfie 2). Angel’s mentor (Enrico Palazzo) 3). Angel’s signature on his retirement papers 4). Angel’s phone screen shot
Calvin’s Pulpit in St. Peter’s, Geneva
Continued from Part Four
The First Mark of the Church Is the Pure Preaching of the Word
According to Michael Horton, “the church is the creatura verbi or `creature of the Word,’” in the sense that the Holy Spirit working through the preached word (God’s living and active speech–Hebrews 4:12-13) brings the church into existence. This indicates that the church is “always on the receiving end of its existence.”[1]
Horton continues, the Word . . .
always achieves its purpose (Isa. 55:1– “everyone who thirsts”). The proclaimed word is not simply the sermon, but the faith that is announced, confessed, sung, and witnessed to by the church–by those called to special office but also by the whole body in its general office as prophets, priests, and kings in Christ. Even singing in church is a form of proclamation: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16; cf. Eph. 5:19). Nevertheless, it is especially in its official preaching that this Word is a verbum sacramentale (sacramental word).[2]
Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck offers a thorough and helpful summation of the Word as the primary, but not the only mark of the true church.
That the Reformation rightly sought the key mark of the church in the Word of God cannot be doubted on the basis of Scripture. Without the Word of God, after all, there would be no church (Prov. 29:18; Isa. 8:20; Jer. 8:9; Hos. 4:6). Christ gathers his church (Matt. 28:19), which is built on the teaching of the apostles and prophets, by Word and sacrament (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20). By the Word he regenerates it (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23), engenders faith (Rom. 10:14; 1 Cor. 4:15), and cleanses and sanctifies [the church] (John 15:3; Eph. 5:26). And those who have thus been regenerated and renewed by the Word of God are called to confess Christ (Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:9), to hear his voice (John 10:27), to keep his Word (John 8:31, 32; 14:23), to test the spirits (1 John 4:1), and to shun those who do not bring this doctrine (Gal. 1:8; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9). The Word is truly the soul of the church.[3] All ministry in the church is a ministry of the Word. God gives his Word to the church, and the church accepts, preserves, administers, and teaches it; it confesses it before God, before one another, and before the world in word and deed. In the one mark of the Word the others are included as further applications. Where God’s Word is rightly preached, there also the sacrament is purely administered, the truth of God is confessed in line with the intent of the Spirit, and people’s conduct is shaped accordingly.[4]
When we ask, “does the preaching of the gospel fit this description of the `pure’ word of God?” and answer “Yes,” there is very good biblical reason for doing so. The crucial background for an affirmative answer is that people are saved from the guilt and power of sin through hearing and believing the word of the gospel (the “pure” preaching of the word). Paul’s assertion in Romans 10:8-15 comes to mind.
The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
Other texts which make the same point include: John 8:31–32, when “Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, `If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” and John 8:47, when Jesus says, “Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” The Word of God is central because it (and it alone) reveals saving truth.
Jesus’s announcement in Matthew 16:18-19 about the keys of the kingdom indicates that an organized body which doesn’t exercise these keys cannot be the church. Keys have an important function–they open gates. The keys of which our Lord is speaking open the gates of the kingdom of heaven. If people enter the kingdom through hearing and believing the word of the gospel, this must be a necessary mark of the church. And since the church possesses the keys, there is a necessary connection between the preached word and church membership and discipline (discussed below)
The Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 makes a similar point–a body that doesn’t make disciples cannot be a church. If people do not become disciples except through the word of the gospel, proclaiming it must be a necessary mark of the church and “teaching” is one of the ways by which disciples are made.
Rather than identifying this mark simply as preaching the gospel (in a narrow technical sense), might we say ministering the Word is more generally, and/or even a general submission to the Word of God? “Yes” to both. Scripture never envisions the acceptability of preaching the gospel without the Law of God, either as a prelude to the gospel (guilt) or as a consequence of it (a life of gratitude). The Heidelberg Catechism distinguishes between the Word and the gospel, i.e., (Q 25 Q 65) in this way for this very reason.
We are talking about a church which preaches the whole counsel of God (as in Acts 20:27), rather than picking and choosing parts it likes while rejecting parts it doesn’t. The latter is a prime characteristic of false churches (what body claiming to be the church doesn’t appeal to at least some parts of Scripture?)—but as the Belgic Confession states in Article 29, the false church grants more authority to itself than to God’s Word.
This matter is greatly complicated by false church leaders and those churches with charismatic entrepreneurial leaders who often have little or no discernible content or doctrine associated with their “ministries.” In these cases, even though a Bible may be open, it is a mere prop, since the Word is not central to the life of a church, so this mark is not readily observable, or straightforward.
The Second Mark of the Church is the Proper Administration of the Sacraments
What about the proper administration of the sacraments? Herman Bavinck contends that alongside the Word, sacraments are a second “means of grace,” which he calls “a sign and seal attached to the Word, and therefore is valueless without the Word.” The sacraments do not “impart any grace that was not also bestowed by the Word, and therefore is valueless without the Word.” He concludes that “Reformed theology described the sacraments as visible, holy signs, and seals instituted by God,” in his Word.[5]
As the preached word is public, so too are the church’s sacraments. A church without the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, cannot be a true church. Yet, the proper administration of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) is a characteristic of the true church because this follows from its inseparable connection with the preaching of the Word. This is a good starting point, but may fall short of proving that they are an essential mark of the church.[6]
However, Matthew 28:19-20, seems to offer such proof–the church makes disciples not only by teaching but also by baptizing. A body that doesn’t baptize doesn’t make disciples, and thus cannot be a church. Failure to make disciples through baptism is an observable thing. The same thing holds true for the Lord’s Supper: Luke 22:19 (“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, `This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’”). Churches which do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper ignore Christ’s command.
Bolstering the preceding point is that the sacraments are crucial for defining the membership of the church. And without members, there’s no church. Why is there no church without membership? Again, the marks of the church are tied to the nature of the church. Edmund Clowney points out, “the lists of names in the book of Numbers give evidence of God’s concern to define membership in his people; God’s book of life is the archetype of the earthly register of his people (Exodus 32:32-33; Malachi 3:16). A prophetic psalm foresees the recording of Gentile names on the rolls of Zion (Ps 87:4-6).”[7]
Guy Prentiss Waters contends that there are four main arguments for church membership found in the New Testament—several of which have a connection to Word and sacrament. 1). Acts 2:47, where we read that the Lord added daily to the number being saved. The “spread of the Word” and the increasing number of believers being baptized is a pattern through the Book of Acts; 2). The New Testament presents commands that assume a defined body of believers with commitments and obligations to one another (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; Colossians 3:13); 3). Those New Testament texts discussing Christian growth indicate that believers are committed and bound to one another (i.e., Ephesians 4:16; Colossians 2:19); 4). The responsibility of elders is to take oversight and to give an account for their government of the church (cf. Hebrews 13:17).[8]
Why are the sacraments crucial for defining church membership? For one thing, in Acts, Luke indicates that baptism is the sign that marks entry or membership in the church: “The first total of three thousand is given in connection with baptism (Acts 2:41).” For another, “Baptism is recognized as the mark of membership in Christ’s community by those outside it.”[9]. I think it illustrative that terrorist groups such as ISIS identify who is a Christian by whether or not they have been baptized. Those pushing the so-called “New Atheism,” often seek to encourage professing Christians to renounce their baptism. Finally, Paul indicates that just as the one body is marked by one baptism (Ephesians 4:4-5), the Supper marks its ongoing unity/fellowship (1 Corinthians 10-11). For Christians not to eat together is to not belong to one another in the gospel (Galatians 2). We call the act described in Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 “excommunication” because we no longer allow that person to celebrate communion with us. The sacraments are an observable mark of the true church (Belgic Confession, Article 29), which is distinct, but certainly not independent, from the preaching of the Word.
The Third Mark of the Church is Church Discipline
The question is not simply whether Scripture commands the church to practice discipline, or whether discipline is important for the well-being of the church. That couldn’t be clearer–it does (cf. Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5). The question is whether or not church discipline belongs alongside the preaching of the pure word of God and the proper sacraments as an observable mark of the true church. The other question associated with the notion of church discipline is whether or not such discipline is of the essence of the church or the well-being of the church—but that discussion will take us far afield from the matter under discussion here.
At least two considerations seem to indicate a positive answer (agreeing with Belgic Confession: Article 29). As noted, keys are essential for being the church (Matthew 16:18-19). But the keys include discipline. Keys lock (close) as well as open. The keys of the kingdom bind as well as loose (Matthew 16:19). Matthew 18:18, in context, leaves no doubt that discipline is a key.
Furthermore, how can discipline not be a mark if the proper administration of the sacraments is? Without discipline, there’s no way to maintain church membership rolls, and hence no way to know whom to baptize and who can receive the Lord’s Supper. Without discipline, the sacraments will usually be wrongly administered (as in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34).
The main purpose of church discipline is to safeguard the body of Christ. According to the Belgic Confession Article 32, The Order and Discipline of the Church,
We also believe that although it is useful and good for those who govern the churches to establish and set up a certain order among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, they ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us. Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way. So we accept only what is proper to maintain harmony and unity and to keep all in obedience to God. To that end excommunication, with all it involves, according to the Word of God, is required.
Likewise in the Westminster Confession of Faith (30:) Church Censures, we read that discipline is necessary . . .
1) for reclaiming and gaining offending brothers; 2) deterring others from such offenses; 3), purging leaven that might infect the whole lump; 4) vindicating the honor of Christ and the gospel; and 5) preventing the wrath of God.
The goal of church discipline for the church is the protection of its purity and witness. For the offender, however, the goal is his/her repentance and restoration. This remains the hope even after excommunication. It is clear from Matthew 18 that the process should end if the person repents. While the faithful church pursues discipline the reasons just mentioned, at the same time the church is to be a haven and hospital for repentant sinners.
Galatians 6:1-2 is also crucial here. “Spiritual people” (i.e., having the Holy Spirit–likely elders) should restore the person caught in any sin “in a spirit of gentleness,” with a “humility that keeps watch over oneself.” Rather than seeking to punish, we are seeking to protect the church and its reputation and restore the offending party.
If these marks are present, that body is like a true church with varying degrees of “trueness.” If the pure preaching of the gospel is absent, the sacraments are not administered according to the Word of God, and if church discipline is not practiced, then, you might cross that group or congregation off your list (when looking for a church), or even consider leaving your church if these things do not matter.
_______________________________________
[1] Michael Horton, “The Church,” in Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, eds., Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Catholic Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 313.
[2] Horton, “The Church,” 314.
[3] “The saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the church.” Calvin, Institutes, 4.12.1
[4] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.309.
[5] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.468-469.
[6] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 578.
[7] Clowney, The Church, 104.
[8] Waters, How Jesus Runs the Church, 17-21.
[9] Clowney, The Church, 104.
Rod’s son Ted recently posted this. Rod is buried adjacent to his beloved father in his beloved Pacific Northwest. I already miss him. We were close to solving the Kennedy assassination, the subject of a great many of our emails.
Article 9: The Fulfillment of God’s Plan
This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and—here and in all eternity—praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.
___________________________________
When concluding the second head of doctrine, the authors make the obvious and important point that nothing whatsoever can thwart God’s redemptive purposes—not human sin, nor the sinful human will. God’s plan of redemption is perfect, and God's purposes are immutable.
As stated above, God has decreed to save sinners whom he has known by name from all eternity (Psalm 139; Ephesians 1:4). God chose to save his elect in Christ, who has now accomplished everything that is necessary for our redemption. The blessed Holy Spirit then applies the merits of Christ to these elect sinners, creating faith, and sealing them until the day of redemption (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14). Since it is the Triune God who acts to save his people from their sins, nothing can frustrate God’s plan of redemption.
Scripture clearly teaches us that the gates of hell can never prevail against Christ, or his church (Matthew 16:18). Scripture tells us that there will always be a church of Jesus Christ upon the earth (Matthew 28:20), though in some ages and places Christ’s church may be small, persecuted, and struggling, while in other times and places, it will be large, triumphant, and prosperous (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4; Revelation 7:9).
As the Canons point out, the church is Christ’s chosen bride, and even now our gracious God is preparing his bride for the glorious wedding feast yet to come. One day that church, which is composed of all those chosen in Christ, will be a radiant bride who is without wrinkle, spot or blemish (Ephesians 5:27)—a church which has been purchased from every race, tribe and tongue under heaven, to God's own honor and glory.
This is what God has decreed to do, and this is what he does. Because of his amazing grace to those of us who deserve eternal punishment, God's unshakable plan of redemption reminds us that instead of getting what we deserve (eternal punishment), we are now the bride of Christ, and we will spend eternity in God’s presence, worshiping our Triune Creator-Redeemer for endless ages.
To God alone be the glory!
Operation Overlord — The D-Day Invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944
The invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 (D-Day) was a major turning point in World War 2. It is a battle with which we are well-familiar. We have the movie “Saving Private Ryan” and the HBO series “Band of Brothers” to thank for much of the ongoing interest. As we celebrate the eightieth anniversary of the beginning of the end for Hitler and Nazi Germany, we are also witnessing the last living participants in the battle who made their way this week to the famous invasion beaches on the Normandy Coast (Omaha, Utah, Juno, Gold, and Sword). It is a poignant scene to see these ninety + year-olds return to that horrible place that is forever etched in their memories and for which we are so very grateful.
The scale of the D-Day invasion in Normandy is simply mind-blowing–the largest seaborne invasion in human history. Some 5,000 landing and assault craft, 289 escort vessels, and 277 minesweepers took part. The total number of men put ashore the first day was nearly 160,000, with a remarkable total of 875,000 allied combatants arriving on the continent by the end of June, 1944. Allied casualties on the first day were around 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead. The Germans suffered between 4,000–9,000 casualties (estimates vary widely) including those killed, wounded, missing, or captured.
The Other D-Day — “Operation Forager” — The Invasion of Saipan (June 15, 1944)
As gigantic as the Normandy invasion was, it is nearly forgotten that the United States pulled off another invasion of staggering size and proportion just over a week later on the opposite side of the world. Operation Forager involved the invasion of Saipan in the Mariana Islands on June 15, 1944. Saipan was a significant part of the outer defense ring of the Japanese home islands. Once airbases were established there (as well as on the neighboring Islands of Guam and Tinian) the newly deployed B-29 bombers could begin sustained bombing of the Japanese homeland—a game changer in the Pacific War.
Like D-Day in Normandy, the size of the invasion force headed for Saipan and neighboring islands was massive and consisted of over 500 ships and 300,000 men (Marines and Army). The invasion force and its support vessels was divided into three main “Task Forces” which got underway from a number of Pacific bases in late May, 1944, just days before the Allied forces invaded France in Operation Overlord on June 6. While the Normandy beaches could be re-supplied, the wounded evacuated, and additional men and vehicles sent across the channel directly from England, Saipan was some 1,900 miles from Hawaii and much further yet from the American west coast. The massive amount of men and material needed for the operation had to be staged from the Hawaiian Islands, largely through the coral atolls of Eniwetok and Kwajalein (in the Marshall Islands) about mid-way between Saipan and Hawaii. These islands had been recently captured from the Japanese in February of 1944 and were quickly transformed by the Seabees into major supply bases—that in itself is a huge and forgotten operation.
The Battle of the Philippine Sea — June 19-20, 1944
The so-called “Battle of the Philippine Sea” raged to the West of Saipan on June 19-20, just after the American invasion had forces landed on the island and were engaged with the Japanese defenders in very fierce combat. The American naval combat fleet that sailed in support of the invasion force took out more than five hundred Japanese aircraft (390 alone in one day during the so-called Marianas’ “Turkey Shoot”) after the Japanese sent a massive fleet of nine aircraft carriers (with more than 500 aircraft—both sea and land based—available), and five battleships (including the twin “super battleships” the Yamato and Mushasi) intent upon disrupting the Saipan landings. One of the largest fleets ever to sail, it was nevertheless greatly outnumbered by an American fleet with sixteen aircraft carriers, seven battleships, and almost 1,000 carrier airplanes—all of which were now superior to Japanese aircraft (especially the F6F Hellcat). The Japanese losses were staggering–500 planes (carrier and land based) with almost all their pilots and crew leaving their carrier forces down to only thirty-five operable aircraft. The Americans lost about 130 planes and seventy-six of their flight crew. Aircraft also sank one Japanese carrier, while US submarines sank two others, including the brand new carrier Taiho, the fleet commander’s flagship. Never again would Japanese aircraft carriers be a threat to the American invasion fleets during the ongoing the Saipan invasion, and in the invasion of the Philippines yet to come.
The Mind-Boggling Logistics
The logistics of Operation Forager were ongoing even as the Normandy invasion was underway, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt former Marine commandant Robert Barrow’s assertion “amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.” Neither of the D-Day invasions (Normandy and Saipan) could have succeeded without the bravery, skill, and heroics of the fighting men. But the fighting men cannot fight properly without the necessary implements of war. That both invasions succeeded simultaneously was because professionals planned the logistics for two massive assaults at the same time on opposite sides of the world. The sheer amount of men and supplies moved from bases hundreds of miles away to launch a series of amphibious landings on a well-defended island is hard to conceive and sadly forgotten. And lest we forget, yet another huge allied campaign with its supply and equipment needs was then raging in Italy, with Rome being re-taken by the allied armies on June 3, 1944. There was also the Burma-Chinese theater with its very complicated supply issues.
Yet, American service men in all of these far flung operations received regular mail (and packages) from home, usually could buy beer and cigarettes, and watch movies still showing in theaters back home. America’s ability to do such things reveals an industrial base and transportation network far beyond anything the world had ever seen before.
Like the Normandy D-Day, Saipan Too Was a Turning Point in the War
The Saipan invasion and subsequent land operations was wrapped up by July 9, 1944. It was a difficult battle, the details of which can be found here. America lost nearly 3,500 Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen, with another 13,000 wounded. The Japanese defenders (about 34,000 strong, with about half that number being Korean laborers) paid dearly. It is thought that over 25,000 of them sacrificed themselves for their emperor with a paltry 1,800 taken prisoner. As many as 10,000 of the Saipan islanders (Chamorros) also died as a tragic consequence of the fighting. If you’ve seen the videos of the nearly 1,000 Chamorros committing suicide by jumping off “Suicide Hill” into the rocks and ocean below, you’ll never forget it.
On November 24, 1944, the first raid of 111 B-29s took off from Saipan to bomb Japan, a round trip of more than 1,600 miles. Japan’s fate was sealed by the D-Day in the Pacific, as was Germany’s on the beaches of Normandy.
There will not be an official return to Saipan for those who participated in Operation Forager, but we will not forget you and what you accomplished, under very difficult circumstances.
B29’s taking off from Saipan for Japan
What follows is an excerpt from episode four of season three of the Blessed Hope Podcast which covers Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
In verse 17 of the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul defines his mission as apostle to the Gentiles. “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
There are a number of points about the cross of Christ we can draw from his declaration.
First, the great commission includes the command from our Lord to make disciples by baptizing them in the name of the triune God (Matthew 28:18-20). But as apostle to the Gentiles, Paul understands that his divinely-appointed mission is to preach the gospel and not to become overly involved in the day to day affairs of church life. The office of apostle was centered in the responsibility of preaching in an evangelistic context (establishing churches), with the day to day responsibility for church life assigned to the successors of the apostles–the ministers of word and sacrament, elders, and deacons. The calling of the first church officers begins with Jesus’s call of the twelve disciples during Jesus’s Galilean ministry, and moves on to the establishment of the office of deacon (as recounted in Acts 6:1-6), then to those who hold the office of elder identified in the book of Acts, throughout the letters of Paul, and with the qualification and duties of the church offices of elder and deacon defined in 1 Timothy 3:1-13.[1]
Second, Paul’s emphasis upon the centrality of preaching contains loud echoes from Isaiah 40, which speaks of the messianic age as one in which the Messiah would establish the preaching of good news. Ciampa and Rosner, citing Dickinson, point out that,
Paul’s usage of gospel-terminology [esp. euangelizomai] was heavily influenced by the particular significations contained in the messenger traditions arising from Isa 40:9, 52:7 and 61:1, wherein ‘secular’ messenger language had been transposed to a higher, eschatological level, depicting the end-time herald(s) commissioned by Israel’s God to announce his salvific reign.[2]
What Paul was witnessing was the fulfillment of that age foreseen by Isaiah in which the good news of the gospel was proclaimed throughout the Gentile world.
Third, in light of such echoes taken from Isaiah, Paul does not place his confidence in the power of “eloquent wisdom” as one would expect in a Greco-Roman context, if he were merely attempting to win them over on their terms. He never uttered challenges like “our God is greater than your philosophers,” but he does make clear that his gospel news (the account of Christ’s doing and dying) confounds his audience because divine wisdom is only so much foolishness to those who are not given ears to ear.
Fourth, Paul is especially concerned that the Corinthians realize that the preaching of the cross does not center in “words of eloquent wisdom” (literally “cleverness in speech”). Calvin reminds us that Paul “had no gift of eloquence . . . was not a born orator . . . but a minister of the Spirit, a servant, who, with unpolished and ordinary speech might bring down the wisdom of the world.”[3] In a place like Corinth, where people often put the philosopher’s rhetorical skill and cleverness ahead of consideration of the message, it was easy for the Corinthians to become preoccupied with “wisdom.” Wisdom in Hellenistic culture (Greek) was a reference to a skilled rhetorician and sage (a storyteller) who could keep an audience in rapt attention by focusing upon the application of such wisdom to the affairs of daily life.[4] There is a big difference between preaching Christ (a message deemed foolish) and impressing people with your “wisdom.”[5]
Fifth, to a Greco-Roman audience, the cross of Christ is an image of shame and degradation centering in a crucified God (a “skandalon”). Christians proclaiming such a message undoubtedly heard the reaction, “why would you preach something so offensive to our sensitivities?” New Testament scholar Martin Hengel points out that Paul’s preaching of a gospel of “good news” grounded in “Christ crucified” was hardly a message the Greeks and Romans would have found compelling. Hengel writes,
to believe that the one pre-existent Son of the one true God, the mediator at creation and the redeemer of the world, had appeared in very recent times in out-of-the-way Galilee as a member of the obscure people of the Jews, and even worse, had died the death of a common criminal on the cross, could only be regarded as a sign of madness.[6]
The cross was known to all in the Greco-Roman world as a sign of utter shame and humiliation. Crucifixion was an unspeakably inhumane way to execute criminals. Many who came to faith during Paul’s Gentile mission had seen those crucified by the Romans along major roads and in town squares. The crucified were utterly humiliated, naked, and left to rot or be eaten by birds and vermin unless and until someone took them down for a proper burial, which was not always the case with the victims often disowned by their families.
Hengel points out that the cross was described by several ancient writers as “the infamous stake,” or the “criminal wood,” or the “terrible cross.” One executed by crucifixion died in shame and was regarded as an outcast from society.[7] Invented by barbarians and adopted by the Romans, the Greeks considered crucifixion too barbaric for their refined sensitivities and abhorred the practice. Crucifixion was considered so awful Roman citizens were usually exempt from this form of capital punishment. Crucifixion was reserved for slaves, anarchists, violent criminals, or robbers. It were as though Paul were preaching the gospel of the firing squad, the hangman’s noose, the electric chair, or the lethal injection, as the “good news” regarding a Savior who died in the most shameful and humiliating way imaginable.
At the same time, the cross is the divinely appointed means by which God saves sinners. It is in this message, and no other, where God’s wisdom and saving power is revealed. But since the cross was such a scandalous and offensive thing, we can see why it would have confounded any and all who heard the philosophers and wise men of the day and found them both entertaining and helpful, when the gospel preached by the unimpressive Paul was anything but. Paul could not have proclaimed a more offensive message. Paul will not preach the wisdom of pagans, instead he preached the crucified Christ through which God confounds all human wisdom.
Sixth, the offensive nature of the gospel message is why the temptation to compromise or avoid the message of a crucified Savior will always be so great. Preaching which softens, weakens, or “spices up,” the cross (as one writer puts it), nullifies the power of the cross by drawing people to the preacher, not to the Savior.[8] The content of Christian preaching grounded in a particular message–the doing and dying of Jesus–however scandalous that message may be to a Greek, a Roman, or an American. The success of the gospel does not depend upon the eloquence and rhetorical skills of the preacher. The success of Christian preaching depends upon the power of the gospel proclaimed in the power of the Holy Spirit.
__________________________________
[1] Se Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 585-587, for a list of biblical passages and an account of the development of these offices in the New Testament.
[2] Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 697.
[3] Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, 31-32.
[4] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 55.
[5] Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 49.
[6] Martin Hengel, The Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 7-8.
[7] Hengel, The Crucifixion, 8.
[8] Morris, 1 Corinthians, 42-43.
The Scene Changes
The second half of the Book of Daniel is much different from the first half. The first six chapters of Daniel recount the career of the Hebrew prophet including a number of events associated with Daniel and his three Hebrew comrades (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego), two Babylonian kings (Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar) and one Persian king (Darius the Mede–also known as Cyrus). The second half of the Book of Daniel (chapters 7 through 12) opens with a dramatic vision given by YHWH to Daniel which maps out the next six centuries of ancient near-eastern history.
Yet in the following chapters, Daniel continues to recount some of the most fantastic and difficult visions in all the Bible. The literary hinge between the two halves of Daniel is chapter 7. As one writer puts it, the nature of Daniel’s dramatic vision makes this “the single most important chapter of the Book of Daniel.”[1] Chapter 7 includes what yet another writer describes as “the key to history.”[2] These are grandiose comments, but after we have spent some time in this chapter, I think you will see why these opinions are appropriate. The vision given Daniel in chapter 7 points us to a mysterious figure–“One like a Son of Man”–who is indeed the key to understanding all of human history.
Daniel’s vision of four strange beasts as recorded in chapter 7, covers the same time frame in human history (the 5th century BC-the 1st century AD) as the vision which YHWH gave previously to Nebuchadnezzar, recounted in Daniel 2. But this vision is YHWH’s revelation of the all-conquering king (Jesus) around whom all of human history ultimately centers. The subsequent visions given Daniel in chapters 8-12 speak of the great empires which arise after Babylon falls (the Persian, Greek, and Roman empires), while also foretelling of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (after the Jewish exiles return home from Babylon), the rise of an antichrist figure (described as a blaspheming “little horn” who is the arch-enemy of God’s people), before the visions take us forward to the end of the age and the general resurrection when all the dead (believing and unbelieving) are raised bodily on the day of final judgment.
Daniel Given Another Vision
This vision was given Daniel by YHWH while Belshazzar was in the first year of his reign as king of Babylon–specifically, the year 550 BC, which also happened to be the very same year that a relatively unknown Persian king (Darius) rose to become leader of the Medo-Persian empire (taking the royal name Cyrus), which will conquer Babylon in 539 BC (as we saw in chapters 5-6 of Daniel). We will explore this vision in chapter 7 in this essay and the next.
Recall that the first half of the Book of Daniel tells the story of Daniel’s life in exile and his service in the royal court, from the time he was kidnapped from his home in Judah (605 BC) until late in his life (539 BC), when he served as a trusted advisor, first to Nebuchadnezzar and then to Cyrus. Daniel served the latter toward the end of Daniel’s life, when the Persian king was wrestling with the question, “what to do with the sizable population of Jews living as exiles in Babylon, but who are anxious to return to their homeland, rebuild the capital city (Jerusalem) and the temple of YHWH?” The central message throughout the first half of Daniel is that YHWH is sovereign over all kings and empires. This is seen in the fact that YHWH gave his prophet Daniel great gifts of the Spirit to protect him from harm while in exile, and to interpret the dreams which YHWH gave to the leaders of that very same nation (Babylon) YHWH used to punish his disobedient people (Israel), before bringing down the Babylonian empire because of its ongoing persecution of the people of God, along with Babylon’s zeal in worshiping false gods. The first half of Daniel ends with Daniel returning to the royal court near the end of his life, this time serving a Persian king in the period immediately before Cyrus issues his famous decree to allow the Jews to return home.
The second half of Daniel (chapters 7-12) opens with a dramatic night vision given Daniel by YHWH, likely given a time (550 BC) after Daniel no longer officially served in the Babylonian court. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC and there is no mention that Daniel served among the counselors to either Nebuchadnezzar’s successors or Belshazzar. In fact, there is no mention of Daniel appearing at court until the elderly prophet was summoned from retirement by a drunken Belshazzar on the night in 539 BC when YHWH crashed Belshazzar’s blasphemous and sacrilegious party, announcing imminent judgment upon the king and his empire through a mysterious handwritten message on the wall of the palace which only Daniel could read. The words of warning–Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin, warned of the immediate death of Belshazzar and the fall of the Babylonian empire to the Persians that same evening, an event which was foretold in that dream given to Babylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2), a generation previously–a dream which only Daniel could interpret.
In the first half of Daniel 7 (vv. 1-14), Daniel recounts the first vision given him by YHWH, which, in many ways, closely parallels the dream YHWH had given Nebuchadnezzar earlier, only this time the dream focuses upon the identity of the mysterious rock not cut by human hands, which eventually smashes the metallic statue which represented the four great world empires that Nebuchadnezzar had seen. The vision given Nebuchadnezzar covered a swath of human history from the fall of the Babylonian empire in 539 BC, to the rise of three successive world empires, each of which overcomes its successor; Babylon (the head of gold), Persia (the chest of silver), the Greek Empire (the bronze legs), which under Alexander the Great and his successors–the Seleucids ruled over Judah until the rise of the greatest of empires, Rome (the feet of iron mixed with clay).
From Metallic Imagery to Mysterious Beasts
In Daniel’s vision of chapter 7, these great world empires are not represented by precious metals, but instead by fierce creatures–some real, some imaginary. The mysterious rock is now given a personal identity–“one like a Son of Man”–a figure whom the New Testament frequently and unanimously identifies as Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, who is self-identified by none other than our Lord himself in the Olivet Discourse.
In Matthew 24:29–31, Jesus told his disciples of a time when,
immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
The key then to understanding Daniel’s vision is to realize that Jesus identifies himself for us. This is confirmed by the fact that Daniel 7 is cited or alluded to over 50 times in the New Testament, the vast majority of these coming from the Book of Revelation.[3] Six centuries before our Lord’s incarnation in the womb of the virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit, Daniel sees the heavenly glory of that rock seen by Nebuchadnezzar who will crush all the kingdoms of the earth, and whose kingdom will never end.
With this in mind then, we turn to Daniel 7. In the opening verse we learn something we have assumed all along–Daniel is the author of this book. “In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter.” The prophetic dream is written down by Daniel (as found in Daniel 7). Although speaking in the third person, given the similarities between this chapter and the rest of the prophecy, there is no doubt that Daniel is the author of this entire book, despite efforts of critical scholars to date this book in the 2nd century BC, after many of the things recorded in chapters 7-12 have already came to pass.[4] Critical scholars simply will not accept any miraculous event, including predictive prophecy, such as that found in the second half of Daniel. For such critics, Daniel is bad history, not prophecy.
A Prophetic Vision
Yet Daniel informs us that the content of his vision is prophetic in nature (foretelling of future events), even though it is apocalyptic in terms of its literary style (or genre). Apocalyptic is an ancient literary style which uses highly symbolic language to describe a current struggle between God’s people and those who oppress them, yet which is also designed to encourage God’s people in the midst of their trials, reminding them of God’s sovereign control of all things even when events may look as though God is absent, or has forgotten about us, or is even harshly judging his own people. Oftentimes, the symbols used by the writer contrast the present struggle facing the people of God with a future time when things presently hidden are finally revealed.[5] What is foretold in Daniel’s vision is unpacked and explained in the Book of Revelation–describing these events in the light of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
The Imagery of Storm and Tempest
The scope of the vision is revealed by Daniel beginning in verses 2-3. “Daniel declared, `I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another.” This is quite similar to Zechariah’s so-called “night visions” (Zechariah 1:8), which also refer to the four winds of heaven, a common apocalyptic image of the four points of the compass–North, South, East, West (cf. Rev. 7:1).
The sea, which was stirred up by the winds, is another common apocalyptic image of a mysterious and frightening realm of danger, storm, tempest, and thought to be the abode of the dragon (Satan). Isaiah says the nations are like the sea–in constant turmoil and upheaval (Isaiah 17:12-13), while the Psalmist reminds us in Psalm 103:23-29, that the Lord alone has the power to restrain the chaos of the waters.[6] We see this in the gospels, when Jesus calms the storm on the Sea of Galilee (cf. Matthew 8:23–27, Mark 4:35–41, and Luke 8:22–25).
The Four Creatures
In verse 4, Daniel describes the first creature which he sees. “The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it.” The winged lion was a well-known symbol of Babylon. Even the Old Testament prophets commonly speak of Nebuchadnezzar and his empire as being like a lion. The eagles’ wings enable this creature to move quickly, which is likely a reference to the rapid growth of the Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar. But the wings being plucked off remind us that this expansion eventually came to a halt. The reference to a “man’s mind” being given the creature recalls Nebuchadnezzar losing his mind after the second vision YHWH gave him (Daniel 4), only to be restored to sanity later. The humanizing of this fierce beast is a veiled indication of this empire eventually weakening in its power.[7] This first beast is clearly a symbolic reference to the Babylonian empire, just as the image of the golden head had been in the metallic statue of the vision in Daniel 2.
The second creature is described in verse 5. “And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one side. It had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’” Bears, like lions, were considered dangerous predators, not uncommon at that time throughout the local mountains and foothills of the Middle East. The image Daniel sees is of a bear raised up on one side as though it was preparing to lunge, although this may mean that the bear was being raised up by the one who rules the universe (YHWH). Following the same order as that of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the bear is clearly the Persian empire, now raised up by God to displace the Babylonian empire, just as Daniel would witness with the death of Belshazzar and the Persian capture of Babylon.[8] The bear has three ribs in its mouth, likely representing small empires previously conquered, but its conquest, while great and even though it will eventually dominate the region, will not be unlimited–YHWH restrains this beast, commanding it to rise up and conquer–presumably Babylon, as in Daniel chapters 5-6.
The third beast is another hybrid creature, which Daniel describes in verse 6. “After this I looked, and behold, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads, and dominion was given to it.” As with the bronze (or third) successive empire of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in Daniel 2, the third creature Daniel sees represents the rise of Alexander the Great and the Greek empire about 330 BC, some two centuries yet future to Daniel (a fact which drives critical scholars crazy since they will not accept even the possibility of predictive prophecy such as this). The leopard was known as a fast attacker, a point emphasized with the addition of four wings on its back.
That this is the Greek empire is clear when we consider how fast Alexander’s rise to prominence really was. Alexander attacked the Persian empire in 334, and after a series of well-known battles, finally defeated the Persian armies in 330. Alexander’s armies conquered massive amounts of territory until finally his troops revolted in 324. After ten years of conquest, Alexander’s empire extended from Greece and Egypt all the way into what is now India–a massive empire much larger than any of the preceding empires had been. When Alexander died in Babylon at the young age of 32, the empire was divided among the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings–perhaps symbolized by the four heads. More likely, however, the heads are symbolic of Alexander’s conquest of a vast amount of territory stretching to the four points on the compass yet dominated by one man (Alexander). This beast too was given dominion–YHWH raised it up for his sovereign purposes–a matter addressed in later visions in chapter 8, and 10-12.[9] It is from the remnants of this empire that an arch-persecutor of the people of God will come (Antiochus IV Epiphanes), who will desecrate the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in 167 BC, and who will figure prominently in these visions as an antichrist figure.
The Fourth Beast
The fourth beast Daniel sees is the most frightening of all.
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns (Daniel 7:7).
There is really no comparing of this beast to any earthly creature. All Daniel says of it is that it is terrifying, dreadful, and strong. It frightens him. The iron teeth clearly ties this beast directly to the fourth empire of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in chapter 2–Rome, its empire and its emperors–still 500 years future to Daniel. The beast conquers all others (devouring and trampling them), but unlike its predecessors, this beast has “ten horns”–a reference to the fact that it is ten times greater and more powerful than its predecessors.[10] The ten horns do not refer to ten modern nations in Europe which supposedly constitute a revived Roman empire as taught by dispensationalists.
In verse 8, Daniel speaks of yet another unique and terrifying characteristic of this beast. “I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” The little horn with eyes and a very loud mouth (likely making this a reference to a king or government) seeks to exercise its authority over the other ten horns, but is only able to uproot three of them. Its influence is not so much its power, but its speech–“great things.” It may well be that this “little horn” claims divine rights and prerogatives for itself.[11]
It may be but a mere ruler or nation, yet acts as though it is the creator and ruler of all–when only YHWH can claim this, and when only YHWH’s kingdom is everlasting. This becomes even clearer, when we compare this with John’s description in Revelation 13:11-18 of the “second beast from the land” (the Roman emperor cult in which emperors were worshiped as deities). John’s second beast has horns like a lamb (imitating Jesus), but speaks like a dragon (or serpent who is the father of lies). This ties John’s second beast to Daniel’s fourth beast as one who wages war upon the people of God, and who speaks blasphemous things against God, while futilely seeking to defeat the kingdom of his son, Jesus.[12] Clearly, this is the Roman Empire.
A Glimpse of Heaven
In verse 9 of chapter 7 the visionary scene changes yet again–seemingly as a divine response to the blasphemous challenge issued by the little horn and the fear it brought to Daniel. The imagery which follows is framed in poetic parallelism, reflected in modern English translations which place these verses in stanzas. The vision which Daniel describes in verses 9-10 and 13-14 of chapter 7 is one of the few passages in the Bible where we are given even slight glimpses of the heavenly glory of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man.
There is the scene in Revelation 4-5 of our Lord’s coronation after his obedient life as suffering servant, his death for our sins, his triumphal resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. There is the scene of final judgment in Revelation 19-20, in addition to the wonderful image of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb found in Revelation 19:1-16. But the heavenly vision of verses 9-10 and 13-14 is also a visionary re-enactment of Psalm 2 and 110, which speak of YHWH proclaiming of the Lord, “you are my Son” (Psalm 2:7) and when the LORD says to David’s Lord “sit at my right hand” (Psalm 110:1). These two passages are understood by the apostles to refer to Jesus’s eternal and divine nature, and to his coronation and enthronement in his ascension.[13] In this wonderful vision, Daniel is pointing us ahead to our Lord’s first and second advents, as well as Jesus’s reign until the day of final judgment and the recreation of all things.
The Ancient of Days
In Daniel’s vision, the heavenly court is in session, with thrones in place, with one for Ancient of Days. One commentator reminds us of a very basic change in the scene before us. “The balanced poetry conveys the order and beauty which surrounds the divine judge as opposed to the chaos of the sea and its beasts.”[14] In verses 9-10, Daniel tells us,
as I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.
The first question is who is the “Ancient of Days?” Calvin correctly says this is “the eternity deity himself ascended [to] the throne of judgment.”[15] The Hebrew means “advanced in years,” but the context tells us that the figure is eternal in contrast to the four beasts whose existence is very short in comparison.[16] The whiteness of his clothing and hair are symbols of holiness. The vast number of those serving him are the host of heaven–angels and the redeemed (saints). The fire is symbolic that the Ancient of Days is the judge of all the earth and its creatures who will destroy his rebellious enemies by fire (including the fourth beast).
The Thrones
The second question is “who sits on the other thrones, next to that throne with its wheels of fire’ (an image found in Ezekiel 1:15-21) in connection with the throne of God?” In Matthew 22:42-44, Jesus tells us that in him, Psalm 110 is fulfilled, because it is he who occupies one of these thrones. Jesus answered a question about his identity put to him by the Pharisees by “asking,what do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?’ They said to him, The son of David.’ He said to them,How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet?’” One of these thrones belongs to Jesus.
But in the gospels, Jesus also says his disciples will sit on thrones and judge along with him. According to Matthew 19:28, “Jesus said . . . `Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’” These thrones are for the Ancient of Days, the Son of Man, and the saints who will rule with him, after Jesus calls them into his kingdom, saving us from the penalty of our sin (death). It is a heavenly scene which would have been virtually unintelligible to Daniel, before Jesus’s messianic mission, inauguration of his kingdom and his death and resurrection. With the hindsight of redemptive-history seen through the person and work of Jesus, we know exactly what these things mean. We know to whom this refers, even though this was hidden from Daniel.
The Blaspheming “Little Horn”
The vision is interrupted by the blasphemy and boasting of the “little horn.” In response, in verses 11-12 Daniel reveals the fate of the beasts (world empires).
I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
Each of these successive kingdoms rules as the Ancient of Days wishes, powerless for a “time and season” until the final judgment.[17] The horn may repeat his proud words of boasting drawing Daniel’s attention, but when summoned before the heavenly court the “little horn’s” fate (along with that of the beast on whom he appears) is sealed. Eternal judgment awaits, an image expanded and explained for us in Revelation 19:20. “And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.”
After the interruption of the “little horn” and a preview of its fate along with the beast upon which it appears, Daniel’s attention shifts back to the heavenly scene and the vision of the very Lord of history.
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).
The identity of the Son of Man is no mystery to readers of the New Testament. Although the Hebrew expression can be used of humans (it is used this way some 107 times in the Old Testament),[18] as we have seen, Jesus applies this term to himself as an overt reference to his messianic office as that one who comes to reign as the Davidic king promised to Israel and then to the new covenant people of God.
The Son of Man
The phrase “Son of Man” as used by Jesus speaks of our Lord’s incarnation as one who is both true man and true God, who, in his incarnation, left the glories described by Daniel in this vision to save us from our sins. It is Jesus, who, in his messianic office, ushered in the kingdom of God which will be consummated on the last day, when Jesus returns in judgment. This kingdom has no end. In several places, the gospel writers quote or allude to this passage, believing that it refers directly to Jesus. Luke (21:27) says of Jesus’ return (his second advent–which of course assumes he proves himself to be the Son of Man in his first advent), “and then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” When he sees one like a “Son of Man” Daniel sees the pre-incarnate Jesus, who will take to himself a true human nature in the womb of a virgin to suffer and die for our sins, before being raised from the dead and ascending into heaven, taking his place upon his throne.
We should not be surprised when Daniel states in verse 15, “As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me.” Blown away by what he has seen and unable to understand much of it, in verse 16, the prophet tells us, “I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things.” The simple answer given Daniel is given him in summary form in verses 17-18. “These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’” This answer sets the stage for the balance of the chapter (vv. 17-28), to which we will return next time, Lord willing.
The Heavenly Glory
What application, then, do we take with us from this amazing and wonderful vision? Although many have sought the beatific vision (I want to “see” God) this is one of the few texts in all the Bible where we are actually given a glimpse of heaven. The glory which Daniel sees is beyond his comprehension, but one thing that is clear, “one Like a Son of Man” has taken his throne, rules over all creation, exercises dominion over all things, and possesses a kingdom which never ends. Daniel saw the figure but did not know who this is. But we do. This is Jesus–seen in his heavenly glory by Daniel–the same Jesus who rules over all the kingdoms of this world, even those of which Daniel had personal knowledge (Babylon and Persia) and those yet to come (Greece and Rome). What comfort it must have been for Daniel to know that even as he stood in the presence of great kings and emperors (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus), he knew that these men were given their temporary dominion by one far greater than they–that one who Daniel saw who dwells eternally in the presence of the Ancient of Days, the one “like a Son of Man.” This “Son of Man” is Jesus, our savior and redeemer, whom we worship and serve, and who gave himself for us, and even now calls us to believe and trust in him.
______________________________________
[1] Cited in Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 201.
[2] Baldwin, Daniel, 153.
[3] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 231-232, n 90.
[4] Steinmann, Daniel, 340-341.
[5] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 206-207.
[6] Baldwin, Daniel, 154.
[7] Steinmann, Daniel, 342-343.
[8] Steinmann, Daniel, 343-345.
[9] Steinmann, Daniel, 345-347.
[10] Goldingay, Daniel, 164; Steinmann, Daniel, 348.; Young, Daniel, 149-150.
[11] Young, Daniel, 148.
[12] Steinmann, Daniel, 348-349.
[13] Steinmann, Daniel, 359-360.
[14] Baldwin, Daniel, 157.
[15] Calvin, Daniel, 2.15.
[16] Young, Daniel, 151.
[17] Steinmann, Daniel, 355.
In his essay “Calvin’s Doctrine of God” written for the Princeton Theological Review (vii, 1909) on pages 174-175, B. B. Warfield considers John Calvin’s stress upon the Fatherhood of God. Warfield’s important, but often overlooked, point about Calvin’s emphasis on divine Fatherhood, is taken from The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism (Baker, Reprint ed., 1981),Vol. 5 133-185. The essay can be found in its entirety here: Calvin’s Doctrine of God.
Warfield summarizes Calvin’s comments from the opening section of The Institutes, in which Calvin speaks of the knowledge of God and that God is the source of all good.
And then [Calvin] proceeds (Institutes I. ii. 2) to expound at length how the knowledge of God should first inspire us with fear and reverence and then lead us to look to Him for good. The first thought of Him awakes us to our dependence on Him as our Lord: any clear view of Him begets in us a sense of Him as the fountain and origin of all that is good—such as in anyone not depraved by sin must inevitably arouse a desire to adhere to Him and put his trust (fiducia) in Him—because he must recognize in Him a guardian and protector worthy of complete confidence (fides).
Warfield then quotes Calvin at length from the opening section of the Institutes (I. ii. 2),
“Because he perceives Him to be the author of all good, in trial or in need,” he proceeds, still expounding the state of mind of the truly pious man, “he at once commits himself to His protection, expectant of His help; because he is convinced that He is good and merciful, he rests on Him in assured trust (fiducia), never doubting that a remedy is prepared in His clemency for all his ills; because he recognizes Him as Lord and Father, he is sure that he ought to regard His government in all things, revere His majesty, seek His glory, and obey His behests; because he perceives Him to be a just judge, armed with severity for punishing iniquities, he keeps His tribunal always in view, and in fear restrains and checks himself from provoking His wrath. And yet, he is not so terrified by the sense of His justice, that he wishes to escape from it, even if flight were possible: rather he embraces Him not less as the avenger of the wicked than as the benefactor of the pious, since he perceives it to belong to His glory not less that there should be meted out by Him punishment to the impious and iniquitous, than the reward of eternal life to the righteous. Moreover, he restrains himself from sinning not merely from fear of punishment, but because he loves and reverences God as a father and honors and worships Him as Lord, and even though there were no hell he would quake to offend Him.” ( 174-175).
Warfield explains why this so is important in understanding Calvin’s doctrine of God.
We have quoted this eloquent passage at length because it throws into prominence, as few others do, Calvin’s deep sense not merely of reverence but of love towards God. To him true religion always involves the recognition of God not only as Lord but also as Father. And this double conception of God is present whether this religion be conceived as natural or as revealed. “The knowledge of God,” says he (Institutes I. x. 2), “which is proposed to us in the Scriptures is directed to no other end than that which is manifested to us in the creation: to wit, it invites us first to the fear of God, then to trust in Him; so that we may learn both to serve Him in perfect innocence of life and sincere obedience, and as well to rest wholly in His goodness.” (175)
Warfield’s conclusion is well-worth noting, especially in a context such as ours in which Calvin’s doctrine of God supposedly defaults to divine sovereignty.
That is, in a word, the sense of the divine Fatherhood is as fundamental to Calvin’s conception of God as the sense of His sovereignty.
This, says Warfield, is why Calvin regards idolatry as so pernicious and dangerous to the soul—it displaces the sense of God’s fatherly love in the human heart.
It was precisely because Calvin conceived of God not only as Lord, but also as Father, and gave Him not merely his obedience but his love, that he burned with such jealousy for His honor. Everything that tended to rob God of the honor due Him was accordingly peculiarly abhorrent to him. We cannot feel surprised, therefore, that he devotes so large a portion of his discussion of the doctrine of God to repelling that invasion of the divine rights which was wrought by giving the worship due to Him alone to others, and particularly to idols, the work of man’s own hand. His soul filled with the vision of the majesty of a God who will not give His glory to another, and his heart aflame with a sense of the Fatherly love he was receiving from this great God, the Lord of heaven and earth, he turned with passionate hatred from the idolatrous rites into which the worship of the old Church had so largely degenerated, and felt nothing so pressingly his duty as to trace out the fallacies in the subtle pleas by which men sought to justify them to themselves, and so far as lay within him to rescue those who looked to him for guidance from such dreadful profanation of the divine majesty. (176)
We are not treating Calvin fairly or accurately, says Warfield, if we speak of the Reformer’s stress upon God’s sovereignty without, at the same time, acknowledging God’s Fatherhood and goodness.
Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.
__________________________________
The authors of the Canons note that the death of Christ is designed by God to satisfy the demands of his holy justice on behalf of his elect. The Canons also point out that sinners cannot believe the proclamation of Christ crucified unless they are given the gift of faith through the preaching of the gospel. At this point, the Canons tie these two things together.
In article 8, the authors state that the cross was ordained by God for the express purpose of actually and effectually redeeming the elect, i.e., those chosen by God in Christ from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). There is not a hint anywhere in Scripture that it was God's intention to make people savable, if only they use their free will and natural ability to come to Christ.
As the Canons put it, “For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.”
According to the Reformed understanding of the plan of redemption, God has decreed to save his elect in Christ, then in the fullness of time God sent our Lord to accomplish what was necessary for his elect to be saved. Jesus came to die for our sins, thereby satisfying God’s justice which requires payment for our guilt. Through his personal obedience, Jesus fulfilled the demands of God’s law during his messianic mission, so that the elect can be provided with the perfect righteousness of Christ. And then Scripture teaches that God sent the Holy Spirit to call all those whom God has chosen and for whom Christ has died, to come to faith and repent of their sins through the proclamation of the gospel.
From the Reformed perspective, the Father graciously elects in Christ, the son redeems those whom the Father has chosen, and the Holy Spirit calls those to faith whom the Father has chosen, and for whom the son has died. There is a wonderful and perfect biblical symmetry here. The inter-Trinitarian covenant of redemption made in ages past, in which the Father elects Christ to be the mediator of the covenant of grace comes to fruition in time and space with Christ dying for God’s elect, and the Spirit calling all those whom God has chosen to faith in Christ without fail.
This inter-Trinitarian covenant is seen in John 17, where Jesus repeatedly speaks of those given him by the Father before the world began, and the Trinitarian nature of redemption is clearly spelled out by Paul in Ephesians 1:3-14 (and cited in the previous article).
Again, far from being an invention of the Reformed, this wonderful biblical symmetry is spelled out by Paul in the first chapter of Ephesians. Election is said to be “in Christ,” thereby accomplished before the foundation of the world. According to Paul it is through Christ’s work for us during his earthly ministry that we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins, and through the shedding of his blood God’s justice is fully satisfied. Then, at a particular point in time, believers are called to faith through the Holy Spirit, they believe the gospel, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.
It is from this biblical theme of redemption decreed, accomplished and applied that the Reformed tradition develops the idea of “irresistible grace,” which simply means that all of God’s elect will eventually come to faith. The term “irresistible” grace is, unfortunately, a bit misleading. The term is intended to convey the idea that the elect cannot resist the call of God, but the elect often resist the call of God before regeneration. Many of us “resisted” the call of God for a time. This is why it is better to exchange the term “irresistible grace” with "effectual calling."
While we resist the call of God because we are sinful, nevertheless, through the gospel, the Holy Spirit sovereignly changes us from people who are dead in sin, into people who are alive in Christ. Once made alive, we then believe and embrace the Savior through faith, receiving the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. But until we do come to faith, we often resist the call of God.
This, then, is why the authors can state without equivocation that “it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.”
God elects sinners in Jesus Christ. Jesus dies for God’s elect. The Holy Spirit then applies the merits of Christ to all those, but only those, whom God has chosen, and for whom the son has died. Not only do we have the Trinitarian symmetry, we also have the so-called “five points” of Calvinism.
Total depravity refers to the effects of the fall and is manifest in our inability to come to faith, apart from a prior work of God on our behalf.
We have unconditional election—God choosing to save a multitude so vast that no man can count them.
Then there’s limited atonement—or better "particular redemption," as Christ comes to die for those for who the Father has chosen by satisfying God’s anger toward their sins.
Irresistible grace (effectual calling) is simply the idea that those whom the Father has chosen, and for whom the Son has died, will be called by the Holy Spirit through the gospel to faith in Christ.
Finally, there’s the doctrine of perseverance. Those whom God has chosen, for whom the Son has died, and who the Spirit has called to faith, will be kept [or preserved] by the Spirit until the day of redemption.
Therefore, our salvation is clearly Trinitarian in its design and execution.
This leads the authors to conclude the following in Article Nine which follows . . .
Episode Synopsis:
It has been said that prostitution is the world’s old profession. In reality, tending a garden and naming animals is. But if you lived in first century Corinth you lived in a city well-known for its prostitutes and rampant sexual immorality. This creates a difficult situation for Christians who live there and who have been taught by Paul that sexual relations are limited to marriage.
Paul has learned that some in the Corinthian church justified using the services of prostitutes by contending that Christian liberty allows it–the same excuse some were giving for eating food sacrificed to idols. Yes, the temptations Christians faced were real and many engaged in such behavior before their conversion. But as Paul has taught them, Christians must break with their pagan past and resist the pressure to continue to give into all bodily desires and urges. Yes, Christians are free from law-keeping as a means of justification, but such freedom entails freedom to obey the commands of God, not freedom to indulge in seeking to satisfy every bodily urge.
Paul reminds the Corinthians that they have been bought by a price (the shed blood of Jesus Christ) and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. A Christian is no longer a slave to sin and now is a bond servant of Jesus Christ. Their bodies belong to their creator-redeemer. Paul asks, “how can someone in union with Jesus Christ unite themselves in a sexual union with someone who represents pagan religion and spirituality?” Such a thing is unthinkable for Paul.
Show Notes:
Now that we have completed the first half of 1 Corinthians, I will take a brief break and, Lord willing, return for part 2 of Season Three when we pick up with 1 Corinthians 7:1
Recommended Links:
Carl Trueman onSexual Immorality and Porn
Line prostitution in Paul’s day, porn is an acceptable sin in ours
Rosaria Butterfield on The Dead End of Sexual Sin
Series Bibliography:
Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians --Lectio Continua (RHB, 2024).
F. F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free. A bit dated but still remains the best biographical study of Paul
Douglas J. Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters (2021). A helpful big picture survey of Paul’s theology and epistles.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (2018). A good and modern commentary on 1 Corinthians. If you buy one commentary, this ought to be it.
Charles Hodge, I & II Corinthians, reprint ed (Banner, or the volume on 1 Corinthians published by Crossway. This has long been the Reformed standard commentary on 1 Corinthians. Theologically solid, but badly dated.
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (1987). Good material, especially on background and context, but charismatic in its orientation.
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (2010). A good academic commentary, although there are several solid ones from which to choose.
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:
- The Blessed Hope Podcast will take a short break now that I’ve completed the first eleven episodes of season three, which covers the first half of 1 Corinthians (1:1-6:20). Lord willing, we’ll pick up where we left off at 7:1.
- As we head into Summer, the Riddlebargers will do some traveling which means that Riddleblog activity will be a bit intermittent.
Thinking Out Loud:
- How long before Joe Biden drops out of the presidential race? Bill Maher said the President looks like a cadaver and walks like a toddler with a loaded diaper. After a recent short speech, the White House press secretary issued nine corrections. Hardly what you want from your party’s presidential candidate. It is not like he can fix any of this—Biden will not get any younger and as the quip goes, “father time is undefeated.” I know, Biden’s thinking he’ll show everyone his fitness to remain in office when (or if) he debates Trump. But, it is more than likely that Biden will have more moments of senility. My guess . . . he doesn’t survive the Democrat convention.
- The Yankees are playing great baseball. But it is better to play great ball after the all-star break and go into the playoffs with momentum. The Yankees haven’t done that since 2009, their last world series victory.
- A court has recently ruled that tacos and burritos are considered sandwiches. I know the courts are dealing with limits on specialty restaurants in malls, etc., where certain types of food are excluded. But a taco is not a sandwich! Neither is a hot dog!
Recently Read:
Allen Guezlo’s latest book, Our Ancient Faith is a gem. The premier Lincoln scholar, Guelzo uses Lincoln’s thoughts on the nature of government to make a case for an America modeled after a Roman republic, but with a great deal of “democratic torque”, all the while possessing a strong sense of circumspection and distrust flowing from James Madison’s belief in the sinful depravity of the human heart (5). Using Lincoln’s thoughts as an example/paradigm Guelzo discusses status, rights, the individual, and equality as key components of a form of classical liberalism which came to full flower in America’s democratic republic (8).
According to Lincoln, American democracy reflects the most “natural, the most just, and the most enlightened form of human government” (19). What made such a government work effectively without betraying its basic principles, was adherence to natural law (21), and first principles (23). These principles were foundational to the idea that the power of government must derive from the consent of the governed, something denied to the enslaved (27-29). Should the North lose the Civil War, that would only prove what critics of democracies have long contended—people are incapable of governing themselves (31). When several Republican experiments failed terribly in recent memory (i.e., Napoleon, Bolivar, Santa Anna), all hope for self-government will fail with them, unless America is preserved after a terrible civil war. The way to prevent these failures, Lincoln cautions, was strict adherence to the laws of the land (41-42). Something Lincoln himself, as a war president, fell short of doing.
Guelzo wrestles with Lincoln’s personal disgust with slavery and seeing the need for it to end (Lincoln said he hated the institution, 114), while existing side by side with Lincoln’s preferred solution (a slow death) and his uneasiness with abolitionist zeal (128-131). For a time Lincoln favored colonization (a free black colony), but once black soldiers had entered the Union army, that idea was no longer feasible. Yet, Lincoln thought himself “mighty near an abolitionist,” and was called “the black man’s president” by Frederick Douglass (137). Yes, Lincoln greatly advanced the cause of emancipation in his own age, but after his assassination, his views forever remain frozen in time without the possibility of advance or declension. But when viewed against current criteria, Lincoln is indeed open to criticism for not going far enough, fast enough, even on his own terms.
Guelzo engages in a sort of thought experiment in his concluding chapter, “What If Lincoln Had Lived?” Guelzo notes Lincoln had revealed no definite plan for reconstruction—although he hinted that one was soon to come (156). There was every indication that he, unlike his successor (Andrew Johnson), would have pushed for voting rights for emancipated slaves and provide economic aid for blacks in Southern states, post-confederacy (157).
Guelzo closes with his own take on what Lincoln taught us. To fulfill Lincoln’s estimation of democracy we must recover three things: 1). Personal Consent, that is freedom to act apart from imposition by government (the bureaucracy of the administrative state). 2). We must recover Democracy, as understood to mean there are no privileged groups who can claim superior power over others. And 3). Such a democracy must recover the notion that “Citizen” is the highest title it can grant to anyone, and one in which there can be no slaves or masters (168-171).
Thank you Dr. Guelzo for yet another outstanding and thought provoking book!
Recommended Links:
- Mike Horton on Spirituality without religion
- How are America’s armed forces going to defend themselves against drones? The School of War Podcast has a fascinating discussion.
- A good response to Wilson. Jeremy Sexton’s Reply to Doug Wilson’s Postmillennialism
- “Christian” Russia is anything but: Putin’s Russia wages war on Evangelicals
- The Lord opens another archaeological safety deposit box: Hezekiah’s Wall
- And another: Isaiah’s signature?
Links to Other Stuff:
- Enough jackassery! Congresswomen act like they are on Springer
- Yup, that was a big snake!
- There’s a reason why you need glasses: An epidemic of nearsightedness
- Revenge of the planet of the primates: Monkey gang attacks!
- Because caterers truly matter: Don’t Invite Montezuma to your wedding
Previous Musings: April Musings
Video:
One of my favorite Mr. Bean clips. Love the sermon—sounds like a mainline Anglican sermon to me!
Reformed Confessional Teaching on the “Marks of the Church”
The discussion of the marks of a true church is important—especially in our day and age—because of the competing claims of various religious bodies and organizations to be “Christ’s church.” There are a myriad of churches who make such a claim–some associated with recognizable church bodies. Other groups who identify themselves as “churches” are more the product of the American entrepreneurial spirit, possess a trendy name, and an undefinable identity. They see themselves as radical and relevant, not stale and stuffy.
Reformed theologians have understood the marks of the church to be an especially important matter since multiple church bodies claim to be the only (or the true) church, yet their various claims are questionable in terms of biblical teaching and doctrine. This raises the question under discussion here: “how do we distinguish valid claims to be a true church from invalid claims?”
Louis Berkhof points out that there was not much of a need to consider the marks of the church when it was clearly one (i.e., during the apostolic church), but after heresies arose it became increasingly necessary to speak in the terms of a true/false, biblical/unbiblical dichotomy of any assembly of people professing to be Christians and followers of Jesus. Responding to heresies requires a response and doctrinal explanation. Oftentimes these explanations lead to further division.[1]
James Bannerman, a minister in the Free Church of Scotland, puts the matter well in his highly regarded book The Church of Christ (1869).
In the case of a number of organized societies, no less widely differing from each other in profession and in practice, in the confession of faith that they own, and the form of order and government they adopt, yet all of them claiming in common to be called Churches of Christ, and not a few of them denying that name to any body but their own, there must be some criterion or test by which to discriminate amid such opposite and conflicting pretensions . . . [2]
In our time, the traditional marks which were thought to identify the “true church” have been eclipsed by pragmatic, and experiential “marks.” Many now understand a church’s size, how they felt and what they experienced, a charismatic, celebrity preacher, and the church’s social media presence, along with a menu of activities as indicators of places where “God is working.” The category of a “true church” is long forgotten or ignored as a sectarian relic of the past.
The Belgic Confession (1561)
The longest statement on the question of the “marks of the church” in the commonly used Reformed standards is The Belgic Confession, Article 29. The article on the marks of the church makes clear the occasion for the questions: “What is the true church?” “How do we find it?” “What do we look for?”
To start with, the Belgic Confession (BC) clarifies that this is not a question about hypocrites within the church, but rather about how to distinguish among Christians assemblies which make competing claims to be “the church.” Then the BC lists three marks that give assurance of recognizing “the true church”
1). The pure preaching of the gospel
2). The pure administration of the sacraments
3). The practice of church discipline
After a brief discussion of the marks of true Christians who belong to this church (something not to be overlooked), the BC moves on to describe “the false church,” which manifests the following three characteristics:
1). The false church assigns more authority to itself than to the Word of God, and does not subject itself to the yoke of Christ
2). The false church does not administer the sacraments as commanded in the Word, but adds to or subtracts from them
3). The false church rebukes those who live holy lives and rebukes the true church
The last statement is striking: these “two churches” are easy to recognize and distinguish. This was true at the time the BC was written (1561), because the author knew only of the Roman Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, and Anabaptist churches, a matter which is far more complicated now.
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) does not address this issue explicitly, but Q&A 83 of the catechism calls preaching the gospel and discipline the keys of the kingdom
Q 83: What are the keys of the kingdom?
A. The preaching of the holy gospel and Christian discipline toward repentance. Both of them open the kingdom of heaven to believers and close it to unbelievers.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) chapter 25 approaches the subject somewhat differently from the BC.
CHAPTER 25 – Of the Church
The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.
This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
Rather than speaking of the true and the false church, the WCF says that particular churches are “more or less visible and more or less pure” (25.4).
But what determines this degree of purity? “According as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” The first two marks are similar (“ordinances” is broader than just sacraments—Westminster Larger Catechism 154), but the third is public worship instead of discipline.
In 25.5, the WCF affirms that the purest churches are subject to mixture and error, and some such churches have degenerated so as to become no church at all. Like BC 29, the Westminster Standards affirms a distinction between true and false churches, but within the WCF there is a range of degrees of purity. There’s nothing really contradictory here, and ultimately puts things in terms of true and false churches.
Bavinck, writing about developments in Reformed thinking on this matter, points out the tension here:
There was a difference . . . between a true and a pure church. “True church” became the term, not for one church to the exclusion of all others, but for an array of churches that still upheld the fundamental articles of Christian faith but for the rest differed a great deal from each other in degrees of purity. And “false church” became the term for the hierarchical power of superstition or unbelief that set itself up in local churches and accorded itself and its ordinances more authority than the Word of God.[3]
Why the difference? The development of Reformed doctrine in response to Roman and Lutheran polemics, different cultural situations, with a far greater number of churches in the mid-17th century, probably goes a long way to explain why the WCF allows for a range of purity of churches. I think this is a helpful advance.
How Do We Identify the Marks?
The Roman church is clear as to where it stands. “The Pope is the one sufficient mark of the true church.”[4] Only those who acknowledge the Pope as the head of the church can possess any marks of fidelity. Yet, Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621) a Jesuit theologian, who was perhaps the chief figure of the Counter-Reformation, identifies 15 marks of the church:
(1) The very name, (2) The antiquity, (3) The long duration, (4) The multitude and variety of the believers of the Catholic Church, (5) The succession of its bishops, (6) Its agreement in doctrine with the ancient church, (7) The unity of its members among themselves and with their head, (8) The holiness of its doctrine, (9) The efficacy of its doctrine, (10), The holiness of life of the early fathers, (11) The glory of its miracles, (12) The light of prophecy, (13) The confession of its adversaries, (14) The unhappy fate of those who oppose the church, and (15) Temporal happiness.[5]
Bellarmine sees these marks as extensions of the four attributes given in the Nicene Creed (unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity).
The Reformed take a different approach. The BC identifies three marks, but this isn’t the unanimous Reformed view. In his Church of Christ, Bannerman took a one mark view:
There is an important distinction between what is necessary to the being of a Church, and what is necessary to its well being. . . . We recognize this distinction every day in regard to a Christian man; and it is no less to be recognized in its application to a Christian society. . . . The practical difficulty in applying the distinction does not do away with the distinction itself.[6]
In other words, a church can meet and have a valid worship service without the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or a baptism.
Bannerman notes that one way to address this is to distinguish those things for which the church was instituted (e.g. declaring and upholding the truth) and those things (e.g., office-bearers) that were instituted for the sake of the church. Since “the great object for which the Christian Church was instituted” is “the glory of God, in the salvation of sinners, by means of the publication of the gospel . . . .to hold and to preach the true faith or doctrine of Christ is the only sure and infallible note or mark of a Christian Church.”[7]
What about sacraments and discipline? Since “the ordinances, office-bearers, and discipline” have been instituted for the sake of the Church, “they may be necessary, and are necessary, for the perfection of the Church, but they are not necessary for its existence.” “The only true and infallible note or mark of a church of Christ is the profession of the faith of Christ.” To make the latter “as necessary to constitute a Christian Church,” you “make them of primary, and not, as they truly are, of secondary importance.”[8] Bannerman says his view is that of WCF 25.2. Is it, really? [9]
Berkhof takes a two mark view, but adds,
Strictly speaking, it may be said that the true preaching of the Word and its recognition as the standard of doctrine and life, is the one mark of the Church. Without it there is no Church, and it determines the right administration of the sacraments and the faithful exercise of Church discipline. The sacraments should never be divorced from the Word, for they have no content of their own, but derive their content from the Word of God; they are in fact a visible preaching of the Word. As such they must also be administered by lawful ministers of the Word, in accordance with the divine institution, and only to properly qualified subjects, the believers and their seed.[9]
He adds, though the exercise of discipline may not be peculiar to the church, that is, is not found in it exclusively, yet it is absolutely essential to the purity of the church.”[10] He adds,
This is quite essential for maintaining the purity of doctrine and for guarding the holiness of the sacraments. Churches that are lax in discipline are bound to discover sooner or later within their circle an eclipse of the light of the truth and an abuse of that which is holy. Hence a Church that would remain true to her ideal in the measure in which this is possible on earth, must be diligent and conscientious in the exercise of Christian discipline. The Word of God insists on proper discipline in the Church of Christ, Matthew 18:18; 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, 13; 14:33, 40; Revelation 2:14, 15, 20.[11]
Given the issue at hand, we need to be clear about what it is we are looking for to evaluate a local church with which we ought unite.
The goal is not to simply identify things that ought to characterize the church or Christians generally. If we were examining the degree of purity of a church or its well-being, we would have to develop a long list of such things.
Instead, we’re really trying to determine whether a church exists at all. Every church will have many failings, so obviously this doesn’t make a body no longer the church. What must a church have/do? What are the essential things which constitute a church? This must be something observable (cf. BC 29). The whole point of the discussion of the “marks of the church” is to help ordinary people make judgments about the church–especially which one they ought to attend.
Thus there are three things which should be present:
1). The pure preaching of the gospel
2). The pure administration of the sacraments
3). The practice of church discipline
To be continued . . .
__________________________________
[1] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 576.
[2] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 59.
[3] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.316.
[4] Summarized by Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics 4.305-07) from Henry Denzinger’s, The Source of Catholic Dogma, trans., Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1954), secs. 1821-1840 (Pius IX, “Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ,” July 1870).
[5] Cited in Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.307. See R. Bellarmine, “De eccl. Mil.”, in Controversies, III.10.
[6] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 60-61.
[7] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 60-61.
[8] Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 64-65.
[9] According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2. “The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”
[10] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 576-577.
[11] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 577-578.
Babylon Has Fallen
The sign on the door of the royal palace read “under new management.” The Persians (Medes) have displaced the Babylonians (Chaldeans) as the occupiers and rulers of Babylon. The Babylonian king, Belshazzar, is dead. Darius the Mede (Cyrus) is now in charge, ruling as Persian king over the former Babylonian empire. The Hebrew prophet, Daniel, now an old man, is immediately recognized by Darius as a wise and gifted man and an effective supervisor. Daniel is given great authority as one of three “presidents” (counselors) to supervise the satraps (or regional governors), who handled the day to day affairs of local government. It is a position of great honor, respect, and influence. But Daniel’s appointment to such high office creates much jealousy among the Persians, and even perhaps among former Babylonian officials who were passed over for the prestigious job which instead went to a despised Hebrew. A plot is soon hatched to remove Daniel from his new office, and it will not be long before Daniel finds himself forced to deny his faith in YHWH, or face being thrown to lions. But God preserves his people in such a way as to unmistakably reveal himself to be the sovereign Lord of all–even to the Persian king Darius.
Daniel in the Lion’s Den – More Than a “Bible Story”
The story of “Daniel in the lion’s den” is one of the best known and most loved of all the so-called “Bible stories.” This is a great story in its own right. But to make full sense as to why this incident is included in Daniel’s prophecy, it must be considered in light of the larger redemptive-historical context, which is the victory of YHWH, his prophets, and his exiled people over the false “gods” of Babylon, and now Persia. YHWH is sovereign over all kings and nations and is directing the events of which we have read throughout Daniel’s prophecy to his own ends. Daniel’s trial and ordeal in the lion’s den in chapter 6 are part of YHWH’s larger sovereign plan to ensure that the Jewish exiles in Babylon will be allowed to return home to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple. This comes about because YHWH moves Darius (Cyrus) to issue a decree to bring this to pass (recounted in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah). But the one incident which seems to truly motivate Darius to release the Jewish exiles is when the Persian king sees firsthand the power of God in rescuing his prophet Daniel from a pride of hungry lions.
There are obvious similarities between this chapter and Daniel 3, when Daniel’s three Hebrew friends (exiles just as he was, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) were cast into Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, only to be delivered by a mysterious fourth man–the angel of the Lord. God’s exiled people often find themselves being persecuted by pagan officials because of their faith in YHWH. Faith in YHWH is seen as an offense against the pagan deities and those who worship them. In Daniel 3, it was the demand to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s gold statue, while in chapter 6 it was a demand to stop worshiping YHWH according to his word–and instead devote all prayers to the emperor Darius. Throughout most of church history these are pressures God’s people have faced–sometimes these pressures are subtle and easily avoided, while other times they are acute and a direct threat to liberty and even life. The latter is the case in both Daniel 3 and 6. Once again, there are loud echoes from the Joseph story who was likewise thrown into a pit, rescued in an unexpected way, and yet prospered under the hand of God (Gen. 37:24; 39:23; 41:40).[1]
Witnessing the three young Jews walk out of the super-heated furnace unharmed and unsinged, Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed in Daniel 3:28–29,
“Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.
After witnessing a similar miraculous act of divine intervention on behalf of Daniel, Darius will make a confession similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar’s.
The Persian King Darius (Cyrus) Now Rules
As we turn to Daniel 6, even though the location is the same (Babylon), the scene changes dramatically from a Babylonian context to a Persian one. We learn in the first three verses,
It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom 120 satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom; and over them three high officials, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss. Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other high officials and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him. And the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
A change in government requires a new set of officials to be put in place who were known to be men of honor–especially in an age where it was common for officials who served long terms to take bribes, conduct shady business deals, and personally prosper by misusing their power. A change in government was an ideal time to root out corruption by appointing new officials known to the king as honest men, who would serve him loyally, and who would not conspire against the king or his allies.
A New Government–Daniel Plays a Role
The Persians used a system of local governors known as “satraps” (some 120 of them) to rule over specific geographical and cultural areas (like Zerubbabel over Judah–cf. Ezra 3:2-3). The satraps were in turn, at this transitional point in the Persian empire, “supervised” by three “high officials” (ESV “presidents”) who likely served in this capacity until the emperor took back this authority once he had a chance to consolidate his power after all his hand-picked satraps were in place. It was an early form of “checks and balances” as each of these three officials would keep an eye on the satraps and then presumably upon each other. Daniel’s faithful service was known to Darius–because God had given his prophet great gifts so as to serve pagan kings, as well as to protect Daniel as a worshiper and prophet of YHWH, while in the midst of a pagan land. Daniel was simply too valuable to harm, and was even considered by Darius as someone who might be able to oversee the entirety of the former Babylonian kingdom (the western half of the Persian empire).[2]
But the appointment of Daniel by Darius was not well received in the royal court. Daniel’s skill in serving the court and supervising others was well-known. So too was his faith in YHWH, the God of Israel. No doubt, there were many who asked, “why would Darius choose this old Hebrew wise man for such a powerful position, especially when everybody knows that he worships YHWH, not Bel or Marduk?” Daniel’s practice of praying toward Jerusalem three times daily was well-known and accepted by the Babylonians, as well as by Darius. But for those who resented Daniel being given such a high position, this was the perfect opportunity to trap Daniel and eliminate him as a threat and obstacle to those seeking his position, power, and prestige.
Palace Intrigue Begins
With the change in government, palace intrigue began in earnest. We read in verses 4-5,
Then the high officials and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom, but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.”
Daniel was a righteous man both in terms of his relationship to YHWH (he was reckoned righteous through his faith in YHWH’s promise) and in the fact that he was a man against whom no accusations could be brought. In other words, he was a good man, obeyed the laws, and performed his duties admirably. He is very much a man later described by Peter (1 Peter 2:13-25) as someone who was subject to emperors and governors and human institutions, “for the Lord’s sake.” Live out your faith as exiles, Peter says, being willingly subject to those in authority. This is the example set for us by Jesus, and it brings God glory and honor. In Daniel’s case, the only plot against him which might work was to use his faith in YHWH against him. Which, of course, is exactly what happens when other local officials conspire to remove him from office.
So, we read in verses 7-9 of the plot hatched by those who seek to have Daniel brought down.
Then these high officials and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever! All the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked” Therefore King Darius signed the document and injunction.
Those who made this “agreement” are those with access to the king in the royal court. Many commentators see in this the deification of the king, such as was the case with the Egyptian Pharaoh, or the King of Tyre (as mentioned in Ezekiel 28:2, 9). But that might not be the case. The point of the plotters is to flatter the king by having him recognize a thirty day period in which he alone would be the recipient of prayer. That would prevent others, like Daniel, from praying. Perhaps the best way to understand this is that for the thirty day timeframe Darius is to function as the sole priest of the “gods.” The priests cannot pray in their temples to the “gods,” but instead must direct their prayers to Darius, who in turn, now acts as priest on their behalf. Darius is obviously flattered by this role and accepts.[3]
Since what happens in the palace does not stay in the palace, it was not long before news of this thirty day decree reached Daniel. We learn in verse 10, "when Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.” Despite knowing that this might cause him great trouble, Daniel continued his practice of prayer, refusing to change or alter how and when he prayed to YHWH.
Daniel Remains Faithful
As an exile from Judah (the land of his birth, the place from where he had been kidnapped) Daniel demonstrates his faith in YHWH’s promise by praying in the direction of Jerusalem. This practice goes back to Solomon’s dedication of the temple when Solomon asked God to hear the prayers of those directed toward YHWH’s city and temple (1 Kings 8:27-53; 2 Chronicles 7:12, 15). Daniel’s practice of prayer was not grounded in superstition, but trust in YHWH’s promise to bring his people back to the promised land. The reason why Christians do not (or should not) pray toward Jerusalem is that Jesus is now the true temple of YHWH, so when we pray in the name of Jesus (who is at the right hand of the Father) we see the fulfillment of Solomon’s exhortation and Daniel’s practice of praying to the East.[4] We pray to our Father in heaven in the name of Jesus and in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Those plotting against Daniel now saw their chance. Daniel’s failure to comply with Darius’s decree was quickly brought to the king’s attention.
Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God. Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the injunction, “O king! Did you not sign an injunction, that anyone who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?” The king answered and said, “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.”
Persian kings do not revoke such decrees on a whim–it would make Darius look weak and double-minded. So the king is clear he will not revoke his decree.
Darius Paints Himself Into a Corner
Darius soon realizes that the flattery put to him by the court officials has caused him to do something rash and from which there is no retreat. According to verse 13, “then they answered and said before the king, Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.’” Darius obviously had great respect for Daniel (perhaps even friendship and admiration), but the king also knew he could not revoke his decree. We are told in verse 14, “then the king, when he heard these words, was much distressed and set his mind to deliver Daniel. And he labored till the sun went down to rescue him.” The implication is that Darius consulted experts in royal law to see if there was some way out of the dilemma in which he now found himself–lose one of his most valuable officials or go back on his word, neither of which was acceptable, especially when it became clear to the plotters that the king was trying to find a way to avoid putting Daniel to death. As we are told in verse 15, “then these men came by agreement [the plotters scheming together] to the king and said to the king,Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no injunction or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.’” There is no way out.
Darius must make good on his decree. According to verse 16, “then the king commanded, and Daniel was brought and cast into the den of lions.” Daniel’s crime was to pray to YHWH during a thirty day ban on doing so. In effect, Daniel is doing what Peter exhorts all of God’s people to do in Acts 5:29, “we must obey God rather than men.” Throwing those convicted of treason, sedition, and other serious crimes to hungry lions was a common method of capitol punishment by the Persians, combining a painful death with sport–those present could watch the lions do their work (a kind of foreshadowing of gladiatorial combat). The reliance on this form of punishment can be seen in the fact that a lion pit was already available for such occasions. Before the death sentence is carried out, Darius reluctantly addresses Daniel. “The king declared to Daniel, `May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!’” Unlike Belshazzar (who openly blasphemed YHWH), Darius realizes that YHWH was not to be blasphemed, and since Daniel served YHWH faithfully, it is Darius’s prayer that YHWH would deliver Daniel from a certain fate–being torn to pieces and consumed by hungry lions.
In the Lion’s Den
After Daniel was cast into the pit with the lions, where a sure and certain fate awaited him, we learn in verse 17, that “a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel.” The pit was sealed with a stone–a theme which surfaces as an echo in the gospel of accounts of Jesus’ burial. In Matthew 27:65–66 we read the following. “Pilate said to them, `You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.’ So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard.’” Matthew is obviously alluding to Daniel 6:17.[5] That the king’s signet ring along with the other officials was used to seal the lion pit indicates that the king’s decree is an official act, and that no one can intervene to stop the process. The other thing it tells us is that Darius’s placing his seal on the stone is that he does not trust the officials, should the lions not react as expected.
The reality of the situation–Darius has allowed his own ego to put him in a very bad place–causes him a very restless night. “Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him.” Darius was obviously very troubled by how his carelessness and hubris had cost him one of his best officials–a man whom he probably liked and admired. Darius spent the night fasting, was probably alone (no diversions–i.e., wives or concubines) and got little if any sleep. It was his actions, after all, which brought all this about.
Having spent a very restless night, we read in verse 19, that “then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions.” Darius actions certainly point us in the direction that the king had some degree of expectation that Daniel survived the night. Upon arrival at the lion’s den, he even calls out for Daniel. “As he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish. The king declared to Daniel, `O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?’” Troubled by these events, the king (almost echoing Nebuchadnezzar at the end of his life) calls out for Daniel, acknowledging that Daniel is a servant of the living God (YHWH), and that by praying toward Jerusalem three times daily, Daniel is continually serving YHWH. This is the only passage in the Old Testament where a Gentile ascribes such an exalted divine title to YHWH.[6] Darius truly hopes that YHWH has delivered his faithful servant. Darius knows that his “gods” of gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood, can do nothing in situations such as this. He truly hopes Daniel’s God will save his prophet and thereby spare both Daniel’s life and the king from a grave error in judgment.
YHWH Preserves Daniel to Darius’s Relief
If Darius had spent the night fasting, so had the lions![7] Darius spent the night awake, so did Daniel, who witnessed the presence of the Lord in preserving him from a sure and certain death. According to verse 21, “then Daniel said to the king, `O king, live forever! My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm.’” Even while honoring the pagan king with the customary greeting “O king, live forever,” Daniel goes on to inform the king that YHWH has indeed spared his life, sending an angel to shut the mouths of the lions. Daniel is completely unharmed and God has preserved him from those who could bring no accusation against him except that he was a faithful servant of YHWH. That God sends angels to protect his people is a common theme in both testaments. There is the story of Elijah being ministered to by an angel in 1 Kings 1:19:5-7, and then Mary and Joseph were directed by an angel to take Jesus to Egypt for a time to protect him from Herod’s slaughter of the innocents (Matthew 2:13, 19-20). And then we have the testimony of Nebuchadnezzar, who saw a divine figure present with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Darius does not see the angel, but he sees Daniel and hears Daniel’s testimony that it was an angel who kept the lions from consuming him. Darius also hears Daniel’s testimony that he was a righteous man who had done nothing wrong in worshiping YHWH, even while serving Darius. God can and will protect his people to achieve his sovereign purposes–in this case there is little doubt that this incident (along with Daniel’s counsel) leads Darius (Cyrus) to issue a decree to allow the Jews to leave Babylon and return to Judah. God preserved Daniel, provided a powerful witness to Darius that YHWH is the true and living God, and has so ordered things that his people (the Jews) will soon be released from exile to return home.
It will come as no surprise that Darius was greatly relieved. We read in verses 23-24, that Daniel’s accusers now face a bit of Persian justice for their plot to have Daniel removed from office.
Then the king was exceedingly glad, and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God. And the king commanded, and those men who had maliciously accused Daniel were brought and cast into the den of lions—they, their children, and their wives. And before they reached the bottom of the den, the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces.
Daniel trusted in God and was delivered. His accusers found themselves attacked by the same hungry lions who fasted while Daniel and the angel were in their midst. Those who do not have God’s protection and favor will face God in judgment–so graphically captured in this event. The accusers have become food for lions, while Daniel lived to prosper under the reign of Darius (his Median name) and Cyrus the Persian (Darius’ royal throne name). The chapter closes with the following declaration in verse 28 which ends the first section of Daniel’s prophecy, “so this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”
Darius Issues a Decree – YHWH Is the Living God
As Nebuchadnezzar had done in Daniel 3:28–29, so now Darius issues a similar decree. We read in verses 25-27,
Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: `Peace be multiplied to you. I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end. He delivers and rescues; he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, he who has saved Daniel from the power of the lions.
Although Nebuchadnezzar decreed that no one blaspheme the God of the Jews, Darius’ decree goes further, describing YHWH as one to be feared (respected and worshiped by his people). Like Nebuchadnezzar before him, Darius expresses that YHWH is the true and living God, but comes short of acknowledging YHWH as a savior from sin who provides for the redemption and salvation of his people. There is the confession that YHWH is the living God who is to be feared, but there is no demonstrable evidence of repentance from sin or faith in YHWH’s promise to save all those who call upon his name.
Darius (Cyrus) Issues a Decree to Allow the Jews to Return to Israel and Rebuild the Temple
What then, are we to make of the account of Daniel in the lion’s den? Should we all dare to be Daniels? No doubt, Daniel is a faithful man who serves YHWH despite the great cost in doing so. In this Daniel is an example to all believers. But the story of Daniel in the lion’s den is not primarily a story about Daniel’s faith and prayer life, but rather points us to YHWH’s sovereign rule over all men and nations. YHWH rules kings and empires–even when it looks to us like they have run amuck. Yes, Daniel is a type of Christ (in a limited sense as one who faithfully prays to his father, who submits to civil authority, and who faithfully endures unjust verdicts against them trusting in God to vindicate them), but more importantly, Daniel is the man with great gifts placed by God in Darius’ palace as a witness to the power of YHWH, so that a pagan king acknowledges that YHWH is the living God. More to the point, Daniel’s connection to Darius ensures that a pagan king will issue a decree, as recounted in the opening verses of Ezra (1:1-4):
In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem. And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”
Why would Darius (Cyrus) issue such a decree to allow the Jews to return home to rebuild their temple? Because Darius witnessed YHWH preserve his prophet Daniel from a pride of hungry lions. It is YHWH who stirs up the spirit of Cyrus to act. It is YHWH who directs the affairs of people and nations, so as to bring all things in subjection to Jesus, the true King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. It is YHWH’s son Jesus, who conquered death and the grave through his own death upon the cross and resurrection from the dead, who is now the Lord and giver of life. As Daniel knew and as Darius found out, Jesus is with us in all our trials, whether it be a lion’s den, or at the hour of death.
________________________________________
[1] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 176.
[2] Steinmann, Daniel, 313-314.
[3] Steinmann, Daniel, 315.
[4] Steinmann, Daniel, 316.
[5] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 188.
[6] Steinmann, Daniel, 320.
[7] Davis, Daniel, 82.
Here’s the publisher’s blurb:
The first volume of Michael Horton’s magisterial intellectual history of “spiritual but not religious” as a phenomenon in Western culture
Discussions of the rapidly increasing number of people identifying as “spiritual but not religious” tend to focus on the past century. But the SBNR phenomenon and the values that underlie it may be older than Christianity itself.
Michael Horton reveals that the hallmarks of modern spirituality—autonomy, individualism, utopianism, and more—have their foundations in Greek philosophical religion. Horton makes the case that the development of the shaman figure in the Axial Age—particularly its iteration among Orphists—represented a “divine self.” One must realize the divinity within the self to break free from physicality and become one with a panentheistic unity. Time and time again, this tradition of divinity hiding in nature has arisen as an alternative to monotheistic submission to a god who intervenes in creation.
This first volume traces the development of a utopian view of the human individual: a divine soul longing to break free from all limits of body, history, and the social and natural world. When the second and third volumes are complete, students and scholars will consult The Divine Self as the authoritative guide to the “spiritual but not religious” tendency as a recurring theme in Western culture from antiquity to the present.
Mike’s been working on this for some time. I was privileged to read an early draft. This a profound and an important work. This is the first of three volumes. You can order it here: Michael Horton, Shaman and Sage
Episode Synopsis:
Corinth was a booming city with lots of new money and great stress upon the power and prestige that goes with it. One way to enhance your public image was to take advantage of those who had something you wanted or needed, or to shame a rival or get a leg up on someone you didn’t like, was to sue them in civil court. Corinth was a very litigious place with one citizen complaining that there were far too many lawyers in the city. The legal system in Corinth was rigged to favor those of means who could bribe a judge or hire a lawyer to obtain a favorable verdict over someone who had no means of defending themselves. Court proceedings took place in the city’s marketplace, so such lawsuits became a public spectacle.
Upon learning that Christians were participating in this kind of civil litigation, Paul addresses the matter of how such practices harmed the church and its witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ no matter who won such a lawsuit. Paul reminds the Corinthians that the church is the spiritual temple of God, composed of those redeemed by Jesus Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Paul rebukes them for using the courts to exploit each other, an affront to the body of Christ. He reminds them that since one day they will judge the world, what business do they have to engage in such practices before the watching pagans. Such personal disputes are to settled within the church.
Paul reminds the Corinthians of what they once had been–sexually immoral, liars, drunkards, swindlers, and the like. But now, they are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of Jesus Christ. Given what they were in light of what they now are, how can the Corinthians continue to drag each other into court to gain advantage over a fellow believer? This is a defeat for the Corinthians, no matter who wins or loses in court. Better to lose than to participate in such an unjust system.
Show Notes:
Sorry for the delayed release of Episode Ten — I’ve been fighting seasonal allergies and had to wait to record this episode until my voice improved. Lots of coughs and throat clearing edited out.
Some mysterious background noises occur in places—I’m not sure what caused them, but I will figure it out.
Recommended Links:
Christian Conciliation Service
Vos on the Ordo Salutis
Mike Horton on Union with Christ
Charles Hodge on Christian litigation
Series Bibliography:
Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians --Lectio Continua (RHB, 2024).
F. F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free. A bit dated but still remains the best biographical study of Paul
Douglas J. Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters (2021). A helpful big picture survey of Paul’s theology and epistles.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (2018). A good and modern commentary on 1 Corinthians. If you buy one commentary, this ought to be it.
Charles Hodge, I & II Corinthians, reprint ed (Banner, or the volume on 1 Corinthians published by Crossway. This has long been the Reformed standard commentary on 1 Corinthians. Theologically solid, but badly dated.
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (1987). Good material, especially on background and context, but charismatic in its orientation.
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (2010). A good academic commentary, although there are several solid ones from which to choose.
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
I thoroughly enjoyed my interview with Jonathan and Joshua Olivares. They were also kind enough to use a “glamour” photo of me that is about 20 years old!
Article 7: Faith God’s Gift
But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ’s death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God’s grace—which he owes to no one—given to them in Christ from eternity.
______________________________
Since our race has fallen in Adam, and we are sinful by nature, we can do nothing on our own to come to faith in Christ. Indeed, we cannot even do anything to prepare ourselves to come to faith apart from a prior act of God on our behalf (calling and regeneration). The Canons remind us yet again that faith does not arise because fallen sinners have the power, desire, or the ability to believe the gospel when it is preached to them.
The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that faith is a gift from God. In fact, faith only arises within when the Holy Spirit creates it in the human heart through the preaching of the gospel. As Luther once pointed out, God creates faith in the heart, just like he created the world from nothing. Unless and until God does this, we gladly remain unbelievers.
Faith is a gift from God as expressed in several passages such as Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:1-10, and Romans 10:9-17. In Ephesians 1:3-14, Paul states,
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
In Ephesians 2:1-10
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
And finally, in Romans 10:9-17
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
As can be seen in these representative passages from Paul (and many more are found through the New Testament), the Scriptures are clear about the source of faith--it comes from God through the word. Sadly, many of our contemporaries continue to stumble over these words, unable to shake their confidence in the fallen human will.
Only those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world come to true faith in Christ. Inevitably, they do come to Christ because they are drawn to Christ and then enabled by God to trust the Savior. When the gospel is preached to the elect, God creates faith in their hearts, and they respond to the proclamation of the gospel by trusting in Christ alone.
The Scriptures teach, (as do the Canons, which summarize the biblical teaching), that faith itself is a gift from God. This creation of faith is directly connected to the preaching of the gospel. If we wish to see people come to faith in Christ, it is useless to entice them, manipulate them, or appeal to their so-called “felt needs.” They cannot, and will not, come to Christ because they remain dead in sin.
The biblical solution to the problem of human inability to trust Christ is a simple one. If we wish to see people come to faith in Christ, then we preach Christ to them as clearly and as directly as we can, trusting that the blessed Holy Spirit will create faith in their hearts through the means of the gospel proclamation.
Once again, we must keep in mind that the end (the salvation of God’s elect) is directly connected to the means (the preaching of the gospel). Let us not divide what God has so carefully and wonderfully joined together. Faith is a gift created in the heart by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel.
John Wesley’s vexing book, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (London: Epworth Press, 1952), is an altogether miserable read, and known by its critics for its glaring imperfections (pun intended). Written in 1766, you can find it in its entirety here: A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.
John Wesley (1703-1791), the founder of Methodism, was for a time an evangelical luminary—people in such circles often spoke of him on a par with the Protestant Reformers. But Wesley has fallen out of favor of late—no doubt due to the rigorous obedience tied to his “Methodist” system. The Methodist church which he helped to found has for the most part gone the way of all flesh, making the news recently for a whole bunch of reasons completely beyond the foresight of the movement’s founder. Wesley is, no doubt, turning in his grave over the path the Methodists have taken to full apostasy.
In the evangelicalism in which I was raised, Wesley was held in high esteem largely because of the story of his dramatic conversion at Aldersgate St. in London in 1738. He was “strangely warmed”when hearing the “preface” to Martin Luther’s commentary on Romans read aloud. It is often quipped that it is too bad Wesley didn’t go on to read the entirety of Luther’s commentary. Anyone who reads Wesley’s A Plain Account discovers a mass of confusion and contradictions as he affirms one thing, and then quickly backtracks on much of his prior teaching so as to define and defend his doctrine of “Christian perfectionism,” also called “sinless perfection,” or “entire sanctification.”
On occasion, when I mention his perfectionism, people will often challenge me, saying something like, “it can’t be that bad.” No, in fact, it is worse. When I tell them what Wesley actually taught in A Plain Account they simply can’t believe it. So, I keep my Kindle close by to show the quotations replicated below. I recently addressed Wesley’s take on election and good works to make much the same point—Wesley was an Arminian in his soteriology and taught a very confusing, and conscience burdening doctrine of Christian perfectionism.
Wesley on Christian Perfection: What it is:
In this I endeavoured to show, (1.) In what sense Christians are not, (2.) In what sense they are, perfect. “(1.) In what sense they are not. They are not perfect in knowledge. They are not free from ignorance, no, nor from mistake. We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible, than to be omniscient. They are not free from infirmities, such as weakness or slowness of understanding, irregular quickness or heaviness of imagination. Such in another kind are impropriety of language, ungracefulness of pronunciation; to which one might add a thousand nameless defects, either in conversation or behaviour. From such infirmities as these none are perfectly freed till their spirits return to God; neither can we expect till then to be wholly freed from temptation; for ‘the servant is not above his master.’ But neither in this sense is there any absolute perfection on earth. There is no perfection of degrees, none which does not admit of a continual increase (16).
What Christian Perfection is not:
“(2.) In what sense then are they perfect? Observe, we are not now speaking of babes in Christ, but adult Christians. But even babes in Christ are so far perfect as not to commit sin. This St. John affirms expressly; and it cannot be disproved by the examples of the Old Testament. For what, if the holiest of the ancient Jews did sometimes commit sin? We cannot infer from hence, that ‘all Christians do and must commit sin as long as they live’ . . . . But whatever was the case of those under the law, we may safely affirm, with St. John, that, since the gospel was given, ‘lie that is born of God sinneth not’ . . . . In conformity, therefore, both to the doctrine of St. John, and the whole tenor of the New Testament, we fix this conclusion: A Christian is so far perfect, as not to commit sin.” (16-17, 19).
Perfection in our Thoughts and Tempers:
“This is the glorious privilege of every Christian, yea, though he be but a babe in Christ. But it is only of grown Christians it can be affirmed, they are in such a sense perfect, as, Secondly, to be freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers. First, from evil or sinful thoughts. Indeed, whence should they spring? ‘Out of the heart of man,’ if at all, ‘proceed evil thoughts.’ If, therefore, the heart be no longer evil, then evil thoughts no longer proceed out of it: For ‘a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.” (19).
Charles Wesley Held to Christian Perfection as Well:
I have been the more large in these extracts, because hence it appears, beyond all possibility of exception, that to this day both my brother and I maintained, (1.) That Christian perfection is that love of God and our neighbour, which implies deliverance from all sin. (2.) That this is received merely by faith. (3.) That it is given instantaneously, in one moment. (4.) That we are to expect it, not at death, but every moment; that now is the accepted time, now is the day of this salvation (41).
On “Mistakes”:
“QUESTION. What is Christian perfection? “ANSWER. The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies, that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions, are governed by pure love.
“Q. Do you affirm, that this perfection excludes all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake? “A. I continually affirm quite the contrary, and always have done so.
“Q. But how can every thought, word, and work, be governed by pure love, and the man be subject at the same time to ignorance and mistake? “A. I see no contradiction here: ‘A man may be filled with pure love, and still be liable to mistake.’ Indeed I do not expect to be freed from actual mistakes, till this mortal puts on immortality. I believe this to be a natural consequence of the soul’s dwelling in flesh and blood. For we cannot now think at all, but by the mediation of those bodily organs which have suffered equally with the rest of our frame. And hence we cannot avoid sometimes thinking wrong, till this corruptible shall have put on incorruption (42).
In Summation, the Wesley’s Retract the Content of Their Hymns:
BRIEF THOUGHTS ON CHRISTIAN PERFECTION
SOME thoughts occurred to my mind this morning concerning Christian perfection, and the manner and time of receiving it, which I believe may be useful to set down.
- By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God, and our neighbour, ruling our tempers, words, and actions.
I do not include an impossibility of falling from it, either in part or in whole. Therefore, I retract several expressions in our Hymns, which partly express, partly imply, such an impossibility.
And I do not contend for the term sinless, though I do not object against it.
- As to the manner. I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently, in an instant.
But I believe a gradual work, both preceding and following that instant.
- As to the time. I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before.
I believe it is usually many years after justification; but that it may be within five years or five months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the contrary.
If it must be many years after justification, I would be glad to know how many.
And how many days or months, or even years, can any one allow to between perfection and death? How far from justification it must be; and how near to death? (112-113)
Conclusion:
On a charitable reading, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection is Wesley’s ham-fisted attempt to explain definitive sanctification in relation to to justification, and yet keep progressive sanctification (attaining Christian Perfection) as his main point of emphasis.
The bottom line is that Wesley affirms that Christians can reach sinless perfection, yet are still liable to “mistakes.” So, if that is what l should call my sins, do I still need to confess and repent of my “mistakes”?
It Isn’t About Me
One of the most famous and well-known passages in all the Bible is the famous hymn to Christ (the Carmen Christi) of verses 6-11 of Philippians 2. Martin Luther writes in his famous essay The Freedom of the Christian, that this passage is a prescribed rule of life which is set forth by the Apostle Paul, who exhorts us to devote our good works to the welfare of our neighbor out of the abundant riches of faith. John Calvin tells us that anyone who reads this passage but fails to see the deity of Jesus and the majesty of God as seen in his saving works, is blind to the things of God.[1] The passage contains a very rich Christology, but is included in this letter not to settle any debate over the person and work of Jesus, but to instruct Christians how to imitate Jesus in a profound and significant way. The Carmen Christi speaks directly to our modern world by reminding us that the self-centered narcissism of contemporary culture is not a virtue, but runs completely contrary to the example set for us to follow by Jesus in his incarnation.
As many of you know, our system of chapters and verses are not in the original biblical text and were first introduced in the 16th century. While they are very helpful in allowing us to find “chapter and verse,” there are times when the chapter breaks disrupt the flow of thought of the original author. We find this in the transition from the opening chapter of Philippians as we move into chapter two. As we go through our passage, we will see that Paul’s exhortation which opens the second chapter is really an expansion of his desire for the Philippians to stand firm (vv. 12-30) and is the basis for his introduction of the Christ hymn (which we will cover momentarily).
Standing Firm in the Face of Persecution
In expressing his candid thoughts to the Philippians, the apostle is reflecting upon the persecution which he himself had faced, particularly in the light of the news which just reached him from Philippi that the Philippians were still facing significant persecution. When Paul was first in the city of Philippi, he was arrested and thrown into jail (Acts 16:12 ff.). Paul was miraculously delivered, the jailer and his household came to faith in Jesus, and as recounted in Acts 17, shortly thereafter, Paul left the city to continue his missionary journey to the Greek cities of Thessalonica and Berea, before finally making his way to Athens.
When Paul writes this letter to the Philippians about ten years later, he is in jail again–this time under house arrest in Rome. Paul knew something about persecution. He knows that the Philippian Christians are facing persecution as well. The Philippians may not be in chains, but they are finding that their fellow Greco-Romans are not accepting nor tolerant of their faith in Jesus. And then there are the Judaizers who have arrived on the scene and are now disrupting church life in Philippi.
After reflecting upon these things, in the concluding verses of chapter 1, (vv 27–30) Paul exhorts the Philippians,
let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.
Paul’s Exhortation to the Philippians
The Philippians are to do several things. The first is to live their lives in a manner worthy of the gospel which Paul had preached to them. Their conduct in the face of persecution should grow out of their understanding of the person and work of Jesus. The second thing they are to do is to stand firm in one spirit and in one mind in the face of those persecuting them. The third is not to be frightened by anything their opponents–the Judaizers and Greco-Roman pagans–may throw at them. Jesus is more powerful than all and he will protect his church.
Paul reminds them in verse 29, that the only reason any of them are believers in Jesus is because God has granted them faith (he has given them faith as a gift–cf. Ephesians 2:8) and because he has, the Philippians inevitably will suffer persecution. They will suffer for the sake of Christ just as Paul has suffered because of the world’s hatred of Jesus. Just as he is imprisoned in Rome because of his faith in Christ, it was the case when he had been with them in Philippi previously. If God grants the one (faith) he also grants the other (persecution).
So, here is where the modern chapters and verses break up-Paul’s thought. Verse one of chapter two is the continuation of and expansion upon his discussion in verses 27-30. In fact, as Paul speaks of the inevitability of persecution and the need to stand firm in the face of it, he now points the Philippians to the means by which they might fulfill (do) those things Paul has just exhorted them to do, and to do that the Philippians need to have the same mind about these things that Jesus did (v. 5).
If There Is Any Encouragement in Christ . . .
But before Paul includes the Carmen Christi–reminding them of who it is and what he has done that they are to imitate–Paul makes a very impassioned plea which includes four conditional sentences (which begin with “if’), which if true, and they are, will bring to pass the hoped for result in verse 2, that Paul’s joy may be complete.[2] The opening verse reads, “so” (which connects this to the previous verses in the previous chapter), “if there is any encouragement in Christ, [if there is] any comfort from love, [if there is] any participation in the Spirit, [if there is] any affection and sympathy,” all pointing to things Paul assumes the Philippians currently possess. Yet, the force of the conditional sentence is an indication that these are things which the Philippians might be in danger of losing if they do not stand firm.
We can put it like this: if there is any encouragement still present, if there is any comfort from love still present, if there is any participation in the Holy Spirit (his indwelling and his fruits), and if there is any affection and love among the brothers and sisters, then Paul’s joy will be complete.[3] More importantly, the Philippians will successfully endure the persecution which they were then facing.
How do the Philippians accomplish those things necessary to make Paul’s joy complete? Because encouragement, comfort, participation in the Spirit, and affection and sympathy are present among the Philippians (the implication of the conditions being fulfilled), then the Philippians can indeed accomplish what Paul has just exhorted them to do. “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” If the false teachers haven’t completely taken over (and the implication is that they haven’t–far from it), the Philippians are to resist them by being of one mind, demonstrating love for one another, and being in full accord. This is for their good, but it will also bring the apostle joy, knowing that the Philippian congregation–for which no doubt he feels a bit of responsibility–will survive the efforts of the Judaizers from within to distort the gospel of Jesus, and from the persecutors without, who encourage these saints to deny their faith in Jesus. But the Philippians must stand firm and be of one mind, but in order to do so, they must adopt a particular mind-set which is, as Paul is about to explain, the same mind-set as Jesus.
Bad News for the Self-Centered: Count Others as More Significant
But being of one mind, having the same love, and being in full accord, requires that certain sinful conduct cease. Rather than focus on specific behaviors, in verse 3, Paul focuses upon the mindset that the Philippians ought to have. He tells them “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves”, unlike those plaguing Paul in Rome, who out of envy and jealousy seek to take advantage of the circumstances while Paul is confined. In contrast to those troubling the Philippians, Christians are not to do things from the motive of selfish ambition. In English, selfish ambition means something like seeking to gain advantage over another (“owning them” to use a contemporary expression), or further one’s own cause or circumstances, even if others are negatively impacted. But the root of the word in Greek refers to a hireling or mercenary, and in context here, it means something like “vain glory” or “vanity.” Another nuanced meaning of the term is “pretentiousness.”[4]
Paul’s discussion is like cold water in our faces. In the modern world, Paul’s exhortation to put away “selfish ambition” could be understood as “don’t be so narcissistic.” Strive to stop foolishly thinking that everything in life is about us–that our needs and desires always come first, and are far more important than the needs of others. This is the collective sin of so much of modern America. How many commercials can we recount where we are told that “you deserve” something which we probably do not need or cannot really afford, but which someone wants to sell us. The appeal is made to our base narcissism, “you deserve it.” In our culture, ambition and conceit are virtues, but Paul calls them sins. In American life, everything centers around the self, while Paul’s exhortation is to do the opposite–make sure that everything we do flows out of a due consideration of the needs of others. Paul even says, in humility–that is lowliness, i.e., the mind-set of a slave or servant–consider others more worthy (or more important) than yourselves. These are not easy words for Americans to hear, much less practice.
Look to our Own Interests and that of Others
Paul goes on in verse 4, to flesh out a bit further what he means. “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Of course, it is important to care for our own needs and take care of those for whom we are responsible. Elsewhere, Paul states that if a man does not work, he should not eat, and that those men who neglect their families and fail to provide for them are worse than unbelievers (1 Timothy 5:8). But as we look to our own interests, we must keep the needs of others in mind and always consider how what we do impacts others.
In the specific instance of which Paul is addressing are those who preach Christ from envy and selfish ambition. But this may also extend to the Judaizers, who made it their aim to come to Philippi and impose their heretical theology upon the congregation which, no doubt, brought the teachers and leaders of this group a certain notoriety and which attracted a number of followers about which they could boast. But these men never stopped to consider the ramifications of what they were doing to others–dividing Christ’s church, robbing bruised reeds of the assurance of their salvation, giving people false ideas about Christ and his gospel. In their minds, they are successful. But in Paul’s estimation they are destructive and worse, doing the exact opposite of what Jesus did–put the needs of others above himself.
The Carmen Christi – The “Christ Hymn”
What follows in verses 6-11 is the so called Carmen Christi (the Christ hymn) introduced by Paul as an illustration of the mind-set of Jesus which Christians are to emulate. From the outset, we need to be clear about one thing. The incarnation of our Lord is a unique event. It cannot be repeated, nor is Paul telling us to imitate it. It is impossible to do what the second person of the Holy Trinity did, take to himself a true human nature. I recall hearing a preacher once making the application that Paul wants us all to be “little Jesuses,” “little incarnations of God.” No, no, no! We cannot imitate Jesus in his incarnation–such is a metaphysical impossibility. But Paul does exhort us to have the same mind (i.e., manner of thinking) Jesus does, who in his incarnation humbled himself. It is our Lord’s attitude of humility which Paul sets forth as an example for us to emulate, not the incarnation which is a unique and unrepeatable act.
The Carmen Christi reveals a great deal about the person and nature of Jesus, so it is easy to see it as a free standing hymn with little connection to what has gone before. Although it is packed with Christological significance, the hymn is not introduced in the context of debate about the two natures of Christ, or the meaning of the Greek word kenosis–“he made himself nothing,” or, as it is often translated “emptied himself.” Our Lord’s mind (in the sense of “mindset” or attitude) in doing this is set forth as an example to us–Jesus was humble, which we are to emulate. The incarnation is also introduced by Paul so that in imitating the mind of Jesus (regarding others as more important than oneself), those who do so are reminded that we too will also experience the glory which Jesus now experiences. Those who imitate Jesus’ humility will also see in Jesus’ life the pattern which frames the New Testament’s doctrine of the Christian life–humility, persecution, and suffering are only temporary. Such things give way to the glory of the resurrection and our participation in the exaltation which Jesus earned for us by accomplishing his work of redemption.
The passage reveals itself to be a hymn (not in the modern sense of lyrics set to a discernible tune), but in the ancient sense of a natural rhythm and parallelism when the text is read–a poem or an ode. There are three distinct strophes or movements in the Carmen Christi which follow the introduction in verse 5. In verses 6-7a, the hymn speaks of Jesus’s pre-existence (that he is eternally God). In verses 7b-8, the hymn addresses Jesus’s earthly life of humiliation and perfect obedience, while verses 9-11 speak of Christ’s exalted heavenly existence. Scholars debate the precise details of the hymn’s structure, but the basics are pretty much agreed upon by all.[5]
Given Paul’s near-constant use of biblical language and categories throughout his writings, many see this hymn reflecting the so-called “servant songs” of Isaiah–specifically that of Isaiah 52-53. There is at the very least a faint echo from Isaiah 52-53, an idea reinforced by the fact that in verses 9-11, the Carmen Christi clearly alludes to Isaiah 45:18-23. Some have found faint echoes from Jewish wisdom literature foretelling a divine sufferer who is wisdom personified. Others see an allusion here to Paul’s contrast between the two Adams (Adam and Christ) of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. There is some truth in all of these contentions, but the fact of the matter is that it is very likely that the author of the hymn, whether that be Paul or not, simply drew upon the apostolic teaching and preaching he had heard or proclaimed and which was instrumental in founding Christian churches throughout the Mediterranean world.
The author (Paul or someone else), probably meditated upon what they heard and understood about the person and work of Jesus from sermons, instruction, and their knowledge of Scripture, and then composed this hymn. Either Paul composed this hymn previously, or while composing this letter, or it was composed by another, was likely sung in the churches, and incorporated into this letter by Paul. Echoes from the servant songs of Isaiah, the doctrine of the two-Adams, and much reflection upon how Jesus fulfills Jewish expectations were present in much of apostolic preaching. If you were meditating upon these things it was because these things are found in virtually every apostolic sermon we have in the pages of the New Testament.[6] Whether Paul wrote these words or not, what matters to us is that he fully agrees with them and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he includes this hymn as the reference point for the Philippians to properly understand what it means to have the same mindset as Jesus.[7]
Think Like This . . .
As we dig into the actual content of the hymn, we begin by noting that verse 5 is the logical conclusion of everything Paul has said from 1:27 on. “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” If Christians are to consider others as more important than themselves–the true meaning of Christian humility–they should begin by considering the example of Jesus. Jesus is the true example of selflessness and sacrifice. He gave himself for us so as to save us from our sins. Believing this and therefore being delivered from all of those times when we did not put others ahead of ourselves (when we act like American narcissists), we turn to the example of Jesus as the source of those good works which are the fruit of saving faith. Because Jesus gave himself for sinful narcissists (such as us), we must learn to look to his example so as to stop being sinful narcissists. Paul gives us an imperative (command) here. We are to have the same attitude towards others which Jesus did–humility. Not pretentious or self-serving, or ambitious to take advantage of others. But humble, considering the needs of others.
The specifics of Jesus’s attitude toward others is found in the contents of the Carmen Christi, beginning in verses 6-7a (the first stanza or strophe) which treats our Lord’s willing humiliation. “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” When Paul asserts that Jesus “was in the form of God” he is affirming Jesus’ eternal pre-existence as God–an undeniable affirmation of Jesus’s deity. The hymn begins with the declaration that before anything was created and before time began, and before Jesus took to himself a true human nature in the womb of the virgin, Jesus shared in the eternal glory of the Triune God. The passage reflects the similar imagery of Hebrews 1:3. “He [Jesus] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”
The Eternal Son Takes the Form of a Servant
The second stanza (v. 7b-8) includes the key point Paul is making to the Philippians about Christian humility. The same Jesus–who experienced the eternal glory, love, and joy within the fellowship of the Holy Trinity–voluntarily “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Despite the glory which Jesus possessed and enjoyed as a matter of divine right and perfection, Jesus “emptied himself,” taking the form of a servant–an obvious antithesis to Jesus eternally existing in the form of God.[8] There are several vital points to consider, and we’ll take them in the order in which they appear in the passage.
First, much mischief has been done with the Carmen Christi’s assertion in verse 6 that our Lord “made himself nothing,” or as is often translated, he “emptied himself” (ekenōsen – kenosis). Protestant liberals (especially German Protestant liberals) have contended that Jesus “emptied himself” of certain divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience), or of all divine consciousness (he did not know he was God incarnate), or he gave up the eternal form of being (his deity). Jesus was the “form” of God, but gave up his divinity to become “the form of man (under the guise of defending Jesus’ true humanity).
This is not what Paul says or means here, and the so-called “kenotic” theories collapse under their own weight. Jesus is God, but then stops being God? How does that work? What happens in the Ascension when he returns to the Father? What does kenotic doctrine do to the meaning of verse 10 (the third stanza) where Jesus is exalted above all things? Does he get his deity back? What does this do to orthodox Christology which affirms that Jesus has two natures (one human, one divine), yet remains one person?
Second, when the Carmen Christi affirms that in the incarnation Jesus empties himself, it is clear that he does so to take the form of a servant. The divine nature and the human are set in parallel to each other. This is an obvious appeal to the language of Isaiah (specifically Isaiah 53:12) which speaks of the servant of YHWH “pouring out his soul” to death. Isaiah’s prophecy prophetically points ahead to our Lord’s death by crucifixion. Jesus emptied himself by taking to himself a true human nature, becoming “the form of a servant,” for the purpose of suffering and dying for our sins. This affirms the second point made in the hymn (as a parallelism), that Jesus remains one person, but he is both in the form of God (a divine nature), yet in the incarnation takes to himself a true human nature (and takes on the “form” of servant (a doulos), a slave. Jesus is God incarnate, God in human flesh.
Third, absolutely critical to Paul’s point about Jesus emptying himself is the hymn’s prior assertion in verse 6b that our Lord “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” This assertion is beyond our comprehension in light of the previous assertion that Jesus enjoyed the eternal glory and blessedness of inter-Trinitarian fellowship. Much ink has been spilled about the meaning of this and how to translate it. A compelling case can be made that the phrase is best interpreted to mean that in the incarnation, our Lord did not use his status “in the form of God,” to “gain advantage,” or to use his divine attributes and glory to gain advantage over those humans with whom he walked and talked, except as necessary to fulfill his messianic mission and confirm his deity.[9] To put the meaning of this in crude terms, Jesus walked where he went, he did not fly. Jesus could have instantly cooked his food, but used heat. Jesus could have avoided and overcome all manner of human weakness and limitation (like making the nail wounds not hurt), but he did not. Jesus could have performed dramatic miracles and then do what the Israelites expected the Messiah to do–claim David’s throne and lead Israel’s armies to victory over Rome.
Jesus Did Not Use His Divinity to Gain Advantage
Jesus did not do any of this, and that is the point of the second stanza of the hymn. Jesus did not use the things rightly his to gain advantage over us. His mindset was one of humility in taking the form of a human so as to suffer and die for our sins. The suffering, shame, and humiliation of the incarnation must precede the exaltation expressed in the hymn’s closing stanza in verses 9-11. “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That one who humbled himself for us and for our salvation was also exalted and given those rights, titles, and privileges which were his all along but which are now confirmed by his suffering and obedience, and crowned in his resurrection and ascension.
The Suffering Servant Is Given the Name Above All Others
The entire focus of the hymn changes in the third stanza from the eternal nature of Jesus (stanza one), to Jesus’ humility and obedience (stanza 2), to the Father’s decisive actions on behalf of Jesus, who is now the recipient of the Father’s love and favor. It was Jesus who humbled himself. But it is the Father who exalts our Lord by giving him that name above all others, a name which is so great and exalted, that every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord to the Father’s glory. This reception of worship of YHWH by all the earth’s inhabitants was foretold in Isaiah 45:18–25, and is applied in the Carmen Christi to the person of Jesus now exalted to the highest place of honor–the Father’s right hand. That glory which YHWH was to reveal in the messianic age is now revealed to be the glory of the risen and ascended, the obedient and victorious servant of YHWH–Jesus. That one who created all things and who humbled himself to redeem his people will be acknowledged on bended knee by every person whom he has created–willingly or otherwise.
The Carmen Christi is one of the most remarkable passages in the New Testament. If this hymn was composed by someone other than Paul, it means that the apostolic churches from the very beginning affirmed the deity of Jesus (in the form of God), as well as the incarnation as a unique once for all event (that Jesus took to himself a true human nature–in the form of a servant). The hymn also affirms that when Jesus died he did so in full obedience to the Father and to suffer and die for our sins. And then God raised Jesus and exalted him to YHWH’s right hand, giving the name that is above every name. On judgment day, when his name is proclaimed, every knee will bow.
The Carmen Christi is packed with theological significance, and is beautiful in its form. It was likely sung in the early churches and we ought do the same. It is cited by Paul to remind us of Jesus’ attitude toward others. Jesus counted all his advantages as nothing and made himself a servant. While we cannot imitate the incarnation itself, we can adopt the same attitude toward others as Jesus. If we wish to stand firm with one mind and spirit against the secularism, paganism, and persecution of the citizens of the age in which we live, we ought do as Paul tells us to do: follow the example of Jesus and disarm all our opponents by considering their interests and welfare every bit as important as ours, knowing that we do so in the name of that humble Savior whose name is now the name that is above every other name.
____________________________________
[1] Cited in Graham Tomlin, ed., Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI, Philippians and Colossians (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 44-45.
[2] Silva, Philippians, 100.
[3] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 176.
[4] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 180.
[5] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 190.
[6] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 188-198.
[7] Silva, Philippians, 105.
[8] Ralph Martin, Philippians, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 98.
[9] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 215.
The Final Bash in the King’s Palace
It was a party like no other. Wine was flowing freely and the thousand or so royal guests seemed completely oblivious to the fact that within hours the party’s host (the Babylonian king Belshazzar) will be dead and the Persian army will have captured the city and the palace in which his guests were partying. King Belshazzar and the great Babylonian empire will be no more. Yet, the events of this fateful evening should not come as a surprise to Belshazzar.
YHWH warned Belshazzar’s more famous predecessor (Nebuchadnezzar) of this very night in a dream recorded in Daniel 2. Nebuchadnezzar saw a gigantic metallic statue with a head of gold (representing Nebuchadnezzar and his empire). But that empire would at some point give way to the Persian empire (represented by the silver arms and chest of the statue). It was the Hebrew prophet Daniel, who, when interpreting the dream, told Nebuchadnezzar of these events yet to transpire. On this very night, YHWH issued a warning of impending judgment in the form of a mysterious handwritten message which suddenly appeared on the wall of the palace for all to see. Daniel is summoned to the king’s palace yet again. This time, Daniel is to interpret a mysterious handwritten message which terrified Belshazzar as well as his guests. The message brings ominous news to Belshazzar. It is YHWH’s declaration of judgment, fulfilling the scene in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
Belshazzar’s Blasphemy
One of the sure signs that God is directing all things to his appointed ends is that the last night of the Babylonian empire is also the same night in which the intoxicated king ordered that the gold and silver vessels, originally taken as the spoils of war from the temple of YHWH in Jerusalem, be used at his party as objects with which to toast the Babylonian gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood and stone. These are the same elements which composed the statue of Nebuchadnezzaer’s dream, which was crushed by a rock cut without human hands (Christ’s kingdom), but which are worshiped by the Babylonian pagans.
This is an act of out and out sacrilege by Belshazzar and nothing short of the intentional blasphemy of YHWH. We do not know if Belshazzar knew that this would be the night his empire would fall (there is no mention of him leading his troops or making an effort to rally Babylon’s defenders), but he does make an intentional effort to mock the God of Israel. But YHWH will not be mocked–especially by the likes of Belshazzar. So YHWH crashes the king’s party by directing that an angel (or perhaps the pre-incarnate Jesus) write of imminent judgment on the wall of the royal palace for all to see, warning the king and his guests of a sure and certain end coming later that evening.
While Belshazzar saw the hand of YHWH, his guests saw the writing. No one present could read it–certainly not the useless court magicians and wise men. Belshazzar was terribly shaken by the sight of the hand leaving the message. All color left his face, he looked faint, and he was so shaken he could not walk. Overhearing the kerfuffle in the palace, the queen mother entered the banquet hall and remembered a Hebrew prophet Daniel–who was now well up in years and likely had not served in the royal court for some time. Daniel will be summoned to interpret the dream, only to warn Belshazzar that he will die this very evening. In this we see the overarching theme of the entire chapter–YHWH raises up kings and kingdoms. He removes kings when and how he wills. Belshazzar’s kingdom will be taken from him and given to another. The point of this incident is to give encouragement to the Jewish exiles then living in Babylon. By the next morning, Darius the Mede (Cyrus) will be in charge, and he will issue his decree to allow the Jews to return home to Jerusalem to rebuild. This too, has been ordained by God.
The Structure of Daniel Five (Redux)
Daniel 5 includes four different scenes, each one centering around different characters who participate sequentially in the story. The first scene (vv. 1-6) focuses upon the king’s drunken party, his mocking of YHWH, followed by the dramatic appearance of mysterious handwriting on the palace wall, which terrifies Belshazzar. In the second scene (vv. 7-12) the king seeks out someone who can interpret the mysterious handwriting. The king’s wise men (who apparently, are not so wise) cannot read the message, while the queen mother remembers a former prefect in the royal court (Daniel) a Hebrew prophet known for his ability to interpret such things–he might be able to interpret the handwriting. The third scene (vv. 13-29) recounts Daniel’s return to the royal palace when he interprets the handwriting and delivers YHWH’s warning of impending judgment upon Belshazzar because of the latter’s horrible act of sacrilege. The final scene (vv. 30-31) informs us that YHWH makes good on his warning, as Darius conquers the city that same evening and claims the Babylonian empire as his own.[1] Previously we covered the first two scenes, now we will take up the final two scenes, concluding our time in chapter 5.
Remember Daniel? The Retired Hebrew Prophet?
With that bit of brief recap in mind, we pick up where we left off last time with verse 13, when Daniel interprets the handwriting announcing imminent judgment upon Babylon. This follows the frightening scene of a hand appearing during the party, writing on the white plaster wall of the palace, leaving behind a mysterious message which none of Belshazzar’s experts could read. The third scene opens in verse 13 with the arrival of Daniel.
Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king answered and said to Daniel, “You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah. I have heard of you that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you.”
As an elderly man, Daniel had not served in the royal court for some time–perhaps since the death of Nebuchadnezzar 23 years earlier. Belshazzar did not even think of Daniel until the queen mother mentioned his name and recalled his exploits.
Daniel’s reputation preceded him. Belshazzar recalls the stories surrounding this Hebrew prophet who had been so useful to Nebuchadnezzar years before. An exile from Judah, Daniel was brought as a captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC (it is now 539 BC). It was soon apparent to all in the royal court that “the spirit of the gods” was in him (once again tying Daniel to the Joseph Story of Genesis 37-50). Daniel possessed light, understanding, and wisdom–an indication that Daniel was a prophet of YHWH, and that remarkable gifts had been given to Daniel by YHWH to protect Daniel and his three friends from being put to death while in exile.
From the events recounted earlier in the evening–Belshazzar mocking YHWH by using the vessels to toast pagan gods taken from the Jerusalem temple which been used in worship of the God of the Jews–Belshazzar obviously held YHWH in utter contempt. It was only as a result of his fear and desperation that Daniel now stands before Belshazzar. Nothing is said, but we can almost imagine the disgust Belshazzar felt at having to summon a Hebrew prophet of YHWH to explain the handwriting, especially after the partying and sacrilege just described.
His wise men and magicians having failed him yet again, in verse 15 Belshazzar admits to Daniel, “now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not show the interpretation of the matter. But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems.” Daniel had interpreted two prior dreams which YHWH had given to Nebuchadnezzar when his own Chaldeans and magicians failed to provide an interpretation. Daniel will do as he had done before–as a prophet of YHWH he will speak difficult words to a great and powerful man who is about to come under YHWH’s hand of judgment.
Making Daniel an Offer He Can Refuse
The king offers Daniel the symbols of royal power if he can do for Belshazzar what he had done for Nebuchadnezzar a generation earlier. “Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” But Daniel has no interest in such power. He is not there to impress Belshazzar. He has come at Belshazzar’s urgent request. Belshazzar will get far more than he bargained for, because Daniel will reveal to him YHWH’s word of imminent judgment. According to verse 18, “then Daniel answered and said before the king, `Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation.’” There is no material or monetary reward for any prophet called to speak forth YHWH’s word of judgment. We may think of the story of Balaam and Barak in Numbers 22, or even the words of the prophet Micah (3:5) who warns the people of Israel against listening to prophets who will supposedly bring words from God for their own personal gain. YHWH does not allow himself or his prophets to become indebted to the likes of a man like Belshazzar.[2]
Remember What Happened to Nebuchadnezzar?
With that, Daniel begins to interpret the handwritten message. The first thing Daniel does (vv.18-21) is to remind Belshazzar of the events of chapter 4 surrounding Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream.
O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty. And because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whom he would, he killed, and whom he would, he kept alive; whom he would, he raised up, and whom he would, he humbled. But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was brought down from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him. He was driven from among the children of mankind, and his mind was made like that of a beast, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. He was fed grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, until he knew that the Most High God rules the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will.
Daniel uses four terms to describe Nebuchadnezzar’s rule: kingship, greatness, glory, and majesty. No doubt, Nebuchadnezzar was a great and powerful figure as men count such things. But everything which could be said of Belshazzar’s predecessor–even Nebuchadnezzar’s bout with insanity–were given him by YHWH. Elaborating a bit more on Nebuchanezzar’s dream in chapter 4, we learn the additional details that it was YHWH who also gave Nebuchadnezzar the authority to take life, or to grant pardon to others. This the equivalent of Paul’s assertion in Romans 13:4, that God gives the sword of justice to the state. We also learn from Daniel that when Nebuchadnezzar had his mental collapse, he lived among wild donkeys. All of this was ordained by YHWH who is sovereign over all things, including kings and their empires. The lesson for Belshazzar is that even the great Nebuchadnezzar eventually acknowledged that the Most High God rules the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will. This is the same YHWH against whom Belshazzar has just spent the evening committing acts of sacrilege and blasphemy, and who would have continued to do so had YHWH not intervened and ruined his party.[3]
Belshazzar’s Last Night
Daniel brings the word of judgment to Belshazzar, who by now must know that the mysterious handwritten message is a declaration of very bad news. According to verses 22-23, Daniel tells the king “and you his son [Nebuchadnezzar is his predecessor, not his biological father], Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this, but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven.” Belshazzar is so jaded by power and the cushy life in the royal court that he saw himself as greater than all “gods.” He refused to acknowledge that there is one far greater than he who has appointed this king to rule over this empire. If the king had reflected upon this–even for a moment–he would have realized that he should have humbled himself before the Lord of heaven. Refusing to humble himself, Belshazzar is about to be humbled by a Persian battle sword at YHWH’s behest.
But it was Belshazzer who chose to spend his last night on earth blaspheming YHWH. Daniel explains precisely how the king had lifted himself up against YHWH. Daniel tells him what should be obvious, but which apparently is not.
And the vessels of [YHWH’s] house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored.
A Futile Hope in Lifeless “Gods”
The first way in which the king has lifted himself up against YHWH is that he ordered the vessels from the Jerusalem temple be brought to the royal palace to be used to praise the false gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. Drinking toasts to such things, using vessels set apart for the worship of YHWH, is blasphemy of the worst kind. Belshazzar is guilty as charged.
The second way in which Belshazzar has lifted himself up against YHWH is when he and his guests praised “lifeless” gods. What power do mere elements like gold and silver possess? Gold is beautiful, but can it answer your prayers? Can the elegant statue of the “god” made from fine gold hear your prayers and answer them? These mere elements cannot possess knowledge, they cannot hear, and although it is not mentioned by Daniel, they cannot speak. This is self-evident in the fact that it is YHWH who speaks by his own hand (through a divinely chosen agent) writing a warning of judgment on the wall of the king’s palace during these acts of blasphemy.
The third way in which Belshazzar has lifted himself up is by failing to acknowledge that it is YHWH–not the mysterious forces of the universe–who gives the king his very life and breath. The king’s life is in YHWH’s hand–not Marduk’s. What does the king do with the life and breath YHWH has given him? He mocks and blasphemes the one who holds his life in his hand. His fate for doing so? YHWH will take that life from Belshazzar before the dawn of the next day.
After declaring to Belshazzar that his blasphemy of YHWH has not gone unnoticed in the heavenly court, Daniel interprets the handwriting which the king’s wise men could not read. According to verse 24, Daniel tells the king, “then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed.” Whose hand was it? Daniel doesn’t say exactly, but the king saw it and it scared him tremendously. The hand was that of an angel (sent by God as his agent) or was it the pre-incarnate Christ?–regardless of which divine agent this was, the hand which had written the message came from “the presence of God.” The hand gave direct revelation to Belshazzar of judgment from YHWH.
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin
Although none of the king’s wise men and magicians could read the writing, Daniel can. “And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin.” These three Aramaic words are the subject of seemingly endless speculation. The writing was Aramaic but all the characters (letters) ran together. Daniel immediately sees the pattern, three words (one repeated), each having three consonants. The three words are weights (also the names of coins); the mina, the shekel, and the half-mina. But the measure of the weights (coins) are not in descending order from the highest to lowest, which may explain why the court magicians could not read the message, much less figure out its meaning. Daniel will interpret the meaning of these words using a semi-obvious bit of word play for each of the weights. He takes each word (a noun) and coverts it into a verb, which he then uses to evaluate Belshazzar’s kingship and its shortcomings.[4]
The first of these (v. 26) is explained by Daniel. “This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end.” The noun Mene (for Mina) has been turned into a verb, “counted” which is interpreted by Daniel as “king Belshazzar, your days are numbered.” The second word is explained in verse 27. “Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.” Similarly, Daniel turns a noun into a verb which usually means to “pay out,” but in Daniel’s word play, he interprets it to mean that when the king is measured by YHWH, he comes far short of what is expected. Similarly, the third word (Parsin–half) is also a noun now understood as a verb. “Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” Daniel is telling Belshazzar that the event foretold in Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream is about to come to pass. The Babylonian empire will fall to the Persian empire before sunup.[5]
Just as in Daniel 2 and 4, in which YHWH demonstrated his absolute superiority over the so-called “gods” of Babylon, he now does the same to Belshazzar. This hearkens us back to YHWH’s similar victories over the “gods” of Pharaoh, and the “gods” of the Canaanites. By doing what the Babylonian wise men could not do, Daniel clearly demonstrates a point the Apostle Paul will make in 1 Corinthians 1:25. “For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” Although by now we might expect that a man like Belshazzar would react in a drunken rage and have Daniel executed for his impudence before the king, instead, Belshazzar makes good on his promise made before all of his guests. We read in verse 29 of Daniel 5, “then Belshazzar gave the command, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put around his neck, and a proclamation was made about him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
“Off With His Head!”
It is a good thing that Daniel did not care about such matters, because his new position was rather short-lived. Belshazzar did not have to wait long to receive the judgment of which YHWH had warned. According to verse 30, “that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed,” no doubt by the Persian commandos who entered the city through the dried up water supply. The golden head of the metallic statue gives way to the silver chest and arms exactly as foretold in the dream YHWH gave to Nebuchadnezzar. Not only was Belshazzar dead by morning, the chapter ends with the solemn declaration, “and Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.” We ought notice that Darius (Cyrus) is the only person in Daniel’s prophecy whose age is mentioned. This is not mere information for curiosity sake. It reminds Daniel’s audience that Darius was born at the height of Babylonian power (601 BC), and now the Babylonian kingdom was his (i.e., now part of the Persian empire). This matters much to the Jews in exile because this information reminds them that their time in exile (seventy years) is almost over.
Because they are one and the same in an empire like this one, the king and his kingdom fall together. Belshazzar’s open contempt of YHWH reflects the general attitude of the entire empire, which had grown used to military and economic dominance. Starting with Belshazzar, the Babylonians saw themselves as completely self-sufficient, unwilling to do as Moses exhorts us in Psalm 90:9-12.
For all our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh. The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you? So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.
Belshazzar has not numbered his days, so YHWH has numbered them for him. As one writer puts it, “Belshazzar in this chapter presents a vivid picture of the fool, the atheist, who at the end can only brazen it out with the help of alcohol which blots out the stark reality.”[6] The alcohol probably didn’t help lesson the pain when the Persians put him to the sword.
YHWH Directs the Kings of the Earth
It is important to let the events recounted here push us beyond mere consideration of the personal circumstances of the last king of a dying empire–as tragic and compelling as the story of Belshazzar’s last night is. Daniel’s point throughout his prophecy so far has been that YHWH is sovereign over all the kingdoms of this world. There are divine limits set for earthly kings–limits which YHWH will not allow his creatures to go beyond. YHWH allows the Babylonian empire to conquer Judah and destroy his temple because Israel has fallen into idolatry and is unfaithful to him as covenant Lord. Yet the Babylonians will be punished for proclaiming their gods as superior to YHWH. YHWH will not allow this to stand. He will bring his people back to the land of promise after their seventy years of exile.
Worldly power carries with it great responsibilities in YHWH’s sight, and an incident like this one reminds us that this is the case–then as now. YHWH holds all the kings of the earth responsible for their actions, and will judge them for how they treat their subjects as well as their enemies. In this case Belshazzar received his word of condemnation before he died–although most dying tyrants must wait until the judgment to hear theirs. YHWH gives kings, presidents, and heads of state their power. He holds them accountable for how they use it. The knowledge that world leaders (even despotic ones) must answer to their creator should bring us much comfort.
When God Gives them Over
It is also important to consider that YHWH’s word to Belshazzar (through Daniel) is echoed later by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-25. Paul writes,
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Daniel’s account singles out Belshazzar because of his gross blasphemy and his important place in redemptive history (the last ruler of the Babylonian empire). But let us not make the mistake of thinking that Daniel’s warning (echoed by Paul) is not every bit as true today was it was on the night of October 11, 539 BC. God has revealed himself to all. None can offer any excuse for worshiping and serving created things (the elements themselves) or more creative idols (fame, celebrity, power, wealth) which moderns are more apt to seek after. We are as prone to the twin sins we see in Belshazzar (worshiping and serving created things and failing to carefully number his days) as he was.
Not Handwriting on a Wall, But a Gospel Signed and Sealed in Bread and Wine
One final thing we must take from Daniel 5, is that apart from God’s grace in our lives we will remain servants of the idols we create for ourselves, and we will spend our days living as though God does not exist or matter much, and was only there to help in times of trouble. If we believe in Jesus, it is only because God has called us out of darkness (idolatry and indifference to God) and applied to us the saving work of Jesus–his life of obedience, his death for our sins, and his resurrection from the dead. Let us therefore strive to be thankful that instead of a hand appearing on the wall, warning us that this is our last day, we see the hand of God in a much different way–extended to us through the signs and seals of bread and wine (“this is my body and my blood”), reminding us of his favor by promising us the forgiveness of all our sins (including idolatry and our frequent indifference to God).
________________________________________
[1] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 148-149.
[2] Baldwin, Daniel, 136.
[3] Steinmann, Daniel, 283.
[4] Steinmann, Daniel, 285-86.
[5] Steinmann, Daniel, 285-87.
[6] Baldwin, Daniel, 139.
This is part three of a series on the doctrine of the church entitled Christ’s Spotless Bride. In the previous post, I introduced how the New Testament images of the church are but one way of approaching the doctrine of the church (attributes and marks are other such categories). To understand the value of these images, an analogy to the doctrine of God (theology proper) is in order. Scripture teaches us about God (who is incomprehensible in himself) not only by ascribing certain attributes to him (e.g., justice, knowledge, power) but also by identifying him as a certain kind of person or having a certain kind of role (e.g., king, shepherd, warrior). These New Testament images are analogical and anthropological. God is like but also unlike human kings, and being a king does not exhaust who God is.
The first half of this list of New Testament images of the church can be here. This essay picks up where I left off last time.
Bride of Christ
The imagery of the church as the bride of Christ illustrates the relationship between Jesus and his church as well as his authority to rule over it. According to Michael Horton,
This covenantal relationship [between God and his people] can also be expressed in terms of the marriage analogy, rooted first of all in the union of male and female, becoming “one flesh,” a point that will be developed more fully . . . [in] consideration of the body of Christ. It is especially in the prophets that the marital analogy is appealed to, particularly as a way of highlighting the gravity of Israel’s infidelity to the covenant.[1]
Paul describes the church as Christ’s bride in Ephesians 5:25-31. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus uses the term explicitly in 21:2, 9; 22:17 (cf. 19:9). “Bride” is the last designation used of the church in the New Testament . The Marriage Supper of the Lamb is said to await the people of God when the bridegroom returns for his bride on the last day.
This too draws on Old Testament imagery, although as mentioned by Horton, it is not as positive an image in the Old Testament as “people” is, since the Old Testament uses “bride” at times to condemn Israel as unfaithful (e.g., Hosea 1-2; Ezekiel 23). Yet, it is emphasized in the New Testament that sinful people are now cleansed by the washing of the water with the word. Horton puts it this way: “God bathed his bride and clothed her in the finest garments, and adorned her with the finest jewelry. God spared no expense for his bride.”[2]
Revelation 21 uses the image to emphasize the church’s beauty. She’s “adorned for her husband” (21:2) possesses “the glory of God” and is “radiant” (21:11). She reflects the merits of Christ and the sanctifying work of the Spirit applied to the people of God.
The notion of beauty is closely related to the church’s purity and lack of blemish that Paul highlights with the bridal image in Ephesians 5. But this image also highlights the love and sacrifice of Christ for the church as her husband. In turn, this sacrifice calls the church to proper love and submission to her head (Ephesians 5:2-27).
The Temple of the Holy Spirit
Sometimes the imagery of a house or household is closely connected with temple. In Ephesians 2:19-22 Paul speaks of a holy temple, and the “dwelling place of God.” The Spirit is the one who secures this new covenant reality. In 1 Peter 2:5, the apostle speaks of the church as “like living stones [which] are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Peter does not use the word “temple,” but he describes God’s “spiritual house” as one where a holy priesthood (all believers) offers spiritual sacrifices.
This makes sense insofar as a temple is the house of God, the place of God’s dwelling on earth among his people. But whereas we considered household imagery above in terms of a familial relationship, here we consider “house” in terms of space—sacred space where God is present and worshiped.
These themes are also present in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, when Paul writes, “do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” We are God’s temple because God’s Spirit dwells in us, and this temple is holy.
The Israel of God
In Isaiah 41:8-9, the prophet spoke of a future restoration of Israel in the following terms. “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, `You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.’” The same promise is reiterated in the next chapter of Isaiah (42:1-7), when the LORD declares of his coming servant, “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations” (v. 6). Isaiah continues to speak of this coming servant in chapters 44 (vv. 1-2) and 45 (v. 4). Based upon these passages and how they are interpreted in the New Testament (more on that momentarily), we can say with a fair bit of certainty that Jesus Christ is the true Israel because Isaiah’s Servant Songs are fulfilled in him (i.e., Philippians 2:7).
Furthermore, looking ahead to the “latter days,” Israel’s prophets speak of Gentiles being identified with Israel. In Isaiah 19:24-25, we read, “In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, `Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance.’” Similar expressions are found in Isaiah 56:3, 6-8; 66:18-21; Zechariah 2:11. Notice the inclusion of former Gentile foes among the people of God at some point in the future. The church does not “replace” Israel, but is the fulfillment of the inclusion of Gentiles among the people of God in the messianic age.
As the gospel goes out to all the earth (a reference to the Gentile nations), all Christians become members of Israel through union with Christ–the true Israel (Isaiah 44:1-5). Those who are of faith are children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7-9, 21). For Paul, every believer in Jesus, whether they be Jew or Gentile, is a member of the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). In Philippians 3:2-3, Gentile Christians are said to be “the circumcision.” In Romans 9:25-26, the Gentiles are even called “my people.” This is a rather impressive list identifying Christ and his people with Israel.
In Matthew 12:15-21, when Jesus withdrew from the crowds who had followed him, Matthew reports that this event fulfilled what had been spoken in Isaiah the prophet–the gospel going to the Gentiles. This event demonstrates that Jesus is the promised servant of the Lord. When Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick, Matthew saw in this the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of a suffering servant who would take upon himself our infirmities and carry our diseases (Matthew 8:17 with Isaiah 53:4).
In his gospel, Luke speaks of both Israel (cf. Luke 1:54) and David as the servant of God (Luke 1:69). Yet in Acts, Luke pointedly speaks of Jesus as the servant of God (Acts 3:13). After his crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead so that people everywhere might be called to repentance (Acts 3:26). The conclusion is obvious—Jesus is the servant of YHWH and the true obedient son of God, Israel.
When the Ethiopian eunuch hears Isaiah 53:7-8 read aloud (the account of the suffering servant) and asks Philip about to whom this prophecy refers, Luke tells us that Philip informed the Ethiopian that this passage does indeed refer to Jesus (Acts 8:34-35).
In Hosea 11:1, Hosea predicted a time when “Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” But in Matthew 2:15, the evangelist tells us that Hosea’s prophecy was fulfilled when his parents took Jesus to Egypt to protect him from Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” (Matthew 2:3-18). Yet, after Herod had died, God called Jesus and his family to return to Nazareth. Matthew takes a passage from Hosea (11:1), which clearly refers to national Israel (as YHWH’s son), and informs his readers that this passage is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus is Israel, YHWH’s son. Matthew’s goal is to prove to his largely Jewish audience that Jesus is the servant of the Lord, foretold throughout the Old Testament (especially Isaiah).
Pillar of the Truth
In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul tells Timothy, “if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.” The passage has an important context. The preceding material indicates that having well-qualified officers is essential for being a pillar of the truth (1 Timothy 3:1-13), while the verse that follows gives one of the great biblical summaries of doctrine (v. 16 — “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory”). The Church is the pillar of the truth because God has entrusted it with the gospel as summarized in verse 16, and has given it officers to serve in the name of Christ.
According to Louis Berkhof, Paul is telling us that the church is a citadel, guardian, and defender of truth against God’s enemies.[3]
The text is cited in the Catholic Catechism (under the heading of the Moral life and the Magisterium of the Church sec. 2032) as a proof-text for the Roman church to speak authoritatively in the arena of saving truth and morals:
The Church, the “pillar and bulwark of the truth,” “has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth.” “To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.”
But on Rome’s reading of Paul’s imagery, Christ’s authority and his gospel are superseded by the Roman church, contrary to Paul’s point to Timothy.
Witness
According to J. A Heyns, “particularly in view of their task in this world, believers are also called witnesses.” This is a “juridical concept” as witnesses speak about the facts which they are familiar as though in a courtroom setting.[4] When this title is used of the church and its members, when the gospel is preached, the church is giving testimony to the truth and the efficacy of the gospel.
In Luke 24:48, Jesus tells his disciples, “You are witnesses of these things, and repeats this assertion in Acts 1:8: “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” In John 15:27, he informs the disciples “you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.” The notion of bearing “witness” applies specifically to the apostles (their testimony), and its efficacy depends upon the gift of the Holy Spirit (for conviction of the truth), and explicitly relates to the proclamation of Christ to “all nations” and the “ends of the earth.”
Revelation 11-12 extends the image of “witness” to the church as a whole. Revelation 11 portrays the church as “two witnesses” who prophesy for 42 months. These are the two olive trees of Zechariah 4, which point to the power of the Holy Spirit. When God asked Zechariah if he knew what the menorah imagery meant, and he said he did not know, the angel replied: “not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts” (Zechariah 4:3-6). This testimony gets the witnesses killed in the last days of this history. In Revelation12:17, it is the woman and her offspring who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” This too has unpleasant consequences: the dragon is furious and makes war on them.
Closely related is the idea of the church as God’s embassy on earth from which Christians serve as “ambassadors” sent by Christ into all the earth. Paul uses this image in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21,
all this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
What authority does an ambassador possess? Only that of a messenger sent from his government to those in whose land the embassy is located. As it relates to Christ’s church,the ambassador (the preacher) is sent by the embassy (the church) to bring the king’s message (Jesus and the gospel) of reconciliation to the world.
The Jerusalem That Is Above, the New Jerusalem, or the Heavenly Jerusalem
The church is described as such in Galatians 4:26. “But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” We find the same image mentioned in Hebrews 12:22, “but you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering.” This is also found in Revelation 12:2. “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”
According to Berkhof,
in the Old Testament Jerusalem is represented as the place where God dwelt between the cherubim and where He symbolically established contact with His people. The New Testament evidently regards the Church as the spiritual counterpart of the Old Testament Jerusalem, and therefore applies to it the same name. According to this representation the Church is the dwelling place of God, in which the people of God are brought into communion with Him; and this dwelling place, while still in part on earth, belongs to the heavenly sphere.[5]
Remnant
In the course of redemptive history, remnant refers to those who survive an act of divine judgment, and who remain faithful to God’s promise of restoration. According to Michael Horton,
another analogy for the church is that of remnant . . . . In the New Testament as well as the Old, the church cannot take its identity for granted but must always receive it anew in faith. Throughout biblical history, the people of God surrender their missionary identity either by failing to bring God’s Word to the nations or by accommodating their faith and practice to the nations to such an extent that they become virtually indistinguishable from the world. Yet God always reserves a remnant, called out of the world, to belong to him.[6]
Horton continues,
The Word creates the church, and where this Word is received, proclaimed, taught, and applied in baptism and Eucharist, the church continues to exist and grow in this world. The remnant idea keeps us from an immanentistic [God as present within the churches institutions] and self-confident ecclesiology, with the church seen merely as a historical institution. The church’s status as church is always questionable, because it is simultaneously a historical institution and the result of an eschatological irruption from heaven, by the Spirit working through the Word.[7]
Horton concludes, tying this idea back to the “people of God.”
The notion of Israel being saved through a remnant is hardly a New Testament innovation. God’s prerogative in election has always been upheld in redemptive history, separating not only Cain from Seth, but Ishmael from Isaac and Esau from Jacob. Therefore, it is important not to confuse the national election of Israel (conditional) with the personal election of Israelites (unconditional). This, it seems to me, is the backbone of Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11. Thus, the designation “people of God” refers to a visible community identified by baptism, the proclamation of the gospel, and the Supper. It has formal offices for the administration of God’s covenantal blessings. And yet, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Ro 9:6), and not all who belong outwardly to the people of God actually belong to God. “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Timothy 2:19).[8]
The use of the image of a remnant is fitting for the church as it lives out its pilgrim journey between the two ages—this age and the age to come.
___________________________________
[1] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Christians on the Way, 724.
[2] Horton, The Christian Faith, 725.
[3] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 558.
[4] Heyns, The Church, 62.
[5] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 558.
[6] Horton, The Christian Faith, 721-722.
[7] Horton, The Christian Faith, 722.
[8] Horton, The Christian Faith, 722.
Article 6: Unbelief Man’s Responsibility
However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.
______________________________________
At this point, the authors of the Canons must respond to the perennial and nagging question raised by the biblical teaching about the death of Christ. “Why is it that if Christ died for all, not all are saved?” This is especially the case in light of the Reformed distinctive that Christ’s death was designed to save God’s elect, not merely make all people hypothetically “savable” if they do what God asks them to do–repent and believe.
You have undoubtedly heard questions such as the following. “If the preaching of Christ crucified is the power of God unto salvation, why do not all believe the gospel when it is preached to them?” Where does the fault truly lie when someone does not believe the message of Christ crucified and then perishes eternally?
Since Reformed Christians contend that God alone can save those dead in sin, and since not all are saved, the Arminian will object that the Reformed understanding of the atonement makes God to blame when someone is lost, because God supposedly did nothing to provide for their salvation–the death of Christ being “limited” to the elect. On the Reformed understanding of particular redemption (God will save his elect), is not God himself to blame because he is not being fair in not choosing everyone to be saved? Does this mean that God somehow prevents certain individuals from believing and coming to faith in Christ when he chooses others to be saved, as is so often charged?
Here we should go back to the categories set out under the first head of doctrine to get needed perspective. As mentioned when treating the various articles under that first head, if we approach the difficult questions related to sin and grace with the optimistic presuppositions about human nature such as those of American democracy, then, of course, this becomes a difficult moral issue. If you believe that everyone is equally entitled to a chance at heaven, and that people can only exclude themselves from heaven by not believing, then the Reformed view will immediately seem unfair and contrary to reason.
But, as we have seen during our discussion of the topics found under the first head of doctrine, this is the wrong starting point. Unlike the democratic culture of modern America, the Scriptures do not start with the optimistic presuppositions about human nature which contend that everyone is entitled to an equal chance at heaven. On the contrary, the Scriptures teach that everyone is equal—equally worthy of God’s judgment and damnation, since we all fell in Adam and are guilty for his act of sin as well as all our own acts of rebellion.
According to the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:9-20, there is no one righteous, no not even one. There is no one who seeks God, no, not even one. All have turned away and together we became worthless. There is no part of human nature that is not tainted and stained with the influence of sin.
Here is the critical point. In his great love and boundless mercy, God elects a vast multitude of Adam’s fallen race to be saved from his wrath. He sends Jesus Christ to die for them. And then, through the message of the gospel, the Holy Spirit calls these people to faith in Christ. This is why the Reformed speak of redemption decreed, accomplished, and applied.
This, then, must be kept in view when we set out to answer the question why some do not believe the gospel when it is preached to them. When considered from the perspective of the Scriptures, the answer is logical and simple, but certainly not popular when considered from the categories of optimistic, democratic Americans. God is perfectly just to leave these fallen sinners where they are—sinful by nature and by choice, under his just condemnation.
Since people in such a sinful condition are enslaved to their sinful natures—their wills included—they do not want to believe the gospel and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation when Christ crucified is preached to them. They bear full responsibility for rejecting Christ and his gospel.
As the fallen children of Adam, if left on our own and not called by God to believe, we too would prefer to go to hell for all eternity rather than bow the knee but one time and confess in faith that “Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is why we must always be skeptical of any rosy view of human nature. The power to make oneself alive from the condition of “dead in sin” does not reside in the human will. Rather, Scripture teaches us that the power of God for the salvation of all who believe is found in the gospel. The Canons remind us that our confidence must always reside in the gospel, not human willing or effort.
The Reformed, therefore, place no confidence in the flesh, or in the ability of fallen sinners to believe the gospel and come to faith in Christ. Left to ourselves, we do not want to trust the savior. We do not want to believe the gospel. The fault is always ours.
Scripture gives all of the credit for the salvation of sinners to God, and assigns all of the blame to those sinners who perish. As the authors of the Canons put it—those who refuse to believe the gospel when it is preached are at fault.
Fifty episodes, so far!
Two full seasons completed (Galatians, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians), a seven episode prophecy conference by podcast (“The Future”) completed, and Season Three (on 1 Corinthians) well underway!
Lord willing, many more to come! Romans? The Prison Epistles, the Pastoral Epistles, the Book of Revelation?
And a big milestone for downloads is coming up . . .
Thank you!
Episode Synopsis:
When passing through Ephesus, where Paul was living at the time, members of Chloe’s family informed Paul of a situation in the Corinthian church of such a serious nature that Paul is taken aback. A man in the Corinthian church (presumably known to the church but unnamed by Paul) is cohabiting with his father’s wife. Such conduct was scandalous to the point that even the sexually libertine Greco-Roman pagans were offended by it. While the man’s conduct was shameful, what troubles Paul more is that the leaders of the Corinthian church had done nothing about it.
In chapter 5 of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, Paul exhorts them to excommunicate the man so as to turn him over to Satan so that he might be saved on the day of judgment. What Paul means by this is a matter of some controversy and we will address it in detail in this episode. Paul tells the Corinthians that he has already pronounced judgment about the matter, and even though he cannot come to them in person, he is with them in spirit. They must act and remove the man from the church.
Paul’s exhortation to act must be seen in light of the removal of leaven in an act of “cleansing the temple,” along with the practice of the removal of all leaven from Jewish homes on the eve of the annual Passover celebration. Leaven symbolizes uncleanness, and the danger it poses is that even a small amount quickly spreads throughout the loaf rendering the whole unclean. Since the Corinthian church is the spiritual temple of Christ they cannot allow such scandalous immorality in their midst.
Paul also learns that the Corinthians had badly misunderstood his prior letter to them. They took his exhortation not to be “mixed up” with sexually immoral people as though Paul meant that they should avoid contact with all non-Christians. Paul takes this opportunity to correct them. The Corinthians have it backwards. They are not to judge non-Christians. God will do that. But they are to judge those in their midst who claim to be followers of Christ but who still live like pagans.
Show Notes:
Crows and airplanes are no match for my editing skills.
I’ll be taking a break after we finish chapter 6. I’ll be prepping to move ahead into chapter 7 and beyond.
If you have any questions you’d like me address related to our time in Paul’s letters, please send them my way.
Recommended Links:
Calvin on church discipline
S. M. Baugh on discipline in Revelation 2-3
Mike Brown on Four Ways Church Discipline Benefits Christ’s Sheep
Series Bibliography:
Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians --Lectio Continua (RHB, 2024).
F. F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free. A bit dated but still remains the best biographical study of Paul
Douglas J. Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters (2021). A helpful big picture survey of Paul’s theology and epistles.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (2018). A good and modern commentary on 1 Corinthians. If you buy one commentary, this ought to be it.
Charles Hodge, I & II Corinthians, reprint ed (Banner, or the volume on 1 Corinthians published by Crossway. This has long been the Reformed standard commentary on 1 Corinthians. Theologically solid, but badly dated.
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (1987). Good material, especially on background and context, but charismatic in its orientation.
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (2010). A good academic commentary, although there are several solid ones from which to choose.
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
One of my favorite sections from Calvin’s Institutes is his summation of Christ alone, wrapping up his brief exposition of the Apostles’ Creed (Institutes 2.16.19). Calvin writes,
We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ (Acts 4:12). We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is “of him” (1 Cor. 1:30). If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth. For by his birth he was made like us in all respects (Heb. 2:17) that he might learn to feel our pain (cf. Heb. 5:2). If we seek redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross (Gal. 3:13); if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification, in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in his Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgment, in the power given to him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other. Some men, not content with him alone, are borne hither and thither from one hope to another; even if they concern themselves chiefly with him, they nevertheless stray from the right way in turning some part of their thinking in another direction. Yet such distrust cannot creep in where men have once for all truly known the abundance of his blessings.
Amen and Amen!
B. B. Warfield’s magisterial essay “The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament” was published in 1892. You can find the essay here. It has also been included in the various editions of Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
Here a few gems from that essay.
Warfield reminds us that the apostolic church did not “invent” the idea of a canon of New Testament books. The church possessed a canon of inspired and authoritative books from the very beginning–the Old Testament. The church was, therefore, never without a “canon.”
In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon” — or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible” — that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the "Canon of the Old Testament." The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.”
Through the revelation of the gospel preached by the apostles, Warfield notes that the Holy Spirit added to the existing Old Testament canon during the apostolic age. During this period of its development, the church did not possess a “closed canon,” but “an increasing canon.”
But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ's own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been “made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant” [2 Cor. 3:6]; for (as one of themselves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory” [2 Cor. 3:11] Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached “in the Holy Ghost” (I Pet. i. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were "of the Holy Spirit" (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,” says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), “note that man, that ye have no company with him.” To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was "the commandments of the Lord" (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful [“authoritative”] a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible”; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship — a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. i. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
According to Warfield, the church did not create a new canon alongside the old by determining what ought to be included in it (or not). Rather, the church recognized the books of our present New Testament as they were given, and therefore added them to the existing books of the Old Testament canon. These books came from the apostolic circle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore already possessed full authority as the word of God independently of the church’s recognition of them.
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
A Dream Becomes Reality
Nebuchadnezzar foresaw this terrible night in a dream–a great empire, crumbling by the day, now entering its final hours. In his visionary dream of a gigantic metallic statue with a head of gold, Nebuchadnezzar saw the greatness of his own empire, even as Daniel warned him that both the king and his empire would come to an end–crushed by a rock cut from a mountain without human hands. Now, Nebuchadnezzar is long since dead and gone with the last of the Babylonian kings (Belshazzar, co-regent with his father–Nabonidus) on the throne. The year is 539 BC. Although Daniel does not reveal the circumstances behind the debauchery seen in the opening verses of chapter 5 until the closing verses of the chapter, this is the Kingdom of Babylon’s last night. Persian armies are about to take the city of Babylon through a daring commando raid using the city’s dried-up water supply. Instead of leading the city’s defenders in an effort to save the city, Belshazzar hosts a massive drunken party as though all were right with the world. On this night, the last hours of the great Babylonian empire, Belshazzar spends it drinking and mocking YHWH, even as YHWH takes his kingdom from him and gives it to another–the Persian conqueror of the city, Darius the Mede. All of this was foretold in King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of Daniel 2.
In Daniel 5, the circumstances are greatly different from those at the end of Daniel 4 (v. 37), when Nebuchadnezzar confessed–even if reluctantly–“Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.” Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC–twenty three years before the events recounted here. A list of short-term successors had taken Nebuchadnezzar’s place. The first was the king’s own son, Amel-Marduk, who was assassinated by his brother-in-law in 560 (reigning just two years). One of those who plotted his death (Neriglessar) ruled until 556, and was succeeded by his own son, Labashi-Marduk, who was brought down just a few months into his reign by a coup lead by Nabonidus, an unpopular eccentric known for his devotion to the god “Sin” instead of the traditional and most favored Babylonian god, Marduk (Bel).
The End of the Babylonian Empire
Nabonidus was hated by his people, so for some ten years he ruled from the Arabian wilderness over the rapidly declining, increasingly decadent, and about to be defeated Babylonian empire–appointing his son Belshazzar as a co-regent representing the “pro-Marduk” wing of the Babylonian court. It fell to Belshazzar to remain in Babylon when the Persians finally breached the city’s walls (after damming-up the Euphrates river so that an elite military unit could enter the walled city unnoticed using the dried up riverbed which ran through the heart of the city). After the fall of Babylon (his capital), the cowardly Nabonidus later surrendered to the Persian king Cyrus and lived out his life in exile. Darius the Mede and Cyrus are likely one and the same man–Darius the Mede is the conquering king’s birth name, while Cyrus is thought to be his Persian royal throne name.[1]
The scene in Daniel 5 is one in which the city’s fate has already been determined–it is just a matter of time before the Persians open the gates from the inside so that the Persian army can enter the undamaged city in triumph.[2] We can even precisely date the events of this night to October 11, 539, because Persian military records tell us that Darius’ victorious armies marched into Babylon on 16 Tishri, 539 (October 12). According to verse 30, the king’s banquet occurred the very night the city fell to Darius.
Some of the worst examples of human behavior play out in the final moments of a dying tyrannical empire. The reality of the impending disaster facing the king of Babylon and his court as described by Daniel does not become clear to the reader until the closing verses of the chapter. One commentator points out that quite unexpectedly “the narrative leaps from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar [chapter 4] to the very end of the Babylonian empire, the night on which its last ruler was killed and the city fell to the Medes and Persians.”[3]
Response to Critical Scholars
Some have noted that the text of Daniel 5 is rather choppy, lacking any of the reluctant but repeated confessions of YHWH’s power and sovereignty as found on the lips of Nebuchadnezzar seen in chapters 2, 3, and 4. “We read only that Belshazzar the Chaldean is eliminated and Darius the Mede was enthroned.”[4] In fulfillment of the dream in Daniel 2, YHWH crushes Belshazzer and his empire (the golden head of Nebuchadnezzars’s dream) without forcing a reluctant confession of YHWH’s sovereign rule. It is God’s appointed time for the silver chest and arms of the statue (the Persians) to take Babylon’s place.
It will come as no surprise that critical scholars consider the material in this chapter to be a mere legend because Belshazzar is spoken of throughout as Nebuchadnezzar’s “son” (when he was not, at least biologically speaking). For a time there was no external evidence for the existence of Belshazzar apart from this account–making critical scholars suspicious of its authenticity. But Babylonian sources uncovered in the 1860's and again more recently do indeed refer to Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus, proving the accuracy of Daniel’s account. Going about their merry way with scant regard for facts which don’t fit their theories, critical scholars cannot explain how someone writing three hundred years after these events would make up these names, only to have the original story confirmed by previously unknown sources coming from the 5th century BC. Once critical views get entrenched, scholars won’t give these views up.
Furthermore, the queen mother’s reference to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son (5:11), can easily be taken to mean that Nebuchadnezzar is the historic predecessor of Belshazzar–as David is said to be “son of Abraham” in the opening verse of Matthew’s gospel. But the main point Daniel is making when speaking this way is that as someone loyal to the Babylonian “god” Marduk, Belshazzar actually follows Nebuchadnezzar in defying YHWH (as we will see in our text). Nabonidus is in a Babylonian cult, living out in the desert doing this own thing, letting his son face the Persians alone. But Belshazzar actually better reflects the attitude of a true follower of Marduk, believing in Marduk’s superiority over all other gods including YHWH. In this sense then, Belshazzar is the true son of Nebuchadnezzar, repeating the boasts and sins of his well-known predecessor. One idolater (Nebuchadnezzar) has bred another, Belshazzar, even though there is likely no direct biological connection between them.[5]
Four Scenes
The fifth chapter of Daniel is arranged into four different scenes, each centering upon different characters who participate in the fateful events during the last banquet in the royal palace. The first scene (vv. 1-6) focuses upon the king’s drunken party, his mocking of YHWH, followed by the appearance of mysterious handwriting upon the wall, which terrifies Belshazzar. The second scene (vv. 7-12) opens when the king seeks someone to interpret the mysterious handwriting. As is now the pattern throughout the Book of Daniel, the king’s wise men cannot read the message, while the queen mother remembers a Hebrew prophet known for his ability to interpret such things (Daniel). The third scene (vv. 13-29) is Daniel’s appearance before the king when he interprets the handwriting and delivers its warning of impending judgment because of Belshazzar’s blasphemy. The final scene (vv. 30-31) occurs when YHWH fulfills what is promised in the mysterious handwriting when Darius conquers the city that same evening (and takes the Babylonian throne for his own).[6] We will cover the first two scenes in this essay, and then complete the chapter next time, Lord willing.
Scene One – A Drunken Bash
In verse 1 of chapter 5, the scene in the palace is set before us. “King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand.” Daniel’s description is one of a very big party with lots of wine flowing freely. Those present were from the leading families, civic officials, and regulars at court. There is no hint that the Persian army was just outside the city and nothing is said about any of the participants (including Belshazzar) feeling any sense of urgency to join the city’s defenders and perhaps rally them to drive back the Persians. We are left to wonder whether these royal big-wigs were unaware of what was about to happen (which seems unlikely given what Daniel says to Belshazzar in verse 22, “you know that YHWH humbled Nebuchadnezzar”), or if they thought defeat inevitable and held one last party in the face of death–“eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”
The scene is one of the leaders and officials of an empire so cut-off from reality and so thoroughly convinced of the empire’s invincibility that even though total collapse of the empire was but hours away, no one knew what to do, or even had the categories as to how to respond. A number of ancient Greek sources–from Herodotus to Xenophon report that Babylon fell to the Persians while the Babylonians were engaging in a late night drunken feast–confirming Daniel’s report. Other ancient writers tell us that the Persians captured the city virtually intact, killed Belshazzar that very night, occupying the city the next day, allowing Darius (Cyrus) to enter several days later with his new subjects waving palm branches signifying “peace.”[7] The Babylonians were quick to see what had happened and embraced the Persians. The drunken debauchery of the king’s party leads to something much worse according to verses 2-3, the out and out mockery of YHWH.
Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. Then they brought in the golden vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them.
The temple vessels are mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah, who mention this night (what is recounted in Daniel 5) in passing. These vessels were made of fine gold and silver and were known by Belshazzar and his guests to have been used in YHWH’s temple. They are the spoils of war.
Drunken Blasphemy
The reference to Belshazzer “tasting the wine,” is probably a euphemism for being drunk. The king is about to bring down the wrath of God upon his head and that of his kingdom. Recall that Nebuchadnezzar first laid siege to Jerusalem in 605 BC (this is when Daniel and his three friends were first captured and brought to Babylon). Recall too that YHWH allowed Nebuchadnezzar to seize some of the temple vessels (from YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem) and place them in the treasury in Babylon. In Daniel 1:1-2, we read,
in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god.
Nebuchadnezzar saw this as a triumph of his “gods” over YHWH, only to find himself in the years following repeatedly humbled by YHWH for boasting about such a thing. YHWH is Lord, not Nebuchadnezzar or his “gods.” That YHWH humbled the Babylonian king would bring much comfort to the Jews then in exile hearing Daniel’s prophecy.
YHWH allowed this pillage of the temple vessels and the city as a form of judgment upon the disobedient Israelites, who worshiped and served other gods and then intermarried with Gentile pagans. We also know that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem a second time before finally breaching the walls of the city in 587 BC, at that time completely destroying the city and the temple and perhaps bringing what was left of the gold and silver implements in the temple back to Babylon as the spoils of his victory over the defeated Jews and their God. No doubt, these expensive vessels held a place of honor in the Babylonian treasury.
As is clear from the ground we have covered so far in Daniel 2, 3, and 4, YHWH repeatedly demonstrated his sovereignty over Nebuchadnezzar, forcing the pagan king to confess that YHWH is the eternal God who rules from heaven and who is greater than all the gods of Babylon. But in the twenty-plus years since Nebuchadnezzar’s death, much political intrigue has gone on in Babylon, some of it centering upon which Babylonian “god” should be favored–Marduk (Belshazzar) or “Sin,” championed by Nabonidus. Fully aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s history with YHWH (as we know from what follows), in a moment of drunken bravado and blasphemy, Belshazzer demands that the gold and silver vessels be removed from the treasury and brought to the palace so that all the partygoers can drink from the gold and silver vessels taken from YHWH’s temple. It is a supreme and intentional act of sacrilege. This would be like taking home the communion ware for use at a bachelor party. The New Testament warns us of people getting sick and dying for profaning the Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16-22 with 11:27-31).
The partying in the royal palace is nothing short of open mockery of YHWH, blaspheming his name, and an obvious attempt on the part of Belshazzar to “outshine his predecessor and to demonstrate that he is greater than Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon’s greatest king.”[8] We are told in verse 4, the partygoers “drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.” The Babylonians have hit a new low and are now effectively demanding divine retribution and judgment in a supreme act of human sinfulness and rebellion. Renouncing YHWH, and mocking him, they also praise their gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. A more foolish and dangerous act is hard to conceive. Surely, Belshazzar knew enough of Nebuchadnezzar’s history to know that the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream which was crushed by a rock (Christ’s kingdom) was composed of the very same elements he and his people are now praising.[9]
The Handwriting Is on the Wall
YHWH crashes Belshazzar’s party. He sends Belshazzar a personal warning of imminent judgment in the form of a mysterious handwritten message–the basis for the phrase predicting imminent disaster, “the handwriting is on the wall.” Daniel recounts in verse 5, that “immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote.” This was not a drunken apparition seen only by the highly intoxicated king, but the now visible hand of a divine agent (an angel) if not the hand of the Angel of the Lord himself (the preincarnate Jesus Christ). The king saw the hand, the wise men saw the writing left behind.
It is interesting (and helpful) to note, that the royal palace in Babylon has since been excavated. It has a huge throne room (50m x 17m) found behind three large outer courtyards. A massive doorway faces a large niche in the wall opposite where the king’s throne was probably located. Nebuchadnezzar sat here. Daniel appeared here. Belshazzer saw the handwriting here. The wall behind the throne is covered with blue enamel tile (as with the Ishtar Gate), the rest of the walls are white plaster. Enough remains of the room that we can get a good sense of the lampstand probably placed before one of the walls near the throne, illuminating the room during the evening so the king could see visitors and entertainers. The light from the lamp enabled the king to see the hand and what it had written.[10]
The entire scene is creepy and intended to be. This was not some sort of graffiti left behind by teenage vandals or by the king’s enemies, suddenly discovered by those assembled. No, this is the hand of God (literally) and visible to the king, writing his word of judgment on the wall of the royal palace so the king could see it while at the same time the king and his guests were openly mocking YHWH. With the sight of a divine hand writing a mysterious warning on the wall, the king’s reaction is one of sheer terror. We read in verse 6, “then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together.” Belshazzar was absolutely terrified and looked faint. He is instantly sober, and since the Hebrew literally reads “the knots of his loins were loosed,” Daniel may be telling us euphemistically that the last Babylonian king soiled himself in the presence of YHWH’s hand of judgment.[11] Regardless, Daniel is certainly affirming that Belshazzar was too shaken to stand.[12] This mysterious hand and the message left behind warns all those present that the end is near. YHWH has just ruined Belshazzar’s party.
The Second Scene – Summon the Interpreters
Gathering himself enough to call for the wise men and court magicians to explain the meaning of this frightening turn of events, we learn in verse 7 that . . .
the king called loudly to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. The king declared to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
The situation is desperate and the matter is urgent. The king will give anyone who can read the mysterious handwritten message the symbols of royal office–purple robes and a gold chain.[13] As further evidence of the historical accuracy of the account, Belshazzar does not offer the interpreter a chance to be his second in command, but the third highest ruler in the kingdom, behind Nabonidus and Belshazzar.
The king’s court magicians prove themselves completely useless again. “Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation.” We are not told why the writing was unreadable although the characters were obviously visible to the naked eye. They seem to have been Aramaic (which the wise men could read), but were probably written without spaces, dots, or lines so that the wise men could not figure out individual words from an inscription in which everything ran together. Daniel will interpret the writing as three words, and then interpret the words through divine revelation (vv. 25-28).
Since YHWH wrote the words, so too only a prophet of YHWH can read/interpret them. The inability of his wise men and astrologers to translate the handwriting brought back the king’s initial panic. Daniel tells us in verse 9, “then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed, and his lords were perplexed.” The brash drunken king, once mocking YHWH, and praising the gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone, is no longer so brash. He’s terrified, his party is over, and the Persians are about to enter the palace and put the king to the sword.
I Remember Such a Man—Daniel
The queen (the mother of Belshazzar and wife of Nabonidus) who recalls what happened back in the days of Nebuchadnezzar enters the banquet hall with a very wise suggestion for Belshazzar. “The queen, because of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall, and the queen declared, `O king, live forever! Let not your thoughts alarm you or your color change.” She seeks to calm her son, and after the perfunctory royal greeting, “may the king live forever,” she proceeds to comfort her son, “dear, dear, you don’t look so good . . . it will be OK.”
The queen recalls that a young Hebrew servant had the ability to interpret the troubling dreams given to Nebuchadnezzar.
There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father—your father the king—made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers.
As noted earlier, Nebuchadnezzar is Belshazzar’s father in a figurative sense (predecessor), not a biological sense. This Hebrew prophet of YHWH–in whom YHWH’s Spirit dwells–could interpret dreams and showed himself to be wise beyond all the others serving in the Babylonian court–so wise, in fact, that Nebuchadnezzar named him prefect over the other wise man, court magicians, and astrologers.
The queen recalled that Daniel excelled, “because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.” If Daniel could interpret mysterious dreams, he should be able to interpret the mysterious handwriting. Nothing is said of what Daniel has been doing in the meantime. He’s now an old man, he’s outlived Nebuchadnezzar by 20+ years, he’s survived two palace coups, and was not familiar to the current king and his group of Chaldeans, which is an indication that he had not served the Babylonian royals for some time. Daniel probably did what all retired prophets do, he played golf. The queen, however, remembers him and knows that he can help her son. Daniel will be summoned immediately.
The king’s last hope is that “there is a man in his kingdom” who can read the writing. Belshazzar will not like what Daniel tells him (in vv. 13-31, scene three). YHWH will not be mocked. The king has been warned that this is his last night to live and that the great kingdom of Babylon soon will be no more. The time has come for YHWH to remove the kingdom of Babylon from Belshazzar, and to allow the Persians to rule in their stead. It will not be long before Darius the Mede (Cyrus) will issue his decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and allow the Jewish exiles to return home. YHWH keeps his promises. YHWH is Lord, not any Babylonian or Persian king.
YHWH Rules Over the Kingdom of Men
As for the scene depicted by Daniel in this chapter of his prophecy, YHWH gave a unmistakable sign of impending judgment upon the Babylonian king in the form of the mysterious handwriting on the wall of the royal palace. Only a prophet of YHWH can interpret the sign and explain what it means. Belshazzar has forgotten (or never learned) that it is YHWH who rules over all the kingdoms of men. It is YHWH who takes the kingdoms of men and gives them to whom he wills. Even kings have a king. YHWH will not be mocked by the likes of a Belshazzar. God keeps his promises to his covenant people, their 70 years in exile are about to come to an end. Soon, they will be returning home to rebuild.[14] As we read in Erza 1:1, not too long ago, “the Lord stirred up Cyrus king of Persia,” to let the Jews return home.
Yet the kings of the earth think nothing of mocking YHWH, or of blaspheming him, or as Nebuchadnezzar had done, act as though YHWH does not exist. Non-Christians cannot understand the ways of the Lord, because they have no spiritual discernment to see the hand of God (pun intended) as sovereign over all things. Paul addresses this sad fact in 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, where he writes,
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Neither the greatest kings nor the weakest of their subjects can understand the purposes of God, even when God gives them visible signs of his power and majesty. This is how deeply human sin affects us and this is why, apart from God’s prior grace and the work of his Holy Spirit, we will never understand the things of God or trust the cross of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. In the providence of God, the queen’s mother can say to Belshazzar “there is a man in your kingdom in whom God’s Spirit dwells,” and who possesses the wisdom of God. Thankfully, we have the very same Spirit who indwelt Daniel, and who lets us see the signs and wonders for what they are, also granting us the faith to trust in the cross of the crucified Savior to save us from our sins. For these things are wisdom from God for the salvation of our souls.
______________________________________
[1] See the discussion in, Steinmann, Daniel, 290-296.
[2] The historical background is capably set forth in: Baldwin, Daniel, 24-26; and Steinmann, Daniel, 258-259.
[3] Baldwin, Daniel, 132.
[4] Davis, Daniel, 71-72.
[5] Steinmann, Daniel, 262.
[6] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 148-149.
[7] Goldingay, Daniel, 106-108.
[8] Steinmann, Daniel, 272.
[9] Steinmann, Daniel, 272-273.
[10] Baldwin, Daniel, 134.
[11] Davis, Daniel, 74.
[12] Goldingay, Daniel, 101.
[13] Goldingay, Daniel, 109.
[14] Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 156.
Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast Updates:
- The missus and I have a busy schedule coming up so there may be a short interruption or two in the Blessed Hope Podcast release schedule. Also, I’ll be taking a break after I complete chapter 6 of 1 Corinthians.
- I am making my exposition of Paul’s Thessalonian letters available as a free download to listeners of the Blessed Hope Podcast. You can check it out here: “When the Lord Is Revealed from Heaven”
- You can also download “For Freedom!” my exposition of Galatians: "For Freedom!" -- An Expositional Commentary on Galatians
Thinking Out loud:
- My YouTube feed keeps popping up reruns from the old Carol Burnett show. One is Tim Conway as the old man shuffling along. I can’t watch it and not think of Joe Biden!
- MLB must do something about umpire Angel Hernandez—he’s harming the integrity of the game and has become a laughing stock.
- When will pro-Palestinian protesters get it? Making death threats, interrupting speeches and public meetings, blocking roads, bridges, and airports is anything but helpful to their cause. It infuriates people. Just stop already!
- I am taken aback by how those who were screaming for Bill Clinton to be impeached because of his tortured definition of “is,” now seem to have no problem at all with Trump paying off Playboy bunnies and porn stars.
Currently Reading:
I recently finished volume two of Ian Toll’s Pacific War trilogy. I highly recommend the series to anyone interested in World War Two. Toll has given us a wonderful survey of the Pacific War.
The Pacific War has been a life-long interest to me, probably because when I was growing up I was fascinated by stories of those who fought in the Pacific—Sailors and Marines who later became Orange County Sheriffs and worked as security guards at Knott’s Berry Farm. They would often come into our family business (a Christian Bookstore) for coffee, to chat with my dad, and scarf down cake, pie, and other goodies which my folks provided for them. And they told war stories . . .
One security guard (“Bud”) who had been a medic, won the Navy Cross for rescuing several wounded Marines while under machine gun fire on Bougainville in 1943. You would never think of him as a war hero. Another (“little Eddie”) was on the cruiser Helena when it was torpedoed and sunk during the battle of Kula Gulf in July of 1943. He told of being stunned by the torpedo hits, going into shark-filled water at night, trying to avoid or diving under burning fuel oil, helping wounded buddies stay afloat, while treading water until rescued by a destroyer. The stories absolutely fascinated me then, and have ever since.
While a teen, I read the entire 15 volumes of Samuel Elliot Morrison’s History of Naval Operations in World War Two from cover to cover. I’ve read countless books on the War in the Pacific since, and so was glad to learn of Toll’s series. I read the first volume shortly after its publication and couldn’t put it down. Since my day job kept me very busy (and retirement still does), I only recently finished volume two of Toll’s series and will soon tackle volume 3 (the final volume).
Toll’s volumes are fast paced, well-researched, and draw upon first-hand accounts from both sides as well as utilizing a wealth of Japanese archival sources not available to previous historians such as Morrison. Major participants in the War (such as Nimitz, Halsey, MacArthur, Spruance, Yamamoto) are introduced and the controversies surrounding them are given fair treatment with a minimum of editorializing. Toll gives us sufficient detail to follow the various naval engagements, yet manages to keep the big picture strategic implications before the reader, which is not often the case when there is so much ground to cover.
The highest compliment I can pay Toll is that I learned much, and enjoyed his narrative immensely. This is really good stuff—the way military history and campaigns ought to be covered.
Recommended Links:
- The best hour and a half I’ve spent in some time: Allen Guelzo on American democracy. Outstanding!
- No “lesser of evils” choice with these two presidential candidates: Carl Trueman on Trumpite Evangelicalism or Biden Catholicism
- The transformation of the “Moral Majority” into MAGA populism continues. God Gave us Trump. Joseph de Meistre was right—a nation gets the government they deserve
- I am so glad I am out of the Christian bookstore industry. I can imagine explaining to angry customers why we don’t carry the Trump Bible
- Meanwhile, Biden makes another self-defeating appeal to the woke left. Trans Day of Visibility falls on Easter. And as a bonus, we learned that his uncle was eaten by cannibals
Links to Other Stuff:
- It is certain the Riddlebargers will not be traveling to Thailand anytime soon: Rampaging monkey gangs (the missus is not a fan of angry primates—or any primate for that matter)
Duck Dynasty? Man brings his “service duck” into Buc-ees and gets banned * Rats will eat anything—including marijuana from the evidence room. Then they demand Jack-in the Box tacos and Doritos after eating all of the evidence * Yes, teenagers stink. Here’s why * All Blue-Eyed People have a single common ancestor
Previous Musings: March 3/13/2024
Video: Jazz drummers were amazing—especially these two. I don’t know if any rock drummer (other than possibly Neal Peart) can touch them. I wonder what Lars Ulrich of Metallica (thud, thud, thud) and the late Charlie Watts of the Stones would think of this duel.
Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All
Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.
__________________________________________
Having labored in articles 1-4 to establish that the purpose of the death of Christ is to be found in the satisfaction of God’s wrath toward sinners who have sinned against his infinite holiness, the Canons now make the point that the very nature of the saving work of Christ demands that it be proclaimed universally to sinners. The proclamation of the cross of Christ (i.e., the gospel) is the primary means by which God calls his elect to faith.
In article 3 of the first head of doctrine, the Canons teach that God has not only ordained the ends (who will be saved), he has also ordained the means by which he will save them (the preaching of the gospel). Scripture connects the end (the salvation of God’s elect), with the means by which God saves his elect; the death of his only begotten son, whose shed blood is more precious than gold or silver.
The previous articles under the second head of doctrine (1-4) make the case that the death of Christ is the only possible means by which God’s anger towards sinners can be satisfied and turned away from them (as a propitiation). Therefore, it is the gospel–defined by Paul as the proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) proclaimed in such a way that Christ’s death is publicly placarded before sinners (Galatians 3:1)–which must be proclaimed to sinners. This is so that sinners might understand that God’s anger toward them is satisfied only by the death of Christ. Called to faith through the message of Christ crucified, sinners will trust in the satisfaction of Christ to save them from God’s anger toward their sin. Once in Christ through faith, sinners receive the forgiveness of sins, and the free gift of eternal life.
To put it more simply, God’s appointed end—the salvation of his elect—determines the means of saving the elect. It is the death of Christ which assuages God’s holy anger towards sin in a display of his justice and mercy. Since the only way anyone can be saved is through the death of Christ for them and in their place, this gospel must be preached to all nations (people) without exception. Since God has determined to save his elect through the death of his son, this necessitates that the gospel be preached to all so that God’s elect, scattered throughout all the nations, might come to faith in Jesus Christ and thereby be saved from God’s wrath to come.
At this point, a common but ill-informed challenge is raised–if you believe in the Reformed conception of election, you inevitably depreciate the need for evangelism. Of course, there are instances where Reformed Christians have failed to evangelize with sufficient zeal and purpose. But this says nothing about whether the stress in the Reformed confessions (like the Canons of Dort) on preaching and evangelism being the means through which God calls his elect to faith is true. In fact, there are a number of faithful Reformed churches and missionary organizations who are zealous about reaching the world with the gospel.
The question to consider here is, “how does the Reformed view of election effect the Reformed practice of evangelism?” As is clear from the Canons, the Reformed believe that election and the preaching of the gospel are necessarily connected in terms of divinely appointed ends and means. When faithful to our confessions and doctrinal heritage, the Reformed should be quite zealous to see the gospel preached locally to their neighbors as well as to the nations.
The two common errors which arise at this point are the error of neglecting evangelism (of which the Reformed have at times been guilty) and the error of basing the success of the evangelistic enterprise upon the ability of the fallen human will and not in the sovereign power of God which is made manifest in the preaching of Christ crucified. This latter error has moved much of Christ’s church away from a cross-centered gospel to an enticement, testimonial, and entertainment-centered faux Christianity.
The list of problems which arise from not connecting the means (the preached gospel) to the ends (the elect being called to faith in Christ) has produced a host of problems, from the invention of the altar call to the mass evangelistic crusade which takes place apart from the auspices of a local congregation and the means of grace. Whenever this enticement-entertainment approach is adopted, the emphasis inevitably falls upon the enticements themselves (not the gospel) and there is always a subtle but real tendency to manipulate people to respond to the stimuli. The focus is no longer upon a clear and faithful proclamation of the saving work of Christ in which the hope of effective evangelism is grounded upon God’s grace and power. Instead, too often we trust in the natural ability of fallen men and women to come to faith if enticed to do so.
As Reformed Christians let us carefully take note of what our confessions teach about the relationship between election and evangelism, namely that “it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.” It is Paul who teaches us that the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of whoever believes (Romans 1:18; 1 Corinthians 1:17). Therefore, we must place our confidence in the proclamation of the saving work of Christ if we wish to see men and women come to faith in the Savior. If we believe in total depravity and unconditional election, we must equally believe in the centrality of the preaching of Christ crucified, since these things are necessarily connected.
The bottom line: If we embrace the Reformed confessions, we must preach the gospel to all.
Episode Synopsis:
Paul expressed a fair bit of righteous anger in his letter to the Galatians–calling those taken in by false teachers foolish people who have been all-too easily bewitched by false teachers. In 1 Corinthians 4, the apostle again expresses his frustration, speaking sarcastically of those who think of themselves as rich (when they are poor), and as kings who act as though they rule the church (when they are not). But Paul will have none of it. It matters not to him what the immature in Corinth think of him. What matters is that God is judge of such things, not the Corinthians.
Paul reminds them that ministers are God’s servants who proclaim the gospel of Christ crucified, not faction leaders who seek to draw followers unto themselves. God has entrusted the mysteries of the gospel to his ministers and he will judge their motives. Neither Paul nor Apollos have sought to please them–both men sought to be faithful to the charge given them by Christ to preach the gospel. Addicted to pagan ways of thinking and doing, the Corinthians still think and act like citizens of this present evil age, not as citizens of the age to come. Since the Corinthians are puffed-up by their misguided pride, Paul reminds them of all that he has suffered for the sake of Christ so as to preach the gospel and conduct his missionary journeys. When reviled he blesses. When persecuted he presses on. When slandered he is gracious. Yet, he is still treated as scum and filth. These immature Corinthians are unwitting slaves to their own pride and have earned the sarcastic rebuke from Paul we find in 1 Corinthians 4.
As their father in the faith, Paul is not writing to shame them, but to urge them to imitate him. So far, he has been prevented from returning to Corinth, so he sent Timothy in his absence. Lord willing the apostle will make his way back to Corinth, but until be does, he reminds them that through this letter and in the power of the Holy Spirit he is present with them. The question with which Paul leaves the Corinthians is, “when I come, shall I bring the rod, or shall I come in a spirit of love and gentleness?” The choice is up to them. Mend their ways and embrace humility, or face the discipline of the apostle.
Show Notes:
A free downloadable PDF exposition of Paul’s two Thessalonian letters is now available to those who listened to Season Two: “When the Lord Is Revealed from Heaven”
No airplanes interrupted the recording session! My prayer hedge is warding them off.
It is allergy season is So Cal, so my voice suffers a bit.
Note: I will be taking a brief break after we complete chapter 6 (the end of the first half of 1 Corinthians)
Link to Resources:
More on Apollos
Priscilla and Apollos
The apostolic office
Paul, the Last Apostle (Peter Jones)
Series Bibliography:
Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians --Lectio Continua (RHB, 2024).
F. F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free. A bit dated but still remains the best biographical study of Paul
Douglas J. Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters (2021). A helpful big picture survey of Paul’s theology and epistles.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (2018). A good and modern commentary on 1 Corinthians. If you buy one commentary, this ought to be it.
Charles Hodge, I & II Corinthians, reprint ed (Banner, or the volume on 1 Corinthians published by Crossway. This has long been the Reformed standard commentary on 1 Corinthians. Theologically solid, but badly dated.
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (1987). Good material, especially on background and context, but charismatic in its orientation.
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (2010). A good academic commentary, although there are several solid ones from which to choose.
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
Monergism.com is an invaluable resource. John Hendryx, the proprietor, has been providing great free resources for over a decade. Here’s the purpose statement from the “about” section of the Monergism.com website if you are not familiar with them.
Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone. The directory consists of original and aggregated content from around the world emphasizing the good news that salvation is God's free gift for guilty sinners, not a reward for the righteous.
John sent out the following request earlier this week. Monergism.com is well worth supporting. Check out the links provided at the end of the request if you wish to sample the sort of resources they provide.
Here’s John’s request:
Partner with Monergism.com to Keep Sharing the Truth
Dear friends,
I hope this letter finds you well and thriving in grace. As we navigate through the challenges and opportunities of 2024, I want to extend my deepest gratitude for your continued support and partnership with Monergism.com. Your generosity plays a crucial role in enabling us to continue our mission of offering accessible, scripturally grounded materials that foster a deeper understanding of God's Word and its application in our lives.
This year, we've embarked on ambitious projects to expand our digital library and enhance the resources available to believers worldwide. We've also welcomed a new Content Editor to our talented team including a Graphic Designer and an Engineer to ensure our materials are both profound and accessible. Moreover, to keep pace with the ever-evolving digital landscape, we recognize the importance of engaging with our community through social media. Therefore, we aim, with your help, to hire a Social Media Manager to broaden our reach and share the Gospel more effectively.
However, as we strive to enrich the faith and knowledge of believers around the globe, we face a significant challenge. We have fallen behind on our needed funds for the first quarter of 2024, still needing $27,500 to meet our budget. This shortfall impacts our ability to pay our dedicated employees and cover the essential costs of running our website, including web hosting fees and security measures. This follows a year where we missed our budget by about $50,000 in 2023, underscoring the urgency of our current need.
Your contribution aids us not only in enhancing our digital library but also in supporting our dedicated team who are the backbone of our mission. It is through the support of donors like you that we can continue to distribute invaluable theological content that enriches the faith and knowledge of believers around the globe.
In these moments, your support is more critical than ever. A donation of any size can make a profound difference in our ability to continue our work. We ask you to consider making a contribution today to help us bridge this gap and ensure the ongoing availability of our resources to those who seek to deepen their understanding of the Gospel.
Please visit our donation page here to make a contribution. Your generosity will directly support our mission and help us to continue providing valuable resources to believers worldwide.
With warmest regards and gratitude,
John Hendryx
Executive Director
Monergism.com
P.S. Please feel free to share this message with friends and family who might be interested in supporting our mission. Together, we can make a difference in spreading the truth of God's Word far and wide.
Check out our new library of over 70 paperback books
Download from our library of over 1070 free eBooks
Download our free eBook Library app
When I am not yelling at clouds and chasing the neighbor kids out of the yard, I have stayed pretty busy in retirement.
As you may know, I have been going through the letters of Paul in historical (not canonical) order in my Blessed Hope Podcast. So far, I have completed Galatians, Paul's Thessalonian letters, and I am now deep into 1 Corinthians.
As a premium for listeners who make it through each season of the pod, I make an expanded version of the manuscript available free of charge as a PDF download. I figure if people can stand to listen to me for twenty plus hours of each season, they ought to get something for free.
My expositional commentary for season two, "When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven" is now ready for download. Note, these have not been professionally edited (which is expensive) so that I can offer them at no cost.
You can find more information and downloading instructions here: The Blessed Podcast Season Two, free PDF download
According to Jonathan Brentner at Rapture Ready, the recent solar eclipse is the harbinger of God’s coming judgment upon America. The judgment will come about for two reasons, Brentner writes. One is the moral decay in America, specifically among the politicians. This includes the pressure Biden has put on Israel to back off the pursuit of Hamas. Any nation which does not support Israel will be cursed, based upon a bad misreading of Genesis 12:3. The second reason he offers is that such events are signs of the coming seven-year tribulation.
Of course, there is great moral decline—especially of late. We all see it. Yes politicians are corrupt—when has that not been the case? Yes, there are difficult decisions facing the American president in regard to Israel and Hamas (and Iran). But what does the eclipse have to do with any of this? Well, says Brentner, it has happened before:
Brentner writes,
The first solar eclipse occurred on June 16, 1806, with the second completing the X on September 17, 1811. The intersection happened over the New Madrid fault area, which includes an area from Cairo in southern Illinois to nearby New Madrid, MO.
On December 16, 1811, just three months after the second solar eclipse, a series of devastating earthquakes struck along the New Madrid fault line. The following quote comes from the New Madrid, MO, website:
The New Madrid earthquakes were the biggest earthquakes in American history. They occurred in the central Mississippi Valley but were felt as far away as New York City, Boston, Montreal, and Washington D.C. President James Madison and his wife Dolly felt them in the White House. Church bells rang in Boston. From December 16, 1811, through March of 1812, there were over 2,000 earthquakes in the central Midwest and between 6,000-10,000 earthquakes in the Bootheel of Missouri,where New Madrid is located near the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.
In the known history of the world, no other earthquakes have lasted so long or produced so much evidence of damage as the New Madrid earthquakes. Three of the earthquakes are on the list of America’s top earthquakes: the first one on December 16, 1811, a magnitude of 8.1 on the Richter scale; the second on January 23, 1812, at 7.8; and the third on February 7, 1812, at as much as 8.8 magnitude.
Could the upcoming completion of an X across the U.S. midsection by the April 8, 2024 eclipse point to another catastrophe in the months afterward?
Is he predicting massive earthquakes? Yes. But that is a safe bet, since future earthquakes are inevitable. Some 1,712 earthquakes with magnitude of five or more were recorded worldwide in 2023. Notice however, that he hedges his bets because the massive earthquakes may come “months afterward.” This gives him an out lest anyone like me question his methods and conclusions. As the old saying goes, a broken clock gets the time right twice a day.
But the propensity to play prophet arises from the same wearisome attempt to tie wars, anything to do with Israel, and natural disasters to the dispensational view of the approaching seven year tribulation and the rapture. And so when a few months go by, and Christ has not returned, or California has not fallen into the sea (as many no doubt are hoping), what will Mr. Brentner do then? My guess is the prophecy pundits will shamelessly use the same template again when the inevitable significant event makes national news.
I’ve watched the prophecy pundits do this for much of my adult life. When they get it wrong, do they repent? Do they re-think their eschatology? No, they just retrench and blissfully keep on going. This stuff sells books, and gets clicks. Thankfully, people tend to be forgiving and have short memories. No one will remember this bad prediction the next time he makes another.
And so we remind them yet again of Peter’s caution that these sort of speculative predictions have a serious unintended consequence—they create the very scoffers Peter warns about (2 Peter 3:3-4). And didn’t Jesus make it perfectly clear that no one knows the day or the hour of our Lord’s return (Matthew 24:36)? Oh, they’ll say they merely are warning, not predicting, but in their hands that is a distinction without a difference.
Yes, Jesus will return to raise the dead, judge the world, and usher in a new heaven and earth. So instead of using the current-event calculus they use, we nevertheless join with them and offer the simple prayer, “Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus”
A Second Bad Dream
King Nebuchadnezzar has had another terrifying dream. Once again his court magicians and wise men cannot interpret his dream. Greatly troubled, the Babylonian king summons his Hebrew servant Daniel to interpret this dream which has disrupted the king’s life of relative ease and comfort. Daniel will reveal that the unsettling circumstances foretold in Nebuchadnezzar’s previous dream are soon to come to pass. In the prior dream (as recounted in Daniel 2), the king saw a frightening metallic stature with a head of gold, which represented the king and his empire. But that kingdom will fall before a series of empires yet to follow. Nebuchadnezzar and his vast kingdom will come to an end–replaced by the Persian empire then just beginning to rise to power. Now in old age, Nebuchadnezzar remains convinced that his kingdom is mighty and that it stands as a testimony to his own accomplishments and greatness. But as a consequence of these two dreams, the king is beginning to realize that his kingdom is no match for YHWH. YHWH rules all the kingdoms of the earth from heaven. His kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is eternal. None of this can be said of any earthly kingdom, including Nebuchadnezzar’s.
We pick-up where we left off last time with v. 19 of Daniel 4, when the king had another troubling dream and then summoned the Hebrew prophet (Daniel) to interpret the dream for him. Ironically, it was Daniel (a believing Jew), who, in gaining favor with the king after interpreting his first dream successfully was appointed prefect over Nebuchadnezzar’s pagan court magicians. The king’s magicians fail again and so it falls to Daniel to explain to the king what his second dream foretold–events which Nebuchadnezzar probably suspected (based upon his previous terrifying dream years before), yet which now brought him to a breaking point.
Nebuchadnezzar Is Given a Glimpse of His Future
The scene described in Daniel 4:19-37, comes late in Nebuchadnezzar’s life and forty-plus year career, likely at some point after his prolonged military campaigns in Judah and Tyre, yet before his final campaign in Egypt and his death in 562 BC. Chapter 4 contains a first-person account from the king (in the form of a letter) about his dream, his subsequent break with reality, followed by his equally dramatic restoration.
The king has witnessed YHWH’s power and sovereign hand often enough to willingly confess that YHWH is the Most High God (v. 1), who is all powerful (v. 35), and whose kingdom will never end (vv. 3, 34). Yet Nebuchadnezzar never confesses his sins nor repents of them (or even acknowledges that he is a sinner). He never rejects the pagan gods of Babylon, even though he is forced to acknowledge that Daniel’s God (YHWH) is much more powerful than Bel (Marduk), the king’s preferred god from among the legion of Babylonian deities. We see in this chapter that Nebuchadnezzar has reached the pinnacle of his career, has another frightening dream, suffers a mental collapse (as foretold in the dream), and then has his sanity restored. All of this is YHWH’s doing.
The reason for Daniel’s inclusion of this first-person account from the king–including his reluctant acknowledgment of YHWH as greater than his own gods, as well as his recounting a serious mental illness–is to remind and comfort the Jewish exiles forcibly taken from their homes in Judah, and now living under Nebuchadnezzar’s heavy hand in Babylon, that YHWH is sovereign over all things. YHWH has used the king and his empire as his agent to bring judgment upon disobedient Israel. Since YHWH is sovereign over all things, God’s promises to the Jewish exiles still stand. When their seventy years in exile are over, YHWH will ensure they are released from bondage and return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple.
So, there’s much more here than a simple recounting of the king’s mental breakdown and restoration. The critical point is that YHWH will keep his promises to his people. He is Nebuchadnezzar’s Lord, an important and encouraging point for those reading Daniel’s prophecy to realize. They may live under the hand of a tyrant (Nebuchadnezzar), but that tyrant is no match for YHWH and loses his sanity as a consequence of his arrogance and boasting.
Daniel Reluctantly Interprets the King’s Second Dream
As we turn to verses 19-37 of Daniel 4, we pick up after Nebuchadnezzar’s recounting of the details of his second dream to Daniel in verse 18. “This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, saw. And you, O Belteshazzar [Daniel’s Babylonian name], tell me the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation, but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.” Echoing the words of Pharaoh to Joseph (from the Joseph story in Genesis 37-50), the king acknowledges that YHWH’s Spirit indwells Daniel, which is why Daniel is YHWH’s prophet who can interpret the dream while the king’s magicians cannot.
We should notice that Daniel is reluctant to interpret this dream for the king. The reason why is that Daniel knows that the dream will remind the king of YHWH’s former revelation that judgment will fall upon Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom (the vision of the metallic statue crushed by the rock made without human hands–Christ’s kingdom). Daniel also knows that the king can be a tyrannical ruler who does not respond well to bad news–in this case, the worst possible news. Daniel and his friends have barely escaped death several times before, and Daniel knows the same thing might happen again. So it is no wonder that we read in verse 19,
then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was dismayed for a while, and his thoughts alarmed him. The king answered and said, “Belteshazzar, let not the dream or the interpretation alarm you.” Belteshazzar answered and said, “My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies!”
Skilled in the ways of the court, and with the gift of divine wisdom (given him by YHWH), Daniel demonstrates his loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar as his servant before interpreting the dream.[1]
Reassured by the king that his servant will not be harmed, Daniel begins by recounting the details of the dream to the king beginning in verse 20.
The tree you saw, which grew and became strong, so that its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth, whose leaves were beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in which was food for all, under which beasts of the field found shade, and in whose branches the birds of the heavens lived— it is you, O king, who have grown and become strong. Your greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth.
Daniel recounts the dream with several minor alterations and defers to the king’s greatness, “it is you O king” and “your greatness reaches the heavens.”
Nebuchadnezzar’s Breakdown Foretold
It is interesting to take note of the fact that in the next chapter (5:20), during the reign of Belshazzar (the eldest son of the last king of Babylon–and one of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors) when Daniel reads the mysterious writing on the wall,[2] he describes Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom in slightly less positive light than he does here.
But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was brought down from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him. He was driven from among the children of mankind, and his mind was made like that of a beast, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. He was fed grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, until he knew that the Most High God rules the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will.
When seen from this later vantage point, the main point of the dream (chapter 4) is a warning about the king’s grandiose view of himself and his cruelty toward the people of God (Judah).
Daniel continues to interpret the king’s dream in verse 23.
And because the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, “Chop down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field, and let him be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven periods of time pass over him.”
Once again Daniel repeats the dream with a few minor alterations. Daniel is being careful not to offend the king, yet not soft-peddling what YHWH has revealed to him about the king’s dream. Daniel omits the details of the tree’s destruction (obvious to the king) as well as the king’s severe mental break, simply telling the king he’ll have his portion with the beasts for a divinely appointed period of time, the “seven periods of time”–probably not seven years, but symbolic of a time of the completion of YHWH’s judgment upon the king.[3]
The Meaning of the Dream – YHWH, Not Nebuchadnezzar Is Sovereign
With the recounting of the content of the dream complete, Daniel gives Nebuchadnezzar the divinely-revealed interpretation of the dream. Beginning in verse 24, Daniel tells the king, “this is the interpretation, O king: It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king.” Daniel tells the king that YHWH is sovereign over both the king and the details of the king’s dream. It is YHWH who sends the watchers (the angels) who go out to the ends of the earth, and then do as YHWH commands them. This is yet another powerful blow to the king’s massive ego and overestimation of the power and greatness of his kingdom–which is great, no doubt, in terms of worldly power, but completely insignificant in the face of YHWH’s power and decree. The watcher will come down and put in motion YHWH’s previously hidden decree which now plays out on the stage of human history.
YHWH has decreed for the king the fate spelled out in verses 25-27. This is not a message which Nebuchadnezzar wants to hear, especially at a time when he is living in ease and comfort, with a long list of accomplishments. But this is the warning YHWH sends him through the dream.
You shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will. And as it was commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be confirmed for you from the time that you know that Heaven rules.
The king will come under YHWH’s hand of judgment. He will lose his sanity. He will live among the beasts and eat grass like an animal.
Nebuchadnezzar Must Acknowledge YHWH as Lord Over All
This delusional condition will go on until the king once again acknowledges YHWH’s sovereign will and majesty (the seven periods of time). The king rules over Babylon because YHWH wills it. But the king will also come under YHWH’s judgment for as long as YHWH wills it. YHWH requires that Nebuchadnezzar admit as much–that the king of heaven rules, not Nebuchadnezzar or his earthly kingdom–and all will be restored to him. Although God’s rule is from heaven, it is God who directs, controls, and establishes the kingdoms of this world to serve his sovereign purposes. As one writer so eloquently puts it, “God rules down here, not merely up there. It was in the kingdom of men that he wanted his will done – in Babylon.”[4] YHWH’s kingdom extends to the ends of the earth. It is he who directs Babylon to execute judgment upon disobedient Israel. It is he who brings judgment upon Babylon and its king for refusing to bow the knee in faith to YHWH, after being shown YHWH’s might and power so many times.
Usually kings tell their subjects what to do. But Nebuchadnezzar now learns that he too is a subject–of YHWH, and that he must do as YHWH commands. Daniel exhorts the king to repent and seek YHWH’s favor much like the prophets whom YHWH sends to his people Israel in calling for repentance.[5] “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity.” Daniel, speaking as YHWH’s prophet to a pagan king, weighing his words carefully (so as not to show haughtiness or disrespect), nevertheless commands that Nebuchadnezzar repent of his sins–specifically his “iniquities.” Once having done so, the king is to live righteously (obeying the commandments of God), specifically by showing mercy to his subjects.
Law and Gospel
This is the pattern of salvation we find throughout the Scriptures. The law of God condemns us before him and shows us our need of a Savior. When we measure our own obedience against the law of God, we realize that we have not obeyed God’s commands perfectly, and that we need a Savior from the guilt and power of sin. As the redemptive drama unfolds, we learn that such faith is to be directed to the person and saving work of Jesus Christ. We perform good works as the fruit of genuine faith. Should Nebuchadnezzar embrace these things, it would be a sign that he believed YHWH’s promise, and that he had come to realize his lowly position before God. He would demonstrate that all of us (including kings, queens, and presidents) are beggars before God and can make no claims upon him.[6] Daniel reminds the king of this, when he tells him, “should you do this, God will prolong your days.” The evidence tells us that Nebuchadnezzar never did do these things, so the events foretold in the dream will come to pass–exactly as we see in verse 28.
A year has now passed since the second dream. YHWH has given Nebuchadnezzar plenty of time to heed his warning and repent. The king is still in Babylon in residence in the royal palace. But there has been no change in the king’s thinking or attitude. Daniel tell us, “all this,” that is everything foretold in the dream of the previous year, “came upon King Nebuchadnezzar.” In verses 29-32 Daniel recounts how
. . . at the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, and the king answered and said,
Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?’ While the words were still in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven,O King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. And you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.
YHWH had warned the king through a dream. He now speaks to the king directly–only this time it is to pronounce judgment.
Nebuchadnezzar Does Not Repent–Judgment Falls Upon Him
Despite YHWH’s dream, pointedly warning the king of what was to come, and despite sending Daniel as a preacher of righteousness and repentance, Nebuchadnezzar had not repented, and the next year finds him back in his palace (the same place where he had his two dreams) walking on the roof, arrogantly boasting about all of his accomplishments and his own greatness. Babylon was truly a great city during this time–anyone who has ever been to the Pergamon Museum in Berlin has seen the great mosaics (of lions, antelopes, and griffins) and blue mosaic walls from the Ishtar gate. The city was also home to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world–the Hanging Gardens, which the king had built for his wife, Queen Amytis. His musing about his own greatness reveals that despite YHWH’s gracious warning, Nebuchadnezzar still does not get it–YHWH is King of kings and Lord of lords, not Nebuchadnezzar.
With YHWH pronouncing judgment upon the king, the results are swift, debilitating, and for someone like Nebuchadnezzar, completely humiliating. We read in verse 33, “immediately the word was fulfilled against Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven from among men and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws.” Banishment is not only the original punishment for human arrogance (we think of the Fall of our race as recounted in Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden), but it also becomes a common form of biblical punishment. We see this in God’s judgment upon Israel–the Northern Kingdom being defeated and captured by the Assyrians. We see this with Judah, because idolatry and unbelief led to God’s judgment when Judah fell to Nebuchadnezzar as evident by the Jews now in exile in Babylon, banished, for a time (seventy years), from the promised land. Jesus warned Israel of possible banishment yet again in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13), a warning which was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Jews were dispersed into the four corners of the earth by the Romans.
The same banishment judgment now befalls Nebuchadnezzar, who after the long-suffering patience and repeated revelation from YHWH continued to speak as though “he were the eternal king and God did not exist.”[7] The king mentally snaps and begins to live the life of a beast, with long unkempt hair, uncut nails, eating grass. The nature of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness has produced much speculation across the centuries–one influential commentator on Daniel concluded that the king suffered from lycanthropy, a disease long thought to be tied to hydrophobia (fear of water) in which people were thought to display symptoms similar to dogs and wolves with rabies.[8] Lycanthropy (as an illness) later gave rise to the Werewolf legends now so popular in film and literature.
It is useless to speculate about the exact nature of the king’s illness, except to say his condition is as a direct result of God’s immediate judgment. It is also clear from this account that it is far better to heed YHWH’s warning (in this case, repeated warnings) than it is to mock YHWH by acting as though he did not exist, and that your kingdom was your doing, even after all that YHWH had shown Nebuchadnezzar to demonstrate otherwise. In this episode we see something about ourselves–we see how deeply and completely sin resides in the human heart (including our own), so that even after repeated revelations and warnings, Nebuchadnezzar still refuses to humble himself and repent. Unless the Holy Spirit opens our hearts and grants us faith and its fruit (repentance), we are all just like Nebuchadnezzar, thankfully with much less geopolitical power and with common grace institutions within the civil kingdom controlling our evil impulses–jails, police, courts, etc.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Illness Comes to an End–Blesses the Most High
Now the king will suffer in this deplorable state as long as God wills it. The exact length of time is not specified (other than seven periods of time), but we are told in verse 34 that at some point when YHWH’s judgment had run its course, “at the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me.” YHWH’s judgment upon the king had been lifted and his sanity was returned to him. His first act once his sanity has been restored was to acknowledge YHWH as sovereign Lord, whose kingdom alone is without end. Nebuchadnezzar tells us, “and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation.” Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom will certainly end, and the king will eventually die as do all the children of Adam. But YHWH and his kingdom are eternal. Finally, the king grasps the very thing YHWH has communicated to him many times before. YHWH is sovereign over all things, without beginning or end. Nebuchadnezzar is a king with a powerful kingdom, humanly speaking, but nevertheless subject to YHWH’s will, and like all human kingdoms, Babylon will become a footnote to human history and the great city reduced to an exhibit in a museum in Berlin.
Praising YHWH as sovereign king and Lord is something Nebuchadnezzar has been forced to do before. After his time of living with the beasts and eating grass, the king finally understands the corollary of confessing YHWH as Lord. If YHWH is sovereign, then the king is not. He states in verse 35, “all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, `What have you done?’” Nebuchadnezzar finally “gets” (and confesses) what so many people in our world will not or cannot confess (even many professing Christians), namely that if we are but creatures who are born at a particular time and place, to particular parents, and possess a unique physical appearance and unique DNA, all determined by YHWH, then who among can stay his hand? Who among us can overturn, thwart, or disrupt YHWH’s will? Not one of Adam’s fallen race. We are his creatures.
Nebuchadnezzar closes his letter (vv. 36-37) with words of praise for YHWH (whom he calls the king of Heaven, who always acts righteously), yet falls far short of confessing his sins, trusting in YHWH’s covenant promise, and did not repent by doing those things YHWH commanded him (through Daniel).
At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.
Driven to insanity by YHWH’s hand of judgment, the king acknowledges what his Jewish subjects in exile have known all along–YHWH is the true and living God who is sovereign over all. What the king fails to acknowledge is what those believers in YHWH’s promise in Israel confess. YHWH is a merciful God who forgives sin and who promises a heavenly inheritance to all his people. Sadly, such a confession cannot be found on Nebuchadnezzar’s lips.
Yet, Nebuchadnezzar Will Not Repent and Believe
Well then, what do we take with us from this passage? Nebuchadnezzar’s acknowledgment that YHWH is Lord of all was quite remarkable, but only after coming under God’s judgment. The great king has been humbled, has a breakthrough in understanding his place before God, and he understands that his kingdom is not as great or mighty as he thinks it is. Yes, Nebuchadnezzar confesses of YHWH, “all his works are right and his ways are just,” but the words, “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner,” are not found.
When we compare the king’s attitude–even after forcibly humbled by YHWH–to that of the true King of King’s attitude toward suffering and obedience to God’s will, our application comes into view. In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul gives us this amazing description of Jesus’s attitude toward his messianic mission and the suffering and obedience it required,
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
If anyone could boast of unlimited power and unsurpassed authority it is Jesus. Yet he humbled himself even to death upon a cross. He conquers kingdoms like Nebuchadnezzar’s by suffering and dying and obeying God’s will–not by coercive force or the power of the sword. In doing this, Paul says, Jesus becomes our example of true humility, as well as our Savior. It is Jesus, not any earthly king, who is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, before whom all of the Nebuchadnezzars of this word will bow, and confess Jesus’s majesty to the glory of the Father.
________________________________________
[1] Steinmann, Daniel, 242-243.
[2] Baldwin, Daniel, 24-26.
[3] Steinmann, Daniel, 244-245.
[4] R. S. Wallace, cited in Davis, The Message of Daniel, 65.
[5] Baldwin, Daniel, 126.
[6] Steinmann, Daniel, 245.
[7] Goldingay, Daniel, 95-96.
[8] Baldwin, Daniel, 126.
In an age of growing uncertainty, increasing angst, and divisive tribalism, a number of strategies (often politically focused) have been proposed to stem the rising tide of unbelief and the social havoc of our times. But one important area of doctrine which speaks to these issues is often overlooked—ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church. In the first of this series (Christ’s Spotless Bride) I addressed some of the reasons why the doctrine of the church is not of interest to many, and why I think reflection on the nature and mission of Christ’s church offers important, if overlooked, answers to many of our current woes. In this and the next piece in this series I will consider a number of the images given us in the New Testament in order to stimulate thinking about how the church offers solutions to these contemporary problems, and then address some of the ways we ought to think about the church. These images of the church in the New Testament, along with the attributes and marks of the church (which will be taken up later), help us to better understand the nature of the church and the comfort to be found in the new covenant community.
New Testament Images of the Church
There are a number of images used in the New Testament to describe Christ’s church. Such images are but one way of approaching the doctrine of the church.[1] To understand the value of these images, an analogy to the doctrine of God (theology proper) might help. Scripture teaches us about God (who is incomprehensible in himself) not only by ascribing certain attributes to him (e.g., justice, knowledge, power) but also by identifying him as a certain kind of person or having a certain kind of role (e.g., king, shepherd, warrior).
But these attributes of God are analogical and anthropological and cannot be absolutized. God is like but also unlike human kings, and being a king does not exhaust who God is. Similarly, the church displays the images given us in certain respects, but none of them describes the church comprehensively. Louis Berkhof speaks of “figurative designations of the Church, each of which stresses some particular aspect of the Church.”[2] That is my approach here. There are certainly a number of these images given us in the New Testament which are well worth consideration.
The Inauguration of the New Covenant Community
In Acts 2:41-47, Luke reports the following events as a consequence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
These events were unique to that tumultuous period in redemptive history in which the age to come breaks in upon this present evil age, and the kingdom of God has come in the power of the Holy Spirit. F. F. Bruce points out that “the conviction of sin that followed Peter’s preaching was no momentary panic, but filled the people with a lasting sense of awe. God was at work among them; they were witnessing the dawn of the new age. This impression was intensified by the wonders and signs performed through the apostles.”[3]
The apostolic church was composed of several thousand newly baptized believers, who devoted themselves to four particular activities spelled out in Acts 2:42: 1). The apostles’ teaching, 2). The fellowship, 3). The breaking of bread, and 4). “The prayers.” These activities became the foundation of Christian worship and grounded the orientation of the Christian life in the apostolic age which commenced. Word and sacrament are at the center. Believers in this transitional period also practiced a sort of communal living, and witnessed the signs and wonders associated with the apostolic office.
Initially, public assembly and worship (the koinonia) took place in the temple precincts, but then moved into local dwellings for the fellowship meals, described by Luke as “the breaking of bread.” Those who heard the word preached–the authoritative teaching of the apostles–were baptized and celebrated a fellowship meal with other believers. The “fellowship meal” may be a carryover from a Jewish fellowship meal (the haburah), but given the connection made by Luke to “the fellowship” and “the prayers,” this likely points in the direction of the Lord’s Supper. This connects the preaching of the word to the administration of the sacraments (the latter derive their efficacy from the preached word) from the earliest days of Christianity.
Longenecker offers this summation: “what can be said here [in Acts 2] is that Luke shows, both in his emphasis on the early Christians’ meeting in the temple courts and on the favor accorded them by the people, that early Christianity is the fulfillment of all that is truly Jewish and that it is directed in its mission first to the Jewish world.”[4] The future of Jew and Gentile in God’s redemptive purposes is explained in the subsequent ministry of Paul, especially in Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 2:11-22.
After Pentecost, the church is in many ways the fulfillment of Jesus’s words in John 14:12, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” These greater works are already coming to pass with the conversion of three thousand souls and the first assemblies of the Christian church to worship the risen and ascended Christ.
The People of God
This image is not merely a generic use of “people” (as in, there are many people in the world), but a kind of social-political use: a community bound together through a shared identity as believers in Jesus, a common faith (as Christ revealed the gospel to the first apostles), and an allegiance to Christ as prophet, priest, and king. As used in the New Testament, the “people of God” is a specific reference to those particular people whom God elects, calls, justifies, sanctifies, and then incorporates into the “people of God” (Romans 8:28-39). 1 Peter 2:9-10, also comes to mind in this regard.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”
This image has loud echoes from the Old Testament. As Israel was the national people of God, so now the church is the new covenant people of God, which includes many believing Jews. According to Herman Bavinck:
The word קָהָל (qāhāl), ἐκκλησια (ekklēsia), by virtue of its derivation from verbs that mean “to call together,” already denotes a gathering of people who come together for some purpose, especially a political or religious purpose, or, even if at a given moment they have not come together, are nevertheless mutually united for such a purpose. Under the Old Testament dispensation Israel was the people that had been called together and convened for God’s service. In the New Testament, the people of Israel have been replaced by the church of Christ, which is now the `holy nation, the chosen race, the royal priesthood’ of God.[5]
Although Bavinck does speak of the church “replacing Israel,” in context it is obvious that he means the one people of God (the elect) are identified as Israel in the Old Testament and as the church in the New— not that there are two different peoples with different redemptive-historical purposes as dispensationalists mistakenly assume.
J. A. Heynes clarifies the precise nature of the church’s relationship to Israel. “The Church is this new people, the new community of the Lord . . . . but this does not mean that the covenant with Israel is thereby terminated; it has been extended continuing with other nations. Salvation is not denied to Israel but proclaimed to other nations. The old covenant has not been exchanged for another one, but is perpetuated in a new covenant.”[6]. This is an important point given the dispensational accusation that the Reformed teach that the church “replaces” Israel. The people of God had a primarily ethnic identity (national Israel) which is now expended to include those from every race, tribe, and tongue under heaven.
In 2 Corinthians 6:16, God’s covenant promise given to Israel is now reaffirmed of the church. “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, `I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people,’” echoing the promises God made to Abraham and Israel now fulfilled in the church.
The people of God are said to be his own possession. In Titus 2:14, Paul speaks of Christ, “who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works,” In 1 Peter 2:9, the apostle looks back to Exodus 19:5, writing, “but you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light,” and adding “but you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
Grounded in God’s gracious election and calling, we learn that those who were not a people, are now God’s people. According to Paul in Romans 9:25-26; “As indeed [YHWH] says in Hosea, Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved,’And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” The same idea is expressed in 1 Peter 2:10, “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” Peter and Paul both draw upon Hosea 1-2 with his reference to ammi (my people), lo-ammi (not my people).
All those who trust in Jesus Christ are now identified as “the people of God” (ammi) since believers are members of the new covenant.
Family/Household of God
While “people” suggests a large community with political attributes, the language of “household” suggests a smaller and much more intimate community. In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul explains that Christ’s purpose is to make believing Jews and Gentiles one household. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul speaks of this household as being under one Father (2:18). In Ephesians 2:19–20, Paul specifies, “so then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” 1 Timothy 3:15a also applies, when Paul writes, “if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God.” Paul ties the image of a household to how we ought to conduct ourselves, specifically to the way we live in our family unit. Any healthy family will have a unique family culture, a way of life, and habits and practices.
Yet, the family imagery in the gospels seems to point more toward the church as a community which becomes an even more important family, especially in light of the relativization of earthly families that Christ’s work establishes, and the possible need to give them up. In Mark 3:31-35, Jesus says, “whoever does the will of God are my mothers and brothers,” and in Mark 10:29-30 he describes how those who leave family and homes for his sake become his mother, sisters, and brothers.
Theologically, ideas of God as Father (Matthew 23:9– “for you have one Father, who is in heaven,”), Jesus as brother (Romans 8:29, “firstborn among many brothers”), believers as children of God and as co-heirs with Christ (John 11:52– “and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad,”), are all important here–all pointing to the church as a spiritual family, which serves as the community for disciples of Jesus. To speak of our fellow Christians as “brothers and sisters” as is common in the New Testament, presupposes that we belong to the same family and household of God.
The Body of Christ
This is a particularly Pauline category (cf. Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 1, 4; and Colossians 1). But some broader redemptive-historical points can also be found in Paul’s use of the “body of Christ” metaphor. The “body of Christ” is closely tied to the expression “in Christ” (cf. Romans 8:1,2; Galatians 2:17), which, in turn, must be set over against another expression, “in Adam.” Adam represents all of fallen humanity, and is the corporate figure behind Paul’s expression “body of death” (Romans 7:24). But “in Christ,” all believers are transferred to a new body, a new humanity (cf. Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49). Just as Adam was the federal and biological head of the old humanity, there now is a body of life of which Christ is head (Romans 5-8).[7]
According to Douglas Moo, in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul speaks of “one Spirit” who creates “one body,” a body (unity) which has many parts (diversity), seen in Paul’s simile of the human body as analogous to the church and its members (vv. 15-26). Even insignificant parts of Christ’s body play an important role. Paul’s widespread use of the phrase “body of Christ,” may be influenced by the use of the term “Christ’s body” in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and in Paul’s use of Christ and Adam as corporate or representative figures.[8]
Berkhof notes that this image of the body stresses the organic unity of the church which stands in relationship to Christ as her head [9], while Heyns emphasizes how unity and diversity are both important in a human body, and so also in church.[10] . Both points are important to consider.
We see this unity-in-diversity theme in Romans 12:4-8 (one body, but different gifts); 1 Corinthians 12:4-31 (one body with many members and different gifts). In Ephesians 4:4, 12, Paul uses this image to speak about gifts and unity, but here it concerns giving officers to build up the church in unity.
In Ephesians 1:23, Paul speaks of the church, “which is [Christ’s] body, the fullness of him who fills all in all,”while in Colossians 1:18, the apostle says of Christ, “he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” Paul uses the image of head and body to emphasize Christ’s headship. So, body imagery communicates something about our relationship to Christ and to each other.
Things to Consider
In an age of uncertainty, Jesus tells us, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against my church” (Matthew 16:18), and that “God works all things together for good” (Romans 8:28). In an age of angst, isolation, and loneliness, Paul reminds us that the church is one body, with many members (1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4). In an age of tribalism, we love others because God first loved us (1 John 4:1). Paul adds that “love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Corinthians 13:4-6). Such love arises from faith and should permeate the new covenant community (Ephesians 6:23).
And even when Christians fail to do these things and through sin bring harm to other members of Christ’s church, the Savior’s love and mercy is greater still.
__________________________________
[1] The classic work is that by Paul Minear who lists 96 analogies or images of the church in his book, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1960).
[2] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 557.
[3] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 73.
[4] Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, ed. Frank Gaebelein, and J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 291.
[5] Bavinck, Christian Dogmatics, 4.296.
[6] J. A. Heyns, The Church, 39-40.
[7] J. A. Heyns, The Church, 50-51.
[8] See Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters, 148.
[9] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 557.
[10] J. A. Heyns, The Church, 53-54.
Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value
This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God’s anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.
_____________________________________
At this point, it is important to state with some precision what is implied in the previous articles. The reason why Jesus’s death can satisfy God’s justice and anger toward our sin is found in Christ’s incarnation. Jesus is the God-man who suffers and dies for us in our place. Since he is truly human, Jesus possesses our nature, and therefore can identify with us so that our sin can be imputed to him. He is one with us in every respect—sin excepted. As true man and the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), Jesus Christ stands in our place as our representative before God, just as did Adam in Eden as the biological and federal head of the human race. But unlike Adam, Jesus Christ endured all temptation without sin and lived a perfect life in fulfillment of all righteousness.
But Jesus Christ is also God in human flesh (John 1:1-14). Therefore, his death is sufficient to bear the holy God’s wrath in such a way as to satisfy his justice. The redemptive value of his death has no limit. Paul says of him, “he became a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13), while Peter proclaims of him,
knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. . . . He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed (1 Peter 1:18-19; 2:24).
Jesus Christ bore in his own body the penalty of the curse due us for our sin. Because he is truly God, his sacrifice alone is sufficient to satisfy God’s justice so that our sins are forgiven. Because Jesus is truly human, he can die for us and in our place bearing the guilt of our sin imputed to him. Therefore, the incarnation lies at the heart of the biblical teaching about the death of Christ—Christ dying for us and in our place to satisfy the justice of God (i.e., the doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement”).
It is God’s love for his fallen creatures and his mercy towards his elect which motivates him to send Christ to do what is necessary so that we might be saved. Yet, the words “God is love,” are meaningless apart from the death of Christ (as in 1 John 4:10), where we see the second person of the Holy Trinity, having taken to himself a true human nature, suffering unspeakable agony so that God’s anger toward us is turned away.
In the cross we see both the love and the justice of God. Neither is sacrificed. Through Christ’s death, God’s elect are delivered from the guilt and power of sin.
Episode Synopsis:
So what will it be? Milk or meat? Are the Corinthians spiritual toddlers? Or are they mature Christians? Since they are being drawn to the factions forming within the church (“I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos”) it is clear that no matter how mature they think they are, in reality they are immature. Their lack of progress in Christian maturity provokes a response from Paul who challenges the Corinthians to consider who they are in Christ and how that should impact the way they understand the church and their relation to it as God’s temple, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
The foundation of the church in Corinth is the gospel Paul has preached to them (he was the sower). Apollos came and helped build upon that foundation (the waterer). Since both were fulfilling the roles assigned to them by God, so why would the Corinthians see themselves as followers of Paul or Apollos when they should see these men as servants sent by God to build the church, not as leaders of factions.
The Corinthians are the temple of God, built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. How will they build on that foundation? Will they utilize the wisdom of God (Gold, silver, and precious stones)? Or will they continue build using human wisdom (wood, hay, straw)? Since they have chosen the latter, Paul exposes the fact that the divisions and factions within the Corinthian church are the result of spiritual immaturity which is ultimately a holdover from the Greco-Roman paganism in which the Corinthians had been raised. The time has come to move past infancy to maturity.
Show Notes:
I am going to take a bit of a break after we complete chapter six (the end of the first half of First Corinthians) before resuming with chapter seven.
The PDF download of my exposition of Paul’s Thessalonian Letters is nearing completion. Once completed, I will make it available to all who have completed season two on Paul’s Thessalonian letters.
Links to Additional Resources:
G. K. Beale: Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission
Daniel Hyde: The Church as the Temple of God
The Holy Spirit as Lord and Giver of Life
Series Bibliography:
Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians --Lectio Continua (RHB, 2024).
F. F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free. A bit dated but still remains the best biographical study of Paul
Douglas J. Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters (2021). A helpful big picture survey of Paul’s theology and epistles.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (2018). A good and modern commentary on 1 Corinthians. If you buy one commentary, this ought to be it.
Charles Hodge, I & II Corinthians, reprint ed (Banner, or the volume on 1 Corinthians published by Crossway. This has long been the Reformed standard commentary on 1 Corinthians. Theologically solid, but badly dated.
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (1987). Good material, especially on background and context, but charismatic in its orientation.
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (2010). A good academic commentary, although there are several solid ones from which to choose.
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
A Reading for Easter -- Luke 24:1-12 (ESV):
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.
A Collect for Easter (URCNA Forms and Prayers):
Holy Father, giver of all perfect gifts, we join the heavenly choir to herald the news that you have defeated the powers of sin, death, and condemnation by the victory of Jesus Christ your Son over the grave. We confess that the circumstances of this present age often rise up to testify against the promise that you have declared in your Word. Nevertheless, we bring the experience of our hearts under your judgment: You have raised Jesus Christ from the dead as the first fruits of the whole harvest at the last day. As in his resurrection you have brought the new creation into this passing evil age, raise us up and seat us with Christ—in this life, through faith, and in the next, beholding with our own eyes the resurrection of our bodies in life everlasting. All of this we pray, with joy and thanksgiving, in Christ’s name.
Amen.
Lord’s Day 17 (from the Heidelberg Catechism)
Q 45. How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?
A. First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he obtained for us by his death.
Second, by his power we too are already raised to a new life.
Third, Christ’s resurrection is a sure pledge to us of our blessed resurrection.
For Good Friday, a reading from Luke 23:44-49 (ESV).
It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun's light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent!” And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.
The Collect for Good Friday (The Book of Common Prayer):
Almighty God, we ask you now to graciously look upon your people, for whom our Lord Jesus was betrayed and given over into the hands of wicked men, to suffer death upon the cross for us and for our sins. Lord you have made all men and women and do not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that they should turn from their wickedness and live, have mercy upon all those who neglect your gospel, and especially have mercy upon your ancient people Israel; take from them ignorance of the gospel, hardness of heart and contempt from of your word, return them to Christ, so that all Israel may be saved; and so that they, together with believing Gentiles, might be joined together into one flock, under one shepherd, Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray, Amen.
A Collect for Good Friday (URCNA Forms and Prayers):
Our Father, who so loved the world that you gave your only-begotten Son, we acknowledge and marvel at your mercy. Even while we were enemies, you reconciled us; even while we were strangers, you made us co-heirs with Christ of all eternal blessings; even while we stood condemned, you redeemed us; even while we were imprisoned, you delivered us from the tyranny of sin, death, and the devil. On this solemn occasion, we loathe our miserable estate and celebrate your marvelous grace. Beneath the cross of Christ, we come to know that ours is the guilt, but yours the forgiveness; ours the condemnation, but yours the gift of justification; ours the bondage, yet yours the freedom of adoption and new obedience. Even the faith with which we confess our dear Savior’s sacrifice was won for us by his death. Therefore, we cry out to you in sorrow for our sins and in thanksgiving for your gift. Give us the grace, we pray, to receive again this word of the cross which alone can refresh us on our pilgrim way, and send us out again into the world as witnesses to “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
Jesus Continues His Farewell Discourse Before His Death and Resurrection
As Jesus and his disciples sat on the Mount of Olives, directly across the Kidron Valley from the Jerusalem Temple, Jesus began to answer those questions put to him by his disciples regarding a statement he made a short time earlier. As they were leaving the temple complex on Tuesday afternoon of Easter Week–the disciples remarked about the grandeur of the temple and the huge stones which were used in its construction. Upon hearing their comments, Jesus told them, “Do you see all these great buildings?’ . . .Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.’” This shocking comment from Jesus prompted the disciples to ask Jesus privately, “`Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?’” Jesus answered their questions, taking their second question first. This section of the gospel has come to be known as the Olivet Discourse. These words constitute our Lord’s most significant teaching about the future course of history. In this passage, Jesus sets out those things his people should expect until he returns at the end of the age.
Having completed the first part of the Olivet Discourse (verses 1-23 of Mark 13), when Jesus set forth those signs which would precede the destruction of the temple, we now move into the second portion of the discourse, which deals with Jesus’s return at the end of the age to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. The Olivet Discourse is a significant discourse (taking up all of chapter 13 of Mark’s gospel) given by Jesus to explain to the disciples what is soon to come to pass with the events of A.D. 70. Jesus predicts that the Roman army, led by Titus, will destroy the temple and the city of Jerusalem, thereby scattering the Jews into the ends of the earth as a tragic consequence. While explaining the signs that precede these momentous events–in effect, answering the second question put to him by the disciples first–Jesus goes on in the last half of the discourse to speak of a new event, his own second coming at the end of the age.
A Recap of Verses 1-23
Understanding the context in which Jesus gives this discourse is essential if we are to interpret Jesus’ words correctly. Recall from my previous post (the Gospel Must First Be Preached), when Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday days earlier, he was cheered by the crowds who had come to the city to celebrate the annual Passover. But Jesus was also confronted by virtually the entire Jewish establishment (the Sanhedrin), who regarded Jesus as a threat to their own power and prestige. Sadly, the self-professed shepherds of God’s people regarded their own Messiah as a danger to Israel–a tragic state of affairs since Jesus had come to save his people from their sins. Because of their rejection of Jesus and the kingdom of God, the nation of Israel had moved to the brink of disaster. And Jesus predicts all of this in exacting detail in the Olivet Discourse.
When Jesus repeatedly confounded the various representatives of the Sanhedrin who tried to trip him up in public–which had the effect of increasing his support among the people–it was not long before the Sanhedrin ceased trying to confront Jesus openly. Instead, the Sanhedrin began plotting in secret to have Jesus arrested and then put to death. Knowing that he would be betrayed, arrested, beaten, and crucified, Jesus used these final days to prepare his disciples for what was soon to come. The Olivet Discourse, found in all three synoptic gospels, serves this purpose. Our Lord’s words have a poignancy and urgency which makes this discourse (one of his farewell addresses) so compelling.
Because they mistakenly expected that Jesus’s messianic kingdom would dawn right then and there, Jesus must instruct the Twelve about what to expect after his impending death, resurrection, and ascension. While the disciples are struggling to make sense of all that was transpiring, Jesus knows he has only hours to complete their preparation for the unimaginable turn of events soon to come. Therefore, when the disciples comment about the grandeur of the temple, Jesus uses the occasion to instruct them about the grim reality that hangs like a black cloud over the entire city, the temple, and the Jewish people. That reality is the dispensing of the covenant curses of which Jesus has been speaking and which are soon to fall upon Israel. The temple will be destroyed, the city will be sacked, and the Jews dispersed into the four corners of the earth. The unthinkable is about to happen. And yet, through these horrific events, Jesus will save his people from their sins.
To the disciples, such a prediction of the destruction of the temple must mean that the end of the age is at hand, prompting the two questions found in Mark 13:4. “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” In verses 5-8, Jesus speaks of signs which precede the destruction of the temple, and which also characterize the entire period of time between his first and second coming (the inter-advental age). These signs include the presence of false Christs, wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, as well as political and economic upheaval. Jesus calls these signs “birth pains” of the end. When seen through the eyes of faith, these signs are in reality the birth pains of the new creation which dawns with our Lord’s resurrection and which reaches fruition on the last day when God recreates and renews all creation (2 Peter 3:3-13). On that day, every hint and trace of sin will be purged from the created order. So, while these signs begin in the lifetime of the disciples, they will characterize the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second coming.
In verses 9-12, Jesus warns the disciples about a number of specific things which will happen to them in the days after his resurrection and ascension. The disciples will be arrested by Jewish authorities because of their association with Jesus. They will be brought to trial before governors and kings, for the express purpose of bearing witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. When the kingdom comes in power, family members will turn upon their own who embrace Jesus through faith. The disciples will be hated by all men because of their allegiance to Jesus and because they preach his gospel. But God will not leave them on their own. Not only will the Holy Spirit give them the words to say when they bear witness of Christ, but the Spirit will ensure that God’s elect will stand firm to the end and be saved.
In this section of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is, in effect, giving his disciples their marching orders. The gospel must first be preached to all the nations so that the end might come. They must bear witness of Jesus, not only so that the elect might come to faith, but also as a witness against all those who reject the gospel. There are very difficult days ahead. And yet, in the midst of their troubles, the disciples will know a joy beyond measure. Jesus may be leaving them, but he will send them the blessed Holy Spirit.
The Coming Destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70
Then, in verses 14-23, Jesus speaks of the thing that must have shocked the disciples the most–the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. He warns them–as well as those who will form the Jerusalem church during the apostolic age–that when they see the abomination of desolation standing in the temple where it does not belong, immediately they are to flee into the wilderness for safety. Not only did the Jews of Jesus’s day know exactly what Jesus meant by the phrase “abomination of desolation,” (a reference to the events of 168 B.C. when Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the temple), but the language of fleeing to the wilderness for safety is found throughout the Old Testament. The reference was clear and easily understood.
Jesus’ point is that when the disciples see something similar to that which happened when Antiochus desecrated the temple, they are to run for the hills. In fact, things will come about so quickly there will be no time to prepare. The disciples are to pray that these terrible events do not happen when it is tough to travel or when conditions are unfavorable. Says Jesus, this will be the worst event ever to befall the city of Jerusalem and God’s covenant people. Jerusalem and the Jews will come under the covenant curses–an unspeakable tragedy–and if God did not shorten those days no one would survive.
In verses 5-23, Jesus has just predicted in exacting detail the events of 70 A. D. But like an Old Testament prophet who predicts both an event in the immediate future and another off in the distant future in the same prophecy, without skipping a beat, Jesus goes on to speak of events at the end of the age.
Jesus Answers the First Question Put to Him by His Disciples
This brings us to verses 24-37–the second half of the Olivet Discourse–in which Jesus introduces a new theme into the discussion, his second advent and the end of the age. Recall that after warning his disciples about the chaos to come in the days of A. D 70., in verse 22 Jesus gave his disciples the following directive: “So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.” In verses 24 and following, Jesus goes on to assure his people that final salvation and redemption will come when his messianic kingdom is consummated at the end of the age. Although the disciples expected this to occur shortly after Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, Jesus now tells them that they were right to expect such a consummation, but wrong as to when it would occur. Jesus tells them that this will come to pass at the end of the age, when he returns. There is both an immediate fulfillment of his words (the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70), as well as another fulfillment off in the distant future (his second advent)—an event inconceivable to them since Jesus was still with them. This tension is known as the “already” and the “not-yet.” It permeates the entire New Testament, including the Olivet Discourse. The failure to acknowledge this tension between the already and the not-yet lies at the heart of most of the erroneous views of biblical prophecy popular today.
Cosmic, Not Local Signs
Notice that in verses 24-25 there is an obvious change in subjects from what has gone before. Says Jesus, “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” Although the ESV correctly emphasizes Jesus’s use of the word alla (“but”), it is important not to miss the fact that this conjunction is used to introduce a sharp contrast with what has gone before.[1] This means that Jesus is speaking of the two phases of the course of history. The first phase is immediate and has to do with the destruction of the temple and those circumstances which will come to pass in the lives of the disciples. These things of which Jesus had just been speaking must come to pass–and will come to pass in A. D. 70. But Jesus now emphasizes that this immediate (close at hand) fulfillment is not the end of the age. Just as a number of Old Testament prophets have done, Jesus foretells of an immediate event and then suddenly introduces another event which will come to pass off in the distant future. Not only does the conjunction alla (but) indicate as much, but so do the signs which Jesus now enumerates.
Whereas in verses 5-23 Jesus had been speaking of concrete historical events–wars, earthquakes, famines, false-teachers, arrest, betrayal, and persecutions, Jesus dramatically changes focus and speaks of cosmic signs which depict the complete disruption of the natural order. When the event to which he now refers comes to pass, the very cosmos itself will be turned on its head. The sun, moon, and stars will no longer give their light. The heavenly bodies will be shaken. No one will miss it! Therefore, this is no mere local judgment upon Jerusalem and the temple as some insist. Instead, this is a reference to the Day of the Lord in which YHWH gathers his people at the end of the age, and at the same time brings all things to their appointed end.[2] This is the very thing predicted in a passage such as Joel 2:28-3:16 in which the prophet describes the Day of the Lord as a time of cosmic upheaval and final judgment. Although a portion of Joel’s prophecy is fulfilled by Christ’s death and Pentecost, it is clear from Joel’s words that the former events (Christ’s death and Pentecost) ensure the final judgment and cosmic renewal at the end of the age.
Those who see the destruction of Jerusalem as the subject of the entire prophecy (preterists)–contend that these things were fulfilled by the cosmic signs which were manifest when Jesus suffered upon the cross. This includes the earthquake, the sky turning dark as night in mid-day, as well as the signs which occurred in the sky when Jesus supposedly came in judgment upon Israel in A.D. 70. But we know from a parallel passage in Matthew 24 that “then all the tribes of the earth will mourn,” (v. 30). In other words, this is the day of final judgment, not just God’s judgment upon Israel. Clearly then, Jesus is speaking of his second advent, which comes about only after the distress of those days has run its course–the “distress” of those days being a reference to those signs of the end which Jesus described as “birth pains.” Therefore, Jesus changes subjects from the destruction of Jerusalem to his second coming at the end of the age, just as the signs of which he is speaking change from earthly signs to cosmic signs.
The Coming of the Son of Man
When Jesus uses the phrase “in those days,” he’s using a powerful image found in a number of Old Testament prophecies which speaks of a future tumultuous event (Jeremiah 3 and 31, Joel 2 and Zechariah 8).[3] The point of this expression is clearly eschatological–Jesus is letting the disciples know that the cosmic signs of which he is now speaking are signs of the end, not localized signs of the destruction of the temple (temporal judgment). In speaking of these cosmic signs, Jesus is making sure that the disciples understand that the destruction of the temple–while near–is not the end of history. Rather, the destruction of the temple marks the end of an important era in redemptive history, the first phase of Jesus’ prophecy. But the events which come to pass in A.D. 70, in turn, point ahead to the time of the end and our Lord’s second advent–the second phase of Jesus’ prophecy.
This brings us to the central event in all of New Testament eschatology–that event for which all Christians hope and which marks the end of time. Says Jesus in verses 26-27, “And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” These are dramatic and powerful words. Notice that Jesus is now speaking of those things he will do at the end of the age. He will come again. He will gather “his” elect. He does so because he is the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7:13-14. According to Daniel’s prophecy, Daniel sees a figure who . . .
with the clouds of heaven . . . came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Jesus is claiming to be Daniel’s “Son of Man,” and affirming that his second coming is the realization of YHWH’s everlasting kingdom as foretold by the prophet. Jesus is stating things of himself which throughout the Old Testament had only been used in reference to YHWH.
The critical difference between Daniel 7 and Jesus’s words on the Mount of Olives is that in this instance, when Jesus speaks of his second advent, he does not speak of being led into the presence of the Ancient of Days (YHWH). Instead, Jesus states that at his coming, he will gather all the scattered people of God. Throughout the Old Testament this gathering of the saints is directly attributed to YHWH and is a key feature of the messianic age (Deuteronomy 30:3 ff; Psalm 50:3-5; Isaiah 43:6; 66:8; Jeremiah 32:37; Ezekiel 34:13; 36:24; Zechariah 2:6, 10).[4] Jesus is stating that he will come in great power and glory, something properly assigned to YHWH. The imagery used by Jesus is a very familiar one to people of his day–a great hero-king riding on a magnificent chariot (this time on the clouds of heaven) who will be acknowledged by all (friend and foe alike) at the time of his grand arrival.
It is important for us to remember that in Mark 8:31, Jesus had previously spoken of the Son of Man as one who would be humbled and put to death–“and he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.” Now we learn from Jesus himself that the Son of Man’s suffering and humiliation will ultimately lead to his glorious vindication at the end of the age when Jesus returns in great power and glory. The implication should be clear. Jesus is the Lord of all things, including the angelic world. He commands the angels and they act. No longer will Jesus’ identity be veiled to unbelievers, and understood only by his followers to whom this knowledge has been revealed.[5]
Jesus Returns in Triumph
On that day when Jesus returns, the entire world will recognize him to be the Son of God who has come in triumph to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. Let us not lose sight of the importance of these amazing words. This is as clear an affirmation of Christ’s deity as any passage in the New Testament. Jesus commands the angels. The elect are his. He comes in great power and unspeakable glory. This is the best day imaginable for God’s people. All the open-ended promises will be a reality. Sin, sickness, and suffering, indeed all of the consequences of the curse, will be gone in a flash. But this is the worst day imaginable for those who are not Christ’s. This is the day in which their unbelief finally exposes them to eternal wrath. God’s patience and long-suffering is now over.
According to Jesus, the grand climax of this coming of the Son of Man is the gathering together of the elect from the four-corners of the earth–as just noted, a very prominent theme throughout the Old Testament prophets as YHWH gathers together the scattered people of God from every country and from the ends of the earth (cf. Deuteronomy 30:3-4; Isaiah 11:12; 27:13; 56:8; Jeremiah 23:3; 29:12; 31:8; Ezekiel 11:17; 20:34; 41; 28:25; 34:12).[6] Notice that there is no secret rapture followed by a seven-year tribulation taught here. When Jesus comes again, this is when God gathers together his people at the time of final judgment. The key point here is that no longer will his people be characterized by race or national identity. The elect who are gathered together by Christ at his coming are now characterized by the fact that they are Christ’s people (“his” elect). No longer will true Israel be centered around an earthly temple or a particular city (Jerusalem) or nation (Israel). Christ is both the true temple and the true Israel, and his elect now find their salvation in him.[7] While there is no specific description about how this gathering of the elect will occur, Jesus’ primary point is that it will occur, and that when it does, the end of the age has come. Jesus will come to save his people, raise the dead, and judge all men. When his true glory is revealed, all the loose ends of redemptive history are finally tied up. This event is the blessed hope for every Christian–the longing to be that generation living when the Lord returns so that we need not taste death.
The Sign of the Fig Tree
Having introduced the doctrine of his second advent in verses 23-27, Jesus returns again in verses 28-31 to the question put to him by the disciples about those signs which precede the destruction of the temple. The fig tree is one of the few deciduous trees in Palestine, losing its leaves in winter. It blossoms late in the spring, so when it buds, it is clear that winter has passed.[8] Therefore, the fig tree–many of which were found on the Mount of Olives–makes a perfect subject of the parable found in verses 28-29. “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.”
“These things” is very likely a reference to the signs enumerated in verses 5-23.[9] When the signs are present, the events Jesus has just predicted are as certain to come to pass as the buds on the fig tree mean that winter is over. When the disciples see the signs, they know that the events Jesus predicted are about to come to pass. This means that we’ve been living in the last days since the coming of Jesus, and it is only the mercy of God which delays the final judgment.[10] While scoffers mock Jesus with the words, “where is this coming you’ve promised” (2 Peter 3:4), they should realize that every breath they take is a gift from God. If Jesus should appear, his wrath would consume them, lest they repent. The delay in the Lord’s return does not mean he has forgotten his promise. Rather, it means Jesus is merciful and patient. He will save every one of those given to him by the Father.
Jesus’s Words Will Not Pass Away
In verses 30-31, Jesus declares, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” While some claim “this generation” is a reference to that generation living when Israel became a nation in 1948, this is not the case. As we have seen, Jesus is answering specific questions put to him by the disciples. Context here is everything. Are we really to believe that Jesus was speaking about the modern nation of Israel, but not actually answering the questions put to him by the Twelve?
It makes far better sense to see Jesus informing the Twelve that they would see the signs he had just enumerated very soon, and that everything he foretold, including the destruction of the temple as well as the signs of the end, would soon be evident. He can guarantee this to them, because his words will never pass away–another remarkable assertion since Jesus is stating that his words (and his predictions) are on a par with the word of YHWH. Jesus predicts the future, because he has ordained the future. His words will never pass away because he is God in human flesh–the clear implication of this assertion. In fact, everything he predicted came to pass in exacting detail, and this is the basis for our confidence in the second phase of the prophecy, that he will come again with great power and glory at the end of the age.
No One Knows the Day of the Hour
As the discourse comes to an end, Jesus himself provides the application that his disciples (as well as the church) should draw from his words, which are crystal clear and absolutely inescapable. Says Jesus in verse 32, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Since Jesus is so clear about this, it simply amazes me that so many so blatantly ignore his warning and foolishly set dates for his return. Scripture says “don’t do it.” Yet the prophecy pundits still do! Since no one knows when Jesus is coming back, about the only time you can be sure that Jesus won’t come back, is on that date some dunderhead has predicted it!
Many a sincere but foolish saint has sat on a mountain top waiting for the time of the end. But Luther had it right. Supposedly, someone once asked him what he would do if he knew the Lord was coming back tomorrow. He said, “I’d plant an apple tree today.” This should be our attitude to date-setters and end-times prognosticators. While we long for our Lord’s return, we must go about our business with a sense of purpose and hope. God will keep his promises even if we know not when. Meanwhile we must be faithful to our vocations as parents, providers, and members of Christ’s new covenant community while the church seeks to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth. This is what Jesus has commanded.
The Implication of the Olivet Discourse for Us—Watch!
There is an important tension in this passage between signs which precede the end and the fact that our Lord can come back at any moment. This can be seen in the exhortation given by Jesus to his disciples in verses 33-37.
“Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning—lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake.”
While specific signs precede his coming–wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, false Christs–nevertheless, we do not know the day or hour of his return. We cannot figure this out.
So, on the one hand, we are prevented from setting dates, while on the other, since Jesus can return at any moment, it is our sacred duty to watch and wait for our Lord’s return. Surely this tension between signs which precede his return and the suddenness of that return is intentional. We cannot set dates, nor can we be idle while we wait. We cannot sit on a mountain top and wait for Jesus to come back. Instead, we must be about our master’s business, lest he find us sleeping. Jesus commanded the disciples as well as his church “to watch” and to work. And this we must do.
Sadly, many Christians are so preoccupied with end-times, they are no earthly good. Date-setters and prophecy pundits have made so many false predictions and embarrassing claims that it is easy to react to their foolishness by ignoring or downplaying these exhortations to watch given to us directly by Jesus. But our Lord’s return is the blessed hope (Titus 2:13). Maybe we will be alive when the Lord returns. Perhaps we will never die but be caught up to be with the Lord! For when Jesus returns, righteousness will finally triumph. The bad guys will get theirs. There will be no more sin, no more injustice, no more sickness, no more suffering, and no more sorrow.
Therefore, every Christian should eagerly watch and patiently wait for our Lord’s return. The early church used the expression Marantha (“the Lord come”) as a benediction–1 Corinthians 16:22. So should we. Don’t forget that the Book of Revelation ends with a reminder from the Lord himself, “surely, I am coming soon” (Revelation 22:20). These are the final words of the New Testament.
Therefore, while we wait for the Lord and go about our business, let us do as Jesus said, “watch,” and let us comfort and encourage each other with these words, “Maranatha! Come quickly Lord Jesus!”
_________________________________________
[1] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 473 (fn. 87).
[2] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 475; Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 405.
[3] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 474-475.
[4] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 476.
[5] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 476.
[6] Cited in Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 476.
[7] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 476.
[8] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 479.
[9] Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 407-408.
[10] Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 408.
A Farewell Discourse Given by Jesus During Easter Week To Prepare The Disciples for What Is to Come
Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and then went to the temple, where he forcibly cast the merchants from the court of the Gentiles. Almost immediately, Jesus was confronted by members of every religious office and sect within Judaism. The Herodians, Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders took turns confronting Jesus whenever he entered the temple precincts. Each time they did so, they found themselves thoroughly confounded by Jesus as he exposed their scheming for all to see. Jesus was fulfilling biblical prophecy and demonstrating that he was the Christ–making him a threat to the power and prestige of the Sanhedrin. He also exposed the self-righteousness of the religious leadership of Israel. Since Jesus was gaining popular support among the thousands of pilgrims in Jerusalem who were there to celebrate the Passover, the religious leaders of Israel decided to stop confronting Jesus in public. Instead, they hatched a plot to have Jesus arrested, tried, and then executed. Meanwhile, Jesus was preparing his disciples for what was soon to come–his death and resurrection.
In Mark 13 we find an account of the Olivet Discourse, so named because Jesus spoke these words while sitting upon the Mount of Olives, directly across the Kidron Valley from the Jerusalem Temple. It also takes the form of a farewell discourse offering important instruction, hope, and consolation to his disciples before his death. This is an important and well-known section of Mark’s gospel, because it is here that Jesus informs his disciples about what is yet to come after his death and resurrection. This is also one of the most hotly-debated passages in the Bible, since virtually all end-times views must claim their view is in accord with what Jesus taught his disciples in this passage.
As Mark 13 unfolds, Jesus teaches his disciples about what to expect after he ascends into heaven. Of course, before his death and resurrection, the disciples have a great deal of trouble making sense of our Lord’s words. In fact, the questions they put to Jesus–which serves as the occasion for Jesus to teach them about the course of the future–demonstrate how they struggle to understand what Jesus is doing and saying. Understandably, the disciples are very confused and trying to make sense of the difficult things which Jesus has been teaching them, especially in light of the surprising turn of events–the fierce opposition to Jesus by the Sanhedrin. Since the disciples had come to believe that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah, it was only natural for them to expect that when Jesus entered Jerusalem, he would be welcomed by all. Even though Jesus had on three occasions predicted his coming death and resurrection, the disciples were still thinking that Jesus’ messianic kingdom would dawn right then and there, and that Jesus would take his place on Israel’s throne in order to return the nation to its former greatness.
Because there is so much interest and speculation about the end-times in our own day and age, this is an important section of the gospel. In Mark 13, we get to sit at the feet of Jesus along with the disciples as we too hear for ourselves what Jesus had to say about the future. It should become clear that much of what American evangelicals currently believe about the end-times cannot be found in the teaching of Jesus. Jesus does not tell the disciples to expect the rapture, nor does he teach that there will be a golden age upon the earth (a millennial age), either before or after his return (as in “pre” or “post” millennialism). Instead, Jesus speaks directly to the disciples about events which will affect them, and which will set the stage for the fulfillment of all that Jesus has been warning.
In response to two questions put to him by the disciples, Jesus warns them about what will happen when the covenant curses finally come down upon Israel, when the magnificent temple is destroyed, Jerusalem is sacked by the Romans, and the Jews dispersed into the four corners of the earth–all as a result of the events of 70 A.D. Like an Old Testament prophet, Jesus answers the disciples’ questions and mixes together images of an immediate event (the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70), with an event about which the disciples could not begin to understand, his second advent. This is often called prophetic perspective or identified as “prophetic idiom.” While we read this passage through the lens of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, remember that in the disciples’ minds, the talk of a second advent would make no sense whatsoever, since Jesus was presently with them when he speaks these words.
Therefore, the historical context must be kept in mind as we work our way through this discourse. Jesus was answering specific questions put to him by his disciples–not the questions we might have about the end times. But his answers to their questions do tell us a great about the future course of human history.
The Temple Has Become a Stumbling Block to Israel
It was when Jesus and his disciples were leaving the temple on Tuesday of Easter Week, after Jesus noticed the elderly widow putting all she had in the temple treasury, that the discourse unfolds. As Mark informs us in verse 1, “And as [Jesus] came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” The Jerusalem temple was one of the most magnificent buildings in the entirety of the ancient world. The disciples are in awe of the temple and everything it symbolized for first-century Jews. Mark tells us that they specifically remarked about the temple’s grandeur and the size of the stones with which the temple was built. According to the famed Jewish historian Josephus, “the Temple was built of hard white stones, each of which was about 25 cubits in length, 8 in height, and 12 in width.” A cubit was the length of a forearm, so we can estimate that the stones were some 40 feet long, 15 feet high and 20 feet wide. All of these were put in place without aid of cranes or hydraulics. These huge stones were moved with wooden rollers and block and tackle–an amazing engineering feat.
Elsewhere, Josephus describes these stones as “ornate,” indicating that these stones were probably marbleized granite. The temple and its complex composed about 1/6th of the total area of old Jerusalem. No wonder that the site of the temple was regarded as an architectural wonder, even by the Romans, whose headquarters–the Praetorium or Antonia Fortress–were built just outside the temple complex. One writer called the temple “a mountain of white marble decorated with gold.”[1] It must have been an awesome site, especially at certain times of the day, when sunlight reflected off the gold ornamentation.
Not only was the temple itself an architectural wonder, this building was the heart and soul of Israel. It represented Israel’s covenant with YHWH, and this is where the sacrifices for sin were made and accepted, since this building stood on the very site where Abraham offered to sacrifice his son Isaac (Genesis 22:1-19). But this magnificent building, which had been rebuilt by Herod over the last forty years, also tied the current people of Israel back to the time of David and Solomon. The temple was the religious center of Israel, as well as the capital of the nation, that one place where Israel’s entire history and identity was centered.
It would have been inconceivable to any Jew living at the time that this temple would (or even could) be destroyed. This is where God forgave sins. This building was the sign of God’s blessing upon his covenant people. To speak of the destruction of the temple, would be like speaking of the destruction of the White House, Capital Building, and the Lincoln Memorial to an American. To the Jewish mind, if the temple were destroyed, it must mean that the end of the nation and the end of the age were at hand.
While it was natural for the disciples to comment about the grandeur of the temple, Jesus’ response to them, recorded in verse 2, was anything but expected. “And Jesus said to him, `Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.’” Jesus uses double negatives to make the point that the temple’s destruction will be complete and total. Not one of the giant stones will be left standing upon another.[2] In many ways, Jesus’s words about the destruction of the temple are a further commentary upon the fact that the temple had become a den of thieves. The temple was not fulfilling its true purpose, part of which was serving as a house of prayer for the Gentiles. Despite the temple’s theological and historical significance, sadly, the temple had now become a stumbling block to Israel.
Not only did the Jews of Jesus’s day think that God could not get by without it, but the presence of the temple in Jerusalem was seen as the guarantee of God’s favor. But the sad reality was that the people of Israel had long since lost sight of the object of faith–not the temple itself, but that to which the temple pointed–YHWH and his throne in heaven.[3] Jesus certainly believed that the temple had become a stumbling block to Israel. According to Matthew’s gospel (12:6), Jesus had already declared, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.” The temple, and its sacrifices, were intended to point the people of Israel to the coming Messiah and his redemptive work. But once Jesus had come and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was at hand, the temple was even then being rendered obsolete because the true temple had come in his very person.[4] Ironically, the temple now stood in the way of Israel embracing Jesus as the Messiah. Once Jesus had come, the temple was obsolete. It had served it’s purpose.
The Scene from the Mount of Olives
In verse 3, the scene shifts to the Mount of Olives, where Jesus and the disciples continue the conversation begun when they were leaving the temple a bit earlier. The discourse unfolds in light of the earlier conversation. As we read in verses 3-4, “and as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, `Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?’”
The Mount of Olives has a bit of prophetic significance in its own right. It was from this same vantage point that Ezekiel had witnessed the Shekinah glory leave the temple, leaving it defenseless (Ezekiel 9:3; 10:18 ff; 11:23). Zechariah speaks of the Mount of Olives as the scene of a great eschatological battle (Zechariah 14:1-15). This may have been in the disciples’ minds when they ask Jesus these questions. But more importantly, from the Mount of Olives, one can look across the Kidron Valley down upon the temple complex, making the Mount of Olives the ideal place to discuss the future of the city and its temple.[5]
Two Important Questions — The Second Is Answered First
The disciples ask two very specific questions of Jesus. The first question is, “when will these things happen?”–which is a reference to Jesus’s comment that the temple would be destroyed and that not one stone would be left standing upon another. The second question is closely related, “what is the sign which will indicate when these things will come to pass?” These two questions indicate that the disciples mistakenly believe that if the temple is to be destroyed (however inconceivable that may be), this must in some way be tied to the end of the age. In other words, the disciples were thinking like preterists (who believe that the events of A.D. 70 fulfill the entirety of what Jesus predicts in the discourse). Jesus will correct this mistaken notion in his answer.
Jesus answers the second question first by speaking of two distinct future events–the destruction of the temple in A. D. 70 along the signs which precede it, before introducing the idea of a second advent at the end of the age after an indeterminate period of time elapses. This explains how Jesus can speak both of specific signs (which are fulfilled in the lifetimes of the disciples, although some of these carry on into the present age) while giving a specific command to watch and wait for his second coming as though it would not come for a long period of time. This feature of the Olivet Discourse has long troubled interpreters. On the one hand, how could Jesus speak of signs which precede his coming and state that this generation would not pass until everything was fulfilled (Matthew 24:34)? On the other, how could Jesus turn right around and speak as though his coming were far off in the distant future? The answer is simple. There are events in the immediate future–signs which precede the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. And there are signs (and a warning to watch and wait for the Lord) which precede his second coming at the end of the age. Jesus is speaking of two events-one imminent, one off in the distant future. This is typical of Old Testament prophets.
Signs of the End According to Jesus
In verses 5-8, Jesus speaks directly to the second question asked by the disciples–what are the signs that precede the destruction of the temple? And Jesus began to say to them,
“See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.”
Jesus predicts a number of things which not only come to pass in the lifetimes of the twelve, but which also extend on into the present age. These are signs we will experience as well. The presence of natural disasters and wars do not mean that God is not in control of his world and his creatures. Rather, the signs of a fallen world are the guarantee of the final outcome–the return of Jesus to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.
There is a sense in which the signs mentioned by Jesus will characterize the entire period of time between Jesus’ first coming and his second–however long that may be. Notice that Jesus does not predict any specific earthquake or any specific natural disaster. Jesus does say that these things will occur both in the present (“[you] watch out”) and on into the future (the “beginning of birth pains”). The same is true for wars and political intrigue. Jesus doesn’t speak of a specific false teacher, but he does say that a series of false teachers and false Christs will come until the time of the end. This is also what John teaches about the spirit of Antichrist in his first epistle (1 John 2:18; 4:3). The series of antichrists, John says, will plague the church until Christ comes again, even as they were plaguing the churches to whom John was writing in the first century. In the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus speaks of these false teachers, wars, and natural disasters as a “birth pains,” this means wars, earthquakes, and false teachers will come and go, become worse over time, alternating with periods of peace, just like the process of giving birth. This will go on until the Lord returns at the end of the age.
Jesus Warns the Twelve of What They Will Face
It is important to notice the shift which takes place in verse 9-13 to the specific situation of the twelve–things they will face before the temple is destroyed. Says Jesus,
“But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”
When Jesus tells the disciples to “be on their guard,” we are given the interpretive clue that Jesus is now warning the twelve in quite specific terms of what will happen to them after his own death, resurrection, and ascension. In effect, these are the marching orders given by Jesus to the twelve. When Jesus ascends into heaven, the disciples will immediately face arrest and imprisonment. In fact, they will be arrested and taken before the Jewish religious authorities. There is ample evidence of this being fulfilled in the Book of Acts (cf. Acts 12:2) and in the testimony of Josephus, who also reports that James (the leader of the Jerusalem church and the author of the epistle which bears his name), was arrested and executed in 62 A.D. Because of Jesus, the disciples will stand before governing authorities, specifically to bear witness to them about the gospel. But, says Jesus, the gospel must first be preached to all nations, before the end will come. The way the sentence is structured, Jesus says that the end will not come before this condition–the gospel first being preached to all nations–is met.[6] Certainly, this gives great impetus to the missionary enterprise, and reminds us that the gospel being preached to the nations is a condition of Christ’s second coming–a serious blow to those who say that Jesus returned in judgment in A.D. 70, and that this was the end of the age.
Notice too, that Jesus also comforts the disciples with the news that they will not be left on their own once he leaves them. The Holy Spirit will be with them whenever they face arrest and persecution. The Spirit of God will give them the words to say when they stand before their accusers. The Spirit will enable them to bear witness concerning Jesus and his saving work. He will give them both the words to speak and the boldness to declare them. But the message they preach will also bring division. The gospel will divide families and lead to betrayal from close associates–words which certainly speak to the reality of someone becoming a Christian in a Jewish or pagan home. This kind of persecution of Christians will play out in both the Book of Acts, and in the Book of Revelation as well. Jesus pulls no punches. He tells the disciples plainly that all men will hate them because of their trust in him. Furthermore, they must stand firm to the end if they are be saved. In effect, Jesus is telling them there is no turning back, as will be evident in just two days when Judas betrays Jesus, while the rest go into hiding at Jesus’ death, only to be energized to preach the gospel by Christ’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. All these things will come to pass, just as Jesus has foretold.
The Coming Destruction of the Temple – Not One Stone Upon Another
In verses 14-23, Jesus’ prediction takes on such specificity that critics of the Bible argue that these words were written after A.D. 70. Jesus now predicts the destruction of the temple, as he now answers the first question put to him by his disciples.
In verse 14, Jesus moves from generalities (signs which precede the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, and his coming at the end of the age) to specifics–“when is the temple going to be destroyed?” Says Jesus, “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” Every Jew in Jesus’s age knew what this meant. The abomination which causes desolation is a reference to the prophecy in Daniel 12:11, in which something horrible would cause the defilement of the temple. That which was holy would become profane as a result.[7] Most Jews believed that this prophecy had already been fulfilled in 168 B.C. when a Greek ruler–Antiochus IV Epiphanes–set up a pagan altar in the Jerusalem temple.
But now Jesus is saying this prophecy will be fulfilled yet again a second time. The specifics of the prophecy are clear to a Jew living in Jerusalem. Jesus is saying “when you see another event like that which took place in 168 B.C., you’ll know that the temple is about to be destroyed and that it is time to head for the hills to escape.” That is exactly what happened in A.D. 70 when Roman forces under Titus captured the temple from zealots during the Jewish revolt. An accidental fire led to the Romans destroying the temple, stone by stone, in order to remove the large amount of gold which melted and went down into the temple’s drainage system. The money from the Roman plunder helped pay for the construction of the Coliseum in Rome, and many Jews captured during this time were forced to serve as slave laborers in the Coliseum’s construction. This event is immortalized on Titus’ Arch in the city of Rome, where this is graphically depicted in relief. Not one stone was left standing upon another.
Since those who remembered Jesus’ words will know what to look for when they see the city surrounded by the Roman army (cf. Luke 19:43) and the temple fall under control of pagans, they are to immediately flee to the mountains. This flight into the wilderness for safety has a long history in Israel. This was the point of Ezekiel 7:14-23. Ezekiel predicted that the temple would be profaned, and the people of God are to flee for safety. Jesus gives a similar warning to flee to the wilderness in verse 14, which has loud echoes from passages like Ezekiel 7. But Jesus goes on to speak of the urgency of this call to flee in verses 15-18. “Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not happen in winter” Jesus’s point is very simple. When you see the abomination, immediately run to the hills, and pray that this won’t happen at a time or under circumstances which will make travel difficult.
In fact, says Jesus, this impending disaster will be the time of Jerusalem’s greatest trial, “For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.” Not only will Jerusalem face greater terror than at any time in its history (even when sacked before by the Babylonians and Antiochus), this will be the greatest tragedy in redemptive history, when the Old Covenant people of God come under the covenant curse because they rejected their Messiah. But God will not forget his faithful remnant. Jesus promises the disciples that “And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.” We know from a number of Christian sources (including the famed church historian Eusebius) that Christians heeded Jesus’s words, and many escaped to the city of Pella during what Josephus called the Jewish War, fought from A.D. 66-70. This horrible conflict ended with the destruction of the temple, the sack of the city, and the diaspora of the Jews into the ends of the earth. It was an unspeakable tragedy–the worst event ever to befall the covenant people of God.
Jesus warns that such horrible military, political, and economic upheaval, not surprisingly, will lead to theological chaos. Jesus warns the twelve, “And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.” Things are soon to go from bad to worse. The disciples must be on their guard for what is about to happen.
In verse, 24, Jesus goes on to speak of the second event, his return to earth on the day of judgment—his answer to the disciples’ first question. This will be the time of the end, when history as we know it (the temporal) gives way to a new heaven and earth (the eternal). We will address the disciple’s second question next time.
Four Points to Consider
First, Jesus speaks of a number of signs which precede the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Some of these are quite specific and directed to the disciples. These include their arrest and trial before rulers and authorities. Jesus also tells them that the Holy Spirit will give them the words to say so that they can bear witness of him. But Jesus warns them that the gospel they preach will divide families–many of us have witnessed this very thing. When the kingdom of God comes in power, the hour of decision has come. When God calls we must respond in faith. Furthermore, all of Jesus’ disciples must also persevere until the end to be saved. Elsewhere the Bible tells us that we persevere in faith until the end because Christ is presently in heaven right as our advocate, ensuring that we continue to believe the gospel (1 John 1:5-2:2). In fact, one way we know who the elect are is that they persevere in faith until the end (cf. Matthew 24:13).
Second, notice too that Jesus himself says that the gospel must be preached to all nations–this is both a sign and condition of the end. This is the basis for the church’s missionary efforts to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Jesus does not say that the entire world will be converted, nor that the gospel will be believed and embraced by all nations.[8] There are no postmillennial expectations here. He does say the gospel must be preached both as a means of conversion and a testimony against those who do not believe. And so instead of doing what so many do–spend all our time speculating about the end and what specific signs will tell us when that will be–instead, Jesus tells us to go and preach the gospel.
Third, Jesus does not predict specific wars, earthquakes and natural disasters. He does tell us that these are birth pains of the new creation. In fact, the signs ensure the birth–namely Christ’s second coming. Therefore, we have every right to question those who make specific end-times predictions and tell us that a particular war or a particular earthquake is the sign of the end. Rather, these things do not tell us when, but that Jesus is coming back to judge the world, raise the dead and make all things new.
Finally, Jesus tells us that false teachers and false Christs will arise (some from within our own midst). They will deceive many. Jesus warns us to be on our guard against them. So, we should not be surprised when seemingly orthodox believers go off the rails and fall for these false teachers. We should expect it. As the Bible everywhere teaches, our weapon against these false teachers is the truth–the doctrine taught us by Jesus and his apostles. “New and improved” might be a great way to sell toothpaste and other products, but there can be no “new and improved” doctrine. In fact, when someone claims a new insight into Scripture, they must be regarded as suspect until a consensus is reached by the church as to whether or not this “new and improved” doctrine is actually that taught in God’s word.
The words of Jesus about the future are very clear and direct. There is nothing here which would lead us into speculation or fear. Jesus has warned us what to expect–the signs of the end. He has told us what to do in his absence–the gospel must first be preached. And we can be sure that he will return exactly as he promised, because he fulfilled so many Old Testament prophecies and because Jesus so accurately predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the events associated with A. D. 70. Never forget that the one who spoke of the future holds that future in the very palm of his hand. He will bring all his purposes to pass and one day he will return to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. Perhaps, he will come again before the end of this day. But if not, don’t lose heart. He will come again. He has promised. And his promises cannot fail.
Amen.
_______________________________________
[1] See the discussion of temple’s grandeur in Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 451.
[2] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 451-452.
[3] Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 392.
[4] Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 392.
[5] Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 454.
[6] Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 399.
[7] Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 402.
[8] Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark, 399.
One of B. B. Warfield’s most profound and widely read essays is “On the Emotional Life of Our Lord” first published in 1912. In the essay (originally written for a Princeton Theological Seminary faculty publication and republished many times since), Warfield considers all of those instances in the gospel accounts in which Jesus demonstrates deep and abiding emotions. It is at once a beautiful and moving essay, while at the same time a powerful statement that Christ’s true human nature brings forth true human emotions—ranging from compassion to anger. You can download the essay for free here, but there are new published versions (in booklet form with updated text and with introductions) here and here.
Since we are now in Easter week, I thought it would be a good time to consider Warfield’s discussion of Jesus’s anger upon learning of the death of his dear friend, Lazarus.
Warfield writes,
The same term [for anger] occurs again in John’s narrative of our Lord’s demeanor at the grave of his beloved friend Lazarus (John 11:33, 38). When Jesus saw Mary weeping — or rather “wailing,” for the term is a strong one and implies the vocal expression of the grief — and the Jews which accompanied her also “wailing,” we are told, as our English version puts it, that “he groaned in the spirit and was troubled”; and again, when some of the Jews, remarking on his own manifestation of grief in tears, expressed their wonder that he who had opened the eyes of the blind man could not have preserved Lazarus from death, we are told that Jesus “again groaned in himself.”
But is “groaning,” as in the Authorized Version translation too tame?
The natural suggestion of the word “groan” is, however, that of pain or sorrow, not disapprobation; and this rendering of the term in question is therefore misleading. It is better rendered in the only remaining passage in which it occurs in the New Testament, Mark 14:5, by “murmured,” though this is much too weak a word to reproduce its implications. In that passage it is brought into close connection with a kindred term which determines its meaning. We read: “But there were some that had indignation among themselves . . . and they murmured against her.” Their feeling of irritated displeasure expressed itself in an outburst of temper. The margin of our Revised Version at John 11:33, 38, therefore, very properly proposes that we should for “groaned” in these passages, substitute “moved with indignation,” although that phrase too is scarcely strong enough.
We all know that “Jesus wept” is the shortest verse in the New Testament. But Warfield says “wept” will not do!
What John tells us, in point of fact, is that Jesus approached the grave of Lazarus, in a state, not of uncontrollable grief, but of irrepressible anger. He did respond to the spectacle of human sorrow abandoning itself to its unrestrained expression, with quiet, sympathetic tears: “Jesus wept” (verse 36). But the emotion which tore his breast and clamored for utterance was just rage. The expression even of this rage, however, was strongly curbed. The term which John employs to describe it is, as we have seen, a definitely external term. “He raged.” But John modifies its external sense by annexed qualifications: “He raged in spirit,” “raging in himself” He thus interiorizes the term and gives us to understand that the ebullition [the process of boiling] of Jesus’ anger expended itself within him. Not that there was no manifestation of it: it must have been observable to be observed and recorded; it formed a marked feature of the occurrence as seen and heard. But John gives us to understand that the external expression of our Lord’s fury was markedly restrained: its manifestation fell far short of its real intensity. He even traces for us the movements of his inward struggle: “Jesus, therefore, when he saw her wailing, and the Jews that had come with her wailing, was enraged in spirit and troubled himself’ . . . and wept. His inwardly restrained fury produced a profound agitation of his whole being, one of the manifestations of which was tears.
Here we find the true meaning of “righteous anger.”
Why did the sight of the wailing of Mary and her companions enrage Jesus? Certainly not because of the extreme violence of its expression; and even more certainly not because it argued unbelief — unwillingness to submit to God’s providential ordering or distrust of Jesus’ power to save. He himself wept, if with less violence yet in true sympathy, with the grief of which he was witness. The intensity of his exasperation, moreover, would be disproportionate to such a cause; and the importance attached to it in the account bids us seek its ground in something less incidental to the main drift of the narrative. It is mentioned twice, and is obviously emphasized as an indispensable element in the development of the story, on which, in its due place and degree, the lesson of the incident hangs. The spectacle of the distress of Mary and her companions enraged Jesus because it brought poignantly home to his consciousness the evil of death, its unnaturalness, its “violent tyranny” as Calvin (on verse 38) phrases it. In Mary’s grief, he “contemplates” — still to adopt Calvin’s words (on verse 33), — “the general misery of the whole human race” and burns with rage against the oppressor of men. Inextinguishable fury seizes upon him; his whole being is discomposed and perturbed; and his heart, if not his lips, cries out, — “For the innumerable dead . . . Is my soul disquieted.”
Jesus rages at the consequences of our sin, and as Warfield points out, does something about it which only he could do.
It is death that is the object of his wrath, and behind death him who has the power of death, and whom he has come into the world to destroy. Tears of sympathy may fill his eyes, but this is incidental. His soul is held by rage: and he advances to the tomb, in Calvin’s words again, “as a champion who prepares for conflict.” The raising of Lazarus thus becomes, not an isolated marvel, but — as indeed it is presented throughout the whole narrative (compare especially, verses 24-26) — a decisive instance and open symbol of Jesus’ conquest of death and hell. What John does for us in this particular statement is to uncover to us the heart of Jesus, as he wins for us our salvation. Not in cold unconcern, but in flaming wrath against the foe, Jesus smites in our behalf. He has not only saved us from the evils which oppress us; he has felt for and with us in our oppression, and under the impulse of these feelings has wrought out our redemption.
Warfield’s words are often quoted at funerals—I certain have cited them. His words are surely something wonderful to meditate upon as we move toward Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Jesus’s rage at the consequences of our sin reminds us that the one who hated sin so much could do, and actually did do, something about it. He was wrought out our redemption!
I am thrilled to see this remarkable volume now available in print. I was privileged to read a draft copy of the manuscript and found it both comprehensive and well-written. Dr. Perkins is one of the rising, young, scholar-pastors in the Reformed tradition, and it is my hope that this volume introduces him to a wide audience. This is a book which belongs on your bookshelf, but only after it is thoroughly dog-eared and heavily highlighted. This is good stuff.
Reformed scholarship in the field of biblical theology (Vos, Kline, Horton, Gaffin, Beale, etc.,) has done great work in advancing our understanding of the nature of covenants in the ancient world, as well as explain how these breakthroughs ought to inform the way we read and understand our bibles in light of the broad course of redemptive history. For some time, the Reformed scholarly pendulum has swung in the direction of biblical theology, but with this volume we may begin to see the pendulum swing back in the direction of a more systematic approach, hopefully to a place of balanced equilibrium.
Perkins incorporates this rich data (biblical theology) into a comprehensive survey of Reformed covenant theology, treating in order the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of grace, and the administration of the covenant of grace in light of God’s covenant with Moses. On each of these topics, Perkins brings to bear biblical, systematic, historical, and confessional concerns in a thoughtful, wise, and lucid way.
This just may be one of the best theological treatises on Reformed covenant theology since Herman Witsius’s two-volume, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man (1677).
Dr. Perkins writes as a pastor, so those who might be worried that this is but another meaty theological tome written for pointy-headed academics will find your own heads much better rounded after reading it.
You can order Dr. Perkin’s Reformed Covenant Theology here at a substantial discount.
By the way, he makes a mean peanut butter on toast.
Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death
This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.
________________________________________
At this point, the Canons address the question of the efficacy (value) of Christ’s satisfaction made upon the cross. Since the Reformed “limit” the saving benefits of the death of Christ to the elect only (a source of great controversy and misunderstanding, and addressed in part in article three), it is important for the authors to clarify that Christ’s death is not limited in any sense when considering the matter of the value of the death of Christ in terms of removing the guilt and breaking the power of sin so as to satisfy God’s justice.
This is the question article three seeks to address. If Christians affirm that there is such a thing as eternal punishment for the guilt of sin (Hell) and that Hell is populated by particular individuals, then one must limit the atonement either to its extent or its efficacy. Should we affirm that Jesus died for individuals whom he does not save? If we answer “yes” to that question, then we limit the power (efficacy) of Jesus’s death to save–Christ dies for people who perish eternally. If we ask “is it God’s intent to save each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age?” and answer “no,” then we limit God’s intention to the salvation of his elect, which the death of Jesus actually accomplishes. Either way, we limit the death of Jesus as to its power (Christ dies for those who are not saved thereby limiting the cross’s efficacy) or its extent (through the death of Jesus, God will actually and truly save his elect, not merely render all people “savable”).
In light of the preceding questions and controversy, article three makes clear that the Reformed affirm that the death of Christ is of such value (infinite) that it is absolutely sufficient to satisfy God’s justice toward those who sin in Adam (original sin) and to remove the guilt of actual sins. Christ’s death is indeed sufficient to remove the guilt of every sin committed by every person who has ever lived, in each and every age. But such was not God’s intent (his sovereign purpose) to save all, or else his purpose was not achieved. The consequence of the hypothetical/universal view is that Jesus dies for those whom he cannot and does not save—a position the Reformed reject.
The issue addressed here is that the limit placed upon the atonement does not lie in the power of the cross to remove (or expiate) sin. If God had chosen to save all men and women without exception, Christ’s death would be more than sufficient to save all—Jesus would not need to be punished longer, or shed more blood, so that more could be saved.
As the Canons affirm, “This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.”
The Reformed do not believe God sent Jesus to make the entire world savable (potentially), if only sinners do what is necessary for them to be saved. This has the unintended effect of moving the ground of salvation from the cross and merits of Christ to an act of the sinner who is rewarded with salvation for taking the first steps toward God. Instead, the Reformed affirm that the intent of the death of Christ is to actually and effectually save God’s elect, since Christ’s satisfaction is more than sufficient for all their sins.
Christ’s death does exactly what God intended it to do—save his elect. Christ satisfies God’s justice and his anger toward the sin of those whom he has chosen in Christ through our Lord’s death for them upon the cross. The Reformed reject the universalist or hypothetical notion (typical of semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism), that Christ’s death makes sinners “savable” under certain conditions (most often faith and repentance) since a hypothetical offer of salvation supposedly demonstrates God’s love for a lost and fallen world. Rather, the Reformed affirm that death of Christ truly demonstrates God’s love for a lost and fallen world because it actually satisfies God’s justice so that all of God’s elect are indeed saved and none of them will perish eternally.
The death of Jesus does not merely render people “savable,” if only they will, which those dead in sin cannot do. Rather, the death of Jesus actually and effectual satisfies God’s holy justice for those for whom he is dying.
Thank you all so very much! The Blessed Hope Podcast audience has grown beyond my wildest expectations—with no promotion other than the Riddleblog social media announcements of new episodes.
That means the growth has come from listeners who tell others about the podcast! Word of mouth works! If you think the podcast is of value, tell a friend!
Peter is writing to warn those reading his second epistle of serious doctrinal error in the churches. Knowing that he does not have long to live, Peter leaves us with his testament (this epistle). In extending to us his final words, Peter includes an exhortation that Christians must strive to manifest those God-given virtues which flow from that eternal life given to us as a gift by the power of God. The desire to see these virtues manifest in the lives of God’s people stands in sharp contrast to the desire to serve the flesh, which is characteristic of the lives of those who have departed from the truth. But in order to properly rebuke the false teachers, Peter must first establish his apostolic authority, as well as that of the prophetic word (the Scriptures). Peter has seen the glory of Jesus with his own eyes. The apostle relates how the glory he has seen on the holy mountain is but a foretaste of much greater glory yet to come when Jesus returns at the end of the age. In Jesus Christ the prophetic word (the Old Testament) is confirmed because all such prophecy comes from God, not from the will of men. God’s prophets are carried along by the Holy Spirit, giving to us that to which we commonly refer to as “Holy Scripture.”
To read the rest, follow the link below
Episode Synopsis:
From the moment of our Lord’s ascension into heaven (as recounted in Acts 1:8) Christians have expected the Lord’s bodily and imminent return. Both Jesus and the apostles had a fair bit to say about his return as well as those signs which would precede the end. So, from the dawn of the church, until now, some two thousand years removed from our Lord’s life and ministry, Christians have eagerly expected the Lord’s return. What are these signs of the end, and how are we to understand them? What remains to be fulfilled before Jesus returns?
There are also a number of common expectations people have about the Lord’s return, but which really are not signs of the end at all–the rapture, the seven-year tribulation, a millennial age, and so on. We’ll also discuss these expectations which are not biblical signs of the end.
It is hard to address the signs of the end today because since the days of the birth of the nation of Israel 1n1948, the biblical prophecy pundit industry has been doing its best to connect current events to biblical prophecy–especially events surrounding Israel. This has colored Christian expectation in many harmful ways–verses are lifted from their context and applied to virtually any event involving the Jewish state without due regard for what Scripture actually teaches about the end. A few of these predictions have come to pass, and those which have are more of “a broken clock is right twice a day” variety. So lets step back from the prognosticators and the Bible prophecy industry and take a fresh look at the biblical teaching regarding the signs of the end. I think this is an important valuable exercise.
Show Notes:
The episode ran a bit long, but I felt it better produce one episode, rather than divide the subject matter (the signs of the end) into two parts.
I also recorded the episode so as to give it a more “live” feel. The material, after all, is taken from prior conference lectures.
Recommended Links:
Dean Davis: Keeping Our Cool Till the End of the World -- How the Signs of the Times Produce Peace and Protect from Panic
Nicolas Batzig: The Rapture and the Return of Christ
Charles Lee Irons: Will There Be a Golden Age Before Christ Returns?
Ligon Duncan: What Happens When Christ Returns?
Bibliography for the “Future”
What to Read About the End Times
What Should I Read to Learn About Covenant Theology
Daniel Hummel's "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism"
A Reply to John MacArthur's Critique of Amillennialism
Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies
Eschatology Charts (scroll down)
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
Often identified as a Lutheran distinctive, the law-gospel distinction is recognized by the Reformed tradition as well. Reformed theologians such as Zacharius Ursinus (the principle author of the Heidelberg Catechism) and Louis Berkhof (a distinguished Reformed theologian) have spoken of the Bible as containing two parts–the law and the gospel. Although people often assume that this means the Bible has two testaments (the Old Testament being identified with “law” while the New Testament is identified with “gospel”), this is mistaken. In making the law-gospel distinction identification, we mean that law and gospel are two distinct but intimately connected “words” from God found throughout both testaments.
A definition or two is helpful at this point. The law is that which God demands of us (Genesis 2:17; Exodus 20:1-18), while the gospel is the good news that in Jesus Christ, God freely and graciously gives to us everything which he demands of us under the law (Romans 5:9; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21). The content of the law is that which God revealed first to Adam in Eden, and then published in the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai when the Ten Commandments were written down on two tablets of stone and given to the people of God (Exodus 24).
The gospel is the message of what God has done in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. It is good news which is declared to us from the Word of God. The revelation of this gospel begins in Genesis 3:15 when God promises to rescue Adam from the curse pronounced upon him after he rebelled against his creator and brought our race under condemnation. God promised to crush Satan under the heel of a redeemer, and ensures Adam that one day no longer will there be any curse (Revelation 22:3). The law is what God commands of us. The gospel is what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. The law says “do.” The gospel announces to us what has been “done.”
The importance of this distinction becomes clear when we survey the course of biblical history. When God created Adam and placed him in Eden, Adam was created in a covenant relationship with God (the so-called covenant of works). Adam had the natural ability to obey all of God’s commands, which are written upon the hearts of all of Adam’s descendants because we are divine image bearers (Romans 2:12-16). These commandments are not published until God gives them to Israel at Mount Sinai. In the contents of the Sinaitic covenant, we see that both law and gospel are found together in the Old Testament.
When God made his covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, that which was written on the human heart was now made public for all to see and obey. The Ten Commandments are called the “moral law” because they reflect this universal knowledge of God’s will which he has implanted in every human heart (Romans 2:14). Failure to obey these commandments will bring down the covenant curses upon all those who disobey them (Romans 3:19-20). Fail to obey a single commandment and we are guilty of breaking all of these commandments (James 2:10).
At the same time, God revealed the plans for a tabernacle (where God would be present in the midst of his people–Exodus 25:9), installed Moses as covenant mediator (Exodus 3:15), and gave the nation a priesthood complete with animal sacrifices to deal with the guilt of sin, all of which are elements of the covenant of grace and which pointed the people of God ahead to the coming of Jesus Christ, whose death upon the cross these elements prefigured (Hebrews 8:1-13).
Although the Ten Commandments reflect the will of God with blessings promised for obedience, and curses threatened for disobedience, the law is given to Israel within a covenant context in which God provides a means for the guilt of the sins of the people to be remitted (the sacrifices), all the while pointing them ahead to the coming of Jesus Christ—Israel’s great high, final prophet, all conquering king, and mediator of the covenant of grace. The law and the gospel, while to be carefully distinguished, are often revealed together. The commandments serve to show the people of God the guilt of their sin (Galatians 3:10-14), while at the same time preparing them for the coming of Jesus Christ, their Messiah and redeemer.
As Paul puts it, “for by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20), while the gospel is the message of what Jesus Christ has done to save us from our sins (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The law is to be obeyed, while the gospel is to be embraced through faith. The gospel is the declaration of all that God has done to save sinners from the guilt and consequences of their sin (Romans 10:14-17). The law condemns and gives no power to obey its stipulations. The gospel declares that the law no longer condemns those who trust in Jesus, and at the same time creates faith in the heart. We “obey” the gospel only in the sense of “believing” in the gospel (John 6:28-29).
The irony here is that because the gospel creates faith (Romans 10:17), it is the preaching of the gospel which leads God’s people into holy living (Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:2-14). The law is indeed holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), but because we are sinful, when the law is preached to us, we are incited to even greater levels of sin (Romans 7:5-12). But once we trust in Jesus Christ, and are united to him through faith (Galatians 5:17), we will struggle with our sins, we will realize that we have failed to keep God’s commandments, and then finding ourselves desiring to obey the law (cf. Romans 7:22-23).
The content of the law does not change once we are justified through faith. Rather, it is our relationship to the law which changes. Before we were Christ’s, the law stood in judgment upon us, condemning us because we cannot keep it. The law inflicts its curse upon us. But once we trust in Christ as proclaimed in the gospel, we have died to the law and its curse, and suddenly we come alive to the commandments of God, which now reveal to us the will of God, and what we may do to please him (Psalm 1:1-2).
This is why the old theologians were correct when they affirmed that the law is both the teacher of sin, and the rule of gratitude. If we are not clear about the law-gospel distinction, we will not be clear about the gospel, and the fact that God has done everything in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins.
Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .
I. Who teach that the will of God to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decision of election to salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decision has been revealed in God’s Word.
For they deceive the simple and plainly contradict Holy Scripture in its testimony that God does not only wish to save those who would believe, but that he has also from eternity chosen certain particular people to whom, rather than to others, he would within time grant faith in Christ and perseverance. As Scripture says, “I have revealed your name to those whom you gave me” (John 17:6). Likewise, “All who were appointed for eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48), and “He chose us before the foundation of the world so that we should be holy…” (Eph. 1:4).
________________________________________________
The first error to be rejected by the Synod is one of the most common, and held by many Christians today. As set out in articles one-eighteen of the Canons, the Bible teaches that election is grounded God’s love for lost and fallen sinners. Scripture tells us that God decrees to elect Jesus Christ to be the savior of the world, and to be the mediator of the covenant of grace (John 6:38-40; Ephesians 1:4; 3:11; 1 Timothy 2:5). God’s purpose in this is to save that multitude of sinners fallen in Adam, people who are individually chosen to be saved according to God’s eternal purpose for each. The number of those chosen to be saved is so great that they cannot be counted (Revelation 7:9).
The error to be rejected here is that of trying to locate the ground (basis) for election in something that God foresees within the creature, namely faith and repentance. Scripture, on the other hand, very clearly teaches that fallen creatures cannot come to faith in Jesus Christ apart from a prior work of God’s grace (John 6:44), enabling them to do so (1 John 4:10). There is no faith or repentance to be foreseen unless and until God grants it to the creature.
Blog and Podcast News and Updates:
- I am working on the final edits for my 1 Corinthians commentary in the Lectio Continua series currently being republished by Reformation Heritage. Hopefully, the volume will be available soon after season three of the Blessed Hope Podcast (on Paul’s Corinthian Letters) gets underway.
- After “The Future” series wraps up on the Blessed Hope Pod, look for an episode on the problems associated with doing eschatology by “ethos,” (the “optimism” v. “pessimism” challenge raised by postmillennarians) and then a two-parter on the history of American postmillennialism.
A Question: If Donald Trump can weigh 215 pounds, how much can I weigh? Trump claiming to weigh 215 is about as accurate as my weight stated on my driver’s license!
Currently Reading: G. K. Beale, Union with the Resurrected Christ: Eschatological New Creation, and New Testament Biblical Theology. This will take a while—this an important and meaty text.
Recently Finished Reading:
There is a wealth of recent publications in the field of New Testament biblical theology. This one is a real gem for anyone interested in the gospels. Robertson covers a number of introductory matters (such as Jesus’s self-testimony, his life and ministry, the importance of progressive revelation, our Lord’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension), treating next the general witness of the synoptic gospels to Jesus (going through Matthew, Mark, and Luke) before concluding with the Gospel of John.
This is a profound, but not too difficult text for the general reader. Much here that I had not thought about before. I recommend it for preachers preparing to preach upon any one of the gospels, or to laymen who like in-depth reflection and commentary upon the Scriptures.
While supplies last, you can buy it here at a discounted price: O. P. Robertson, The Christ of the Consummation: A New Testament Biblical Theology
Links to Recommended Resources:
- Venema nails it.Is paedocommunion biblical? No!
- S. M. Baugh on the line in the Creed, Suffered Under Pontius Pilate
- Kevin DeYoung on Reasons why we should believe in an historical Adam
- Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise: Ancient gates discovered
- Carl Trueman: On the death of Church and Pub
Links to Not So Recommended Resources:
- Got an angry customer, client, or a “Karen” with a ridiculous complaint? Here’s how you might answer (Note: some blue language): Letters of Note: Very Truly Yours
- So I am merely one in thirty million. I thought I was special. Thirty million Mayflower ancestors in America. I am connected to two Mayflower passengers (Elizabeth and John Howland) on my maternal side (Morris), but so are 29,999,998 others!
- I’d hate to find this guy in my greens. As it was in the days of Pharoah -- the second plague returns
- There are not words—the asininity continues: Bovine mammary secretions
- Fellow baldies, unite! Home of the Bald!
- Catastrophic consequences: An atomic wedgie goes very wrong
Previous Musings: Late Summer Musings (8/18/2023)
Video: More words of wisdom from my favorite philosopher!
For the Reformers, Recovering the Gospel Also Meant Recovery of Proper Worship
The Reformers understood that the recovery of the gospel was directly connected to proper Christian worship. John Calvin, for one, saw his own conversion and subsequent work of reform tied directly to the removal of all forms of Roman idolatry (especially the mass) from Christian worship. The centrality of the gospel to the life of the church must be made manifest in the pure worship of God. This meant a Word-centered liturgy in which biblical texts were preached upon, biblical exhortations and commands were made clear, and biblical promises made to the people of God were to be read for their comfort and assurance. As one writer puts it, “the recovery of the gospel in the Reformation was ultimately a worship war–a war against the idols, a war for the pure worship of God.”[2] Our worship must reflect our gospel, and our gospel must define our worship.
The Reformers Sought to “Reform” the Church’s Worship
While affirming Sola Scriptura and striving to base all liturgical reform on biblical principles of worship, the Reformers carefully considered the practices of the ancient church and the teaching of the church fathers when revising the liturgies they inherited. The goal was to reform the church’s ancient liturgies by striping them of all unbiblical additions, not to compose entirely new liturgies from scratch. “New” and “contemporary” when used in the Reformed tradition in connection to worship, are therefore best understood as “reforming” (i.e., removing all unbiblical accretions, as well as adding those things which are missing), not replacing the ancient liturgies with contemporary fads grounded in popular preferences.
Martin Luther stated that his intention was to not to abolish, but to cleanse the liturgies of “wicked additions” (i.e., Roman inventions) and recover their proper (pious) use. Calvin too sought to remove Roman additions made to the liturgies of the ancient church, which is why his Genevan liturgy (The Form of Ecclesiastical Prayers) was subtitled “According to the Custom of the Ancient Church.” Like Luther, he was no innovator, but a “Reformer.” It was said of Heinrich Bullinger (the Reformed pastor in Zurich and a contemporary of Calvin) that he restored “all things to the first and simplest form of the most ancient, and indeed apostolic tradition.”[3] It is fair to say that “tradition mattered to the Reformers. It was the living faith of the dead, not the dead faith of the living.” [4]
Returning to the ancient ways meant, in part, incorporating the reading of the Ten Commandments (or “law” texts from throughout the Scriptures), using the Lord’s Prayer (either recited or as a model for prayer), reciting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, God’s people thereby confessing the orthodox faith while effectively uniting the church of the present to the people of God of the past—the so-called “cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Sound Doctrine — Dealing with Truth and Error
There is a reason why Peter’s second epistle is not well-known, or widely read and preached upon in the churches. In this letter, we find emphatic warnings about false teachers and the dangers of false doctrine they spread. For those who embrace the church-lite ethos of American Christianity, the message of 2 Peter will not be appreciated, nor warmly received. While many preachers and churches wish to emphasize the positive, 2 Peter reminds us of the negative. There is truth and there is error. It is a biblical reality that if we believe the one (truth) we will encounter the other (error). When our contemporaries tell us that doctrine does not matter, 2 Peter reminds us that it does. If our contemporaries seek unity and avoid controversy to the point of fostering a willingness to make peace with false teaching, then 2 Peter warns us of the great dangers of doing exactly that.
This is not to say unity is a bad thing–Christians are to seek unity around the truth of those doctrines passed down to us by Jesus and his apostles in the pages of Holy Scripture. Reformed Christians identify our own doctrinal standards as the “Three Forms of Unity” for a very important reason. We believe particular doctrines, and unite around them by confessing a common faith–a faith which we believe to be biblical and which is clearly and concisely summarized in our confessions. Unity is very important, so long as it grounded in the truth of those things taught in God’s word.
The Psalmist tells us “behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” ( Psalm 133:1). Jesus prays that his people would be one (John 17:11). Paul likewise speaks of Christians standing together because we are one body and indwelt by the same Holy Spirit. We have one common hope, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Eph 6:4-5). We may each be different parts, but we are all members of the body of Christ. This is precisely why false doctrine is so dangerous–it is as though one part of the body has cancer, or has become gangrenous. Such serious illness in one part of the body must be dealt with immediately when it arises, and even perhaps removed, to maintain the health of the whole.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Episode Synopsis:
I am not a fan of jigsaw puzzles–I don’t have the patience to put them together, and I am too easily distracted by the shapes of the various pieces. So, I lose sight of the big picture, and then I get frustrated and attempt to jam pieces into the puzzle where they don’t fit.
Many people have the same trouble with the Bible. Why do we need to see the big picture? Why can’t we just get to the signs of the end (the individual pieces)? What should we expect to happen before the Lord’s return? What about the Antichrist? What about Israel? What about the seven-year tribulation period? What about the millennium? Why not just get to the good stuff?
To read the Bible like this is to spend all of your time looking at the puzzle pieces without knowing what the picture on the box-top of the puzzle looks like. The Bible’s expectation for the future (the box top) tells us how the puzzle pieces fit together. If we skip big picture stuff, we can easily fall into the errors which so many of our contemporaries make–predictions about the end with no way to connect the signs of the end to the biblical context in which the signs make sense.
When we spend the time to look at the box top of redemptive history–we don’t see an Antichrist, Israel, or a millennial age, anywhere near the center of the picture. What do we see? Or better, who? We see Jesus Christ–the mediator of the new and better covenant–who is the central image on the box top. Since Jesus has ascended to the Father’s right hand, the big picture tells us that Jesus will return to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. His return is our expectation, “the blessed hope.”
We cannot successfully discuss, nor truly understand, the signs of the end apart from being clear in our minds about the big picture. We cannot understand the Antichrist, if we do not understand the Christ. We cannot understand the role of Israel, if we attempt to discuss Israel apart from the true Israel (Jesus). We might expect an earthly millennial age if we do not see our Lord’s return as the final consummation–not some half-way step (a millennium) on the way to final consummation.
When we glimpse the picture of Jesus on the biblical box top–it is immediately apparent that he is the sum and substance of all biblical prophecy. Jesus is the center of the picture which ensures the realization of all of God’s covenant blessings for his people as well as the meting out of all the covenant curses upon those who reject his grace and mercy because they prefer to remain in their sins. All of the signs of the end point to things which occur on the last day, when the trumpet sounds, the heavens roll up like a scroll, and Jesus returns just as he promised. The signs of the end point to this glorious day when time becomes eternity.
To view the show notes and listen to the episode follow the link below
When Christians speak of the “ordo salutis” we are referring to the “order of salvation.” While we should qualify any discussion of such an “order” by affirming that an omniscient God does not need to do things in sequential order as we do, nevertheless there is a logical order to the way in which God saves us from sin and its consequences. Since we are described as “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1-5) and unable to do anything to save ourselves from our dire predicament (John 6:44), God must act upon us while we are still “dead” in order to save us from our sins. The ordo salutis is simply an attempt to understand what actions God takes to save us, and in what logical order he accomplishes them.
This is not an abstract concept because Scripture itself speaks of our salvation as being accomplished for us according to a divinely-ordained progression. The first of these passages is the so called “golden chain” of salvation found in Romans 8:28-30. In that passage Paul writes,
and we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
The passage has been described as the golden chain because Paul not only speaks of an unbreakable order to the plan by which God saves us (the chain), but the apostle is clear that our salvation from beginning to end is the work of a gracious and sovereign God, who having begun the process of our salvation, sees it through to the end (the gold). There is no sense that some of those chosen by God are eventually rejected, or that there is something good within the sinner which moves God to have pity on them and then act on their behalf.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Article 18: The Proper Attitude Toward Election and Reprobation
To those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20), and with the words of our Savior, Have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15). We, however, with reverent adoration of these secret things, cry out with the apostle: Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways beyond tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Rom. 11:33-36).
__________________________________
We come to the final article of the First Head of Doctrine—the first point of the so-called five points of Calvinism. Article eighteen addresses the matter of how we, as the people of God, are to respond to the biblical teaching about election and reprobation. There are at least four possible responses to these doctrines, although the Canons take note only of two. We begin by dealing with the two responses identified in article eighteen.
The first possible response one might have comes from those who, when faced with this doctrine, react by calling God’s fairness into question. As the Canons note, “to those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20),” and with the words of our Savior, “have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15).” Like it or not, God is our creator and is absolutely sovereign over us. He does what he wills with his creatures and with his creation. As the fallen children of Adam, we must deal with the fact that were it not for the electing grace of God, all of us would remain unbelievers, under his just judgment.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Blog and Pod News and Updates:
-
New episodes of “The Future” at the Blessed Hope Podcast are coming on-line. Look for season three—covering Paul’s two Corinthians Letters—late in the Fall.
-
For those who make it through all of the episodes of season two, I’m working on a free expositional commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians. It will be similar to “For Freedom,” the exposition I prepared for season one on Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
-
Since several have asked, I post family and personal stuff at KR on Instragram
An Observation:
- The loser of the next presidential election, just might be among the most important people in America’s future—we will have an orderly transition of power?
To read the rest, follow the link below
Elements and Circumstances [1]
The Reformed divide liturgical practice into two categories: elements and circumstances. Elements are limited to what Scripture authorizes (either by command or good and necessary inference) along the line of Acts 2:42, while circumstances refer to how we put elements into practice. Circumstances are matters left to our judgment and discretion, but remaining within the general bounds of God’s word.
Elements are a distinct and usually ordinary act of worship (e.g., prayer, Scripture reading, the preaching of word, the administration of sacraments, etc.). Circumstances pertain to practices not unique to religious worship, but common to “human actions and societies” (WCF 1.6). Circumstances refer to matters such as where and when to meet, how many hymns should be sung, how the church furniture should be arranged, etc. Circumstances are not indifferent nor ungoverned, but are regulated by the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general rules of Scripture (WCF 1.6). For example, we can choose what times to meet on Sunday, but we cannot move our Lord’s Day worship to another day of the week.
As the Reformed liturgical traditions took shape (the elements), there were wide variations in circumstantial practice. The various church orders (the constitutional documents of the churches) often developed along national/local lines. Most liturgies were full services, while others were partial liturgies or set forth guidelines for parts of the service—i.e., John Knox’s Practice of the Lord’s Supper. And there was the collection and publication of prayers to be used in worship (i.e., Thomas Cranmer’s Collects which are found the Book of Common Prayer (BCP).
To read the rest, follow the link below
Challenges to the Authenticity of This Letter
Following up on the previous series (an exposition of 1 Peter), we begin an eight-part study of the Second Epistle of Peter. But from the moment we open this all-too often overlooked, but very important letter ascribed to the apostle Peter, it soon becomes apparent that there are a number of problems faced by anyone who attempts to exposit this letter, or treat it as a genuine apostolic document that belongs among those God-breathed writings which make up the canon of the New Testament. The problems we encounter with this epistle are significant enough that the vast majority of biblical scholars dismiss even the possibility that this epistle was written by the apostle Peter–in spite of the opening words in which the author claims to be “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.”[1] Despite the judgment of so many scholars to the contrary, I think a good case can be made for Petrine authorship of this short epistle, and that it does indeed belong in the canon of the New Testament.
A series of expositions (Bible studies) is usually not a good (or even an appropriate) place to tackle complicated questions of New Testament introduction. Because these difficulties are so apparent in 2 Peter, and since we will spend significant time in this letter, we cannot ignore the matter. So, we will address the questions of authorship and authenticity, and then survey some of the theological themes in the first of our series on this epistle, before we conclude by briefly taking up the opening greeting from Peter found in the first two verses.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Episode Synopsis:
The kingdom of God is a major topic throughout the Scriptures. The kingdom of God refers to the rule or reign of God over all of creation and all of its creatures. The Old Testament speaks of YHWH as Israel’s king, whose kingdom is everlasting. The prophets speak of this kingdom using royal images associated with heavenly glory and absolute sovereignty–the creator of all things does indeed rule over all that he has made. Everything is subject to him.
Although YHWH rules the nations, because of Israel’s repeated and stubborn rebellion against him, YHWH has directed those nations to conquer Israel and possess the promised land. This is why the focus of the later prophets is upon the future, when YHWH’s kingdom is gloriously and finally realized. Israel’s king will come to visit his people with salvation, but will also mete out judgment upon all who reject his rule.
So, when the messianic age dawns with the supernatural conception and birth of Jesus, we should not be surprised that it is in his person and work that YHWH’s promised kingdom will be realized. Since Jesus is YHWH’s promised king, YHWH’s kingdom has arrived in and with him–such a kingdom cannot exist apart from its king, Jesus, the second person of the blessed Trinity who is God now clothed in human flesh.
The arrival of this kingdom can be seen in the preaching of John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament prophets who speaks of a coming one in whom YHWH’s kingdom will dawn. Throughout his messianic mission Jesus proclaims that in him YHWH’s kingdom draws near–it is a major theme of his preaching. This kingdom conquers all, but not in the way we might think, nor in the way Israel expected. They wanted Jesus to restore David’s kingdom and lead them to victory over the Romans. When Jesus taught otherwise, he was rejected by his people, crucified, and then rose again from the dead. He ascended to the Father’s right hand and promised to return. Jesus’ kingdom is a spiritual kingdom absolutely victorious over the guilt and power of sin. He has defeated Satan in anticipation of a time when that kingdom will be fully and finally consummated on the last day, when all the inhabitants of the earth bow the knee and confess that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
That day, when Jesus returns and his kingdom comes in its fullness lies at the heart of the New Testament’s eschatology. It is that kingdom about which Jesus taught us to pray, “thy kingdom come.” Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the New Testament writers direct us to that time in the future when our king will return and his kingdom will be consummated. On that day all tears will be wiped from our eyes, we will receive our promised inheritance, and not a hint or trace of human sin will remain. This beloved, is our hope for the future and this is the context in which we must discuss the signs of the end.
To see the show notes and listen to the episode, follow the link below
As the biblical account of redemptive history unfolds, the story of God’s saving purpose is revealed even as the story takes a number of surprising twists and turns. The New Testament opens with an angel announcing to a young virgin that God’s promised Messiah was at long last coming to visit his people and bring them salvation. Jesus was born of Mary, he grew to manhood, and began his public ministry after his baptism by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-13). As we read in Matthew’s gospel, when our Lord’s messianic mission got underway, “[Jesus] went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people” (Matthew 4:23).
Eventually, Jesus’ public ministry took him to Jerusalem. On the way there, Jesus informed his disciples, “the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death” (Matthew 20:18). It was John the Baptist who said of Jesus upon first encountering him, “behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Since Jesus came as Israel’s Messiah, the mediator of the covenant of grace, and fulfilled the anointed offices of prophet, priest, and king, the necessity of his death comes as somewhat of a surprise–although this death was foretold by the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), who predicted that God’s promised Messiah was also the suffering servant spoken of throughout Isaiah’s prophecy. When Jesus entered Jerusalem in triumph on Palm Sunday, it appeared to all as though he would at long last take his place on Israel’s throne to restore the nation to its former greatness. But by Friday afternoon of that week, Jesus was dead, hanging on a Roman cross, having died an agonizing death by crucifixion.
Why did the story of our redemption take such a dark and foreboding turn? Why did Jesus need to die? Thankfully, throughout the New Testament, the biblical writers tell us why Jesus died and what his death means for us. When we briefly survey at the terms which the biblical writers use to explain the death of Jesus, the meaning and purpose of his death becomes clear.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Article 17: The Salvation of Deceased Infants of Believers
Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
_________________________________
Because of human sin, and the fact that the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all of his descendants, terrible tragedies do occur. Ours is a sinful and fallen race. We are weakened in body because of the inherited corruption passed down to us from our first father, Adam. Furthermore, we are subject to the sinful actions of our fellow sinners. Because we are under the curse, we will all die. As one of the sages of popular culture puts it, “nobody gets out of here alive.”
One of the worst consequences of the Fall of Adam and the curse is the death of a child. It is bad enough that children, now grown, must bury those who brought them into the world, and loved, cared and provided for them. It is even worse when parents are forced to bury a child who never lived to adulthood. If such a tragedy is not a graphic picture of the reality which is the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his progeny, then I don’t know what is.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Podcast news:
-
I will be taking a short break at the blog and the pod—the mountains are calling.
-
I’ve begun a new Riddleblog series, A Primer on Reformed Liturgics (with two installments posted so far). Once completed, I’ll compile them as a single document under Riddleblog publications.
-
I’ve completed my series on 1 Peter, and will tackle 2 Peter next.
-
Lord willing, the next up in the Blessed Hope Podcast series, “The Future”, is “The Returning King and His Kingdom.” Look for it upon my return.
-
Did I mention how much I hate endnotes in books?
To read check out the recommended links and see the video, follow the link below
General Characteristics of Early Reformed Liturgies.[1]
As the Reformation got underway and the Reformed churches began to develop their own distinct theological identity and practices, general characteristics of Reformed liturgical practice emerged. The following are found in the majority of Reformed liturgies in the Reformation era and can be summarized as follows: (1) The assumption that the church is the assembly of the covenant community. (2) The assembled people of God participate in worship in the common tongue. (3). Simplicity. (4). The centrality of word and sacrament. (5) A central role for Psalms. (6). Adaptability to need and circumstance.
Emerging Liturgical Forms and Practices
Given the stress upon congregational participation in worship as central among the changes brought about by the Reformation, the assembled worshipers sang, prayed, heard the word of God read and preached, and received the sacraments regularly. These things were not limited to the clergy, choirs, etc. Full congregational participation can be seen in the common liturgical practices adapted early on. Worship in the Reformed churches was grounded in a word-centered liturgy in the vernacular (the common language). This was a departure from pre-Reformation practices, amounting to a . . .
Far-reaching change . . . The whole service [was read] in a clear audible voice [not Latin] and in the vernacular tongue. Low mass had been the popular form of service for a considerable period before the Reformation, and this meant that the old service had been said in Latin and also inaudibly. Now, for the first time, the people both heard the words and understood them, while at one stroke the old secret prayers disappeared and the central rite [i.e., the mass] stood clear of medieval accretions.”[2]
Much of the Reformation era liturgical reform was adapted from the ancient church, in part, to demonstrate that Reformation churches were not schismatic–a charge often leveled against them by Rome. Because the goal was the reform of the true church, the following became mainstays of the Reformed liturgies: The Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, a confession of sin with absolution or declaration of pardon, and intercessory prayers.
To read the rest, follow the link below
What Do You Say to Persecuted Christians?
What do you say to Christians who have been displaced from their homes by a cruel and cynical act of a pagan emperor? How do you comfort a persecuted people who see no relief in sight from their troubles? What do you say to people who are reviled and cursed because they profess their faith in Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer, and Lord, and refuse to worship Caesar or the pantheon of pagan gods? How do you comfort a people who are mocked because they follow the teaching of Jesus, and therefore refuse to indulge every bodily urge simply because those urges exist? If you are the apostle Peter, you tell them the truth.
The reality is that fiery trials come with being a Christian living in a pagan environment. Yet, these trials are also the means through which God strengthens our faith. Just as it was with Jesus–that the cross of Good Friday precedes the empty tomb of Easter–so too it is with Christians. Suffering precedes the glory yet to be revealed. Peter also tells these Christians that despite their troubles, God has not cast them off. Regardless of how they feel, those who believe in Jesus are his elect exiles, his spiritual temple, possessing a heavenly citizenship which guarantees all the blessings of eternal life and a heavenly inheritance. Peter also tells them that Christians must strive to humble themselves before God, and learn to cast all of their cares and worries upon the sovereign God who is also their loving father. As they do so, Christians begin to live in the hope of the eternal glories yet to come.
We now wrap-up our series on 1 Peter. In the previous discussion, we devoted our attention to several of the points raised by Peter in the concluding section of this epistle (vv. 1-14 of chapter 5)–specifically Peter’s reference to the office of elder, which functions as a bulwark against the schemes of the devil, the adversary, who is looking for struggling Christians to devour. This time, we will cover the same ground, but focus upon two different themes in the text–humbling ourselves before God, while at the same time learning to cast all of our cares upon him. This will bring our time in 1 Peter to an end.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Episode Synopsis:
I begin this episode with a personal testimony.
I was born and raised a dispensationalist. Our family owned a Christian bookstore. The first Christian book I picked out and read on my own was Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. Years later, I was challenged by one of our delivery men about the books we were selling–all the dispensationalist best sellers. He said he was “Reformed.” I thought he meant that he had gone to “reform school” or was on work release from prison. The questions he put to me bounced off like BB’s against a Battleship. Dispensationalism was biblical. How could anyone doubt that?
But those BB’s actually penetrated my embarrassingly thin armor. Eventually, I became a very reluctant Calvinist and then I started re-thinking my eschatology. After university and a year at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (which was founded by John Warwick Montgomery, the faculty included Walter Martin, and Rod Rosenbladt, and is now the Trinity Law School in Santa Ana), I was steadily moving away from my doctrinal roots (Arminian and dispensational). I found that the Reformation views on law and gospel, the five solas, and the end times, were absolutely compelling because they were thoroughly biblical. To my surprise Drs. Montgomery and Rosenbladt suggested a career change–seminary, specifically the new seminary in Escondido (90 miles to the South), Westminster Seminary California.
In the Acts and Paul class taught by Dennis Johnson, I first encountered what I came to know as the two-age model–terms I was familiar with from reading the New Testament but never thought much about–“this age” and “the age to come.” After reading Herman Ridderbos and Geerhardus Vos on Paul, I realized how serious a challenge the two-model was to my premillennial eschatology (I had pretty much given up on most of my dispensationalism by then, although I still thought like one). Driving home after Dr. Johnson’s class, I had an “ah-ha moment.” “I can’t be premillennial any more.” The two-age model makes premillennialism (in all its forms) a biblical impossibility. I dug in my heels and fought the inevitable. But here I am far down the road, presenting and defending the two-age model. If you’ve not heard this before, you are in for a real surprise. This is a game changer in terms of your view of the end times.
To read the show notes and listen to the episode, follow the link below
The diagnosis is not very good. We are ignorant, guilty, and corrupt. But the prognosis is far worse. We are under the curse and face certain death. As fallen sinners ravaged by a threefold consequence of our sins, our hearts are darkened (Romans 1:21) and our thoughts are continually evil (Genesis 6:5). Our minds are clouded by sin and ignorant of the things of God (Ephesians 4:17-18). We labor under the tremendous weight of our guilt–the penalty for our many infractions of the law of God. We may delude ourselves into thinking that we have sinned against our neighbors only, but David knew that this was not true. “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Psalm 51:4). We also suffer from the destructive pollution of our inherited sinful condition, which infects every part of us from the moment of conception. Born in sin as the Psalmist declares (Psalm 51:5), there is no good residing in us (Psalm 14:1-3). Our bodies, which are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), become instruments to act out the wickedness that would otherwise lie hidden in our hearts (Romans 6:13). The bad news is very bad. Sin leaves us ignorant, guilty, and polluted, and therefore miserable.
But there is a glorious and miraculous cure from this disease. The good news of the gospel is that while “this is impossible with men,” nevertheless, with God, “all things are possible!” (Matthew 19:26). It was John Calvin who brought the so-called “threefold office” of Christ into prominence. Utilized by many in the subsequent Reformed tradition, the threefold office presents Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, and king, who in his saving work fulfilled all the anointed offices of the Old Testament. As Calvin pointed out, the threefold office of Christ is one of the best ways to explain our Lord’s redemptive work, which by design overcame our ignorance, our guilt, and our corruption, and which even now provides us with illumination (through Christ’s prophetic office), redemption (through his priestly office), and hope in the present (through his kingly office).
To read the rest, follow the link below
Responses to the Teaching of Reprobation
Those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us—such people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate; rather they ought to continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility. On the other hand, those who seriously desire to turn to God, to be pleasing to him alone, and to be delivered from the body of death, but are not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like—such people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation, since our merciful God has promised that he will not snuff out a smoldering wick and that he will not break a bruised reed. However, those who have forgotten God and their Savior Jesus Christ and have abandoned themselves wholly to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh—such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God.
________________________________________
There are a number of possible responses people can have to the teaching of reprobation. The Canons deal with three of them. The first group of people identified by the Canons are “those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us.” This category refers to those who have not yet come to saving faith in Christ. These people cannot yet say that they are trusting in Christ, although they may be wrestling with the guilt of their sins, and may even be convinced of the truth of Christianity.
This group includes the older children of believers who have been baptized, but have not yet made profession of faith. But there are others we need to consider–not mentioned by the Canons–who, at this point in time, appear to have no interest in Christ. Although this is currently the case does not mean that all such people are numbered among the reprobate, nor can we treat them as such, even if they appear to be notorious evil doers.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Riddleblog/Blessed Hope Podcast News:
-
Logos Re-flagger has been added to the Riddleblog—whenever your cursor hovers over a biblical citation, a popup will appear citing the passage in the ESV.
-
The new pod series, “the Future,” has launched on the Blessed Hope Podcast. “The Future” deals with the question, “what does the future hold for the people of God?” It is a series of pre-covid Bible prophecy conference lectures I’ve given through the years, combined and edited to podcast format.
-
The Blessed Hope Podcast has just passed a very significant milestone in terms of downloads (who’d have thunk??), so thanks to all of you who listen, and especially to those of you who recruited new listeners!
-
A head’s up . . . My annual trip to the Eastern Sierras is coming up soon, so there will be a week or so with little activity here at the blog and at the pod.
To see the rest of my “musings” (links, book recommendations, and a video) follow the link below
The Reformed liturgy is thought to originate in St. John’s chapel in Strasbourg, where a revised mass was celebrated in 1524 in German by Diehold Schwarz. Schwarz, an ex Dominican, translated the Latin mass into simple German and removed words and phrases which spoke of the mass as a repetition of Christ’s work on Calvary. The service was read audibly in the vernacular. A revised mass in the common tongue was just the beginning.
As the Reformation took root across Europe, a number of liturgical reforms were made in Strasbourg and elsewhere, especially in Switzerland. Metrical Psalms (with melodies and harmonies) and hymns were introduced into the service and sung by the congregation in German. The Apostles’ Creed was also recited by the congregation, and the old lectionaries (collections of biblical passages to support “holy days” on the church calendar) faded into disuse. The Scripture lessons, especially from the gospels and epistles, became much longer and were now read in every service. Sermons were also preached at every service, often based upon the Scripture lessons chosen for that service. The ceremonial elements of the mass were slowly eliminated, the minister no longer faced to the East (a long practiced custom) but now faced the assembled worshipers. Church fixtures changed as well—the communion table was no longer called “the altar” and was moved forward, much closer to the people.
To read the rest, follow the link below
There is one thing American Christians do not like–to submit to the authority of church officers. In one survey, 90% of American Christians opined that the church has no authority to declare whether or not someone is a Christian. Yet, all the evangelical theologians asked to comment on the poll results found themselves numbered among the 10% who rightly noted that Jesus himself gave to the church the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:17-19), as well as explaining the precise steps for the church to take when someone’s doctrine and conduct do not match that required of those who name the name of Jesus.[1]
There is also one thing about which American Christians are thoroughly confused–the power and tactics of the devil between the time Jesus defeated Satan while suffering upon the cross, and our Lord’s second advent at the end of the age. Ironically, Peter discusses both the role of elders in governing Christ’s church, as well as Satan’s opposition to Christ’s rule through his appointed church officers, in our text, verses 1-14, of 1 Peter chapter 5.
The Importance of the Office of Elder
In this exposition and the next we will discuss the 5th and final chapter of this remarkable epistle, bringing our study of this epistle to an end. Although the final chapter of 1 Peter contains only 14 verses, there is enough significant material here, I felt it best not to rush through this section and only touch briefly on the matters which Peter addresses. In wrapping up this epistle, the apostle Peter gives us wise counsel about the purpose of suffering, as well as introducing us to a proper understanding of church government (the importance of elders in ruling Christ’s church). Yet, Peter does so in the context of the devil’s efforts to attack the people of God. So, this exposition will address the office of elder, and how a proper understanding of the church and its officers is the bulwark against the schemes and attacks of the devil. Next time, Lord willing, we will conclude our exposition of 1 Peter by addressing how we as Christians ought humble ourselves before God, while casting all of our cares upon him.
In light of the reality that the chapter on ecclesiology is usually the least read section in any good systematic theology (because American Christians tend not to be interested in the doctrine of the church, which explains why there are so many church hoppers and public scandals), I begin by pointing out that the doctrine of the church is a major theme throughout the New Testament. Jesus called disciples and then commissioned them to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, in the process making disciples and establishing churches, which, in many ways, are modeled upon the synagogues of Israel. These new churches are to be ruled by elders who ensure the gospel is preached, the sacraments are administered according to the word of God, and that all things are done decently and in good order (1 Corinthians 14:40).
To read the rest, follow the link below
Episode Synopsis:
We are beginning a new series on the Blessed Hope Podcast, “The Future.”
In this series we will wrestle with the question “what does the future hold for God’s people?” What historical events and biblical prophecies remain to be fulfilled before Jesus returns on the last day? How are we to interpret the various signs of the end we find throughout the New Testament?
In this series we will talk about the necessity of understanding the biblical past (specifically the person and work of Jesus Christ) since this gives us the biblical context to understand the promises God makes to us about the future. What do we expect and what are we to be looking for? To what (or to whom) do the signs of the end point?
In order to answer these questions we will need to talk about the proper biblical framework in which the signs of the end unfold. Our future expectation is not the Rapture or a millennial age, but the return of Jesus Christ to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. Biblically speaking, all of the promises of the future center in and upon our Lord’s return. This is the critical event to which all of the signs of the end point us.
So, what is included among the signs of the end? We’ll talk about this in some detail in the episodes to come. Wars and rumors of war? What about technology? What about plagues? We’ve just lived through one. What about Israel? What role will Israel play in the future? What about an Antichrist? How does he figure into the end times? Can we make any specific predictions about what is to come?
We discuss all of the things and more in coming episodes in our new Blessed Hope Podcast series “The Future.”
To listen to the episode and see the show notes, follow the link below
Christians often speak of important doctrines in the abstract. People speculate about election and predestination, the purpose and extent of the atonement, and so on, without making any connection between these doctrines and the person and work of Jesus Christ. But the Bible does not allow us to do this. If we follow the biblical pattern and language, we cannot even mention the subject of election, without at the same time mentioning that we are chosen from before the foundation of the world in the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself chosen by the Father to be the redeemer of the world (John 17:1 ff.). The seed of the woman mentioned in the first gospel promise (cf. Genesis 3:15) is Jesus of Nazareth, who has redeemed us through his saving work. And so on. This is why the eternal son of God became incarnate–to save his people from their sins. And this brings us back to the covenant of grace, and its mediator, Jesus Christ.
It is important to carefully consider the fact that the covenant of grace has a personal mediator–Jesus Christ. He is revealed to us in the types and shadows of the Old Testament, specifically through Moses’ office as mediator of that covenant God makes with Israel at Mount Sinai, as well as through the kingship of David and his rule over Israel. He is even revealed in the sacrifices for sin offered to God by the priests of Israel. All of these Old Testament events foreshadow the coming of God in human flesh. This is why whenever we speak about election and covenant, we must focus upon the word made flesh. Election, covenant, and incarnation are inseparable, and can only be explained and understood in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ, who is “God with us.” This same Jesus is also the mediator of the covenant of grace which progressively unfolds through the pages of the Old Testament, and is fulfilled in the New.
As the promise of redemption begins to unfold, it is clear that God’s promises will be fulfilled in a single person, that one who is the seed of the woman, who will be Israel’s ultimate prophet, priest, and king, and who will also serve as the one mediator between God and man (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5). This one person and mediator of the covenant will be truly human, and yet truly God. He will have two distinct natures, yet he remains one person.
The two natures of Jesus Christ points us to the lengths to which a gracious God will go to save us from our sins. Given the fact of human sin, there is no possible way for men and women to be delivered from that sin apart from the incarnation of our Lord. Since it is the eternal Son of God, the Word, who became flesh, we must deal with the two natures of Christ and the way in which they are related in one person–Jesus. Since it was human nature which sinned, it was absolutely necessary for God to come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ so that someone truly human might do what is necessary to save us. The debt we owe to God must be paid by one of Adam’s race. And then the punishment involved in the curse (death) requires the ability to suffer in both body and soul. For such a penalty to be paid, the eternal Son of God must take to himself flesh—a true human nature.
And yet, at the same time, if we are to be redeemed from our sin, the redeemer must himself be without the guilt of sin so that he could in fact make a sacrifice for sins on behalf of those whom he came to save, which satisfies the holy justice of God. A sinful man with a sinful nature is not fit to save other sinners. This is why Jesus was miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that he was free from the guilt of Adam’s sin. This is also why Jesus subjected himself to the law of God (Galatians 4:4-6), to earn a justifying righteousness for his people through his own perfect obedience. This is why Paul calls Jesus the second Adam (cf. Romans 5:12-19). Jesus does not give into temptation like Adam did. He obeys all of God’s commands, unlike Adam. Jesus earns the crown of life which Adam failed to do. Jesus did all of those things, perfectly, and he did them as someone who was truly human. This is why Jesus is a better mediator than Moses, with a covenant much better than the one God made with Israel at Sinai (Hebrews 8).
Yet no human sacrifice can pay the infinite debt we owe to the holy God. The sacrifice for our sins must be made by someone whose death can actually pay the debt. Then, there is the fact that no human can apply their sacrifice or obedience to another so as to pronounce forgiveness. Only God can apply the fruits of Jesus’ redemptive work to others under the terms of a covenant of grace, which he alone can establish on his oath. This is why Jesus must also be fully God.
Since Jesus is truly man, he truly redeems human nature–which he took with him when he ascended into heaven after his resurrection. Not only do we have hope that the Son of God will redeem our souls, the two natures united in one person also means that God will redeem our bodies as well. Jesus not only has paid for our sins, and provides for us a perfect righteousness, presently he is in heaven in a body of glorified flesh–a body in which he will return to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. Because our Lord has redeemed human flesh, we are certain that our flesh will likewise be transformed so that we might live with him forever and ever.
This is why Jesus Christ must be true God and true man, yet one person who is the mediator of the covenant of grace. Jesus came to save us from our sins and to earn a perfect righteousness by perfectly obeying the law of God. But the Word also became flesh to redeem fallen human nature–and this required him to become like us in every way, yet without sin. When we speak of “being saved”–we mean much more than the salvation of our souls. We mean the redemption of our whole person–body and soul. This is why Jesus is true God and true man, and the mediator of a better covenant.
Article 15: Reprobation
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election—those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
_____________________________________
If the biblical teaching about election is difficult for us to grasp, the biblical teaching about reprobation is that much more difficult. Like it or not, we must face the fact that if God chooses to save a vast multitude of sinners (Revelation 7:9), but not all of Adam’s fallen children, then God must also in some manner deal with those whom he has not chosen. This bring us to the doctrine of reprobation.
Before we define the doctrine (below) several cautions are in order. Although many try to avoid the subject at all costs, the fact of the matter is that we must wrestle with the biblical teaching about reprobation (cf. Romans 9:1-23) because this is a revealed doctrine every bit as much as is election.
It is wise to begin by pointing out if sinful human curiosity is a problem when we talk about election, such speculation is a far greater problem when we come to the subject of reprobation. Here, of all places, we must be very careful to teach only what Scripture teaches, and we must go no further.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Today marks the final day of the 160th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg—the largest land battle ever fought on the North American continent.
On the afternoon of July 3, 1863, Pickett’s charge—an event many contend was the turning point in the Civil War—got underway only to be smashed by Union defenders on Cemetery Ridge. Pickett’s failed assault wrapped up three days of fierce fighting in brutal Pennsylvania heat. The day after Pickett’s charge, the exhausted, depleted, and demoralized Confederate army packed up, headed south, and crossed the Potomac River back into Virginia. The war would last nearly two more years, but for all intents and purposes, the South could never recover and would not invade the North again.
Allen Guezlo’s book on the Gettysburg campaign and battle is a wonderfully written volume, and must reading for anyone interested the Civil War or curious about this battle. I highly recommend it.
This is from my review, which you can read in its entirely here: A Review of Allen Guelzo's Gettysburg
If you've read Michael Shaara's Killer Angels or have seen the glue-on beard marred epic movie "Gettysburg" (which actually isn't that bad, except for Martin Sheen's horrible portrayal of Robert E. Lee as some sort of Eastern mystic), then you probably believe that the South's failure to capture Little Round Top toward the end of the second day’s fighting (July 2) was the turning point of the three-day battle. Not true.
To read my review and/or order Guelzo’s book, follow the link below
B. B. Warfield is well-known as an ardent defender of what is commonly identified as “Calvinism,” which Warfield defines simply as a “profound apprehension of God in His majesty.” In an entry entitled “Calvinism” written in 1908 for the New Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of the Religious Knowledge (a massive and respected reference work in its time), the Calvinist, says Warfield is one who . . .
who believes in God without reserve, and is determined that God shall be God to him in all his thinking, feeling, willing—in the entire compass of his life-activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual, throughout all his individual, social, religious relations—is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist. In Calvinism, then, objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability.
As for the Calvinist’s understanding of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, Warfield contends we must start with the fact of revelation—Calvinistic doctrine is revealed in Scripture and is not the consequence of human speculation (as often charged). He notes, “a supernatural revelation, in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of this revelation in a supernaturally given book, in which God gives His revelation permanency and extension—such things are to the Calvinist almost matters of course.” To paraphrase Warfield here, Calvinism is “biblical.”
To read the rest of Warfield’s comments, follow the link below
Peter’s Desire to Comfort His Readers
Peter’s purpose in writing this epistle is to comfort persecuted Christians in Asia Minor, many of whom who have been displaced from their homes because of a decree from the Roman emperor Claudius. Peter reminds them that despite their struggles, in God’s eyes, they are elect exiles, citizens of heaven, and when worshiping together they compose God’s spiritual house (the church), even as they sojourn upon the earth until the day of final judgment when God will dispense his covenant blessings and curses.
Through a lengthy series of imperatives (commands), Peter told these struggling Christians how they are to differentiate themselves from the Greco-Roman pagans around them–through their profession of faith in the Triune God who sent his Son to die for his people’s sins, and through their honorable conduct before the pagans. Christians are to think and live as God’s people. They must live a life of self control, in contrast to their pagan neighbors who live to indulge every urge of the sinful flesh.
But even if Christians do all of the things Peter exhorts them to do, they should not be surprised if their struggles continue and the persecution they face remains intense. As Peter has stated in verse 4 of chapter 4, the pagans “are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you.” Evil-doers want nothing more than for professing Christians to join them in their self-indulgence. Having made this point in the first part of the chapter, Peter describes their troubles as a fiery trial, and a time of judgment. Yet, this is also a time in which God’s purposes will be realized, and through which these struggling Christians will grow in their faith.
We Should Not be Surprised by Trials
We conclude our time in chapter 4, as Peter acknowledges that his readers and hearers have been through very difficult times. So much so, that in verse 12, Peter writes, “beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.” Some commentators take Peter’s statement as a warning of an impending calamity, and that extending this warning is the reason why Peter sends this letter to Christians of the Diaspora in Asia Minor [1]. On this reading, for those hearing/reading Peter’s letter, things have been bad, but they are about to get a whole lot worse. Peter is understood to be writing to warn them in advance so that his readers and hearers can prepare themselves for what is about to come.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Daniel G. Hummel, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle Over the End times Shaped a Nation (Eerdmans, 2023), 400 pages, $29.99
What Sort of Book Is This?
Daniel Hummel’s book is not written to defend or refute the dispensational approach to biblical prophecy and the end times. I noticed a fair bit of pre-publication chatter to that effect, so it is important to tamp down that expectation now that the volume is available. What Hummel has done is to write a thorough, quick-paced, and well-sourced history of the origin, development, and current status of what we speak of today as “dispensationalism.” Hummel’s “nothing but the facts” approach makes the book hard to review since the author moves quickly through the history of the movement with but minimal amounts of evaluation along the way. This is the proper method for a volume such as this one, but leaves little about which a reviewer might quibble.
The most significant thing to note about The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism is that Hummel situates the rise of a distinct dispensational theology within the broader context of what we often identify as “American evangelicalism.” This is Hummel’s purpose, one which he accomplishes quite well, and which is very valuable in its own right. But this broader perspective can also be a bit frustrating for those who participate in a more nuanced and related space which Hummel only addresses tangentially—the internecine debate about whether or not dispensationalism provides a helpful, and dare I say “biblical” manner of interpreting the Bible. Those readers of the Riddleblog who are interested in Hummel’s volume should keep his purpose in mind so as not be disappointed in what they will find. This is not a refutation of dispensationalism. Hummel’s book is exactly what it claims to be—an account of the rise of a distinctive dispensational theology in the 1830’s until its most recent period of development, which Hummel identifies as the “pop dispensationalism” of the Trump era. This is an historical account of dispensationalism and the role it has played in the development of American evangelicalism, and a well-written and important one at that. Hummel’s book is therefore must reading for anyone interested in eschatology, the rise of American evangelicalism, or who might have deep dispensational roots as does the author and this reviewer.
To read the review, click here: A "Review" of Hummel's Rise and Fall of Dipsensationalism
Riddleblog Update:
If you listen to the Blessed Hope Podcast, I recently uploaded a postscript to season two: What Is Next for the Blessed Hope Podcast? Season Two Wrap-Up. I explain where we are going and why. Look for a short series entitled “The Future” before we start season three, when we take up Paul’s Corinthian letters.
Currently Reading:
Now that I am retired, I can read things I want to read just because I want to read them. And I have the time to do so.
First up was Jack Curry’s The 1998 New York Yankees -- The Inside Story of the Greatest Baseball Team Ever. A great read from someone who covered that team (Curry was the Yankees beat writer for the NY Times) and still had standing twenty-five years later to follow up with the players from that team in preparation for this book. There’s much here I didn’t know (David Wells had a terrible hangover when he pitched his perfect game), and much here I had forgotten (the Yankees were 73-1 when leading after seven innings, Bernie Williams won the batting title, El-Duque’s remarkable season, Jim Spencer’s incredible home run binge at the end of the year).
To read the rest of my “Musings” follow the link below
At the very heart of the Christian faith we find the doctrine of the incarnation–Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, and the eternal son of God, took to himself a true human nature in the womb of the virgin for the purpose of saving us from our sins.
The incarnation of Jesus marks Christianity off as a thoroughly supernatural religion, grounded in a specific truth claim–i.e., God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:18). The incarnation aims not for the moral improvement, enlightenment, or personal benefit for the followers of Jesus, but accomplishes the salvation of all those sinners whom God has chosen to save in Jesus Christ. Jesus is not merely our example, but primarily our Savior.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Season Two Postscript – Where Do We Go from Here?
We’ve completed season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, fifteen episodes in all, in which we covered Paul’s two Thessalonian letters. The season two series was entitled “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven,” taken from 2 Thessalonians 1:7, a text which captures Paul emphasis in these two letters upon the key event in biblical eschatology–the second coming (advent) of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, as they say, “that’s a wrap!”
The obvious question then is “where does the Blessed Hope Podcast go from here?”
To Listen to the Postscript Episode for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, follow the link below
Article 14: Teaching Election Properly
Just as, by God’s wise plan, this teaching concerning divine election has been proclaimed through the prophets, Christ himself, and the apostles, in Old and New Testament times, and has subsequently been committed to writing in the Holy Scriptures, so also today in God’s church, for which it was specifically intended, this teaching must be set forth—with a spirit of discretion, in a godly and holy manner, at the appropriate time and place, without inquisitive searching into the ways of the Most High. This must be done for the glory of God’s most holy name, and for the lively comfort of his people.
______________________________________
The doctrine of election is not presented to us in Scripture as a subject for speculation, nor as a means by which we can satisfy our sinful curiosities about the hidden things of God. God did not reveal his eternal purposes to us so that we could have new subject matter about which to debate and argue. He did not reveal the doctrine of election so that the more learned, devoted, or zealous in our midst, could somehow force their way into the throne room of God and pull the veil away so as to get a peek at the “naked God” (a desire which Martin Luther ascribed to fallen human nature). Rather, God revealed this doctrine to us to promote his own glory and to comfort us–God does not begin his good work in us only to abandon us later on if we don’t measure up, or if we continue to do stupid and sinful things. Note—the Canons will address the subject of the perseverance of the saints in the fifth head of doctrine.
In fact, it was John Calvin who cautions us about the dangers of undue speculation about election and predestination:
The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored. When we see many, some of them in other respects not bad men, every where rushing into this audacity and wickedness, it is necessary to remind them of the course of duty in this matter. First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth. For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word-revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare (Institutes, 3.21.1).
To read the rest, follow the link below
Every Sunday night the White Inn crew would drive from Mike Horton’s house in Anaheim to the KKLA studio in Glendale. This picture was taken in 1996, shortly after KKLA moved their studio from North Hollywood to their upscale new digs. We’d been on the air for five years by then. Mike and Rod both enjoyed the improved vending machine selection. Rod would eat his Cheetos and Mike his chips. I’d drink some coffee. People often asked how we prepared for a live broadcast. After an hour’s drive (with some very enjoyable and fruitful banter in the car), we’d get to the studio, snack, and converse. We were ready. Once the previous program was over and 9:05 approached, we had time (a few commercial breaks) to settle into the studio and wait for the “live” light to come on, and we were off . . . There’s nothing in my experience which compares with doing live radio with Rod.
To see the update and recent picture, follow the link below
The War Against Sin Is the Christian’s Proper Focus
Although you might expect Peter to instruct Christians to fight back against their oppressors, instead Peter directs us to a different kind of war. Christians must resolve to engage in a fierce battle with sin and not let it reign over us. This war against sin should be evident in the way in which we relate to our brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as those outside the church. Those in Christ cannot live as the first century Greeks and Romans do, seeking to satisfy every bodily urge with little regard to natural law, and with no regard to God’s revelation of his will in his word. As we reject pagan ways of thinking and doing, and prepare ourselves to suffer for our faith in Christ, we are called to love our brothers and sisters in the church, to use our spiritual gifts to serve one another, and we are to learn to live in the light of God’s promises which will be fully realized on the day of judgment.
In chapter four of Peter’s first epistle, the apostle is writing to a group of Christians in Asia Minor who have been displaced forcibly from their homes by a decree from the Roman emperor Claudius. These elect exiles were facing great uncertainty about their personal circumstances. Since many of them are victims of persecution because of their faith in Jesus Christ, Peter is writing to remind these struggling saints of their dual citizenship–in addition to being citizens of Rome, these people also possess a heavenly citizenship with an inheritance far greater than human minds can comprehend. As believers in Jesus Christ, they have been sanctified by God, sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, and called to live holy lives before the watching world.
The Indicative Has the Final Word in the Struggle With Sin
Peter concludes his lengthy series of imperatives (commands) found 2:11-3:17, with a wonderful indicative (the gospel promise) in chapter 3:18-22. The humility and suffering of Jesus provides a once for all payment for sin which remits the guilt for all of those times when Christians fail to submit to those in authority over them, or who seek vengeance upon those who wrong them, or who return the curses and reviling of others with curses and reviling of their own. But Peter also reminds his readers/hearers that the suffering and death of Jesus is the way in which God conquered sin, death, and the grave, as well as all those authorities and powers which seek to oppress the people of God. When God calls believers to positions in life where they may suffer, Christians should not see this as the retributive punishment of God, but as the path to glory–a pathway already taken by Jesus, the savior of, and the example to the Christians of Asia Minor.
As Peter has already stated, Christians are to identify themselves as citizens of heaven, not by a distinctive wardrobe, diet, or by withdrawing from non-Christians. Instead, we identify ourselves through our profession of faith in the Triune God who sent his son to save us from our sins, and in our holy conduct, which Peter has said is to be honorable among the Gentiles. Christians are to be good citizens, wise and compassionate masters or submissive servants, and when married are to be the kind of husbands and wives who regard each other as equals in Christ. In these ways, we demonstrate our heavenly citizenship to outsiders.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Episode Synopsis:
As Paul comes to the end of his second Thessalonian letter, he still has much to say to the Christians in Thessalonica. But the most important thing the apostle does when concluding his second letter, is to remind the Thessalonians of his prayer of thanksgiving on their behalf. Paul hopes this will be of great encouragement. The apostle reminds them that God has graciously rescued these Gentile pagans from the guilt and power of sin, and points out to his readers that they will share in the glory of Jesus Christ through the gospel which has been preached to them. But Paul also asks for their prayers on his behalf–that the same word which he preached to them, might continue to spread and that many more would be brought to faith in Jesus Christ.
Paul also exhorts them to stand firm in the things which he has taught them–that tradition (or teaching) proclaimed to them by the apostle. He prays for their comfort and assurance in Christ, that God’s word be honored, and that God would see fit to deliver them from evil men–those who drove Paul from their city and who seek to keep the gospel from spreading. Paul reminds them that the Lord is faithful in keeping his promises, but he also warns some in their midst not to be idle so as to be a burden on others. He mandates that those who will not work, should not be given a handout. Yet, he also cautions the Thessalonians that this “tough love” approach is to be done for the purpose of restoring such a person.
Paul concludes his second letter by praying for God’s blessings upon the congregation, he attaches his signature to this letter to confirm its authenticity, and then closes by reminding these brothers and sisters that the Lord is always with them.
So there is much here to discuss–election and its connection to the gospel, election as the basis for our sanctification and its connection to the Word of God, the role and authority of tradition, and finally what to do about the idle (the application of church discipline).
To see the show notes and listen to the podcast, follow the link below
It is correctly said that covenant theology is the center of Reformed theology. In Eden, while under the covenant of works, all of humanity fell when the first of our race (Adam), rebelled against his creator, thereby plunging the entire human race into sin and death. It will take a second Adam (Jesus Christ) to perfectly obey the commandments of God so as to fulfill all righteousness (cf. Matthew 3:15). It will also require this second Adam to remove from us the guilt of our individual sins, as well as that guilt imputed to us from our first father, Adam’s “original sin” (cf. Romans 5:12-19).
But in order for the second Adam (Jesus) to accomplish these things, there must be a gracious covenant in which God sends Jesus to do what is necessary to redeem us from the consequences of our sin and guilt by earning sufficient merit to provide us with a righteousness which can withstand God’s holy gaze. This brings us to the covenant of grace in which all the requirements of the covenant of works (and its demand for perfect obedience) are fulfilled by the mediator of this covenant, the Lord Jesus.
The covenant of grace is the historical outworking of an eternal covenant of redemption (the so-called “covenant before the covenant”) in which the members of the Holy Trinity decreed before time that Jesus was to be the redeemer of those whom the Father had chosen in him, and that Jesus would do this on behalf of, and in the place of, all those elect sinners chosen from before the foundation of the world (cf. John 17:4-10; Ephesians 1:3-14). God’s saving grace is not directed to the world in general, making people “savable” if only they meet certain conditions (i,e., faith, repentance, or good works). Rather, God’s saving grace is directed to those specific individuals whom he intends to save through the person and work of Jesus. In this covenant of redemption, the Holy Spirit will apply the work of Christ to all those whom the Father had chosen, and for whom the Son will die, ensuring that all of God’s elect will come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel–which is the divinely appointed means by which God’s elect are called to faith.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Article 13: The Fruit of This Assurance
In their awareness and assurance of this election God’s children daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the fathomless depth of his mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give fervent love in return to him who first so greatly loved them. This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.
_________________________________________
Contrary to a theology of fear and guilt taught by so many of our contemporaries, the assurance of our salvation is actually the only proper basis for good works. Critics of Reformed theology often charge that if you tell Christians that they can assuredly know that they will go to heaven when they die, then there is no longer any incentive for doing good works. This has long been the case with the Roman church which speaks of such assurance as a false presumption to be avoided (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sixth Session on Justification, XII, XIII).
One response to this misguided argument is to ask a simple rhetorical question. “Does a dog bark to become a dog, or does a dog bark because it is a dog?” According to Ephesians 2:10, those who have been given faith in Christ as a gift by God do those good works which God has ordained of his people. Non-Christians cannot perform any good work that is acceptable to God (Hebrews 11:6), because whatever work they perform is completely tainted and stained by the guilt of sin (Romans 3:12).
To read the rest, follow the link below
News and Riddleblog Updates:
- I will soon wrap up season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast in which we worked our way though Paul’s two Thessalonian letters. Watch for an announcement about season three and some possible episodes on various topics before the new season three episodes (on Paul’s Corinthian letters) begin.
Recently Read:
For those interested in Victorian history and the background to World War One, you will enjoy this fascinating book from Miranda Carter on three remarkable first cousins and grandchildren of Queen Victoria. George Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Cousins and the Road to World War I. How did three first cousins (King George, Czar Nicolas, and Kaiser Wilhelm) bring the three great European nations they led from apparent peace and prosperity into the Great War with its unprecedented death and mass destruction. Carter describes the way in which both the unique personalities of each, along with events beyond their control (especially in the Baltic), brought about this horrific cataclysm.
Why did Wilhelm choose to wage war on England and Russia and his royal first cousins who led them. Carter’s narrative asserts that while Victoria was alive, she was able to keep all three vastly different personalities in check (along with a host of other Europeans royals related to her in one way or another). But Victoria could not live forever. Kaiser Wilhelm was the aggressor in the Great War. Carter describes how Wilhelm’s anglophilia gave way over time to an aggressive German nationalism. Wilhelm coveted a navy as powerful Britain’s, he wanted a greater share of the colonial pie, and he came to resent his cousin George. Nicolas was a self-isolated milquetoast milk toast of man, who did little as his nation careened toward a horrible war and a bloody Bolshevik Revolution in which he and his family would perish. King George presided over a colonial empire at the end of an industrial revolution which left England with serious social ills and growing resentment of the crown.
As one reviewer put it, this is “history at its most entertaining, full of scathing and often witty descriptions of the follies and tragedies of royalty, and the way in which the three royal cousins’ lives, despite the deep social divide between the royals and ordinary people, became intertwined with the changes and the dangers confronting the major European powers in the early years of the 20th century. It is a splendid picture, splendidly narrated.” I agree.
I recommend it to you.
Links:
- Scott Clark continues his “review” of J-Mac’s The Gospel According to Jesus: The Gospel According to John MacArthur -- Part-7
- Millennarianism and a growing sense of America’s divinely-led destiny grew during the Civil War: Eschatology During the Civil War
- The Puritans were not of one mind when it came to eschatology. Here’s a good introduction to the eschatological diversity found among them. The Puritans on Eschatology -- A Fair Bit of Diversity
- Another helpful essay from Richard Muller on the significance of scholasticism upon the development of a “distinctively Reformed” tradition. Muller--Protestant Scholasticism Is the Historical Link That Binds Us to the Reformation
- Yet another scandal in a mega-church following the death of the founder. “I’m shocked, shocked to find that chicanery is going on here!” The Anaheim Vineyard is undergoing a particularly nasty scandal, this one includes a bounty awarded for “conversions.” The Spirit of Tetzel Lives at the Anaheim Vineyard
- Apparently these two roommates missed comedian Jim Gaffigan’s brilliant bit on “Hot Pockets.” Here’s a story of two roommates who got into it when one ate the other’s last Hot Pocket and then shot his roomie in the arse for taking it. A Shootout Over Hot Pockets
- Have you ever suffered the miseries of the dreaded Norwalk virus? You are not alone. The Citizens of Ancient Jerusalem Suffered from "Baal’s Revenge"
- Another important ancient record turns up. The ancients were exactly where the Bible tells us they were, doing the very things of which the Bible speaks. Ancient Receipt in Jerusalem
- I hate trying to sleep in hot weather. Air conditioning helps. But why do we hate sleeping in a hot room? There’s an answer in your DNA. If You Have Trouble Sleeping in Summer, Blame Gronk, Your Caveman Ancestor
Las Vegas and Broccoli:
In the recent “More Musings” post (More Musings (5/27/2023) mentioned my credulity at the Liberty Mutual ad campaign feature duffs Doug and LIMU emu. What do the ads have to do with the product?
If you want to be clever in promoting your product (Las Vegas tourism), this is how you do it. This one is far more family friendly than previous LV promotional commercials
I was a recent guest on the Renewalcast. Here’s the link: Renewalcast -- “Eschatology and the Reformers"
B. B. Warfield knew full well that Christianity isn’t caught, it must be learned. And even though it must be learned, as he puts it, it is “not very easy to learn. And very certainly it will not teach itself.” Since the knowledge of Christianity (Bible knowledge and basic doctrine) is the sort of knowledge people ought to possess, this is why the authors of the Westminster Shorter Catechism “were less careful to make it easy than to make it good.”
Here are a couple of gems from this short essay on the value of the Shorter Catechism.
An anecdote told of Dwight L. Moody will illustrate the value to the religious life of having been taught these forms of truth. He was staying with a Scottish friend in London, but suppose we let the narrator tell the story. “A young man had come to speak to Mr. Moody about religious things. He was in difficulty about a number of points, among the rest about prayer and natural laws. ‘What is prayer?,’ he said, ‘I can’t tell what you mean by it!’ They were in the hall of a large London house. Before Moody could answer, a child’s voice was heard singing on the stairs. It was that of a little girl of nine or ten, the daughter of their host. She came running down the stairs and paused as she saw strangers sitting in the hall. ‘Come here, Jenny,’ her father said, ‘and tell this gentleman “What is prayer.” Jenny did not know what had been going on, but she quite understood that she was now called upon to say her Catechism. So she drew herself up, and folded her hands in front of her, like a good little girl who was going to ‘say her questions,’ and she said in her clear childish voice: “Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.” ‘Ah! That’s the Catechism!’ Moody said, ‘thank God for that Catechism.’ ”
And then one of my favorite Warfield anecdotes,
What is “the indelible mark of the Shorter Catechism”? We have the following bit of personal experience from a general officer of the United States army. He was in a great western city at a time of intense excitement and violent rioting. The streets were over-run daily by a dangerous crowd. One day he observed approaching him a man of singularly combined calmness and firmness of mien [bearing], whose very demeanor inspired confidence. So impressed was he with his bearing amid the surrounding uproar that when he had passed he turned to look back at him, only to find that the stranger had done the same. On observing his turning the stranger at once came back to him, and touching his chest with his forefinger, demanded without preface: “What is the chief end of man?” On receiving the countersign, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever” – “Ah!” said he, “I knew you were a Shorter Catechism boy by your looks!” “Why, that was just what I was thinking of you,” was the rejoinder.
To which Warfield concludes,
It is worth while to be a Shorter Catechism boy. They grow to be men. And better than that, they are exceedingly apt to grow to be men of God. So apt, that we cannot afford to have them miss the chance of it. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
This marvelous essay can be found here: B. B. Warfield: "Is the Shorter Catechism Worthwhile?"
The Noisy Conscience
We all have consciences which accuse us because we have all sinned against God and disobeyed his commandments. So, whenever we suffer or are persecuted by those with power over us, there is a little voice within which says to us, “why, of course, you are suffering.” “God is punishing you because you did this, or because you did that.” To those first century Christians of the Diaspora undergoing difficult trials, and no doubt, wondering whether or not God abandoned them because of something they had done to displease him, Peter offers a wonderful word of encouragement–a word which can silence the accusatory voice, but also reminds us of the promise God has made to us. No matter what happens in this life, everything will turn out for our good and unto God’s glory, just as he has promised. God has given to us a suffering Savior, who has died for our sins. And God has given us a tangible promise (the waters of baptism) that he will save his people–his elect exiles–on the day of judgment.
The Context for Peter’s Discussion of Noah and Being “Saved” by Water
Part eight of our series (vv. 18-22 of 1 Peter 3) is the conclusion to the preceding section (vv. 2:11-3:17). The closing verses of chapter 3 are intended to remind those sufferers whom Peter has been addressing of the meaning of Christ’s suffering on behalf of his fellow sufferers. Jesus’ perfect humility and suffering as the God-man took him to the cross. His death saves us from our sins–even those sins we committed when we have responded to those who curse and revile us with curses and reviling of our own. 1 Peter 3:18-22 also speaks a profound word of pardon to all of us who have cursed and reviled our enemies, and who have sought to take vengeance into our own hands, and who have not properly submitted to those authorities mentioned by the apostle. In effect, Peter follows his series of imperatives (commands, i.e., do this”)–with a wonderful indicative declaration (a statement of fact). Jesus’ death covers our sins when we fail to comply with those imperatives which Peter has set forth. And hearing the good news in the indicatives, in turn, creates in us a desire to obey the imperatives.
In the previous section (vv. 8-17), Peter instructs Christians to not curse and revile those who curse and revile us, but rather to respond to them with a word of blessing. Christians are to do this because God hears the prayers of his oppressed people and promises that he will deliver us from those who have wronged his people. Peter understands how difficult responding like this is to do, which is why he offers a word of encouragement from Psalm 34 (when David expresses a change in heart), before reminding us that Jesus’ death removes the guilt of our sin and brings us to God. In part eight of our look at Peter’s epistle we are covering (vv. 18-22), where he lays out the benefits we receive from Jesus’ humility and suffering. Jesus dies for us and in our place so that our sins are forgiven. In imitating the humility of Jesus, Peter reminds us, Christians point their oppressors back to the sinless Savior in whom alone men and women may be saved, and so that Christians may receive better treatment from the hands of their oppressors.
God’s Promise to the Persecuted in the Noah Story
In a letter such as this–one closely tied to specific historical circumstances–some background is important to enable us to understand why Peter addresses the issues he does, and so that we can draw proper application in our own circumstances. Peter is writing to a group of persecuted Christians in Asia Minor. Although they have been cast from their homes, and are now aliens in their own county, Peter reminds them that they are nevertheless elect exiles of God, a chosen race, and a royal priesthood. The apostle knows full-well that his readers are facing very difficult times. Repeatedly, Peter exhorts these Christian sojourners to endure their trials patiently, and to wait for the Lord to deliver them. Yet, Peter also reminds them that because they have been set apart by God (sanctified), and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, they are heirs to a glorious heavenly inheritance which exceeds anything they can imagine. Christians, Peter says, must keep this promise before our eyes, especially whenever God calls us to endure times of trial. This is the pattern of the Christian life. The cross and the crown of thorns precedes the empty tomb and our glorious entrance into the presence of the Lord.
To illustrate his larger point about God’s ability to deliver his people from the apparent jaws of disaster, Peter turns to the account of Noah (Genesis 6:11-22), who was delivered from a catastrophic judgment (the flood) which God brought against the unbelieving inhabitants of the earth bent upon persecuting the righteous (Noah and his family). God told Noah to obey his command, build the ark, and not return the evil he suffered from those laughing at him, cursing, and reviling him. God saved believing Noah and his family from these dire circumstances by a flood, an historical event which Peter now connects to Christian baptism. Just as God delivered Noah and his family through the waters of judgment, so too God “saves” Christians through the waters of baptism–I’ll explain what that means, exactly, in a moment.
The very same event which saved Noah and his family (a very small number of people in contrast to the mass of humanity consumed by the water of the flood) also brought judgment upon those mocking Noah because he believed God’s promise. The reason why Peter turns to the account of Noah is to remind the persecuted Christians of Asia Minor that God knows how to save his people even in the midst of what appears to be an inescapable disaster. It is one thing to make a promise, it is another if the one making the promise has a perfect track recording of keeping them, as well as the power to make good on them. If God’s promises to Noah are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ, then the Christians of the Diaspora should be greatly encouraged by the reminder that God can save them as well. After all, the same God who delivered Noah is now revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ to whose death and resurrection they are united in baptism–the visible sign and seal of God’s covenant promises.[1]
While many of our contemporaries are taught to look within during times of trial to see if they really believe (or if their faith is strong enough), Peter does something completely different. He instructs us to look outside ourselves, not rely upon our feelings, but instead look to the promises which God swore to us on his sovereign oath in our baptism. God’s promises do not depend upon human feelings or emotions, but upon concrete historical events through which God has saved his people in the past, and which remind us that God will keep his promise to deliver us no matter what our circumstances may be.
Christ Suffered “Once for All”
As we turn to our text, verses 18–22, Peter makes a remarkable assertion in verse 18. “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” Here is the gospel promise which follows the series of imperatives (commands). The emphasis in Peter’s discussion of the work of Christ falls upon the fact that Jesus suffered, once, for our sins. The worst part about our suffering–as Peter’s readers were no doubt experiencing–is the terrible thought that the reason why things are so tough is that God is punishing us because he is angry with us for something we have done. The sufferings of Jesus remind us that God often has greater purposes in suffering. As we see in the life and ministry of Jesus, suffering is never the last word for God’s people. It is through his suffering and humiliation that Jesus actually defeated the devil and those principalities and powers allied against our Lord.
To put it another way, those called to suffer should see in the cross of Christ the wrath and anger of God poured out upon human sin. God is not going to punish Jesus for our sins, and then turn around and punish us for them again a second time. Jesus suffered once for sin. His death was God’s final word about the guilt and power of sin. The sufferer need not fear that they are suffering because God is punishing them for their own sins, when Jesus has already suffered for them and in their place, turning aside the wrath and anger of God. But in God’s economy, suffering is often the means of victory, especially when it comes to those with power over us. As one writer states, “just as suffering was the pathway to exaltation for Christ, so also suffering is the prelude to glory for believers.”[2] Whatever suffering we may endure pales in the light of eternity, and must not be seen as God’s punishment.
Furthermore, Peter adds that Jesus suffered “the righteous for the unrighteous.” The language here is yet another loud echo from Isaiah 52-53. Jesus alone was without sin. He obeyed God’s law with perfect obedience, in his thinking, doing, and speaking. And yet, Jesus died for the sake of (on behalf of) the unrighteous, people who sin constantly in our thinking, doing, and speaking. This is what we mean when we speak of a substitutionary atonement–Jesus died to satisfy God’s holy justice in the place of sinners. Peter could not be any clearer about the nature of Jesus’ death. It was not merely an example to us of how seriously God takes sin (the so-called “governmental theory of the atonement,” nor the governmental theory’s first cousin, “the moral influence theory”). Jesus dies for sin, once, in the place of the sinner (the unrighteous). For all those for whom Christ dies, the cross is God’s final word about their sin. Period.
The knowledge of this truth (upon which the Gospel itself is grounded) does two things. First, it demonstrates to the sufferer that whatever their suffering means in the larger purposes of God (something which the suffer may never know in this life), they can be assured that their suffering does not stem from God’s retributive wrath toward them. Second, the sufferings of Jesus are the means through which Jesus brings us to God. Christ’s own suffering upon the cross was followed by his resurrection and ascension, just as our suffering will be. Suffering is never the last word. Jesus’ death accomplishes something which no earthly priest can. The death of Jesus opens heaven to us because when the righteous dies for the unrighteous, God’s wrath is turned aside, the guilt of sin has been removed, and enemies (God and sinful humans) have now been reconciled. This is Peter’s way of affirming what John does in John 14:6–“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” and what Paul says in Romans 5:2–“Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
Who Are the Spirits in Prison?
The final clause of verse 18, “being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,” is closely connected to the clauses which follow in verses 19-20–“in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared.” These are difficult verses and there is no end to the speculation about what they mean. Martin Luther once said he wasn’t sure at all of what Peter was taking about. A wise man.
Who are the spirits in prison? Who preached and what was proclaimed to the hearers? Before we can answer these questions, we need to address Peter’ comments at the end of verse 18.
When Jesus was put to death in the flesh, Peter is obviously speaking of the cross. When Peter speaks of Jesus being made alive in the spirit, he is not thinking of Jesus’ being alive as a spirit between the cross and resurrection, but of the resurrection itself (“made alive” i.e., brought back from the dead). Paul’s comment in Romans 8:11, is particularly helpful here, and I take Peter to be speaking in the same way Paul does, when the latter writes, “if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” The point is that even though Jesus died at the hands of the Romans, the Holy Spirit raised Jesus bodily from the dead. Elect exiles should be confident that even though they face great hardship, and even perhaps death, they will immediately enter God’s presence when they die, and then be bodily raised by Jesus at the end of the age.[3] This gives us the context to answer the difficult questions raised by verses 19-20. This is one of those places where scholars are greatly divided about what Peter means, and there are multiple interpretations, two of which stand out as viable.
Who are the spirits in prison mentioned by Peter? Many interpreters have followed Augustine in arguing that Peter is referring to Noah’s preaching of Christ (i.e., that God would send a Savior) to those on earth before the flood. Some have argued that this refers to believers before the coming of Jesus (the Old Testament saints) who were liberated by Jesus between the time of his death and resurrection (Calvin’s view). Others (Cranfield) believe that these are the souls who perished in the flood–that Jesus descended into the netherworld to preach to them. Most commentators today believe the passage refers to Christ’s proclamation of victory over the fallen angels (Nephilim) who were imprisoned because they sinned by having sexual relations with women. The first view (Augustine’s), and the majority view, have far and away the most going for them.
The majority view understands the account of Genesis 6:1-4 and story of the Nephilim–to which Peter alludes–as a reference to angels, with the Sons of God as their offspring (from sexual relations with angels). This may fit with 2 Peter 2:4, where Peter refers to the fact that “if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.”[4] But Peter seems here to be saying that the prison is the place where the angels were cast when they fell–not when the Nephilim supposedly mated with humans. This view also downplays Peter’s emphasis upon the preaching of Noah, and implies the improbable notion that angels and human can procreate. While this view emphasizes Christ’s victory over the evil angels, it disconnects the importance of Noah to Peter’s overall point, and moves the preaching mentioned by Peter to a point between Christ’s death and resurrection, not to the days of Noah.
I find Meredith Kline’s interpretation of this passage to be helpful, especially in light of verse 22, where Peter specifically connects the preaching which takes place to the days of Noah, not to the preaching of Jesus between his death and resurrection. Kline takes a view similar to Augustine’s in that “Noah performed prophetic preaching as the mouth of the Spirit of Christ.”[5] Noah proclaimed law and gospel to the people of his day, announcing that covenant blessings would come through faith followed by repentance, while those curses threatened in God’s covenant lawsuit (recall that the Lord had cursed the ground in Genesis 5:29), would be meted out against sinful humanity unless the world repented.
According to the Genesis account, Noah’s preaching began shortly after the great rebellion manifest in the days of Nephilim. So much so, we read in Genesis 6:5-7 that, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, `I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.’ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” In these verses God announces the impending destruction of humanity–except Noah, and his families who truly were elect exiles on the earth.
Since, in verse 20, Peter specifically refers to God’s patience in the days of Noah, this would seem to connect the “preaching of [about] Christ” to Noah’s heralding of righteousness, which fits well with Peter’s assertion in 2 Peter 2:5, that “if [God] did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly,” where the focus is upon Noah as a preacher of righteousness, announcing the coming judgment and calling for repentance. This is especially the case in light of Kline’s point about the long-suffering patience of God coming to an end when those living on the earth are bound over to judgment (the one hundred twenty years mentioned in Genesis 6:3). This indicates that the souls in prison are those living under the threatened covenant curse from the one hundred and twenty years dating from the time of the Sons of God (Genesis 6:3), until God closed the door of the ark and it began to rain.
Who are the spirits in prison? I take them to be those living in the one hundred and twenty years from the days of the Nephilim until the flood. The death sentence was pronounced by God, Noah preached repentance, and when the world rejected him, God sent the flood. The majority view takes these spirits to be angels who procreated with women and were imprisoned for doing so. How was Jesus preached to these spirits? I take this to be to the prophetic office of Noah, who was a herald (proclaimer) of righteousness. What was the content of that preaching? I take this to be the covenant blessings and curses associated with the warning of impending judgment. The majority view takes this to be Christ’s proclamation of his victory over the fallen angels after his death and resurrection (a strength), but then Noah’s preaching becomes incidental to Peter’s illustration (a weakness).
Baptism and “Saved by Water”
While these verses have long fascinated people, we must make sure that we do not allow speculation about what, exactly, Peter means to obscure the importance he places upon the example of Noah being rescued from the evil men of his day serving as a promise to the elect exiles in Peter’s day. Then, there is the role of baptism “saving” Noah in light of the waters of the flood, the judgment which God sent upon the earth. At the end of verse 20, while Noah was preparing the ark, Peter marvels at how “a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.” The very same element which God used to bring judgment upon the world is the element through which God saves this seemingly insignificant family (Mr. and Mrs. Noah, their three sons and their wives). By placing his people in the ark, God brings them safely through the threatened judgment which now wipes out the world.
In verses 21-22, Peter connects the waters of the flood (judgment) directly to baptism. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” Reformed Christians get nervous whenever baptism is described as “saving.” The reason why is obvious. The Roman church teaches that the water of baptism remits the guilt of original sin and infuses grace into the baptized child, grace which must be allowed to manifest itself in the inside-out in the transformation of the sinner into truly a righteous person who does good works which contribute to their final justification. Then, there are groups like the Church of Christ who teach that baptism is an act of obedience we must perform in a Church of Christ in order to be saved. The Reformed confessions reject the idea that baptism is a saving work we must do, or that the act of baptism regenerates. Yet, “baptism saves.” How are we to understand this?
The Bible consistently teaches that sinners are saved by grace, through faith, on account of the merits of Christ. Baptism is not the cause of regeneration–the Spirit regenerates, not the act of applying water to the person being baptized. Yet baptism does something to and for the baptized. Peter tells us that it is not that the waters of baptism washes off dirt from our bodies making us clean. Rather, baptism is tied to an appeal (or pledge) of a good conscience, and therefore, to the salvation of God’s people from the covenant curse which will come upon the earth.
The Pledge of a Good Conscience
The pledge associated with baptism is that of a good conscience. Peter’s use of the account of Noah reminds us that through the waters of the flood, God brought judgment upon the earth. This was the covenant curse being meted out against the unbelieving world. In Hebrews 11:7, the author speaks of Noah as follows. “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” When Noah entered the ark with his family (the pledge of a good conscience–i.e., that Noah believed God’s promise), then he and his family, were made heirs to the righteousness which comes by faith. He and his household were saved from the judgment of God which came upon the earth in the form of a flood. God made a promise, by faith Noah believed that promise, then ratified that promise (a pledge of a good conscience) built the ark, gathered the animals, and waited for God to close the door of the ark, sending the flood. God promised, Noah believed and acted–the pledge of a good conscience.
Peter’s word of encouragement to the suffering Christians of the Diaspora (and to us all) is that just as Noah believed, entered the ark, and was saved by the same waters which destroyed the earth, so too, those Christians who believe God’s promise, ratify that promise through baptism. The baptismal vows are in a sense the pledge from a good conscience to trust that we are the people of God who will be spared from that judgment which is to come upon the whole world–this time not by a flood, but by fire. This is very much like Paul’s statement in Romans 6:3-4, where we read, “do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” To be baptized, Paul says, is to be buried with Christ (in the ordeal of his death) and then to be raised to newness of life with Christ in his life-giving resurrection.
Promises to the Baptized
Christ’s death and resurrection saves us from death and gives us life. Baptism, then, is the visible sign of what Jesus gives us through faith in his promise through the power of the Holy Spirit. So too, those Christians who are baptized, are properly said to be saved from the wrath to come, by the resurrection of Christ. Baptism saves then, in the sense that those who are baptized have the external sign and seal (the visible word) that they will be saved from death and the grave by Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Like Noah, those whose pledge of a good conscience (i.e., that they believe the promises of God and therefore submit themselves and their children to God in baptism), trust that they will be saved from the judgment to come upon those who persecute them, even as God saved Noah from the waters of the flood.
But Peter promises even more to the baptized. The same Jesus who was raised to life has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. Jesus has not only conquered death, he is now at the right hand of God and all powers–Caesar, angels, even death–are subject to him. God has promised this to us in his word, and then through the pledge of a good conscience, we ratify that promise when we enter the waters of judgment (baptism), believing we will pass safely through the water, even as Noah was saved by the flood, even as the Israelites were saved from Pharaoh by passing through the Red Sea on dry ground, and even as Jesus defeated death by being buried in the tomb before rising again from the dead.
This, beloved, is why we must learn to look outside ourselves during times of trial, testing, suffering, and persecution. We must teach ourselves to look to the cross, the empty tomb, and to the waters of baptism, so that when that voice inside begins to remind us of all our sins, we can answer back to that voice in our heads, “shut up.” “Be still.” “My Savior died for me.” “His tomb is empty.” “And I have been saved from the wrath to come by my baptism, because God has brought me `safely through water.’”
This is how baptism saved Noah and his family, the Christians of the Diaspora, and you and me.
_______________________________________
[1] D. A. Carson, “1 Peter” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic; 2007), 1038-1039.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 180.
[3] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 184.
[4] See the summaries in: Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 185; and Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 138-141.
[5] Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 128-129.
News and Riddleblog Updates:
- Now that the WSC spring semester is over, and I have a bit more time, you will notice a number of updates at the Riddleblog. The Biblical and Theological Studies tab has been re-worked to make it easier to find past entries.
- Some of you have suggested that I add the Logos extension which allows biblical citations to appear in a pop-up window. Great idea! But the version of Squarespace which I am currently using does not support that extension. Drat!
- I will soon be wrapping up season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, a study of Paul’s two Thessalonian letters. I’ll devote a season two follow-up episode to explain where we will be going after season two concludes.
- One of the benefits of retirement is that the missus and I will be able to do some traveling. So, there may be a week here or there when I drop off the map.
Hummel’s New Book on the Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism:
-
As of this writing, I am far along in Daniel Hummel’s fascinating and important new book, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism. If you have a dispensational background, or if you are interested in the history of evangelicalism, this is a must read. I’ll have a lot more to say about it down the road (some positives and a few cautions). But here’s a brief summary. "Left Behind"
Liberty Liberty . . .
-
I would like to know how the ad agency which sold Liberty Mutual Insurance on an ad campaign featuring doofus Doug and his LIMU Emu pulled that off. What on earth do Doug, his beater Dodge Duster, and an Emu have to do with Liberty Mutual’s a la carte insurance plans? I am sure such things are market-tested first, but this ad campaign annoys the heck out of me and as far as I can tell has nothing whatsoever to do with the product. What am I missing? And that stupid jingle . . .
Recommended Links:
- This should be a wonderful tool. Monergism E-book Library App. Thanks to John Hendrix for providing us with so many valuable resources! Please consider supporting his work.
- Scott Clark continues his review of J-Mac’s The Gospel According to Jesus: The Gospel According to John MacArthur Part 6
- This is a fascinating piece and a must for all baseball hat wearers. The Remarkable History of the Baseball Cap
- The Lord opens another of his archeological "safety deposit boxes" to befuddle critical scholars. Ancient Tablet Found
- I’ve seen jelly fish and small sand sharks while body surfing at OC beaches (back in my high school and college days). But this critter would scare me to death. California has its problems, but this isn’t one them. Big Gator "Hangs Ten"
- When man’s best friend is no spring chicken. World's Oldest Dog, Bobi, Turns 31
- Bereavement Author Kills Husband. I guess she wanted to change her audience from the grieving to those interested in true crime.
- If the truth be known, we all have a rogue or two in our Family Tree (and fewer royals than we would like). My first cousin five times removed (Jesse L. Riddlesbarger 1800-1883) was once the richest man in Kansas City. If your family came West via the Santa Fe Trail, they probably outfitted from Jesse Riddlesbarger’s business. But Jesse was an ardent supporter of the Confederacy and a slave owner. He also picked a fight with the Union General overseeing the North’s occupation of KC (Thomas Ewing). Jesse lost, and paid a huge price. Jesse Riddlesbarger -- Leading Businessman Lost It All In the Civil War
- An awesome dog named “Pink” in action!
Words of Wisdom from One of my Favorite Philosophers
Episode Synopsis:
Soon after Paul sent his first letter to the Thessalonian Christians, the apostle received word that someone in the congregation was teaching that the day of the Lord had already come. Composing his second Thessalonian letter to correct this error, Paul makes it abundantly clear that anyone spreading such a rumor is flat-out wrong. Paul declares that two things must occur before the day of the Lord can come. First there will be a great apostasy, and only then comes the revelation of a figure Paul identifies as “the man of sin”– an individual often associated with the Antichrist.
But Paul also tells the Thessalonians that a mysterious “restrainer” is currently preventing the man of sin from being revealed. He informs the Thessalonians that at some point this restrainer (a “who” or a “what”) will cease to restrain the man of sin, who will then appear (in connection with the apostasy) only to be destroyed by Jesus Christ when the day of the Lord does come to pass.
In part two of our study of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, we will discuss this mysterious restrainer in some detail, identify to whom or what Paul is referring, and then wrestle with the question of the timing when all of this will come to pass. Is Paul referring to the events of AD 70 and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple–which are still future to him, but long in the past for us? Or is he predicting an end-times Antichrist, who will appear at the end of the age immediately before Jesus returns?
Show Notes:
My book on the Antichrist,The Man of Sin
KR: Hitler as an Antichrist Figure
B. B. Warfield on Antichrist
The Church Fathers, Origen, and Augustine on Antichrist
Louis Berkhof on the Historical Devopment of the Church's Doctrine of the Antichrist
KR: 666 and the Mark of the Beast
Antichrist -- He's Not Nice There are not words . . . A Riddleblog favorite!
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
As Americans raised in a democratic republic, we cling tenaciously to the principle “one person, one vote.” It is very easy (and almost natural) to carry over this principle to our understanding of redemption from the guilt of our sin. We mistakenly assume that God should give everyone a chance to go to heaven, and if people refuse God’s gracious offer, then people, in effect, send themselves to hell by refusing God’s gracious gift. This makes perfect sense on democratic presuppositions because in the civil kingdom (the political sphere) each individual is assumed to be entitled and empowered to determine their own course in life. And if this is true in American political life, then it should be true when it comes to the salvation of sinners. Right? Well, no. The Bible does not allow us to understand humanity’s redemption from sin in such rosy terms.
Because of Adam’s sin, we are all sinners by nature and by choice. As his biological children and heirs, we are born guilty for Adam’s act of rebellion in Eden. The Bible speaks of this as being dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1). This simply means that we are unwilling and unable to do anything to save ourselves. Because we are dead in sin, we cannot even take those first steps toward God that some Christians mistakenly think we should be able to make (cf. John 6:44, which tells us that on one can come to Jesus unless drawn by the Father). It is common to hear Christians describe God’s grace in generic, medicinal terms, or as a rescue from peril such as, “grace is like a medicine which, if we are willing to take it, enables us to come to Christ,” or that “grace is a life-ring which we must grab and cling to, or we will drown in our sins.”
Our problem is not that we are spiritually sick, weakened and impaired by our sin, or that we are morally corrupt. It is much worse than that. The Bible says we are dead in sin. Dead people do not, and indeed cannot, come to God. God must act upon us while we are dead in sin or else we stay dead! He alone can make us alive with Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10). As Paul recounts here, God does everything necessary to save us from our sins when we are unworthy of such salvation, and unable to do anything about our predicament. Democratic presuppositions simply don’t apply to matters of sin and grace. Humanity’s plight (the curse and death) and God’s sovereign grace are the proper categories here. From beginning to end God must save us because we are unable to do anything to save ourselves. This is where we find the very heart of God’s saving grace—the doctrine of election.
The only reason why any one of us presently trusts in Jesus to save us from our sins is because God chose to save us in Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). God did so, Scripture says, based upon his own sovereign good pleasure and purpose, in such a way that is fully consistent with God’s love, holiness, and justice. When addressing this very subject, Paul spells this out in no uncertain terms.
In love, [God] predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth (Ephesians 1:3-7).
God chooses us in Jesus Christ for reasons known only to himself (cf. Romans 9:14-24) not because we are in some sense worthy of his choice.
The critical point here is that unless God chose to save us in Jesus Christ, not one of us would be saved (Romans 8:28-30). God did not look down the corridors of time and see who would and who would not trust in Christ when the gospel was preached to them as is commonly taught. If that were the case, then God’s work in election would be his reaction to a human action (a decision to accept Christ), but which people who are dead in sin cannot perform. Those not chosen are left in their original condition in Adam, under God’s curse and just condemnation. It is not as though those not chosen are treated unfairly. Rather, they will be dealt with according to divine justice, not God’s saving mercy in Christ. Those not chosen will get what they truly deserve. On the other hand, those chosen in Christ will not get what they deserve. Instead, they will receive God’s mercy unto eternal life. They will be granted faith and repentance.
The Bible is very clear that God’s election of particular sinners is based upon God’s good pleasure and purpose, that election is “in Christ” (which means that all those who presently trust in Christ were chosen in Christ before time), and that God provides the merits of Jesus Christ (through his suffering and obedience) to save those whom God has chosen, from both the guilt and power of sin. Those whom God chooses to save will be saved by the redemptive work of Jesus Christ as declared in the gospel, which is applied to us in and through the power of the Holy Spirit, who creates faith on our hearts and unites us to Christ. This is where we find the basis of sola gratia (grace alone)–God’s sovereign election.
In love, God predestined us in Jesus Christ to be redeemed from the guilt and power of sin.
Article 12: The Assurance of Election
Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.
______________________________________
We now come to one of the most troubling aspects of the biblical teaching about election, which is the question, “how do we know that we are numbered among the elect?” Assurance of salvation is one point where the rubber hits the road for many struggling saints. The authors of the Canons are aware of this perennial issue and are therefore careful to point out that “assurance . . . is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure.” Assurance of salvation is a struggle for some, and not at all an issue for others. Furthermore, not all Christians have the assurance of their salvation at all times. The blessing of such assurance is a difficult struggle for many.
The primary reason for a lack of assurance is human sinfulness. Although we were chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), and we are called to faith in Jesus Christ at a particular point in time (Ephesians 1:13), are then justified and have the hope of heaven and glorification (Romans 8:28-39), the sinful nature is not eradicated until death (Romans 7:14-25; Galatians 5:17). In fact, the sinful nature (the flesh) puts up a fierce struggle until we take our last breath, and finally enter into the presence of God. When we are disobedient to God’s commands, or when we are indifferent to the things of the Lord, we may indeed feel God’s displeasure with us, and for a time, this may raise the question whether or not we are among the elect.
Lest this be too big a burden for us to bear, we need to remind ourselves from the outset that a non-Christian never once worries about whether or not they are numbered among the elect! Only a Christian regrets his or her sins, and feels what we call “the conviction of sin.” In these cases, the law does its work, and the Spirit moves us to repent. As every Christian knows, living under the conviction of sin is a very miserable place to be (Psalm 51 comes to mind).
As Paul points out in Romans 7:14 ff., only a Christian desires to obey God’s law, and then struggles with his or her repeated inability to do so. In Galatians 5:17, Paul speaks of an inward struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Only a Christian struggles with desiring to do what is right before God, and only a Christian desires to avoid doing what is wrong in the sense described by Paul. Only a Christian feels this misery when we fail to do things we know that God requires of us. According to Paul, this struggle is the normal Christian life!
Paradoxically, the fact that we struggle with sin is not a sign that we are not numbered among the elect as many erroneously counsel. Rather, it is just the opposite! The struggle with sin is the sign that God is working in us to will and do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). This is a struggle which a non-Christian never experiences. Thankfully, God does not leave us where we are, he sanctifies us. At times, his work within us can be an intense, and difficult struggle. But it is his work in believers only.
A second reason we may lack the assurance of our salvation is to be found in the erroneous teaching about the nature of the Christian life, which so many of us learned in our evangelical or Roman Catholic past. In much of the evangelical world, assurance of salvation is often based upon performance, obedience, and external acts of piety. If it was a good week, then we feel God’s favor. If we have a good devotional time, if we witnessed to our co-worker, then we think we are doing just fine. If it was a bad week, then we need to worry! Some caution us, we have not let Jesus become Lord over every area of our lives, and we are not living in victory. When this happens, we are told that we are in real trouble. The voice in our head starts to tell us, “we might not be Christ’s . . . . If we were, we’d be doing better.”
At this point, the Canons remind us not to seek the assurance of our salvation based upon our own internal standards of measurement, or to the intensity of our religious experience, or to our current emotional state, or even to our own success in living the Christian life in a way others approve. Instead, we must learn to seek our assurance through those things taught about the Christian life in Scripture—“such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.” The Canons direct us to find assurance of our salvation in those things revealed in Scripture and summarized here. Do we look to the sufficiency of Christ’s saving work? Do we acknowledge that God is holy and we are sinful? Are we willing to repent of our sins? Do we seek to move forward in the Christian life and then worry about our level of progress? If these things matter to us, we can draw assurance from them.
But the critical point is the first on the Canon’s list. God’s word says that Christ saves sinners, even the worst (1 Timothy 1:15)! Do we believe God’s gracious promise to save us based upon the merits of Jesus Christ, regardless of our own performance? This is where assurance begins, which is why the authors of the Canons direct us to those promises in God’s word which need to be repeatedly declared to us audibly by our minister, our church, and by fellow Christians. The gospel is the engine of the Christian life, creating faith which leads to assurance. When we lack assurance, we must learn to quickly run to the promises of Christ in his word.
Our fear of failure–that we might eventually fall and come under the wrath of God–often reveals itself in displeasure at our own performance. We take our failures as a sign that God hates us. Ironically, our displeasure with our progress is often a sign of God’s favor toward us! God is convicting us of our sin. God is bringing his work in us to fruition. But far too many times, we have this completely backwards. We take our poor performance in the Christian life as a sign that we are not elect, when, in fact, our sorrow over our poor performance is actually a sign that we are among the elect! No non-Christian has ever experienced this struggle. No non-Christian ever worried about this. But every Christian struggles with sin.
Let us not forget that the closer we grow to God, and the more we know his word, the more dissatisfied we may be with our present level of sanctification. Not one of those whom God passes over and leaves in their sin will ever worry about their level of sanctification. Are we sorrowful at our sins? Do we hunger and thirst for righteousness? These, too, as the fruit of faith, are signs of assurance, not signs of God’s wrath toward us.
Another reason why so many lack assurance, is because we are looking for it in all the wrong places! When we seek assurance of our salvation in our feelings and opinions, our religious experience, our performance, we are setting ourselves up for a gigantic disappointment. God does not promise to give us assurance through these things. Rather, he gives us assurance of his favor through his word and sacraments in which gospel is revealed and confirmed. Through these means of grace, God’s Spirit bears powerful witness to us that we are the children of God.
But how does he do this? He does this through the promise of forgiveness of sins given in his word, and through the strengthening of our faith given to us through the sacraments. Through the promise of the gospel, and through water, wine, and bread, God promises us that we are his. Yet, if we fail to take avail of the means of grace that God has graciously given to us, of course, we will struggle more that we would otherwise do. The loss of assurance is one of the first things that may go, especially if we start looking for assurance in the wrong place–i.e., our own obedience or performance.
At the end of the day, how do we know that we are among the elect? The answer is simple. Do you believe the promise in Scripture that Christ saves sinners, even the worst? Do you believe that Christ's death can even save you? Are you unhappy with your present level of sanctification? Are you sorry for your sins?
If you can answer these questions with a “yes,” then take heart, for you are certainly numbered among the elect!
Background
One of the best-known Psalms among our contemporaries is Psalm 40. No doubt, this is because for many years the Irish rock band U2 closed out their concerts with a very moving rendition of it, in which huge audiences sang along with the band. As written, Psalm 40 reflects the author’s (David) thanksgiving for deliverance from urgent danger. In light of this sense of immediate need for deliverance of which David is speaking, John Calvin–who was very reticent to speak about himself–describes his conversion as being pulled from the mire of his addiction to the papacy, a direct reference to verse 2 of this particular Psalm. Calvin goes on to say, “God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life.”[1] In light of this Psalm’s historic importance, and current familiarity, an exposition of Psalm 40 would be beneficial.
The Book of Psalms was the hymnal of ancient Israel. The Psalter is also one of the most beloved portions of God’s word, provides Christ’s church with much of its song, and also serves as the foundation for the devotional life of God’s people. The more we know about the Book of Psalms, the greater our desire to read, reflect upon, and sing them as God’s people have done throughout the ages.
The Five Books of the Psalter
The Psalter is composed of 150 songs which reflect the entire range of human emotion, from despair to jubilation. Although the Psalter was written by different authors over the course of much of Israel’s history, most Psalms are closely tied to the life and times of David (Israel’s most prominent king). Many of the Psalms reflect Israel’s worship of YHWH during this turbulent period in the nation’s history. There are a number of different types and genres of Psalms. There are Psalms of praise, Psalms of lament (67 of them), there are imprecatory Psalms (which invoke God’s judgment on his enemies), there are messianic Psalms (which prefigure the coming of Jesus Christ), there are “enthronement” Psalms (which speak of God as king and ruler of all), there are wisdom Psalms (which reveal to us wisdom from God), and there are Psalms of trust, (which express confidence in God’s power, and in God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant promises).[2] And then, there is the famous “shepherd Psalm,” the twenty-third Psalm.
There are also a number of names attached to the 150 Psalms (i.e., David, Solomon, Moses, Asaph, the Sons of Korah). 73 of the Psalms are ascribed to David (king of Israel). 12 Psalms are ascribed to Asaph (who was one of David’s three temple musicians, along with Heman and Jeduthun). 11 Psalms are ascribed to the Sons of Korah (who were a guild of temple singers), 3 are ascribed to Jeduthun (a Levite), 2 are connected to Solomon, as well as one each to Moses, Heman (a grandson of Samuel), and Ethan (a symbol player in David’s court and thought by some to be another name for Jeduthun). The remainder of the Psalms are unattributed. With the exception Moses, the others to whom various Psalms are ascribed are mentioned throughout the two books of Chronicles, so we know certain details about them and their service of YHWH. Even though not all of the Psalms were written by David, it is reasonable to speak, as many do, of the “Psalms of David” since the vast majority of them are ascribed to David or his known associates.
The Psalter is divided into five books, which, as some have suggested, mirror the five books of the Moses (the Pentateuch). Book One includes the first 41 Psalms–all of which (with the exception of a couple of unattributed Psalms) are ascribed to David. Most of these Psalms speak of distress and trial, and there is a constant refrain throughout Book One that God alone can save his people. Book Two (Psalm 42-72) includes several Psalms attributed to the Sons of Korah, and one ascribed to Asaph (Psalm 50). These Psalms include laments and prayers for deliverance during times of trouble. Book Two ends with a Psalm ascribed to Solomon (Psalm 72), a royal Psalm with strong messianic themes.
Book Three of the Psalter includes Psalms 73-89. Most of the Psalms of Asaph are included in Book Three, as are more Psalms from the Sons of Korah. The dominant theme in Book Three is distress and tribulation, including the darkest of the Psalms–Psalm 88. Yet the theme of hope is found throughout the Psalms which make up Book Three as well.
Book Four includes Psalms 90-106, and opens with the only Psalm attributed to Moses (Psalm 90). This particular Psalm may have been placed here to open Book Four, because in this Psalm Moses reminds the people of Israel that God has been with them throughout their trials in Egypt and in the wilderness, all of these things occurring well before the time of David and those current woes facing Israel that appear throughout the first three books. A number of the Psalms in Book Four remind us that “the Lord reigns.”
Book Five of the Psalter includes Psalms 107-150. Some of these Psalms treat God’s promises to David, there are 15 so-called “Psalms of ascent” which were sung by pilgrims making their way up to Jerusalem during the celebration of the various feasts and holy days. This section also includes the longest Psalm (119) which reflects upon the beauty and perfection of God’s law.
The Reformed Use of the Psalter
Before we turn to the text of Psalm 40, a brief word about the Reformed use of the Psalms is also appropriate. You have probably noticed that many Reformed churches do not have a hymnal per se, but a “Psalter” (or a Psalter-hymnal). This is because from the time of Calvin (the 1530's and later) Reformed churches have devoted themselves to the singing of scripture (especially the Psalms). A number of the tunes still used to sing the Psalms come to us from Calvin’s Geneva and are known as Genevan tunes. You can identify these tunes by looking at hymn text for the tune, the date, and the composer. Many were sung in Calvin’s church (St. Peter’s) and have been used in the Reformed churches since that time.
The doxology (“Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow”) is sung to the tune of what is perhaps the most famous of these Psalms, Psalm 100 (Old Hundreth). To this day there are many Reformed and Presbyterian churches which sing Psalms exclusively, often without instruments. As an aside, the church in Geneva sang the Psalms so loudly and with such gusto that they became known as Geneva “jigs.” It is a shame that we Reformed Christians are lampooned today as the “frozen chosen,” but this is largely because we’ve lost our collective enthusiasm for the singing of God’s word.
Many Reformed churches still take seriously the singing of Psalms–the bulk of what we sing are Psalms. Article 30 of the church order of the URCNA informs us, “The 150 Psalms shall have the principal place in the singing of the churches. Hymns which faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity may be sung, provided they are approved by the Consistory.” I hope that this background to the Psalter stirs our love, interest, and enthusiasm for the singing of Psalms, just as the ancient Israelites did, and just as our tradition has done from the beginning.
The Setting and Structure of the 40th Psalm
As for background to Psalm 40–which is found toward the end of Book One of the Psalter–the Psalm is attributed to David and reflects a triumphal outcome after several previous Psalms dealt with the theme of “waiting” for God to act, as in Psalm 37, and again in Psalms 38-39. Whatever David was facing–either serious illness, palace intrigue, some sort of terrible sin, or the fact that his nation was in great peril–the period of distress ends with David offering praise to YHWH, because YHWH rescued him from the calamity for which he had long been waiting to be delivered. In the opening lines of the Psalm, David recounts that YHWH has mercifully saved him from his circumstances. He describes how his own heart is stirred to respond, but David understands that a formal ritual cannot be the proper response. His response to YHWH’s mercy must be heart-felt and sacrificial.[3]
Structurally, the Psalm is divided into two halves. Verses 1-10 recount David’s heartfelt thanksgiving, while verses 11-17 are a lament and/or affirmation bearing strong similarities to Psalm 70, and which takes the form of David’s determination to continue to wait upon the Lord. Thanksgiving followed by a lament is found in Psalm 27 (which also deals with “waiting upon the LORD”). In Psalm 40, David’s prayer of thanksgiving for deliverance (vv. 1-10), leads him to realize although one crisis has ended, others remain. Israel’s king recounts how God has delivered him from his trials, and then boldly reaffirms that God will deliver him from future predicaments (vv. 11-17).
This Psalm has a chiastic structure in which the thought progresses from the first and last verses of the Psalm toward the middle (like a “greater than” sign). The conclusion (or the literary climax) of a chiasm is found in the middle of the Psalm (vv. 9-11), not at the end. The climax of Psalm 40, therefore, is that David proclaims God’s perfections in verses 9-10: YHWH delivers, YHWH forgives, YHWH saves. Then David can profess, in v. 11), his firm hope that God will continue to grant him mercy, love, and remain faithful to his covenant promises. What David cannot yet see, but which Christians can, is that the things for which David offers praise–God’s deliverance, forgiveness, salvation, mercy, love, and God’s faithfulness to his promise–are all realized in the person and work of Jesus Christ who will come nearly a thousand years later, as mediator of the new and better covenant (cf. Hebrews 8).
David Waits Patiently
As we turn to the text of the Psalm, in the first three verses David recounts the things God has done for him as he waited patiently. “I waited patiently for the Lord; he inclined to me and heard my cry. He drew me up from the pit of destruction, out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps secure. He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the Lord.” The opening line can be rendered, “I waited, waited” for the Lord, “who bent down help to me.” In Psalm 27:14, David expressed the need to wait for deliverance. “Wait for the Lord; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the Lord!” David has waited, and waited, and now deliverance has blessedly come.
The “pit of destruction” refers to the depths of David’s trial and despair. It were as though David was trapped in quicksand (a miry bog)–slowly sinking deeper and deeper into the mire, trying to remain still, knowing that if he flails about in anger or restlessness he will only sink in deeper and be consumed that much faster. A number of commentators understand this to be a reference to a serious illness, while others suggest this is a reference to defilement after sin, or even danger (a threat to David’s life).
Because YHWH rescued David, after David waited, and waited, David is not left trapped in the pit. YHWH lifts him up and sets David in an unshakable and secure place–on a rock. YHWH has healed him, forgiven and restored him, or rescued him from imminent danger. Regardless of what it is to which David is referring, it was YHWH who rescued him–bending down, lifting him up and putting him in a safe place high upon a rock, as one picks up a small child to rescue them from peril, and then holds them close to console them. The rock is a reference to YHWH himself, as David tells us in Psalm 18:2. “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” David’s place of safety–the rock upon which he stands secure–is YHWH, the rock of our salvation, the object of David’s faith and trust.
When YHWH rescues David and places him safely on a rock, David is using the rock as an image of a secure place from which he will now sing a new song, a song which recounts God’s mighty acts of redemption. This is the very essence of proper worship, and is the reason why we sing (or should sing) Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (to quote Paul in Ephesians 5:19), which recount those might acts of redemption which God has accomplished for us in Jesus Christ. The result of recounting these mighty works of God, David says, is that “many will see and fear, and put their trust in the Lord.” David was trapped with no way of escape. But he waited, and waited. When YHWH delivered him it is clear to everyone that it is YHWH who bent down to rescue him, placing him safely within YHWH’s covenant promises.
Blessed Is the Man
In the next stanza of the Psalm (vv. 4-5), we read, “blessed is the man who makes the Lord his trust, who does not turn to the proud, to those who go astray after a lie! You have multiplied, O Lord my God, your wondrous deeds and your thoughts toward us; none can compare with you! I will proclaim and tell of them, yet they are more than can be told.” That God delivered him moves David to pronounce a blessing upon those who trust in God’s promise, just as he has done. Blessed are those who not interested in lies; the claims made by false religions. Blessed are those who do not go astray after idols. Blessed are those who know that any pride in our own righteousness and accomplishments is deadly sin. Blessed are those who realize that the Lord is our rock.
God’s people also know that he does wondrous and supernatural things which the idols (of mere wood, stone, film, and social media) cannot–like rescue his people from Egypt and the Pharaoh, or provide manna in the wilderness–which demonstrate YHWH’s power over all of creation and its various creatures. Who can compare with YHWH? No one! Yet our God bends down to think of his people when we suffer. He truly cares for us, his people. Who among us can tell of all the wondrous things God has done for us? We can only come up with even the small beginnings of a list. As John expresses in the closing words of his gospel, God has done too many wondrous things in the person of his son, Jesus, for us to tell (John 21:24-25). Therefore we trust in YHWH. We wait and wait on YHWH, knowing that at just the right time, he will bend down and deliver us from the miry bog of sickness, sin, danger, or the scheming of others.
In the Scroll of Your Book, It Is Written of Me
In the third stanza (vv. 6-8) , David offers us remarkable words when he writes, “in sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, `Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart. After becoming mindful of all the things that God has done for him in delivering him from the pit, David speaks of his desire to sing the new song of praise, knowing that because of human sin, rituals do not replace praise. Empty religious rituals and ceremonies only condemn us. There’s a fair bit of biblical background against which we must understand David’s comments.
We know from 1 Samuel 13:9, that king Saul (David’s predecessor) offered sacrifices before battle, and from 1 Samuel 15:21, that he offered sacrifices after battle. But these sacrifices were not offered in faith. In speaking these words, David knows that Saul’s sacrifices did not please YHWH, because Saul disobeyed the LORD.[4] David knew that the mere ceremonial offering of a ritual sacrifice (i.e., going through the motions and doing your religious duty) was not acceptable to God. As he says here, those who properly worship YHWH must keep their ears open–they need to listen to what God says in his word, and to be ready to do those things written in the law. In David’s case, he must fulfill YHWH’s requirements for kingship. Because he is Israel’s king, David knows he must fully submit to the will of God, and that it must be his heart’s desire to commit himself fully to the Lord.
Although David speaks as though his own dedication will put an end to all improperly offered sacrifices, as one commentator so eloquently puts it, “David outruns [his zeal] by speaking as if his self-offering will put an end to all sacrifices. If this is the implication of his words, he is not speaking of himself but the Messiah.”[5] David’s words foretell of a new covenant and a sinless Messiah who can actually do the things David knows he must do but ultimately cannot. David’s commitment to YHWH then, is typological. His words point us ahead a thousand years to the obedience of Jesus unto death, as David’s word are quoted by the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 10:5-7 and applied to Jesus.[6] “Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, `Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” David’s zeal is proper and his desire is correct. But as a sinner himself, David could never fulfill what YHWH requires of him in the scroll of the book, (i.e., the law). The one of whom David speaks as being written of in the book (of the law) is none other than Jesus Christ, whose death upon the cross did indeed put an end to all sacrifice.
The Glad News of Deliverance
This brings us to the high point of the Psalm, the proclamation of God’s gracious salvation in vv. 9-10, followed by an invocation of God’s love and mercy in verse 11. “I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation; behold, I have not restrained my lips, as you know, O Lord. I have not hidden your deliverance within my heart; I have spoken of your faithfulness and your salvation; I have not concealed your steadfast love and your faithfulness from the great congregation. As for you, O Lord, you will not restrain your mercy from me; your steadfast love and your faithfulness will ever preserve me!” In light of what God has done, David proclaims God’s mighty acts to the people as they assembled for worship. He has not restrained himself, nor kept things hidden. David told the people the story of how God delivered him from his trials. David has spoken of God’s love, God’s mercy, God’s faithfulness to his promises, and of God’s salvation of the people’s king.
As the Psalm shifts into its second half–David’s prayer for his people (vv.11-17)–he knows more trials are yet to come, and that God will remain merciful and faithful to his promises. Israel’s king begins by confessing his own sins unto the Lord (v. 12). “For evils have encompassed me beyond number; my iniquities have overtaken me, and I cannot see; they are more than the hairs of my head; my heart fails me.” Since we cannot hide our sins from God it is pointless not to confess them, no matter how great they are, or no matter how many sins there may be. His sins trouble him so deeply that he feels as though his heart will fail him. David is overwhelmed by his guilt. He feels compelled to confess his sins to God. He knows that this is what God wants from us–not more rituals and ceremonies, or promises to “try harder” next time. He knows that true repentance comes only after genuine sorrow for sin.
David also seeks YHWH’s mercy and protection (vv. 13-16) for the nation. He cries out, “be pleased, O Lord, to deliver me! O Lord, make haste to help me! Let those be put to shame and disappointed altogether who seek to snatch away my life; let those be turned back and brought to dishonor who delight in my hurt! Let those be appalled because of their shame who say to me, Aha, Aha!’ But may all who seek you rejoice and be glad in you; may those who love your salvation say continually,Great is the Lord!’” Having waited, and waited, for deliverance preciously, David now pleads with the Lord to act quickly. David knows that only YHWH can protect and deliver both himself and the nation he rules. Israel’s king prays that YHWH put his enemies to shame, so that Israel is spared–for David knows that his enemies are Israel’s enemies too. David also knows that when YHWH delivers his people, only then will the enemies’ taunts be silenced and the people of Israel will rejoice. Having been rescued himself from the miry pit, David now desires the same for his people, and his nation.
My Help and My Deliverer
The Psalm’s final verse returns to a strikingly personal note. The Psalm opens with David recounting how he waited, and waited, before the Lord heard his cry. The Psalm closes with David appealing to YHWH not to delay in delivering his people. David will wait patiently because the LORD is faithful to his promises. His people will wait too. But his people are in desperate need of deliverance, and this is something only YHWH can bring about. David humbly casts himself before the Lord. “As for me, I am poor and needy, but the Lord takes thought for me.” David does not presume that God owes him something, but having witnessed God’s faithfulness, David cries out to YHWH on behalf of himself and his people, “you are my help and my deliverer.” He pleads with the Lord “do not delay, O my God!” David desires both the people of Israel and their enemies to acknowledge, “great is the LORD!” His hope is that God will be glorified through his great and mighty acts on behalf of his people.
This is why when we read through the Psalms, we so easily and often think of Jesus–the promised Messiah and descendant of David–who fulfills so many of the prayers, petitions, and promises found throughout the Psalter. When laboring under similar distress on behalf of his people, Jesus prays to the Father in John 12:27-28, “now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.’ Then a voice came from heaven: `I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.’” As David prayed that the people of Israel would see that “great is the Lord,” so too Jesus prayed, “Father, glorify your name.”
In his death and resurrection, Jesus demonstrates that he is the one who finally puts an end to sacrifice, and he is the one who is written about in the scroll of the book (the law). Jesus not only offers the final and perfect sacrifice for sin, he is the one who perfectly obeys God’s law. When we wait, and wait for deliverance, Jesus is the one in whom God bends down to rescue us from the pit. Jesus is the one who gives us the new song (the story of his redemptive works), and it is his praises that we sing. It is Jesus who heals, forgives, saves, and in whom God’s faithfulness is realized. And it is Jesus, not David, who can truly say, “I delight to do your will, O my God.” And it is because of Jesus’ obedience that we sing our new song, “great is the Lord.”
_________________________________________
[1] J. Calvin, “preface” to Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), xl–xli.
[2] See, for example, the discussion in Daniel J. Eestes, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 152-199.
[3] Kidner, Psalms 1-17 (Downers Grove: IVP, 1973), 158.
[4] VanGemeran, Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), EBC 5.367.
[5] Kidner, Psalms 1-17 (Downers Grove: IVP, 1973), 158.
[6] VanGemeran, Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), EBC 5.368.
In his essay “The Biblical Idea of Revelation” (1915), Warfield addresses the terminology associated with the divine production of Scripture. His comments here are widely known and have been very influential upon recent Bible translations and discussions of inerrancy.
Warfield addresses the common use of “inspired “and “inspiration.” He writes . . .
The Biblical books are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of inspired men; the Biblical writers are called inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 131; new edition, 71)
The term has changed meaning over time:
Meanwhile, for English-speaking men, these terms have virtually ceased to be Biblical terms. They naturally passed from the Latin Vulgate into the English versions made from it (most fully into the Rheims-Douay: Job 32:8; Wisd. 15:11; Ecclus. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). But in the development of the English Bible they have found ever-decreasing place. In the English versions of the Apocrypha (both Authorized Version and Revised Version) “inspired” is retained in Wisd. 15:11; but in the canonical books the nominal form alone occurs in the Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] and that only twice: Job 32:8, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding”; and 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The Revised Version removes the former of these instances, substituting “breath” for “inspiration”; and alters the latter so as to read: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness,” with a marginal alternative in the form of, “Every scripture is inspired of God and profitable,” etc. The word “inspiration” thus disappears from the English Bible, and the word “inspired” is left in it only once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even misleading mistranslation. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132; new edition, 71)
But “inspiration” is not the proper translation . . .
For the Greek word in this passage—θεόπνευστος, theópneustos—very distinctly does not mean “inspired of God” . . . . The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a “spiring” or “spiration.” What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “breathed into by God” or is the product of the Divine “inbreathing” into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “God-breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. (BBW, The Inspiration and Authority, 1948 ed., 132-133; new edition, 71-72)
You can find this and other essays here: B. B. Warfield" The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (new edition)
It is foolish to attempt to deny reality. The fact is Christians are going to be misunderstood, mistrusted, and persecuted precisely because we are believers in Jesus Christ. Those unbelievers, secularists, and pagans we encounter do not understand our faith in Christ. They feel no need whatsoever to believe in Jesus, and when they do understand what we believe, they openly reject it–especially Christian teaching about salvation being found only in Jesus (an exclusive truth claim), as well as Christian teaching about sexual ethics. Whenever this conflict between Christians and unbelievers occurs–and it will–how are we to respond?
In chapter 3 of his first epistle, Peter instructs us to seek to bring glory and honor to Jesus Christ in such situations, rather than focusing upon responding to any personal insults directed our way. Christians must learn how to deal with those who have power over us in the civil kingdom without being afraid of our oppressors, who will themselves answer to our Lord. We must learn to respond in such a way that we continually point those who are contentious toward us back to the suffering servant, Jesus. According to Peter, Christians must be prepared for these encounters with both the right answers and the right attitude.
Setting the Context
In our series on 1 Peter, so far, we have made our way into chapter three and we are presently considering Peter’s instructions to Christians of the Diaspora. To set the context, recall that Peter’s epistle is sent to a group of Christian exiles in Asia Minor, who have been displaced from their homes by a decree from Claudius, the previous Roman emperor. Peter begins his letter of encouragement to these struggling sojourners by reminding them that God has caused them to be born again, they have been set apart (sanctified) by God, and therefore sprinkled by the blood of Jesus–ensuring their sins are forgiven. Also, Christians are to live holy lives before the Lord so as to silence those critical of our faith.
Peter reminds his hearers that although they are facing difficult times from their pagan neighbors, in God’s sight, these people are elect exiles, a chosen race, and spiritual house, indwelt by the Spirit of the living God. Although they are citizens of Rome, they simultaneously possess a heavenly citizenship and are heirs to all the things promised them by God. But their heavenly citizenship will inevitably bring them into conflict with the unbelievers around them, and so the apostle seeks to prepare his readers to deal with those who reject Jesus, and who do not understand why Christians believe and do the things they do.
In 1 Peter 2:11-3:7, Peter addresses three of the main elements of the Greco-Roman household code–an unwritten code dating back perhaps to Aristotle, and which defines a number of the social relationships upon which Greco-Roman society was built. These relationships include the authority of civil government, the relationship between slaves and masters, as well as the relationship between husbands and wives. Christians too believe that these matters are important and God has addressed a number of them in his word. Yet, in each one of these societal relationships, and under current circumstances, Christians have little power or control. Peter’s readers were facing tremendous persecution from their pagan neighbors as the elect exiles of the Diaspora of Asia Minor.
Throughout section of his epistle, Peter exhorts Christians to submit to the Roman civil authorities, even those governors then persecuting Peter’s readers–except in those cases where civil authorities demand that Christians violate the will of God. When this happens, Christians are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). In order to make things bearable, Peter instructs Christian slaves and servants to submit to their masters, even if their masters are cruel. Finally Peter exhorts Christian wives to submit to their husbands, even if their husbands are not Christians. At the same time, Peter insists that Christian husbands not view their greater physical strength as a reason for believing their wives to be inferior–as the Greco-Roman household code held. Rather, Christian husbands are to see their wives as weaker vessels who require “understanding” (the knowledge that wives are to be treated as taught in Scripture), and who are worthy of honor–which means to be treated with the same respect to which all divine image bearers and co-heirs with Christ are entitled.
Christianity Is Subversive
In the light of Christianity’s conflict with various aspects of the Greco-Roman household codes, we forget just how revolutionary Christianity was in the first century–especially in regard to sexual ethics and to societal relationships. In all three of these cases he mentions, Peter urges Christians to respect lawful authority and submit to it upon two grounds; 1). We submit to those in authority over us in order to be a witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated great humility in those times he suffered and was persecuted, and 2). We submit to those over us to deflate or remove any objections those in authority over us might have, so that Christians receive better treatment from the hands of those who oppress them.
In verses 21–25 of chapter 2, Peter paraphrases the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which speaks of Jesus as the “suffering servant” of the Lord, whose example we are to follow. Peter writes,
. . . to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Since vengeance belongs to the Lord, Christians are not to retaliate in anger against those who persecute them. Instead, Christians are to follow the example of Jesus, and endure our suffering patiently, knowing that Jesus’s own suffering preceded his resurrection and ascension.
Beginning in verse 8 of chapter 3, Peter concludes his discussion of the Christian’s relationship to the Greco-Roman household code (going back to chapter 2:11) by summing up what a Christian’s attitude should be toward those who persecute them during difficult times. Peter then lists those things Christians ought to do so as to encourage and strengthen one another during the difficult times such as those Peter has been describing. The apostle confirms and illustrates these points by appealing to the words of Psalm 34–a Psalm to which Peter alludes throughout and quotes in this section of his letter.
A Unity of Mind
In verses 8-9, Peter writes, “finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.” When Christians manifest these qualities within the church, as well as in their dealings with those outside the church (especially those persecuting them) Christians are not as prone to division, and will mutually encourage one another–something very important during times and trial and persecution.
The first matter on Peter’s list is “unity of mind.” Christians are exhorted to be like-minded, which means they should believe the same things,[1] and work hard to avoid division within their own ranks. Sadly, struggling and persecuted Christians are prone to division because during trying times people’s sinful behavior shows itself in seeking to do things their way, while ignoring the circumstances of others. This is one of the reasons why “confessional” Protestant churches have extensive doctrinal standards as a means of being “like-minded.” Our own doctrinal standards are known as the “Three Forms of Unity,” because Reformed churches unite around confessing particular doctrines.
Next, Peter instructs Christians to be sympathetic to one another. Paul expands the meaning of this a bit in Romans 12:15, where he writes, “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” Christians should strive to put themselves in the shoes of their brothers and sisters, and genuinely care about the needs of others. Churches will be filled with people, who at any given time, are experiencing the great joys of life (marriages, births, anniversaries) while others endure the dreaded events of life (job loss, sickness, and death). These are things of which we are to be aware, and we are to respond accordingly. We “rejoice with those who rejoice,” and we “weep with those who weep.”
Peter also exhorts Christians to demonstrate “brotherly love” (philadelphoi). Peter’s main point here is that the church is the New Israel, and its members share a common brotherhood which unites us in deep and powerful ways–for many of us, our bond to our brothers and sisters in Christ can be deeper than our ties to family members. A church family is a wonderful thing. As God loves us in Jesus Christ (vertical), so too we are to love all those who are likewise the objects of God’s love (horizontal). This kind of brotherly love is not a shallow demonstration of love typical of much of American Christianity–those kumbaya moments when we just wanna hug everybody–but is manifest in concrete acts on behalf of others. We love our brothers and sisters when we watch their kids when there is a need, when we send meals or words of encouragement when someone is ill, or when we help those who need help (which is why we have deacons). This is not only a blessing to God’s people, it is a powerful witness to those outside the church who are watching our every move.
Christians are to have a tender heart, which is closely related to sympathy. A tender heart alerts us to the needs of others. In Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul ties this kind of tender-heartedness to forgiveness, which we are to extend to others who have wronged us, and which we receive back in return from those whom we have wronged. In Ephesians 4:32, Paul writes, “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” When Peter speaks of a humble mind, he simply means that we should put meeting the needs of others ahead of our own agendas.
Humility as Subversive
It is ironic that several of the Greek words used by Peter (or his secretary) are unique to the New Testament (and only found here), but which are used widely in classical Greek writings on virtue. Furthermore, the last of these terms (tapinos–humility) was an attitude scorned by the Greeks and Romans who saw humility as a sign of weakness, like that of a submissive slave.[2] In a society where social standing really matters, why would anyone want to act like a slave? Here, again we see how revolutionary Christianity was in the ancient world–seeing humility as a virtue (and seeing Jesus as the supreme example of this), while the Greco-Roman pagans saw humility as a character flaw because it was the mark of someone of lower social standing.
When, in verse 9, Peter tells us not to repay evil for evil, and not revile those who revile us (i.e., speak abusively) he is alluding to a saying of Jesus found in Luke 6:27-28. “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” Our natural instinct (actually the instinct of our fallen and sinful nature) is to respond to such personal offenses in kind. In this we are just like Lamech, whose boast is recounted in Genesis 4:23-24, shortly after the fall of our race into sin. “Lamech said to his wives: `Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.’” There is a fair bit of Lamech’s boast within each of us. If someone reviles us, we quickly respond in kind—it just requires a click of the mouse to de-friend those we revile on Facebook or defame them on Twitter.
Bless not Curse
Rather, Peter reminds us, “on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.” Some background here is important because to curse someone in the world of the superstitious Greeks and Romans was literally to place an actual curse upon them–the one whom we cursed would suffer illness, crop failure, infertility, calamity, and so on (think of sticking a pin in a voodoo doll). In the modern world we take “cursing someone” to be insulting them, as to their person, parentage, or appearance. Not so in the world of Peter’s day. To curse someone was to place a curse upon them. This is why Peter instructs Christians not to return a cruel word or a curse with another cruel word or curse, but to bless them (i.e., speak a good word, or a peaceful word to them). Christians, after all, know that there are no such things as “curses” which bring illness or disaster. This is but one place, where our embrace of God’s sovereignty brings great comfort.
Peter says that Christians are to bless others because we have been promised a heavenly blessing, which one day we will obtain, and therefore, should be reflected in our conduct toward others. In this case, Peter says we bless others in order to obtain that inheritance which is already ours–as Peter has said previously in verses 3, 5, and 23 of chapter 1. Peter is not saying that unless we bless others we will miss out on the promised inheritance. Rather, good works–like extending blessings to others when they curse us–are the fruit of a living hope and a justifying faith, but not the ground of our salvation.[3] These are things which those already born again and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus do from a grateful heart.
In verses 10-12, Peter cites verses 12-16 of the 34th Psalm. “For `Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” Psalm 34 deals with suffering and the way in which the Lord delivers his people in the midst of it. Peter has already alluded to the 34th Psalm in chapter 2:3, and now quotes it here (with several alterations), because it applies so well to the situation of many in Peter’s audience.[4]
Peter’s struggling readers in Asia Minor need to hear what YHWH told the people of Israel. When God’s people suffer at the hands of others, YHWH knows about it. He hears the pleas of deliverance from his people. In quoting this Psalm, Peter is reminding Christians that YHWH will punish the wicked, which is why Christians are not to lash out at those who persecute them. The knowledge that God will deal with those who persecute his people on the day of judgment, enables God’s people not to respond in kind. God will deal with them far better than we can. In the Psalm itself, the Psalmist speaks of life and blessings–things in this world, while in his interpretation of the Psalm, Peter focuses upon the blessings his readers/hearers will receive in the age to come.
This is why Christians are to bless those who persecute them. Believers know that YHWH’s face is against those who do harm to his people. As one writer puts it, “whether under the terms of the old covenant or the new, the privilege of belonging to God’s redeemed people brings with it the grateful, grace-driven responsibility to pursue righteousness and holiness, not to presume on God’s grace while trying to live no differently from the world.”[5] The point bears repeating that this is surely a test of faith for Christians–that we let God deal with those who persecute us, just as we believe that the heavenly inheritance promised us exceeds anything we can imagine. We must believe this in order to live our lives in light of God’s promise to remedy all wrongs in the age to come.
In verse 13, Peter changes subjects a bit, as he now addresses the theme of suffering and persecution in broader terms than in the previous section. Peter reminds his readers of the reality that a Christian may be called to suffer at the hands of those who have more power and who hate the gospel. Yet, Christians need not fear suffering (as we are so apt to do) because suffering is often God’s chosen way to blessings greater than can be imagined. After all, this is apparent in the life of Jesus, who suffered unspeakable abuse and scorn and yet through it all, redeemed his people, fulfilling God’s greater purposes. It is a fact of the Christian life that when suffering comes, we seek God more fervently than at other times. In the midst of it all, Peter reminds us, we must learn to look to the example set before us by our Lord Jesus.
Be Zealous for the Good
In verse 13, Peter now speaks in more concrete terms, alluding to Psalm 34 cited earlier, but obviously making application to the situation his readers were then facing. “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?” Peter’s point throughout this section is quite simple. It is hard to curse, revile, or persecute people who do good. Citizens of heaven–who identify themselves to unbelievers through their profession of faith in the Triune God who sent his son to save us from our sins, and who are devoted to living holy lives in the fear of the Lord–know that whatever ills they experience in this life will be made right on the last day, when believers receive their heavenly inheritance and when unbelievers face God on the day of judgment. It is far better to suffer now for doing good, than it is to escape the stigma of being a Christian in a pagan world or secularized world, but then face the holy God on the day of judgment.
The reality is that Christians will suffer in this present evil age. This is why knowing how the final chapter of human history turns out, gives us much needed perspective on our present struggles. In verse 14, Peter explains this perspective when he writes, “but even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled.” The grammar makes the verse a bit difficult to translate, but the sense is that if (i.e., when) a Christian suffers for righteousness’ sake (and in all likelihood we will), then we can count on the promise of God to make things right in the end (blessing). Suffering for righteousness’ sake does not refer to the kind of suffering all of Adam’s fallen race must endure at times–sickness, deprivation, disaster, and death. Peter is specifically referring to the suffering Christians endure from unbelievers inflicted upon God’s people because they are Christians. Peter’s word of encouragement echoes a saying of Jesus found in Matthew 10:28, “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” It was once said of the Calvinist martyrs in the low countries (i.e., the Netherlands and Belgium) in the 1550's, that they “feared no man because they feared God.”
Be Prepared to Give a Defense
Despite their difficult circumstances, the Christians of the Diaspora are not to fear those who have earthly power over them, and who seek to do them wrong. Of course, fear is the natural reaction in such situations. Peter describes one way his readers/hearers in verse 15 can deal with such fear. “In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” This verse is often cited (with some justification) as marching orders for Christians to be able to engage in basic apologetics (intellectual defenses of the Christian faith), so as to answer charges brought against the Christian faith by unbelievers. In our particular circumstances–secularized America–these challenges are often intellectual arguments raised about the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, the facts surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as the problem of evil and human suffering.
In the context of Peter’s historical circumstances, however, the situation Peter is addressing is what to do about the fear that Christians feel when dealing with those who oppress them. Peter tells Christians to “honor Christ the Lord as holy,” which is an echo from Isaiah 8:13, where we read, “but the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.” Remarkably, Peter applies language used of YHWH directly to Jesus, meaning that Jesus deserves the same reverence as YHWH. Christians of the Diaspora were persecuted because they refused to honor Caesar as a god, precisely because they know that Jesus is Caesar’s Lord even if Caesar doesn’t. By honoring Christ in our hearts–not Caesar–we are affirming that one day even the mighty Caesar himself will bow before Jesus and confess “Jesus is Lord” before facing eternal punishment.
Honoring Christ as Lord in our hearts then, is the solution to fear. Jesus is Lord over all of our enemies. But Peter does instruct Christians to be prepared to respond to pagan falsehoods and ignorance about Christianity by preparing themselves with answers as to why we hope in Jesus. To quote the slogan of the White Horse Inn, Christians are to know what they believe (catechism) as well as why they believe it (apologetic arguments for the truth claims of Christianity). Peter adds that it is not only important to be prepared with basic arguments for the truth of Christianity, but that Christians are to make their defense with gentleness and respect. This, of course, fits with what Peter has been saying throughout this entire section. When the truth of our faith is challenged, we give answers, yet with respect and humility.
A Good Conscience
The reason why Christian are to respond this way is spelled out in verses 16-17. “Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” Christians should not be afraid of those with power over us because we know that Jesus Christ is Lord. But our response to challenges grows much stronger if our answers are backed up by conduct consistent with the content of our faith, including the doctrine that we are to imitate our suffering servant Savior, even though he now sits at the right hand of the Father and will preside on the day of final judgment.
When those who hate the Christian faith curse and revile us, when they pressure us to conform to non-Christian behavior, when they persecute us because we are Christians, the best defense is a combination of good answers to their objections, and a clear conscience–i.e., that we have not sinned against them because they dare challenge and disagree with us, sometimes getting personal. Our good behavior in Christ will put our accusers to shame, and will blunt one of the strongest arguments non-Christians use against us; Christians are hypocrites. It is easy for someone outside the faith to ignore our answers to their objections if we curse and revile back. But it is very hard to dismiss the arguments of those who live out what they believe. Besides, Peter says, it is far better to suffer for doing good (if that be God’s will) then it is not to suffer by doing what is evil.
In terms of application, at first glance, Peter’s historic circumstances seem much different than ours. His readers were openly persecuted, driven from their homes, and losing both their property and livelihoods. Even though we are more “pressured to conform” than we are openly persecuted, I’m not so sure our circumstances are all that different. No doubt, American Christians have functioned as salt and light throughout our nation’s history, but there is every reason to believe that our culture is as nearly pagan as Rome’s, or at least it shows many similar characteristics, including overt hostility towards historic, evangelical Christianity, as well as any form of Christian ethics (especially sexual ethics).
In modern America, Christians are thought be self-righteous spoil-sports who reject science, deny people the right to marry and sleep with whomever they want, and who think we alone are right. The reality is that if you identify yourself as a Christian you will encounter similar situations to those Peter is describing. People will curse and revile you because they hate Jesus and all he stands for. We must be prepared to give a defense whenever challenged, and yet to do so in the right way.
The good news is that Jesus is still Lord, we are still his elect exiles, we are sprinkled with his blood, set apart for his purposes, and heirs to all of his promises. And we know this to be true because of a bloody cross and an empty tomb. Amen.
__________________________________
[1] Contra Davids’s assertion that Peter’s words do not refer to things like a doctrinal statement. See: Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 124.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 163.
[3] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 165.
[4] See the discussions in: Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 166 C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, The Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM Press 1960), 96-97; and D. A. Carson, “1 Peter” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1018.
[5] D. A. Carson, “1 Peter” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1037.
**The Last Class**
News and Updates:
This past week I wrapped up my Spring course (ecclesiology) at Westminster Seminary California. My three year term as visiting professor of systematic theology is up and a new full-time professor will be filling the gap which I had previously covered.
I truly enjoyed my time in the classroom, but am ready to step aside. Thanks to the WSC faculty for giving me the chance to finish up my career as a seminary professor! Thanks to the students who endured too many dad jokes and quips from the beloved Rod Rosenbladt (AKA “the prophet Rod”).
I’ll be plenty busy with the Riddleblog, The Blessed Hope Podcast, several book projects, as well as teaching the weekly adult Sunday school class at Christ Reformed Church.
My daily schedule won’t change much except I won’t be commuting to Escondido from North Orange County. And I’ll be retired. Well, sort of.
The “Comments Section” — Some Thoughts:
It used to be that the “comments section” of my favorite blogs and news sites were good places to participate in reasonable discussion, and even learn a few things about the topic under discussion. Now, most of these same spaces have morphed into battlefields for right-fighters, bullies, partisan hacks, kooks and conspiracy theorists, know-nothings, self-proclaimed experts, and internet theologians. People comment angrily on essays they’ve not read, they react to trigger words without consideration of what these words mean and how they are being used. And since like attracts like, you had better be in their “tribe,” because if you are not, a barrage of falsehoods and personal insults are sure to follow. Giving such people free reign in a comments section is like throwing chum into water filled with sharks. The few “comments” sections worth reading these days (yes, there are some left I still enjoy) now require extensive moderation to counteract the above mentioned bad behavior. As a matter of self-defense of my time and energy, I have gotten into the habit of deleting all comments that remotely fit the description above.
Much of this sort of discussion has moved to social media—which is why I use my social media accounts sparingly and primarily for announcements of new blog posts (full disclosure—I do post personal stuff on Instagram). But I miss the good, thoughtful comments and the discussions which took place at the old Riddleblog. So please feel free to comment on various posts, but keep in mind the need to stay on target, be decent, and civil. Grind your axe elsewhere.
Links:
- Here are two very helpful essays on eschatology from Dean Davis: Preterism: Exposition and Critique and Postmillennialism: An Exposition and Critique
- Dr. R. Scott Clark takes J-Mac and his Gospel According to Jesus, to the Reformation woodshed. There are five parts:
The Gospel According to John MacArthur (part 1)
The Gospel According to John MacArthur (part-2)
The Gospel According to John MacArthur (part 3)
The Gospel According to John MacArthur (part 4)
The Gospel According to John MacArthur (part 5)
- Here are PDF, epub, and mobi links to selected works of J. Gresham Machen
- A Great essay on Machen from D. G. Hart: “The Book That Packed a Punch—100 Years of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism”
- Proof that dogs are Man's Best Friend!
- So Cat Scratch fever Is Really a Thing: Man Goes Partially Blind -- Adopted Cat Scratched His Arm
A Blast from the Past:
Iconic music from an iconic scene in a so-so movie. When McQueen pops up in the bad guy’s rear view mirror . . .
Episode Synopsis:
There is little doubt that one of the most interesting, controversial, and a constant source of on-going speculation is the doctrine of the Antichrist.
Indeed, there has been so much written about the Antichrist by Christians–both ancient and modern–and so many references made to the Antichrist in film and popular culture, it is vital that we go back to the biblical accounts of this mysterious and evil figure to separate biblical fact from speculative fiction. What does the Bible actually say about the Antichrist?
Paul tackles the subject head on in his second Thessalonian letter. Soon after completion of his first Thessalonian letter, Paul received news that someone in the Thessalonian congregation was teaching that the day of the Lord had already come. If true, this meant that all of Christ’s promises to his people have already been realized. It also reminds us that Bible prophecy pundits and speculators have been around for a long time.
Paul exhorts the Thessalonians not to listen to such wild speculation because the day of the Lord had not yet come. Two things need to happen first. One is a great apostasy, and only then comes the revelation of a figure whom Paul identifies as “the man of sin.” Either the apostasy creates the conditions necessary for the man of sin to be revealed, or the apostasy is closely connected to the man of sin’s appearance. But Paul is clear that the day of the Lord has not come because these two things have not yet occurred when he writes his second letter.
Paul also tells the Thessalonians that something is preventing the appearance of the man of sin, a mysterious “restrainer” who, at some point, will cease to hold back the revelation of the man of sin (the Antichrist), who then will be destroyed by Jesus when the Lord returns.
Join us then, in this, part one of our discussion of the “man of sin,” as we tackle 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.
Show Notes:
My book on the Antichrist,The Man of Sin
KR: Hitler as an Antichrist Figure
B. B. Warfield on Antichrist
The Church Fathers, Origen, and Augustine on Antichrist
Louis Berkhof on the Historical Devopment of the Church's Doctrine of the Antichrist
KR: 666 and the Mark of the Beast
Antichrist -- He's Not Nice There are not words . . . A Riddleblog favorite!
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
Most Americans operate on the sincere but misguided assumption that deep down inside people are basically good. When we compare ourselves to others, we might be able to measure up pretty well. Sure, there are some who we might begrudgingly admit are better people than we are, but still, we usually do pretty well in most of our self-comparison tests made against others.
The problem with assuming that people are basically good is that it completely ignores the fact that ours is a fallen race, under the just condemnation from God, awaiting the well-deserved sentence of death and eternal punishment. The reality is that on judgment day God is not going to compare me to someone else, who is a fallen sinner like I am. Instead, God will measure me against the standard of his law (specifically, the Ten Commandments), which is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). And when God measures me using the standard of his law, it will become all too clear that like everyone else descended from Adam, I cannot meet God’s standard of absolute and complete obedience to his commandments. I am a sinner. I am guilty before God. I am under the sentence of death.
For most folks, this dilemma immediately raises the question of fairness. Is it fair for God to judge me against a standard I cannot possibly meet? The answer would be “no,” if we were to look at this question in a vacuum without any biblical context. The Bible teaches that Adam was not only the first human (from whom all humans are biologically descended), but that Adam was created holy, without sin, and with the ability to obey God’s commands. Adam was placed in Eden for a time of probation under the covenant of works with its condition, “do this (not eat from the forbidden tree) and live,” or “eat from the tree and die.” Adam chose the latter, bringing down the covenant curse of death upon the entire human race. Many people agree with Ben Franklin’s famous adage that the only two things in life which are inevitable are death and taxes, both of which I might add, stem from human sin. Yet, the fact remains, death is not natural to the human race. Death is the consequence of the fall of Adam.
When Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God immediately pronounced the covenant curse upon him. “And to Adam [God] said, `Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return’” (Genesis 3:17-19). Work became toil. Fruitful fields were now filled with weeds and thistles. Child-bearing became painful labor. More important, Adam now faced the sentence of death. And so do we.
By serving as our representative in Eden, Adam acted for us and in our place. Therefore we are as guilty before God for Adam’s act of rebellion as if we had been in Eden, personally rebelling against God as did the father of our race. The guilt of Adam’s sin was imputed or reckoned to us (Romans 5:12, 18-19). Not only did the fall of Adam render us guilty before God, we have all inherited a sinful nature from Adam, and it is from that sinful nature that our own particular acts of sin spring (Romans 7:5). We sin because we choose to sin. In fact, deep down inside we like to sin. it is our fallen nature to do so. This is a far cry from the notion that we are all basically good people who occasionally make mistakes. Rather we are sinful people, whose sinful propensities are restrained solely by the grace of a merciful God.
The Bible teaches that we are sinful by nature and by choice, and that we are not now, and never have been, innocent before God (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). As Paul recounts in Ephesians 2:1-3, we are dead in sin and are therefore by nature children of wrath. In Ephesians 4:17-19, Paul speaks of the effects of Adam’s fall upon us in the following terms. “You must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.” In Romans 3:9-20, Paul tells us that none are righteous before God, and that all of us have turned away from him. The consequences of Adam’s fall are grave. We are rebels and do not seek him. We are unrighteous in his sight. Our thinking is futile, we are darkened in our understanding, we are alienated from God, and we seek to gratify our sinful nature rather than seek to please God.
All of this stems from Adam’s act of rebellion in Eden. As someone once aptly put it, “in Adam’s fall, sinned we all.” Because Adam sinned, we are born with a sinful nature, we are guilty before God, all our thinking and doing is tainted by sin, we are already under the sentence of death, and we unable to do anything whatsoever to save ourselves.
Sin and death is the consequence of Adam’s fall. If we don’t grasp this harsh reality, we cannot possibly appreciate the good news of the gospel, and the grace and mercy bestowed upon us by the second Adam, the Lord Jesus.
Article 11: Election Unchangeable
Just as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, all-knowing, and almighty, so the election made by him can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled; neither can his chosen ones be cast off, nor their number reduced.
___________________________________
The synod appeals to the fact that God is immutable (unchanging) in both his being and his purpose. Therefore his decree of election is likewise unchanging. We know this to be the case because election is based solely upon God’s good pleasure and purpose, and occurs, as Paul says, “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). This means the full number of the elect is unchangeable.
This is an important point because it affirms that God does not change his mind or his purpose once his decree is executed as it unfolds in time and space. God does not add to the number of the elect when he sees someone doing something good he did not expect. Nor does God subtract from the number of the elect when one of those whom he has chosen happens to fall into sin. All of God’s elect will come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. This is God’s purpose in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-14; Romans 8:28-30) and it does not (indeed, cannot change).
The knowledge of this fact should give us great comfort because it means that no one who is presently numbered among the elect can fall away and be lost. Jesus clearly affirms this to be the case when he says “all that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). God is not capricious nor does he change his mind. This means that if we are truly in Christ at this moment, we can be assured that we will die in Christ, because he will never leave nor forsake us. We cannot simply slip through his fingers. Nor will he cast us away on a whim or in a moment of anger.
As Paul reminds the Philippians, “and I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6). Indeed, the Good Shepherd reminds us, “my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one” (John 10:27-30).
Just think of where we would be if God's decree was not immutable . . .
Here’s a simple and effective argument to use when contending for the truth of Christ’s resurrection.
According to John Warwick Montgomery . . .
The issue here is a miracle: a resurrection. How much evidence is required to establish such a fact? Could evidence ever justify excepting it?
Phenonmenally (and this is all we need worry about for evidential purposes) a resurrection can be regarded as death followed by a life, D. then L. Normally, the sequence is reversed, thus L. then D.
We are well acquainted with the phenomenal meaning of the constituent factors (though we do not understand the “secret” of life or why death must occur), and we have no difficulty in establishing evidential criteria to place a person in one category rather than in the other. Thus the eating of fish (Luke 24:36-43) is sufficient to classify the eater among the living, and a crucifixion among the dead. In Jesus' case the sequential order was reversed, but that has no epistemological bearing on the weight of evidence required to establish death or life. And if Jesus was dead at point A, and alive at point B, then resurrection has occurred.
From John Warwick Montgomery, “A Revelational Solution” in Human Rights and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1986), 154-155.
There are two common extremes regarding the relationship between faith and reason. The first is rationalism, which attempts to base theological claims on universal principles of reason and absolute knowledge, The second is fideism, which makes theological claims with no attempt at arguing their basis, usually in opposition to reason and knowledge.
However, “faith seeking understanding” is the proper relationship between belief and knowledge. This is consistent across the arts and sciences: in every pursuit of truth a basic interpretation of reality is presupposed.
The Christian faith is not opposed to reason, but to its suppression and perversion in unrighteousness against the truth of God. Therefore, faith must not be opposed to knowledge. Every Christian doctrine transcends reason’s comprehension, but does not contradict reasonable apprehension. A “ministerial” or “instrumental” use of reason in which God’s revelation is apprehended and interpreted is necessary to understand the basic teaching of the Bible. But a “magisterial” use of reason (in which human reason seeks to discover truth apart from divine revelation) is to be rejected. It is this magisterial use of reason against which Martin Luther railed,
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
According to Richard Muller, the “Reformed orthodox go to some length to emphasize the biblical foundations of their claims concerning the instrumental use of reason.” As generally understood, an instrumental use of reason served five distinct functions, summarized by Muller as follows:
- “In the first place, reason can be used to make clear points in divine revelation, as was the case when Christ demanded of his disciples, “Have you understood all that has been said to you?” They responded, “yea” (Matt. 13:15).
- Second, reason must be used in discussion and argument with others, as when the Bereans compared the words of Paul with Scripture (Acts 17:11).
- Next, reason is necessary in the work of explication, even as Ezra and Nehemiah taught the people reasonably (Neh. 8:9).
- Fourth, in order to discern falsehood it was necessary to “explore the things that differ” (Phil 1:10).
- Finally, reason is useful to vindicate the truth from objections, as Paul himself does in the ninth chapter of Romans.
Muller concludes, “Although fallen reason cannot be the principium fidei [the foundation of faith] it is also clear that faith can occur only in rational creatures and that even in Scripture, rational process—both the subjective capacity and the objective light according to which concepts are formed—is integral to the life of faith.”
From Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 243. The same appears in an expanded form in the revised edition of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1: Prolegomena to Theology, 2nd. ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 399.
Christians in American do not encounter the same kind of persecution which Christians among Peter’s first century audience were facing. Many of those to whom Peter was writing were forcibly displaced from their homes and land by an edict from a previous Roman emperor, Claudius, because they refused to worship pagan deities, and did not consider the Roman emperor to be a “god.” Peter speaks of these struggling Christians as elect exiles and describes them as a chosen race. The apostle is writing to remind them of their living hope and sanctification in Christ, which will help them cope with the very difficult circumstances which they were then facing. Peter’s original audience experienced open hostility from their government and their pagan neighbors. The opposition we face is a bit more subtle, but no less dangerous. In the thoroughly secularized America in which we live, we are not persecuted so much as we are pressured to conform to non-Christian ways of thinking and doing. Peter’s discussion of the relationship between husbands and wives will expose some of these non-Christian ways, and challenge us how to think of this foundational relationship within human society in the light of God’s word.
In a lengthy section of his first epistle (vv. 2:13-3:7), Peter is addressing specific societal relationships held in common by Christians and non-Christians–elements of the unwritten but widely accepted “household code” which defined many of the social relationships within Greco-Roman society. These relationships include the authority of civil government, the relationship between slaves and masters, and the relationship between husbands and wives. All of these fall under the heading of what we now call natural law. Although Christians and non-Christians both value these social institutions, God has spoken about these same relationships in his word, and so Peter is writing to do two things: 1) To remind his hearers that Christians do indeed regard these relationships as the foundation of society just as do Greco-Roman pagans, and 2). To correct whatever misconceptions his Christians readers/hearers may have regarding these relationships in light of God’s word.
When we study a letter such as 1 Peter which is filled with imperatives and commands, we must remind ourselves that these imperatives are given to Christian believers whom God has chosen and then caused to be born again, and who already have been set apart (sanctified) by God through the sprinkled blood of Jesus to live lives of holiness before the Lord. The imperatives of 1 Peter are given to Christian believers so as to identify themselves as citizens of a heavenly kingdom who look forward to a heavenly inheritance even while they dwell in the civil (or common) kingdom. Christians distinguish themselves from non-Christians through our doctrine (our profession of faith in the triune God who sent his son to save us from our sins) and in how we live our lives. We are to fix our hope upon Jesus, we live holy lives which reflect the holiness of our creator and redeemer, and we live in the fear of the Lord, because the one we invoke as our Father is also judge of all the earth.
In the first half of chapter 2, Peter exhorts his readers to keep their conduct honorable before the Gentiles who are persecuting them, so that those who speak evil of God’s people will be silenced and forced to give glory to God on the day of judgment. Christians must realize that the pagans who distrust them are watching how Christians conduct themselves. Peter is concerned for church’s witness to the saving work of Jesus Christ, as well as with discrediting those false accusations pagans were making against Christians–i.e., that Christians reject all civil authority because they do not worship Caesar.
In the last half of chapter 2 (vv. 13-17), Peter instructs the elect exiles to whom he is writing to submit to the civil magistrate who persecutes and oppresses them, while in vv. 18-25, Peter instructs Christian who are slaves and servants, to likewise respond to their masters with proper submission. Peter directs all oppressed and persecuted believers to keep the example of Jesus before their eyes, who, Peter reminds them, suffered on behalf of his people as the perfect sufferer, whose life and death secures the salvation of God’s people, and earns for them a heavenly inheritance beyond all human imagining.
In the first seven verses of chapter 3, Peter addresses yet another element of the Greco-Roman household code, this time the relationship between husbands and wives. As in our earlier discussion of both civil government and slavery, some historical background here is essential if we are to make sense of Peter’s discussion, and then draw appropriate application to our own situation. Peter has been concentrating on those circumstances under which Christians have little power, and in which they can face especially cruel and harsh treatment from unbelievers.[1] All of Peter’s readers face a hostile Roman government, but are to submit to the governing authorities except in those circumstances where Caesar commands that Christians violate God’s will–under such circumstances Christians are to obey God rather than men (cf. Acts 5:29), even if Christians must take their lumps for doing so.
Some of Peter’s readers are servants or slaves–a large social class (or caste) of former prisoners of war or their descendants bound to serve all kinds of masters (some cruel, some kind and generous) under all kinds of circumstances (from forced labor to education of the household’s children). Peter tells the servants in his audience to submit to their masters just as Jesus submitted to those who abused him and put him to death. This not only bears witness to pagans about the truth of the gospel (Christ’s sinless life and sacrificial death), but gives the cruel master no reason to abuse his Christian servants.
When we come to chapter 3, Peter’s focus shifts to yet another social group which figures prominently in the household code–husbands and wives, including wives with unbelieving husbands. In the Greco-Roman world of Peter’s day, wives had few legal rights and were considered the property of their husbands, much as slaves and servants were viewed as property of their masters. Just as slaves were to submit to their masters even when their masters were cruel, so too, Christian wives are to submit to their husbands, even if they are unbelievers. Peter urges such submission on two familiar grounds: 1). To be a witness to the saving merits of Jesus, and 2). So as to not give cruel husbands a reason to abuse their wives.
Since the Greeks and Romans viewed wives as property of their husbands who could do whatever they wished to them, Peter is writing, in part, to correct this erroneous notion by making sure (in v. 7) that Christian husbands treat their wives with appropriate honor, and show them the respect due them as fellow believers and co-heirs in Christ. In contrast to the low-standing of wives (and of women in general) in the Greco-Roman household codes, the Scriptures are clear that wives are divine image-bearers as are their husbands (Genesis 1:26), that Christian husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), and that a wife even has authority over her husband’s body (1 Corinthians 7:3-4), meaning that a husband is bound to be faithful to his wife and have no other sexual partners.
In this sense, Christianity is thoroughly counter-cultural and challenges the Greco-Roman household code at a number of fundamental points. There can be no question that it is Christianity has done the most to advance the rights and equality of women throughout the history of Western Civilization. When we view the New Testament as a whole, women are given equal status with men before Christ (Galatians 3:28), and because they excel at prayer, mercy, and charity, they are to use these gifts in the church for the common good. Nevertheless, the New Testament is also clear that the offices of minister, elder, and deacon (through which Christ rules his church) are limited to men, and that Christian wives are to submit to Christian husbands in those matters related to spiritual things within the home–unless through unrepentant sin and abusive conduct the husband disqualifies himself as one worthy of such submission.
Peter is writing to first-century people living under a Greco-Roman household code derived from natural law but which has been corrupted to a large degree by human sinfulness. Peter’s readers have never once entertained the thought of an egalitarian view of gender roles as we find them in the modern world, and they could not even conceive of women as emancipated individuals with the same societal rights as men–as our culture does. The influence of Christianity across the centuries enables us to take for granted what was not even on Peter’s radar. The apostle is writing to first century Christian wives facing a situation quite common in the Mediterranean world in which Christianity was spreading rapidly–what does a wife do when she becomes a Christian, and her husband does not? If she is now bound to Christ (as his servant) is she then free to ignore her obligations as a wife because she has a pagan husband? Peter’s answer is “no.” How does she now relate to the household code of that day which grants her few if any rights, and in which she is expected to submit to her husband no matter pagan or cruel he may be. Peter tells her.
In verses 1-2 of chapter 3, Peter writes, “likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” The same principle applies here as it did in relationship to an anti-Christian government and to a cruel master abusing his servants. Wives are to be subject to their husbands–even non-Christian husbands–in order that their conduct honor Christ (in the case of believers) and will point their unbelieving husbands (should they have one) to the saving work of Jesus.
One commentator puts the matter this way. “Peter engaged in a play on words, saying that those who are disobeying the word’ (logos) may be convertedwithout words’ (lit., without a word,’ *aneu logou*) by their wives’ behavior.” The writer goes on to say, “bywithout a word’ meant wives should refrain from badgering their husbands about their need for conversion. The spoken words of wives had not had an effect, and so they were called upon to live out the gospel before their husbands. The primary influence on husbands will not be the speech of wives but their godly behavior.’”[2] In the case where a Christian wife has told her husband about Jesus and the gospel, and he does not convert, Peter says, the wife is not to continually nag her husband, but live out the kind of humility Peter is describing (imitating the life of Jesus) which removes or deflates his objections, and reduces his cruel behavior (should there be any).
The application is simple. In 2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul instructs that Christians not marry non-Christians. If you are single, do not do marry a non-Christian. If you are already married to a non-Christian, Peter instructs you to be the best spouse you can be, to honor your unbelieving spouse, and to show them love and respect. Share Christ with them when you can, and if they are not interested, let them witness your respectful and pure conduct. By the grace of God, you may see them come to faith in Jesus Christ!
As for submission to a cruel husband, our situation is much different from the one Peter describes. In the first century, a wife who was abused by her husband had no legal recourse because such behavior was not a violation of Roman law (a crime). In our culture, domestic violence (as defined by the penal code) is not only a sin which requires confession and repentance, it is considered a crime, and the abuser may be subject to arrest, and prosecution. The Greco-Roman household code allowed men to abuse and dominate their wives. Neither the Bible (given its view of woman and the way their husbands should treat them with love, honor, and respect) nor modern penal codes allow or condone physical violence, threats, or intimidation, nor intense or prolonged verbal abuse. A Christian spouse need never suffer such abusive or violent treatment. If it happens, report it to a trusted friend, elder, or pastor, or the police (if the threat is serious enough).
In verses 3-4, Peter addresses the matter of modesty and beauty. “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.” Peter’s words are almost identical to Paul’s in 1 Timothy 2:9–10. There Paul writes, “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” These words require a bit of explanation given our different historical context.
The Greco-Roman household code insisted upon women covering their hair (an object of male lust), and even their faces with veils. The Islamic use of the hijab (the woman’s head-covering) is a hold-over from this ancient practice. Women of the Roman world (Jews, Romans, and Greeks) were not to dress provocatively (so as to look like men,), nor were they to dress seductively in public to attract the attention of men who were not their husbands. The ancients knew what we know; women have the power to drive men crazy by what they wear, or do not wear, as the case may be. Women were to keep themselves covered in the presence of men, because this was thought to be the way in which male lust was kept under control.
The rationale, in part, for this stress on external modesty is that the Greco-Roman world was filled with temple prostitutes, who, through sexual relations, unite their patrons to the particular deity which the prostitute served. These women dressed the part–as immodest as you can get. Their services extended far beyond sexual sin into the realm of paganism, because the participant’s bodies were offered to the “gods” to procure increased fertility, or to gain material blessing. It was also thought that sexual relations with a temple prostitute could stave off bad weather, natural disasters, or even war–or at least that was the excuse men gave to allow such prostitution in virtually every city in the Roman empire.
In the Greco-Roman world, one’s social standing determined how women dressed. With the poorer classes (i.e. slaves), modesty was tied to a woman’s clothing–the more clothing the better–to distinguish themselves from prostitutes. Wealthy women, on the other hand, went to great lengths to demonstrate their higher social standing by adorning their hair with braids, and by wearing their expensive jewels and bangles in public. In some instances, wealth and high social standing provided an excuse and an opportunity to ignore the household code. Given the biblical teaching about human sinfulness, Christians understood that wearing modest clothing cannot deal with the sinful human heart. Nor does adorning oneself with expensive jewels make a woman beautiful. This is where the Greco-Roman household code failed–it could not stop lust and sexual sin, and it divided people into classes, with poorer women either envying or resenting those who wore the hairstyles and jewels of the wealthy (flaunting the code), or in wealthy women seeking to impress one another through ignoring the code’s insistence upon modest dress.
Peter’s response is that Christians have a different standard of modesty and beauty altogether. True modesty and beauty before God do not come about because a woman avoids looking like a prostitute by covering herself from head to toe with a burka–besides, men will spend all day try to imagine what is hidden underneath. On the flip side, adorning oneself with tokens of wealth and high social standing (fashion) does not make a woman beautiful. Donald Gray Barnhouse–former pastor of the famed Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia–made this point quite well describing how a scantily clad woman could be rescued from a burning building in the middle of the night and be perfectly modest, while another woman–to use his terms–could be at a dinner party wearing five dresses and five mink stoles and be positively immodest. It is not the external appearance Peter is addressing, but the attitude of heart.
There is nothing wrong with being fashionable, or having a trendy hairdo or clothing, or wearing fine jewelry. Peter is not saying frumpiness is next to godliness. But external adorning is a cultural thing, and it varies from place to place, from culture to culture. What one culture considers a sign of beauty, another sees as unacceptable. What one culture considers to be modest is typical of clothing worn by prostitutes in another. This should be a caution to all of us about the foolishness of forming our personal identities, setting life-goals, and forming our self image in light of “external adorning,” or through external modesty. Peter is simply saying that Christian women should not view their sense of fashion as a means to show off their wealth, call undo attention to themselves in a narcissistic way (which is the fashion standard in much of American culture— “look at me!”), or to encourage stares from men.
Peter tells Christian wives that true beauty is something which is internal–it is not external, nor is it tied to hairstyles or fashion. Modesty is an attitude of the heart, and true beauty is inward and found in the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. Beauty, in God’s sight, is found in a willingness to follow the example of Jesus (in his quiet humility) and to be subject to your husband in those areas where God has established male headship in the home.
Peter appeals to redemptive history to illustrate his point. Alluding to Genesis 18 and the account of Sarah and Abraham, in verses 5-6, Peter points out, “for this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.” In Isaiah 51:2, both Abraham and Sarah are said to be father and mother (in a spiritual sense) of all faithful Israelites. “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for he was but one when I called him, that I might bless him and multiply him.”
In the Genesis account, Sarah adorned herself with true beauty through her submission to her husband, even calling him her lord, when she made an offhand comment about becoming pregnant even though she was post-menopausal. Abraham too was an old man, and Sarah could have laughed at his claims that they would together produce an heir. But she does not mock her husband, and through her hope in God’s promise, Sarah becomes the spiritual mother of all those who likewise imitate her example–even of those Gentile women reading Peter’s letter, since through faith in Jesus Christ they are now citizens of the new Israel. As her spiritual children, Christian wives are to follow her example, do good to their husbands, knowing that God will reward and bless all those who put their trust in him.[3]
When Peter speaks of things which are frightening, I think it safe to assume that Peter is speaking about those situations in which Christian wives of unbelieving husbands will be called upon to obey God rather than their husbands. Like Sarah, women in such a difficult situation are to look beyond their current circumstances–which seem impossible–and to trust that God will some how and in some way vindicate them, just as God fulfilled his promise to Abraham to produce an heir through Sarah his wife.
In verse 7, Peter turns his attention to Christian husbands, despite his earlier focus upon those who found themselves likely to be oppressed by others–Christian citizens in the Roman empire, servants by cruel masters, and Christian wives with unbelieving husbands. What Peter commands of husbands was absolutely revolutionary in the Greco-Roman world. “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”
Having defined true beauty as a matter of the heart–in contrast to the false notion of beauty and modesty as mere external matters of dress and appearance–Peter now addresses a factual matter which many in our culture refuse to accept even though it is fully apparent every time we look at ourselves in the mirror. Men and women are biologically and emotionally different. The difference is not a matter of equality before God–men and women “are both heirs of the grace of life”–but of biology. Peter commands Christian husbands (yet another imperative), to reject one of the most fundamental elements of the Greco-Roman household code–that a man can do whatever he wants with his wife because he is physically stronger, and therefore thought by the ancients to be superior.
The fact of the matter is that men are stronger physically than our wives (in most cases)–and women are weaker vessels (physically) than their husbands. A man can physically intimidate his wife because he is stronger. Under the household code, wives could be beaten by their husbands. No one called the cops (there weren’t any to call), no one told the husband to stop, or that it was wrong to do so. Peter, however, tells Christian husbands in no uncertain terms that this is completely unacceptable. It is because our wives are physically weaker, and because they are joint heirs with Christ, that Christians husbands are to treat wives with understanding. This “understanding” is the “knowledge” of God’s will regarding how Christian husbands are to treat their wives. Christian husbands are to show their wives respect (honor) and to realize that even though our wives are physically weaker, they are not in any sense inferior. Husbands are to love their wives.
In fact, wives are (as are all Christian women) heirs with their husbands (and Christian men) of the grace of life–eternal life and our heavenly inheritance. Peter warns that those Christian men who do not honor their wives and who do not treat them as equals before the Lord, risk having their prayers “hindered.” Selfish and sinful behavior is always an impediment to prayer, but to seek to exploit the weakness of our spouses is not only sinful, it drives that one human being closest to us (our spouse) away, and the husband’s actions exasperates his wife, making it difficult for her to submit his headship. An abusive, tyrannical, or cruel husband creates a climate in which both husband and wife sin against each another.
As Charles Cranfield points out, one vital thing to notice in this passage is that Peter is speaking of the “duties” of husbands and wives, not the “rights” of husbands and wives as our culture tends to do. Both wives (vv. 1-6) and husbands (v. 7) are told what they ought do for the other, not to what each is entitled to receive from the other.[4] Peter’s exhortation speaks volumes to those of us in the modern world who are preoccupied with what we get out of a relationship, rather than with what we contribute to the well-being of our spouses. Life is not always about me. Peter directs us to focus upon the well-being of our spouse, and not worry about those “rights” to which we think we are entitled. To put the interests of others first, is to imitate Jesus–the suffering servant–who gave himself to save us from our sins.
Upon hearing Peter’s exhortations, there will be those among us who feel as though the apostle’s words condemn us because we are guilty of doing all the things Peter has told us not to do. Remember that Peter is talking to people already set apart by God and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus–that blood which avails for us for all of the sins we have committed, even toward our spouses. These exhortations from the apostle are given to correct non-Christian ways of thinking and doing, so as to help us be better witnesses to gospel of Jesus Christ to unbelievers around us, and to lessen their anger toward Christians.
One of the places we must challenge the unbelief around us is by reminding ourselves that God’s standards of conduct are often not those of modern America. Despite everything our culture tells us, a woman’s beauty is not external, it is inward–the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. A man’s greater strength is not a sign of superiority, but carries with it the duty of loving and honoring our wives, seeing in them a weaker vessel for whom we are to provide, and of whom we are to love and protect. In doing these things we not only honor our spouses, we honor the Savior who gave himself for us for all of those times we have failed to do these very things.
___________________________________________
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 148.
[2] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 150.
[3] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 155.
[4] C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, The Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM Press 1960), 92.
You can order these from The Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore for 50% off. But hurry, the sale ends soon (May 5)!
The First Two Volumes of the Classic B. B. Warfield Collection
Here’s my endorsement:
“Many of us first encountered B. B. Warfield through the five Warfield volumes published by P&R from 1948 to 1958. My own Warfield volumes are thoroughly highlighted and well worn. I have purchased duplicate volumes over the years to mark up all over again. All but one of the Warfield volumes had fallen out of print, so I was thrilled to learn of the republication of this new and entirely updated version of the five-volume set. I cannot recommend these volumes highly enough or sufficiently thank the folks at P&R for bringing the ‘Warfield set’ back into print. May a new generation of readers discover America’s greatest theologian as I once did.”
Kim Riddlebarger
Visiting Professor of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California; author, The Lion of Princeton: B. B. Warfield as Apologist and Theologian
Episode Synopsis:
Paul has already written one letter to the Thessalonians to clear up the confusion in their midst about the Lord’s return on the last day. Paul has instructed the congregation that should anyone die before the Lord’s return, they will not miss out on any of the benefits secured for them by Jesus Christ (including eternal life) as some feared. Paul also told them that since the Lord will return as a thief in the night (suddenly and unexpectedly), there should be no speculation among them about the date or timing of Christ’s return.
But not long after the first letter was sent, additional news came to Paul that someone in Thessalonica had been teaching that the day of the Lord had already come. So, Paul writes a second letter to the Thessalonians to inform them that the day of the Lord had not come since two as yet future event must occur before Jesus returns. First, there will come a time of great apostasy, and then will come the revelation of the man of sin–a figure often spoken of as the Antichrist. Furthermore, these things cannot happen until a present and mysterious restraining power is lifted so that the man of sin is revealed, only to be destroyed by the Lord Jesus at his return.
Paul opens this second letter by reminding the Thessalonians that when Jesus returns he will bring about God’s righteous judgment–when all accounts are settled and everything will be made right. But Christians need not fear this day because the coming day of God’s wrath, vengeance, and vindication is their day of deliverance when God is glorified in his saints. Paul also writes to these Christians to encourage them to persevere against the opposition they were facing, and reveal the content of his prayers for them. There is much here, so get out your Bible and join us for a look at 2 Thessalonians chapter 1.
Show notes:
Vern Poythress: 2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism
Herman Bavinck on God's Righteous Wrath
J. I. Packer, "What Manner of Thing Is the Wrath of God
KR: "Hear Anything Lately About the Wrath of God? The Silence Is Deafening
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
In Hosea 6:7, the prophet records the word of the Lord as follows: “But like Adam they [Israel and Judah] transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Based upon this declaration it is clear that Adam stood in a covenant relationship to his creator while in Eden, and that Adam had indeed violated the terms of that covenant through a personal act of disobedience. In this declaration from Hosea, we find two very important elements of Christian theology as understood by Reformed Christians. The first is that Adam was created in covenant relationship with God–this covenant was not arbitrarily imposed upon Adam after God created him. Second, Adam’s willful violation of this covenant brought down horrible consequences upon himself, as well as upon the entirety of the human race whom he represents and which has biologically descended from him.
The identity and character of this covenant is a matter of long-standing debate. The covenant of works or, as it is also known, the “covenant of creation,” lies at the heart of the balance of redemptive history both before and after Adam’s fall into sin. Indeed, it is important to acknowledge the presence of this covenant from the very beginning of human history for a number of reasons. Because Adam was created as a divine image-bearer, he was therefore in a covenant relationship from the first moment of his existence, because moral and rational creatures are by their very nature obligated to obey their creator. If Adam should disobey the demands of this covenant–perfect obedience in thought, word, and deed—then Adam and all those whom he represents (the entire human race) are subject to the covenant curse, which is death.
The presence of this covenant from the beginning of creation means that if Adam and his descendants are to be delivered from the consequences of their collective rebellion against God, then any deliverance from the curse will require God’s saving grace and redemptive acts to remove the covenant curse and render Adam’s fallen race righteous before the Lord, just as Adam was righteous prior to his fall into sin. The covenant of grace of which Jesus Christ serves as covenant mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), only makes sense against the backdrop of humanity’s collective fall into sin and the resulting curse (death) when Adam rebelled against his creator and broke the terms of the covenant of works.
Although the term “covenant of works” does not appear in the creation account, all of the elements of such a covenant are clearly present in Eden. First, there are two parties involved (Adam and his creator), with God imposing the terms of this covenant upon Adam and his descendants. Second, there is a condition set forth by God as spelled out in Genesis 2:17–“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Although this condition comes in the form of a specific prohibition (if you eat from the tree you will die), it can also be framed as a positive theological principle which describes the essence of this covenant: “Do this [i.e., obey by not eating] and live.” Third, there is a blessing promised upon perfect obedience (eternal life) as well as a threatened curse (death) for any act of disobedience. If Adam obeys his creator and does not eat from the tree, then he will receive God’s promised blessing–he will be confirmed in eternal life. But should Adam eat from the tree (as he did), then he and all those whom he represents (the entire human race) will come under the covenant curse–which is death.
All three of these elements are present in the creation account, and in light of the declaration in Hosea 6:7, there can be little question that such a covenant exists and that it is founded upon a blessing/curse principle. When we look at these three elements in a bit more detail, we see that not only are the elements of a covenant clearly present in Eden, but we also take note that all of subsequent redemptive history will operate on the blessing/curse principle in which eternal life is promised to Adam and his descendants upon the condition of perfect obedience to the commands of God in all their thinking, doing, and speech. Should Adam perfectly obey the terms of the covenant, God will reward him with eternal life. Adam would not live on as mortal, but Adam will be confirmed in righteousness and given eternal life.
But once Adam sinned and came under the covenant curse, such perfect and complete obedience was impossible for Adam or any of his descendants to render unto the Lord. Indeed, it will take a second Adam, Jesus Christ, to render such perfect and personal obedience on behalf of those whom he presents under the terms of the covenant of grace. And this Savior must not only perfectly obey all the commandments of God, he must provide a suitable means through which the guilt of our sin in Adam, as well as the guilt which attaches to us because of our own sins, can be removed. Not only must the second Adam be perfectly obedient for us and in our place, he must also go to the cross where he will suffer and die for our sins, thereby removing from us the curse which comes upon all of us who are the children of Adam.
The doing and dying of Jesus (recounted in the good news of the gospel) only makes sense against the backdrop of the bad news–the broken covenant of works in which we all sinned in Adam, but we are given eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Romans 5:12-19).
Article 10: Election Based on God’s Good Pleasure
But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, “When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad …, she [Rebecca] was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (Rom. 9:11–13). Also, “All who were appointed for eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
________________________________________________
As we saw in the previous articles, the Canons point out that the only biblical basis for God’s choice of a multitude of sinners so vast they cannot be counted to become vessels of honor and not remain vessels fit for destruction (Romans 9:22-23) is to be found solely in God’s own inscrutable will (Isaiah 46:8-10; Psalm 115:3; 135:6). Likewise, the reason why God passes over others allowing them to perish is known only to himself (Romans 9:14-16). Whenever this topic is discussed, we must keep firmly in mind that since all of Adam’s children are sinners by nature and by choice (Romans 5:12-19) and therefore guilty before him, no one deserves to be chosen unto eternal life. Instead, we are by nature children of wrath (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3).
To put it yet another way, the only reason why any are chosen to be redeemed from their sin is to be found in God’s eternal purposes and not because there is something within the creature which causes or motivates God to choose us. The canons affirm the clear teaching of Scripture–God’s election of sinners to be saved is based upon God’s sovereign pleasure and purpose, and not upon anything good within our hearts or wills, since we are seen as fallen in Adam when we are chosen.
The Scriptures confront us with the fact that we are sinners who are guilty before God, filled with impure motives, and also finite creatures with limited knowledge and life-spans. Then, when we encounter the Holy God who created all things, knows all things, and who has no such creaturely limitations as our own, we realize that this is the God with whom we have to do. In light of the fall of our race in Adam, what good or value could God possibly foresee in us that would cause him to choose us? He is holy, we are anything but. No, there is nothing good in us according to Romans 3:10-12. God doesn’t choose us because we are smarter, better-looking, less offensive, produce more good works, will respond to the gospel when we hear it (and how do people dead in sin do that?), or are more spiritual than others.
Rather, we are chosen from the same common lump of fallen human clay to become vessels of glory for reasons known only to God (Romans 9:21). Those who are not chosen remain as they are, guilty for Adam’s sin and their own, and therefore destined to remain vessels of wrath—justly so. The elect receive grace. Those not chosen receive justice. No one is treated unjustly or unfairly as our contemporaries so often complain when encountering this doctrine.
Election is a great mystery to us and it is this very point about which most people object–democratic Americans especially. John Calvin once spoke of this as the “horrible [awesome] decree.” It is only natural that we would want God to choose everyone. It is certainly understandable why we would want God to choose our unsaved loved ones. Of course, we want God to do things our way, or else we will protest. But who are we as sinful rebels, mere creatures who do not have full understanding of what it means for the Holy God to be offended by our sin, to then complain about how the creator of all things saves a multitude of people who do not deserve to be saved? We don't like this doctrine not because it has no biblical basis, but because it forces us to bow the knee before our Creator and Redeemer and say, “not my will be done, but thine.”
The fact is, Scripture teaches that God elects a multitude of Adam's fallen children based upon reasons known only to himself–reasons which he chooses not to reveal to us. If any of Adam’s fallen children are delivered from the consequences of their sin, it is only because God elects them in Christ and then redeems them through Jesus Christ’s saving merits. If any perish eternally, it is because God has passed over them and leaves them to the just consequences of their own sin and their sin in Adam.
When we talk of election, God must get all praise, glory and honor. And we must accept all the blame. This is why people don't like the topic of election, especially when we realize it is grounded in God’s good pleasure and not upon human desire and goodness.
Paul’s two age eschatology can be seen in various ways throughout Paul’s letters.[1] Here are several examples:
•First, the contrast which Paul develops in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49, between Adam (the first man, the biological and federal head of the human race, whose disobedience brought about sin, guilt, and death) and the “last” Adam (Christ), whose one act of obedience brings righteousness and life to his people. Adam is of this age, Christ is of the age to come.
•Second, Paul’s contrast between “flesh,” (what we are in Adam, fallen, and “jars of clay”–2 Corinthians 4:7) and “the gift of the Spirit.” Those who are indwelt by the Spirit possess eternal life according to 2 Corinthians 2:4-18, where Paul contrasts what is seen with what is unseen.[2] Paul also speaks of those who are sealed by the indwelling Holy Spirit until the day of the redemption of our bodies at the resurrection (Ephesians 1:11-14).
•Third, Paul contrasts death as the inevitable outcome of life in this present evil age with eternal life, which is described as participation in the new creation, inaugurated by Jesus at his resurrection (Romans 8:20-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; Colossians 1:15-17).
•Fourth, Paul speaks of the wrath of God, which is the fate of all things associated with “this age” in contrast with the reception of the promised inheritance (all that is ours in Christ, i.e., resurrection life, eschatological glory, etc., as in I Thessalonians 1:10; Ephesians 2:3, 5:6).
•Fifth, Paul contrasts the law (associated with this age, and a major point of discussion in Galatians 2-4) with the gospel (God’s work of redemption in Christ). This, of course, is a major theme in confessional Protestant theology.
•Sixth, Paul sets out the fact that his Christian readers possess a simultaneous earthly citizenship, while at the same time they are said to be citizens of heaven, who are presently seated and raised with Christ (Philippians 3:20-21; Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 3:1-5).
•Seventh, an important example we should mention refers specifically to the issue Paul faces in Galatia; the two kinds of righteousness (mentioned by Luther, among others). On the one hand, there is a righteousness gained through obedience (which, Paul says is rubbish, Philippians 3:8) and amounts to rejecting Christ and giving up on the work of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:1-6). This kind of righteousness belongs to this present evil age. On the other, there is the free gift of righteousness which comes to us from through faith in Jesus (Romans 3:19-25; Philippians 3:9) which is the righteousness of the age to come. The Judaizers sought the former, while Paul preaches the latter, a righteousness from God that is revealed in the gospel, which is received through faith, and which cannot be earned by conformity to Jewish law.
This two-age eschatology–which is foundational to a number of theological assertions Paul will make throughout his letters is not only very problematic for millennarianism (pre and post), it is also the basis for Paul’s understanding of the course of redemptive history. Constantine Campbell is correct when he insists, “Paul’s two-age eschatological structure is beyond doubt.”[3]
_________________________________________
[1] For an exhaustive study, see Campbell, Paul and the Hope of Glory.
[2] Mark Seifrid point out that Paul is not speaking in platonic terms but eschatological terms. What is present now is contrasted with what is to come. See Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2014), 219.
[3] Campbell, Paul and the Hope of Glory, 373.
Taken from "For Freedom!" -- An Expositional Commentary on Galatians, 28-29.
The excerpt which follows was originally published in The Expositor, 8th ser., v. xv, 1918, pp. 90-110.
It has been republished in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol ii, Biblical Doctrines, 235-252.
Paul is writing the Address of his Epistle to the Romans, then, with his mind fixed on the divine dignity of Christ. It is this divine Christ who, he must be understood to be telling his readers, constitutes the substance of his Gospel-proclamation. He does not leave us, however, merely to infer this. He openly declares it. The Gospel he preaches, he says, concerns precisely “the Son of God … Jesus Christ our Lord.” He expressly says, then, that he presents Christ in his preaching as “our Lord.” It was the divine Christ that he preached, the Christ that the eye of faith could not distinguish from God, who was addressed in common with God in prayer, and was looked to in common with God as the source of all spiritual blessings. Paul does not speak of Christ here, however, merely as “our Lord.” He gives Him the two designations: “the Son of God … Jesus Christ our Lord.” The second designation obviously is explanatory of the first. Not as if it were the more current or the more intelligible designation. It may, or it may not, have been both the one and the other; but that is not the point here.
The point here is that it is the more intimate, the more appealing designation. It is the designation which tells what Christ is to us. He is our Lord, He to whom we go in prayer, He to whom we look for blessings, He to whom all our religious emotions turn, on whom all our hopes are set—for this life and for that to come. Paul tells the Romans that this is the Christ that he preaches, their and his Lord whom both they and he reverence and worship and love and trust in. This is, of course, what he mainly wishes to say to them; and it is up to this that all else that he says of the Christ that he preaches leads.
The other designation—“the Son of God”—which Paul prefixes to this in his fundamental declaration concerning the Christ that he preached, supplies the basis for this. It does not tell us what Christ is to us, but what Christ is in Himself. In Himself He is the Son of God; and it is only because He is the Son of God in Himself, that He can be and is our Lord. The Lordship of Christ is rooted by Paul, in other words, not in any adventitious circumstances connected with His historical manifestation; not in any powers or dignities conferred on Him or acquired by Him; but fundamentally in His metaphysical nature. The designation “Son of God” is a metaphysical designation and tells us what He is in His being of being. And what it tells us that Christ is in His being of being is that He is just what God is. It is undeniable.
You can read the entire essay here: Warfield -- "The Christ that Paul Preached"
Those Christians receiving this letter from the apostle Peter are aliens in their own land. They have been displaced from their homes by a decree from the Roman emperor Claudius several years earlier. As elect exiles, beloved by God, and members of Christ’s church, Christians of the diaspora in Asia Minor are to consider themselves as the New Israel enduring their own time in the wilderness. In God’s sight, believers in Jesus compose a chosen race, a spiritual house, a royal priesthood, and holy nation dwelling within the midst of the civil kingdom. In the first half of 1 Peter 2, Peter exhorts these Christians to keep their conduct honorable before the Gentiles persecuting them, so that those who speak evil of them will be forced to give glory to God. In the last half of chapter 2 (vv. 13-17), Peter instructs these elect exiles how to view the civil magistrate which oppresses them. Then, in vv. 18-25, Peter instructs those Christians who are slaves and servants, how to respond to their masters. If Christians are to live honorable lives before the watching Gentiles, they must have a proper view of the civil government. As for those who were bound to their masters–the large caste of slaves in the Roman empire, many of who were Christians–they are to serve their masters and follow the example of Jesus, who, more than all men, suffered unspeakable injustice and humiliation.
At the end of chapter 1 of his first epistle, Peter gives three imperatives to those believers whom God caused to be born again, who already have been sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, and who are set apart (sanctified) by God for obedience. These imperatives are Peter’s exhortation to fix our hope upon Jesus (v. 13), to live holy lives which reflect the holiness of our creator and redeemer (vv. 14-16), and to live in the fear of the Lord, because the one we invoke as our Father is also judge of all the earth (vv. 17-19).[1] The practical implications of these commands are spelled out in the next section, vv. 1-12, of chapter 2.
Peter implores his readers/hearers to set themselves apart from “all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” To prepare themselves for action (as Peter exhorted his readers in verse 13 of the first chapter), Christians should see themselves as “newborn infants, [who] long for the pure spiritual milk,” of God’s word. Christians are to realize that their struggles arise because of their identification with Jesus, who was the rejected foundation stone of Israel’s messianic kingdom. Yet, at the same time, Jesus is the foundation of a spiritual temple composed of all those who have been delivered from their sins by the blood of Jesus, and who are identified as a New Israel by Peter, who uses a number of images taken directly from the Old Testament and applies them to Christ’s church. Peter encourages his struggling readers to consider their identity as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
The way in which persecuted citizens of heaven demonstrate to the watching world around them that they are the people of God has nothing to do with distinctive clothing, diet, or in a withdrawal from society–typical of most world religions (and even some forms of Christianity). It is the doctrine Christians profess, that we are believers in the Triune God who sent his son to save us from our sins, as well as the lives which we live before the unbelievers around us which identifies us as the people of God. This life of holiness is to be lived by obeying the three imperatives Peter gives here. He exhorts his readers in verses 11-12 of chapter 2, “beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” In our text, vv. 13-25 of 1 Peter 2, Peter will flesh out two of the ways in which elect exiles keep their conduct honorable: (1) Christians are to submit to the civil authorities (even those who persecute them), and (2) Christians of low social standing (slaves and servants), are to submit to their masters.
There is some important historical background which will enable us to understand why Peter raises the particular points which he does. The cultural institutions which Peter covers in this section (civil government, slaves and masters, and then husbands and wives–vv. 1-7 of the next chapter) were part of the so-called “household code” of the Greco-Roman world, a code which goes back perhaps as far as Aristotle. The “household code” defined those mutual human relationships which made up the Greco-Roman world of the first century.[2] These codes were unwritten, yet were universally understood by the Greeks, Romans, and even Jews, to be the way in which people conducted themselves in the Greco-Roman world of the first century. These codes reflected the social mores of the period.
God has spoken directly about these matters at various places in his word, and these codes are part of what we now call natural law, things which Christians and non-Christians have in common in the civil kingdom. Things held in common include a proper understanding of civil authority (government), the proper relationship between slaves and their masters, and the relationship between husbands and wives. While holding these things in common with non-Christians, Christians have a different take on the household code because Scripture explains and clarifies how God’s people are to understand these human relationships in light of God’s revealed will in his law. Peter gives instructions to elect exiles in these areas so as affirm that Christians too acknowledge the Greco-Roman household code, while at the same time indicating where Scripture challenges and corrects pagan distortions of God’s revelation in the natural order.[3]
As we take up Peter’s discussion of how Christians are to relate to the civil magistrate, in verse 13, Peter commands his readers “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme.” This command (the first of four imperatives in this section) may come as a shock to many in Peter’s audience since those human institutions to which Christians are to be subject, include the current Roman government and its institutions (i.e., regional governors) then persecuting them.
In Romans 13:1-7, Paul says much the same thing as Peter does here, the Roman government and its Caesar, including Nero–who later would put Peter and Paul to death–is called a minister of God, whose purpose is to keep the peace and civic order and to provide for the common well-being of its citizens. All such human institutions derive their authority from God, which is why Christians are to respect and submit to them. Yet, Christians subject themselves to these institutions knowing that those who rule over them are likewise accountable to God for their actions. The command for Christians to submit to Caesar is always to be balanced against Peter’ words in Acts 5:29, to the effect that when Caesar commands us to do something which is a violation of God’s revealed will, “we must obey God rather than men.”
If Christians are to be subject to legitimate human institutions (i.e., those things spelled out in the household codes as interpreted by Scripture), Peter starts with the emperor (the king) whose human authority is greater than all others. Christians submit to the king’s earthly authority (i.e., in the civil kingdom), knowing that Jesus is Caesar’s Lord. It is for this reason–Jesus commands us to do so–that we submit to the highest civil authority in the land. But Caesar delegates the daily rule of the empire to others. So, in verse 14, Peter spells out we are to subject ourselves, “to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” Local Roman government was exercised through governors appointed by Caesar in the various provinces which made up the Roman empire. The most famous of these governors was Pontius Pilate, who ruled over Judea in the days of Jesus. The elect exiles are to obey the governors of the various provinces of Asia Minor, even though these are the same authorities who confiscated land from Christians (others as well) and awarded it to retired Roman soldiers, displacing many in Peter’s original audience.
The God-given purpose of these governors is defined by the Apostle–to punish evil doers and reward those who do good. This is a mirror image of Paul’s comments in Romans 13:3, “for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval.” The purpose of civil government is to restrain evil-doers and promote good order. This is a vital, and yet modest purpose. Using these texts from Paul and Peter, some Christians have argued for the divine right of kings, while others have argued for a Christian theocracy, or for various utopian ideals–but these texts, in my opinion, do not carry that much freight. The apostles do not give us a fully developed Christian theory of government in these texts–but they do tell Christians to submit to the government they presently have. Both apostles specifically say that government’s purpose is to punish evil doers and protect those who behave themselves as law abiding citizens. The implication is that governmental authority is established by God, but then limited by God to a specific purpose.
In Romans 13, Paul says those who obey Caesar’s laws need not fear punishment. In verse 15 of 1 Peter 2, the Apostle says when Christians obey Caesar, “this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.” Good Christian citizens are a good witness to the truth of the Christian faith, especially when Christians were considered to be rebels by the Romans, because Christians refuse to worship Roman gods (including Caesar) and will not participate in civic ceremonies in which pagan temples were dedicated, and where Roman gods were invoked and worshiped. If Christians honor the household code by affirming the legitimacy of Caesar’s rule in the civil kingdom, even if they could not regard him as a god to be worshiped, Christians could effectively counteract the charge that they were rebels who rejected all government authority.
The application of Peter’s words come into play today. Christians are often considered to be hateful bigots because we follow biblical teaching and still consider homosexuality a sin, or when we teach that same-sex marriage is incompatible with the word of God and natural law (which we encounter in the traditional American “household code” and western jurisprudence). Since we can neither condone nor support gay marriage, Peter would tell us that we do much good in the civil kingdom by defending traditional marriage, in part, to silence foolish people who have not thought much about the long-term consequences of same-sex marriage upon our society, because they are seeking instead to justify their own sinful and hedonistic behavior.
In verses 16-17, Peter may be answering the objection which some will raise, namely, that if we are free in Christ, why do we need to submit to those governing officials who persecute us, take our homes and property, and accuse us of all kinds of things because we will not worship Caesar?[4] I think it more likely that Peter is addressing the attitude Christians should have when their heavenly citizenship collides with their responsibilities in the civil kingdom. Peter’s not responding to an objection people were raising, but giving these elect exiles their marching orders. He tells them, “live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”
In light of the social mores of the age (as spelled out in the household code), Christians, who are servants of God, are to live as people who have been set free from the guilt and power of sin, because they have been set-apart by God and have been sprinkled with the blood of Jesus. Peter’s readers possess a heavenly citizenship (and therefore a certain freedom from sin and its power) which is as real as their Roman citizenship. But this does not mean that Christians have no responsibilities in the civil kingdom. On the contrary, Peter says, Christians are not to use their freedom in Christ associated with their heavenly citizenship as a license to sin or indulge the ignorance and passions of the flesh–especially when the pagan Gentiles are watching them. A Christian’s conduct is to be honorable, so that the pagans around us see us as good citizens and that the accusations made against Christians have no merit.
Christians are to honor others, whether that be those worthy of honor, as well as those who may not be. You don’t make faces at the governor when he rides by in his chariot. You don’t yell out that he’s a pagan bound for hell. You honor him because of the office he holds–it is ordained by God. In fact, Peter says, Christians should honor (i.e., show respect) to people of low-standing, like slaves, widows, orphans, the poor. Christians are to love the brotherhood–their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and to do so in such a way that non-Christians notice. Christians are to fear God–remaining reverent of him, honoring his name (not taking it in vain), especially in public. Christians are to even honor the pagan emperor who sees himself as a demi-god and accepts worship (something we cannot offer to him). He is, after all, someone whom God has placed in authority, yet someone whom God will judge very harshly if he misuses his office, or is cruel to the defenseless, or uses his power to attempt to bind the consciences of God’s people, especially if he seeks to repress Christians from worshiping God as revealed in his word. Simply put, Christians are to be good citizens, knowing that Caesar himself will give an account to God on the day of judgment.
In verse 18, Peter changes subjects to another important element in the household codes, the relationship between servants and their masters. The term Peter uses (oiketēs) refers to a household servant. Slavery in the Greco-Roman world was not raced-based as in antebellum American slavery. The slaves or servants to whom Peter is addressing were most often former prisoners of war, or their children, some times extending back generations. Slavery of this sort was universal in Peter’s age, and constituted a caste or a social class-both the lowest and the largest in Roman society. If you were born to parents of the servant class, you were likewise a servant unless and until you were liberated.
How a slave lived, and under what conditions, depended largely upon who and where they served. Domestic servants, or those with education and administrative skills, often lived as members of the families whom they served–and were sometimes treated quite well and given much personal freedom. Others were treated harshly. Generally speaking, laborers, agricultural workers, and unskilled women and children had a very difficult time of it–often living below the subsidence level with very short life expectancies. Many slaves had become Christians, so Peter must address the matter of how members of this large social caste of servants were to deal with their masters–and by implication how Christian masters were to treat their own slaves and servants.
In verse 18, Peter writes, “servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” Under the Greco-Roman household code, masters had absolute authority over their slaves and servants and could treat them however they wished. In light of this, Peter explains how Christian slaves are to respond to their masters (even when they are cruel). In this text, Peter neither endorses this kind of slavery nor condemns it–it is a fact of life for many of his readers/hearers, and if Christian servants are called to be subject to their masters (even under difficult circumstances), Christian masters ought to see the evil in the cruel and harsh treatment of their own servants and cease from it.
While there are principles here to be drawn for modern employees and employers, the analogy between Peter’s day and our own quickly breaks down because employment in our age is voluntary–if your boss mistreats you, assaults or harasses you, or withholds your wages from you, you can quit and even have him or her sued or prosecuted. Even better, you can say something terrible about them on Yelp or Facebook. But under the historical circumstances Peter is describing, the servant is bound to the master for life, unless emancipated. There is nowhere for an abused servant to go, and no legal recourse if your master is cruel. With this in mind, Peter tells all Christian servants to treat their masters with respect–good masters as well as bad.
Make no mistake about it, for the Christian servant, this kind of servitude is a genuine test of faith–the servant must trust God’s promise that they will be rewarded in the next life, and will receive a heavenly inheritance worth much more than any amount of silver and gold, while their wealthy (and perhaps cruel) master may face eternal loss and suffering. In verse 19, Peter points this out when he says, “for this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.” The blessing-curse principle comes into view here. God will bless those who do his will (if not in this life, then in the next), and punish those who do not. This is why, Peter says, those servants who look to God’s grace to sustain them during their earthly suffering will receive their heavenly inheritance in the next.
It is here that we run into the mysterious providence of God. Some Christians have easy lives and enjoy material prosperity. Some Christians enjoy good health, long life, and happy family relationships. Some Christians are masters, responsible for those under their care. Yet some Christians constantly struggle and find life very difficult. Other Christians face serious illness or die young. Still others are servants, bound to serve cruel masters. Peter directs those who are called to struggle in this life to look to the sufferings of Christ, because Jesus surely identifies with his fellow sufferers.
In verse 20, Peter writes, “for what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.” Those servants who are beaten because of their laziness or defiance of their masters, endure it. But to what end? Those who work hard and do not defy those in authority over them, will endure their earthly suffering with an eye to the future, when God’s grace to them will be fully realized. Christians know that on the last day, all wrongs will be made right, and recompense will come for all injustice. We are not to respond to cruelty in kind. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to us.
In verse 21, Peter reminds Christian servants of the difficult truth, “for to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.” Peter make no attempt to explain why some have been called to such a station in life, he only acknowledges that some are. Struggling Christians, who find themselves victims of injustice must learn to look to a Savior who was also the victim of great injustice, and it is his example that Christian servants must strive to follow. Making four direct allusions to Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Peter describes Jesus as the supreme example for all Christians to follow in their dealings with those in authority over them (yes, this is one place where the question, “what would Jesus do? actually applies).
In verses 22-24, Peter says of Jesus, “he committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” There are several important points to be drawn from Peter’s allusion to Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering servant.
First, Jesus’ death was ordained by God. Yet in his sinless humility, Jesus bore our sins upon the cross, thereby delivering us from the wrath of God. Jesus’ life was not taken from him, he offered it up freely, choosing to suffer and die for us and in our place. His unique office as Israel’s Messiah and Suffering Servant means that his suffering and death is vicarious (for us and in our place), and thereby secures our salvation. Yes, Jesus is to be our example when God calls us to suffer, and/or when we face injustice from cruel tyrants and masters. But since we are sinners, our own suffering does nothing to secure or contribute to our salvation. There is no truth to the long-held doctrine (i.e., Dostoevsky) that the degree to which Christians suffer in this life is the degree to which we are purged from our sins and prepared for the possibility of entering the next. Jesus’ death and suffering secures our salvation. Our suffering does not, and indeed cannot save us from our sins. But God will reward all those who endure difficult times, and whose faith has been stretched to the limits.
Second, in imitating Jesus’ humility as described by Peter, we are effectively disarming those who abuse us–we give them no grounds to mistreat us–while at the same time we are pointing them to the humility and death of the only who can save people from their sins (Jesus). Peter’s concern is not to give or explain the reason why we suffer, or why some have been called to be servants. Rather, the apostle is concerned with the reality that his readers and hearers are already enduring. In speaking directly to them, Peter explains that looking to Jesus enables them (and us) to understand that when God calls his people to suffer or be mistreated in this life, he will certainly reward them in the next.
Just as God raised Jesus from the dead and then exalted him to his right hand after our Lord lived a life of humility, suffering, and rejection, God will do the same for his suffering servants. Since Jesus’ life is a model to us in this sense, we must never lose sight of the fact that the empty tomb and exaltation of our Lord, followed his suffering and terrible agony of the cross. We live in a fallen world. Bad things happen to sinful people. Christ’s death and resurrection is the pattern we are to keep in mind whenever we seek to imitate our Lord’s humility, and when we undergo times of great trial and persecution.
Third, Peter instructs elect exiles to live, work, and suffer within the boundaries of first century household codes. The application is that Christians must respect the cultural institutions upon which a society is built (government, the relationship between masters and slaves, as well as that of husbands and wives), even when the pagans misuse and distort these institutions. We should be very thankful that in the providence of God we live in a representative republic, and not under the tyranny of a Christ-hating self-professed god like Claudius or Nero. We should be thankful that slavery and indentured servitude is now seen to be a great evil, and that we live in a world in which we can choose our vocations and employers, be compensated for our work, and enjoy a very high standard of living. And although the modern world is now thoroughly secularized–our contemporaries have rejected both Scripture and natural law, as well as the entire legal history of Western civilization in allowing same-sex marriage, and tolerating polygamy–Christians can still marry in the Lord, and live as examples to the pagans around us, just as Peter exhorts us to do.
Finally, in verse 25, Peter reminds his readers, “for you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” In Adam, we are the sheep who have gone astray, and for whom Jesus voluntarily suffered so much. Apart from Christ’s mercy, we would remain pagans, free from the rejection and persecution we receive from being a follower of Jesus. Yet, at the same time, we would be without the hope that Jesus’ suffering for us, and in our place, delivers us from the wrath of God. Jesus’s humble obedience and sacrificial death, satisfies God’s wrath and anger and earns for us both a justifying righteousness received through faith and a heavenly inheritance.
Because of the imperishable seed of the word of God–giving us new life and a living hope–we are all now servants of the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls–a master who will never treat us cruelly nor with injustice. Christians may be the object of Caesar’s wrath and scorn, yet are sheep in Christ’s pasture. As Christians we know that Jesus is Caesar’s Lord to whom he will one day bow. Christian servants and slaves may find this life difficult because of cruel earthly masters, yet, because of Jesus, they can live as people who are free, knowing that their Good Shepherd can identify with them because he knows more than all men what it is like to endure pain and humiliation.
Beloved, in light of Jesus’ suffering for us, and with his example of humility in mind, let us therefore strive to live as people who are free, not using our freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”
_______________________________________
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 77-78.
[2] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 147-148
[3] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 126.
[4] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 102.
I am hard at work on the concluding episodes of season two of our podcast series on Paul’s two Thessalonian Letters entitled, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.”
In our remaining episodes on 2 Thessalonians, we will cover Christ’s return to vindicate his persecuted people (2 Thessalonians 1:5-12), Paul’s discussion of a great apostasy, and the appearing of the “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12). How does Paul’s man of sin relate to the doctrine of antichrist, thought to be an end-times personification of evil, who is presently being restrained? We will conclude our time in this letter by considering Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonian church as they await the Lord’s return (2 Thessalonians 3:1-18).
You can catch all of the previous episodes in this series, as well as season one on the Book of Galatians, here: "The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger" or here: The Blessed Hope Podcast
With the language of the eighth Psalm clearly in mind (“you have made [man] a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” v. 5), Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til declared that as an image-bearer, Adam was created to be like God in every way in which a creature can be like God. These words sound rather shocking when we first hear them. But as Van Til goes on to point out, because Adam is a creature, he can never be more than a creature. He will never be divine. Christians cannot talk about the creation of humanity without first being clear about the fact that God is distinct from his creation, and he cannot be identified either with the world around us or its creatures.
The biblical account tells us that Adam was created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), which indicates that Adam is neither divine, nor the product of some unspecified primordial process. Adam was created by a direct act of God in which Adam’s body was created by God from the dust of the earth, while his soul was created when God breathed life into the first human (Genesis 2:7). The divine image extends to Eve as well (Genesis 2:4-24). To be human then, is to be male or female and to bear God’s image in both body and soul, which exist as a unity of both spiritual (the soul) and material (the body) elements. To be a divine image bearer is to be an ectype (copy) of which God is archetype (original).
Because all men and women are divine image-bearers, we are truly like God, and we possess all of the so-called communicable attributes of God–albeit in creaturely form and measure. This is what constitutes us as “human” beings, distinct from and superior in intellectual, moral, and rational capabilities to the creatures who make up the animal kingdom. The creation of Adam and Eve marks the high point of the creation account (Genesis 1:28-31), as God pronounced the first man Adam to be “very good.”
The ramifications of the fact that we are divine image bearers are multifaceted and profound. First, the creation reveals that Adam is both the biological and federal head of the human race. Adam was the first human being, and all humans are his biological descendants. This speaks directly to the question of the unity of the race despite our differing physical appearances and unique personal identities, and to the equality of persons before God. Second, as the biological head of our race, Adam represented the entire human race before God during the period of probation in Eden when Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Adam was assigned the role of acting for and on behalf of all those who are his descendants–all of humanity. What Adam did in Eden, he did on our behalf, as our representative. This fact alone brings about a number of additional considerations, including the fact that Adam was created in righteousness, holiness, and possessed true knowledge of God (cf. Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10), all of which indicates that Adam was righteous before God as created. Adam was not merely innocent, but holy and upright, possessing the natural ability to obey all of God’s commands and to fulfill the cultural mandate (Genesis 1:28 — “And God said to them, `Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’”).
The spiritual nature of Adam (seen, for example, in the fact that the soul lives on after the death of the body) further reflects this element of human nature. Our souls are invisible, indivisible, and immortal. In addition, we are created as rational beings with great intellectual abilities, as well as the moral ability to determine right from wrong (Romans 2:12-16). This also indicates that all men and women are capable of receiving the revelation that God gives through the created order (general revelation) and through his word (special revelation). Reformed theologians have long argued that our bodies are fit “organs” of the soul. And it is especially through the body-soul unity that the communicable attributes associated with the divine image are manifest.
As the divine image-bearer possessing such original righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, Adam was given dominion over all of creation as God’s vice-regent. Not only did God make all things good, he assigned to his unique image-bearer the role of ruling over the world and all of its creatures. Adam was given all the plants and animals for food, and was assigned the task of naming the animals over which he was given dominion (Genesis 2:19).
This is what the Psalmist means when he says that man is but a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5). The creation of Adam and Eve was the high point of all of God’s creative activities, not an after-thought, nor the product of an evolutionary process. As divine-image bearers, Adam and Eve were to rule and subdue the earth in the name of their creator. The first humans possessed true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, and their task was to build the temple garden of God on earth in Eden. And because Adam and his wife Eve bear the divine image, in every way they were fit for this task.
Renewalcast with Guest Kim Riddlebarger Discussing Amillennialism
A Discussion of Antichrist with Host Bill Feltner
Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).
__________________________________________
The authors of the Canons move on to make the point that since the Scriptures teach that election is based upon God’s good pleasure and purpose (and nothing good within us), election cannot be based upon anything external to God (i.e., something good that God sees in the creature). It is equally clear that God does not elect any as the consequence of some action that the creature takes which causes or motivates God to respond (in this case, the exercise of faith). The view of election set forth in the Canons assigns all glory to God when we believe the gospel, and all blame to us if we do not.
Many have tried to evade the force of this critical point by arguing that God’s election is based upon factors external to God, i.e., something which the creature does. God sets things in motion (by providing a generic, universal, and non-saving grace), and he then reacts to what his creatures do with the grace he’s made available to them. But this amounts to nothing more than a practical deism and mistakenly assumes that Adam’s fall has left us with the ability to choose Christ apart from prior regeneration.
The most common objection that we encounter to the doctrine of election as set forth in the earlier articles of the Canons, is that God elects individuals unto salvation in Christ based upon foreseen faith. In other words, God elects those whom he knows will believe the gospel when it is preached to them. You’ve probably heard the common analogy that election operates like a movie God has already seen. He knows what each of the characters will do, and therefore he elects them on that basis.
Of course, this is seriously flawed, and is not in any sense what the Scriptures teach. God does not merely know in advance what we will do under certain conditions. God knows what we will do because he has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and yet he does so in such a way as to establish human freedom, not destroy it. God knows what we will do in the movie of life because he wrote the screenplay and the script, he created the actors, the cameras, the film . . . You get the point.
While the Greek word proginosko, translated as “to foreknow” in Romans 8:29, can mean that God knows in advance what his creatures will do, the term is probably better understood here in the sense of “knowing the person in advance.” God does not merely know in advance what actions a person whom he foreknows will take under certain circumstances, and then reacts to that action. Rather, proginosko is better understood in light of Psalm 139, where God’s intimate knowledge of us (as our creator) is the basis for his knowledge of what we will do. He who formed us in our mother’s womb, determined who our parents would be, how tall we are, how long we live, etc., knows us vastly better than we know ourselves. This is why it helps to understand the word “foreknow” in terms of personal intimacy (God’s knowledge of us since he created us), rather than in terms of sterile metaphysics (God knows in advance what we will do with the various options available to us–a sort cosmic chess match).
Furthermore, according to Romans 8:28-30, God’s calling is not based upon God’s foreknowledge of future events, but upon “his purpose.”
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
This fits perfectly with other biblical texts such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which we have already discussed in some detail when addressing previous articles.
It is also important to notice that the Canons teach that election is always unto something (holiness), not because of something in us (the presence of faith, the virtue of faith, or any personal holiness which might result from faith). This point is vital to understand. We are sinful and fallen and can do nothing to soften our own hearts, regenerate ourselves, or even incline ourselves to believe the gospel. When we are chosen by God, we are chosen “in Christ,” so that when we come to faith in him, we are also delivered from our bondage to sin and death. We are also set aside for God’s sovereign purposes. We become his workmanship, appointed to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). It is because we have been chosen in Christ that the fruit of the Spirit develops within us and God produces holiness in our lives.
We are not numbered among the elect because God knows that we will believe when the gospel is preached to us. Rather, we have been chosen by God in Christ in eternity past, therefore we will believe in Jesus when the gospel is proclaimed to us because God calls us to do so. So too, we are not numbered among the elect because God knows that we will perform a certain number of good works once we are Christians. Rather, because we are elect in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-14), we will perform good works as the fruit of that faith which he graciously gives to us.
As the Canons make clear, election is the only basis for the manifestation of any of the Christian virtues in us (faith, obedience and so on), since otherwise, we would still be slaves to sin and unable to perform a single good work, because without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). It is because of divine election that we respond to the gospel in faith when we hear it. It is because of divine election that we perform good works and demonstrate true holiness.
This is a cause and effect relationship. Election is the cause, and faith, repentance and obedience are the effects—not the other way around.
From the Heidelberg Catechism . . .
Q & A 45 How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?
A. First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he obtained for us by his death.
Second, by his power we too are already raised to a new life.
Third, Christ’s resurrection is a sure pledge to us of our blessed resurrection.
Toward the end of his illustrious career at Princeton Theological Seminary, B. B. Warfield took up his pen (beginning in 1918) in response to the burgeoning movement known as “Christian perfectionism,” and the closely related “higher-life” teaching. Both were then making a significant impact upon American Christianity. Warfield identified both as theological descendants of the ancient heresy of Pelagianism, now injected into the American evangelical bloodstream by one Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) and his many followers of the “Oberlin School” and among the higher-life teachers.
What follows are but a few brief citations from Warfield’s volume Perfectionism, (Volume Two) published posthumously in 1932. In a lengthy essay, Warfield dissects Finney’s theological “system,” exposing it for what is is, a “mere system of morals,” which in Warfield’s estimation would function just as well with God as without him.
Warfield writes of Finney’s theological system . . .
This brings us back to the point of view with which we began—that the real reason of the election of the elect is their salvability, that is, under the system of government [according to Finney] established by God as the wisest. God elects those whom He can save, and leaves un-elected those whom He cannot save, consistently with the system of government which He has determined to establish as the wisest and best (170).
The ultimate reason why the entire action of God in salvation is confined by Finney to persuasion lies in his conviction that nothing more is needed—or, indeed, is possible (172).
It speaks volumes meanwhile for the strength of Finney’s conviction that man is quite able to save himself and in point of fact actually does, in every instance of his salvation, save himself, that he maintained it in the face of such broad facts of experience to the contrary. How can man be affirmed to be fully able and altogether competent to an act never performed by any man whatever, except under an action of the Spirit under which he invariably performs it? (178).
There is no imputation; no transmitted corruption of heart. Indeed, there is no heart to be corrupted: “heart” with Finney means just “will.” All sin is sinning—and sinning is a purely personal business. It would not be quite exact to say that Finney permits to Adam no influence whatever on the moral life of his descendants. He is willing to allow that they may have received a certain amount of moral injury through the physical deterioration that has come to them by evil inheritance. He even suggests that could this physical deterioration be corrected—say through a wise dietetic system—the sin into which they have fallen partly through its influence might in a generation or two disappear too (179).
It is according to Finney, thus, only our purpose which “needs to be radically changed.” What we call a “wicked heart” is only a purpose; what we call a “good heart” is only a purpose . . . the theology, that is, which goes no deeper in its conception of salvation than a simple change of purpose, which conceives that all that happens to a man when he is saved, absolutely all that happens to him, is a change of purpose. A change of purpose is, naturally, an act of our own, and Finney therefore not only identifies regeneration and conversion, but polemicizes against all attempts to erect a distinction between them. We regenerate ourselves: only the man himself can “change his choice,” and if he will not do it, “it is impossible that it should be changed”—“neither God, nor any other being, can regenerate him, if he will not turn.” (192)
It is we ourselves then who make ourselves holy, and that at a stroke. For regeneration “implies an entire present change of moral character, that is, a change from entire sinfulness to entire holiness.”—a “present entire obedience to God.” After this it is only a question of maintenance—of the maintenance of that “radical change of ultimate intention,” that change from a selfish ultimate choice to benevolent ultimate choice, which we may call indifferently repentance, or faith, or conversion, or regeneration, or sanctification (193).
It is quite clear that what Finney gives us is less a theology than a system of morals. God might be eliminated from it entirely without essentially changing its character. All virtue, all holiness, is made to consist in an ethical determination of will. “What is virtue?” he asks, and answers: “It consists in consecration to the right end; to the end to which God is consecrated.” And “all holiness,” he defines, consists in “the right exercise of our own will or agency” (193).
You can find Warfield’s volume Perfectionism here, which includes the chapter from which these quotes were taken (“The Theology of Charles G. Finney”).
Many of the elect exiles to whom Peter is writing have been forcibly removed from their homes, usually because of their faith in Jesus Christ and for refusing to worship pagan deities. These exiles are undergoing a difficult time of trial and testing. They possess a heavenly citizenship and a living hope which determines what they believe and what they do. But how should these elect exiles think of themselves during their sojourn? Merely as individual sojourners, marking time until they die? What should their identity be as they struggle in this world, despised and rejected, and during times when their faith is put to the test? Peter answers this question in verses 1-12 of the second chapter of Peter’s first epistle. What can we learn from their situation and example?
Recap of 1 Peter 1:13-25 – Three Imperatives
In verses 13-19 of I Peter 1, the apostle issues three imperatives (commands). These commands unfold against the background of the gospel promises made in the previous verses (3-12). Peter’s readers/hearers have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit (set apart for God’s purposes), they have been sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (forgiven of their sins), and they have been set apart for obedience (sanctification). The commands which follow the gospel promises are given to the elect exiles (Christian believers) mentioned in the opening verse of this epistle. Obedience to these imperatives is the means through which elect exiles identify themselves as citizens of heaven (believers in Jesus), while they dwell in the midst of the civil kingdom, where they now find themselves undergoing various trials which test their faith.
The first imperative is that the Apostle instructs us to fix our hope upon Jesus (v. 13). Jesus will keep all of the promises he makes to us in the gospel. We live this life in light of the realization of God’s promise of a heavenly inheritance in the next. Second, Peter exhorts us to live holy lives which reflect the holiness of our creator and redeemer (verses 14-16). We are to strive for holiness out of gratitude for all that God has done for us in Jesus Christ. The third imperative is that we are to live in the fear of the Lord, because the one we invoke as our Father is also judge of all the earth (verses 17-19).[1] The practical implications of these commands are spelled out in the next section of this epistle, verses 1-12, of chapter 2.
Far too often the imperatives in I Peter (and similar passages) are read by Christians in light of individual and personal sanctification. In other words, Peter is talking to me (not a church or group of Christians) and these imperatives primarily refer to “my personal walk with the Lord.” But the apostle mentions the “love of our brothers [and sisters]” and commands us to love one another (v. 22) using language which comes from the Old Testament, and which applied to the people of Israel–a nation chosen by God, and set apart for his purposes. Peter now applies the same language to Christians in the context of their membership in Christ’s church. The command to love one another which is worked out in the opening verses of the second chapter (verses 1-3), and which leads to a discussion of the church’s identity (in verses 4-10), reminds us that sanctification and the striving for holiness take place within the community of sinful people who together believe in Jesus Christ. This mirrors the nation of Israel as a people “set apart” by God unto himself and for his purposes.
Sanctification Among Exiles
Our text raises two issues which we will consider in this exposition. The first of these is that sanctification takes place within the day to day life of the elect exiles in communion with one another. It is easy to love your brothers and sisters when you are on a desert island by yourself. But sanctification takes place in real life with other people who are also sinners. To focus upon yourself misses the main point of sanctification–how believers deal with one another in their daily interactions. This is why sanctification is so difficult–my brothers and sisters in Christ are not as holy as I am, and it is their fault! The second thing for us to consider is that although Peter never uses the word “church” (ecclesia) in this section, the application of the command for us to love one another as given to Israel and now applied to the love within the community of elect exiles, means that the church (as the people of the new covenant) is the new Israel [2]–a point we’ll flesh out in verses 4-10.
In verse 1 of chapter 2, Peter uses another conjunction (oun) which tells us that what follows is an inference (or the implication) of the preceding. Because we have new life in Christ, we will desire to love one another (all those who have been given this same new life in Christ), and as Peter now says, we are to “put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” Because sanctification entails being set-apart by God for his purposes, this is why we are called to a life of holiness (striving to obey God’s commandments). Holiness within the church begins by self-consciously “setting ourselves apart” from malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander.
Passions of Past Ignorance
Malice is ill-will toward others. Deceit is hiding the truth, or not telling the truth. Hypocrisy is pretending to be something we are not. Envy is to desire what others have–from their possessions to their appearance and personalities. Slander is to cast someone in the worst possible light. Why would Peter mention these particular sins? The reason is simple. These are sins which eat away at the love elect exiles are to have for each other within the community of believers, the church. How can we love someone while demonstrating ill-will toward them? How can we love someone while lying to them, or pretending to be something we are not? How can we demonstrate love to those whom we envy and slander behind their backs? We cannot. These behaviors are sins of which we must repent, and for which we must seek forgiveness. These are the passions of our former ignorance (v. 14).
Peter directs us to put these things away. The verb he uses (apotithēmi) is used throughout the New Testament in reference to getting rid of those things which hinder our growth in Christ.[3] It is bad enough that the daily circumstances of life as an exile in the Greco-Roman world made life perilous and a real struggle for Peter’s readers. It would be a real tragedy if persecuted Christians faced the same slander, malice, envy, and hypocrisy within the community of elect exiles (the church), especially when we all have been sprinkled with the blood of Jesus and possess the same heavenly citizenship. Elect exiles may be in the world, but we are also members of Christ’s church and must strive to leave behind our former ignorance to the things of God and the passions of the flesh.
The Good News Was Preached!
It is one thing to renounce the kind of behavior which undermines the love believers are to have each for the other. It is another to prepare for action as Peter mentions in verse 13 of the previous chapter. One of the ways we prepare ourselves for action is by growing strong in the faith. To do so, we need spiritual nourishment. Previously, Peter spoke of the “word [which] is the good news that was preached to you.” In verses 2-3, Peter now speaks of those caused to be born again by God as being “like newborn infants,[who] long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
Peter assumes that his readers/hearers are Christians, so his imperatives are not aimed at people who are becoming Christians, or who are in the process of being evangelized. We do not do the things Peter commands in order to become Christians. We do them because we are Christians. Yet, Peter realizes that a number of these elect exiles are still mere babes in the Christian faith. In order to grow to maturity in the faith, as well as enjoy the full benefits of their salvation in Christ, they need proper food–pure spiritual milk, i.e., the word of God, the good news of the gospel.
Furthermore, they not only need it, they must learn to desire it. Hearing some pagan philosopher pontificate on the meaning of life may be far more interesting than listening to a sermon from a difficult and challenging book (like the Bible). But the so-called “wisdom” of Greek philosophy will be forgotten in but minutes, while the word of God stands forever (Peter’s point in the closing verses of chapter 1). The word of God is the word of life, that imperishable seed, through which dead people have been brought to life as babes in Christ–babes with a living hope, and who need the appropriate nourishment so that they grow strong, and stay strong during difficult times of testing.
Preparing for Action
We are to develop a desire for pure spiritual milk in conjunction with Peter’s exhortation to prepare ourselves for action. We do this by devoting ourselves to reading, studying, and understanding the word of God, which is the pure and proper spiritual food for both new and mature Christians, those who strive to grow into the fullness of that salvation accomplished for us through the person and work of our Savior Jesus. Believers who have tasted this pure spiritual milk, will desire it more and more. Peter’s words here–if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good–echo verses 8-9 of the 34th Psalm (a Psalm which Peter must like because he will allude to it several more times in this epistle). There we read, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him! Oh, fear the Lord, you his saints, for those who fear him have no lack!” The Christian who tastes pure spiritual milk in the word, develops a taste for it (because the Lord is good) and will desire such milk more and more.
In verse 4, Peter takes up the theme of the church, the people of God, which is, as we will see, the new Israel. Elect exiles, set apart by God, who are striving to be holy as the Lord is holy, who fear God (in the sense we described last time), and who love their brothers and sisters, do so within the context of Christ’s church. I know that for many Christians, ecclesiology is nothing but the last section of Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (which few read). But apostolic teaching about the church–its mission, its marks, its attributes and its offices–is a major theme in the New Testament epistles.
Christ’s Exile Church — A Holy Nation
The lack of interest among Christians in how we understand the mission, marks, attributes, and offices of the church allows shoddy teaching to thrive in evangelicalism such as the Moses model (where the pastor hears directly from God), or which allows rogue pastors to view the church as an extension of their own personal ministries. Peter’s description of the church as the new Israel, which is a chosen race set-apart by God for his purposes, is critical to the survival of elect exiles and sojourners in this present evil age (as Paul speaks of our age in Galatians 4:4). As elect exiles in their own land, citizens of heaven need an earthly identity while they sojourn in this world. They are to consider themselves to be members of a new race (chosen by God), a holy nation (a new Israel), and a royal priesthood (thanking and praising God).
In verse 3, Peter describes the goodness of the Lord–that Lord who is YHWH of Psalm 34. But in verse 4 of his epistle, Peter describes Jesus as the living stone rejected by men. “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious.” Jesus is the “living stone” because of his resurrection from the dead.[4] The living stone metaphor likely comes from Psalm 118:22 where the Psalmist speaks of the rejected stone becoming the cornerstone. Peter used this same image in his sermon in Acts 4:11, when he proclaimed to the Jews in Jerusalem that the risen Jesus is the stone of stumbling which Israel rejected, yet, who by virtue of his death and resurrection, is that only one upon whom men and women must call upon to be saved. Jesus was rejected by his own people. He was crucified by the Romans. Yet, Peter says, if you have tasted of his goodness (in the word), you know that Jesus is that one chosen by God to be the Savior of his people (his elect), and that he is the only mediator between sinful people and a holy God.
Living Stones — A Spiritual House
Peter’s audience of elect exiles must realize that if they have been made exiles and are persecuted for their faith in Jesus, the same Jesus in whom they trust was also rejected by his people, and he suffered far more than they. Jesus was despised by men (both Jews and Gentiles), yet he was absolutely precious to God. The same is true of elect exiles. Jesus, who was the rejected cornerstone (by Israel), is now the living stone and the foundation upon whom the living temple of God (the church) now stands. Therefore, in verse 5, Peter goes on to say of those who have been set apart (sanctified), sprinkled with his blood, and called to a life of holiness, “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The language of Israel’s distinctiveness in the Old Testament is applied by Peter directly to the church.
Just as Jesus is the living stone (by virtue of his resurrection from the dead), so too those whom God has caused to be born again and who have a living hope are “living stones” of a spiritual house, laid down upon the foundation stone (Jesus). Peter’s readers/hearers may be exiles and aliens in this life, but they are God’s spiritual temple, and are set apart to be a holy priesthood, offering acceptable sacrifices to God through Jesus.
There are a number of important implications here, some of which we have briefly touched upon. First, the focus in the New Testament is upon the corporate sanctification of God’s people, not so much upon the sanctification of the church’s individual members. The focus is primarily corporate not personal. Cranfield puts it this way. “Everywhere the Bible presupposes a people of God. That is every bit as true of the New Testament as of the Old. The Scriptures know nothing of an individual piety which is out of touch with the living body of God’s people.”[5] Many Christians think nothing of identifying themselves as Christians and yet never seek to join, nor think it necessary to be a member of a local church. I get the problems with denominations and religious formalism. But every person who becomes a Christian in the New Testament does so in the context of a local church. To profess faith in Jesus Christ is to profess that he is the living head of a spiritual body, which is his church. All believers are living stones in God’s spiritual house, and God’s spiritual house is manifest in the local church–as Michael Horton puts it, God’s embassy on earth.
Spiritual Sacrifices — Praise and Thanksgiving
Second, the language Peter uses is drawn directly from the Old Testament–specifically the temple and priesthood. This means that Christ’s church is the true Israel of God. In ancient Israel, the temple was a divinely mandated and appointed physical building (with its roots going back to the tabernacle in the midst of God’s people while they wandered in Sinai). The temple and its sacrifices were the center of Jewish religious life. Israel’s priests sacrificed on behalf of the people with the shed blood of animals granting a temporary respite from the wrath of God. Although these sacrifices pointed ahead to the coming of Jesus and his final, once for all sacrifice for sin, they must be regularly repeated.
In this epistle Peter flatly says that all elect exiles are living stones in a different kind of temple, a spiritual house. This spiritual house is built of living stones (those whom God has caused to be “born again”) and who are now described as spiritual priests who offer spiritual sacrifices. When Jesus died on Good Friday, it is not accidental that the temple veil–separating the holy place from the most holy place–was torn from top to bottom. The physical temple in Jerusalem had been superseded by the one to whom it pointed, Jesus. Throughout the letters of Paul (i.e., Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16, 2 Thess. 2:4), the church is identified as the temple of God, while in John 2:21, Jesus is identified as the temple of God. When Jesus dies as the spotless Passover Lamb, the temple in Jerusalem was ichabod–its glory now gone. The implication of Peter’s argument is that a new temple has taken the Jerusalem temple’s place, a temple made up of God’s people and built upon the foundation stone (Jesus), a temple which assembles on the Lord’s Day to offer sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving.
The Old Order Has Passed Away
As Peter explains, the Jerusalem temple belonged to the old order of things (types and shadows), the futile ways of Israel’s forefathers (as Peter put it in verse 18). With the coming of Jesus, the reality has come. The temple of God is now composed of living stones with a living head–Jesus. This temple is the church, and its members are all priests who offer sacrifices–not animal sacrifices–but sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. The idea is that when the people of God assemble together on the Lord’s Day (Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection, and the dawn of the new creation), we compose the living temple of God. We are all priests (hence, the priesthood of all believers). We have no levitical priests shedding the blood of sacrificial animals, because the great high priest has already offered the final and all-sufficient sacrifice for sin. But we are all priests of God (through the priesthood of Jesus), offering sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to the Father, in the Son, and through the Spirit, because of what Jesus Christ has done for us. This is why we strive to obey the imperatives given us by Peter.
In verse 6, Peter cites Isaiah 26:16. “For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” Following up his point in verse 4, that Jesus is the living stone, Peter clearly sees Jesus as the one to whom Isaiah is referring in this section of his prophecy. Jesus may be the stone rejected by his people, but he is the foundation of God’s redemptive work, including the building of a spiritual house with spiritual priests offering spiritual sacrifices.
Peter intends this to be of great comfort to his audience as people who have been forced into exile in their own land by a pagan Roman emperor who thought himself to be God. They are hated and persecuted. But so was Jesus, who was also despised and rejected. These elect exiles must not be discouraged or dismayed by what has happened to them. God’s eternal plan for Jesus included his rejection by Israel. He was without sin or guile. In God’s plan, the rejected one is now the foundation for all those living stones who may be rejected by their fellow citizens of Asia Minor, but who will never be put to shame by the Lord.[6] It is worth noting that although Jesus himself had identified Peter as the rock upon whom he will build his church (in Matthew 16:17–18), Peter does not mention this point here, a sure sign that Peter never considered himself the first Pope. Peter may have been the leader of the apostolic church (only to be supplanted by Paul), but Jesus is that one upon whom the church is built.
The Rejected Stone — Jesus
If believers in Jesus will not be put to shame, the same cannot be said of those who do not believe in Jesus. Peter speaks of the contrast between believers and the fate of unbelievers in verses 8-9. “So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,’ anda stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.’ They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.” Quoting Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14 (verses cited by Paul as well) to make the point that those who reject Jesus stumble over his person and work–they do not understand what Jesus did and why, and they are offended by it–will face shame and dishonor when they stand before Jesus on the day of judgment.
This, Peter says, is the fate to which unbelievers have been destined. By not choosing them in Christ, God passes over them and leaves them in their sin. They suffer the very fate which they desire–they will be crushed by the very rock of offense (Jesus), over whom they stumbled (by rejecting him). Those who reject the cornerstone do so freely and gladly, and yet in doing so, bring to pass the very thing God had foreordained. The language here is similar to that of Acts 2:23–“this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” God decreed the death of Jesus, and yet holds those who did so fully responsible for their actions.
All those in Christ (i.e., those born again and who believe in Jesus), who are the living stones who compose a spiritual temple of priests offering sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, are now described in verse 9 as a new Israel with all four phrases used of them by Peter taken from Old Testament texts applied to Israel (Exodus 19, Isaiah 43). “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Elect exiles compose the church which is the new Israel, which has for its mission to proclaim the gospel to the nations, so as to call people from darkness (ignorance of the truth and unbelief) into the marvelous light (the truth)–revealed in and through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Our application is given to us by Peter in verses 10-12. Previously, we dealt with the question of how elect exiles identify themselves as citizens of heaven while we dwell in the civil kingdom. The answer we gave then–we demonstrate our heavenly citizenship by our doctrine and our lives (specifically our striving to obey the three imperative given us by Peter, that we fix our hope upon Jesus, live holy lives as the Lord is holy, and that we fear God)—is restated here in slightly different terms.
Living as Sojourners and Exiles in the Civil Kingdom
In verse 10, Peter reminds these elect exiles that at one time they too were pagans. “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” Elect exiles were once separated from God, but have been brought near to him through God’s mercy. The way in which exiles demonstrate that we are Christ’s people (a chosen race, a spiritual house, a royal priesthood) is spelled out by Peter in verses 11-12. “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.”
If we possess heavenly citizenship through faith in Jesus Christ, we are to see ourselves as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation–a people who are God’s own possession, even while, in this life, we are aliens, exiles, and sojourners. Peter’s word to us is to act like members of a chosen race, and as citizens of heaven (who have been redeemed by Christ) during our time of exile. Because we fear God and strive for holiness, we are to abstain from the passions of the flesh because the sinful nature continues to wage war on our souls even though we are Jesus Christ’s possession.
It is not distinctive clothing, a restricted diet, or isolation from non-Christians, which identifies us as citizens of heaven. It is our doctrine (our trust in Jesus’ promise to save us from the guilt and power of sin) and our lives (our honorable conduct before the Gentiles) which identifies us as members of a chosen race of elect exiles. By grounding our witness to those around us in the finished work of Christ, and in our conduct which reflects Christ’s on-going work in our lives, non-Christians will hear the gospel and witness how we wage war upon our own sinfulness, so that on the day of visitation (the day of judgment),[7] God may be glorified.
Our identity is found in the fact that as elect exiles we are members of a chosen race, sinners who have been set apart by God to bring him glory–so let us strive to do exactly that, as our neighbor witnesses how a gracious God saves sinners through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ, and how we live lives of gratitude in response.
______________________________
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 82.
[2] C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, The Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM Press 1960), 59.
[3] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 97.
[4] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 101-102.
[5] Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, 63.
[6] D. A. Carson, “1 Peter” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1026.
[7] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 97; Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, 73.
Episode Synopsis:
Since the Lord will return suddenly and unexpectedly, what are the Thessalonians to do until Jesus’s return? Paul has already encouraged them earlier in his letter, telling them that they are doing well despite the persecution and on-going threats they were receiving from Jews and Greco-Roman pagans in Thessalonica. But Paul knows there is always the possibility that things might go south. Therefore, he uses his closing remarks to urge the Thessalonians to be at peace among themselves and respect those who labor among them.
Paul also takes the opportunity to urge them to encourage any strugglers and malingerers in their midst, to do good, to pray without ceasing, and to avoid evil. He reminds them that the Lord will deliver them from their enemies and right all wrongs on the day of judgment. Paul urges the Thessalonians not to quench the Spirit, nor despise prophecy. He prays that God will sanctify them so that they might be blameless on the day of the Lord’s return. He then instructs the brothers to make sure his letter is read aloud in the churches, so any questions the congregation had about the Lord’s return might be answered.
As we have come to see from Paul, there is much practical wisdom here, which is as much a benefit to Christians now as it was to Thessalonicans who first heard this letter read in their churches.
Note: I’ve been fighting seasonal allergies and the medication I took dried me up, but left my voice sounding “thin.”
Show notes:
KR in Tabletalk: "Man as a Body Soul Composite"
KR in Modern Reformation: "Trichotomy: A Beachhead for Gnostic Influences"
Banner of Truth essay on "Grieving and Quenching the Holy Spirit"
Charles Spurgeon on "Grieving the Holy Spirit"
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
A Christian doctrine of creation establishes a Christian doctrine of providence. As God created all things out of nothing, so too, he upholds and sustains those things which he has created. Just as in the doctrine of creation, here too we encounter the triune God working in and through all that he has made. Paul lays out this connection between creation and providence in his letter to the Colossians, “for by him [the Son] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17). We read elsewhere that the Holy Spirit too was hovering over the face of the deep at creation (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 33:6). Thus we affirm that God the Father works all things in and through the Son, in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, nothing can happen that is outside the will, purpose, and superintendence of God. This is the foundation of a Christian doctrine of providence. The Creator maintains and directs his creation. He does not sleep nor slumber, nor is he ever caught off-guard or unaware.
There are several ways in which we ought think about God’s providence. The first is that God controls, sustains, and directs all things so that they fulfill the purpose for which they have been created. This is often spoken of as “preservation.” As the Bible reveals that God created all things by his all-powerful word, so too, his same word governs the creatures he has made. God commands the creatures he has made to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:22). He commands the same of Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28). God does not merely act upon creation as an all-powerful external force, he acts within his creation, sustaining, and directing every portion of it as the all-powerful creator and sustainer.
The doctrine of preservation should also be understood in close relation to “common grace,” in which we see God’s fatherly provision for all his creatures (cf. Matthew 6:25-35), and his divine image-bearers (Matthew 5:45). The importance of common grace is evident in Acts 14:17, when we read, “yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” God cares for and sustains all that he has made. His common grace bears witness to all his creatures of his goodness.
In fact, a brief summary of biblical passages demonstrates that God’s providence is said to extend over the entire universe. “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19). His providence extends to all nations and peoples, “he makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away” (Job 12:23). In Acts 17:26, we read, “and he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” His providence even extends to seemingly insignificant things, as in Proverbs 16:33, where we are told, “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” Every good thing comes from his fatherly hand.
A proper conception of providence also includes divine “concurrence” (“going together”). God acts with and upon his creatures in order to cause them to act as they do. Yet, at the same time, Scripture attributes the same event to an action of God and of his creature. This can be seen in the Joseph story when Joseph tell his brothers, “as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Genesis 50:20). This is also the case with our Lord’s crucifixion, (Acts 2:23). Those who committed these acts (Joseph’s brothers, and those who crucified Jesus) are said to be guilty for their actions, yet it is their acts which brought to pass that which God has ordained.
Concurrence also means that there are real causes in the world, but they are always directed by God toward the ends to which he has decreed. There are no “loose” molecules running around in the universe. God is therefore the primary cause of all things by acting within history through his Spirit, not merely upon his creation as a demonstration of raw power. Concurrence holds that the actions of God’s creatures are real secondary causes, and human action brings to pass what God has ordained. At the same time, we must be clear that God did not in any sense cause or create evil, but he decreed that evil and sinful human actions serve to fulfill his will (as in the case of Joseph and our Lord’s crucifixion).
A Christian doctrine of providence steers us away from a deistic conception of God’s relation to the created order, in which God created all things and established the fixed laws of the universe. Viewed in a mechanistic sense, the universe operates apart from God’s direct control. According to deism, God may act upon creation (in the sense of responding to the actions of men and women, or in the case of disruptions within the natural order), but God does not act within creation as the doctrine of concurrence indicates.
The more common error is pantheism, in which God is so identified with the created order that there are no secondary causes or any independent action of God’s creature—a sort of hyper-spirituality. The created order is thought to be divine in some sense (often as an extension of God’s being) so that everything which happens is seen to be miraculous and that natural causes or explanations do not suffice. The fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creature is denied.
But when we see such things through the lens of divine concurrence, we need not embrace deism or pantheism. Birds fly because God made them to fly according to their natural abilities. Yet, when a sparrow falls to the ground, it is said to be the Father’s will (Matthew 10:29). We can be thankful that doctors and medical researchers discover a cure for some terrible disease and the same time we affirm that God heals when that cure is actually realized in someone’s life. God often works through discernible means and secondary causes. Yet, our doctrine of providence also tell us that the secret things belong to the Lord (Deuteronomy 29:29) until they are revealed to us in time. We may never understand why certain things (good or evil) come to pass, but our doctrine of providence directs us to affirm, “and we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).
Article 8: A Single Decision of Election
This election is not of many kinds; it is one and the same election for all who were to be saved in the Old and the New Testament. For Scripture declares that there is a single good pleasure, purpose, and plan of God’s will, by which he chose us from eternity both to grace and to glory, both to salvation and to the way of salvation, which he prepared in advance for us to walk in.
_______________________________
Scripture teaches us that election is based upon God’s eternal counsel and purpose, and is a mystery to us unless revealed by God in his word or through the passage of time, when that which God has decreed in eternity past comes to fruition in human history (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14). The previous articles have pointed out that election is not based upon anything God foresees in the creature. He sovereignly decrees what comes to pass, and does not merely react to what his creatures may or may not do.
In Article Eight, we now learn that God’s decree is one. God does not have multiple wills or purposes, as for example, when our Lutheran friends contend that God has an antecedent (prior) will to save all men and women, and a consequent (subsequent) will to save those who believe and do not resist grace (i.e., the elect). This may be a sincere attempt to solve the problem of reprobation (God not choosing some to be saved, thereby rendering them objects of his wrath), but ends up creating another unnecessary problem–two apparently contradictory wills within God. These two wills include God’s will to save all, and his subsequent will to save the elect, only because his prior will (the salvation of all), cannot be realized.
Therefore, it is important for the authors of the Canons to point out that Scripture teaches that God has a single eternal purpose based upon his own eternal counsel. While this is beyond our full comprehension, it is nevertheless a fundamental fact of the teaching of Holy Scripture (cf. Ephesians 1:11— “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will”). God’s will is immutable (unchangeable) and does not result from prior actions of his creatures, nor from any consequences which arise from their actions.
It is also clear from Scripture that God’s elect, who would otherwise remain dead in sin, are called from their former condition unto holiness of life. As Paul tells us in Ephesians 1:4, “we were chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, to be holy and blameless.” And as the apostle says in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” From this it is clear that we have been called from our bondage and slavery to sin and its wage (death), and are given faith and are thereby united to Christ. As an inevitable result of this union with our savior is that we will now walk in the good works which God has prepared in advance for us to walk.
Far from making us indifferent to holy living and cold toward God and neighbor, God’s decree of election is the only biblical basis for a life of obedience, lived in gratitude, and as a response from a grateful heart to God’s grace bestowed upon us in Jesus Christ. The only way a bad tree will ever bear good fruit is if the nature of the tree itself is changed from a bad tree into a good one. This is, of course, exactly what happens in election and regeneration which flows from God’s decision in eternity past. This is what Jesus is getting at when he says in John 15:16, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”
Chatting with my buddy, Ron.
My dear friend Ron recently died in Christ. Ron was one of those guys who was rather unassuming but everyone seemed to know him and he had many friends. I first met him way back when Christians United for Reformation (CURE) held their Friday night “Academy” lectures in Orange County, around the time the White Horse Inn first went on the air. He was there every week.
Once the White Horse Inn hit the airwaves in the LA area, Ron probably listened to every episode. He bought cassette tapes of everything CURE did, passed them out to friends, and then bought more.
When Christ Reformed Church was in the planning stages, Ron was there, at every meeting, probably the most excited person in the room to see things get up and going. He was there when Christ Reformed held its trial run services in Mike Horton’s living room. He was there the first Sunday we held “official” worship services.
He seemed to be there every Sunday, for every Bible Study and Academy. He always had insightful questions, appreciated the lessons, and expressed gratitude for what the doctrines of grace, law and gospel, and the Heidelberg Catechism had done to change his life and grant him assurance. He’d often tell me with a glint of excitement, “God is so good!”
Twenty-five plus years later, Ron was still at Christ Reformed Church every Sunday, though he was now past 80 and in failing health. He was still a working veterinarian, ensured his family came to church, still loving the gospel, still expressing the joy of his salvation.
When Ron died, it was a privilege and an honor to conduct his graveside service, knowing full well that if anyone lived a life in anticipation of that moment, it was Ron.
Every healthy, vital, and faithful Reformed church has a cadre of men and women just like him. If your church doesn’t have any, pray that God will send them. If your church has a few, pray that God will send more! They are faithful servants, they love God’s word and all they want or ask is that you preach the gospel to them every week. These folk never let you lose sight of what a church is, and what it is supposed to be doing.
And yes, I will miss my friend.
Below, is the text of my funeral sermon given at his recent memorial service:
Prayer of Invocation—
O Lord, when the death of one we love comes, we are thankful that we can turn to you for comfort and mercy. We know that due to our sin, death haunts us, and barring your dear Son’s return, we too will experience what our dear brother Ron already has–the curse and sting of death.
Yet, in the gospel you so graciously have revealed to us, we know that Jesus has conquered death and the grave, we know that through his merits, our sins are forgiven and we are reckoned righteous before you. We know that all this comes to us through faith in your dear son, our Lord and Savior Jesus.
Therefore thank you that we are not without hope, nor are we left to wonder about the fate of our dear brother. We know that even now he beholds the face of the Savior, and that he has seen things we can not yet understand.
So on this day, we cling to these wonderful promises, we have the greatest of hope since your Son has triumphed over death and the grave, and we have the sweetest of comfort–knowing that you are with us during our times of trial and grief.
All of this comes to us through the merits and intercession of your dear Son, in and through the power of blessed Holy Spirit.
We offer to you our feeble sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving in the name of whom they are accepted, our blessed Lord Jesus.
Amen
The Reading of John 11:1-44—
Words of Comfort and Hope—
I have known Ron Flores for more than 30 years. One of my first hospital visits came when Ron experienced life-threatening complications from coronary bypass surgery. In case he would not make it, Ron asked me to do his funeral and preach the gospel. 30 years later, here we are.
In the Reformed tradition it has been customary to pray for the sick and dying, that they would die a “good death.” This means dying peacefully without great pain and suffering, that the dying would have great assurance of salvation until taking their last breath, and that some how and in some way, God would turn their circumstances to good. By this measure Ron Flores died a good death. He was with his family, he ate his dinner, took a nap, and woke up in heaven. That is a good death, and for this, Lord Jesus, we give you thanks.
When we face the death of someone that we love, we realize that platitudes and kind words–as sincere as they may be–do not answer our difficult questions, nor can they ease the heart-wrenching pain of grief. Sending good thoughts and vapid prayers to the grieving (despite the best of motives) is a waste of time. On a day like today, Hallmark doesn’t have the words we need. God’s word does. When death comes, we need a gospel, a gospel which Ron loved and upon which he counted, and which he wanted all of his friends and families to embrace.
Even though we must face the awful fact of Ron’s death, because of the saving merits of Jesus Christ, we also know the hope of eternal life. Through faith, we claim God’s glorious promise of a day of resurrection yet to come–a day when God will raise all of those who have died in Christ. Since our Lord has conquered death and the grave, and we are united to him in faith, we take comfort when the apostle Paul tells us that death has been swallowed up in victory. As we speak, we know that our brother is in the presence of the Lord–beholding what was only a dim imagination before. Ron has been released from his sins, from all his struggles, from all suffering, and from all the sadness and encumbrances of life. As the apostle John tells us in the Book Revelation, the Lord has already wiped every tear from Ron’s eyes, even as he will wipe away the tears of those who mourn this day.
This is why when death comes, we know that our comfort in life and in death cannot be based upon good works, or our character or spirituality, or any religious ceremonies we may perform. Our only comfort is based on what Jesus Christ has already done for us in his life and death. As our Lord has died and risen again, so too, God has promised us that on that great day of judgment, Ron Flores will rise bodily from the place where we buried him when our Lord returns in unspeakable glory to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.
Until that day comes, all those who have died in Christ surround the throne of God and the glassy sea, clear as crystal, awaiting that day when Jesus returns, a day in which the sky will roll up as a scroll and our Lord will return in glory with all his angels. When he returns, the Scripture says, we shall all be like him in the glories of his resurrection. This is the blessed hope in which we must rest, when today we our feel loss and miss our friend.
As we turn to Scripture for answers and comfort, I would like us to reflect upon chapter 11 of John’s gospel, wherein we heard the amazing account of the death of Lazarus, a dear friend of our Lord Jesus. This account of our Lord’s raising of Lazarus is comforting to us in three respects.
First, the fact that our Lord shows absolute power over death demonstrates that Jesus has the power to do all he has promised. Only God in human flesh can call forth life where there is death. As Jesus told Lazarus’ sister Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live (v. 25).” Earlier in Jesus’s ministry [John 5:24-25], he told his disciples, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”
There are really two resurrections for those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. The first resurrection–a “spiritual” resurrection–occurs when one trusts in Christ. Our Lord himself tells us that whoever believes in him has already crossed over from death to life at that very moment. The bible calls this the “new birth,” or being born again. Faith arises in our hearts. The guilt of our many sins has been forgiven and God gives to us the perfect righteousness of Christ through faith alone. The Holy Spirit makes us alive in Christ when we had been dead in sin (Ephesians 2:5). The Holy Spirit living within us also becomes the guarantee of the resurrection of our bodies at the end of the age (Ephesians 1:13-14).
But there is also a second, comforting theme in this account, the promise of a bodily resurrection as well. The raising of Lazarus from the dead by our Lord points ahead to Christ's own resurrection and ascension into heaven. In the account of our Lord raising Lazarus, the focus is upon the restoration of life, when, as a result of sin and weakness Lazarus became sick and died. Lazarus experienced what Ron has already experienced—the horrible separation of soul from body, what the Bible calls the curse, or the wages of sin, which is death. Lest we think we are immune, let no one leave here without carefully considering the reality that what Ron has already experienced, we too will all experience, the sting of death. Death is as inevitable for us as it was for Ron. As the philosopher-song writer once put it, “nobody gets out of here alive.”
By bringing Lazarus back from the dead with but a single command– “Lazarus, come out!” Jesus gives us a picture of what lies ahead at the end of time. Jesus will rise again from the dead three days after his own death. His bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven, guarantees our own resurrection and eternal life on the day of judgment (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13 ff; 1 Corinthians 15:12-58). One day Jesus will again say to the dead, “come out,” and we will! But unlike Lazarus, who died a second time, we will be raised imperishable, like our Lord.
There is a third thing in this passage when we see how Jesus reacted to the news of the death of Lazarus, his dear friend. The gospels give us several accounts of the various emotions displayed by our Lord during his ministry. They describe Jesus’ compassion for people (Matthew 20:34; Mark 1:41 and Luke 7:13), and his deep sorrow at the death of his friend. We read that Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem because his people would not believe and we are told that he “deeply sighed” at the plight of a deaf man (Mark 7:34). Even though Jesus is God veiled in human flesh–and he entered into a world of those who had rebelled against him and continue to do so–time and time again, we see Jesus’ genuine love for others. We are repeatedly told throughout John's gospel that Jesus had friends whom he loved (John 15:13), people whose company he greatly enjoyed (11:19). We are told that Jesus loved his disciples and considered them the closest of friends (John 13:2). Jesus’ emotions are, perhaps, more than any thing else, the clearest picture we have of his true human nature. And there is no more vivid picture of the emotions of our Lord than that captured in the eleventh chapter of John's gospel.
In John 11, John reports how Jesus loved Lazarus (v. 3) and his two sisters, Mary and Martha (v. 5). These people were dear friends. Jesus was concerned enough about his friends that he stayed with Lazarus' sisters for two additional days. But Jesus knew that Lazarus would die. As he told his disciples, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him (v. 11).” The disciples misunderstood what Jesus had told them. They were thinking that Jesus was referring to the fact that if only Lazarus could get some rest, he would recover. But Jesus knew the awful truth. “Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”(v. 14-15). By the time Jesus had arrived back in Bethany, Lazarus had been dead and buried for four days.
It is Jesus’ reaction to the death of his friend that is important for us to understand as we grieve the loss of a grandfather, dad, and friend. John tells us that “When Jesus saw [Mary] weeping . . . he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled.” Jesus wept along with her.
Most people know that John 11:35 is the shortest verse in the bible. “Jesus wept.” What most people don’t know is the force of this in the original language is much, much stronger. Our Lord Jesus did not merely weep, John says he cried out in anger! In fact, Jesus literally raged in anger. But why would Jesus be so outraged at death? As one writer tells us: “Because Jesus’ friend has died and death itself is the object of his wrath, and behind death, Jesus rages against him who has the power of death, and whom Jesus has come into the world to destroy—that is Satan. Tears of sympathy may fill Jesus’ eyes, but he is angry at death and he advances to Lazarus’ tomb...`as a champion who prepares for conflict’ to call him forth from death to life. The raising of Lazarus is a picture of Jesus' complete triumph over death and hell. In this the story of Jesus and Lazarus, we see the very heart of Jesus, as he wins for us our salvation. He does not do this in cold unconcern, but in anger he wages war against our greatest enemy—which is death.” [Paraphrased from B. B. Warfield, “The Emotional Life of Our Lord”].
When we see how Jesus reacted to the death of his friend Lazarus, how he wept at the very sight of the grave, how angry he was at death itself, we can all draw comfort because Jesus himself sanctifies the grieving process. Jesus didn’t stop and throw a party to celebrate Lazarus’ life. No, our Lord wept at the death of his friend and raged at what sin had done to human race. There is a time for mourning . . . Jesus tells us so . . . Jesus shows us that it is OK to grieve, even though we have the hope of the resurrection.
More importantly, the very one who raged against death is the same one who has the power to forever undo its awful consequences. Our hope is in our Lord’s promise that “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” When we see how the Son of God reacted to death, and how he triumphed over it, we need not fear death or the grave. Ron already knows this triumph and he now lives forever, because the same Jesus Christ who called Lazarus from the grave has already called Ron from death to life when he placed his trust in Jesus Christ. Ron knows a heavenly joy beyond measure, and he too, along with all the saints, shall be raised imperishable when Jesus comes again.
So to Ron’s family and friends gathered here in his memory, take heart and be comforted. Ron has seen his Savior face to face. Although a chapter in your lives has come to an end and you will miss him, a glorious and never-ending chapter in his has only just begun.
Cherish your memories of Ron and pass them on to your children and to their children. But as you do so, don’t forget to tell them, Ron Flores was a justified sinner, who knew that his only hope of heaven was in Jesus Christ’s death for his sins and in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
Anyone who knew Ron already knows what he wanted done at his funeral. Ron wanted nothing more than for all his friends and family to trust in Christ, as he had done. And on a day like today, we clearly see why that matters so very, very, much. For if Christ was not raised from the dead, then the words from Hallmark are all we have. But if Christ was raised from the dead, and he was, then we have the sure and certain hope of the resurrection. And that is what Ron wanted you to believe.
So, with Easter coming soon, I think it appropriate to close with those words of triumph Christians affirm of Jesus at the beginning of every Easter service: He is Risen! He is Risen indeed!
That triumphant cry is why we leave here today comforted in the midst of sorrow. Our hope is in Jesus Christ–the Risen Savior–who not only shed tears of grief at the death of his friend, but who has conquered death and the grave for us in his own death and resurrection. Jesus lives and reigns and so shall all those who trust in him. This is our only comfort in life and in death.
In light of Paul’s exposing of the Judaizer’s faulty understanding of redemptive history, the apostle returns to the fundamental question, “why the law?” No doubt, the law serves a very important purpose, but we must be very clear as to what that purpose is. In Galatians 3, especially verses 15-25, Paul explains that the primary purpose of the law is to show us that we are sinners who need a Savior. According to the second use, the law functions as a stern tutor of a guardian of a minor. The law holds us prisoner to sin until we are released from its tutorial function when we embrace Jesus Christ through faith. The law accomplishes its purpose when it exposes how sinful we truly are. Once we have come to faith in Jesus, the law is no longer a guardian for us, like that needed by small children.
When we consider the law from this perspective–the so-called “second” or “theological” use of the law– a number of things should be noted. For one thing, it should be absolutely clear that there will be no one who obtains the promise because they obeyed the law, or earned God’s favor through their good works, or through their obedience to God’s commandments. Paul is both emphatic and clear. The law was not given to bring life. It was given to inflict the curse and death.
When we die and stand before God on the day of judgment, God will not compare us to others. He will not inquire about our sincerity. Nor will he cut us any slack if we tried our hardest to be good people. God will measure us against the standard found in his law. He will demand perfect obedience to every command. In this sense, the law is like a ten-link chain. Break but a single link and the whole chain is useless, the point made in James 2:10 which states: “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.”
When someone encounters God’s law and thinks to themselves, “well then, who can gain eternal life?” the law has done its work. In the words of one preacher, we must see the law like a mirror. We look in the mirror and we see we are dirty. The mirror shows us our true condition, driving us to the soap and water. We don’t take the mirror down off the wall and attempt to clean ourselves with the mirror! So it is with the law. The law shows us that we need Christ. This, then is the answer to the question, “why the law?” The law has taken all of us “prisoners of sin.” But now that Christ has come, the one to whom the law pointed, and then suffers its curse, Jesus put an end to the law’s role as our stern guardian. Jesus, Paul says, loved us, redeeming us by becoming a curse so that God can forgive our sins and grant us the inheritance (Galatians 2:20).
To argue as the Judaizers were doing, that we must add our obedience to the death and righteousness of Christ is to deny that the death and righteousness of Christ is sufficient to save. The Belgic Confession puts it this way: “to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God–for it would then follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior” (Article 22). It is to say that God must accept us, in part, on the basis of our own righteousness. The Judaizing “gospel” undermines the covenant promises that God made to Abraham (which demands the “hearing with faith”), and distorts the meaning of the covenant God made with Moses in the giving of the law, which does not nullify, or redefine the prior covenant made with Abraham. In different ways, both of these covenants point us to Jesus Christ, his obedience, and curse bearing, not to our own merit earned by our own obedience.
What God promises to give his people through faith in Jesus–redemption from the curse of the law, the forgiveness of the guilt of sin, a righteousness which justifies, and the gift of the Holy Spirit–are freely given to those who trust in Jesus. He is that seed to whom the promise pointed. Through him, we might receive all the blessings of the promise made to Abraham’s children. The person who trusts in Jesus Christ alone for their justification is regarded by God as though they themselves had perfectly obeyed the law and as though they had never sinned. This is why the law does not nullify the promise. This, then, is Paul’s answer to the answer to the question, “why the law?” For what God demands under the law (perfect obedience) he has freely given us in Christ! And that righteousness of Jesus Christ becomes ours only through faith in him.
Taken from "For Freedom!" -- An Expositional Commentary on Galatians
Berkhof’s summation of church’s development of the doctrine of “Antichrist” across time is very helpful. As you can see, there has been little consensus about this. Berkhof is also writing before more recent speculation generated by the prophecy pundits, especially in light of Israel being re-installed in her ancient homeland. His view is largely my own.
Historically, there have been different opinions respecting Antichrist. In the ancient Church many maintained that Antichrist would be a Jew, pretending to be the Messiah and ruling at Jerusalem. Many recent commentators are of the opinion that Paul and others mistakenly thought that some Roman emperor would be Antichrist, and that John clearly had Nero in mind in Rev. 13:18, since the letters in the Hebrew words for “emperor Nero” are exactly equivalent to 666, Rev. 13:18. Since the time of the Reformation many, among whom also Reformed scholars, looked upon papal Rome, and in some cases even on some particular Pope, as Antichrist. And the papacy indeed reveals several traits of Antichrist as he is pictured in Scripture. Yet it will hardly do to identify it with Antichrist. It is better to say that there are elements of Antichrist in the papacy. Positively, we can only say: (a) that the anti-Christian principle was already at work in the days of Paul and John according to their own testimony; (b) that it will reach its highest power towards the end of the world; (c) that Daniel pictures the political, Paul the ecclesiastical, and John in the book of Revelation both sides of it: the two may be successive revelations of the anti-Christian power; and (d) that probably this power will finally be concentrated in a single individual, the embodiment of all wickedness.
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938). 702.
As for nature and character of this evil personage, he adds . . .
The question of the personal character of Antichrist is still a subject of debate. Some maintain that the expressions “antichrist,” “the man of sin, the son of perdition,” and the figures in Daniel and Revelation are merely descriptions of the ungodly and anti-Christian principle, which manifests itself in the opposition of the world to God and His Kingdom, throughout the whole history of that Kingdom, an opposition sometimes weaker, sometimes stronger, but strongest toward the end of time. They do not look for any one personal Antichrist. Others feel that it is contrary to Scripture to speak of Antichrist merely as an abstract power. They hold that such an interpretation does not do justice to the data of Scripture, which speaks, not only of an abstract spirit, but also of actual persons. According to them “Antichrist” is a collective concept, the designation of a succession of persons, manifesting an ungodly or anti-Christian spirit, such as the Roman emperors who persecuted the Church and the Popes who engaged in a similar work of persecution. Even they do not think of a personal Antichrist who will be in himself the concentration of all wickedness. The more general opinion in the Church, however, is that in the last analysis the term “Antichrist” denotes an eschatological person, who will be the incarnation of all wickedness and therefore represents a spirit which is always more or less present in the world, and who has several precursors or types in history. This view prevailed in the early Church and would seem to be the Scriptural view. The following may be said in favor of it: (a) The delineation of Antichrist in Dan. 11 is more or less personal, and may refer to a definite person as a type of Antichrist. (b) Paul speaks of Antichrist as “the man of sin” and “the son of perdition.” Because of the peculiar Hebrew use of the terms “man” and “son” these expressions in themselves may not be conclusive, but the context clearly favors the personal idea. He opposes, sets himself up as God, has a definite revelation, is the lawless one, and so on. (c) While John speaks of many antichrists as already present, he also speaks of Antichrist in the singular as one that is still coming in the future, 1 John 2:18. (d) Even in Revelation, where the representation is largely symbolical, the personal element is not lacking, as, for instance in Rev. 19:20, which speaks of Antichrist and his subordinate as being cast into the lake of fire. And (e) since Christ is a person, it is but natural to think that Antichrist will also be a person.
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938). 702-703
Episode Synopsis:
Date-setting has been a problem for God’s people since the days of the apostles. Church history is full of the accounts of those who, for whatever reason, attempted to figure out when Jesus will return, set dates, and then miserably failed to predict the unpredictable. Two recent examples should suffice. Edgar C. Whisenant predicted the Lord’s return in 1988 in his booklet, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988.” When that failed, he went for 1989. When that failed he picked 1993. And when that failed, he went for 1994. He died in 2001, preventing any future date-setting. The first book created quite a stir, and sold lots of copies (4.5 million of them). Although the later volumes (each with a revised date of Christ’s return) drew less of an audience, Whisenant’s reach was still far larger than anything than any sound theologian has written on the end times before or after.
And there was Harold Camping–a CRC elder–who, in 2005, predicted that Jesus would return on May 21, 2011. According to Camping, those who were saved would be taken to heaven while five months of fire, brimstone, and plagues will strike the earth, with millions dying under the divine onslaught. Following his own time-line Camping concluded that on October 21, 2011 (five months after the rapture), final destruction would come upon the world. When none of this materialized, Camping was completely discredited, his radio empire nearly collapsed, and in response, he called upon Christians to leave their churches because they had all become apostate! By that I take Camping to mean that Christians stopped listening to him and churches were calling him out for his date setting. So, they were at fault not Camping.
When we turn to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 of Paul’s Thessalonian letter, and carefully consider what Paul teaches about the Lord’s parousia, (coming) it does not take long to realize that according to Paul, Christ’s return will be like “a thief in the night.” The Lord’s return will be sudden and unexpected, and will bring about sudden destruction (i.e., final judgment) upon those who do not expect it because they are blissfully indifferent to the awful fate which awaits all those apart from faith in Jesus Christ.
Links:
A List of some of the failed predictions regarding our Lord's return
If you haven’t seen “Thief in the Night,” it is now on YouTube. This flick had a huge impact on Evangelicals: A Thief in the Night
How close are we? The The Rapture Ready Index has you covered
Note: The links from the previous two episodes apply here as well.
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
The Distinguishing Feature of a Heavenly Citizenship
If you are a believer in Jesus Christ, then you are also a citizen of the heavenly kingdom. Our heavenly citizenship also means that we are, in a sense, resident aliens in the land in which we live (in our case, the United States of America). In light of our dual citizenship, the question raised by our text is what, if anything, distinguishes us from the non-Christians around us?
The answer to this question is to be found in the simple fact that Christianity is not a culture, but a system of doctrine. Generally speaking, Christians do not identify themselves by wearing a unique Christian costume (clothing, hairstyle, etc.). Or by eating or not eating certain foods. Or by withdrawing from daily life and keeping to ourselves in Christian communities isolated from the non-Christians around us. There are notable exceptions to be sure–but these are exceptions nonetheless. The Amish wear distinctive clothing and avoid modern “worldly” contrivances, the Seventh Day Adventists follow certain dietary laws, and there are orders in the Roman church which cloister themselves so as to be fully devoted to a life of contemplation, or to support vows of celibacy, poverty, or silence.
But Peter mentions none of these things when writing his first letter to Christian exiles in Asia Minor. The Apostle exhorts Christian aliens to identify ourselves as citizens of heaven by our doctrine (what we profess about the Triune God) and by our conduct, (we strive to be holy as the Lord is holy). This is how we as Christians distinguish ourselves from the non-Christians around us–our doctrine and life.
In part three of our series on Peter’s words to a pilgrim church, we move further into the opening chapter where Peter describes how Christian aliens are to conduct themselves during their earthly sojourn. Peter is writing to a group of struggling Christians scattered throughout Asia Minor (Turkey). His readers/hearers had been displaced from their homes several years earlier as a result of a decree by the Roman emperor Claudius, who granted confiscated land to retired Roman soldiers in the regions mentioned by Peter. Yet, there is a sense in which all Christians are similarly “elect exiles”–the term Peter uses when referring to Christians hearing and reading this letter. What Peter says to those elect exiles uprooted by the Diaspora in the first century, also applies to us. How do we conduct ourselves as resident aliens in the modern world in light of Peter’s exhortation to those in first century Asia Minor to live holy lives?
How Then Shall We Live?
In the opening section of 1 Peter, the Apostle points to the final outcome of God’s grace in Jesus Christ (the salvation of our souls) as the means of encouraging struggling exiles during difficult times. Christian pilgrims should keep the big picture in mind (God will save us from our sins) during the time we must endure our earthly struggles. If the previous section of Peter’s letter focused upon our eternal hope and heavenly inheritance (vv. 3-12), then in verses 13-25 Peter deals with how Christians are to conduct themselves in this life, before they realize their heavenly inheritance in the next. Having the living hope which Peter described in verse 3–that God will preserve us through the same power manifest when he raised Jesus from the dead–how then ought we live in the here and now?
We should take note of the obvious change in subjects between verse 12 and verse 13, evident in Peter’s use of the conjunction “therefore” (dio). What follows (in vv. 13 ff) is an exhortation from the Apostle to take action based upon the previous unpacking of the gospel as the basis for the living hope which God’s people possess through faith in Jesus Christ. There are three imperatives (commands) given us by Peter. First, we are to fix our hope upon Jesus (v. 13). Second, we are to live holy lives which reflect the holiness of our creator and redeemer (vv. 14-16). Third, we are to live in the fear of the Lord, because the one we invoke as our Father is also judge of all the earth (v. 17-19).[1]
The way we should understand these imperatives is as follows: Because God has caused his people to be born again, and then called us to a living hope grounded in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and because we are guaranteed an incorruptible inheritance which cannot perish, in addition to our final salvation which is to be revealed in the last times, therefore we should act as instructed in the following verses.[2] The imperatives Peter sets forth describe how “elect exiles” identify themselves as believers in Jesus Christ (and therefore citizens of heaven) while they live as resident aliens in the civil kingdom. What makes Christians different from the non-Christians around them?
Be Sober-Minded
Peter’s instructions to the elect exiles presupposes that they presently possess a living hope, that Jesus is even now guarding their faith, and that already they have been sanctified and set apart by the Holy Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling by the blood of Jesus. What follows, then, are not instructions about how to become a Christian, but instead are exhortations to Christians living under very difficult conditions about how they identify themselves as citizens of heaven, and how they are to live in light of that heavenly citizenship they presently possess. It is to Christians that Peter exhorts his readers, “preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
The implication of Peter’s exhortation is that Christians must not be foolish, or naive and mistakenly assume that the world around us is benign toward the Christian faith and those who possess a heavenly citizenship through faith in Jesus Christ. This dangerous assumption–that the world is indifferent to Christianity–is easily made by people who mistakenly believe that America is a Christian nation with “biblical values.” America is not a “Christian nation,” although we can say America is a “religious nation.” Whatever Christian values our nation had in the past (or in the present) are nothing but the faint smell of perfume in an empty perfume bottle. Peter’ exhortation is intended to jar his hearers into action. “Prepare your minds for action.” The Greek text conjures up the image of someone tucking in their outer garment so as to run or do serious work.[3]
These elect exiles of the Diaspora must strive to understand the hope that they have through faith in Jesus Christ. They must also understand the innate hostility in the culture around them to their Christian faith. The seriousness of this was much easier for Peter’s audience to understand than it is for us. We’ve not been displaced from our homes, or tortured, beaten, or prevented from buying and selling because we refuse to identify Caesar as Lord or worship pagan deities.
In our context, where hostility toward Christianity often comes with a smile, it is harder for us to prepare our minds for action if we do not see any direct threat. In our situation, preparing our minds for action means that we need to know our Bibles and our catechism. We must understand the person and work of the Savior who is the central figure in the Bible, as well as the way in which non-Christians attempt to attack the Christian faith (in an intellectual sense) or when they bully and belittle those who follow Christ and reject the pagan mores and practices of modern America. Peter is telling us get to work and make a concerted effort to understand the Christian faith, as well as the challenges from the unbelief all around us.
Peter also exhorts Christians to be sober-minded–i.e., “clear headed.” We are to take these matters seriously, and not act as though we are in a drunken stupor. The peril to our souls as resident aliens in a hostile world is not an issue we can ignore or avoid. There is an ever-widening gap between believers in Jesus and American secularists and pagans. We live in a world of unbelievers who do not like, nor do not understand the Christian faith, who are not concerned with matters of sin and grace, and who think Christians are self-righteous and judgmental nitwits. This is why Peter exhorts us to self-consciously prepare for action, and stay sober-minded by setting our hope (our affections) on the grace which will be brought to us when Jesus appears. After all, where our treasure is, our heart will be.
No Postmillennial, Utopian Expectations
The culmination of this living hope is when Jesus returns to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new–not before. There will be no earthly utopia as many seek. While we can understand why John Lennon’s Imagine has become an anthem of sorts for many of our contemporaries, Christians have a different kind of hope altogether. Peter gives no hint of an earthly millennial kingdom yet to dawn before Christ returns (as taught in postmillennialism), nor is there any exhortation whatsoever from the Apostle for elect exiles to seek to transform the pagan culture of the Greco-Roman world into some sort of Christian society. But Peter does say that the Christian eschatological hope–the Lord’s return at the end of the age–must inform how we are to live our lives until the Lord returns.
Because we have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit and set apart for God’s purposes, in verse 14 Peter can speak of Christians as “obedient children,” (of their heavenly Father) who are “not to be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance.” The first thing which characterizes elect exiles is that the power of sin over us has been broken. People who were once slaves to sin, have now (by God’s grace) become obedient children who are no longer enslaved to their sinful passions. God has revealed the truth about himself to us through the gospel of his Son, in and through the work of the Holy Spirit.
The light of the gospel exposes the darkness of sin, and the futility of a life lived apart from faith in Jesus Christ–as Paul puts it in Ephesians 2:12-13, “remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” The only thing a non-Christian can do is “seize the day.” There is nothing else to which they can hang on. A Christian, on the other hand, sees that all of life is to be lived in the presence of God (Corem Deo) for his glory, and for our benefit.
A Call to Holiness
Peter minces no words. He calls all elect exiles to a life of holiness. Our conduct is what marks us off from the non-Christians around us, and is to be a reflection of our heavenly citizenship yet to be fully realized. To be “holy” means to be set apart by God, for God, specifically for his purposes. The gospel then is the basis for a life of gratitude through which we seek to reflect God’s holiness (as revealed in his commandments) in all that we do. Quoting from Leviticus 11:44 (among others), in verses 15-16, Peter commands us “but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, `You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
There are two very common ways to misread Peter’s command. The first misreading is to understand this command as though we can actually become as holy as God is through our own good works, and by ceasing from all known sin. John Wesley tried this with his doctrine of Christian perfection, and in the process, crushed many a bruised reed and snuffed out many a smouldering wick. The second misreading is to so qualify Peter’s command that nothing remains of the requirement to be holy, and the necessity of imitating that holiness which God reveals to us throughout the Old Testament (especially in the law), and with even greater clarity in the person of his Son. If we wish to understand what a life of holiness entails, we look to the life of Jesus.
It is vital for us to be crystal clear about the meaning of “holiness” in order to understand Peter’s command that we be holy. As just mentioned, the primary meaning of the term “holy” is to be set-apart by God for his use and purposes. The secondary meaning of “holy” is ethical purity in the sense of conformity to God’s will (i.e, obedience to his commandments). Peter has already told us earlier in the chapter that God already has set Christians apart through the work of the Holy Spirit, “sanctifying us” to be sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and for obedience to God (i.e., obeying his commands), which is but another way of saying we have been set apart for “a life of holiness.”
Furthermore, the command to be holy as God is holy is used in different ways throughout the New Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, Jesus proclaims similar words to the crowd which had assembled out in the wilderness to hear him teach about the kingdom of God. To a Jewish audience who were confident in their own personal righteousness and holiness before God, Jesus makes explicit what obedience to the law actually means. Toward the end of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:48), Jesus demands “you therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Jesus’ point is that if holiness is mere outward conformity to the commandments of God (as the Pharisees were teaching), then we must display perfect obedience to all of God’s commands.
But Jesus also makes plain that such holiness extends beyond outward conformity to the heart–our thoughts and motives. If we expect to enter heaven through our own holiness, then we must be obedient to God’s commands as was Jesus. In this sense, the commandment to be holy condemns all sinners to eternal punishment. The commandment to be holy absolutely crushes all human attempts to earn, or claim a justifying righteousness before God.
Peter, however, is speaking to people (both believing Jews and Gentiles) who already have been sprinkled with Christ’s blood, who already possess a living hope, are guarded in the faith, and who are guaranteed their heavenly inheritance because God is keeping it for them. Those who were once at home in the Greco-Roman world, now find themselves outcasts, yet remain the beloved of God. Those who were ignorant of God, now know him through Jesus Christ. Through the work of Jesus Christ, those who were not God’s people, now are his people. Those once controlled by their sinful passions, now are set apart for obedience. Those who once lived in futility and ignorance, now live holy lives in conformity to God’s commands. Once believed, the gospel transforms believers so that they begin to live “holy lives.”[4]
A Reverent Fear of the Lord
Peter is not saying, nor even implying, that only those who can live a holy life as demanded by God’s law will gain the promised inheritance. What he is saying is that all those who presently possess the hope of a heavenly inheritance (people who are spoken of throughout the New Testament as “saints” or “holy”), will strive with everything in them to be holy as God is holy. Will they fail? Of course. Will they continue to strive for holiness? Yes. In fact, it is our holy conduct–not our clothing, diet, or withdrawing from society–which identifies us as citizens of heaven while we live our lives as elect exiles upon the earth. We are God’s people, so we strive to set ourselves apart from the evil in our heart, as well as set ourselves apart from the evil in the world around us. As citizens of heaven, we profess Jesus Christ as our ultimate king, not Caesar. But make no mistake about it, for this the world will hate us (so will Caesar), even as they hated Jesus. It is our holiness–our set-apartness unto God, and our striving to obey his commandments–which distinguishes us from the non-Christians around us.
In verses 17-21, Peter issues a call for a reverent fear of the Lord. This call requires a fair bit of explanation. For one thing, fear of God does not mean terror–we are not to take Peter to mean that those who are in Christ should live in fear that if their lives are not holy enough, Christ will cast them out. Then there is the question, “how can Christians truly possess joy if they are called to live in constant fear of God’s judgment?” The reverent fear of which Peter is speaking is similar to that of someone who has a dangerous job–great care and diligence are part of the job, but if one gets careless they can be seriously injured. Christians should not live in fear of God’s judgment, but they must still “fear” God.
There are two things to consider in this regard. First, in context, Peter is writing to elect exiles who are suffering greatly at the hands of the Romans and pagans throughout Asia Minor because of the Diaspora. Their circumstances are perilous. These elect exiles must trust in God’s power daily to keep them safe and preserve them in times of trial. They must not be too confident in themselves, or get cocky knowing that God is infinitely more powerful than Caesar. In light of the command to live holy lives, Christians must be on guard constantly, so as not to slip back to their former ways of living to avoid persecution, or to indulge the flesh. Christians must fear God–who is the final judge–not mockery from the world.
The second thing to consider is that Peter is writing in light of the stress upon Wisdom found throughout the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 4:10, as an example, as the Israelites were about to enter the promised land, Moses exhorts them to remember “how on the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, the Lord said to me, ‘Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so.’” In Proverbs 9:10, we read that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” Just as the Israelites were to fear YHWH, so too elect exiles must not become complacent during their exile. If we wish to be wise, we must allow the “fear of the Lord,” to inform all of life.[5]
Silver and Gold?
In verses 17-19, Peter makes this point quite directly. “And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” Our fear of the Lord should drive us back, again, and again, to consider the cost of our redemption. If we truly fear God in the proper sense, we will be grateful to him for all the he has done for us in Jesus Christ. Silver and gold–as valuable as they are in this world–are worthless in the next.[6]
The proper fear of God arises when Christians reflect upon the fact that we have been ransomed by the blood of Jesus, the sinless and true Passover lamb of God. The word to be “ransomed” (lutron) was used in secular Greek to refer to the ransom paid to free prisoners or slaves. The payment (ransom) which sets us free from sin and death is the shed blood of none other than Jesus, the Son of God, whose death puts an end to the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament (the futility of your forefathers). Jesus alone is without sin. Jesus was that one promised to God’s people throughout the Old Testament, and his blood (not the corpuscles–but the giving of his life) shows us the tremendous price he paid to save us from our sins. It is in the consideration of these things we find the gospel which produces the proper fear of God, as well as providing the motivation (gratitude) to live holy lives before the secularists around us.
In verses 20-21, Peter makes the point that the death of Jesus was not some sort of accident, forcing God to change his plans. Peter says, [Jesus] “was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” The coming of Jesus in the flesh was God’s plan from all eternity, and God’s plan was accomplished when Jesus suffered and died to save us from our sins–to shed his blood to release us from the guilt and power of sin. God has given proof of this through the resurrection of Jesus, so that we, as elect exiles, believe in Jesus and place our hope in God’s plan for his people. The wonder of all of this is alone the proper motivation to fear God, live holy lives, and give Jesus the honor and glory, which he alone deserves.
Holiness Flows from Prior Purification by the Blood of Jesus
Keeping the saving work of Jesus before our eyes (through the preaching of the gospel) is the means through which we live holy lives, thereby identifying ourselves as citizens of heaven while we dwell in the city of man. Peter puts it this way in verses 22-23. “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.” The Christian life (living in holiness) is characterized first of all by purification. When seen against the Old Testament background of ceremonial washings, Peter is likely referring to baptism and repentance. But the tense of the verb (perfect) indicates that believers already have undergone this purification–we have been purified, already–through obedience to the truth, that is, through believing the gospel–the living and abiding word.[7] Baptism is the sign and seal of that purification.
Peter also says that believers are characterized by their sincere love for one another (a brotherly love, philadelphia), which he describes as the fruit of the new birth. When people who are dead in sin come to new life in Jesus Christ (because God has caused them to be born again), one thing they will do is to love others also saved from sin by the precious blood of Jesus. It is well worth noting, that when we are born again, that new life (Peter’s metaphor of the imperishable seed) cannot perish. Once truly born again, Christians cannot become “unborn again” any more than Jesus can go back and die on the cross after his death and resurrection. To put it simply, a Christian cannot lose their salvation because our salvation is grounded in the finished work of Christ, not in anything we do or accomplish.
To ram his point home, in verses 24-25, Peter sets out a sharp contrast between the things of this world–which are temporal and destined to perish–with eternal things which cannot perish. Quoting from Isaiah 40, Peter reminds us that “`all flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” It is the word of God, specifically the good news (the gospel) which gives us new life and promises an eternal inheritance. We are but flesh, and destined to die. As God’s word of promise is eternal, so too is the salvation we possess in Jesus Christ. We will die, but we will also live forever, because God’s eternal word says so.
They Will Know Us By Our Profession
The application we ought to draw from this section of 1 Peter is that we must be about the business of being ready for action while we are exiles in a foreign land by anchoring our hope in the person and work of Jesus Christ and in his gospel promises. We must not be naive about the danger that unbelief around us poses to our souls, nor can we be indifferent to the sinful desires within us to act like the pagans around us. In keeping the saving work of Jesus Christ ever before us, we will fear God, live in holiness, and love our brothers and sisters in Christ.
The holiness, biblically defined, which distinguishes us from the secularists around us includes both the doctrine we profess and our striving to live holy lives as God is holy–not our clothing, our food, or our withdrawal from society, nor even our attempts to transform pagan culture. And we will do these things out of joy and gratitude, Peter says, because the eternal word is preached to us. This word, the apostle tells us, is the good news of the gospel.
________________________________
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 77.
[2] C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, The Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM Press 1960), 46.
[3] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 77.
[4] D. A. Carson, “1 Peter” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic; 2007), 1018.
[5] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, Logos, 81.
[6] Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, 54.
[7] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 5-7.
- Here’s R. C. Sproul’s take on B. B. Warfield’s legacy (including an account of Warfield’s death): R. C. Sproul — Warfield, "Defender of the Faith"
- J-Mac at the 2023 Shepherd’s Conference Redux. Despite his age and recent health issues, John MacArthur was his feisty old self at the recent Shepherd’s Conference, calling the Book of Zechariah an “amillennialist’s nightmare.” Sorry, Dr. MacArthur, I beg to differ . . . Evil in the Millennial Age? An Exposition of Zechariah 14
- Some of the old dust-ups surrounding J-Mac’s dispensationalism resurfaced on Twitter as fallout from MacArthur’s sermon/lecture on Zechariah. Here’s My Reply to John MacArthur 2007 Shepherd's Conference Straw Man Attack on Amillennialism
- So too, MacArthur’s rather loose proximity to the Reformed tradition was raised again. Here’s the best response to J-Mac’s “Reformed” credentials I’ve seen yet: Richard Muller's "How Many Points?" takes a look at how J-Mac would fare in Calvin's Geneva. Here’s a hint. Not well.
- Speaking of eschatology, here’s a helpful and concise essay on the kingdom of God. Steve Baugh on The Heavenly Kingdom and the Earthly Kingdom
- Here’s another real gem, now available on-line: Geerhardus Vos: "The Eschatology of the Psalter"
- The Jesus Revolution movie is raising some interesting questions about Calvary Chapel’s legacy. Here’s a thoughtful take: John Fea on "The Legacy of the Jesus Revolution
- The SBC distances itself from Rick Warren’s Saddleback over the ordination of women. SBC Boots Saddleback. Here’s Warren’s lame response: Christians Who Have a Problem With Women Preaching Have a Problem With Jesus
- So, miss “fussy britches” (a reference to the Shawshank Redemption, in case you didn’t know) dies as a member in good standing in a PCA congregation in So Cal—a truly wonderful story of redemption. Raquel Welch, A Reformed Christian? Yup!
- The theme from Clint Eastwood’s epic Western “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” in the video below like you’ve not heard it before
As C. S. Lewis quipped in Mere Christianity, “God likes matter. He invented it.” Although we can easily overlook this important theological connection, the Christian doctrine of God requires a corresponding Christian doctrine of creation. There are three important elements to consider when reflecting upon how Christians should understand the created order, including things seen and unseen.
First, Scripture affirms that God created all things. Nothing which now exists, exists apart from the fact that God created it. All created things, therefore, owe their existence to God’s eternal decree that particular things do exist because he wills it. The second distinct feature of a Christian doctrine of creation is that since God created all things, God is therefore distinct from all created things and beings. This is apparent from the very opening declaration of the Bible–“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Creation is not part of God (pantheism), nor is creation within the being of God (panentheism). This fact sets Christianity apart from a number of religions–especially those of the east, or those who see a dualism between spirit and matter in opposition to one another, as found in ancient Greek philosophy. A third aspect is that having created all things, God pronounced them “good,” a benediction which is repeated throughout the seven days of creation of Genesis 1. These three facts not only frame a distinctive Christian doctrine of creation, they stand in opposition to a great deal of contemporary opinion to the contrary.
When God created all things, he created them from nothing (creation ex nihilo) through the sheer power of his creative word (Hebrews 11:3). The creation account reminds us over and over again that “God said” and it was so (Genesis 1). From the sun, moon, and stars, to the sea, land, and sky, to the various creatures which fill these created realms, all things were created by God who spoke them into existence. “All things” include those things we can see (i.e., the visible world in which we live), as well as those things we cannot see (i.e., the angels and the invisible world). Although the invisible world cannot be seen, it nevertheless is real, and it too has been created by God and filled by spiritual creatures who do his bidding (i.e., the angels).
The Christian doctrine of creation precludes the notion that God formed our universe out of eternal matter, or that there was there a realm of eternal and ideal forms in which matter participates as an indication of its inherent deficiency and inadequacy when compared to the spiritual world above (i.e., Plato). Rather, the Christian doctrine of creation insists that before all things came into being, God was, completely free and independent from his creation. Here, too, there are important ramifications of a Christian view of creation. There are no eternal human souls, nor do we pre-exist our birth. We are not “divine” in any sense. Yet, in the creation account, God pronounces his divine blessing upon Adam, the first man and divine image-bearer, who was created from the dust of the earth and then given the breath of life by God himself (Genesis 2:7).
It is important to keep in mind the fact that when we speak of God creating all things, we are referring to the triune God, not just the Father. Scripture assigns the act of creation to all three persons of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Although scripture frequently speaks of the Father creating all things (i.e., Genesis 1:1; Nehemiah 9:5-6, Psalm 33:6), the Son and Holy Spirit are also mentioned in connection with creation. In the prologue to John’s Gospel (John 1:1-14), John affirms that the Son (Jesus) created all things (John 1:3). So does the Apostle Paul (Colossians 1:16), as does the author of the Book of Hebrews (1:2). In the creation account, we read, “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” The Psalmist tell us, “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath [or Spirit] of his mouth all their host” (Psalm 33:6). It is the triune God who creates all things.
Keeping these things in mind will help us avoid some of the pitfalls of the pagan thinking which surrounds us. The Christian doctrine of creation (things visible and invisible) reminds us that the Creator is to be distinguished from all things created, and that any proposed dualism between spirit and matter is fatally flawed. Matter is not inherently evil nor flawed simply because it is material. The creation account affirms that when God created all things from nothing, he pronounced them “good.” And although the world groans under our feet because of humanity’s collective rebellion against God (Romans 8:18-24), let us not forget, that at the end of the age when our Lord returns, he will indeed renew all things which he has created, including the heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:1-13).
God likes matter. He not only invented it, he will even renew the heavens and earth and make them fit for our eternal home, without the curse nor any trace of human sin.
Article 7: Election
Election [or choosing] is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so he decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, he decided to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4–6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).
________________________________________
In Article Seven, the Canons set forth a working definition of the doctrine of election which will be used throughout the following articles. It is important to define our terms from the outset and this is what the authors do here. We can best understand this definition by working our way through the main points in order.
First, the Canons teach that election took place in eternity past—“Before the foundation of the world.” Paul teaches this in Ephesians 1:4-6, and his point should be carefully considered so that we remove from our thinking all notions of election being based upon something God foresees the creature doing–as in the case of those who argue that God merely knows in advance what we will do under certain conditions and then he reacts accordingly. While election takes place in eternity past, God executes his eternal decree in time and space. Redemptive history, the biblical account of our redemption from sin and the curse, is therefore the outworking of God’s eternal decree. This too can be seen in Ephesians 1:7-10, when Paul speaks of the work of Christ for us, and then in verses 11-14, when he speaks of Christ’s work being applied to believers by the Holy Spirit. Redemption is decreed (Election), accomplished by Christ, and then applied to us by the Holy Spirit.
Second, we are told that our election is based upon “sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will.” The reason why God elects anyone to be saved, is because he is good and merciful, not because we are lovable or desirable. Neither can we say God “needs” us, as if he were lonely. The triune God has known a perfect inter-Trinitarian love from all eternity. As much as we might wish it were not so, God can get along just fine without us. The reason why any of us are chosen in Christ remains a mystery which lies hidden in the eternal counsel of God. And so we confess with Abraham, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25).
Third, God “chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin.” In order to understand the doctrine of election, it is imperative that we see God’s act of choosing as a divine rescue of sinners. In election, God rescues a multitude so vast they cannot be counted (Revelation 7:9) from the guilt and the consequences of their sin (Romans 5:8, 12, 18-19).
Because we are all sinful by nature and by choice, we will not come to God, unless we are first chosen by God, then called through the preaching of the gospel, and given the gift of faith (John 6:44, Ephesians 2:8-10). God has chosen to save those whom he will, and his saving grace is specifically directed toward the men and women he intends to save from his wrath. He does not merely offer his saving grace to the human race leaving it to them to decide to accept or reject it as they will (hypothetical universalism). Rather, God acts directly upon those whom he intends to save so that they do come to faith in Christ and receive the forgiveness of sins and a justifying righteousness (particular redemption). The Bible does not teach that God makes it possible for sinful men and women to save themselves with his help, as though his grace was an aid or a supplement to our natural ability.
The fourth point is closely related: “Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery.” Those chosen by God can count on the fact that God chose them to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)! There is nothing to boast about if you are a believer in Jesus Christ. In a remarkable passage in Deuteronomy, we read of God’s election of Israel:
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt (Deuteronomy 7:6-8).
God chose Israel for reasons known to himself (he does not give a reason for his love, except his love). But we are told that this is not because of any good works or great faith he foresaw in his chosen nation.
Likewise, for the Christian, election is God’s gracious choice to save a particular sinner who deserves his just wrath and punishment, so that in the end God will be glorified and the sinner redeemed. In choosing to save some, God is not taking anything away from other sinners, nor is he preventing other sinners from coming to faith. In Adam, all of us are equally guilty before God and deserving of his judgment. But in his boundless grace, God chooses to save a multitude so vast they cannot be counted who otherwise will perish eternally.
Fifth, we must take note of the fact that “[God] did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.” Jesus Christ (as second person of the Trinity) is that one in whom all of God’s elect are chosen and justified. This means we are chosen in Christ, called to faith in him through the preaching of Christ crucified, justified by the blood and righteousness of Christ, and sanctified by the Spirit of Christ, before we are glorified. Christ is the mediator of the covenant of grace, which is the historical outworking of God’s gracious and eternal decree to save. This is why our election is inextricably tied to our faith in Christ. God elects us in Christ so that we will believe in Christ.
So, the question remains, “how then do you know if you are numbered among the elect?” The answer is to be found in our relationship to Jesus Christ. As John Calvin points out, Christ is the mirror of our election (Institutes, III.xxv.4). If you believe in Jesus, be assured that you are among the elect, because election is always “in Christ.”
Sixth, the Canons point out that “[God] decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ's fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant his chosen ones true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.” God elects us in Christ, and then gives us to Christ. As Jesus declares in John’s gospel, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). God acts in Jesus Christ to ensure that his elect are called through the preaching of the gospel, that they believe when the gospel is preached to them, and that all the benefits of Christ are now theirs, applied to them by the Holy Spirit.
Paul sets this forth in unmistakable clarity in Romans 8:28-30:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
For good reason, this passage is often called the “golden chain" of our salvation.
Finally, the ultimate reason behind this doctrine is clearly and simply stated— “God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.” As stated earlier, there is no reason to be given for grace, but grace. All praise, glory, and honor must go to God when a sinner is saved by God from the guilt and power of sin. Apart from God’s election this will not and indeed cannot happen.
There is no human boasting allowed! God gets all the credit and the glory for the salvation of sinners.
The Great Commission and the Great Tribulation Run Concurrently
It is common for Christians to discuss the Great Commission in a missionary context and to consider and develop its role as the final marching orders coming from Jesus to his church. In Matthew 28:18–20, we read, “And Jesus came and said to them, `All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”
It is also common for Christians interested in eschatology to discuss and debate the nature of the great tribulation (i.e., “when?” and “how long?”). In a previous essay (The Great Tribulation -- When and How Long?), I wrote,
In light of the tendency to relegate a time of "great" tribulation to the distant past or the immediate future, it is important to briefly survey the biblical teaching on this topic. When we do so, it becomes clear that the time of “great tribulation” cannot be tied exclusively to the events of A.D. 70, nor to the seven years immediately before our Lord’s return. The Bible does not speak of tribulation in this manner, and as we know, many of God’s people have already faced periods of horrific tribulation following the days of Christ’s redemptive tribulation on the cross, and that such tribulation for the people of God will continue until Jesus returns at the end of the age to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.
But it is not often that the Great Commission and the tribulation are discussed in relation to each other (they are connected), and seen as running in parallel throughout the entire inter-advental age. Each give us quite different perspectives on the same period of time—this present evil age. In what follows, I will attempt to draw out and highlight the connection between the mission of the church to go out among the nations, and the opposition from those nations which that mission generates. Jesus himself tells us that this mission extends throughout this present evil age (“I am with until the end of the age”), and provides the context of the nature and mission of the church which Jesus established—to make disciples. It also is apparent that this mission will be conducted in an atmosphere of hostility—i,e., the age of tribulation. Recall, that Jesus told his disciples to expect as much. In Matthew 10:16–22, Jesus warned them,
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”
The Reason for the Hostility
God’s people will be hated because of who Jesus is, what he came to do, and because his word exposes the sinful things people do in secret. John 3:19 makes this point quite clearly. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.” The preaching of the law and the gospel in their proper relationship exposes sin for what it is (the breaking of God’s commandments) and offers the only hope of deliverance from the wrath of God to come (Christ’s saving merits, received by faith alone).
Such hostility arises from the fact that Christian preaching is essentially a truth claim. To preach the gospel properly assumes the truth of Jesus’s words in John 14:6. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” To proclaim that Jesus is the way is to say all other religious claims are false. This puts any Christian who trusts in Jesus for deliverance from the wrath to come at the end of the age in fundamental intellectual conflict with those who are not Christians. The exclusive nature of Christian preaching becomes evident when the Christian preacher proclaims “Jesus is Lord.” To make that claim is to say “Caesar isn’t Lord.” This is why Christians often find themselves in the presence of those who find Christian claims offensive, non-inclusive, and indeed subversive since a Christian’s primary loyalty is to Christ, not a political party, a social movement, to the state, or to its leader. Therefore, the reason why this age is described as one of tribulation is because Christians will inevitably face hostility and persecution due to the content of their faith (Christ’s person and work) and the gospel they preach (Christ crucified and risen).
The Legal Authority of the Witnesses
In the midst of the trials and troubles foretold of the age of tribulation, Jesus assigns to his church the task of “bearing witness” to his person and work, which is the content of the gospel his people are to preach so as to fulfill Jesus’s commission. We see this connection in Luke 24:48, where Jesus tells his disciples, “You are witnesses of these things,” while similarly in Acts 1:8, he says to them, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” In John 15:27, Jesus told his disciples, “and you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.” The notion of bearing “witness” here applies specifically to the apostles and depends upon the gift and power of the Holy Spirit. But in the Great Commission, the proclamation of Christ’s disciples is now extended to “all nations,” and to “ends of the earth” (through the mission of the church which the disciples will found).
In light of the world’s hatred of our Lord’s chosen witnesses, it is important to consider the precise nature and authority of that to which his people bear witness, as well as the consequences for doing so. According to J. A. Heyns, “particularly in view of their task in this world, believers are also called witnesses.” This is a “juridical concept” as witnesses speak the facts about which they are familiar as though in a courtroom setting.[1] Those who hear the proclamation from God’s chosen witnesses (i.e., the gospel) are confronted by those who have legal authority granted them by the judge of the whole earth to bear witness of their guilt and expose refusal to embrace the truth. In this sense, those who preach the gospel function as witnesses in a legal proceeding, by giving testimony challenging (and refuting) the claims being made by the defendants. Although those who reject the gospel ironically see themselves as confronting those who are bearing false witness—those who dare tell them that they are guilty before God and are in desperate need of a Savior—the reality is that those who challenge God’s witnesses have their guilt before God exposed all the more by rejecting those whom God has sent to bring his evidence against them. We need to see this in the proper perspective. God is the judge. It is unbelievers who are on trial—not those whom God sent to bear witness. Christian preaching gives the evidence against them—that they are guilty before God because God has provided a remedy for the guilt of sin, which those on trial willingly reject, and who then dare to persecute the witnesses whom God sends to confront them.
The Death (Martyrdom) of the Witnesses
We may tend to think of this in an individual sense (i.e., those who preach the gospel will often face hostility), but this takes on the nature of a cosmic struggle as well. In Revelation 11-12, John extends this image of “witnessing” to mission of the church as a whole. In Revelation 11:3-13, John assigns to the church of the present age a role as “two witnesses” who prophesy for 42 months.[2] These witnesses are the two olive trees of Zechariah 4, which point to the power of the Spirit as the basis for both the origin and authority of the message of the two witnesses. Recall, that when God asked Zechariah if he knew what the menorah imagery meant, and he replied that he did not know, the angel responded: “Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts” (4:3-6). It is this testimony (prophecy—i.e., preaching the gospel) which gets the witnesses killed in the last days (the last period in human history before the final consummation).
The same sort of scene unfolds in Revelation12:17, where it is the woman (Israel, or more likely Mary, the mother of the Messiah) and her offspring (the church) who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”[3] This loyalty to God and his word has unpleasant consequences—the dragon is furious at those who refuse to follow him and then makes war on them bringing about “tribulation” (cf. Revelation 7:14, 13:7, 15)
The Church — God’s Embassy on the Earth During the Time of Tribulation
Closely related to the idea of the church as God’s witnesses, is the understanding that the church functions as God’s embassy on earth from which Christians serve as “ambassadors” sent by Christ into all the earth.[4] Paul uses this image in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In this case, the ambassadors sent by God to preach the reconciling gospel are sent by the church, with the Lord of the church’s full authority, to bring a particular message which fulfills Christ’s commission—God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
The ambassador brings the message given him by the king whom he serves. The ambassador is not free to make up his own message. Because the message comes from the great king, it comes with the king’s authority, even if given through the means of an agent—the ambassador, who is, in this case, the minister sent to preach/prophesy as directed by the king. To show hostility to the ambassador and reject his message is to reject the king who sent him. But this is no mere earthly king, president, or prime minister—the one who sends the ambassador is the Creator and Redeemer. Once his message is delivered to the intended audience from the heavenly court, all those who hear it are legally obligated to obey it (i.e, believe its contents and do as it commands). To reject the witness sent by the king, or even to do bodily harm to the king’s messengers (i.e., the killing of the “two witnesses” as described above), is to greatly increase the gravity of the eventual verdict. The king will mete out the verdict required by his holy justice. Paul calls this “the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10).
To Attempt to Fulfill the Great Commission Is to Provoke the Dragon Unto Wrath
The struggle then, between those who seek to fulfill the great commission in the midst of a hostile people who serve the dragon (even if unwittingly), is yet another indication that the great commission and the great tribulation run concurrently. The church and its ministers are to preach the message them given them by the Lord of the church until the Lord returns. To bear “witness” is to serve as an official ambassador from the Creator-Redeemer with a divine summons to a rebellious people who already stand condemned before the heavenly court. While the message is one of free and complete reconciliation with the offended king (including the forgiveness of all past offenses, and the granting of a new standing before him), the very nature of the witness bearing with the king’s authority only gives further opportunity for the unbelieving world to continue to rebel against the king and persecute his ambassadors.
Even though the king’s “great” commission to bear witness is given in an age of great tribulation, God’s kingdom will steadily advance to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). When the king determines that the end of the age is at hand, his kingdom will be consummated and the tribulation experienced by his people will give way to eternal life in a new heaven and earth, the home of righteousness. And it is the dragon and his henchmen who are thrown into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:10).
Note: For yet another concurrent event in New Testament eschatology see, The Binding of Satan
_________________________________
[1] J. A. Heyns, The Church, 62.
[2] Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 170-171.
[3] Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 179-183.
[4] Horton, People and Place, 32-33.
Episode Synopsis:
As a baby boomer, I grew up during the Cold War, when the threat of nuclear war was real and constant. In 1948, Israel became a nation and many Jews began returning to their ancient homeland. The “Six Day War” of 1967, fought between Israel and a confederation of Arab states, sure made it seem as though the dispensational expectation of the rapture of the Gentile church, followed by a seven-year tribulation period in which antichrist would make a peace treaty with Israel, only to turn upon the nation leading to the Battle of Armageddon, was at hand. Fear and uncertainty among God’s people during this time created a huge and eager audience as well as perfect timing for Hal Lindsey to release his blockbuster book, the Late Great Planet Earth which was the best-selling book in the United States during the 1970's, selling some 28 million copies by 1990. Lindsey put into popular terms how current events were unfolding as the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem his people, save Israel, and usher in the millennial age. But what was to come next on this time line? The “rapture.” The rapture became the main hope of vast numbers of Bible-believing Christians. Jesus will return to rapture believers before any nuclear holocaust thereby sparing believers from such horrors, and the removal of the Gentile church will allow God to return to dealing with Israel, the apple of his eye. Everything centered upon the “rapture.”
But when Paul discusses the meaning of Jesus Christ’s parousia (or his coming) in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, does the apostle actually teach anything like the end-times scenario as taught by dispensationalists and popularized by the likes of Hal Lindsey? In this ninth episode of season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast in which are working our way through Paul’s two Thessalonian letters, we will consider Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s return. While Paul is certain of the Lord’s return to raise the dead, judge the world and make all things new, he knows nothing of the “rapture” in the form embraced by so many. What does Paul teach about the Lord’s return? Stay tuned.
Links:
R. C. Sproul: "What Is the Rapture"
Nicolas on "The Rapture and the Return of Christ"
Scott Clark: "Two Points on Left Behind and the Secret Rapture"
Guy Waters (Video): "Does the Apostle Paul Teach a Rapture?"
Note: The links from the previous episode apply here as well.
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
Many of us first encountered B. B. Warfield through the five “Warfield” volumes first published by P & R from 1948-1958. My Warfield volumes are now thoroughly highlighted and well-worn. I have even purchased duplicate volumes over the years to mark up all over again. All but one of these Warfield volumes have fallen out of print.
So, I am thrilled to learn of the re-publication of a new and entirely updated version of this five volume set of which the first two volumes should be ready by June 2023. I’ve seen the edited text and they are beautifully done and edited.
I cannot recommend these volumes highly enough nor sufficiently thank the folks at P & R for bringing the “Warfield set” and its content back into print. May a new generation of readers discover the man who just might be America’s greatest theologian as I once did!
Buy this set! Read these wonderful essays!
Below are the pre-pub announcements and ordering information.
Warfield: "The Person and Work of Christ
Warfield: The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
Aliens and Strangers
Why does God allow his people to find themselves as aliens and strangers in their own land? How do Christians find joy in times of trial and suffering? What purpose can there be in suffering such as this? Peter will seek to answer these questions by pointing his struggling readers and hearers back to the promises God makes to us in the gospel. We have been given a living hope grounded in the same power through which God raised Jesus from the dead, a hope to be realized in part in this life, but fully in the next. This hope is not just so many words, but is grounded in the fact that what the Old Testament prophets (and even angels) longed to see, has come to pass in the person and work of Jesus Christ and now the basis of the living hope promised to the people of God.
In Part one, we covered Peter’s greeting (in vv. 1-2), here in part two, we turn to vv. 3-12, which is the apostle Peter’s opening words of encouragement to the elect exiles of the Diaspora in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Peter is writing to Christians and Jews scattered throughout much of Asia Minor, many of whom had been uprooted from their homes by a decree from the Roman emperor Claudius, which granted land in this region to retired Roman soldiers. Many of those uprooted by Claudius’ decree were Christians (both Jewish and Gentile) who were viewed as exiles in their own land because they refused to worship the Roman gods (including Claudius), and because they would not participate in local pagan religious rituals, many of which were part of daily life in the Greco-Roman world.
The apostle opens this letter by declaring, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” The Christians throughout the provinces mentioned were persecuted because of their faith in Jesus Christ. Although hated by their neighbors because of their Christian faith, Peter tells them they can take great comfort in the fact that they are loved by God who has chosen them in Jesus Christ, “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Foreknowledge is not merely God’s knowledge of what will happen in the future, but refers to God’s intimate knowledge of the individuals whom he has chosen to save through the merits of Jesus Christ. God knows each of these people personally. He knows their trials and their suffering.
Resident Exiles
These “elect exiles,” as Peter identifies them, are chosen by God and said to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of “obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood.” Although Peter’s audience are now exiles in their own land, God has called his elect out from pagan darkness into the wonderful light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The primary meaning of “sanctified” as used here by Peter means to be set apart by God for his purposes. In this case, those called by God through the gospel are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (the guilt of their sins is washed away) and are set apart for obedience to Jesus, the one who saves them from their sins.
Peter’s greeting to these elect exiles is overtly Trinitarian. God’s people are not merely theists, but they are believers in the one true God who reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their belief in the Triune God, as well as salvation by the merits of Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit, marks these exiles off as citizens of a heavenly kingdom. They may live as exiles in the civil kingdom with its joys, duties, and dangers, yet they possess a heavenly citizenship for which they long, and which gives this life meaning and purpose. These elect exiles need to know that whatever suffering and persecution they experience during their time in exile during the Diaspora is actually preparing them to receive all of the benefits of their heavenly citizenship by strengthening their faith.
Peter’s use of the term “exile” is not limited to the original audience. There is a sense in which every believer in Jesus Christ is a resident alien (a sojourner, a pilgrim) in whatever society in which they live–their true citizenship is where Christ is, in heaven. The original audience of this epistle were truly exiles–removed from their homes by the Romans. But all Christians are exiles in this world (resident aliens), making the journey to the heavenly city and longing to dwell in the home of righteousness–the new heaven and earth. Peter encourages such exiles by reminding them that through the saving work of the Triune God, “grace and peace are multiplied” to them. These suffering saints experience Roman oppression everywhere in their midst, and they feel the constant sting of life as an exile. They are in desperate need of the encouragement which Peter offers them.
Charles Cranfield makes a very important point about the context in which Peter offers praise and thanksgiving to God in the opening words (v. 3). Cranfield writes, “only a few months and the Neronian persecution will have burst upon the Church in Rome, where the Apostle is writing, and have it cost many martyrs–among them, the Apostle himself.” Cranfield goes on to say, “Already the storm clouds are gathering. There is an oppressive sense of insecurity. The Christians in Asia Minor to whom this letter is addressed are apparently also seriously alarmed, and, we suspect, prone to self-pity.” In other words, they were likely wrestling with the question of why it was that God was allowing this terrible hardship to happen to them.
Cranfield points out that this letter was written by Peter “to confirm feeble knees” among his hearers. So, how does Peter begin his letter? “Not by offering sympathy, not by trying to convince them that what they fear will never happen, nor yet with a rehearsal of [Peter’s] own troubles.” No, Peter opens this letter to the elect exiles throughout Asia Minor “with an ascription of praise to God.”[1] Christian pilgrims should not ignore or deny the reality of their suffering as a Greek stoic might do, but they can only gain a proper perspective their trials and travails by considering who God is, what he has done for his people, and the promises he makes to those whom he has chosen in Jesus Christ. Peter begins with praise unto God the Father for what he has done in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
A Trinitarian Affirmation
The ascription of praise which opens verse 3, “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” is typical of Jewish prayers. The act of “blessing” means to direct our praise unto God the Father because of (or on the grounds of) who he is (our Creator), as well as what he has done for us as our redeemer–sending his Son to save us from our sins. We were chosen to be sprinkled with the saving blood of Jesus, and then we are set apart for God’s purposes (sanctification) and for obedience to God’s commands. On the contrary, pagan letters from the period profusely thank the “gods” thereby seeking to gain their favor. The apostle gives praise unto God even in times of suffering and trial, knowing that God has a purpose for everything, and that he will redeem his people even in the midst of their struggles.
When we direct our praise to God the Father in the Son and through the Holy Spirit, we are giving thanks for all of the blessings of the gospel. Peter spells out these blessings in the string of clauses and prepositional phrases in verses 3-5. The first of these is “according to his great mercy.” Peter does not begin with the justice of God–knowing that if the Triune God poured out his judgment upon us, we would face him as guilty criminals standing before an omnipotent, omniscient, and holy God who knows everything about us and how sinful we truly are. Instead, Peter says, God deals with his elect exiles according to his mercy–specifically that he demonstrates his mercy to us through the work of his Son.
A Living Hope
Furthermore, Peter says, “he [the father] has caused us to be born again to a living hope.” Notice that God initiates our salvation–God is the one who acts in mercy upon us while we are dead in sin. The word Peter uses (anagennēsas) refers to a “rebegetting or begetting anew rather than being born anew,” just as in 1 Peter 1:23, “where believers are said to be begotten (anagegennēmenoi) by the imperishable seed of God’s word.”[2] God “causes” (or brings about) the new birth when he makes those dead in sin to be alive through the preaching of the gospel. This is what we mean when we say the Holy Spirit works through means–in this case, the preaching of the gospel (the “word”).
It is very common to hear Christian evangelists command those in their audience to “be born again,” as though we could raise ourselves from the dead by repeating a prayer after the minister, walking the aisle, or by inviting Jesus into our hearts. People who are dead in sin cannot raise themselves from the dead. In fact, the Bible nowhere commands us to “born ourselves again” (even in John 3 and the account of Nicodemus). Rather, the Bible everywhere tells us that unless we are born again (regenerated, made alive) by an act of God, we cannot see the kingdom of heaven. We will remain dead in our sins. This is the simple distinction between the imperative mood (a command) and the indicative mood (a statement of fact). Peter could not be any more direct than it is God who has caused us to be born again. Through his word and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God raises us from death to life, and in doing so, gives us a living hope–that is a hope tied to the future life (heaven) and to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as indicated in the next clause, “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”
When Jesus was raised from the dead the new creation dawned. When Jesus conquered death and the grave, both the guilt and the power of sin–which kept us enslaved, and to the curse, which is death–were forever and finally broken for all those for whom Christ accomplishes his redemptive work. Just as God raised Jesus bodily from the dead the first Easter, so too, he causes us to be born again, when we were dead in sin. This is what we mean when we speak of salvation as mongeristic (one working). Dead people do not cooperate with God when he gives them new life. We do not save ourselves with God’s help–God saves us from beginning to end. Rather, he has caused . . .
A Heavenly Inheritance
By tying this living hope to the resurrection of Jesus (a once for all event which cannot be reversed), Peter can speak of “an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you.” Peter is drawing upon a number of Old Testament passages here (especially from Joshua and the conquest of Canaan) all of which speak of an inheritance in typological terms–temporal and earthly blessings which point beyond themselves to eternal and heavenly blessings. We may be exiles, pilgrims, and sojourners in this life, but what awaits us and which gives us hope is the knowledge that our heavenly citizenship is so much better than the inheritance promised to Israel in passages such as Deuteronomy 15:4–“for the Lord will bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess.”
For the Israelites, possession of the promised land was conditional upon Israel’s obedience to the terms of the covenant God made with his people at Mount Sinai. This is why the blessings of that earthly inheritance were so often clouded by death, disease, drought, disaster, and conquest by pagan enemies. But the heavenly inheritance of which Peter is speaking is guaranteed to God’s elect exiles by a bloody cross and an empty tomb. Our heavenly inheritance was earned for us by Jesus Christ through his life of obedience, his death for our sins, and in his resurrection from the dead. This inheritance cannot perish and more than Jesus Christ can go back and die again after his resurrection. It cannot be polluted by human sin, it will never lose its luster or its splendor. As these elect exiles have come to see, earthly blessings (land, possessions, wealth, prestige) can perish in an instant at the whim of Caesar in Rome. But heavenly blessings are imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. Even better, Peter says, God “keeps” them for us until we receive them in full.
The struggling elect exiles are assured that this inheritance will be theirs because it is by “God’s power [that they] are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” The same power manifest when God raised Jesus from the dead is applied to these elect exiles who are “being guarded” until they receive everything promised to them. “The word shielded’ (*phrouroumenous*) can be translatedguarded’ or `protected.’ It is used of putting garrisons in a city to protect it from foes.”[3] God does not promise to protect Christian exiles from all suffering or persecution while they live as aliens in this fallen world. What God does promise is to preserve them in the faith so that they receive their promised inheritance when their heavenly citizenship is realized–when they die (and enter into the presence of the Lord), or if the Lord should return first.[4]
The debate about whether or not a Christian can lose their salvation (if they truly were saved and united to Jesus in his death and resurrection) seems to be settled by the fact that the faith of each of the elect exiles is guarded by God with the same power evident when God raised Jesus from the dead. When we say that a Christian cannot lose their salvation, we do not mean that we are strong enough to keep ourselves saved–we mean that God is strong enough to keep us in faith! God guards his people’s faith until they receive all that he has promised to them. He keeps his own from falling away.
The Secular Utopian Vision
At this point, we should note that several influential critics of Christianity (most notably Marx and Feurbach) have argued that the idea of an afterlife (a heavenly inheritance such as described here) is a sort of intellectual opiate which dulls people so they don’t embrace the necessity of radical political action in this life because they mistakenly think there will be an after life when all wrongs will be righted. For these thinkers, God does not exist but is a projection of the desire for a better place when we die. Peter’s point is not that our longing for heaven makes this life meaningless. On the contrary, our heavenly citizenship gives meaning and purpose to everything in this life–even those times when we suffer, and when we struggle as exiles in a foreign land. All Marx and his ilk could offer was a sham utopian society which never once got beyond the theory to the real world, and which ended up producing the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and a system of Gulags (prisons) resulting in the death of millions through revolutions, purges, and war. I’ll take Peter’s living hope over a Marxist utopia any day!
Rejoicing in Our Trials and the Testing of Our Faith
If, in verse 3-5, Peter has directed the suffering exiles receiving this letter to give praise to the Father for the living hope which God has secured for them by the resurrection of Jesus, then in verses 6-9, Peter speaks of the joy which even suffering Christians experience in this life and which will be realized when Christians enter into the fullness of salvation revealed “in the last time” through the work of Christ. We should understand what follows in the sense that having the hope of eternal life, Christians can rejoice in the midst of suffering, as we await the full inheritance Jesus has promised us. Peter puts it this way in verse 6. “In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials.” The Christian life is one of rejoicing, joy, and blessings, even in times of great trial and suffering. As Cranfield puts it, joy “does not vanish at the approach of trouble.”[5]
The reason why this is the case is that our sufferings have a purpose as spelled out by Peter in verse 7: “so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Trials are a test of faith–not to see if we have faith, or even to see if we have strong faith–but trials are a means of strengthening our faith, however weak or tenuous our faith may be. Even in those times when we suffer and are tested to our limits, our faith grows stronger. Let me be clear here–it is not the suffering which is joyful. Suffering is miserable and no one (in their right mind) wants to suffer. Rather, we rejoice when we suffer (an expression of joy) because we know that our suffering will come to an end (after a “little while”). An athletic metaphor is useful here–exercise and training are painful. But it makes us stronger, give us endurance, as well as the sense that we can make our way though what is to come. This is what suffering does to faith–makes it stronger. Notice too, there is nothing said here about suffering because God is punishing us. What is said is that when we undergo trial, God guards our faith, making it strong.
When seen in this light, our faith becomes more precious to us than refined gold. Like the exiles receiving this letter, all worldly possessions and comfort may be taken from us–yet we still have joy in knowing that through these struggles God is preparing us to receive our future inheritance. He even gives us a taste of it now through word and sacrament. It may seem as though faith is all we have, but we must realize how precious faith is in times of trial. Faith has been given to us by Jesus himself, who then guards it so that our faith grows stronger even in the worst of times. The result is, Peter says, that we will receive praise, glory and honor when Jesus returns–a very important statement. Elect exiles will one day reach their true home and receive their inheritance. God has caused us to be born again, we believe (trust) in Jesus and his promises, God allows us to suffer and undergo trial, but he guards our faith, strengthening it, making it far more valuable than fine gold, so that in the end, we receive praise, glory, and honor. The guarantor of the heavenly inheritance ensures that we receive what he promised to give to us. This living hope is what enables struggling Christians to not only endure their struggles, but find meaning and purpose in the midst of them. God is preparing us to receive our inheritance.
Unseen but Loved
The remarkable thing is that “though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory.” Not one of us has ever seen Jesus–yet we love him just the same. Our Savior reveals himself to us through his word, in his sacraments, and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have not seen him, but we love him. We have not seen him, but we believe in him because God caused us to be “born again.” Our faith in Jesus is grounded in the gospel accounts of his miracles, his teaching, and the fact of his resurrection. No doubt, Peter is here recalling the words which Jesus once spoke to Thomas in John 20:29, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” There are plenty of good reasons to believe in Jesus, but the only reason we do so is because he has granted faith to us. This is why we love Jesus, believe in Jesus, trust in Jesus, and rejoice in what Jesus has done for us in ways which human speech cannot fully express–although Peter tries to do so. We rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory.
The Salvation of Our Souls
Because we love Jesus and we believe (trust) in him, Peter says, his readers/hearers “obtain the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” Our faith has an object–the person and work of Jesus. Faith does not save–faith looks to Jesus who saves us. Faith receives, rests in, replies upon, and trusts that the merits of Jesus are sufficient to save us from our sins. So too, having faith in Jesus–that he will save us from our sins by his death and resurrection–we will receive everything which Jesus promises, the salvation of our souls. In speaking of our souls, Peter is not saying that God will save only our souls and not our bodies, but that he will save “us” i.e., the whole person.[6] God begins his work in the present–when he caused us to be born again (i.e., the first resurrection, spiritual rebirth). He will bring the new birth to its final outcome–the final salvation of each of the elect exiles. This occurs on the last day when Jesus raises the dead and reunites body and soul, which have been torn apart by death.
Peter reminds his readers that this promise was anticipated throughout the entire course of redemptive history. As he says in verses 10-11, “concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” Many commentators, and I think correctly, see an echo here from Old Testament passages such as Daniel 12:7-10 where the prophets sought to inquire into the meaning of the prophecies given them by YHWH, but were told that these things could not be understood until the time of the end (i.e., when the messianic age had dawned).
At the end of his prophecy, Daniel laments, “and I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?’ He said,Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.’”[7] Peter explains that the time of the end is at hand, and what Daniel sought to understand has been revealed in and through the person of Jesus.
Peter encourages struggling Christians that even as the prophets longed to see the outcome of their prophecies (but did not), those same prophecies are now fulfilled by Jesus Christ and the benefits are now enjoyed by all of God’s elect exiles. In verse 12, Peter says to them, “it was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” The prophets looked ahead to that time when the promises YHWH first revealed through them are enjoyed by all believers in Jesus. Even the angels desired to know what would happen when Jesus appeared as the incarnate Savior. Now they know. So do those to whom the good news of the gospel has been preached, and who, through the work of the Holy Spirit, have now heard and believed.
When we fall into the quicksand of trial and tribulation, we tend to focus upon our misery and easily fall victim to despair. We cry out “why?” and we complain that it is not fair that we are forced to struggle to keep from being pulled in deeper and deeper. Peter’s word of encouragement to the recipients of this letter reminds them of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ, and that even as the saints of old longed to see how things would turn out in the end, Christians are the beneficiaries of hearing in the gospel the very things which the prophets and angels longed to see. We have a living hope. Our faith–weak as it is–is guarded in the midst of our struggles by the very same power through which God raised Jesus from the dead.
Because all of God’s wonderful promises made to his old covenant people have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, we have every reason to believe that the promises God makes to us about our heavenly inheritance will likewise be fulfilled. In the midst of our struggles, Peter reminds us that God’s track record of keeping his promises is pretty good. In Jesus Christ, the Father has caused us to be born again, and through the work of his Spirit, he ensures the salvation of our souls. He has promised to save us from our sins–he has. He has promised to give us a glorious inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading–and he will.
_________________________________________
[1] C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, The Torch Bible Commentaries (London: SCM Press 1960), 33-34.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 94.
[3] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 64.
[4] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 64-65.
[5] Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude, 41.
[6] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 60.
[7] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 72.
I have not yet seen the film, but I will. I’m not sure how Kelsey Grammer will translate from Frazier Crane to Chuck Smith, but I will keep an open mind.
I did, however, compose a series of blog posts in 2013 on the religious buzz generated throughout Orange County, CA, by the large evangelical ministries based here in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, including: TBN, Robert Schuller and the Crystal Cathedral, Chuck Swindoll of the Fullerton Evangelical Free Church, the Bible Answer Man (Walter Martin), and the newbie at the time, Rick Warren and Saddleback. A significant part of my series included a look at Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel (a retrospective from my later Reformed perspective).
I was a close observer of this remarkable time (mostly), and a small participant in some of it. My family owned a Christian Bookstore at Knott’s Berry Farm, smack-dab in the middle of a loud Christian buzz which is now but a faint hum.
In any case, here’s my take on that era, including my perspective on Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel: The OC -- A New Burned Over District (originally written in 2013 and updated and republished here 2021).
One of the most thought provoking discussions of “Antichrist” comes from B. B. Warfield. In one of his last essays written for publication before his death in February of 1921, Warfield addressed the matter of the biblical use of the term “Antichrist” as found in John’s epistles. The Lion of Princeton acknowledges that there is a broader use of the term (the so-called theological use, i.e., “the Antichrist”), which he describes as a composite photograph made up of John’s “antichrist” (found in his epistles), Paul’s “man of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12), and the beast and false prophet from the Book of Revelation (chapter 13). Warfield finds the evidence for such a composite photograph of an Antichrist far from compelling.
In this essay (re-printed in B. B. Warfield, “Antichrist” in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 1, ed John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980), Warfield addresses John’s use of the term “Antichrist” in his epistles. Warfield asks and answers the question, “to what does John refer when he speaks of Antichrist?”
Warfield begins with an important qualification—the context for John’s warning about this foe.
We read of Antichrist nowhere in the New Testament except in certain passages of the Epistles of John (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7). What is taught in these passages constitutes the whole New Testament doctrine of Antichrist. It is common it is true, to connect with this doctrine what is said by our Lord of false christs and false prophets; by Paul of the Man of Sin; by the Apocalypse of the Beasts which come up out of the deep and the sea. The warrant for labeling the composite photograph thus obtained with the name of Antichrist is not very apparent . . . .The name of Antichrist occurs in connection with none of them, except that presented in the passages of the Epistles of John already indicated; and both the name and the figure denoted by it, to all appearance, occur there first in extant literature.[1]
Warfield’s point is an important one and rarely considered. There is a specific biblical usage of the term Antichrist as found in John’s epistles, the only place where the word appears in Scripture. Warfield contends that this evidence ought to be considered quite apart from Paul’s “man of lawlessness” and John’s beast and false prophet.
When seen in this light, it is clear that Antichrist was already a source of controversy in the apostolic church. John does not identity a specific individual who warned of a coming Antichrist, but he does allude to false teaching then present in the churches of Asia Minor. Says Warfield . . .
We learn merely that there were people who declared “Antichrist is coming!” It appears to be implied that Antichrist was thought of as an individual, and his coming as, though certain, yet still future– as apparently, in fact, a sign of the impending end. We cannot go beyond that; perhaps not quite so far as that. And as to who it was who were asserting, “Antichrist is coming!” John leaves us completely in the dark. Possibly he is adducing a current Christian belief . . . . It appears far more probable, however, that John is adducing not an item of Christian teaching, but only a current legend–Christian or other–in which he recognizes an element of truth and isolates it for the benefits of his readers.[2]
Warfield then asks, “is the Antichrist a future foe, or a present reality?”
The phrase which, John tells us, his readers heard–“Antichrist is coming!” does not in its very language, to be sure, project his coming into the future. It is the certainty rather than the futurity of Antichrist’s coming which it emphasizes; and it perhaps, as heard by his readers, put them in a quiver of expectation of his coming–creating some situation as that against which our Lord had warned his followers (Mark xiii. 21 f.) . . . . John meets the situation thus produced by a very definite assertion, that, so far from being a matter of future expectation, the coming of Antichrist had already taken place. Antichrist is not a future, but a present phenomenon; not a thing to be looked forward to in nameless dread, but a thing to be courageously met in our every day living.[3]
Warfield’s point is too often overlooked. We must face Antichrist now and not wait for him to come in the distant future.
But Antichrist, says Warfield, is not a person, but is a pernicious heresy—the denial of Christ’s incarnation.
John not only erases the individual Antichrist from the scroll of prediction, but reduces him just to a heresy. “Who is the liar,” he demands, “but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist–he who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John ii. 22). “Every spirit,” he declares, “which confesses that Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God; and no spirit which does not confess Jesus, is of God: and this is that Antichrist of which you have heard that it is coming: and it is now in the world already” (iv. 3). “There are many seducers,” he declares again, “who went out into the world, even those who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in flesh.” This is the Seducer and the Antichrist (2 John 7). In one word, “Antichrist” meant for John just denial of what we should call the doctrine, or let us rather say the fact of the Incarnation. By whatever process it had been brought about, “Christ” had come to denote for John the Divine Nature of our Lord, and so far to be synonymous with “Son of God.” To deny that Jesus is the Christ was not to him therefore merely to deny that he is the Messiah, but to deny that he is the Son of God; and was equivalent therefore to “denying the Father and the Son”–that is to say, in our modern mode of speech, the doctrine–the fact–of the Trinity, which is the implicate of the Incarnation. To deny that Jesus is Christ come–or is the Christ coming–in flesh, was again just to refuse to recognize in Jesus Incarnate God. Whosoever, says John, takes up this attitude toward Jesus is Antichrist.[4]
According to Warfield, Antichrist then is not so much a person, but any heresy denying the incarnation (and by implication, the Trinity). To deny that Jesus is God in flesh is to do the work of Antichrist. This applied to the proto-Gnostics of John’s day and certainly to the Arians in the centuries which followed.
I think Warfield is correct regarding how we ought to understand “Antichrist” in this narrow sense—John does speak of him and associates him with a particular heresy already present in the first century and which has plagued the church’s since.
Despite Warfield’s reservations, I remain convinced that the “composite photograph” is the best way to frame the broader doctrine of Antichrist. John’s Antichrist (the Spirit of Antichrist is still an ever present reality) fits nicely within a theological composite (the doctrine of Antichrist) which also includes Paul’s Man of Sin, and the beast and the false prophet found in the book of Revelation. Someone ought to write a book about this! Wait, its been done. The Man of Sin
_______________________________
[1] B. B. Warfield, “Antichrist” in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 1, ed John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980), 356.
[2] Warfield, “Antichrist,” 357.
[3] Warfield, “Antichrist,” 356-57.
[4] Warfield, “Antichrist,” 360-361.
God’s Attributes
Much can be known about God from the created order. Through our interaction with the world around us, we know that God is eternal, all-powerful, and good (cf. Romans 1:20). Yet, whatever we learn about God through nature (general revelation), will always be limited by the character of revelation given through finite, created things. In addition, such revelation is inevitably corrupted by human sinfulness (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, whatever sinful people learn about God through the natural order will be grossly distorted, and ironically, ends up serving as the basis for all forms of false religion and idolatry–a theme developed by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-32. John Calvin was absolutely right when he spoke of the minds of sinful men and women as “idol factories” (Institutes, I.11.8). And it is because of this general revelation—the truth of which is suppressed in unrighteousness—that the entire human race stands condemned before God (Romans 1:20).
Since sinful human curiosity often leads to speculation about God’s hidden essence, it is important to remind ourselves that we can know nothing about God unless and until he condescends to reveal himself through the “two books” of nature and Scripture. In the Word of God, we find a number of divine “attributes” (or perfections) ascribed to God. So, rather than speculate about God’s hidden essence (which often ends up in idolatry), we must worship and serve God as he reveals himself to us through his Word. We can define these attributes as those perfections which are ascribed to God and which are evident in God’s works of creation, providence, and redemption.
Christian theologians have long struggled to explain how it is that certain of these divine perfections belong to God alone, while others are ascribed to humanity in finite measure since we are created in God’s image. The former attributes are most often identified as “incommunicable” attributes because these particular attributes cannot be “communicated” by God to his finite creatures. The latter are called “communicable” attributes because they are in fact communicated to humanity, though in finite measure due to our creaturely limitations, and understood primarily through analogy (i.e., God gives us examples in creation and his Word, which help us to better understand him). As we take up these divine attributes, we must keep in mind that these are perfections which God alone possesses in all their fullness and perfections, and they reveal a great deal to us about God’s divine being.
When we speak of God’s incommunicable attributes we may think of things such as divine simplicity (God is an infinite spirit and not the sum of different parts–cf. John 4:24). Because God is “simple,” his attributes are said to be identical with his being. God is also self-existent (aseity). He is in no sense dependent upon anything outside himself for his existence, his glory, or which influences his purposes. We can also speak of God as “eternal.” He alone is uncreated, without beginning or end. God now is. God always was. God forever will be.
One way Christians have spoken of a number of these attributes is to use the “way of negation.” That is, since we are finite and sinful creatures who depend upon God’s revelation of himself to truly know anything about him, it is much easier (and safer) for us to say what God is not, rather than struggle to state what an infinite and eternal God truly “is.” These are attributes with which every Christian is familiar.
God is said to be “immortal,” because he, unlike us, is not “mortal.” This is but another way to say that God is eternal. He does not live or die as we do–he is life itself. We may also speak of God as “invisible” because he (unlike us) is pure spirit and not visible to the human eye. This also means that God simultaneously fills all creation with his perfections. We speak of God as “immutable” because he does not change, as to his essence, or as to his purposes. And then we may speak of God as “impassable.” Unlike his creatures, God is independent from the world he has made, and his divine essence and his plans are not subject to external influences (like suffering or sinful passions), although the persons of the Godhead are indeed affected by the actions of his creatures. Take, for example, the fact that we know that God loves us because his Son Jesus suffered and died for our sins (1 John 4:10), we can “grieve” the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30), and so on.
The so-called communicable attributes are perfections which include those attributes which begin with the prefix “omni” to distinguish the way in which we as creatures possess these attributes from the absolute perfection in which God possesses them. These include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, as well as other attributes not designated with the “omni” prefix, such as goodness, love, mercy, holiness, righteousness and jealousy.
Although our knowledge is finite and limited (because we are finite and limited creatures), God is said to be omniscient–he knows all things. Although we exercise creaturely power and freedom, God alone is properly said to be all-powerful and therefore sovereign over all things. Although we occupy both time and space, God transcends all such spatial and temporal limitations. He alone is omnipresent. Men and women can demonstrate goodness, love, mercy, etc., as a consequence of being created in the image of God, but he possesses these same attributes without limits or measure, unlike the way these attributes are manifest in us.
Since this is how God has revealed himself to us in his word, we are barred from speculating about these divine perfections (such speculation often leads to idolatry—a “god” made in our image). Nor can we ignore his attributes when they expose both our sinful and our limitations as creature. Rather, we worship and adore the God who reveals himself to us in his Word and whose attributes are evident in creation, providence, and redemption.
Article 6: God’s Eternal Decision
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For “all his works are known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
_______________________________
The doctrine of election is a difficult concept, especially for Americans operating with the presuppositions of modern democracy–our personal choices determine our future and that any proper understanding of fairness is tied to equality. Despite its difficulties, election is a doctrine which is widely taught throughout the pages of Holy Scripture. If God gets all the glory when undeserving sinners are saved, and if men and women are blamed for not believing, how are we to understand this? What about the question of “fairness?” Is it fair for God to decide to save some, but not all?
In Article Six, the authors of the Canons deal with the implications raised by the fact that our salvation only comes about because of something good in God, and not because of anything good that God finds in us, his sinful and rebellious creatures.
The Canons are careful to point out that the ultimate reason why anyone comes to faith in Jesus Christ is to be found in God’s eternal decree to save a huge number of sinners, a number so vast they cannot be counted (cf. Revelation 7:9). The biblical writers teach that God elects this multitude according to his deliberate plan and purpose. He does not merely watch his creatures act, and he then reacts accordingly to those who chose to believe or chose to reject the gospel. In a biblical passage (Ephesians 1:11) which we have already considered (in Article Five), God’s choice to save his elect is not based upon his foreknowledge of contingent [uncertain] events. Rather, God’s choices are based upon his own “purpose” and his “plan,” or better yet, what Paul calls his eternal counsel (Ephesians 1:5, 11; Romans 8:28-30).
Granted, this is difficult for us to understand since we are bound by both time and space. God is not. But what would the alternative be if this were not true? The alternative is a God who cannot act to rescue his creatures from their bondage to sin, but who can only watch and then react when the creature takes the first step—something Scripture teaches sinners cannot do (cf. Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). Dead people cannot act. They cannot take a “first step.” And so, we are left with a “god” who cannot control every aspect of his own creation, who can only attempt to change the actions of those who willingly co-operate with his efforts (synergism). Such a view does not square with either God’s omnipotence (he is all powerful) or his immutability (his person and will are unchangeable).
Those whom God has chosen to save do indeed come to faith only because he acts upon them, by “graciously softening their hearts and inclining them to believe.” As we have seen in prior articles, God does this through the means of the preaching of the gospel (Christ crucified). It is the Holy Spirit working through gospel who turns unbelieving hearts of stone into hearts of flesh which will believe. According to God’s eternal purpose, through the preaching of the gospel, the stony hearts and unwilling wills of his elect are softened and inclined toward Jesus Christ–i.e., they realize they are sinners in need of a Savior. The end (God’s election of those specific individuals whom he will save) must be connected to means to accomplish that end (the preaching of the gospel).
All of this raises the more difficult question, “what happens to those who are not numbered among God’s elect?” In one sense, we can simply answer, “nothing.” God, who is under no necessity of saving anyone, justly leaves the non-elect to suffer the consequences of the hardness of their own hearts. God does not soften that heart, nor does he incline them to believe. He leaves them as they are, dead in sin, unable and unwilling to respond to the good news of Christ. The result is that they perish eternally, because they are guilty in Adam, and they willfully commit sin, justly placing them under God’s holy judgment. Unless their hearts are so inclined and softened, they do not want to believe the gospel! They freely and willingly reject it since they feel no conviction of sin and see no necessity of a Savior. Their hearts remain hard and the Christian message is repulsive to them. But the fault for this is theirs, not God’s. God passes over them, exercising his justice and withholding saving grace from them. After all, he is God and can do what he wishes with his creatures (Romans 9:11-16).
At this point, the authors of the Canons remind us that if we are all sinful by nature and by choice and undeserving of salvation, then the basis for anyone going to heaven and being numbered among the elect is to be found only in God’s unfathomable, mysterious, and yet merciful act, in distinguishing between people equally lost. In other words, since we are all sinful, we must see election as God’s choice to save some—based upon reasons known only to himself, his plan, and counsel—and not because of anything in the creature which motivates him to chose one but not the other.
Why does God choose one and by-pass the other? He does not tell us why he acts as he does. He doesn’t have to. But he does say that he has reasons which remain unknown to us. Moses reminds us in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Why he chooses one and not another is not revealed to us. That he does so, is.
Because the subject is difficult for us to comprehend and not a popular position, it is easy for the enemies of the Christian faith, or those who do not understand, to distort the biblical teaching on this point. It is easy to caricature the teaching of election so as make it seem as though the Reformed turn the “loving God” into a cold and capricious monster, who supposedly takes away all choice from us, and who creates people only to damn them to hell forever. This obviously is not what the Scriptures teach, nor what Reformed Christians actually believe.
For those who are Christ’s, and who know and believe what the Scriptures teach in this regard, the doctrine of election is a source of unspeakable comfort. If we are in Christ, it is because of something good in God that is far greater than our weakness, hardness of heart, and sinfulness. And if we are in Christ at this moment, we can be assured that we will be “in Christ” forever (a matter discussed in detail later). This is clearly taught in John’s gospel when Jesus describes himself as “the good shepherd” (John 10:1-30).
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?” Others said, “These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”
At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”
We find here not the cold language of metaphysics, nor the terminology of speculative theology. We find the wonderful image of the good shepherd caring for his sheep. Jesus is that “good shepherd” and we are his sheep, only because he graciously softens our hearts and inclines us to believe. This why we hear his voice, receive eternal life, and then follow him. He chose us. Because he has, we know that he will never leave us or forsake us because he is faithful and his father is all-powerful. No one can snatch us from his hand! Although some distort this teaching, election is an unspeakable source of comfort for godly souls who take God at his word.
“Elect Exiles” – 1 Peter 1:1-2Christians Possess a Dual Citizenship
Presumably, most people reading this are US citizens–either by birth or by naturalization. American citizenship entitles us to all the benefits and privileges of living in the United States. Yet, our national citizenship also carries with it the responsibilities of being an American–we should vote, we must pay our taxes, and we may be called to serve in the military in times of war, and so on.
In addition to our US citizenship, Christians possess another kind of citizenship–a heavenly, eschatological citizenship. If we trust in Jesus Christ and possess the Christian passport (baptism), we are also citizens of Christ’s kingdom. Therefore, all Christians hold a dual citizenship. Just as our natural citizenship provides us with certain benefits, and places certain responsibilities upon us, so to does our citizenship in Christ’s kingdom. The purpose of Peter’s first epistle is to spell out both the privileges and responsibilities of our membership in Christ’s kingdom, especially as we dwell in the midst of the civil kingdom with its many blessings, its numerous duties and obligations, and its soul-threatening dangers, along with the risk of persecution.
The Place of 1 Peter in the New Testament Canon
Peter’s first letter is often identified as one of the “catholic” or general epistles. These letters come out of the very heart of the apostolic circle. Peter was the chief apostle. James was the half-brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem church as well as one the first Christian martyrs. John was the author of the gospel bearing his name, three epistles, and the Book of Revelation. And there’s Jude, another half-brother of Jesus. The general letters are very important if too often overlooked.
Reformed Christians often understand themselves as primarily students of Paul–because in our own history, the doctrinal debates in which we have engaged as a tradition often deal with the question of how sinners are reckoned as forgiven and righteous before God (justification). Our theologians frequently write books on Paul, his theology, and with good reason, we spend much time in Romans and Galatians. We need to properly understand the gospel in order to share it with others, and to live in light of the countless blessings secured for us by Jesus Christ.
I Am a Legal Citizen — Yet I Feel Like an Exile
While the battles over justification are important, and we do need to be thoroughly conversant with Paul and his letters, I think it increasingly apparent that American Christians must now also fight on a second front–the ever-growing challenge of secularization and the hostility towards Christianity now appearing throughout the broader culture. The first letter from Peter provides first century Christians with very specific instructions about how they are to live as exiles in a foreign land. For the original recipients of these letters, this meant the diaspora of the Greco-Roman world of the first century because the Christians receiving this letter had been forcibly removed by Roman authorities from the cities in which they had been born and raised.
While I am at home in the land of my birth and find much here of value and joy, the older I get, the less this is true. I am all-too aware that the land in which I live is becoming increasingly hostile to the things I believe about the meaning and purpose of life, the values I hold dear, as well as those things I believe as a Christian as expressed in the Apostles Creed and Reformed confessions. In many ways, I now feel like a foreigner in my own country–not a foreigner in the sense of race, custom, or history, but a foreigner in light of how my neighbor sees the world, how they live their lives, what they think important, and how they make decisions about right and wrong. I simply do not believe the same things about the meaning, order, and purpose of life which most of my neighbors do. Part of the reason is I have a dual citizenship and they do not.
Many of you are experiencing the same struggles. In light of our membership in the kingdom of Christ, biblically speaking, there is a real and profound sense in which we are resident aliens in the civil kingdom. We wish to be good American citizens and we strive to be salt and light among our neighbors. Yet, as Christians we cannot help but feel more and more as though the culture in which we live is increasingly foreign and hostile to us, because it is. We want to fight back and resist. But how? Is retaking “enemy turf” (i.e., “owning” the opposition) a biblical mandate which comes with the expectation of success?
Peter’s letter reminds us that we are not the first Christians to feel this unease. In this letter from Peter we find instructions to Christian exiles–people who possess a heavenly citizenship and yet are also exiles and sojourners in the midst of a hostile, pagan culture. In our case, there are pagan elements around us to be sure, as well as some remnants of the Christian (or better, “religious”) culture of the American past. But I’m not referring to a decline in Christian culture and a desire for a nostalgic return to a time when America was “Christian.” America has always been a religious nation, but has never been and cannot be a “Christian” nation in the true evangelical and biblical sense of the term.
Make no mistake about it, we live in an increasingly secularized society in which many of our neighbors live their entire lives from cradle to grave without giving any consideration or showing any concern whatsoever, about the existence and nature of God, the fact we are divine image-bearers, the reality of human sinfulness and evil, or the need of divine grace to rescue us from our predicament. We live in a world where people’s personal opinions and experiences have replaced appeal to truth. The subjective reigns, while the objective is ignored. When someone declares “I feel,” they are dismissing any logical argument or Bible verse you can muster. These secular folk still need a Savior, but never even stop to consider why, or who that Savior might be–because they feel no need of such a thing. At the practical level, this is what it means to be “secularized.” The irony is that many such secularized people still claim to be spiritual, but the more spiritual they claim to be, the farther they are, it seems, from the kingdom of God.
As 1 Peter unfolds, we’ll be surprised, I think, by how much Peter has to say to us under such circumstances, encouraging us to keep our heavenly citizenship before our eyes as we live in a land which is our home for the number of years of life God grants to us, but which is but a blink of the eye in light of eternity. Peter will teach us to renounce the carpe diem (“seize the day”) motto of the Nietzschean pagans around us. The apostle will contend that Christians don’t “seize the moment.” Rather, we live Corem Deo–we live our lives in the civil kingdom before God in the light of eternity. As citizens of Christ’s kingdom, Peter tells us, we must believe specific doctrines and conduct ourselves as God commands, all the while we live as exiles and sojourners in this unwelcoming place. His letter has much to say to Christians in a secularized and increasingly pagan society such as ours.
The Background to 1 Peter
As with any other New Testament letter, the best way to get the most out of 1 Peter is to understand who wrote this epistle and when, and then consider the historical circumstances under which it was written, so we can draw proper application for our own circumstances. We’ll do that before we spend the balance of our time looking at the salutation in verses 1-2.
The first matter to deal with then is the question of who wrote this epistle. Right off the bat, the author identifies himself as the apostle Peter–“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Critical scholars–those who reject the miraculous elements in the New Testament–universally argue against Peter’s authorship. For such scholars, who embrace a hermeneutic of suspicion, apostolic authorship is always guilty until proven innocent–which is exactly backwards when considering ancient documents which should always be given the benefit of doubt unless and until there is reason to question such things.
It should be duly noted that in I Peter 5:1, the author claims to be an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus. “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed.” The assumption made by critical scholars that a student or follower of Peter wrote this letter in Peter’s name long after Peter was dead and gone was never a common practice as critical scholars claim, and anyone who claims to be an eyewitness to the sufferings of Christ and who was not, would be considered a liar and a fraud by Christians–not someone whose obviously false claims were subsequently canonized and treated as Scripture.
Critical scholars usually reject this epistle on the ground that 1 Peter differs greatly in style and in the quality of its Greek from 2 Peter (which few scholars accept as being an authentic letter from the apostle). How could an uneducated fisherman, it is argued, compose a letter like 1 Peter in such “cultivated” (educated) Greek? This objection collapses when we consider the likelihood that Peter employed a secretary to compose the letter (just as Paul employed Tertius to write down his letter to the church in Rome). This was a common practice in the first century because an author had to ensure that the letter being composed actually fit within the space allowed within the available parchment.
Preparation of such letters required great care and skill, and professional scribes were widely employed to compose letters as dictated by their authors. Some have argued that Silvanus (Silas)–a known associate of Paul (2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess; 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1), and who is mentioned as the courier of this letter in 1 Peter 5:12, also may have served as Peter’s secretarial scribe after Peter had been imprisoned in Rome.[1] There is no direct evidence for this, but this is far more plausible than contending that this letter was written by someone writing in Peter’s name long after Peter died, and fraudulently claiming to be an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.
Furthermore, the external evidence supports that Peter the apostle is indeed the author of this epistle. The church father Clement, writing his first epistle from Rome in about 90 A.D. where Peter was known to have been martyred by Nero in the late 60's, alludes to it. Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (written about 112 A.D.) uses language taken directly from this epistle, indicating that 1 Peter was well known in the early church. Later church fathers cite it directly as coming from Peter. More important is that there is nothing in this letter which conflicts with what we know of Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome in the latter portion of his increasingly despotic rule. Given the fact that Nero had Peter put to death at some point before Nero’s own demise in 68 A.D., there is every reason to believe that this letter was written in Rome between 64-66 A.D. by the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness to the sufferings of Jesus. Peter then employed a scribe to compose the letter which appears in our New Testament.[2]
As we answer the second question–under what circumstances was this letter written–we will also find additional evidence of Peter’s authorship. After identifying himself in the opening words, Peter goes on to speak of “those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” These elect exiles (more on this in a bit) are from the five regions in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) in which both Christians and Jews had been uprooted because of an edict by the Roman emperor Claudius, who ruled from AD 41-54. Claudius ordered that the entire region be re-colonized by retired Roman soldiers.[3] These men were given land throughout Asia Minor after their service in the Roman army was completed. Those who devoted twenty years to Rome’s military were rewarded with a tract of land–land which the Christians and Jews receiving this letter may have owned before it was taken from them by Roman authorities.
This fact is important for any study of 1 Peter for two reasons. The first is this puts this letter in the right time period to support a date of composition in the mid-sixties of the first century–a few years after Christians and Jews were forcibly uprooted by the Romans. The second is this establishes the fact that this letter is being sent by the apostle Peter to downcast Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) who now find themselves as aliens and strangers in a land which they once called home.[4] It would be like Mexico defeating the United States in battle, and then giving land in California, Arizona, and Texas, to Mexican citizens thereby displacing all those who moved into these areas after this land was ceded from Mexico to the US in the 1840's, people who have owned the land for over 150 years, and now find it taken from them. To the victors go the spoils.
Peter is writing to people who may come from established families and communities now living as foreigners and aliens in their own land. Some in the original audience were slaves, freedmen, tradesmen, and even social outcasts. They are not only political exiles–they are, as we will see, theological exiles, people exiled because of their faith in Jesus Christ, the very people who would be most easily displaced by the Romans are Jews and Christians. Both groups would be despised by the locals and oft-times were already on the receiving end of loathing and prejudice from their pagan neighbors, who would only be too glad to point out Christians and Jews to Roman officials who then confiscated their land and property. Such people–the elect exiles–are in desperate need of both instruction and encouragement. This is what Peter’s first epistle offers to them. It offers the same to us who now face an increasingly hostile culture.
1 Peter — An Overview
Before we turn to the first two verses of this letter, we need to briefly consider the remarkable contents of this brief but theologically packed letter. As one commentator has written, “probably no other document in the New Testament is so theological as 1 Peter, if we understand `theological’ in the strict sense as teaching about God.”[5] The only New Testament writing which speaks of God with greater frequency is 1 John. As a brief survey will show, Peter emphasizes divine attributes and prerogatives throughout.
Peter speaks of God as the “living” God (1:23), whose will is accomplished (2:15; 3:17), who foreknows those who are his (1:2), and whose word stands forever (1:25). This God is our Father (1:2), he is holy (1:15) as well as the judge of all (4:5). He is the faithful creator (4:19), and the God of all grace (5:10)–grace, by the way, is a major theme in the epistle and is mentioned 10 times. In him, we have the new birth and a living hope (1:3), we are his people (2:10), who are identified as the family of God (4:17), as well as God’s flock (5:2) of whom we are servants (2:16). If we are to remain faithful while living as exiles, then we must know God, and understand who he reveals himself to be.
Peter also speaks extensively of the sufferings of Christ–our Lord’s passion (paschō) is mentioned twelve times in 1 Peter, more than any other book in the New Testament. Peter speaks of Christ’s “sprinkled blood” in the introductory verses, and of its preciousness–worth more than much silver or gold (1:18-19). Peter identifies Jesus as the Passover lamb in these same verses, and speaks of Christ as being chosen to be the Savior of sinners from before the foundation of the world (1:21). Peter tells his readers that Jesus is an example to us in our suffering (2:21), and that he bore the guilt of our sins in his own body on the tree (2:24). Peter reminds us that Christ suffered bodily (4:1), once for all, as the righteous for the unrighteous (3:18). We could go on, but as you can see, this epistle is absolutely packed with doctrinal content, which is why it is important for us to read through this epistle regularly.
One other important thing to notice is that Peter stresses the great tension all Christian exiles and pilgrims feel between “the already,” those benefits we presently possess in Christ, and the “not yet,” those benefits to be realized only upon our completion of our time in exile. We have been born again Peter says, with an imperishable seed (1:23), yet our final salvation is ready to be revealed in the last times (1:5) and that the end of all things is near (4:7). Because we are members of Christ’s kingdom we are to love one another (1:22; 2:17), we are to turn away from evil desires (1:14), and we are to live as Jesus instructed us in the ethical section of the epistle (2:13-3:12).
For Peter, the church of Jesus Christ is the true Israel, composed of both Jews and Gentiles who have been called from darkness into the light of Christ through the preaching of the gospel. All those who are Christ’s and members of his kingdom are as much exiles and sojourners in a foreign land, as are those receiving this epistle from Silvanus, which was to be read in the exile churches scattered throughout first century Asia Minor.
The Opening Verses
With this background information in mind, we can now turn to the opening two verses of this epistle (the greeting). “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.” Five things jump out at us from the introduction.
First, the greeting is overtly Trinitarian. Peter speaks of the foreknowledge of God (his intimate knowledge of his redeemed people reading/hearing this letter). Peter speaks of his readers/hearers as obedient to Jesus Christ because they have been sprinkled with his blood, and because they have been sanctified (or set apart) by the Holy Spirit to be the recipients of the saving benefits of Jesus Christ. Those whom the Father foreknows–the word “foreknow” means much more than merely to know in advance what will happen, it means something more like “foreloved,” i.e., those people whom God has known in advance—are those washed by the blood of Christ, which is applied to them by the work of the Holy Spirit. Chosen by God, we are saved from the guilt of our sins and delivered from its power by the Triune God. Christian exiles are Trinitarian, not merely theists.
Second, Peter identifies himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Peter is not merely a messenger bringing news to exiles, he brings this news with the authority of Jesus Christ himself. As an apostle, Peter is affirming that it is Jesus who calls him to this office, and it is Jesus who commands him to speak to the churches with Christ’s authority. This epistle then is not just advice and encouragement from an apostle to suffering Christians. It is Jesus Christ’s word of comfort and encouragement to them, through the agency of Peter. Therefore, the epistle comes with the authority of Jesus himself. What is taught in this epistle is to be believed. What is commanded in this epistle is to be obeyed by exiles sojourning in a foreign land.
Third, Peter is writing to “elect” exiles. Those hearing or reading this letter are people who are parepidēmois, “strangers,” “exiles” or “foreigners.” To the original audience, as we have seen, this is literally the case. Large numbers of Jewish and Gentile Christians have been displaced throughout the regions mentioned by the apostle. These followers of Jesus are rejected and despised and now exiles because they worship the one true God, who has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They now pay the price for rejecting the pantheon of Roman gods and pagan deities worshiped by their neighbors. These Christian exiles may speak the same language as their neighbors, they have the same history, culture and customs, and they have the same DNA. Yet, because they obey Jesus, they are foreigners in their own land–different not in history, culture, and custom, but different in how they see the world around them, and how they chose to live their lives. They may be hated by their neighbors, but, as Peter reminds them, they are the beloved of God, chosen (“elect”) in Christ.
In a certain sense all Christians are foreigners in whatever land in which they reside. In Philippians 3:19-21, Paul makes the same point Peter does here. “Their end [the enemies of Christ] is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” Christians may be exiles, aliens, and sojourners in this life, but this is because we also possess a heavenly citizenship which non-Christians can never understand.
The civil kingdom has been ordained by God as the realm of common grace, where we share the joys, duties, and dangers of this life with all of our non-Christian neighbors. But we are also citizens of Christ’s kingdom and we await a Savior to come–this gives us a completely different perspective on this life from that of our neighbors. For non-Christians, this world and this life is all that there is. Yet, this world is, as John Calvin puts it, is the grand theater of God’s redemption. But it cannot be our final home until every hint and trace of sin is purged from it on the day Jesus returns–a point Peter makes in chapter 3 of his second epistle when he speaks of the new heaven and earth as the home of righteousness. The purging of all sin and the overturning of the curse cannot be a gradual process (i.e., as in postmillennialism), but the result of a cataclysmic event—our Lord’s second advent.
Fourth, the good news of which Peter reminds his struggling hearers (and us) is that despite the scorn and hatred we will receive at times from our non-Christian neighbors, which is the inevitable consequence of being exiles in a foreign land, we are nevertheless, “elect” exiles, chosen by God to be the recipients of the greatest blessing of all–we are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ, through whom God’s grace and peace are multiplied. When Peter speaks of the sprinkling of sacrificial blood, he is clearly referring to Exodus 24:3-8.
Finally, as an echo of Exodus 24, the language here is covenantal. The idea is that the representatives of Israel have been called up to Mount Sinai for the establishment of God’s covenant with Israel, and so they “pledge their obedience, and then they are sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice. So also here; Christians have been chosen `for (the purpose of) obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.’” When God calls us (his elect) into covenant relationship with him through faith in Jesus, “we pledge our obedience while the covenant is sealed by Jesus’ death.”[6] To put it another way, God has chosen us in Christ to be his elect exiles on the earth (we are a redeemed Israel living in the wilderness of this present evil age), and because God has done this, we receive all the saving benefits of Jesus Christ, and we pledge our obedience to our Savior.
What Is to Be Distinctive About Christian Citizens?
What marks us out as elect exiles while we sojourn in the civil kingdom? For starters, Christianity is not a culture. We eat the same foods, wear the same style of clothing, celebrate the same national holidays, enjoy weddings, birthdays, and graduations, as do our non-Christian neighbors. Christians do not wear special Christian” clothes or abstain from certain foods like Jews and Muslims. At a glance, you cannot tell non-Christians apart from Christians–with exception that Christians are modest and strive to live in peace with their neighbors. What distinguishes us from the secularists and pagans around us is that as elect exiles we follow and obey that one in whom we are granted our heavenly citizenship–Jesus Christ. He has sprinkled us with his own blood, washed away our sins, and through the work of the Holy Spirit, he sanctifies us (sets us apart) unto himself and for his purposes.
Although we live, work, and raise our families in the midst of the civil kingdom, we do so as followers of Jesus and as citizens of the heavenly kingdom. We possess a dual citizenship. What sets us apart from the unbelievers around us is what we believe and whom we obey. We strive to be good citizens in the civil kingdom–Peter tells us to honor the authorities, marry in the Lord and raise our families in accordance with God’s word, as we fulfill our vocations as unto the Lord. Yet, because we are Christ’s and members of his kingdom, we are elect exiles in a land which is our temporary place of residence, but is not our final home. It is in this sense that as exiles, sojourners, and pilgrims in a foreign land, we can identify with those elect exiles in Asia Minor who received this letter from the Apostle Peter.
So to the elect exiles scattered throughout lands far beyond Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Peter says to us, “you have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.” Amen.
Next up, “the salvation of your souls” from 1 Peter 1:3-12
Note: Audio of the sermons on which this series is based can be found here: Two Kingdoms -- Resources
____________________________________
[1] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 5-7.
[2] For a discussion of the authorship of 1 Peter see: D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 421-431; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), .
[3] G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic; 2007), 1015-1016.
[4] Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1015-1016.
[5] Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, 2 Vols (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975-78), 2.344.
[6] Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1016.
Episode Synopsis:
The greatest event in all of human history was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The most hoped for event in humanity’s future is Jesus Christ’s return when he will raise the dead, judge the world, and bring about the new creation. Since the moment Jesus Christ ascended into heaven and the attending angels told his disciples that he would return in the same manner in which he departed, his people have longed for Jesus to return. Our greatest hope is to be that generation still living when the Lord returns so that we need never taste death. Along with the first Christians we cry out, “Maranatha! The Lord come!”
Like many of us, the Thessalonians had questions about details of the Lord’s return–what it means and when it will happen. When they first heard Paul’s teaching and preaching they gladly accepted this wonderful truth that Jesus’s resurrection and ascension guaranteed our Lord’s bodily return at the end of the age. But some of them wondered, “what happens to those who die before our Lord comes back?” Do they miss out on the benefits of the resurrection? Others were asking “how soon will the Lord return?” They took Paul to be saying the Lord would return very soon. Do the signs of Jesus’ return of which Paul had spoken, give Christians the tantalizing clues from which we can figure out when the Lord will return?
Paul addresses these questions in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. We’ll talk about all of this in the next three episodes of the Blessed Hope Podcast as we consider Paul’s answers to the questions about Christ’s second advent put to him by the Thessalonians.
Show Notes:
This is the first of three episodes which cover 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and Paul’s teaching on Christ’s second advent
Links:
Events Associated with Christ's Second Advent (chart--scroll down)
Leon Morris's Article on Christ's Second Coming for the Baker Bible Dictionary
Nicolas Batzig on the Rapture and the Return of Christ
Scott Clark on the Rapture
Cornelis Venema on Eschatological Hope and Fulfillment
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
Although I grew up in “Bible Churches” in which exposition of the Bible was standard fare (if given through a dispensational interpretive grid), I don’t recall hearing any discussion of Paul’s use of the term “Maranatha” found at the end of 1 Corinthians 16:22. But when I occasionally attended Calvary Chapel, I noticed the word Maranatha, was ubiquitous. Everyone seemed to know it came from an Aramaic word which means “the Lord Come.” Maranatha appeared on bumper stickers and tee-shirts. Calvary’s rapidly growing music enterprise was labeled “Maranatha Music,” which had its own a slick logo complete with the Calvary Chapel dove. At the time, this struck me as odd since Paul was obviously referring to the parousia of Jesus when using Maranatha and not Pentecost.
A quick internet search will reveal a surprisingly wide range of businesses, churches, and other enterprises which use Maranatha as a title—presumably to identify themselves as evangelical Christians of a particular sort even if not directly affiliated with Calvary Chapel. I use the term to end each of my podcasts, since it is the perfect way to end any discussion of Paul’s letters, just as he closes out his first Corinthian letter in the same way (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:22).
In re-reading F. F. Bruce’s wonderful book on the life of Paul, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Eerdmans, 1979), I found the following discussion of Paul’s use of Maranatha on page 67.
The primitiveness of the ascription to Jesus of the title “Lord” is shown by its currency in the Aramaic form maran or maranā as well as in the Greek kyrios: indeed the Aramaic invocation maranā-thā (“Our Lord, come”), used probably in the eucharistic commemoration, antedated the beginnings of Gentile Christianity and made its way (like the liturgical Amen and Hallelujah) untranslated into the vocabulary of Greek-speaking churches.
The early currency of the invocation maranā-thā bears witness to the disciples’ lively expectation of Jesus’ parousia, his advent in glory, to consummate the kingdom inaugurated by his death and resurrection. One of the most primitive eschatological passages in the New Testament comes in Peter’s exhortation to the people of Jerusalem to repent and turn again, so that their sins may be blotted out and “that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord”, with the sending of Jesus, their foreordained Messiah, “whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old” (Acts 3:19–21). Here it is implied that early repentance on the part of the people of Jerusalem (perhaps as representing all Israel) would speed the parousia. This form of the expectation was soon superseded by others, but the expectation itself lived on as a potent hope throughout the apostolic age, not least in the thought of Paul.
As Bruce notes: 1). The term is primitive, that is, it was used very early before the Gentile mission got fully underway. 2). It is closely tied to the affirmation, “Jesus is Lord.” 3). Along with Hallelujah and Amen, the use of Maranatha was likely used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which explains the formula, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ shall come again” in Christian liturgies and confirmed when the phrase is used in a Eucharistic context in the Didache, (14:10). 4). The early church expected and hoped for the Lord’s return, and made it a key element of their preaching, catechesis, and liturgy. 5). Maranatha, along with Amen and Hallelujah were brought over into Greek speaking churches, just as we use them today. 6). The term is thoroughly Pauline.
Maranatha is a wonderful biblical expression of hope which I think well worth using in its proper liturgical and anticipatory senses. Calvary Chapel revived the wide-spread use of the word as an identifier of the movement, but I think it better to use the word in the appropriate biblical contexts described by Professor Bruce.
I can’t help but think the apostle Paul would be taken back a bit to see a music label using the term as a logo in conjunction with a descending dove. I’ll bet he’d shake his head when he passed by the “Maranatha Sheet Metal Company” (yes, there is such a thing) or the local Maranatha High School.
As for me and my podcast, I’ll keep using it in conjunction with Paul’s affirmation that our Lord’s return is the blessed hope. It is my hope too. “Maranatha, Lord Come!”
The shoot down of four mysterious objects spotted by NORAD coming in from the Arctic circle, brought to mind the warning plea given at the end of one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies of my youth—The Thing (1951).
Famed Gunsmoke actor James Arness made his first movie appearance as the vegetable-like alien bent on world conquest, before being fried in a clever electric trap set by a few American airmen at an arctic base.
The movie ends with the famous clip above, when the embedded reporter shares with the world what happened and urges vigilance. 72 years later, he sounds rather prophetic . . .
Statue of Ireneaus (from St. Madeleine’s in Paris)
The Church Fathers
The earliest Christian documents which mention the Antichrist contain slight theological reflection, apart from a brief mention of him in connection with a particular biblical passage. Over time, the short-shrift given him begins to change. Some tie Antichrist to heresy (appealing to the epistles of John). Others speak of him in connection to the persecution of the church. Some think he will be an apostate Jew who would appear at the time of the end in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem while introducing destructive heresies. Other focus upon his role as a deceiver. Some follow the biblical texts closely (i.e., Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians, the Epistles of John, and Revelation 20), while a number indulge in more fanciful speculations. In other words, the church fathers, Origen, and Augustine have diverse views on the subject, many quite similar to interpretations offered in our own day.
The Epistle of Barnabas (4:1-5), written soon after the close of the apostolic age, identifies the fourth beast of Daniel 7 as the Roman Empire, while specifically referring to the beast as Antichrist.[1] A similar reference surfaces in the writings of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was born about AD 70 and likely martyred about AD 156 A.D. In 7.1 of his Epistle to the Philippians (written about AD 135), Polycarp quotes from 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 2:7 and contends that Antichrist is the spirit of heresy.[2] This is the same emphasis found in John’s epistles, to the effect that the threat from Antichrist arises from within the church, takes the form of apostasy and heresy, and is not connected to state-sponsored persecution like that of the beast of Revelation 13.[3]
In his Dialog with Trypho, Justin Martyr (who was put to death in Rome about AD 165) speaks of the appearance of the “man of apostasy” who speaks “strange things against the Most High” and ventures to “do unlawful deeds on the earth against us Christians” (Dialog with Trypho, 110). Justin is clearly alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, but does not specifically speak of this individual as Antichrist.[4]
One of the most important early discussions of Antichrist is found in the work of Irenaeus, who was born in Asia Minor where he met Polycarp when still a young man.[5] Irenaeus later became Bishop of Lyon in Gaul. In his work Against Heresies (about AD 180),[6] Irenaeus set forth the notion that Antichrist will be a Jew, a notion which had come from Papias (another writer from Asia Minor whose work remains largely fragmentary).[7] Appealing to the best manuscripts and eyewitnesses (probably a reference to Polycarp), Irenaeus believes Antichrist recapitulates the same sort of apostasy which occurred in the beginning with Adam and Eve, which could be seen in the gnosticism of his own age, and which would appear again at the time of the end.[8] Just as Christ, who is the word made flesh, recapitulates all that is good, so too, Antichrist must come in the flesh to recapitulate all that is evil.[9]
In addition, Irenaeus believed that the Roman Empire eventually would be divided among ten kings[10], and at the end of time Antichrist will arise and lead a final apostasy (in fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Matthew 24:15; Daniel 7:8; 8:23). The Antichrist’s rule will complete the six thousand years of world history (i.e., a Sabbatical pattern), followed by a millennial age, where Christ reigns upon the earth.[11] While Irenaeus cautions his reader against undue speculation in this regard, he identifies 666 with Latreinos, the current Roman emperor, or with Teitan–a royal name for a tyrant. He believes that Antichrist will be an apostate Jew, sitting in the temple in Jerusalem, demanding to be worshiped as God.[12] Irenaeus connects Paul’s prophecy of a Man of Sin (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) to the prophecies in Daniel 8:12 and Daniel 9:27, the fulfillment of which is assigned to the time of the end.[13]
The first Christian writing specifically dealing with Antichrist was composed by Hippolytus, himself a student of Irenaeus. Hippolytus served as an elder in the church in Rome for nearly thirty-five years and died a martyr in AD 235.[14] In his treatise On Antichrist (AD 200), which is part of a larger work on Daniel and the earliest surviving Christian commentary on any book of the Bible,[15] Hippolytus builds upon the earlier work of Irenaeus, although there are a number of distinctive elements.[16]
Like his mentor, Hippolytus believes that Antichrist will be a Jew and a counterfeit of the true Christ. Antichrist will be born in Babylon and will come from the tribe of Dan–he is spoken of in Genesis 49:9 and Deuteronomy 33:22 as a lion’s cub and therefore cunning and deceptive.[17] As a false redeemer, Antichrist will persuade the Jews that he is the Messiah. The forerunners of Antichrist are also identified as several Old Testament figures: the Assyrian king (Isaiah 10:12-19), the Babylonian king (Isaiah 14:4-21) and the prince of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2-10). As Hippolytus puts it, “For a deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb; so he too will in like manner, appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf.[18]
Hippolytus also states that Antichrist will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and will deceive Christians, who are symbolized by the two witnesses which preach against him before being killed.[19] Three and a half years of tribulation will follow, before Christ returns to destroy him (On Antichrist, 43). The two beasts of Revelation 13 are yet future and will rule in the manner of Caesar Augustus, “by whom the empire of Rome was established.”[20] Hippolytus also sets forth a rather bizarre chronology of the end. Christ would not come at the end of the six thousand years of world history–the schema of history set forth by Irenaeus–but instead, Christ will return in the middle of the final thousand years marking some 500 years between Christ’s return in humility and his return in glory.[21]
According to the historian Bernard McGinn (who has written what some consider to be the definitive history of the doctrine), Hippolytus is the “earliest witness to what later became known as the `refreshment of the saints,’ a brief period between the Antichrist’s defeat and Christ’s return when the surviving faithful were supposed to live in peace while awaiting the manifestation of the kingdom of God.”[22] While many have seen in this a kind of proto-premillennarianism (chiliasm), recent studies, such as that by Charles Hill, have shed new light on this assumption, pointing out that Hippolytus believed that the first resurrection takes place when the soul of a martyr joins Christ in heaven, not when Christ returns to raise the dead–a position inconsistent with premillennialism.[23]
The belief that Antichrist will be a Jew who will preside over a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and then proclaim himself as Israel’s Messiah is, according to Bousset, “the universal belief” of the church. A few men (Lactantius, Commodian, and Martin of Tours) identified this false Messiah who will deceive the Jews and commandeer their temple as a Nero redivivus.[24] The former view was taken up by the French monk Adso and widely popularized in the tenth century.[25] Adso’s views were adopted and modified by the two great scholastic theologians, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, thereby giving them great credence and influence.[26]
Origen and Augustine
A most influential figure in the early church and a contemporary of Hippolytus, Origen (AD 185-254) is another important contributor to the development of a doctrine of Antichrist, especially in his so-called “spiritualizing” method of interpreting biblical texts. In what many consider to be the first attempt to write a systematic theology (On First Principles), Origen takes issue with those who attempt to understand those biblical texts which speak of the reign of the saints upon the earth in a literal way.[27] Those who understand the biblical passages which speak of eating and drinking in the kingdom, of an earthly city of Jerusalem and so on, in a literal way, “are of the opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury . . . [and are] not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body (2:11).”[28] For Origen, it seems, there is always a deeper meaning to a text.
Not surprisingly, this spiritualizing method carries over into Origen’s understanding of Antichrist. According to Origen, there are two great extremes–virtue and its opposite. Perfection of virtue dwells in the person of Jesus, while that one who rejects virtue “embodies the notion of him that is named Antichrist.” Virtue is found in the Son of God, while “the other, who is diametrically opposite, be termed the son of the wicked demon and of Satan, and of the devil.”[29] According to Origen Antichrist is not a person, but a spiritual principle. He is not a man to be feared, but a falsehood to be opposed.
In his Commentary on John, Origen restates this idea that Antichrist is merely a spiritual principle. Alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:8, where Paul speaks of Jesus destroying the lawless one with the breath of his mouth, Origen understands this to be a reference to the wisdom of God in Christ destroying the lie by means of the truth. “For that which is destroyed by the breath of the mouth of Christ, Christ being the Word and Truth and Wisdom, but the lie?”[30] When discussing the Olivet Discourse in his Commentary on Matthew, Origen identifies the abomination of desolation as a false word which stands in the place of Scripture, so that Antichrist is anything which pretends to be true but is not.[31] Origen’s spiritualizing of the text mutates the Antichrist from a personal eschatological foe into a principle of evil.
The most important Christian theologian in the first one-thousand years of church history is St. Augustine (AD 354-430). Augustine addressed the subject of Antichrist in several places, and yet in doing so managed to avoid much of the kind of speculative discussion found in Hippolytus and Irenaeus. In the opinion of Bernard McGinn, Augustine “was cool to legendary accretions to the story of Antichrist, [but] the bishop was still a major channel for the transmission of sober traditions concerning the Final Enemy to the Latin West.”[32] In other words, when it came to Antichrist speculation, Augustine’s focus was upon the exegesis of particular texts. This concern not to go beyond the biblical text enabled him to emphasize the significance of present and imminent threats to the church, rather than locating this threat exclusively to the time of the end as many earlier writers had done.[33]
In the City of God (AD 413-425), Augustine affirms that Jesus Christ will destroy Antichrist at the time of the second advent, before going on to affirm the impossibility of knowing when, exactly, this will occur. He cautions that human conjecture cannot add anything to Scripture.[34] According to Augustine, Paul’s discussion of the “Man of Sin” is a reference to Antichrist and the time of final judgment, but he’s not sure what Paul means when he mentions the temple (the Jerusalem Temple or the church). He goes on to describe a number of views, including the Nero redivivus theory, which he dismisses. Augustine says what is clear from the biblical text is that Antichrist will not appear until Satan is loosed from the Abyss (Revelation 20:1-10), for this is what gives Antichrist his power to deceive.[35] This, says Augustine, is what Daniel predicted, for the kingdom of Antichrist will assail the church before Christ returns to rescue his people. The ten kings and kingdoms mentioned by Daniel may or may not refer to Rome, but more likely symbolizes the entirety of the inter-advental age (City of God, 20.23). Augustine also finds it reasonable to believe that the Roman Empire must fall so that Antichrist might be revealed.[36]
In his sermons (Homilies) on 1 John, delivered in AD 415, Augustine speaks directly to the nature and character of Antichrist.[37] Antichrist is “contrary to Christ.” This means that antichrists are “all heretics, all schismatics [who] went out from us, that is, they go from the Church.” Since this is the case, Augustine asks, “each person ought to question his own conscience, whether he be an antichrist” (Homily 3.4). Antichrists are liars and deny that Jesus is the Christ. The test as to whether one is an antichrist or not is not their confession “Christ is Lord,” since even a liar can utter these words. The test is someone’s deeds. “A more lying antichrist is he who with his mouth professes that Jesus is the Christ, and with his deeds denies Him. A liar in this, that he speaks one thing, and does another (Homily 3.8).”[38]
McGinn draws the conclusion from this that Augustine believes that “the real Antichrist is anyone of us,” and takes this as an indication of Augustine’s rejection of apocalyptic eschatology.[39] But Augustine is very clear in the City of God that the mystery of lawlessness of which Paul speaks in 2 Thessalonians, which is currently restrained by God, is somehow tied to John’s assertion that many antichrists have already come because it is the last hour. The series of antichrists, of which John speaks, will indeed culminate in a final Antichrist. “As therefore went out from the Church many heretics, whom John calls many antichrists,’ at that time prior to the end, and which John callsthe last time,’ so in the end they shall go out who do not belong to Christ, but to that last Antichrist, and then he shall be revealed.”[40]
While Augustine cautions against undue speculation about the end-times, his view that Antichrist is both a present/imminent threat as well as finally revealed at the end of the age reflects the tension found in Scripture. This is not, as McGinn contends, Augustine’s belief that Antichrist is merely a refection of the personal evil within each of us. While we all may be found liars whose deeds do not match our profession, the final Antichrist clearly falls in a different category, since he is empowered by Satan and is to be revealed at the end of the age.
Conclusion:
Much as in our day, the church fathers, Origen, and Augustine, held diverse views—some quite speculative, some more closely developed from their exgesis of particular biblical texts. Here we see the wisdom in the caution given us by Geerhardus Vos in regard to Antichrist speculation—“2 Thessalonians belongs among the many prophecies, whose final and best exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (Pauline Eschatology, 133)
My Vos to English translation goes like this. “Many of the things we speculate about won’t become clear to us until they happen. We’ll know it when we see it. Until then, we must wait patiently!” The doctrine of Antichrist certainly falls into this category.
****** This material is taken from my book, The Man of Sin (Baker, 2006), 136-141 and revised for publication here
__________________________________
[1] “Epistle of Barnabas” 1:4-5, quoted in J. B. Lightfoot, J. B. and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 239-242.
[2] Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, 7:1.
[3] F. F. Bruce, “Excursus on Antichrist,” in 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 45 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 183-184.
[4] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 253-254.
[5] See the surveys in: Bruce, “Excursus on Antichrist,” 184; Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 58-60; Vincent Miceli, The Antichrist (Harrison NY: Roman Catholic Book, 1981), 50-55; and Jeffrey Burton Russell, Satan: The Early Christian Tradition (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1892), 80-88.
[6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 315-567.
[7] Bruce, “Excursus on Antichrist,” 184.
[8] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.1.
[9] McGinn, Antichrist, 59.
[10] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.2.
[11] Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 5.28.3.
[12] Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 5.30.4.
[13] Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 5:25.4.
[14] A. Cleveland Coxe, “Introductory Notice to Hippolytus,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 3-7.
[15] Hippolytus, “Treatise on Christ and Antichrist” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979). 204-219.
[16] Bruce, “Excursus on Antichrist,” 184; McGinn, Antichrist, 60-62; Johannes Quasten, Patrology: Vol II, The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus (Westminster MD: Christian Classics, 1990), 170-171.
[17] Hippolytus, On Antichrist, 207.
[18] Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 2.39, quoted in Fragments from Commentaries, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 184.
[19] Hippolytus, On Antichrist, 212-214.
[20] Hippolytus, On Antichrist, 206-207.
[21] Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 2.4-6, quoted in Fragments from Commentaries, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979).
[22] McGinn, Antichrist, 62.
[23] Charles E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 160-169.
[24] Wilhelm Bousset, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, trans. A. H. Keane (London: Hutchison and Co., 1896), 186.
[25] Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 79; McGinn, Antichrist, 100-103.
[26] Christopher Hill, Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 179.
[27] Origen, “De Principiis” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 239-382.
[28] See the discussion of this section of “On First Principles” in Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 176-180.
[29] Origen, “Against Celsus” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, ed., Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 395-669.
[30] Origen, Commentary on John, 2.4, in the The Ante-Nicene Fathers, , Vol. 10, ed., Allen Menzies ((Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 279-408.
[31] McGinn, Antichrist, 64.
[32] McGinn, Antichrist, 76.
[33] McGinn, Antichrist, 76-77.
[34] Augustine, City of God, 18.53; 20.12, in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 1-511.
[35] Augustine, City of God, 20.19, 20.23.
[36] Miceli, Antichrist, 71-72.
[37] Augustine, “Homilies on the First Epistle of John” in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John; Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Soliloquies (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 460-529.
[38] Augustine, “Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” 3.4, 3.8.
[39] McGinn, Antichrist, 77.
[40] Augustine, City of God, 19.19.
The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit
Far too often we hear people speak of the Holy Spirit as an “it,” not a “who.” One reason why this might be the case is that the nature of the Holy Spirit’s work is to bring glory to Jesus Christ, not to himself. J. I. Packer once described the Holy Spirit as the “shy member of the Trinity.” But this self-effacing role of the Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit is impersonal (a mere “force” or God’s “power”) nor a distinct member of the Godhead. Even as we speak of the Father as God, the Son as God, so too we must speak of the Holy Spirit as God. As we will see, Scripture teaches us that he is the third person of the Holy Trinity.
While there is not as much biblical evidence for the deity of the Holy Spirit as there is for the deity of Jesus, it would be a mistake to conclude that the evidence is neither clear nor decisive. We start with the Bible’s direct assertion that the Holy Spirit is God. In Acts 5:3-4, we read of the story of Ananias and Saphirra, specifically of their deceit and the charge brought against them—“You have not lied to men but to God.” To lie to the Holy Spirit (as they did) is to lie to God. In 1 Corinthians 3:16, Paul tells us that the Spirit who indwells us, is God’s Spirit. He makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 6:19. At the very least, both of Paul’s comments are indirect assertions of the deity of the Holy Spirit.
Then we should consider that there is significant evidence for the deity of the Holy Spirit also found in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 63:10, Isaiah speaks of “the Spirit of God,” as does the Psalmist (Psalm 95:9). In Hebrews 3:7-9, the author attributes the words spoken by God in Psalm 95 to the Holy Spirit. “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, `Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test . . . for forty years.’” What the Old Testament prophets attributed to God, the author of Hebrews attributes to the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, throughout the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is said to possess divine attributes, just as the Father and the Son. In Genesis 1:1-2 we read that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Even as John and Paul attribute the work of creation to the Son (who is true and eternal God), so too, Moses assigns the work of creation to the Holy Spirit. In Psalm 33:6, the Psalmist states that the Holy Spirit (the Ruach, “the breath of God”) creates all things. As the Son is eternal, so too, is the Holy Spirit, who was with God before all things were created.
In Job 33:4, we read, “the Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” As the Father and the Son are said to give us life, so too does the Holy Spirit. But not only does the Holy Spirit grant us life and breath, he also gives the new birth, something only God can do (John 3:5). We cannot enter God’s kingdom until God’s Spirit gives us eternal life.
Next, we have a whole catalogue of divine attributes applied to the Spirit. He is omniscient (in Psalm 139:7-10, the Psalmist says that the Holy Spirit is everywhere present). In 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul says the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. God is omnipresent. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God. The Scriptures also teach that the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. In Isaiah 11:2, the Holy Spirit is described as possessing the power which God alone possesses. He is, in fact, all-powerful, because God is all-powerful.
The Scriptures mention other divine attributes of the Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Spirit is the author of our sanctification (1 Peter 1:2), he seals us unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14), ensuring that the work God has begun in us will reach completion (Ephesians 4:30) with the resurrection and glorification of our bodies. It is through the Holy Spirit that the prophets and apostles spoke (1 Peter 1:11). And Peter proclaims “[that] prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1 Peter 1:21).
Finally, there are those verses which speak of the work of the Spirit in uniting believers to Jesus Christ, enabling them to approach God without fear. The Holy Spirit is described by Paul as the “Spirit of prayer” (Romans 8:15-16). It is the Spirit who unites us to Christ and enables us to cry out to God. It is the Spirit’s work to ensure that the saving benefits of Christ become ours.
There is good reason then to conclude that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and is true and eternal God. This is why we invoke his name, worship him, and serve the blessed Holy Spirit, even as we do the Father and the Son. After all, we are baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The apostolic benediction is given to God’s people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14). Therefore, we ascribe all glory, majesty, and honor to the Holy Spirit, even as we do so with the other members of the Godhead. We even pray to the Holy Spirit, we worship the Holy Spirit, and we invoke the blessed Holy Spirit. Why do we do these things? Because the Holy Spirit is the third person of the blessed Trinity.
Despite the great confusion of our age regarding the God of the Bible, biblical teaching is crystal clear—the Holy Spirit is God (with the Father and the Son), and is therefore, to be worshiped as such. There is indeed one God, who reveals himself in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith
The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).
______________________________________
In light of the previous articles (One-Four), the Canons here deal with the difficult question as to why some people believe the gospel when it is preached to them, while others reject that same gospel. The authors of the Canons are very careful to follow the biblical testimony about this matter when they assign all blame for eternal loss to humanity (cf. Article One), while giving all glory to God for the salvation of any of Adam's fallen children (Article Two).
The objection is often raised, “if salvation depends entirely upon the grace of God, and not all are saved, then God is somehow unfair in his dealings with his creatures.” More questions follow and you have undoubtedly heard them, asked them, or thought them. “Why didn’t God chose everyone?” If what the Canons are teaching is true, then “it seems as though God is somehow preventing people from believing by choosing some but not everyone.” But the most common objection is, “Why did God choose one and not the other?” a question which will be answered in subsequent articles.
If the starting point set out by the authors of the Canons is correct—we begin with Adam’s fall and human sinfulness, and our inability to come to faith in Jesus on our own—then the only reason why any perish is because of the guilt of their sin. Those who are lost eternally bear all responsibility for their own sins, as well as being guilty for their participation in the sin of Adam, who acted as humanity’s federal and biological representative in the Garden of Eden (Romans 5:12-19). Simply put, people suffer eternal loss (hell) because they are sinful, guilty before God, and will not believe the gospel. They do not suffer eternal loss because God deals unfairly with them.
Since all of us are dead in sin and unable to respond to the gospel on our own, our salvation must be seen as a free gift from God. This is what Scripture clearly teaches, as the Canons indicate by appealing to Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:8 and elsewhere. “We are saved by grace through faith, this is not of ourselves.” It is “God who works in us to will and do of his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). “It has been granted unto us to believe in Jesus” (Philippians 1:29).
The Scriptures teach that God has not only ordained the end (who will be saved), but that he also ordained the means by which they will be saved (the preaching of the gospel). The sole instrument through which sinful men and women receive the merits of Christ (which alone can save them from eternal loss), is faith. This is what God has ordained and what the Canons set forth in the previous articles and which will be discussed in more detail in those that follow.
Yet, the critical question raised in Article Five remains to be answered; “why do some believe in Jesus Christ and others reject him?” Humanly speaking this question cannot be answered. Unless God reveals to us the answer we cannot know why some believe and others do not, we can only guess.
But the question is answered by God in his word—simply and directly. Because he is gracious to sinners, God gives the gift of salvation to those whom he has chosen to be saved, and that through faith, those chosen (God’s elect) trust in the Savior who has been proclaimed to them through the foolishness of preaching. This is how Paul puts it in the first chapter of Ephesians (vv. 3-14).
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
God saves all those whom he chose in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to his will, purpose, and counsel—a matter the Canons will discuss in great detail.
Yet, those whom God does not elect are justly passed over and left to the consequences of their own sins and their guilt in Adam. Because they are said to be “dead in sin” and under God’s just condemnation, they freely and willfully reject Jesus Christ and therefore, tragically, perish eternally. This is the answer given us in Romans 9:10-24.
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
At the end of the day, if we think that we are Christians and will be spared from God’s wrath because of something good that God sees in us, or because of something which we have done which causes God to favorably respond to us, we will necessarily depreciate the grace of God. We will not see salvation as a free gift given to us through the person and work of Jesus, but as a reward which we mistakenly think we deserve or have earned. And we will perish eternally, and deservedly so.
Episode Synopsis:
In chapter four of his first Thessalonian letter, Paul addresses the issues surrounding what it means to turn from idols to serve the true and living God. Paul is concerned with how these new Christians in Thessalonica “walk in the Lord” – that is, how they ought to live the Christian life in contrast to the way they lived before when they served idols. In verses 3-8 of chapter four, Paul takes up the matter of Christian sexual ethics. Those to whom Paul is writing knew nothing of the sexual purity God expects from his people before Paul arrived and preached the gospel to them. All they have known is a pagan sexuality which is often libertine (anything goes since the pagans understood sexual relations apart from personal morality). Greco-Roman men commonly had wives who raised the children and kept the home, but saw nothing wrong with premarital or extra-marital sexual relationships. In this episode of The Blessed Hope, we will consider Paul’s exhortation to avoid sexual immorality, and to live quiet lives, minding our own business, and not being dependent upon others.
Show Notes:
At 8:47, I mention “vices” but I meant “virtues.”
Links:
The New Reformation Catechism on Human Sexuality
David Powlinson: Making All Things New: Restoring Pure Joy to the Sexually Broken
Devotional: Flee from Sexual Immorality
Charles Lee Irons: Pastoral Accommodation of Same Sex Relationships: A Critique in Light of 1 Corinthians 5-6
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
I enjoyed this immensely. We covered a bunch of eschatological matters including the resurgence of postmillennialism, problems with dispensationalism and premillennialism, the varieties of preterism, and much more.
Traditional Site of John’s Tomb in Ephesus
Arguments in Favor of a Post-A.D. 70 Dating1). The most important reason for dating The Book of Revelation after A.D. 70 is evidence of the presence of emperor worship and the imperial cult underlying much of what takes place throughout John’s vision.
A number of texts such as Revelation 13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4, all indicate that Christians were being forced to participate in the emperor cult in ways which violated their consciences. As Moffat once put it, whether persecution of Christians had already become widespread or not, “the few cases of repressive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor (and elsewhere) were enough to warn [John] of the storm rolling up on the horizon, though as yet only one or two drops had actually fallen.”[1] While the persecution of Christians in Rome was already beginning during the reign of Nero, it was not widespread until the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or even later. As several recent studies of Nero have demonstrated, the evidence shows that persecution of Christians in Rome (and not in Asia Minor, where John was) began under Nero because he used them as scapegoats for the great fire which destroyed much of Rome, not because they refused to worship him.[2]
Important studies of the historical background of Asia Minor during this time, such as those by Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), and Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, (1990), indicate that by the time of Domitian’s reign the imperial cult and emperor worship was in full-flower.[3] Although Thompson admits that Roman sources depict Domitian as an evil tyrant without exception,[4] nevertheless he proceeds to argue that persecution of Christians under Domitian’s reign was actually quite isolated and Domitian may not be the monster Roman historians made him out to be. Yet, as Thompson goes on to state, if the imperial cult preceded Domitian by “many reigns” it also continued long after Domitian was gone.[5]
The only truly firm date we have is 113 A.D., when Pliny the Younger (a Roman author and senator) wrote to Trajan (the emperor who came after Domitian) with a question about what to do with Christians who refuse to worship the emperor. Trajan replied that Christians were not to be sought out and executed, but if they did not worship the emperor and were convicted by a court, then they were to be put to death.[6] This indicates that the conditions depicted in Revelation fit much better with a later date (the reign of Domitian in the mid-90s) rather than an earlier one (before A.D. 70). What was then the practice (whether “official” or otherwise) in the time of Trajan (A.D. 113), most likely began in the time of Domitian, which many Romans considered the most volatile period in Roman history.[7] Sadly, in Pliny’s “Letter,” he refers to Christians who had “apostatized” from the faith as long ago as twenty-five years–clear evidence of persecution of believers being quite intense about A.D. 90. The fact that people renounced their faith clearly points to a date in the time of Domitian, when the pressure on the part of Christians to avoid persecution would be the greatest. That being said, surely the seeds of this persecution were sown during the reign of Nero, nearly thirty-years earlier. As Beale puts it, “a date during the time of Nero is possible for Revelation, but the later setting under Domitian is more probable in the light of the evidence in the book for an expected escalation of emperor worship in the near future and especially the widespread, programmatic legal persecution portrayed as imminent or already occurring in Revelation 13.”[8]
Response:
The early date counter-argument to this is that the evidence fits better with Nero (See Part Two).
2). The historical situation facing the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3 seems to fit much better with circumstances after A.D. 70 than does a date before the destruction of the temple.
In Colin Hemer’s important work, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (1989), Hemer argues that the situation of the churches we see in Revelation chapters 2-3 most likely fits the time of Domitian. This includes evidence of persecution in particular provinces from local authorities–which explains why only three of the churches, Smyrna, Pergamum, and Philadelphia were experiencing persecution. There is also evidence of Jews living in these areas who, in order to avoid the wrath of the imperial cult, were willing to pay high taxes and point out Christians to local authorities. Those targeted for arrest were people who were no longer members of the synagogue or who were debating Jews about Christian truth claims.[9]
3. There are a number of other historical factors regarding the condition of the churches which support a later date.
The spiritual lethargy of the Church of Ephesus, which is depicted in Revelation 2:1-7 as losing its first love, seems to presuppose a time well after its establishment in the mid-fifties of the first century.[10] It is hard to imagine a church probably established in the 50's, (cf. Acts 19:1 ff)[11] so quickly losing its first love (i.e. if Revelation was written before A.D. 70) that it was in danger of losing its identity as a church if the people did not “repent, and do the things they did at first” (v. 5). The church of Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) is described as wealthy–but a huge earthquake decimated the entire region in A.D. 61. A recovery to the wealthy conditions described by John and known to historians would seemingly take decades, not the three or four years required by a pre-A.D. 70 date.[12] The church in Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) had been home to a certain Antipas, who, apparently, had been put to death as a martyr for Christ much earlier (v. 13). That such persecution broke out years before, and John now speaks of Anitpas’ death as well in the past, certainly supports a later date.[13]
According to Beale, there is no evidence that Nero’s persecution of Christians after the great fire in the city of Rome, was ever extended into Asia Minor (Turkey), where the seven churches of Revelation were located. This also fits better with John’s exile to the Island of Patmos.[14] It is much more likely for someone like John (who lived in Ephesus) to be exiled under Domitian than Nero.[15] As Price points out, the imperial cult of Domitian which was well established in Ephesus (along with the colossal statue) is probably what is in the background of Revelation 13, when John speaks of believers being put to death for not worshiping the beast or his image.[16] All of this supports a late date.
There is one other matter which relates to the historical situation of the churches. According to some commentators, the existence of a church at Smyrna itself points toward a later date, since it is likely that this church was not even founded until after A.D. 60.[17] We do need to note that Hemer, the leading authority on such matters, puts the date of founding of this congregation much earlier, c. 50-55.[18]
Response:
The early date response to the situation of the churches just set forth is to offer a number of alternative explanations, some of which are quite plausible, as Beale admits.[19] Ken Gentry contends that these arguments (even if true) do “not carry sufficient weight to serve as an anchor for the late date theory.”[20] But given the state of the churches depicted in Revelation 2-3, especially in light of the known situation throughout the larger Roman Empire during the time of Domitian, the arguments for a later date are much more compelling, since so much of the evidence leads in this direction, confirming the evidence of a late date within the book itself.
4). As mentioned earlier, the reference to “Babylon” (the spiritual name for the city of Rome) in Revelation 18 is perhaps the strongest internal evidence of a later date.
In all known Jewish literature written after A.D. 70 and the destruction of the temple, Rome is universally described as “Babylon,” because like the ancient Babylonians, Rome had sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. Since John is writing to churches throughout Asia Minor, many of which had significant numbers of converted Jews among their members, this reference would make no sense whatsoever (without explanation) if John is using the term to refer to Jerusalem and not Rome.[21]
Response:
The response on the part of those who hold to an early date is to counter by trying to prove that Babylon was a reference to Jerusalem, an argument which we have discussed previously, and seems to be without much merit.
5). The testimony of the church fathers is virtually unanimous in affirming the later date.
Clement, Eusebius, Origen and Irenaeus (among others), all state that the book was written by John during the latter part of the reign of Domitian. Certainly, they all might be mistaken.[22] But there is no evidence for anyone arguing for a pre-A.D. 70 date of authorship. According to Irenaeus, the identity of the Antichrist “would have been announced by him who beheld the Apocalypse. For it was seen not very long ago in our day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.”[23] This is most often taken to mean that John wrote Revelation as an old man exiled on Patmos before Domitian died in A.D. 96. The traditional post-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation largely stems from the comments of Irenaeus, although the internal and external evidence is now seen to support Irenaeus’ contention.
Response:
Gentry, on the other hand, contends that the verb, “was seen” refers to John, “who was seen” during Domitian’s reign, not to the Apocalypse, which was written during the reign of Domitian.[24] But Robinson, who agrees with Gentry’s dating, nevertheless accepts the traditional reading of Irenaeus’ comments.[25] Beale points out that the “Apocalypse” is properly the antecedent of the verb “was seen” (not John), which is why virtually all of Irenaeus’ ancient readers agreed without question that Irenaeus was referring to the date of Revelation and not to the Apostle. Furthermore, it is important to notice that when discussing the beast and his number, Irenaeus makes no reference to Nero, but refers to Lateinos, and the current Roman Empire.
Conclusion:
Therefore, both the internal and external evidence supports a late date for the writing of the Book of Revelation. One wonders if preterist arguments for an early date are based more upon theological necessity, than grounded in the aggregate of the internal and external evidence for a post-A.D. 70 date of composition.
** This material is taken from the appendix of my book, The Man of Sin (Baker, 2006) and revised for publication here
__________________________________
[1] Cited in Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, xxxvii
[2] Griffin, Nero: The End of A Dynasty, 15; Champlin, Nero, 121.
[3] S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 196-198. See also Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation, Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 13-17. Thompson writes that “some scholars still argue for dating the book shortly after Nero’s death when several people were vying to be emperor; but when the weight of internal and external evidence is taken together, we may conclude with most scholars that Revelation was written sometime in the latter years of Domitian’s reign, that is, 92-96 CE” (15).
[4] Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 97.
[5] Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 104.
[6] Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96-97.
[7] Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 96-101.
[8] Beale, Revelation, 9.
[9] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (Eerdmans, 1989), 11.
[10] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 35-56.
[11] See the discussion in F. F. Bruce, Paul, The Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 286-299.
[12] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 178-209.
[13] Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 78-105.
[14] Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 12.
[15] Beale, Revelation, 12.
[16] Price, Rituals and Power, 197-198. See also, Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 35-56.
[17] Beale, Revelation, 17.
[18] Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 66.
[19] Beale, Revelation, 17, n. 89.
[20] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 320.
[21] Beale, Revelation, 18-19.
[22] Cited in Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, xxxvii.
[23] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.xxx
[24] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 46-67.
[25] Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 221.
Site of the “Cave of the Apocalypse” on Patmos
Arguments for a Pre-A.D. 70 Date of Authorship and Responses(1). In Revelation 11:1-12, John, supposedly, mentions the Jerusalem temple as though it were currently standing when he was given his vision.[1]
If the temple was still standing when John recorded his vision, then the Book of Revelation must have been written before the temple’s destruction at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. The passage (Revelation 11:1-2), reads as follows; “I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, `Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.” If John is speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, and it was still standing when John was given this vision, this demands a date of composition before the temple was destroyed.[2]
Response:
The post-A.D. 70 response to the prior interpretation is to notice the highly symbolic language throughout the passage which points the reader in a direction away from that of the physical temple in Jerusalem. As G. B. Caird points out, “in a book in which all things are expressed in symbols, the very last things the temple and the holy city could mean would be the physical temple and earthly Jerusalem.”[3]
Caird goes on to note that if John is referring to the Jerusalem temple, then a rather remarkable thing is said to occur. The Gentiles, which according to the pre-A.D. 70 dating, would mean the armies of Titus (cf. Luke 21:24) occupy the outer court for three and a half years, but leave the inner court (the altar) undefiled. This, of course, did not happen when the temple was destroyed. If true, it would make much of the passage unintelligible because it lacks any historical connection to the actual events of A.D. 70. This also ignores John’s use of the symbolism of the outer court and the inner sanctuary as a reference to the church.
However, the passage does make perfect sense if the temple had already been destroyed when John writes. The time of the Gentiles was already underway because the outer court is presently being trampled, while the true sanctuary (the heavenly temple) remains undefiled because it is protected by God.[4] The church on earth suffers, while the church in heaven triumphs.
Based on the discussion which follows in verses 3-11 of Revelation 11, this includes the account of the two witnesses who prophesy for the same time period as the outer court is trampled by the Gentiles (1260 days/42 months). These witnesses exercise miracle-power (which recalls to mind Moses and Elijah), and then are slain by the beast in the great city called Sodom and Egypt (more on this below), only to be raised from the dead. This time period is much likely a symbolic description of the inter-advental period, not the time immediately before the temple is destroyed (the lifetime of the apostles until A.D. 70).[5]
In fact, the measurements given John by the angel do not reflect the historical temple in Jerusalem at all. Instead they fit the heavenly temple depicted in Ezekiel 40-48,[6] and which, as some have thought, may refer to “the spiritual building of the church.”[7] It is also very important to recall that John is not instructed to measure a temple supposedly still standing in Jerusalem. John is instructed to measure the temple he sees before him in his heavenly vision.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the mention of 42 months and the reference to the time of the Gentiles are much more likely references to that time between our Lord’s first and second coming and not to that period of time immediately before A.D. 70, when Christians were warned to flee from Jerusalem when they saw that it had been surrounded by the armies of Titus.
(2) The Chronology of Roman Emperors Requires a Pre-A.D. 70 Date
In Revelation 17:9-11, John writes, “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.” According to most commentators, this is a reference to the city of Rome and its seven hills.[8] The seven hills are also symbolic of seven kings. According to verse 10, the sixth king is in power when John writes. Therefore, if the first in this series of kings is either Augustus or Julius Caesar, then the sixth king is either Galba or Nero, both of whom reigned before A.D. 70.]9] If this is the case, then the chronology of the passage requires a pre-A.D. 70 date.
Response:
As Beale and others have pointed out, there are a number of problems with such an historical identification.[10] With what emperor does one begin counting? Are all emperors to be counted, or only those who participate in the imperial cult? What about the short-term rulers who came between Nero and Vespatian? More importantly, how does one deal with Revelation 17:11? There we read of “the beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.” How does this list of seven kings fit with the ten kings of Revelation 17:12?[11]
Either John is teaching a literal resurrection of one of the earlier kings (hence the Nero myth), or else this is symbolic language which points us in the direction of a non-literal interpretation of this succession of leaders. In fact, according to Beasley-Murray, “this whole procedure [of identifying emperors] should be viewed as misguided.”[12] John is not giving his reader a history lesson, nor speaking to the question of the exact number of Roman emperors. As Sweet points out, John’s readers, “knew all about Nero, but were as unlikely to have known the succession of emperors as readers today know that of the Presidents of the United States.”[13] The number seven is used throughout Revelation as the symbolic number of completeness,[14] therefore, as Caird wryly points out, John did not “arrive at the number [seven] by counting emperors.”[15] John’s point is that the church must face persecution throughout the entire present evil age (the completeness of this period symbolized by the seven emperors), and must suffer not only under the seventh king, but the church must also face an eighth king, who will arise at the end of the age in conjunction with the final assault of the dragon, beast, and false prophet.[16]
Conclusion:
Therefore, the identification of the kings in this passage is far more difficult to prove than those who argue for an early date seem to indicate. The real issue for John’s reader is not the chronology of emperors, but the identity of the eighth king, who was yet to come.
(3). Since the number 666 likely refers to Nero, this seems to indicate that Revelation was written during or shortly after Nero’s reign (A.D. 68) and before A.D. 70.[17]
Response:
The number 666 is at least as theological in its significance as it is historical. Therefore, what is symbolized by this number extends beyond Nero to all state leaders who oppose Christ and his kingdom. While Nero is certainly in the minds of John and his readers through the 666 imagery, Nero’s reign of terror does not exhaust the prophecy of Revelation 13:1-18.
In fact, since the beast imitates the resurrection of Christ when his deadly wound is healed (Revelation 13:3), John is probably making the point that even though Nero was long dead, he had returned, in effect, in the person of Domitian, persecuting the church when John was given his vision.[18] This is the so-called “Nero myth,” which held that after he died, Nero would miraculously return to life and lead a Parthian army against Rome.
If Revelation 13:3-4 and Revelation 17:8-11, do indeed speak of a king who is a Nero redivivus (raised from the dead), then this requires a date much later than 68.[19] Since the beast was present (resurrected) when John writes Revelation, it is only natural to see John warning Christians across time of what to expect whenever they encounter what Bauckham calls “a deification of power.”[20] This occurs whenever the state or its leader takes unto itself divine rights and privileges and in doing so, mimics the death, resurrection, and parousia of Christ. This opposition from a series of such beasts will continue until an intensification of evil at the end of the age immediately before our Lord’s second advent, when an eighth and final beast is manifest.
(4). The reference to “Babylon” in the Book of Revelation is interpreted as symbolically referring to the city of Jerusalem and apostate Judaism.
In Revelation 11:8 we read of the two witnesses, “their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.” It is argued that Jerusalem (the place where the Lord was crucified) is therefore to be identified as the great city. Then, later on in Revelation 18:10-21, the great city is specifically identified as Babylon. This means that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, fulfills the prophecy of the destruction of Babylon in Revelation 18.[21] In order for this to fit, Revelation must have been written before A.D. 70.
Response:
The problem with this is that the same verse which is used to equate the “great city” as the place where Jesus is crucified is also called “Sodom and Egypt” suggesting that a non-literal reading of the passage is in order, especially in light of the fact that throughout Revelation the reference to “Babylon” is clearly a reference to Rome (see Revelation 14:8; 17:18; 18:2, 10, 16, 18-19, 21).[22] According to John Sweet, “like . . . Hiroshima for us, Sodom, Egypt, Babylon and Jerusalem were heavy with meaning. The `great city’, in whose street the witnesses lie, cannot any more than Vanity Fair be limited to one place and time.”[23] In fact, the identification of Rome as Babylon was made by virtually all Jewish writers after the Romans destroyed the temple in A.D. 70, but never before.[24] If this is indeed a reference to the city of Jerusalem in the apostolic period, it would be the only place where such identification is made.
(5). John’s Vision in Revelation 1:7 Requires a Date Before A.D. 70
In Revelation (1:7), John writes, “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.” Preterists argue that this is a prophetic reference to Jesus coming in judgement upon Israel in A.D. 70 which fulfills the prophecy in Zechariah 12:10-12. The earth is equated with Jerusalem, and the mention of the tribes are thought to be a reference to Israel. If true, this means Revelation must be written before A.D. 70.[25]
Response:
There are two major problems with this interpretation. For one thing the prophecy from Zechariah 12:10-12 is a reference to Israel’s eschatological salvation, not her final judgment.[26] For another, the view that the “peoples of the earth” (literally, the “tribes of the earth”) refers to Israel is a theological stretch at best. Nowhere (unless it is here) does the phrase “tribes of the earth” refer to just Israelite tribes. Whenever it is used in the LXX, it refers to “all nations,” not to Israel.[27]
Next: Arguments for a Post-A.D. 70 Date
______________________________________
[1] Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 238-242. Says Robinson, “it is clear from what follows that this is the old temple of the earthly city” ( 239).
[2] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 169-174.
[3] G. B. Caird, The Revelation of Saint John (Peabody MA: Hendricksen Publishers, 1999), 131.
[4] Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 272; Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 165-169; Sweet, Revelation, 8.
[5] See, for example, the discussion in; Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1940),174-197.
[6] Beale, Revelation, 21; 559-565.
[7] Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 132.
[8] See the summation of these issues in Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), 704-709. Futurists tend to see this as a reference to a succession of kingdoms. See George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 229; and Joseph A. Seiss, The Apocalypse, reprint edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957) 391-394.
[9] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 153-159; Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 242-252.
[10] Beale, Revelation, 21-24.
[11] Beale, Revelation, 22-23.
[12] G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 257.
[13] Sweet, Revelation, 257.
[14] Beale, Revelation, 870-876; Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, 257; Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, 216-218; Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 250-251; Sweet, Revelation, 14-15.
[15] Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, 218.
[16] Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation; Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 251.
[17] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 193-219.
[18] Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, lxxxiv.
[19] Beale, Revelation, 17-18; Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 429-431.
[20] Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 451. Sweet puts it this way. “In a world which was accepting a deified state under a deified head as the source of all salvation, and in a church which was accepting this valuation at the expense of its proper witness to the rule of God, Revelation uncovered the missing dimension, so that Christians should act according to the will of the God they could not see, rather than that of the Caesar they could–so that at whatever cost, they should put eternal destiny before apparent security and prosperity in the present (cf. Sweet, Revelation, 2).
[21] DeMar, Last Days Madness, 359.
[22] Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 172; Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, 138.
[23] Sweet, Revelation, 15.
[24] Beale, Revelation, 25.
[25] David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), 64-67; Cf. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 121-132.
[26] See, for example, Gerard Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 905-907; Beale, Revelation, 26; Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, 18.
[27] Beale, Revelation, 26.
The Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
IntroductionPreterism — Pre-A.D. 70 Dating:
A theological position is only as strong as its weakest point. The preterist interpretation of John’s figures of antichrist and the beast (i.e., Revelation 13) is based upon the assumption that John (the presumed author of Revelation) was given his apocalyptic vision before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A pre-A.D. 70 date allows preterists to identify the beast of the Book of Revelation with Nero, thereby limiting antichrist to the series of heretics mentioned in John’s epistles who will plague Christ’s church until the Lord’s return (1 John 2:18-22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). According to preterists, the visions given to John recorded in Revelation 13-18 lay in the past and were fulfilled before A.D. 70. There will be no future manifestation of a Nero-like beast or a personal Antichrist who will persecute the church immediately before our Lord’s return at the end of the age.
If it can be shown that the Book of Revelation was written after A.D. 70, the preterist interpretation of the beast as entirely a figure of the past becomes untenable. While the case for a future antichrist and manifestation of the beast is surely strengthened by a post-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation (through the elimination of a competing view), the case for non-preterist varieties of amillennialism (such as my own) are not dependent upon the date when the Book of Revelation was written.
It should be noted that not all of those who advocate a pre-A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation would fall into the contemporary “partial preterist” camp, often associated with postmillennialism. Ken Gentry, the author of a significant book arguing for a pre-A.D. 70 date, Before Jerusalem Fell (1998) certainly does.[1] But a number of other noted advocates of an early date would not, such as John. A. T. Robinson,[2] J. M. Ford,[3] and the three famed New Testament scholars who dominated biblical scholarship in the English-speaking world from 1860-1900, J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort.[4] In my estimation, many of the prophecies regarding the beast and antichrist are indeed tied to first century events, but as apocalyptic images, what they represent continually resurfaces throughout the subsequent ages. For example, see my essay, Hitler as an Antichrist Figure.
Futurism — Post A.D. 70 Dating:
While many New Testament scholars and commentators readily acknowledge that there is no way to determine with certainty when the Book of Revelation was written, and are, therefore, willing to acknowledge that a pre-A.D. 70 date for its composition is possible,[5] the consensus of current and historical New Testament scholarship is that John’s vision was recorded well-after A.D. 70, perhaps as late as the mid-nineties of the first century.[6] To this end, many commentators approvingly cite the sage words of J. P. M. Sweet. “To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition [for the later date] stemming from Irenaeus.”[7]
Counting the number of scholars who hold one view over another to see where the majority come down is not an argument in favor of a given position. But this can tell us where the consensus of opinion falls and therefore indicate which side assumes the burden of proof. In this case, critical scholarship is largely in agreement with the vast majority of evangelical scholars who hold that Revelation was written as much as 25 years after Jerusalem fell to the Romans, probably during the time of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96) about A.D. 95.[8] While there is no “smoking gun,” proving beyond all doubt the post-A.D. 70 date for the writing of Revelation, a high probability case can be made for the later date based upon the internal evidence within the Book of Revelation itself, a case which is only strengthened by our ever-growing knowledge of the first-century world (external evidence).
Many of the arguments used by those who argue for a pre-A.D. 70 date for Revelation are quite plausible at first glance. After careful consideration, however, these arguments are not supported by the majority of the external facts nor by the internal evidence. It also must be noted that arguments used for dating Revelation are strictly probabilistic in nature. To determine when Revelation was likely written requires a final judgment based upon a careful and objective weighing of the facts, with the outcome based upon the preponderance of the evidence.
This question cannot be settled by creating a case to justify the pre-determined outcome that our Lord returned in the clouds to judge Israel in A.D. 70–which is the sense I get from several preterist writers arguing for an early date for Revelation. In order to prove that the Lord returned in A.D. 70, preterists must prove that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70. Therefore, having already made a determination about the date of the Lord’s return, an argument is then constructed for a pre-A.D. 70 date for the composition of Revelation. But upon closer inspection, the case for pre-A, D. 70 dating is intrinsically circular and not supported by the facts at hand (internal and external evidence).
Next: Arguments favoring a Pre-A.D. 70 Date (Part Two)
______________________________________________
[1] Ken Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta: American Vision, 1998). See also Gentry, The Beast of Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994).
[2] John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), 221-253.
[3] J. M. Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible, Vol. 38 (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1975), 21-46.
[4] For an assessment of the influence of these three men, see Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1986 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 34 ff. The important volumes from the famed threesome are: F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John, I-111 (London: Macmillian, 1908), xi-xxxiii; J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 51-70; J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 3; B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1962), lxxxiv-lxxxvii.
[5] See for example, D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1992), 476. See also Beale, Revelation, 4. While Carson, Moo, Morris and Beale, all acknowledge that the earlier dating is possible, both volumes affirm that the cumulative weight of the evidence is clearly on the side of the later dating.
[6] Beale writes, “the consensus among twentieth-century scholars is that the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Domitian around 95 A.D. A minority of commentators have dated it immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.” Beale, Revelation, 4.
[7] J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (London: SCM Press, 1979), 27.
[8] So-called critical scholars include the commentaries from R. H. Charles, H. B. Swete, G. B. Baird, Martin Kiddle, and J. P. M. Sweet, while conservative evangelical scholars include George Ladd, John Walvoord, G. R. Beasley-Murray, Alan Johnson, Robert Thomas and Robert Mounce.
This material is taken from the appendix of my book, The Man of Sin (Baker, 2006) and revised for publication here
- This one is well worth your time: Shane Rosenthal on "The Megachurch Century"
- The law of unintended consequences strikes again. People who have left their churches when young adults are having trouble coping later in life. Deaths of Despair -- The Consequences of Secularism
- Parker and Lucas’s book is important and I highly recommend it (Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies). This review by Dr. Harrison Perkins is also important. Harrison Perkin's "Review" (in 3 parts) of Brent Parker and Richard Lucas' Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture
- Parkinson on The Rationale for Reciting Creeds in Public Worship
- Because they would if they could: Army Corps of Engineers releases a 2023 calendar of giant cats attacking infrastructure
- California has awful traffic. But I’ve never had to wait for any thing like this. Why did the python cross the road?
- More evidence that Columbus was a late comer to North America. "The Blood Run Stone" found in Iowa
- I finally watched All Quiet on the Western Front, one of a spate of recent movies on World War One (1917, They Shall Not Grow Old, etc.). The film left me exhausted and asking myself, “why did I watch this?” Going in I knew this was an antiwar film intended to demonstrate the brutality of the Great War. But it was excessively and graphically brutal, far too long, and far too intense to keep me from wanting to turn it off. The Das Boot ending was all too predictable. Yes, this is a well-made film intended to remind us that war is brutal and awful—that it did. But All Quiet also left me worn out—much like the 1993 WW2 film, Stalingrad. I don’t recommend it because going in you already know that war is terrible. So why suffer through this thoroughly depressing film? All Quiet on the Western Front leads in BAFTA nominated.
- The old rocker die-off continues. Although I like some of the stuff he did with Byrds and CSNY, I wasn’t much of a fan of David Crosby. But I grew up listening to Jeff Beck since his Yardbirds days. His 1975 album “Blow by Blow” and the 1976 follow-up, “Wired” have played in the background of many of my writing projects. IMHO, “Beck, Bogart, and Appice” (1973) was a very underrated album—I love his cover of Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition.”
Quite a milestone for a niche podcast put together in a makeshift home studio by a rank amateur podcaster!
Over its short run of twenty-two episodes, the Blessed Hope Podcast has far exceeded all my expectations. Thanks to each one of you who have encouraged others to listen! It has worked because other than my social media accounts, the Blessed Hope has received no promotion, does not rely on guests, yet the audience continues to grow, with folks listening in from around the world.
Lord willing, there’s more to come as I press ahead to complete Season Two covering Paul’s Thessalonian Letters.
If you haven’t listened in yet, give it a try!
And as always, Maranatha! The Lord Come!!!!
Episode Synopsis:
Paul was forced out of Thessalonica after three short weeks among them. Paul truly desires to return (he’s writing to the Thessalonians from Corinth) but so far has been prevented from doing so. Paul attributes this unfortunate circumstance to the activity of Satan and so explains why he sent Timothy instead of coming in person. Paul boasts in the fact that despite all that has happened, the Thessalonians are standing firm. Paul reminds them that Christian hope is grounded in the certainly of Christ’s parousia (his second coming), a term which the apostle introduces for the first time in this letter. Paul then discusses the inevitability that those who follow Jesus will be persecuted and that Jesus himself will ensure that his people persevere to the end. All of these topics are important and thinking about them properly goes a long way to living a healthy Christian life. So, there is important content here for us as we work our way through the balance of chapter two and the whole of chapter three in Paul’s first Thessalonian letter.
Show Notes:
Note, at 9:28, I mistakenly speak of Paul as the author of Revelation. Of course, I meant John.
Links:
KR on The Binding of Satan
Leon Morris on the Second Coming of Jesus Christ
Nicolas Batzig: Satan's Tactics in the Church
J. V. Fesko: Being on Alert for the Demonic in the Mundane
R. S. Clark: What Christ Expects of His Church During Times of Opposition
Michael Glodo: Blessed Are Those Who Are Persecuted for Righteousness Sake
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
The Deity of Jesus Christ
Like Jews and Muslims, Christians are monotheists. But unlike Jews and Muslims, Christians are also Trinitarians. We believe that the one God is triune, and is revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When it comes to the Son (Jesus Christ), the Bible everywhere affirms that Jesus is true and eternal God, uncreated, without beginning or end.
Given Jesus’s central place in Christian theology and his importance in the history of Western Civilization, non-Christian religions often attempt to co-opt Jesus and make him one of their own. But this is not easy to do since the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ differentiates Christianity from all other religions. If Jesus is true and eternal God as taught in Scripture, then the Christian doctrine of God is unique among world religions. The irony is that while virtually all religions honor Jesus as a prophet or teacher, nevertheless they all reject (implicitly or explicitly) the key points the New Testament makes about Jesus–that he is the second person of the Trinity, and that he is the eternal Son, and he possesses the same divine attributes as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God in human flesh, something Jesus personally believed and proclaimed about himself (and a matter to which we will return in a subsequent essay in this series when we discuss Christ’s incarnation).
That the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ is not the invention of the early church as often claimed, can be seen by merely scanning the pages of Holy Scripture, with its substantial teaching regarding the deity of Jesus in both testaments. One of the most powerful lines of evidence for the deity of Jesus are those texts in the Old Testament, such as the well-known messianic prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 written hundreds of years before Jesus’ birth. “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” The Messiah will be miraculously conceived, and given the title “God with us.” In Isaiah 9:6, we read “for to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). This too refers to Jesus Christ because this is how these prophecies are understood in the New Testament.
In addition to the messianic prophecies in Isaiah, we have a number of messianic Psalms (i.e., 8, 89, 110), in which the Father speaks of the Son as highly exalted and equal in majesty and glory. We also have a passage such as Proverbs 8:22-31, which depicts “wisdom” personified (when seen through the lens of New Testament fulfillment, this is clearly a reference to the eternal Son, who is wisdom from God), and Micah 5:2, where the prophet speaks of the one to be born in Bethlehem (Jesus) as eternal. The coming Messiah is repeatedly identified as the almighty God and eternal father, the wisdom of God, righteous, highly exalted, yet to be born of a lowly virgin. These prophetic verses can only be speaking of one person, Israel’s coming Redeemer, Jesus Christ, who is the God of Abraham (cf. John 8:58).
In the New Testament, Jesus is said to be eternal and pre-existent. In John 1:1 we read, “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus is described by both John and Paul as the creator and sustainer of all things. “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). In Colossians 1:16-17, Paul says of Jesus, “by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Jesus is identified as “God” throughout the pages of the New Testament. In John 20:28, Thomas falls before Jesus and confesses of the risen Lord, “My Lord and my God!” In Titus 2:13, Paul speaks of Jesus’ second coming as “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Paul also speaks of The Father and Jesus as equals in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, and as God in Romans 9:5 when he speaks of Jesus who “is the Christ, [and] who is God over all, blessed forever.” The author of Hebrews writes of Jesus, “but of the Son he says, `Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom’” (Hebrews 1:8).
Then there are those attributes predicated of Jesus which can only apply to God. Even a brief list reveals that Jesus is the object of worship (Matthew 28:16-17), he has the power to raise the dead (John 5:21; 11:25), and he is the final judge of humanity (Matthew 25:31-32). Jesus has universal power and authority (Matthew 28:18), as well as the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7). He not only identifies himself as God (John 14:8-9), but calls himself the Alpha and Omega, “the first and the last” – a divine self designation (Revelation 22:13).
Even in this brief catalogue of biblical texts, Jesus is revealed to us as the true and eternal God, the almighty, the second person of the Godhead, the creator of all things, and that one whom we must worship and serve. This is why whatever we can say of God, we can say of Jesus.
Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel
God’s anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do receive it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God’s anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.
_______________________________________________
The Scriptures are very clear about human guilt before God. Article Four of the First Head of Doctrine briefly summarizes the many biblical passages which teach this. As difficult as this can be to accept, the wrath of God abides on all of those apart from Christ. Those who trust in Jesus Christ and his gospel will be delivered from the wrath to come. Here, the canons are laying the groundwork for the subsequent doctrine of election which follows (especially in articles 5-7). The point being made is that there are those who believe and receive the gift of eternal life, and those who do not believe and who face the wrath of God. There is no middle ground. Either you respond to the gospel in faith, or you do not.
We read in John’s gospel that, “whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). However sincere our motives, we cannot offer the false hope to those apart from Christ that “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” as found in evangelical tracts such as the Four Spiritual Laws. This promise is true, but only for a believer in Jesus. But those apart from Christ have no such hope. Those who reject Christ and his gospel can only expect God’s wrath. A vague promise of God’s love is not helpful. Rather, people need to hear the law of God (his commandments), come to realize their sin and guilt before God (because they have broken these commandments), and thereby be stripped of all false hope of a personal righteousness which they mistakenly hope can sustain them on the day of judgment.
Paul addresses this very point in Romans 5:1-11 . . .
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
In this passage, Paul sets out God’s promise that while we were sinners and unable to do anything to save ourselves, God sought us in Christ, taking away the guilt of our sin, which was the ground of God’s estrangement from us and our estrangement from God. Remove the basis for God’s anger toward sinners and only then can peace between the estranged parties can be restored. It is only in Christ’s saving work that God saves us from his own wrath, and it is through the death of Christ that he reconciles himself to us, and then us to him once the guilt of our sin is removed. This is what it means to have peace with God. The war between sinners and God is over.
But those who are not Christ’s know no such peace and it is not right to hold out false assurances to them. Theirs is but the pursuit of the passing pleasures of sin. Theirs is but the false wisdom of this present evil age. They are without hope and without God in the world. They are separate from Christ and foreigners to the covenant of promise (Ephesians 2:11-22). The wrath of God abides on them as Jesus says (John 3:36). There is no more horrible state imaginable then that which results from human sinfulness and not believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
For the Christian, it is not the law (and the word of condemnation), but the gospel (the word of promise) that has the last word. Those who are Christ’s through faith are heirs to all of the promises of God. In Christ, we are given eternal life, we are justified, and we can know our sins are forgiven—no matter how great the guilt of them seems to us. In Christ, we are adopted as God’s sons and daughters. In Christ we will inherit all the riches that are found in him. In Christ, therefore, we live and die in the unspeakable comfort of the hope of heaven which comes with the gift of eternal life.
All we must do is receive that gift of eternal life which God offers to us in his son with the empty hands of a living faith—simply trusting that the son of God loved us and gave himself for us to reconcile us to God.
The Biblical doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ finds full recognition in no other construction than that of the established church-doctrine of satisfaction. According to it, our Lord’s redeeming work is at its core a true and perfect sacrifice offered to God, of intrinsic value ample for the expiation of our guilt; and at the same time is a true and perfect righteousness offered to God in fulfillment of the demands of His law; both the one and the other being offered in behalf of His people, and, on being accepted by God, accruing to their benefit; so that by this satisfaction they are relieved at once from the curse of their guilt as breakers of the law, and from the burden of the law as a condition of life; and this by a work of such kind and performed in such a manner, as to carry home to the hearts of men a profound sense of the indefectible righteousness of God and to make to them a perfect revelation of His love; so that, by this one and indivisible work, both God is reconciled to us, and we, under the quickening influence of the Spirit bought for us by it, are reconciled to God, so making peace—external peace between an angry God and sinful men, and internal peace in the response of the human conscience to the restored smile of God.
This doctrine, which has been incorporated in more or less fullness of statement in the creedal declarations of all the great branches of the Church, Greek, Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed, and which has been expounded with more or less insight and power by the leading doctors of the churches for the last eight hundred years, was first given scientific statement by Anselm (q.v.) in his “Cur Deus homo” (1098); but reached its complete development only at the hands of the so-called Protestant Scholastics of the seventeenth century (cf. e.g. Turretin, “The Atonement of Christ,” E.T. by J. R. Willson, New York, 1859; John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” (1648), Edinburgh, 1845).
Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Theology, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 278.
ABSTRACT: The idea of a “Christian America” holds both myth and significant meaning. On the one hand, American history offers little evidence of a distinctly Christian founding; many of the Founders, in fact, actively opposed Christianity and sought its disenfranchisement in the new republic. On the other hand, the decades after the Founding saw a surge of Christian faith throughout the country. By the eve of Civil War, America could justifiably be called a “Christian nation,” but its Christianity was cultural, not political, the result of vigorous local and national enterprises rather than governmental action.
Here’s the link to the article: Guelzo: Was America Ever Christian?
Background to the !46th Psalm
My guess is that almost everyone reading this can recite the 23rd Psalm from memory. Yet can you recite Psalm 146 from memory? Probably not. Although not as well known as the 23rd Psalm, Psalm 146 is certainly worthy of our time and study. Consider the fact that Christians frequently use expressions like “praise the Lord,” and “hallelujah.” Where do these expressions come from and why are they used? These expressions come from biblical passages like Psalm 146. Like many other Americans, Christians are prone to place their trust in great men (politicians, military heroes, people of fame, wealth, and power), because such people can exercise influence upon over lives and our ways of thinking. But in Psalm 146, we are reminded not to place our trust in anyone or anything other than God, who is the creator and sustainer of all things. And then it is our Lord Jesus who alludes to this Psalm when beginning his messianic mission. So there is much here for us to consider in the 146th Psalm.
Psalm 146 is representative of an important group of five Psalms at the end of the Psalter, the so-called Hallel Psalms (146-150). As we will see, Psalm 146 is a joyful Psalm of praise. Together with Psalms 147-150, these five Psalms bring the fifth Book of the Psalms (Psalms 107-150), as well as the entire Psalter, to a close. The five Hallel Psalms are classified as “Psalms of praise,” and are used as daily prayers in most synagogues. Collectively these Hallel Psalms reflect a sense of joy and delight and although not as well-known as other Psalms (such as Psalm 23) this group of Psalms does include Psalm 149 (in which we are urged to “sing a new song”) and Psalm 150 (with its famous refrain, “let everything that has breath praise the Lord”).
Psalms of Praise
There are Psalms written by David, Moses, and the sons of Korah. Psalms are used in the temple (for worship), royal Psalms (with messianic implications), wisdom Psalms, and a Psalm such as the well-known 23rd Psalm, often classified as a “Psalm of trust.” Here, we consider another genre (or form) of Psalms–a Psalm of Praise. This Psalm has been used as the text for several German hymns, and Isaac Watts’ hymn “I’ll Praise My Maker While I’ve Breath” is also based upon this Psalm. The 146th Psalm is a Psalm which directs us to offer praise to the Lord, as well as to exercise great care in choosing in whom we place our trust.
As a so-called Psalm of Praise (and part of a section of the Psalter devoted to praise), this Psalm is often called a Song of Zion (because of the reference to Mount Zion, in v. 10). It was almost certainly composed for use in the temple.[1] As with other Psalms (especially those used for worship in the temple), the authorship of Psalm 146 is unknown. Ancient Jewish tradition identifies Psalm 146 and 147 as coming from prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and therefore to the fact that these Psalms were written for use in the temple after Israel returned from the exile in Babylon, making these Psalms among the most recently written in the Psalter. There is nothing in these Psalms which ties them to either of these prophets, so it is probably best to consider this Psalm’s authorship as undetermined (unknown).[2]
An Exhortation to Praise the Lord in Private and in Public
Psalm 146 opens (vv. 1-2) and concludes (v. 10b) with an exhortation for the people of God to praise the Lord (individuals who assemble together for corporate worship). Verses 3-4 call for us to renounce our dependency upon kings and princes, while verses 5-6 remind us that God is creator. In verses 7-9 we read of our sustainer and covenant Lord, who is the great king (v. 10a).[3] There is also a progression in this group of five Hallel Psalms from the individual’s praise of God (Psalm 146:1), to the people of God offering him praise collectively (Psalm 147:1, 12), with their praises ultimately extending to the heaven and earth (Psalm 148:1, 7). These five Psalms wrap up the Psalter by affirming that God’s word goes out to the end of the earth (Psalm 149) until everything that has breath praises the Lord (Psalm 150).[4] This arrangement of these five Psalms is certainly not accidental.
We now turn to the text of Psalm 146. In the opening two verses we read, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul! I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.” The Psalm opens with the call to “Praise the Lord” (the Hebrew is hallelujah). This call is an imperative (a command) to praise the Lord which is followed by a heart-felt desire to obey the command– “I will praise the Lord as long as I live.” The idea seems to be that each one of us as individuals offers our heart-felt praises (hallelujahs) to the Lord. Although each one of us praise the Lord, in the Psalm, God’s people come together and form a chorus (i.e., public worship), of people who praise the Lord all our lives.
To put it another way, as the people of God we are called together to praise the Lord and together we form an assembly (all those individuals who praise the Lord from the heart). We are to do so throughout the course of their lives. The point is that our praise of God is not a momentary thing–“oh yeah, I praised the Lord once,” but such praise to be the pattern of our lives (“as long as I live,” “while I have my being” I will praise the Lord). It is not a stretch to say that the contemporary application is that we not be Easter and Christmas Christians, but we make both the individual and corporate praise of God an important and frequent part of our lives. In other words, corporate Lord’s Day worship is the appropriate place for the people of God to praise our Lord and offer up to him our hallelujahs.
Princes Are Necessary, But Cannot Save Us from Sin
This call to praise the Lord has important ramifications. Because we are to “praise the Lord” all our lives, we are not free to direct such heart-felt praise to anyone else. In verses 3-4 the Psalmist tells us, “put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When this breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.” While we are to praise the Lord, we are not to praise kings or princes. Yet as soon as we say this, some clarification is needed because elsewhere Scripture seems to say otherwise. As we read in 1 Peter 2:17, “honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” In 1 Timothy 2:1-3, Paul, like Peter, writes,
first of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior.
The idea expressed by the Psalmist is not that princes are kings are unimportant, and therefore not to be honored. Kings and princes (or even presidents and prime ministers) are raised up by God, and play vital roles in the civil kingdom where they exercise legitimate rule and authority. Because this is the case, Paul says, we are to honor our leaders, pray for them (which should be done every Lord’s day in the pastoral prayer), and even obey them as long as what they command does not conflict with the word of God. But the Psalmist says we are not to trust them or praise them in the same manner in which we trust and pray to God. A Christian can serve the king, the prince, or the president, but not Der Fuhrer or the Caesar who claims divine rights and prerogatives for themselves. Such a ruler is an Antichrist.
The Psalmist’s point is that all rulers in the civil kingdom remain sinners, and despite their earthly prestige and power stand before God on the day of judgment just as the rest of us do when we die. This is why in Psalm 118:8-9 we read, “it is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.” We have no business trusting (having faith) in those men and women whom God has made, rather than trust in their creator. In chapter 35:2, Isaiah makes the point that on the day of judgment “the fool will no more be called noble, nor the scoundrel said to be honorable.” Great men and women are often not so great. In Psalm 116:11, we are reminded of the grim reality that “all mankind are liars.” Because they too are fallen, kings and queens cannot save us from the guilt and power of sin. Eisenhower, Churchill, and Stalin “saved us” in a sense from the tyranny of men like Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Yet, because all of these men are sinners in need of a savior, not one of them could do a single thing about the guilt and power of sin. Salvation from sin can only come as a gracious gift from the Lord, not from any king or prince.
Rulers Will Be Judged
Therefore, not only are kings, princes, and presidents every bit as sinful as we, because they are sinful, like us, they are subject to the very same curse. They will all die and face their maker on the day of judgment. Kings and princes can do nothing to save us from our sins, and when their final breath departs (i.e., when they die) they too return to the same ground from which they have been formed. The Psalmist’s words echo the words of Genesis 3:19. “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” The greatest among us will die and be buried just like the least among us. Death is no respecter of persons because all of us are the fallen children of Adam.
And just like all the rest of us, when a king or prince dies, their plans die with them. Some leave greater legacies behind than others, but it is pretty clear that the building of pyramids in Egypt stopped when the dynasties which built them died out. The great cities of the Greeks and Romans lie in ruins. The great cities of the native Americans are not only in ruins but buried and largely undiscovered until satellites could see from space the sites where these cities once stood. The greatness and grandeur of all who have gone before is now only so much rubble. When we die, so do our plans and hopes for the future. We cannot save ourselves from our sins, and we cannot save ourselves from death. Yet, as the Psalmist tells us, when our plans are no more, God’s eternal decree remains. This is why we trust God (faith), but merely honor the prince, who is but a sinner as we are, and whose plans last no longer than ours.
Our Focus Should Be on God’s Faithfulness
Since we are to praise God and not men, it is important that the Psalmist recount for us the greatness of God. Focusing upon God’s greatness and his faithfulness to his covenant promises, actually stirs up faith (trust) in our hearts. As we read in verses 5-6, “blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever.” The Psalmist directs us to consider that God does indeed bless those who look to him for “help.”[5] This is the last of the twenty-six “beatitudes” (or pronunciation of God’s blessing) in all the Psalter.[6] The foundation of this blessing is the goodness of the Lord in whom we must trust, and in whom we must put our hope. The Lord promises to bless us when we do. For as we die and our plans die with us, God’s plans and purposes are eternal. His plans are forever settled in the heavens. He is the God of Jacob.
The reference to YHWH as the “God of Jacob” recalls to the Jewish reader’s mind the words of Jacob’s prayer in Genesis 32:7-12.
Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed. He divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking, “If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape.” And Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good,’ I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. Please deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, that he may come and attack me, the mothers with the children. But you said, ‘I will surely do you good, and make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’” Invoking the name (and the prayer of Jacob) the Psalmist reminds the reader that as the descendants of Jacob, they too will find help in the same Lord who answered Jacob’s prayer.[7]
Not only does invoking the name of Jacob direct us to God’s covenant faithfulness (God was faithful to Jacob and keeps faith forever–clearly a reference to God upholding his covenant promises), but the Psalmist directs us to the fact that the God of Jacob made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them. God has power and control over all things because he made all things. As their maker, he directs them to fulfill the purpose for which they were created. In fact, three times in the Book of Acts (Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24), this passage of Psalm 146 is either cited or alluded to, to remind those who hear the gospel that God (the father of Jesus Christ) has made all things. If God who has made all things also cares for his creation, and keeps his covenant promises forever, then this is why the Psalmist exhorts us to have hope for the future (even knowing that our feeble plans die when we do). Because God is the creator of all things, he has both the power and the desire to bless us whenever we ask him for help!
This hope is wonderfully summarized in Q & A 26 (Lord’s Day 9) of the Heidelberg Catechism:
Q 26. What do you believe when you say: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?” A: That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who of nothing made heaven and earth with all that is in them, who likewise upholds, and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence, is for the sake of Christ, His Son, my God and my Father, in whom I so trust as to have no doubt that He will provide me with all things necessary for body and soul; and further, that whatever evil He sends upon me in this troubled life, He will turn to my good; for He is able to do it, being Almighty God, and willing also, being a faithful Father.”
This certainly reflects the language of Psalm 146.
God is the maker and sustainer of all things, and he acts on behalf of his people so as to fulfill all his covenant promises. In verses 7-9, the Psalmist rehearses some specifics of God’s care for his people. It is the God of Jacob, “who executes justice for the oppressed, who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free; the Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down; the Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.” Notice carefully that the Lord executes justice, gives food, sets free, opens eyes, lifts up, loves, watches, upholds, and then brings to ruin. This is not the kind of description which would make a deist happy.
God does not create all things, set them in motion, and then sit back and watch things play out as some sort of detached observer. On the contrary, according to the testimony of the Psalmist, God is involved in virtually every area of our lives. This involvement reflects the blessing/curse principle of the covenant. God blesses his own in countless ways and yet brings ruin to all those who think themselves righteous, and who think they have no sin.
YHWH Is the Great King
As we come to the last verse of the Psalm (v. 10), we are reminded that YHWH is the great king who rules over all things. “The Lord will reign forever, your God, O Zion, to all generations. Praise the Lord!” YHWH rules from Zion, while dwelling in the midst of his people. His rule is without end (“to all generations”), unlike all those human kings and princes who return to dust. YHWH is to be worshiped (“praised”) all our lives–knowing that he has been and will be worshiped by his people and his creatures for all of eternity. According to the Psalmist, this is why we assemble together on the Lord’s Day, to “praise the Lord” and offer our “hallelujahs” to that one who reigns in Zion.
In light of the Psalmist’s command to praise the Lord in light of YHWH’s covenant faithfulness to his people, it is rather remarkable then that Jesus opens public ministry by affirming that he is that one who executes justice, gives food, sets free, opens eyes, lifts up, loves, watches, upholds, and then brings to ruin.
Several commentators have noticed that the list of things set forth in Psalm 146:7-9 which the God of Jacob will accomplish on behalf of his people can be found also in the words of Isaiah 61, which the Psalmists’s words may reflect.[8] In Isaiah 61, we read:
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion—to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified. They shall build up the ancient ruins; they shall raise up the former devastations; they shall repair the ruined cities, the devastations of many generations. Strangers shall stand and tend your flocks; foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers; but you shall be called the priests of the Lord; they shall speak of you as the ministers of our God; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their glory you shall boast. Instead of your shame there shall be a double portion; instead of dishonor they shall rejoice in their lot; therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion; they shall have everlasting joy. For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. Their offspring shall be known among the nations, and their descendants in the midst of the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are an offspring the Lord has blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. For as the earth brings forth its sprouts, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to sprout up, so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to sprout up before all the nations.
In the 61st chapter, Isaiah speaks of the coming one (the Messiah) who will preach good news, bind-up the broken-hearted, set prisoners free, and who will dispense covenant blessings and curses.
It is the words of Isaiah 61 (with loud echoes from Psalm 146) which Jesus reads when he announces the beginning of his messianic mission. We read in Luke 4:16-22,
And [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “is not this Joseph’s son?” In reading these words, Jesus is claiming that he is that one of whom the prophets have spoken, and it is he who will do those very things the Psalmist said the God of Jacob would do.
Therefore, it is through Jesus’ messianic mission that the God of Jacob’s covenant faithfulness is revealed to his people. It is Jesus . . .
Who executes justice for the oppressed, who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free; the Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down; the Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin. It is Jesus who accomplishes all of these things through his perfect obedience, sacrificial death, and triumphant resurrection.
In the Gospel We Find All That God Promises His People
When we read Psalm 146 in the light of the person and work of Jesus Christ, then can see what we would otherwise miss. It is the preaching of the gospel which gives justice to the oppressed. Because Jesus is the living bread come down from heaven the hungry are feed. It is the gospel which sets people free from the guilt and power of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who gives us faith (and therefore) the spiritual eyes we need to see the truth of the gospel. It is the yoke of Jesus (whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light) which lifts up those bowed down. The Lord loves the righteous, which is why he makes the perfect righteousness of Jesus freely available to all who seek it through faith. It is Jesus who leads the sojourner (the pilgrim) to the heavenly city. It is Jesus who makes us acceptable before the father and who makes us part of God’s family. And it is Jesus, who tells those who do not trust in him–“I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” It is Jesus who, in his messianic mission, secures and dispenses every one of the covenant blessings and curses described in Psalm 146 (and Isaiah 61). Jesus is the God of Jacob and that great king who reigns from Zion.
This is why the people of God assemble together to “praise the Lord” and offer “hallelujahs” unto our creator, redeemer and covenant Lord. Jesus accomplishes all of things through his word and through his sacraments. Therefore, let us do as the Psalmist exhorts us to do. Let us “praise the Lord!” Let us “praise the Lord as long as we live.” Let us “sing praises to our God while we have our being.” For “the Lord will reign forever, the God of Zion for all generations.”
Let us not put our trust in princes, but together let us assemble for Lord’s Day worship and “Praise the Lord!”
______________________________________
[1] Leslie Allen, Psalms 101-150, Vol. 21, WBC (Waco TX: Word Books, 1983), 300-302.
[2] VanGemeran, Psalms, Vol. 5., 992.
[3] VanGemeran, Psalms, Vol. 5., 992-993.
[4] Grogan, Psalms, 225.
[5] VanGemeran, Psalms, Vol. 5., 994.
[6] Kidner, Psalms 73-150, 483-484.
[7] Grogan, Psalms, 225.
[8] Kidner, Psalms 73-150, 484.
In the last year or so, there have been several significant volumes published dealing with various elements of Paul’s theology. Here’s a list of those volumes I think readers of the Riddleblog and listeners to the Blessed Hope Podcast might find useful. All of them recognize Paul as an eschatological thinker, challenge the New Perspective reading of Paul’s letters, and are rich in background and theological content.
Douglas Moo: Paul and His Letters. Since the 1996 publication of his commentary on Romans (Eerdmans), Moo is regarded as one of the foremost non-New Perspective experts on Paul. This volume is a thorough survey of Paul’s theology and letters, focusing upon Paul’s understanding of the eschatological two ages, or, as he prefers, “realms.” It is very user friendly and helpful. Highly recommended.
Richard Gaffin: In the Fullness of Time. Richard Gaffin taught New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1977-2010. This volume is essentially an edited version of his lecture notes from his popular course on Acts and Paul. This volume is readily accessible, heavily dependent upon the work of Geerhardus Vos, and is the fruit of years of classroom instruction. There is much here of great value.
Constantine Campbell: Paul and the Hope of Glory. Campbell systematically surveys every Pauline text discussing eschatology—which makes for a significant volume since Paul is clearly an eschatological thinker. The book reflects the growing consensus that Paul’s non-millennial eschatology is grounded in two ages, or realms, and is key to understanding Paul’s thought correctly. Highly recommended but with a caveat—his reading of Romans 5:12-19 downplays the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in favor of transference from the realm of Adam to Christ. The latter is true, but need not displace for the former in Paul’s thought,
Stephen Westerholm: Romans: Text, Readers, and the History of Interpretation. One of my favorite writers on Paul. In this volume, reflecting years of teaching and publication, Stephen Westerholm covers two thousand years of the church’s reflection upon Paul’s magisterial letter. Westerholm even considers Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ sermons on Romans. Westerholm believes that the church’s interpretation of Romans is critical in properly understanding theological debates across the ages. You get Romans right, and you’ll get Christianity right.
Episode Synopsis:
In chapter two of Paul’s first Thessalonian letter, Paul defends himself against accusations raised by those who had driven him from the city. Paul is not just another itinerant philosopher who wanders throughout the land seeking to tickle ears and gain a following. Paul’s conduct in Thessalonica was blameless and it should be clear to all that Paul not only labored among them but took nothing from them. The gospel Paul preached was revealed to him by Jesus Christ and through that gospel, God’s calls his people to faith in the Son of God and includes them into his kingdom and glory. But Paul then says a number of harsh things about those who sought to hinder him from preaching the gospel–the Jews. These are some of the most controversial words in all of Paul’s letters.
In this jam-packed episode, we’ll discuss Paul’s example in Thessalonica, his doctrine of calling and its connection to the kingdom of God, and then we will address the charge that Paul was an anti-Semite, because of his harsh words about those who sought to prevent him from preaching the gospel.
Show Notes:
No airplane noise in this episode, but there is a truck back-up beeper at one point (faint). Sorry—the perils of a home recording studio.
Links to Additional Resources:
Anthony Hoekema on the Gospel Call and the Effectual Call
A, A. Hodge on Effectual Calling
J. I. Packer on Effectual Calling: God Draws People to Himself
Geerhardus Vos on the Kingdom of God
F. F. Bruce -- A Summary of Biblical Teaching About the Kingdom of God
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
The Holy Trinity
It is common to hear people claim that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God. Not true. Unlike those who worship Allah, or those Jews who claim to worship the God of Abraham, Christians worship the true and living God, who reveals himself in three persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It has been said that the Holy Trinity is Christianity’s most distinctive doctrine. Although in many ways the doctrine of the Trinity is beyond our comprehension, we believe this doctrine because this is how God reveals himself to us in his word, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are the one true God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a difficult topic to discuss, because it stretches the limits of human language and logic. Despite the difficulties this doctrine presents to us, we must believe and confess that God is triune, because this is how God reveals himself to us in his word.
The three persons of the Godhead are revealed as equal in divinity, glory, and majesty. Each of the three persons are expressly called “God” in the New Testament. And to each of them is assigned the same divine attributes (i.e., simplicity, aseity, immutability), as well as the same glory and majesty which are ascribed to the other persons of the Trinity.
The Scriptures reveal that there is only one God. In Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses declares “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In Isaiah 44:6, we read “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” This same assertion is found throughout the New Testament, even though we learn of three distinct persons in the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul writes, “there is no God but one. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many gods’ and manylords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Elsewhere James writes, “you believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (James 2:19). The Scriptures are crystal clear, there is but one God.
Yet the Bible plainly teaches that although there is one God, he is revealed in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three persons of the Godhead are mentioned together throughout the New Testament. When Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, the Father declares, “this is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” even as the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus as a dove (Matthew 3:16-17). In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands his disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by baptizing them in the name (singular) of three persons of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
In his benediction in his second Corinthian letter, Paul blesses his readers in the names of the Triune God (2 Corinthians 13:14). “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” In John 14:26, Jesus informs the disciples that “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things.” As God in human flesh (cf. John 1:14), Jesus mentions both the Holy Spirit and the Father as equals.
Another line of evidence for the Trinity in the Bible is that the same divine attributes, glory, and majesty are assigned to each of the three persons of the Godhead. The Scriptures teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are eternal. According to Isaiah, God says, “I am the first and the last,” (Isaiah 44:6) and Paul adds that God is “eternal,” (Romans 16:26) that is, without beginning or end. John records the Son saying, “I am the first and the last,” (Revelation 22:13) and Micah notes that his “coming and going are from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). In Hebrews we read of the Holy Spirit as “the eternal Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14). Father, Son, and Holy are eternal, without beginning or end.
The Scriptures also speak of the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, created all things. Paul states, “God who created all things” (Ephesians 3:9), while the Psalmist declares “Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his” (Psalm 100). Yet, in John's gospel we read of the Son, “all things were made through [Jesus], and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). In Colossians 1:15-17, Paul writes that Jesus “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” In Job, we read of the Holy Spirit, for “the Spirit of the LORD has made me.” In Genesis 1:1 we read that at creation “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are said to have created all things.
What we can say of the Father, we can say of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I’ve always found this definition from Charles Hodge to be succinct and helpful.
“The Father says I; the Son says I; and Spirit says I. The Father says Thou to the Son, and the Son says Thou to the Father; and in like manner the Father and the Son use the pronouns He and Him in reference to the Spirit. The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; the Spirit testifies of the Son. The Father, Son and Spirit are severally subject and object. They act and are acted upon, or are objects of action. Nothing is added to these facts when it is said that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent subject who can say I, who can be addressed as Thou, and who can act and be the object of action. The summation of the above facts is expressed in the proposition, The one divine Being subsists in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This proposition adds nothing to the facts themselves; for the facts are (1.) That there is one divine Being. (2) The Father, the Son and Spirit are divine. (3.) The Father, Son and Spirit are in the sense just stated, distinct persons. (4.) Attributes being inseparable from substance, the Scriptures, in saying that the Father, Son and Spirit possess the same attributes, say they are one in substance; and, if the same in substance, they are equal in power and glory”
As we see from this brief summary of the biblical evidence, we must affirm that there is one God who exists in three distinct persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are equal in glory, majesty and power. This is how God reveals himself in his word.
We will discuss the person and work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in subsequent articles
Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel
In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent?” (Romans 10:14-15).
________________________________________________
The authors of the Canons are careful to link the end (God’s gracious desire to save sinners who do not deserve his favor), with the means by which those same sinners are called to faith in Jesus Christ--the preaching, teaching, and communication of the gospel (specifically identified as the message of Christ crucified) to both the people of God (to strengthen their faith and to help them live in assurance) as well as to non-Christians (so that they might be called and and come to trust in Jesus Christ to deliver them from the guilt and power of sin).
The Canons correctly remind us of Paul’s words in Romans 10:14-15, well worth quoting in their entirety: “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:14-15)
In 1 Corinthians 1:18-20, Paul points out that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” According to Paul, it is the preaching of Christ crucified that is power of God, and the specific means that God uses to grant us faith. This is why in Romans 1:16, Paul can state, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
Although the preaching of Christ crucified is foolishness to the Greek, a stumbling block to the Jew, and probably both to modern Americans, the preaching of Christ crucified is the divinely ordained means through which God offers forgiveness of sins to sinners. As Calvin has said, “every time the gospel is preached it is as if God himself came in person solemnly to summon us” (Sermons on Ephesians, xiii).
As the Canons make plain, God, in his grace, uses the proclamation of Christ crucified--the foolishness of preaching--to call us from darkness to light, and to grant us entrance into the kingdom of his dear Son.
The gospel is the gift God gives to his people (for their comfort and assurance to be sure), and the message which serves as the basis for the church’s witness, evangelism, and mission. A church not grounded in the gospel will never be a hospital for sinners, nor a nursery where faith grows deeper and fuller, and will be of little aid in helping people come to faith in Jesus. But a church which treasures the gospel and preaches it, will be all three (a hospital, a nursery, and an a place where people come to faith in Jesus).
This is why the gospel must be preached. A church is not a church without it.
A New Year’s Day Prayer (from the URCNA Forms and Prayers)
Eternal and Almighty God, we humble ourselves in your presence to dedicate to you the beginning of this year, by adoration, prayer, and praise.
We come before your Supreme Majesty, and acknowledge, with gratitude, the manifold blessings which you have freely bestowed upon us, through the whole course of our lives. We thank you, that having preserved us to the present time, you have permitted us to enter upon a new year. You have not ceased, O most gracious God, to give to us the abundance of your lovingkindness. But you have especially sustained us with every spiritual blessing by keeping in the midst of us the light of your gospel.
You have granted us repentance, through your mighty help, through your great goodness, and through the warnings of your Word and Spirit; and have mercifully given to us favorable opportunities to grow in grace. Despite our unworthiness, for the love of Jesus Christ, take not away from us your protection and favor.
Moved by your grace, we devote ourselves to you at the beginning of this year, desiring to employ it better than we have done the years that are past. And since this day also warns us that our years pass away like a flood, like a dream, give us grace that we may seriously number our days that we may have a heart of wisdom; that we may discern the vanity of this life; and that we may aspire to that better life, when days, and months, and years, shall be counted no more, forever.
While we continue in the flesh, may we more and more live not according to its desires, but according to your will. And grant, O God, that when our years shall come to an end, and the day of our death arrives, we may depart in the peace that passes all understanding and in the sure hope of life everlasting. Favorably hear us through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
- If you listen to the Blessed Hope Podcast, you know I stress Bible reading—especially reading entire books of the Bible in one sitting whenever possible. Here is the annual list of Ligonier Bible Reading Plans. Please find one that works for you and get to it!
- How do Christians feel about climate change and global warming? Pew Has the Answer
- OK, so we Californians have to put up with Gavin Newsom. But at least we don’t have to deal with this: Iguana Causes Large Scale Power Outage in South Florida. In California the power goes out because of government green energy and environmental policies, not because of gigantic lizards!
- Here’s a gift our governor wouldn’t appreciate. The perfect gift for the right governor
- What could go wrong here? Atlanta Church Wants to Grow and Dispense Medical Marijuana. Dude, pass the offering plate . . . The deacons are gonna buy Doritos and Jack-in-the-Box tacos for everyone!
- This is one determined bear. A thousand miles? This Bear Doesn't Want to be Relocated
- This one caught my eye. Stealing the Baby Jesus from a Nativity Scene. Frankly, I was sorta relieved when I read that the perpetrators were not Reformed/Presbyterian elders trying to uphold the second commandment.
Television commercials have reached an all-time low. Here’s what I find most offensive.
- Any political commercial . . . no explanation needed
- What does an Emu have to do with Insurance (Liberty Mutual?)
- The Charmin bear with a “clean hiney” commercial. Aren’t bears supposed to do their business in the woods?
- I’d rather not see women of varying proportions in their dainties talking above private hygiene matters—complete with examples.
- Same-sex couples smooching.
- There’s a company advertising a series of products which I must buy “right now!” because the manufacturer is no longer making them and therefore supplies are limited. Think about that for a minute. Why buy something which is so great it is no longer going to be made?
- Pharmaceutical companies selling medications with side-effects which may lead to death . . .
New Year — A Time to Reflect Upon the Past
In the minds of most Americans, New Year’s Day is a day for parades and college football. But the coming of the new year is also considered a time of new beginning–coming as it does a week after the busy Christmas holiday. This time of year, people are often in the mood to stop and reflect upon all the significant events of the past year.
The various news outlets and social media venues will spend much time this week recounting the names and faces of those influential figures and celebrities who have died in the past year. I am always amazed at how many of these people are already largely forgotten within a year of their death. Life is fleeting. News programming will broadcast a number of video montages of the significant events of the past year–from the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the threat of nuclear war, the huge cultural shifts and tribal political warfare now under way, the on-going effects of Covid-19 and lockdowns, to a host of other human tragedies and poignant moments. A great deal has happened the past year.
But that is not all we associate with the New Year. As is the custom, we are all supposed to make a series of New Year’s resolutions about what we will do better next year, or not do, as the case may be. If we break our resolutions within moments after making them, it really does not matter, it is the making of them that counts.
The combination of all these things makes the coming new year a great time to stop and reflect upon the events of the recent past, as well as our hope for the future. Such a time of reflection has been the historic practice of Reformed churches. Article 37 of the URCNA church order lists New Year’s Day (along with New Year’s Eve, Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Pentecost and Ascension Day) as occasions when the consistory may call the congregation together for worship, although, to my knowledge, New Year’s day services are not widely held in our churches except perhaps when New Year’s Day falls on a Sunday.
Henry Ford on History as “Bunk”
As with most things, the Christian take on the events of the past and our expectations for the future stands in sharp contrast to the non-Christians around us. One place where the antithesis (i.e., the stark contrast) between Christian and non-Christian thinking is most striking is in how we as Christians view the past and ground our hope for the future. Most Americans, I think, would agree with Henry Ford (the founder of the automotive company which still bears his name) who is widely quoted to have said, “History is more or less bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today.”
If Ford is right, then the past is unimportant and irrelevant. What is important is the present, the here and the now. As a very pragmatic man and quintessential American, this makes perfect sense coming from someone like Henry Ford. Although he died in 1947, Ford’s sentiments still reflect the thinking of many of our contemporaries. This curt dismissal of everything which has gone before does much to explain why many Americans have little regard for history, why everything in this culture must be new and improved, and why most of life must cater to those who demand instant gratification and who want nothing to do with serious thought or careful reflection. This anti-historical sentiment is reflected in much of American evangelicalism as well–people who think like Henry Ford. This thoroughly pragmatic and utilitarian view of the world–all that matters is what works or what is useful–is also apparent when Ford reportedly defined history as ‘the succession of one damn thing after another.” History has no goal or purpose. All that matters is the present. The pageantry of celebration and revelry of the new is more important to such folks than the past in which any realistic hope for the future must be grounded.
Christians See Things Differently—History Matters
But this is where Reformed Christians completely disagree. Why? Because Christianity is a religion necessarily grounded in history. We base everything we believe about the here and now upon very specific things which God did in the past. As Christians, we see the present as but a small moment in eternity. We don’t believe that history is bunk, or the mere succession of one thing after another. We believe history to be the outworking in time and space of God’s eternal degree–his eternal plan for the ages. Whatever happens is part of God’s purpose, no matter how difficult this is to understand in the midst of trial and tribulation.
Therefore, it is vital that we grasp the notion that history is the outworking of the will of God because this is what gives everything that happens meaning and purpose. The many events of the past year are not simply random (or disconnected) events, one after the other. Rather, God is working all things according to his will and purpose. This is why “right now counts forever” as one famous Reformed thinker often pointed out.
Understanding history as the outworking of God’s eternal decree means that our entire faith stands or falls based upon whether or not the things we read in the Bible are true. Far from being the “owner’s manual to life,” or a book of “timeless truths” like Aesop’s Fables, the Bible is the record of what God has done to save us from our sins. If history is bunk, then the Bible is bunk! As Reformed Christians we often talk about “redemptive-history.” When we use this term we are referring the story of our redemption from sin as it unfolds in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.
The Christian Faith Is Grounded in Redemptive History
The Bible reveals one story with many chapters and sub-plots which unfold in human history specifically in the lives of a number of different people, in a number of different places and in events which are scattered across several thousand years. All of the people mentioned in the biblical story really lived. All of the places mentioned in Scripture actually existed. All of these events depicted in the Bible really happened. This is why history very much matters us to us, if not to people like Henry Ford. Redemptive history has nothing to do with how to make a car cheaper and assemble it faster. Redemptive history does not center upon me and my demand for instant gratification.
When we speak of redemptive history, we are speaking of those specific events through which God spoke and acted to save us from the guilt and power of sin. Since God created all things, the world becomes the stage upon which this redemptive history plays out. God spoke and created all things. He created all plants, animals, and people. He assigned us our place in life and our rank in society. He created Adam from the dust of the ground and placed him in Eden to work and tend a garden so as to build a temple where the first man and his Creator could dwell together. God placed Adam under a covenant of works in which Adam was to render perfect obedience to his creator. Had Adam passed through this period of probation, he would have been granted eternal life and glorified. But Adam did not obey, and the rest is history, as they say.
To a Christian, what happened in Eden is foundational to how we understand the world around us. Adam (our biological and federal head)–who acted for us and in our place–rebelled against God in Eden placing all of creation under God’s curse. Had you had a video camera hidden in the trees in Eden, you could have recorded the entire scene when Eve was tempted by the serpent, when she ate from the tree, when Adam did the same, and when God pronounced the curse upon the disobedient couple, casting them from Eden so that they might wander in Nod, a land east of Eden where they left their footprints in the dust as they fled his presence. The disobedient couple lived out their lives and their bodies lie buried somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. That’s how real the history is which we are describing. Without grounding our faith in that history all we are left with is emotion and opinion, nothing more. All we can do is describe what happens–we cannot give it any meaning. History becomes the succession of one meaningless thing after another.
Why does this matter? Especially as we approach the new year? Simple. The reason why the news had so much coverage of people who died last year, as well as video of enough human tragedy to fill hours of broadcast time is because Adam broke God’s command and plunged the entire human race into sin and death. Bad things happen to people because we live in a sinful and fallen world. There is no way for us to understand the here and now, without understanding the past.
History may be bunk to Henry Ford and those who think like him. But to Christians, history is the foundation of everything we believe. What happened in the past, explains what happens in the present. We cannot escape from what our first parents did and the consequences of their sin. Furthermore, our faith is grounded in concrete acts in history, such as a cross and an empty tomb, and without them, all we have is bunk, or as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 15:32, “If the dead are not raised, `Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” The reason why we have hope for the future–whatever that future might hold–is because of the past. God’s record of keeping his promises is pretty good. And this is why history is so important to Christians.
Paul’s View of History — The Past, the Present, and the Future
Since the Bible is the record of God’s redemptive purpose as it unfolds in history, it is difficult to pick a single biblical passage (or two) which makes this case–because in one sense they all do. But there is one text which comes to mind when we talk about God’s will in eternity past being worked out in time and space. In the opening chapter of his letter to the Church in Ephesus, the apostle Paul makes the point that what God has decreed is, in fact, realized in each of our lives at a particular point in time, specifically when we come to faith in Jesus Christ. In this passage, Paul lays out a Christian perspective on history. And so there is much to learn from a passage such as Ephesians 1:3-14, where Paul puts these things in context.
After his opening comments, Paul’s thoughts turn toward praising God for all that he has done on Paul’s behalf. In the Greek text of Ephesians 1, verses 3-14, a single complex sentence, Paul pours out a doxology, line upon line, which is in many ways similar to his comments in Romans 8:28-30. There is a great deal of theology packed into these few verses. There is also a Christian understanding of history found here as well. Not only does Paul speak of the work of each of the three members of the Trinity in providing for our redemption, Paul also makes the logical progression from eternity past, to Christ’s work on the cross, to the application of that redemptive work to each particular believer. In many ways, this doxology of praise, lays out the way in which we as Christians should understand the course of history as we see everything being directed by God towards his ultimate goal. The scope of Paul’s praise unto God takes us from eternity past, to the work of Christ on Calvary, to the life of each believer and then on to the end of the age. There is a panoramic sweep here of the whole of redemptive history.
In verse 3, Paul writes, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.” The apostles’ words echo a number of familiar texts from the Psalter. “Blessed be God” is found throughout the Psalter (17, 27, 30, 40, 41, 65, 66 and 72)[1]. In true rabbinic fashion, Paul is giving thanks for the fact that God has blessed his people with every spiritual blessing, “in Christ.” All of God’s spiritual blessings given to his people, are granted by virtue of the fact that believers are “in Christ.” Through faith in Jesus, God’s people are united to the Risen Christ through a bond effected by the Holy Spirit. We are on earth and Jesus is in heaven, but nevertheless, we are united to him. This is why, Paul says, these blessings are “in the heavenlies” because this is where Christ is. As Paul will later say in Ephesians 2:6-7, “and God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.” To be a believer is to be “in Christ” and a recipient of every blessing (not just a few blessings, but “every blessing”) which God has secured for us.
We Are Chosen “in Christ” for Every Blessing
As Paul continues his doxology, in verses 4-6, he restates his basic theme of God’s blessings being bestowed “in Christ.” But at this point, Paul takes us back to eternity past and the mysteries of the inter-Trinitarian relationship. “For [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.” In what Reformed Christians call the covenant of redemption (cf. Canons of Dort 1.7), the Father chose the Son to be the mediator of the covenant of grace and thereby the Savior of all the elect. This inter-Trinitarian purpose was established before all creation and all of human history is the outworking of this eternal purpose.
Paul then goes on to tell us that if we believe in Jesus, it is because we were chosen “in Christ” by the Father. Paul also tells us that God has determined the end to which this gracious decision will take us–to be holy and blameless. The implication is that in God’s mind, we were sinners when he chose us since the goal of his choice is to render us blameless. Paul is also clear that all of this is grounded in God’s love for lost and fallen sinners and not because God sees anything good in us which moves him to choose us. As we often say, the reason any one of us are rescued from sin, is because of something good in God and not because of anything in us. God pours out his grace upon us, in and through the person of his Son. This is why those who argue that the “central dogma” of Calvinism is predestination, miss the point. Yes, God chooses us to be saved–and this choice is the foundation for everything else. But he does so “in Christ,” who was himself chosen by the Father to be our Savior. You cannot separate God’s sovereign grace and mercy from the person of Jesus. Election and the person of Jesus are inseparably linked because we are said to be chosen “in Christ.”
A Bloody Cross and an Empty Tomb
In verses 7-8, Paul moves from his focus upon the Father choosing us in Christ, to the work of Christ, logically moving from the work of the Father to the work of the Son, the so-called economic Trinity. In doing so, Paul seamlessly makes the transition from eternity past to the city of Jerusalem about 30 AD. Still emphasizing the fact that the gracious blessings from God all come to us through the person of Jesus Christ, Paul writes, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.” Christ redeemed us by dying for us, shedding his blood so that our sins might be forgiven. What God decreed to done from all eternity came to fruition in the historical events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday. All of this is because God poured out the riches of his grace upon us in his Son, who also, is the supreme revelation of the wisdom of God. In looking to the saving work of Christ on our behalf, Paul says, we discover the ground of our salvation (solely Christ and nothing in us) and in doing so we discover the meaning of history.
Because we have been redeemed in Christ–who left eternity past and who entered time and space by taking a true human nature to himself in the incarnation–Paul will now explain the connection between God’s decree and the work of Christ. “And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” In order to understand what God is doing, we must see all of history as the outworking of God’s will (his set purpose), so that in the end, all things (in heaven and on earth) will be brought into submission under one head–who is Christ. This is why in the Lord’s Prayer Jesus taught us to pray “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” One day it will!
This, then, is God’s explanation of the goal of history. History is not bunk. It is not the succession of one thing after another. History is the outworking of God’s eternal purpose, which, in God’s appointed time, is to bring all things together in Christ. Everything that happens throughout the ages, is God bringing all things toward his appointed goal. Everything has purpose and meaning. Everything that happens is part of God’s plan, moving everything forward to God’s appointed goal.
God’s Will and Purpose for Our Place in History
In verse 11, Paul takes up the individual believer’s place in this great drama. “In him [in Christ] we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.” God not only chose us in Christ because he loved us, but he is also directing everything in our lives so that we might bring God honor and glory. Since we know that God holds time and eternity in his hand and that all things occur according to God’s plan, we are to live our lives accordingly. There is nothing left to chance. There are not random molecules out there floating around which will ruin everything. Not even Satan can thwart God’s ultimate purpose. In fact, Satan’s very rage against the Creator was decreed by him and serves to bring history to God’s appointed goal. This is why we affirm with the greatest of confidence that God is working all things together for good (Romans 8:28).
The idea that God does all things according to his will is not something new in the redemptive story. It is not like Paul is making this up as he goes. Throughout the Old Testament, there are a number of passages where God’s eternal purpose is spelled out almost as clearly as Paul does here. In explaining God’s sovereignty as the basis of history, Paul is drawing upon the earlier chapters of the story, in effect, reminding the Christians in Ephesus of what has gone before. As but one example, taken from Deuteronomy 10:14-22, Moses exhorted Israel to obey the Lord’s commands and decrees and to serve YHWH with their whole heart, because “To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.” Because everything belongs to Lord, we are to worship, obey and serve him. God’s sovereignty is the basis for Israel’s very existence. Indeed, God’s sovereignty is the basis of Israel’s salvation. Despite Israel’s sin and rebellion, Moses goes on to say,
Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today. Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt. Fear the LORD your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. He is your praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes. Your forefathers who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky.
Just as God called sinful people to faith in Jesus Christ in the city of Ephesus, he had already set his affection upon Israel, despite Israel’s sin and faithlessness. This but one of numerous examples in the Old Testament of how God sovereignly controls history so that his purposes come to pass. So much so that even the exile in Egypt served God’s ultimate purpose–the increase of his people and the coming of the Messiah. This kind of Old Testament passage is clearly in the background when Paul tells the Ephesians that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”
From Eternity Past to the Present
Finally then, in verses 13-14, Paul brings God’s eternal decree and Christ’s redemptive work into the lives of every Ephesian believer and to ours as well–the past becomes the basis for life in the “here and now.” Paul’s Trinitarian focus also once again seamlessly moves from the person and work of the Son to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes, “and you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.”
With this, Paul has given us a panoramic sweep of redemptive history. All those who have been chosen by God from before the foundation of the world and for whom Christ has performed his redemptive work, are also called to faith in Jesus Christ at a particular moment in time when the gospel is proclaimed to us and we believe. But hearing and believing are not the end of the story.
Paul goes on to remind the Ephesians, that having believed the gospel and now “included in Christ,” they are indwelt and marked with a seal, the blessed Holy Spirit, who is the pledge that our bodies will be redeemed on the day of resurrection. In one passage Paul has taken us from eternity past, to the person and work of Christ, to the moment each believer first hears the gospel and then responds, to the great day of resurrection at the end of the age. The very thought of this moves Paul to say that all of this is to the praise of his glory, just as our discussion of this should move us to do the same. How can we hear this glorious explanation of our salvation and not be moved to praise God for all that he has done. Blessed be!
Jesus Is the Lord of the New Year
All of God’s blessings come to us through Jesus Christ, in whom we are chosen, who died for our sins, was raised for our justification, and who was preached to us so that we have believed in him. He who redeems us from our sins is that same one in whom we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit until Jesus returns from heaven at the end of the age to raise immortal our sinful flesh from the dust of the earth. God’s decree lies at the very foundation of all of life. Jesus is the Lord of history. History is not bunk. It is here we find the explanation as to why some have died this past year and others have lived. That Jesus is the Lord of history explains why both good and bad things come to pass. He is directing all things toward their ultimate end and final resolution. Most importantly, God’s sovereign purpose explains why each one of us have believed the gospel and are sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. “In love, he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.”
This is why history is so important, and why we have such a wonderful hope for the future–whatever our present circumstances may be. This is why we can look forward to the new year with hope and expectation! For whatever the new year may hold, God has decreed it, and as his decree unfolds in history, God will bring us that much closer to that glorious moment when at last all things are subject to the Lord of history, our blessed Savior, Jesus.
_____________________________________
[1] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 252-253.
Merciful Father, You so loved the world that You gave Your only begotten Son.
He who was rich became poor for us, the eternal Word made flesh, a great Light shining in the darkness.
Only because of Your Word and Spirit have we seen that Light and been drawn into its brightness.
Give us the grace humbly and joyfully to receive Your Son, even as the shepherds and princes who welcomed Him, and to look no further for our redemption than to this child lying in a manger.
This we pray in the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen.
From Liturgical Forms and Prayers of the URCNA
The airing of grievances, the feats of strength, the aluminum pole, and waiting for that Festivus miracle . . .
Promised under the Old Testament as the Messiah who is to come as a descendant of a woman of Abraham, Judah, and David, [Jesus] is conceived in the fullness of time by the Holy Spirit in Mary (Matt. 1:20) and born of her, of a woman (Gal. 4:4). He is her son (Luke 2:7), the fruit of her womb (Luke 1:42), a descendant of David and Israel according to the flesh (Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3; 9:5), sharing in our flesh and blood, like us in all things, sin excepted (Heb. 2:14, 17–18; 4:15; 5:1); a true human, the Son of Man (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5), growing up as an infant (Luke 2:40, 52), experiencing hunger (Matt. 4:2), thirst (John 19:28), weeping (Luke 19:41; John 11:35), being moved (John 12:27), feeling grief (Matt. 26:38), being furious (John 2:17), suffering, dying. For Scripture it is so much an established fact that Christ came in the flesh that it calls the denial of it anti-Christian (1 John 2:22). And it teaches that Christ assumed not only a true but also a complete human nature.
. . . But Scripture clearly states that Jesus was completely human and ascribes to him all the constituents of human nature, not only a body (Matt. 26:26; John 20:12; Phil. 3:21; 1 Pet. 2:24), flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), bones and a side (John 19:33–34), head, hands, and feet (Matt. 8:20; Luke 24:39) but also a soul (Matt. 26:38), spirit (Matt. 27:50; Luke 23:46; John 13:21), consciousness (Mark 13:32), and a will (Matt. 26:39; John 5:30; 6:38; etc.). Apollinarianism [a Christological heresy], accordingly, has at all times been condemned by the Christian church and Christian theology. They understood the important issue involved in the matter: “For the whole Christ assumed the whole me that he might grant salvation to the whole me, for what is unassumable is incurable” [citing from John of Damascus, the Orthodox Faith, III.6]
From Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, 3.296-297
The situation would surely have been hopeless had the very majesty of God not descended to us, since it was not in our power to ascend to him. Hence, it was necessary for the Son of God to become for us “Immanuel, that is, God with us” [Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23], and in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together. Otherwise the nearness would not have been near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hope that God might dwell with us. So great was the disagreement between our uncleanness and God’s perfect purity! Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator. What, then, of man: plunged by his mortal ruin into death and hell, defiled with so many spots, befouled with his own corruption, and overwhelmed with every curse? In undertaking to describe the Mediator, Paul then, with good reason, distinctly reminds us that He is man: “One mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” [1 Tim. 2:5]. He could have said “God”; or he could at least have omitted the word “man” just as he did the word “God.” But because the Spirit speaking through his mouth knew our weakness, at the right moment he used a most appropriate remedy to meet it: he set the Son of God familiarly among us as one of ourselves. Therefore, lest anyone be troubled about where to seek the Mediator, or by what path we must come to him, the Spirit calls him “man,” thus teaching us that he is near us, indeed touches us, since he is our flesh. Here he surely means the same thing that is explained elsewhere at greater length: “We have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning” [Heb. 4:15].
John Calvin, Institutes, II.12.1
From Athanasius On the Incarnation, II.8
(8) For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us. He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father's Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death. All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father-a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.
Why the Birth of the Savior?
All of God’s covenantal purposes converge in Jesus Christ. The Son is the eternal Mediator of the covenant of redemption which already in eternity rendered him, by anticipation, the one who would become incarnate and give his life for his people (1 Pe 1:20–21; Eph 1:4–5, 11). He is also the Last Adam, who undoes the curse of the first Adam and fulfills the covenant of creation for his elect, thereby winning the right to be not only the risen head but the resurrection-life-giving Lord. Therefore, the covenant of grace of which Christ is the mediatorial head is secured eternally in the covenant of redemption. “ For all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Co 1:20).
Although Israel, like Adam, failed to drive the serpent out of God’s holy garden and instead succumbed to the seduction of God’s archenemy, God pledges that he will not utterly destroy Israel but will preserve a remnant from which will emerge the Messiah who will bring an ultimate salvation and an everlasting kingdom of righteousness not only to Jews but to the nations. If the works principle inherent in the Sinai covenant stood alone, neither Israel nor the world would have any hope.
Yet even in its exile, Israel too is given the promise that its coming Shepherd will gather his scattered sheep and bring redemption to the ends of the earth. The enlargement of Jerusalem promised with the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 and 32 is anticipated elsewhere, sometimes in passages that even recast the traditional roles of the oppressor (Egypt and Assyria) as the oppressed who are delivered from bondage and taken as God’s own people (Isa 19:18–23). Isaiah 60 sets before us the vision of ships from all over the world entering Israel’s harbor, laden this time not with implements of war but with rich treasures. “Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (v. 3). A royal procession of the nations and their kings, into gates that never close (v. 11), echoes the Sabbath enthronement of God in the beginning, with the parade of the creature-kings before the Lord in the day-frames of Genesis 1 and 2. Psalm 2 evokes the courtroom scene, with the creature-kings arrayed before the Sabbath splendor of the Great King and his anointed one (Messiah), but in war rather than tribute, with the Great King laughing at the self-confident posturing of the earth’s rulers who reject the Messiah, yet promising salvation from this coming judgment for “all who take refuge in him.”
Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 446-447.
“The Name That Is Above Every Name”One of the most famous and well-known passages in all the Bible is the famous hymn to Christ (the Carmen Christi) of verses 6-11 of Philippians 2. Martin Luther writes in his famous essay The Freedom of the Christian, that this passage is a prescribed rule of life which is set forth by the Apostle Paul, who exhorts us to devote our good works to the welfare of our neighbor out of the abundant riches of faith. John Calvin tells us that anyone who reads this passage but fails to see the deity of Jesus and the majesty of God as seen in his saving works, is blind to the things of God.[1] The passage contains a very rich Christology, but is included in this letter not to settle any debate over the person and work of Jesus, but rather, to instruct Christians how to imitate Jesus in a profound and significant way. The Carmen Christi also speaks directly to modern Americans by reminding us that the self-centered narcism of American culture is not a virtue, but runs completely contrary to the example set for us to follow by Jesus in his incarnation.
I ought to mention from the outset that as many of you know, our system of chapters and verses are not in the original biblical text and were first introduced in the 16th century. While they are very helpful in allowing us to find “chapter and verse,” there are times when the chapter breaks seriously disrupt the flow of thought of the original author–they do so in the transition from the opening chapter of Philippians as we move into chapter two. As we go through our passage, we will see that Paul’s exhortation which opens the second chapter is really an expansion of his desire for the Philippians to stand firm (vv. 12-30) and is the basis for his introduction of the Christ hymn (which we will cover momentarily).
Paul’s Previous Time in Philippi
In expressing his candid thoughts to the Philippians, the apostle is reflecting upon the persecution which he himself had faced, particularly in the light of the news which just reached him from Philippi that the Philippians were still facing significant persecution. When Paul was first in the city of Philippi, he was arrested and thrown into jail. Paul was miraculously delivered, the jailer and his household came to faith in Jesus, and as recounted in Acts 17, shortly thereafter, Paul left the city to continue his missionary journey to the Greek cities of Thessalonica and Berea, before finally making his way to Athens. When Paul writes this letter to the Philippians about ten years later, he is in jail again–this time under house arrest in Rome. Paul knew something about persecution. He knows that the Philippian Christians are facing persecution also. The Philippians may not be not in chains, but they are finding that their fellow Greco-Romans are not accepting nor tolerant of their faith in Jesus. And then there are the Judaizers who have arrived on the scene and are now disrupting church life in Philippi.
After reflecting upon these things, in the concluding verses of chapter 1, (vv 27–30) Paul exhorts the Philippians, “let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.” The Philippians are to do several things. The first is to live their lives in a manner worthy of the gospel which Paul had preached to them. Their conduct in the face of persecution should grow out of their understanding of the person and work of Jesus. The second thing they are to do is to stand firm in one spirit and in one mind in the face of those persecuting them. The third is not to be frightened by anything their opponents–the Judaizers and Greco-Roman pagans–may throw at them. Jesus is more powerful than all and he will protect his church.
Then Paul reminds them in verse 29, that the only reason any of them are believers in Jesus is because God has granted them faith (he has given them faith as a gift–cf. Ephesians 2:8) and because he has, the Philippians inevitably will suffer persecution. They will suffer for the sake of Christ just as Paul has suffered because of the world’s hatred of Jesus. Just as he is imprisoned in Rome because of his faith in Christ, it was the case when he had been with them in Philippi previously. If God grants the one (faith) he also grants the other (persecution).
Chapter and Verse
So, here is where the modern chapters and verses break up-Paul’s thought. Verse one of chapter two is the continuation of and expansion upon his discussion in verses 27-30. In fact, as Paul speaks of the inevitability of persecution and the need to stand firm in the face of it, he now points the Philippians to the means by which they might fulfill (do) those things Paul has just exhorted them to do, and to do that the Philippians need to have the same mind about these things that Jesus did (v. 5).
But before Paul includes the Carmen Christi–reminding them of who it is and what he has done that they are to imitate–Paul makes a very impassioned plea which includes four conditional sentences (which begin with “if’), which if true, and they are, will bring to pass the hoped for result in verse 2, that Paul’s joy may be complete.[2] The opening verse reads, “so” (which connects this to the previous verses in the previous chapter), “if there is any encouragement in Christ, [if there is] any comfort from love, [if there is] any participation in the Spirit, [if there is] any affection and sympathy,” all pointing to things Paul assumes the Philippians currently possess. Yet, the force of the conditional sentence is an indication that these are things which the Philippians might be in danger of losing if they do not stand firm. We can put it like this; if there is any encouragement still present, if there is any comfort from love still present, if there is any participation in the Holy Spirit (his indwelling and his fruits), and if there is any affection and love among the brothers and sisters, then, Paul’s joy will be complete.[3] More importantly, the Philippians will successfully endure the persecution which they were then facing.
The Proper Christian Mind-Set
How do the Philippians accomplish those things necessary to make Paul’s joy complete? Because encouragement, comfort, participation in the Spirit, and affection and sympathy are present among the Philippians (the implication of the conditions being fulfilled), then the Philippians can indeed accomplish what Paul has just exhorted them to do. “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” If the false teachers haven’t completely taken over (and the implication is that they haven’t–far from it), the Philippians are to resist them by being of one mind, demonstrating love for one another, and being in full accord. This is for their good, but it will also bring the apostle joy, knowing that the Philippian congregation–for which no doubt he feels a bit of pastoral responsibility–will survive the efforts of the Judaizers from within (those who mutilate the flesh–Philippians 3:2-3) to distort the gospel of Jesus, and from the persecutors without, who encourage these saints to deny their faith in Jesus. But the Philippians must stand firm and be of one mind, but in order to do so, they must adopt a particular mind-set which is, as Paul is about to explain, the same mind-set as Jesus.
But being of one mind, having the same love, and being in full accord, requires that certain sinful conduct cease. Rather than focus on specific behaviors, in verse 3, Paul focuses upon the mind-set that the Philippians ought to have. He tells them “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” Unlike those plaguing Paul in Rome, who out of envy and jealousy seek to take advantage of the circumstances while Paul is confined, and unlike those troubling the Philippians, Christians are not to do things from the motive of selfish ambition. In English, selfish ambition means something like seeking to gain advantage over another, or further one’s own cause or circumstances, even if others are negatively impacted. But the root of the word in Greek refers to a hireling or mercenary, and in context here, it means something like “vain glory” or “vanity.” Another nuanced meaning of the term is “pretentiousness.”[4]
Selfish Ambition
Paul’s discussion is like cold water in our faces. In American culture, Paul’s exhortation to put away “selfish ambition” could translate as “don’t be so narcissistic” and strive to stop foolishly thinking that everything in life is about us–that our needs and desires always come first, and are far more important than the needs of others. This is the sin of so much of modern America–how many commercials can we recount where we are told that “you deserve” something which you probably do not need or cannot really afford, but which someone wants to sell us, so they appeal to our base narcissism, “you deserve it.” In our culture ambition and conceit are virtues, but Paul calls them sin. In American life, everything centers around the self, while Paul’s exhortation is to do the opposite–make sure that everything we do flows out of a due consideration of the needs of others. Paul even says, in humility–that is lowliness, i.e., the mind-set of a slave or servant–consider others more worthy (or more important) than yourselves. These are not easy words for Americans to hear, much less practice.
Paul goes on in verse 4, to flesh out a bit further what he means. “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Of course, it is important to care for our own needs and take care of those for whom we are responsible. It is Paul who elsewhere states that if a man does not work, he should not eat, and that those men who neglect their families and fail to provide for them are worse than unbelievers (1 Timothy 5:8). But as we look to our own interests, we must keep the needs of others in mind and always consider how what we do impacts others.
In the specific instance of which Paul is addressing are those preach Christ from envy and selfish ambition. But this may also extend to the Judaizers, who made it their aim to come to Philippi and impose their erroneous theology upon the congregation which, no doubt, brought the teachers and leaders of this group a certain notoriety and which attracted a number of followers about which they could boast. But these men never stopped to consider the ramifications of what they were doing to others–dividing Christ’s church, robbing bruised reeds of the assurance of their salvation, giving people false ideas about Christ and his gospel. In their minds, they are successful. But in Paul’s estimation they are destructive and worse, doing the exact opposite of what Jesus did–put the needs of others above himself.
The Carmen Christi—the Christ hymn
What follows in verses 6-11 is the so called Carmen Christi (the Christ hymn) introduced by Paul as an illustration of the mind-set of Jesus which Christians are to emulate. From the outset, we need to be perfectly clear about one thing. The incarnation of our Lord is a unique event. It cannot be repeated, nor is Paul telling us to imitate it–it is impossible to do what the second person of the Holy Trinity did, take to himself a true human nature. I recall hearing a preacher once making the application that Paul wants us all to be “little Jesuses,” “little incarnations of God.” No, no, no! We cannot imitate Jesus in his incarnation–such is a metaphysical impossibility. But Paul does exhort us to have the same mind (set) Jesus does, who in his incarnation humbled himself. It is our Lord’s attitude of humility which Paul sets forth as an example for us to emulate, not the incarnation which is a unique and unrepeatable act.
The Carmen Christi reveals a great deal about the person and nature of Jesus, so it is easy to see it as a free standing hymn with little connection to what has gone before. Although it is packed with Christological significance, the hymn is not introduced in the context of debate about the two natures of Christ, or the meaning of the Greek word kenosis–“he made himself nothing,” or, as it is often translated “emptied himself.” Our Lord’s mind (in the sense of “mind-set” or attitude) in doing this is set forth as an example to us–Jesus was humble, which we are to emulate. The incarnation is also introduced by Paul so that in imitating the mind-set of Jesus (regarding others as more important than oneself), those who do so, are reminded that we too will also experience the glory which Jesus now does. In other words, those who imitate Jesus’ humility, will also see in Jesus’ life the pattern which frames the New Testament’s doctrine of the Christian life–humility, persecution, and suffering are only temporary. Such things give way to the glory of the resurrection and our participation in the exaltation which Jesus earned for us by accomplishing his work of redemption.
The passage reveals itself to be a hymn (not in the modern sense of lyrics set to a discernible tune), but in the ancient sense of a natural rhythm and parallelism when the text is read–a poem or an ode. There are three distinct strophes or movements in the Carmen Christi which follow the introduction in verse 5. In verses 6-7a, the hymn treats of Jesus pre-existence (that he is eternally God). In verses 7b-8, the hymn speaks of Jesus’ earthly life of humiliation and perfect obedience, while verses 9-11 speak of Christ’s exalted heavenly existence. Scholars debate the precise details of the hymn’s structure, but the basics are pretty much agreed upon by all.[5]
Jesus as Servant
Given Paul’s near-constant use of biblical language and categories throughout his writings, many see this hymn reflecting the so-called “servant songs” of Isaiah–specifically that of Isaiah 52-53. There is at the very least a faint echo from Isaiah 52-53, an idea reinforced by the fact that in verses 9-11, the Carmen Christi clearly alludes to Isaiah 45:18-23. Some have found faint echoes from Jewish wisdom literature foretelling a divine sufferer who is wisdom personified. Others see an allusion here to Paul’s contrast between the two Adams (Adam and Christ) of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. There are be some truth in all of these contentions, but the fact of the matter is that it is very likely that the author of the hymn, whether that be Paul or not, simply drew upon the apostolic teaching and preaching he had heard or proclaimed and which was instrumental in founding Christian churches throughout the Mediterranean world.
The author (Paul or someone else), probably meditated upon what they heard and understood about the person and work of Jesus from sermons, instruction, and their knowledge of Scripture, and then composed this hymn. Either Paul composed this hymn previously, or while composing this letter, or it was composed by another, was likely sung in the churches, and incorporated into this letter by Paul. Echoes from the servant songs of Isaiah, the doctrine of the two-Adams, and much reflection upon how Jesus fulfills Jewish expectations were present in much of apostolic preaching. If you were meditating upon these things it was because these things are found in virtually every apostolic sermon we have in the pages of the New Testament.[6] Whether Paul wrote these words or not, what matters to us is that he fully agrees with them and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he includes this hymn as the reference point for the Philippians to properly understand what it means to have the same mind-set as Jesus.[7]
As we dig into the actual content of the hymn, we begin by noting, that verse 5 is the logical conclusion of everything Paul has said from 1:27 on. “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” If Christians are consider others as more important than themselves–the true meaning of Christian humility–they should begin by considering the example of Jesus. Jesus is the true example of selflessness and sacrifice. He gave himself for us so as to save us from our sins. Believing this and therefore being delivered from all of those times when we did not put others ahead of ourselves (when we act like American narcissists), we turn to the example of Jesus as the source of those good works which are the fruit of saving faith. Because Jesus gave himself for sinful narcissists (such as us), we must learn to look to his example so as to stop being sinful narcissists. Paul gives us an imperative (command) here. We are to have the same attitude towards others which Jesus did–humility. Not pretentious or self-serving, or ambitious to take advantage of others. But humble, considering the needs of others.
The specifics of Jesus’s attitude toward others is found in the contents of the Carmen Christi, beginning in verses 6-7a (the first stanza or strophe) which treats of our Lord’s willing humiliation. “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” When Paul asserts that Jesus “was in the form of God” he is affirming Jesus’ eternal pre-existence as God–an undeniable affirmation of Jesus’s deity. The hymn begins with the declaration that before anything was created and before time began, and before Jesus took to himself a true human nature in the womb of the virgin, Jesus shared in the eternal glory of the Triune God. The passage reflects the similar imagery of Hebrews 1:3. “He [Jesus] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”
The second stanza (v. 7b-8) includes the key point Paul is making to the Philippians about Christian humility. The same Jesus–who experienced the eternal glory, love, and joy within the fellowship of the Holy Trinity–voluntarily “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Despite the glory which Jesus possessed and enjoyed as a matter of divine right and perfection, Jesus “emptied himself,” taking the form of a servant–an obvious antithesis to Jesus eternally existing in the form of God.[8] There are several vital points to consider, and we’ll take them in the order in which they appear in the passage.
Kenotic Theory?
First, much mischief has been done with the Carmen Christi’s assertion in verse 6 that our Lord “made himself nothing,” or as is often translated, he “emptied himself” (ekenōsen – kenosis). Protestant liberals (especially German Protestant liberals) have contended that Jesus “emptied himself” of certain divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience), or of all divine consciousness (he did not know he was God incarnate), or he gave up the eternal form of being (his deity). Jesus was the “form” of God, but gave up his divinity to become “the form of man (under the guise of defending Jesus’ true humanity). This is not what Paul says or means here, and the so-called “kenotic” theories collapse under their own weight. Jesus is God, but then stops being God? How does that work? What happens in the ascension? What does kenotic doctrine do to the meaning of verse 10 (the third stanza) where Jesus is exalted above all things. Does he get his deity back? What does this do to orthodox Christology which affirms that Jesus has two natures (one human, one divine), yet remains one person?
Second, when the Carmen Christi affirms that in the incarnation Jesus empties himself, it is clear that he does so to take the form of a servant. The divine nature and the human are set in parallel to each other. This is an obvious appeal to the language of Isaiah (specifically Isaiah 53:12) which speaks of the servant of YHWH “pouring out his soul” to death. Isaiah’s prophecy prophetically points ahead to our Lord’s death by crucifixion. Jesus emptied himself by taking to himself a true human nature, becoming “the form of a servant,” for the purpose of suffering and dying for our sins. This affirms the second point made in the hymn (as a parallelism), that Jesus remains one person, but he is both in the form of God (a divine nature), yet in the incarnation takes to himself a true human nature (and takes on the “form” of servant (a doulos), a slave. Jesus is God incarnate, God in human flesh.
Third, absolutely critical to Paul’s point about Jesus emptying himself is the hymn’s prior assertion in verse 6b that our Lord “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” This assertion is beyond our comprehension in light of the previous assertion that Jesus enjoyed the eternal glory and blessedness of inter-Trinitarian fellowship. Much ink has been spilled about the meaning of this and how to translate it, but a compelling case can be made that the phrase is best interpreted to mean that in the incarnation, our Lord did not use his status “in the form of God,” to “gain advantage,” or to use his divine attributes and glory to gain advantage over those humans with whom he walked and talked, except as necessary to fulfill his messianic mission and confirm his deity.[9] To put the meaning of this in crude terms, Jesus could have avoided and overcome all manner of human weakness and limitation (like making the nail wounds not hurt), but he did not. Jesus could have performed dramatic miracles and then do what the Israelites expected the Messiah to do–claim David’s throne and lead Israel’s armies to victory over Rome.
The Form of a Servant
Jesus did not do any of this, and that is the point of the second stanza of the hymn. Jesus did not use the things rightly his to gain advantage over us. His mind-set was one of humility in taking the form of a human so as to suffer and die for our sins. The suffering, shame, and humiliation of the incarnation must precede the exaltation expressed in the hymn’s closing stanza in verses 9-11. “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That one who humbled himself for us and for our salvation was also exalted and given those rights, titles, and privileges which were his all along but which are now confirmed by his suffering and obedience, and crowned in his resurrection and ascension.
The entire focus of the hymn changes in the third stanza from the eternal nature of Jesus (stanza one), to Jesus’ humility and obedience (stanza 2), to the Father’s decisive actions on behalf of Jesus, who is now the recipient of the Father’s love and favor. It was Jesus who humbled himself. But it is the Father who exalts our Lord by giving him that name above all others, a name which is so great and exalted, that every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord to the Father’s glory. This reception of worship of YHWH by all the earth’s inhabitants was foretold in Isaiah 45:18–25 (which we read earlier), and is applied in the Carmen Christi to the person of Jesus now exalted to the highest place of honor–the Father’s right hand. That glory which YHWH was to reveal in the messianic age is now revealed to be the glory of the risen and ascended, the obedient and victorious servant of YHWH–Jesus. That one who created all things and who humbled himself to redeem his people will be acknowledged on bended knee by every person whom he has created–willingly or otherwise.
Have This Attitude
The Carmen Christi is one of the most remarkable passages in the New Testament. If this hymn was composed by someone other than Paul, it means that the apostolic churches from the very beginning affirmed the deity of Jesus (in the form of God), as well as the incarnation as a unique once for all event (that Jesus took to himself a true human nature–in the form of a servant). The hymn also affirms that when Jesus died he did so in obedience to the Father (his perfect obedience) and to suffer and die for our sins. And then God raised Jesus and exalted him to YHWH’s right hand, giving the name that is above every name. On judgment day, when his name is proclaimed, every knee will bow.
The Carmen Christi is packed with theological significance, and it is beautiful in its form. It was likely sung in the early churches and we will do the same. It is cited by Paul to remind us of Jesus’ attitude toward others. Jesus counted all his advantages as nothing and made himself a servant. While we cannot imitate the incarnation itself, we can adopt the same attitude toward others as Jesus. If we wish to stand firm with one mind and spirit against the secularism, paganism, and persecution of the citizens of the age in which we live, we ought do as Paul tells us to do: Follow the example of Jesus and disarm all our opponents by considering their interests and welfare every bit as important as ours, knowing that we do so in the name of that humble Savior whose name is now the name that is above every other name.
________________________________________
[1] Cited in Graham Tomlin, ed., Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI, Philippians and Colossians (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 44-45.
[2] Silva, Philippians, 100.
[3] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 176.
[4] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 180.
[5] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 190.
[6] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 188-198.
[7] Silva, Philippians, 105.
[8] Ralph Martin, Philippians, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 98.
[9] O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians, 215.
A conference entitled “Victory in Christ” was held in Princeton, NJ, in 1916. This was very near the den of the “Lion of Princeton,” one Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. The Lion was not amused to have a cadre of “higher life” teachers trespass on his home turf. In his essay, “The Victorious Life,” Warfield sets his sights on one Charles Trumbull, a well known higher-life proponent and the editor of the Sunday School Times. You can find this essay in its entirely here (Warfield, "The Victorious Life"), or in Studies in Perfectionism (P & R).
A couple of quotations should suffice to understand the reason for Warfield’s ire with Mr. Trumbull—A badly distorted view of the Christian life gleaned from John Wesley, in which justification and sanctification are grounded in two distinct acts of faith.
According to Warfield, (taken from “The Victorious Life” in Studies in Perfectionism, P & R, 351).
As wave after wave of the “holiness movement” has broken over us during the past century, each has brought, no doubt, something distinctive of itself. But a common fundamental character has informed them all, and this common fundamental character has been communicated to them by the Wesleyan doctrine. The essential elements of that doctrine repeat themselves in all these movements, and form their characteristic features. In all of them alike justification and sanctification are divided from one another as two separate gifts of God. In all of them alike sanctification is represented as obtained, just like justification, by an act of simple faith, but not by the same act of faith by which justification is obtained, but by a new and separate act of faith, exercised for this specific purpose. In all of them alike the sanctification which comes on this act of faith, comes immediately on believing, and all at once, and in all of them alike this sanctification, thus received, is complete sanctification. In all of them alike, however, it is added, that this complete sanctification does not bring freedom from all sin; but only, say, freedom from sinning; or only freedom from conscious sinning; or from the commission of “known sins.” And in all of them alike this sanctification is not a stable condition into which we enter once for all by faith, but a momentary attainment, which must be maintained moment by moment, and which may readily be lost and often is lost, but may also be repeatedly instantaneously recovered.
And this from the same essay (“The Victorious Life,” in Studies in Perfectionism, P & R, 356), in which Warfield identifies the critical flaw in the holiness system.
This novelty is, of course, the sharp separation that is made between Christ’s deliverance of His people from the penalty of sin and His deliverance of them from the power of sin. These things are not merely distinguished as recognizable steps or stages in the process of the one salvation. They are definitely separated as two distinct gifts of grace, of which we may have the one and not the other, which may be—often are—perhaps generally, or almost always are—sought and obtained separately. Of this separation of them from one another, however, not only do the generality of Christians know nothing, but the Scriptures know nothing. Or rather, it is definitely and repeatedly contradicted by the Scriptures. The whole sixth chapter of Romans, for example, was written for no other purpose than to assert and demonstrate that justification and sanctification are indissolubly bound together; that we cannot have the one without having the other; that, to use its own figurative language, dying with Christ and living with Christ are integral elements in one indisintegrable salvation. To wrest these two things apart and make separable gifts of grace of them evinces a confusion in the conception of Christ’s salvation which is nothing less than portentous. It forces from us the astonished cry, Is Christ divided? And it compels us to point afresh to the primary truth that we do not obtain the benefits of Christ apart from, but only in and with His Person; and that when we have Him we have all.
Episode Synopsis:
There is one thing a congregation dislikes even more than stewardship Sunday–a sermon on the wrath of God. To proclaim that the wrath of God is coming upon the whole world (and it is) is be thought of as some sort of fundamentalist with the misguided faith of a snake-handler, or the mind-set of a Jihadi terrorist. Any one who believes such a thing is considered a kooky zealot who probably carries around a sandwich-board sign which reads, “Repent, for the end is near!”
Since Paul ties Christ’s second advent to the coming day of wrath, he creates very difficult problems for all forms of premillennialism–those who insist that Jesus’s Christ return will usher in a thousand year reign of Jesus upon the earth with the final judgment not occurring until the millennium comes to an end. How does this fit with Paul’s declaration in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 that deliverance from the coming wrath of God occurs when Jesus returns? (Hint, it doesn’t). What does what does this say to those engaged in the “pre” and “post” trib debate, and to the dispensationalist expectation of a future seven-year tribulation period?
We’ll tackle these issues and more in this edition of the Blessed Hope Podcast
Show Notes:
Thanks again to Nick for the new podcast art!
I live in the flight plan of a local municipal airport. I try to record when aircraft are not around, but occasionally a nearby plane’s noise sneaks into the recording. I’m doing my best to filter such noise out.
Links to Additional Resources:
Leon Morris on God's Wrath in the New Testament
Herman Bavinck on God's Righteous Wrath
KR -- Hear Anything About the Wrath of God Lately? --The Silence Is Deafening
Fowler White -- Biblical Hell and God's Everlasting Wrath
Bibliography for Season Two of the Blessed Hope Podcast, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven: Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
A History of the City of Thessalonica Important background to our series
F. F. Bruce's "Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free" The Life and Times of Paul—Still the best biographical study of Paul
G, K, Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVP NT Commentary) The best all around commentary on the Thessalonians letters (strong on eschatology)
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Word) One of the better technical commentaries—Bruce is especially strong on background, setting, and historical matters
Gene Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar) A very good scholarly evangelical commentary
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Crossway Classics) Calvin’s insights into this letter are still worth consideration
Music:
(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
This is a re-post from the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941
My parents spoke often of the shock of learning of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on the afternoon of December 7, 1941. It was an event which brought the United States into World War 2 and which defined their entire generation.
Throughout the years I have been privileged to talk with several men who were at Pearl Harbor the morning of the attack. To a man they expressed the same reaction; Initial shock, increasing anger and a desire for revenge, then relief and thankfulness for their own personal survival, followed by the grim realization that a long and bloody war had only just begun.
My father was an FBI agent during the war and spent his time monitoring various points of entry into the US (mostly cargo ports in Philadelphia, Miami, but also the US/Mexico border near El Paso). For him, the war years were tedious and routine, but he saw his work as necessary and important.
My father-in-law, a rancher from a small town in Nebraska, served in the Army Air Corps in the Pacific Theater. He lived his entire post-war life in the shadow of his war experience. He saw things men should never see and had some wonderful stories to tell about his South Pacific adventures. Throughout his life he stayed in touch with the men of his bombardment group (he serviced the B-24s his group flew into combat). His war service defined him.
That generation of citizen soldiers won a brutal and costly war against the forces of fascism and totalitarianism. Many of them were better men than I, and sadly, very few of them remain alive. But in a three hour span eighty-one years ago, their world changed. Many of us grew up in the shadow of that changed world—in freedom, prosperity, and relative peace, in large measure because of what they accomplished.
Let us not forget them, nor their service and sacrifice—even eighty-one years later.
Article 2: The Manifestation of God's Love
But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (1 John 4:9; John 3:16).
___________________________________
In the opening articles, the authors of the Canons are careful to explain that any possible deliverance from our sinful condition (guilt, condemnation and the inability to do anything to save ourselves) arises from something good in God--specifically his love for his rebellious creatures--and not because there is something “good” in us which God sees and which motivates him to act to save us.
Because of our guilt and sinfulness, God is under no obligation to save anyone. As Article One makes clear, the entire human race is already under God’s just judgment and sentence of death (Romans 5:12, 18; 6:23). But as we see in Article Two, it is because of his great love for his people that God sends Jesus Christ to secure for us our redemption from the guilt and power of sin (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10).
Jesus told the lost multitudes who followed him that the purpose of his messianic mission was that “the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10). It therefore follows that it is God who seeks sinners, not sinners who seek God. How often we get this wrong!
Most forms of American evangelicalism understand the manifestation of God’s love in Christ as in some sense a response to the goodness and worth that God sees within sinful men and women. But what is there in us that is good in God’s sight? The Scripture says, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way” (Isaiah 53:6). We do not seek God, we do not understand the things of God, and every aspect of our nature is tainted, stained, and ruined by sin (Romans 3:9-20). Indeed, the prophet Habakkuk declares about God, “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong” (Habakkuk 1:13).
In the opening articles, the Canons establish why we must realize that the very essence of God’s saving grace is simply that it is entirely gracious. Such grace originates in him and is manifest in his acts to redeem us. As one Puritan divine puts it, “there is no reason to be given for grace but grace.” The only place to look for an answer to our questions about sin and grace is in the biblical teaching about God’s justice, love, and mercy, not in the supposed "goodness" of sinful humanity.
This is why God sent his Son into this world, not because we are worthy, but because he is gracious. And his love is most clearly visible in this—"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16).
Yes, the Canons of Dort actually quote John 3:16 in the second article! Imagine that . . .
The Sufficiency of Scripture
The sufficiency of Scripture is closely related to the inspiration and authority of the Bible. When we speak of the inspiration of Scripture, we refer to the fact that the various books of the Bible have their origin in the will of God. The books of the Bible have been breathed forth by God the Holy Spirit through the agency of human writers (2 Timothy 3:16). When we speak of the authority of the Bible, we mean that since the Holy Spirit is Scripture’s divine author, the Holy Spirit alone is able to bear witness to the truthfulness and divine origin of God’s word. The church does not give the Bible its authority. Rather, the church can only recognize that authority which Scripture already possesses because God has breathed it forth.
When we speak of Scripture as “sufficient,” we mean that the Bible reveals everything God wants us to know about his will, and how to be saved from his wrath. The Bible was given for a very specific purpose. The Bible does not teach us everything that might be useful or practical to know, nor was it intended to do so. The Bible was not given to satisfy sinful human curiosity, nor will we find answers to all of the mysteries of life. The secret things belong to God (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29).
But the Bible does reveal both the law of God and the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. The law is that which God commands of us and is found in a passage such as Exodus 20 (the Ten Commandments). The gospel is what God gives to us in Jesus Christ which meets the demands of his law, and is spelled out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (as but one example). Although the moral law is universal–it us written upon our hearts because we are created in God’s image–only in the Bible do we find God’s law in written form so that God’s will is perfectly clear to all.
While the beauty and wonder of creation powerfully points us to the Creator–so much so that we cannot deny God’s existence–the story of God’s saving work to rescue sinners through the person and work of Jesus Christ is not written in the beauty of mountain peaks, nor is it found in the awesome crashing of the seas. The only place where we will find the gospel revealed to us is in the word of God written.
When we speak of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, we mean that in the Bible we find the account of our redemption which unfolds in the covenant of works made in Eden with Adam, and which is restated in the Ten Commandments, as well as through the various administrations of the covenant of grace (such as the giving of the law at Mount Sinai) in which we witness Jesus save us from our sins in the types and shadows of the Old Testament, and in the promise and fulfillment of the New. Since this story of redemption is the content of the Bible, what else could we possibly need to know about how to worship God properly? What else do we need to know about how to be delivered from the guilt and power of sin that God has not already revealed to us in his word? Do we need church tradition to clarify the gospel? Do we need additional “holy books,” or “revelations” to reveal those things supposedly missing from the Bible? Of course not.
In the Bible we have all that we need to know God’s will and how to be saved. As justified sinners who are cleansed by the blood of Christ and clothed in his perfect righteousness, we are free to approach the Holy God with thankful hearts, and worship him in the manner he prescribes. But we only know this because the Bible reveals this to us. This is what we mean when we say “Scripture is sufficient.”
Life in a Fallen Word Is Nasty, Brutish, and ShortLife is fleeting. The average life span of an American is 78.2 years (75.6 for men, 80.8 for women). That seems like a long time until we consider that the last veteran of World War One (1914-1918) is long since dead and World War 2 ended seventy plus years ago. My high school class is holding its fiftieth reunion this year. 9-1-1 occurred more than two decades ago. When viewed in that light, an average life span of nearly 80 years is not all that long. Yet, time keeps marching on. As each and every day goes by we struggle with our sins, we face suffering and calamity, we wonder what tomorrow holds (given the mysterious providence of God), and we worry about facing the wrath of God when we die. In Psalm 90, Moses speaks to this struggle of daily life as he exhorts us to number our days and to live this life in light of eternity.When you study the Psalter, you find select Psalms associated with various authors (David, the sons of Korah, etc.) and Psalms with different content and purposes (royal Psalms, wisdom Psalms, Psalms used in worship in the Jerusalem temple), and so on. In this exposition, we will look at the historical background to the composition of Psalm 90, then we will work our way though the text of the Psalm, and finally, we will look at the application of this Psalm to the Christian life.The Only Psalm Written By MosesPsalm 90 is the only Psalm written by Moses, which likely makes Psalm 90 the oldest Psalm in the Psalter. As for the historical background to this Psalm, recall that Moses lived about 1500 BC, and David about 1000 BC., so the origin of this Psalm goes back to that time described in the closing chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy when the people of Israel arrived on the plains of Moab, just across the Jordan River from the promised land of Canaan before they crossed the Jordan and conquered Jericho. This puts the composition of Psalm 90 about 500 years before the temple was built in Jerusalem, and well before Israel’s kingdom extended all the way from Damascus to Egypt (under David and Solomon). This is why Psalm 90 has such a different feel than the other Psalms.Psalm 90 is the first Psalm in Book Four of the Psalter (i.e., Psalms 90-106). Most of the Psalms in Book Four are anonymous (the so-called “orphan Psalms”), except Psalm 90 which was written by Moses, and several Psalms which are attributed to David. The Psalms in Book Four tend to deal with difficult questions about human frailty and the meaning of life, the nature of justice and God’s faithfulness, and the difficult question of why it is that God does not immediately punish the wicked. These difficult questions about life in a fallen world were raised in Psalm 89 (which closes out Book Three of the Psalter, and which is a Psalm of lament because of Israel’s sin). These questions are addressed, in part, throughout the various Psalms found in Book Four.[1]To read the rest, follow the link below
Riddleblog Updates:
-
The Reformed Confessions tab has been edited and updated to support the new series on the Canons of Dort
-
Thanks much to Nick for the updated (and improved) Blessed Hope Podcast artwork.
Musings (links):
-
The Value in Reading Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics
-
Nine Church Fathers on the Deity of Jesus
-
“Review” of D. G. Hart's Book on Ben Franklin
-
Neil Shenvi's "Review" of Stephen Wolfe's book, Christian Nationalism
To read the rest of my “musings” follow the link below
Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People
Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: “The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God” (Rom. 3:19), “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), and “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).
_______________________________________
The Canons of Dort open with due consideration of the human condition after Adam’s fall into sin, guilt, and the curse (death), as set forth in numerous biblical passages, three of which are cited in Article One: Romans 3:19; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23.
But far too often, people do not begin with a biblical perspective on matters of sin and grace, but with a number of flawed cultural assumptions usually tied to optimism regarding human nature, especially those associated with American democracy— “everyone should have a say in things.” This difference in presuppositions explains why there is so much resistance and indignation whenever a Reformed Christian dares mention the “five-points of Calvinism” in a non-Reformed context. Reformed folk understand our redemption from the guilt and power of sin as a divine rescue of people who cannot save themselves, and would not do so even if they could. People who are dead in sin cannot resurrect themselves by an act of will. People who are born guilty for Adam’s sin and a corresponding sinful nature have no interest in Jesus Christ or his gospel. They see no need of redemption, they do not fear judgment since they view themselves as basically good people who truly possess the power to do what God asks of them.
To read the rest follow the link below
Synopsis of Episode Three:
In the opening verses of his first Thessalonian letter, Paul sends warm greetings to those from whom he has recently departed. This departure was not of his own doing. After spending three Sabbaths in Thessalonica with this newly organized church, Paul was driven from the city by a “rentamob” organized by Jews in the city who saw the Christian missionaries, Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as a threat to the religion of Israel. But Paul does something unexpected in the opening verses, speaking of the new and largely Gentile church as the “assembly of the Lord”–which is another way of speaking of this congregation as a fulfillment of God’s promise to redeem Israel in the messianic restoration foretold by Israel’s prophets. Perhaps even more unexpected, Paul speaks of those who have turned from idol worship as “chosen by God,” another image drawn from the Old Testament. A Gentile church in Thessalonica is depicted by Paul as the “assembly of the Lord,” composed of those “chosen by God,” included in true Israel.
To listen to episode three and see the show notes, follow the link below
A Thanksgiving Prayer (from the URCNA’s Forms and Prayers):
Our Sovereign God, who created all things for your pleasure and who gives to all life, breath, and every good thing, we praise you for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life. For rain and sunshine, in abundance and in lack, we acknowledge that our times are in your hands. You supply all of your creatures with your good gifts: the just and the unjust alike. Nevertheless, we especially give you praise for the surpassing greatness of your saving grace that you have shown to us in Christ Jesus our Savior. For our election in him before the foundation of the world; for our redemption by him in his life, death, and resurrection; for our effectual calling, justification, sanctification, and all of the blessings of our union with him, we give you our heartfelt thanks. And we look with great anticipation toward that day when you will raise us to life everlasting, glorified and confirmed in righteousness, so that we may sing your praises without the defilement of our present weaknesses, distractions, and sins. As you have served us with these gifts, we ask that you would give us grateful hearts so that through us you may serve our neighbors. In the name of Jesus Christ our Savior, Amen.
There is so much for which to be thankful! May you and yours have a very blessed Thanksgiving!
In Genesis 1:1 we read “in the beginning was God.” Echoing the opening declaration of the Bible, in John 1:1 we read that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” But John goes on to say “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The fact that God chose to reveal himself in the person of Jesus Christ (the eternal word made flesh) brings us to the subject of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. This is where God primarily chooses to reveal his purposes to his people—in a collection of sixty-six written books which tell the story of God’s mighty deeds and words of explanation, all of which point to Jesus, the Word made flesh.
The Bible never claims to be an “inspirational” book which grants its reader greater spiritual insight or self-enlightenment. The Bible was not given to motivate us to live better lives, or to do great things. The Bible is given to us by God as a testimony to the Word made flesh (Jesus). This is what the various human writers of the Bible say about the Bible itself. What kind of book is it? What do they testify about it?
To read the rest, follow the link below
Every eschatological position has sharp edges which don’t seem to fit neatly within the system. I am of the conviction that Reformed amillennialism (AKA the “Dutch school”) has the fewest and least consequential of these “sharp edges.” One of these sharp edges associated with amillennialism is the binding of Satan—how can you claim Satan is bound when there is so much evil in the world? This can be readily explained—see my essay, The Binding of Satan.
But the presence of Israel as a nation living back in their ancient homeland is always the pink elephant in the room whenever amillennarians discuss eschatology with dispensationalists. This is a sharp edge for amillennialism for several reasons. One is that the Reformed are not in full agreement among themselves about the role and place of national Israel in the new covenant era, especially in the days before the Lord’s return. Another reason is that the hermeneutic (the operating assumptions) underlying the various millennial positions assigns widely varying roles to a future nation of Israel in redemptive history. Dispensationalists assert that Israel’s return to the land of Palestine in 1947 is the fulfillment of the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-8), and is therefore thought to be a fatal weakness of amilliennialism.
I recall receiving an email claiming that Reformed amillennarians get the question of a future for Israel terribly wrong—embarrassingly so. In fact, two of our stalwart theologians both dismissed premillennialism largely on the grounds of the expectation of a return of the Jews to Palestine. The author of the email cited two well-known Reformed theologians, Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof, both of whom did dismiss the very possibility of such a thing, yet such a thing did happen. Oops . . . On the basis of UN Resolution 181, Israel became a nation in 1947, Jews returned to their ancient homeland, survived three major wars, which in anyone’s estimation is a monumental event that dispensationalists have always expected, and which they say commences the events associated with the time of the end.
To read the rest, follow the link below
A First Century Sermon
Have you ever wondered what a sermon would be like in one of the churches founded during the time of the apostles? How did those in the apostolic circle preach? Since the New Testament was not yet completed, how did they utilize the Old Testament, so as to show forth Christ? In verses 5-16 of the Epistle of Jude we find such a sermon (or at least a portion of such a sermon) which serves as the main body of Jude’s epistle. Citing from both the Old Testament as well as apocryphal Jewish writings, Jude is able to remind his readers that God has a long history of dealing with false teachers and apostates, and those men who were currently troubling the churches to which Jude is writing, face certain judgment. Even as Jude’s readers are to earnestly contend for that faith “once for all delivered to the saints,” they are to also build themselves up in the most Holy faith, and to pray in the Holy Spirit.
In part one, we dealt with introductory matters and the first four verses. Recall that this epistle was written by Jude–the brother of James and Jesus–as early as the mid-fifties of the first century. While Jude doesn’t give us any of the specifics about the churches to which he is writing, there is enough information here to gather that Jude is writing to a church (or churches) which was composed largely of Jewish converts to Christianity. The members of these church were steeped in Jewish mysticism and end-time speculation–we’ll see why that is important momentarily. Jude has learned that these unnamed churches were facing a very serious internal crisis, prompting Jude to write this epistle which is an urgent warning to his brethren.
Apparently, Jude was planning on a writing a letter to these churches about “our common salvation,” when word reached him that a group of traveling prophets and teachers had crept into these churches, introducing the dangerous heresy of antinomianism. Antinomianism is the notion that since we are saved by God’s grace and not by our works, Christians are not in any sense bound to keep the law (the Ten Commandments). This particular group of false teachers had infiltrated their ranks, and were men who were using the grace of God as an excuse to engage in all kinds of sexual immorality. Furthermore, these men were claiming that God was revealing himself to them through dreams and visions, which, supposedly gave great credibility to their deceptive message. Upon learning that this was indeed going on, Jude sends this epistle to these churches exhorting them to deal with these men before they can do any more damage.
To read the rest of this exposition, follow the link below
Immanuel Kant’s 1784 essay, “What Is Enlightenment?” was written shortly after the America Revolution when a spirit of optimism was sweeping throughout much of Europe. Kant challenged those willing to think for themselves, to muster up the courage to move beyond a self-imposed intellectual immaturity to embrace his creed, "Sapere aude!” (dare to be wise!). Kant was responding to what he perceived to be an unhealthy and stifling relationship between the Prussian church and state, which restrained people from seeking greater “enlightenment.” One of his prime targets was Prussian protestantism. You can read the essay here: Kant's essay, "What Is Enlightenment?"
Kant, still an up and coming philosopher, took direct aim at synods and presbyteries (“church councils”) which he thought to be one of the single biggest obstacles to future societal progress and enlightenment.
Here’s the relevant section:
But should a society of ministers, say a Church Council, . . . have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity, is simply null and void even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments, and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot conclude a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress. Therefore, succeeding ages are fully entitled to repudiate such decisions as unauthorized and outrageous.
To read the rest of Kant’s quote, follow the link below
When, Not If, the False Teachers Come
One of the greatest threats to the Christian church occurs when its own pastors and teachers deny the very gospel which they’ve been entrusted to proclaim. In the Epistle of Jude, we witness a church which has been secretly infiltrated by self-appointed spokesmen for God, who were advocating the false teaching that because we are saved by God’s grace, we are no longer bound to follow the commandments of God. This is classic antinomianism.
These false teachers claimed to be followers of Jesus, while at the same time were themselves engaging in all kinds of sexual immorality closely tied to the paganism of the age. By indulging in sins of the flesh under the guise of God’s grace, Jude says these teachers were denying the gospel of Jesus Christ. Having become aware that this was going on in the churches, Jude writes a short but very powerful exhortation to Christian faithful in these churches to oppose these false teachers with everything in them, and to earnestly “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
To read the rest of this exposition, follow the link below:
In an age of economic difficulties, sweeping cultural change, political upheaval and tribalism, along with with the fear generated by nuclear threats coming from Vlad the Invader, people have questions about the end times. Understandably so.
Although we find general signs of the end (i.e., wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine—cf. Matthew 24:3 ff), the Bible does not give us the kind of specifics people often want. One of biggest sources of speculation surrounds a future Antichrist—Who? When?
Here we find helpful words of wisdom from Geerhardus Vos, the father of Reformed amillennialism. As Vos puts it in regard to Antichrist speculation, “2 Thessalonians belongs among the many prophecies, whose final and best exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (Pauline Eschatology, 133)
My Vos to English translation goes like this. “Many of the things we speculate about won’t become clear to us until they happen. We’ll know it when we see it. Until then, we must wait patiently!”
Yes, Jesus Christ will return to bring about the final consummation on the day appointed by God, but not on the day we might wish or expect. In the meantime, we wait and go about our mission of preaching Christ to all the nations (Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20) all the while praying with Paul (1 Corinthians 16:22), “Maranatha, Lord come!”
Synopsis of Episode Two: “Paul’s Theological Categories”
Paul was converted about 33 AD when Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus Road, revealing to Paul the content of the gospel he was to preach. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians was written around 50 AD, just short of twenty years after his conversion. By this time, Paul has a settled theology–his basic theological categories are in place. He applied these categories in Galatia in opposition to the Judaizers, and he now applies them in an entirely different set of circumstances in Thessalonica. Paul is not making his doctrine up on the fly. So, what was this “settled theology” and how does Paul apply these basic theological categories in his letters to the Thessalonians?
To see the show notes and listen to the podcast, follow the link below
The Bible opens with a remarkable statement in Genesis 1:1– “In the Beginning, God . . .”
This simple assertion is packed with meaning. Some of the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith are found in this short declaration, and it is important to give them due consideration.
The first thing this passage tells us is that before anything was created, God was (Psalm 90:2). In fact, God always was, without beginning or end. Since God alone is uncreated, we speak of him as eternal. God exists before time, and is not bound by the succession of moments (time) as are we.
As the creation account unfolds in the subsequent verses of Genesis 1, we learn that the eternal God creates all things. Whatever now exists, exists only because God created it. There is no such thing as eternal matter. There is no eternal realm of mental forms (or ideas) as Plato led us to believe. There is no primordial world with an eternal convulsing of matter–ever expanding, ever contracting–as taught in much of contemporary science. There is only the eternal God who created all things, and who already was in the beginning. This indicates that nothing exists apart from the will of God, and all created things (the heavens and earth, humans as well as angels) are necessarily contingent, and depend upon God for their existence (Amos 5:8, Nehemiah 9:6).
To read the rest, follow the link below
There is coming a day when all injustices will be made right, all human suffering will cease, and every tear will be wiped from our eyes. One day our blessed Lord Jesus will suddenly return from heaven to earth to raise the dead, judge all men and women, and renew the heavens and earth by removing every hint and trace of human sin. For those who know not Christ, this will be the most terrible day imaginable. In Revelation 6:15-17, John describes this day as follows:
“Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”
But for those who are Christ’s, this will be the most blessed day imaginable. In Revelation 21:3-4, John depicts how God’s covenant promise will come to fruition:
“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, `Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’”
We conclude our exposition of the Belgic Confession, as we come to the final article (Thirty-Seven). It is quite appropriate that the last article of our confession deals with the final events of human history, the second advent of our Lord and those events associated with it–the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the renewal of all things. Not only is our Lord’s second advent the glorious concluding chapter to the biblical drama of our redemption from sin, but this doctrine is also the capstone of our confession of faith.
To read the rest, Article Thirty Seven -- The Lord's Return and the Final Judgment
This is the concluding section from Warfield’s 1894 essay, “The Inspiration of the Bible” originally published in Bibliotheca Sacra. It was republished in the Warfield anthology The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (P & R), 105-128.
Let it suffice to say that to a plenarily inspired Bible, humbly trusted as such, we actually, and as a matter of fact, owe all that has blessed our lives with hopes of an immortality of bliss, and with the present fruition of the love of God in Christ. This is not an exaggeration. We may say that without a Bible we might have had Christ and all that he stands for to our souls. Let us not say that this might not have been possible. But neither let us forget that, in point of fact, it is to the Bible that we owe it that we know Christ and are found in him. And may it not be fairly doubted whether you and I, - however it may have been with others, - would have had Christ had there been no Bible? We must not at any rate forget those nineteen Christian centuries which stretch between us and Christ, whose Christian light we would do much to blot out and sink in a dreadful darkness if we could blot out the Bible. Even with the Bible, and all that had come from the Bible to form Christian lives and inform a Christian literature, after a millennium and a half the darkness had grown so deep that a Reformation was necessary if Christian truth was to persist, - a Luther was necessary, raised up by God to rediscover the Bible and give it back to man. Suppose there had been no Bible for Luther to rediscover, and on the lines of which to refound the church, - and no Bible in the hearts of God's saints and in the pages of Christian literature, persisting through those darker ages to prepare a Luther to rediscover it? Though Christ had come into the world and had lived and died for us, might it not be to us, - you and me, I mean, who are not learned historians but simple men and women, - might it not be to us as though he had not been? Or, if some faint echo of a Son of God offering salvation to men could still be faintly heard even by such dull ears as ours, sounding down the ages, who would have ears to catch the fulness of the message of free grace which he brought into the world? who could assure our doubting souls that it was not all a pleasant dream? who could cleanse the message from the ever-gathering corruptions of the multiplying years? No: whatever might possibly have been had there been no Bible, it is actually to the Bible that you and I owe it that we have a Christ, - a Christ to love, to trust and to follow, a Christ without us the ground of our salvation, a Christ within us the hope of glory.
To read the rest of the concluding section of Warfield’s essay, follow the link below
Abraham Encounters Melchizadek
In Genesis 17, Abraham is returning from battle with local tribes when the man of faith encounters the mysterious king of Salem (Jerusalem) named Melchizadek. According to verses 18-20, “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed [Abram] and said, `Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!’ And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” Who is this mysterious Melchizadek, and why would Abraham pay tithes to him?
In Psalm 110:4 (which is one of the most often-cited Old Testament passages in the New Testament), the Psalmist speaks of Melchizadek as follows. “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, `You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” Given the fact that Jesus quotes this same passage while debating with the Pharisees about whether or not he is the true “son of David” (Matthew 22:44), it is clear that the passage has strong messianic implications–as a prophecy (Psalm 110:4) fulfilled by Jesus–the one of whom the Psalmist had been speaking.
To read the rest, follow the link below
-
Riddleblog Readers will very much enjoy Dr. Scott Clark’s Reformation Day lecture given at Westminster Seminary California. A must listen: Dr. Scott Clark's Lecture on Reformation Day 2022
-
Here’s yet another important reminder that, “yes, our Reformed theological forefathers were indebted to Aquinas for a number of things.” Acknowledging this to be true is a fact of historical theology, not necessarily a step on the slippery slope to Rome as some fear. Here’s a great example of what I mean. David VanDrunen on "Standing on Aquinas' Shoulders"
-
Another important short essay on “appropriations” and Christology from Fred Sanders. Distinctions and correct terminology matter. Fred Sanders on Important Christological Distinctions
-
If you don’t think that things have gotten absolutely crazy among Christian nationalists, here are three links which should disabuse you of the notion that this movement is not theologically problematic.
To read the rest of my “Musings” follow the link below
The Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation
Many churches which trace their theological ancestry back to the Protestant Reformation, commemorate Reformation Day. October 31, 1517, is the traditional date when Martin Luther, a young biblical scholar and troubled son of the Roman church, nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in the city of Wittenberg. Professor Luther sought to challenge the Roman church’s understanding of the sacrament of penance. The act of posting written theses (objections) was simply the way in which professors of that day called for academic debate.
Luther was as surprised as anyone when his 95 Theses gave voice those to countless German peasants who felt that the Roman church had grown increasing greedy, corrupt, and indifferent to their needs. When the Dominican friar Johann Tetzel came through Germany selling indulgences–which supposedly shortened the time that a sinner spent in purgatory–ordinary Germans were outraged. How dare Rome send an emissary into Germany to sell indulgences at a time of great economic hardship, especially when the proceeds from the sale went to pay for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome–a grand church which no German peasant would ever see.
While German peasants hated the Roman church because of the church’s arrogance and indifference, for Luther, the issues were theological. When Luther’s theses were published and quickly disseminated across much of Germany, it soon became clear that this was not just a debate about a fine point of doctrine (penance), but a fundamental challenge to the nature of religious authority as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. This was, in fact, a direct challenge to Rome’s teaching on good works, merit, faith, and the nature of the gospel. It was not long before Protestantism was a wide-spread movement and a burgeoning theological threat to the Roman church–especially in northern Europe. Although Protestantism soon separated into Lutheran and Reformed branches, the Protestant objections to Rome quickly crystalized around the so-called “five Solas” of the Reformation. These five “onlys” include: Scripture alone, grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone, and glory to God alone.
The Roman church believed Scripture was God’s word. But Rome didn’t see Scripture as the primary ground of religious authority–there was also church tradition as an equal authority. The Roman church believed in grace, but defined grace as a substance dispensed through the sacramental system of the church, and that such grace must be energized by the human will in order to be effective in matters of salvation. Rome militantly defended the deity of Christ and his sacrificial death for sins. But Rome taught that the merit of human good works must be added to the merits of Christ in order for sinners to be made right with God (justification). Rome also taught that faith was an essential Christian virtue, but understood that simple faith must be formed into an active faith which then produced those Christian virtues and good works which merited (earned) favor from God. While in theory the Roman church gave all glory to God, in practice, Rome’s theology spread glory around to Mary, the papacy, the church, the saints, and even to human good works.
What has separated Protestantism from Rome since 1517, is not Scripture, grace, faith, Christ, or glory to God. What caused the great divide between Protestants and Catholics was the Protestant insistence upon that little adjective “sola” or “only.” Scripture alone. Grace alone. Christ alone. Faith alone. Glory to God alone.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Synopsis of Episode One: “An Introduction to Paul’s Thessalonian Letters”
We are about to embark on a study of Paul’s Thessalonian letters. Our season two series is entitled “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven” (from 2 Thessalonians 1:7), a text which captures Paul emphasis in these two letters upon the key event in biblical eschatology — the second coming (advent) of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Many of you know that in these two letters Paul discusses our Lord’s return in great detail–when and what happens when Jesus returns, the appearance of Antichrist, what happens on the Day of the Lord, and Paul’s warning about the coming wrath of God. But I wonder how many of you have ever gone through the entire text of both these letters in any detail. The context for Paul’s teaching on eschatological matters is a series of questions raised by a congregation of mostly Gentile Christians living mid-first century in the city of Thessalonica.
In this first episode of season two we’ll take a look at the Macedonia Call, Paul’s second missionary journey, and learn a bit about the Thessalonians and their city–men and woman who embraced the word of God as preached to them by Paul, who turned from serving idols to worshiping and serving the living God. We’ll also learn a bit about the fierce opposition the apostle Paul faced while in Thessalonica, and how this opposition to his preaching lead to the gospel being proclaimed in other Greek cities including the heart of Greek history and culture, the city of Athens.
To read the rest and listen to the first episode of season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast follow the link below
In Judges 21:25 we find a remarkably insightful description of what happens when sinful human nature goes unchecked by legitimate governing authority–“In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Where there is no legitimate civil government, lawlessness reigns, even in the covenant community. Because God is gracious to his sinful creatures, he has given us civil government to protect us from ourselves and from each other, as well as to provide a certain level of order and protection so that the church can go about its own divinely-appointed mission of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments. In Romans 13:1-7, the apostle Paul speaks of the pagan Roman Empire with Nero as the current emperor as a “minister of God.”
As we near the end of 37 articles of the Belgic Confession, we come to Article Thirty-Six, which deals with the Christian view of civil government. Like so many of the other articles of our confession, this article must be considered against the historical circumstances at the time it was written. As we have mentioned on numerous occasions, the Anabaptist kingdom of Münster is clearly in his mind when Guido De Bres composed this article in 1561. During the years of 1534-35, a number of Anabaptist radicals led by John Mattys and then after his death, John of Leyden, overthrew the city government of Münster and instituted what is now known as the “Anabaptist kingdom of Münster.”
Claiming to receive direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and appealing to those Old Testament passages which refer to Israel’s unique role in redemptive history as a theocracy ruled by divinely-appointed kings, and then applying those verses to himself as though he himself were a Davidic king, John of Leyden and his followers declared all forms of civil government to be illegitimate–except, of course, that government which they claimed God was establishing through them.
Not only did John declare all existing contracts and marriages null and void, he abolished all private property and established a city-wide communal form of living. Seeing Münster as the locale of the millennial kingdom of God then dawning upon the earth, John and his followers took up arms, and for nearly two years held off the poorly trained local armies, claiming these military victories proved that God was on their side. John’s soldiers were not defeated until the local prince finally brought in paid mercenaries for whom the Anabaptists were no match.
The Anabaptists were not only guilty of heresy (for their Christology and rejection of justification sola fide), but of anarchy as well. With the fall of Anabaptist kingdom of Münster and the execution of all those who brought this horrible thing to pass, all of Europe was determined never to let such a thing happen again. In fact, some have argued that the roots of modern Europe’s current secularist mind set can be traced to this very event–if religious zealots can do such things, then religious zeal is a bad thing. If the Reformed wing of the Reformation was to have any legitimacy at all, Reformed theologians and confessions had to be very clear that they had no sympathies for the Anabaptists, not only on a theological level, but they must also clearly state that the Anabaptist view of civil government was unbiblical and those who perpetrated this disaster got everything they deserved–harsh as that was. God gives the sword to civil government to defend its citizens from the likes of John of Leyden.
As our confession takes up this very important subject, De Bres must not only set forth a biblical view of civil government–especially its legitimacy (indeed, its necessity), but he must distance the Reformed view of civil government from that of the Anabaptists, since it was a common Roman Catholic tactic at the time to contend that the Anabaptist’s behavior was the inevitable consequence of the Reformation’s challenge to Rome’s authority. The Roman church saw itself as the glue which held together all of the various institutions of life. So, if Protestants attack the authority of Rome, they are sowing the seeds which came to full flower in Münster.
To read the rest, Article 36 of the Belgic Confession -- the Civil Magistrate
A Stern Warning
The church in Laodicea thinks of itself as wealthy, very well-off, and without any apparent needs. But the reality is far different. While this congregation may have an exalted opinion of itself, Jesus describes this church in completely different terms: wretched, pitiful, poor, and naked. This church is lukewarm and is about to be spit out of Christ’s mouth. With these words of rebuke, the church in Laodicea joins the church in Sardis as the only two congregations among the seven addressed by our Lord which receive no word of praise. Instead, these two churches receive only a word of rebuke and a command to repent, lest they face Christ’s judgment.
With this letter we come to the end of John’s opening vision of the resurrected Christ which began in Revelation 1:12 and which ends in chapter three with Jesus’ words of encouragement, admonition, and rebuke to those congregations struggling to remain faithful in the face of paganism, persecution from the state, as well as from those Jews who lived in significant numbers in several of these cities.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Here are a few excerpts from Warfield’s Inaugural Address upon induction as Chair of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Western [Pittsburgh] Theological Seminary, given on April 20, 1880. This was Warfield’s opening salvo in a career largely dedicated to defending the inspiration and authority of Scripture against all comers—especially critical scholarship.
We risk nothing in declaring that modern biblical criticism has not disproved the authenticity of a single book of our New Testament. It is a most assured result of biblical criticism that every one of the twenty-seven books which now constitute our New Testament is assuredly genuine and authentic.
Warfield notes that critical scholars have a bad habit of eating their intellectual predecessors (metaphorically, of course).
To read the rest, follow the link below
Shane Rosenthal, the long-time producer of the White Horse Inn and dear friend, has developed a new podcast, The Humble Skeptic. The Humble Skeptic is highly recommended and is devoted to sane and thoughtful dialogue about religious truth claims. Be sure to check it out!
Lydia McGrew says,
Shane Rosenthal’s fascinating new podcast, The Humble Skeptic, aims to show that a Christianity founded solidly on evidence can boldly answer the “outsider test” for truth in religious matters. With an emphasis on eyewitness testimony, careful thinking, and common sense, it promises to be an excellent addition to the apologetics podcast menu.
Mike Horton says,
Shane Rosenthal’s Humble Skeptic podcast is superb! I was drawn in by the subject matter and narration of the first episode and am looking forward to hearing what’s next. Humble Skepticism — what a concept!
You can listen to the pilot episode here.
Look for new episodes of season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast to drop before the end of the month!
In season two, we will tackle Paul’s Thessalonian letters in a verse by verse in-depth manner (as we did in season one when we went through Galatians—you can find season one Here).
If you are interested in eschatology, you’ll likely enjoy this series. We will discuss our Lord’s second advent and related matters (the center of all New Testament eschatology), the Antichrist, and Paul’s warning of the coming wrath of God to be revealed on the day of Christ’s return.
We’ll also consider Paul’s words of encouragement to the Thessalonians, a new congregation composed of mostly Gentiles in the heart of Macedonia, and the fruit of the Macedonian Call and Paul’s second missionary journey. Throughout these letters, Paul reminds us that Christianity is, at its heart, a missionary religion.
To read the rest follow the link below
Nothing offended the Pharisees any more than when Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Since the Pharisees regarded such sinners as “unclean,” it was unthinkable to the Pharisees that Jesus would sit down to eat a meal with such notorious people–since at that time eating a meal with someone was considered a bond of fellowship. Because Jesus ate with people of whom they did not approve, the Pharisees accused Jesus of being a drunkard and a glutton. And what was Jesus’ response to such criticism? “And Jesus answered them, `Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.’” (Luke 5:31). As we consider the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, we begin with pointed reminder that Jesus still invites tax collectors and sinners to join him in a fellowship meal–a meal which we call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
As we consider that section of our confession which deals with the sacraments (articles Thirty-Three through Thirty-Five), we now come to Article Thirty-Five, which deals specifically with the Lord’s Supper. Recall that our confession defines a sacrament as a visible sign and seal of God’s invisible grace. We believe that where the visible signs and seals are present (bread, wine, water) so too the reality is present (Christ’s body and blood, regeneration and the forgiveness of sins). This means that the sacraments are real means of grace because God works through material means. God graciously gives us these visible signs and seals of that which is promised to us in the gospel–namely all the saving benefits of Jesus Christ. Because we are weak and sinful and often insensitive to the things of God, he gives the sacraments to us to nourish and sustain that very same faith which he creates in our hearts through the preaching of the gospel. The sacraments are an essential element of a healthy Christian life, since they confirm all the promises of the gospel, and since they sustain and nourish our ever-weakening faith.
Article Thirty-Three of our confession deals with the sacraments in general. Our confession is careful to distinguish the Reformed view of the two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) from that of Rome (which not only teaches that there are seven sacraments, but that the sacraments draw their efficacy from the power Jesus supposedly invested in the Roman church and its sacrificing priesthood) as well as the view of the sacraments held by Anabaptists. The latter denied that the sacraments are in any sense means of grace, since many Anabaptist leaders had difficulty conceiving of God working through material means and not directly upon the human heart. It is important that our confession not only summarize biblical teaching about these two sacraments, but at the same time it distinguish the Reformed view from that of Rome, from the Anabaptists, and from the Lutherans as well.
To read the rest, Article Thirty Five -- "Living Bread"
No Words of Rebuke
Jesus has no word of commendation whatsoever for the church in Sardis. Because of their lax attitude toward doctrinal matters and because of their compromise with paganism, the congregation in Sardis receives only a stern word of rebuke from the Lord of the church. But to the church in Philadelphia, Jesus utters no words of rebuke. For the Christians living in Philadelphia, Jesus only has words of commendation. Unlike the church in Sardis, Christians in this church have kept Christ’s word and refused to deny their Lord even though their church was weak and struggling. Because of their faithfulness, Jesus promises to deliver them from the trial which is coming upon the earth and to grant them entrance into the heavenly city.
Shakin’ All Over — The Great Earthquake of A.D. 17
Knowing something about each church and its particular environs is very critical in understanding the promised blessing or threatened curse given by Jesus. Philadelphia was a city which had experienced wide-spread damage as a result of an earthquake in A.D. 17. In fact, the recent history of this city factors greatly into word of encouragement Jesus gives to this struggling congregation.
The ancient city of Philadelphia (modern day Alashir) was founded about 140 B.C. by Attalus II, whose surname was Philadelphus. Out of love and admiration for his brother, Eumenes, Attalus named the new city Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love.[1] Located along the strategic road which linked Asia with Europe, Philadelphia became an important center of commerce and trade. As such an important crossroad, the was city a kind of open door through which Greek culture spread south and east into Asia Minor, Syria, and Persia, and through which, in turn, Asian goods passed to the north en route to Greece and Rome. Philadelphia was, in a sense, a kind of gateway between east and west.
The city was built on a very fertile volcanic plain and the local vineyards produced renowned wines and fermented beverages. But given the proximity of the city to an ancient volcano, the area was often hit by powerful earthquakes. A massive quake did, in fact, hit the area in A.D. 17. The damage was so severe and widespread that the Roman government under the emperor Tiberius exempted the city from paying tribute (taxes) for some time. Tiberius even donated a vast sum of money to help the city rebuild. But the aftershocks from this quake were so strong and persisted for so long that people slept outside of their dwellings for years afterward. According to ancient records, a number of people maintained homes and businesses in the city, but at dusk left the city to sleep in the surrounding countryside because of fears that the next quake would bury them in their sleep. The people lived in fear for generations and the city continually suffered damage from aftershocks.
To read the rest, follow the link below
World War One is not on the radar of many Americans. In many ways the Great War ends the cultural optimism and colonialism of the nineteenth century. American emerges as a true super-power. The Great War marks the dawn of the modern age. If I have piqued your interest, here are a few suggested titles readers of the Riddleblog may enjoy. All but one of my choices deal with geopolitical consequences of the war, not with battles, tactics, or weaponry. That list of recommendations might come later. Feel free to add your favorites in the comments section.
To read my recommendations, follow the link below
I am often asked whether or not the “tribulation” is a seven year period which immediately precedes the second coming of Jesus Christ, or is it the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second advent, the so-called “great tribulation?”
This is an important question for several reasons. First, when most people think of the “tribulation,” they are thinking of the popular dispensational notion that at (or about) the time of the Rapture, the world enters a seven-year period— “the tribulation”—in which the Antichrist comes to power after the unexpected and instantaneous removal of all believers. The Antichrist then makes a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, only to turn upon the nation after three and a half years, plunging the entire world into the final geopolitical crisis which ends with the battle of Armageddon. Dispensationalists believe the seven year tribulation is a time of horrific cruelty and persecution for those who are “left behind,” and that the only way to be saved during this period is to refuse to take the mark of the beast, and not worship the beast or his image, which will likely result in martyrdom. The critical flaw with the dispensational doctrine of a future seven-year tribulation is that it is nowhere found in Scripture—although dispensationalists make appeal to Daniel 9:24-27 (more on this below).
A second reason why this question is important has to do with the rise of various forms of preterism. Full-preterism is properly considered a heresy. But so-called “partial” preterism is not. Preterists (I am speaking here of the orthodox, “partial” variety) contend that Jesus Christ returned in the clouds in A.D. 70 to execute judgment upon apostate Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish temple, and its sacrificial system. Those who hold to the various orthodox forms of preterism believe that the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:21, has come and gone with the events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans. All that remains is the Lord’s return.
To read the rest, follow the link below:
I’ve always found this definition from Charles Hodge to be succinct and helpful.
“The Father says I; the Son says I; and Spirit says I. The Father says Thou to the Son, and the Son says Thou to the Father; and in like manner the Father and the Son use the pronouns He and Him in reference to the Spirit. The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; the Spirit testifies of the Son. The Father, Son and Spirit are severally subject and object. They act and are acted upon, or are objects of action. Nothing is added to these facts when it is said that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent subject who can say I, who can be addressed as Thou, and who can act and be the object of action. The summation of the above facts is expressed in the proposition, The one divine Being subsists in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This proposition adds nothing to the facts themselves; for the facts are (1.) That there is one divine Being. (2) The Father, the Son and Spirit are divine. (3.) The Father, Son and Spirit are in the sense just stated, distinct persons. (4.) Attributes being inseparable from substance, the Scriptures, in saying that the Father, Son and Spirit possess the same attributes, say they are one in substance; and, if the same in substance, they are equal in power and glory”
From Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, I.444
-
According to CNN, "Rapture anxiety” is really a thing. An improper understanding of our Lord’s return leads to anxiety on the part of God’s people (when the second coming is to be thought of as the “blessed hope”) and mockery on the part of unbelievers who, barring faith and repentance, should be terrified of the Lord’s return.
-
If Rapture anxiety is really a thing, it is time to check the "Rapture Ready Index" which tells us it is time to "fasten our seat belts!" The cynic in me asks if the whole point of the Rapture is to be caught up with the Lord in the air, why should I put on a seat belt? That might leave a mark.
-
Califonia’s governor, Gavin Newsom, sans mask and while dining at the French Laundry, went after Grace Community Church during the Covid lock-down. Newsom has also paid for billboards around the country with grossly misused Bible verses encouraging women seeking abortions to come to California as a sort of abortion haven. John MacArthur, who won his court case against Newsom, and who clearly occupies the high-moral ground, calls Gavin Newsom to repentance in a very public manner. John MacArthur's "open letter" to Governor Newsom.
-
Read it and weep. Ligonier’s annual doctrinal survey is a sad and serious indicator of the fruit of a whole generation of American evangelicals telling us that doctrine doesn’t matter. Evangelicals know premarital sex is wrong (nearly 90% agree), but nearly half embrace the most serious heresy in church history without knowing it (Arianism). Evangelicalism has been swamped by the “subjective turn” — “I think, I feel . . .” Ligonier's "State of Theology" Survey
To read the rest of my “Musings,” follow the link below
Before our Lord Jesus ascended into heaven, he left his disciples with the following command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20). Based upon these words of the great commission, it is now the mission of Christ’s church to go into the world, preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations. And how do we make disciples? We baptize them in the name of the Triune God.
We are working our way through articles Thirty-Three through Thirty-Five of our confession which deal with the sacraments. Previously, we made the point that the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are visible signs and seals of invisible grace, given to us by a gracious God who is ever mindful of our hardness of heart and insensitivity to things of the Lord.
In Article Thirty-Three, our confession makes the point that the sacraments draw their efficacy from God’s word through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is quite unlike the view of the medieval Roman church. Rome held (and still does) that the sacraments are efficacious because Jesus Christ vested this gracious power in the church through a sacrificing priesthood. Therefore, Rome’s errors regarding the sacraments are two-fold. The water of baptism supposedly regenerates, washing away the guilt of original sin, while the essence of the Lord’s Supper (the Mass) is an unbloody re-sacrifice of Christ’s broken body, which is offered daily by the priests to appease God’s wrath and anger.
Article Thirty-Three also makes the point that the sacraments are means of grace and that God communicates his grace through material things, specifically the water of baptism and the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. The material language of our confession is drawn from New Testament, and our confession is a response to the Anabaptists of the 1560's, who believed that God works directly upon the human heart apart from means. Since Anabaptists did not understand baptism in the context of God’s gracious covenant, they denied baptism to children of Christian believers. As they saw it, baptism has nothing to do with our ratification of God’s gracious promise to us and to our children. Children are not members of the covenant of grace–contrary to what is taught throughout both the New and Old Testaments. Rather, the Anabaptists understood baptism as an act of obedience on the part of someone able to make a decision to follow Jesus. Therefore baptism is our promise to be faithful–not our ratification of God’s promise to be faithful to us and to our children. Baptism is the public confirmation of our personal decision to follow Jesus.
To read the rest of this exposition click here: "The Son of God Is Our Red Sea"
A Stern Rebuke
When Jesus speaks to the seven churches in Asia Minor, he usually commends these struggling churches before giving them a word of rebuke. Not so with the church in Sardis. This congregation receives only a stern rebuke. “Wake up,” Jesus warns them, or else he will suddenly come upon them in judgment. Although the church in Sardis thinks it is alive, in reality it is near death. This congregation has stopped preaching the gospel in order to make peace with paganism. It is no longer a faithful witness to God’s saving mercy in Jesus Christ. Therefore, this church must wake up and repent, or else face the wrath of Jesus Christ who is the Lord of his church.
Jesus Is and Remains the Lord of His Church
Beginning in Revelation 1:12, John records his vision of the resurrected Christ, along with the seven letters that Jesus addresses to seven historic churches in western Asia Minor. In each of these seven letters, Jesus relates a particular aspect of his post-resurrection glory to specific issues facing each of these congregations. Jesus commends several congregations for those things they are doing well. He points out the issues and struggles that each of these congregations was facing. He promises blessings to these churches when they are obedient to his word, while threatening curses if these congregations fail to repent. But even when there is a word of rebuke, each of these letters ends with a promise of blessing to all those who overcome and who remain faithful to Jesus Christ despite the suffering, persecution, and temptations that these Christians faced.
These letters tell us that Jesus is not an absentee Lord of his church. When John sees the resurrected Lord in his vision, Jesus is walking in the midst of his churches, represented by seven lampstands, which are symbolic of Christ’s presence among his churches. They are also symbolic of the Holy Spirit empowering these congregations to be faithful witnesses of God’s grace in Jesus Christ to those around them who are living in darkness. Jesus knows full well what each one of these seven churches is facing. He knows their struggles, their victories, and their failures. Indeed, these seven churches are also representative of Christ’s church throughout the entire period of time between Christ’s first advent and his second coming. The issues these churches faced in the first century, will mirror situations that Christians will face until Christ comes again with great power and glory at the end of the age. What Jesus says to these first century churches, he says to us in the 21st. Therefore, each of these seven letters ends with the now familiar exhortation: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
To read the rest, follow the link below
From Warfield’s essay, “Christian Baptism” (Presbyterian Board of Publication 1920), reprinted in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 1, (325-331)
Naturally, therefore, this sign and seal belongs only to those who are the Lord's. Or, to put it rather in the positive form, this sign and seal belongs to all those who are the Lord's. There are no distinctions of race or station, sex or age; there is but one prerequisite -- that we are the Lord's. What it means is just this and nothing else: that we are the Lord's. What it pledges is just this and nothing else: that the Lord will keep us as his own. We need not raise the question, then, whether infants are to be baptized. Of course they are, if infants, too, may be the Lord's. Naturally, as with adults, it is only the infants who are the Lord's who are to be baptized; but equally naturally as with adults, all infants that are the Lord's are to be baptized. Being the Lord's they have a right to the sign that they are the Lord's and to the pledge of the Lord's holy keeping. Circumcision, which held the place in the old covenant that baptism holds in the new, was to be given to all infants born within the covenant. Baptism must follow the same rule. This and this only can determine its conference: Is the recipient a child of the covenant, with a right therefore to the sign and seal of the covenant? We cannot withhold the sign and seal of the covenant from those who are of the covenant.
To read this excerpt in its entirety, follow the link below
Being “In Christ” Anticipates the Glories of the “Age to Come”
Throughout his letters, Paul contends this present evil age will give way on the day of Jesus’ return to the glories of the age to come, just as Jesus went from death (Good Friday) to resurrection life (Easter Sunday). Paul describes a tension between what Jesus has already accomplished (in his death, resurrection, and ascension) and what remains to be fulfilled at the final once for all consummation; when Jesus returns on the day of resurrection and brings about the final manifestation of the wrath of God (cf. Romans 2:5, 5:9, Ephesians 2:3), elsewhere spoken of as the day of judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10). This tension is often described as the “already” and the “not yet” and is found throughout the letters of Paul. What we are “in Christ” anticipates and foreshadows the glories of “the age to come.”
The Main Event — the Return of Jesus Christ
Primarily, however, Paul’s two-age eschatology points ahead to that one critical event which brings about the end of the curse (sin, guilt, and death), and in which all the promises of God are fully realized (forgiveness, righteousness, and eternal life).[1] That event, of course, is the bodily return of Jesus Christ at the end of the age to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. As Paul puts it in Titus 2:13, we are “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The heart of New Testament eschatology is not the hope of a millennial age in which this present “evil” age is progressively transformed into some sort of earthly utopia either before or after Christ returns. Biblical eschatology cannot be viewed through the lens of secular and cultural progress, nor current events. The end of human history comes about at Jesus Christ’s second advent described by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; 1 Corinthians 15:51-57. For Paul, Christ’s second advent is the final consummation. This present age with its sin and death will come to a final and dramatic end (as will all things temporal). Yet, because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the age to come is even now a present reality (through the work of the Holy Spirit), but awaits that moment when the Lord returns and the temporal finally gives way to the eternal.
To read the rest, follow the link below
“Christ’s Three-Fold Office”
John Calvin spoke of Christ’s “three-fold office”(prophet, priest, and king) as an important and useful means of understanding the person and work of Christ. Calvin devoted a chapter of his Institutes of the Christian Religion (2.15.1-6) to setting forth the biblical data which demonstrates that Jesus is God’s consummate prophet, the great high priest, and all-powerful king.
The so-called “three-fold office” was widely accepted as a helpful way to understand those bible passages which speak of Christ’s saving work in both testaments. The three-fold office was soon a prominent theme in most Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms. The Westminster Shorter Catechism speaks of the three-fold office in Q & A 23: “What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?” Answer: “Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.”
You may recall the “Lordship controversy” which raged within evangelicalism several decades ago—and still resurfaces from time to time. The subject of the debate was whether or not someone could “accept Jesus as their Savior” but not make him “Lord over their lives.” While one side argued that it was biblically impossible to come to saving faith in Christ without submitting to his Lordship over every area of our lives, the other side argued that this was to confuse faith with repentance, and in effect, to deny justification by faith alone.
If you have listened to all fourteen episodes of the Blessed Hope Podcast on the Book of Galatians, I am making available a free expository commentary on Galatians, entitled: “For Freedom!”
For downloading instructions and restrictions, follow the link below:
“To the Church in Thyatira” — A Unique Set of Circumstances
The letter to the church in Thyatira is the longest of these seven letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3, and perhaps the most difficult to interpret.
As we have seen with each of these letters, it is essential for us to understand something about the historical context of this particular church in order to correctly interpret our Lord’s letter to this congregation. The city of Thyatira is quite unlike the earlier cities we have seen–Ephesus, Smyrna and Pergamum. These were all large cities and important centers of commerce. Thyatira was not.
All of three of the former cities were dominated by various forms of paganism. The Christians of Ephesus lived in the shadow of the temple of Diana and were immersed in a culture which was dominated by the worship of Diana. The cities of Smyrna and Pergamum were not only filed with pagan temples of every sort, but were also centers of emperor worship. Christians who lived in these two cities found themselves facing death and imprisonment at the hands of the beast–that is, the Satanically empowered Roman government–which attempted to force Christians to confess that “Caesar is Lord” at the point of a sword. Unless Christians in these cities were willing to confess that Caesar was Lord–which is to take the mark of the beast–they were not allowed to buy and sell or to participate in the commercial and cultural life of the city. If you were a Christian living in Smyrna and Pergamum, it truly cost you something to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and that Caesar is not.
In addition to living under such difficult circumstances because of the paganism which was rampant in these cities, Christians in these cities faced another problem. They were slandered by certain Jews who were secularized to the point that although they continued to worship YHWH, they also were willing to confess the divinity of Caesar in order to conduct their business and participate in the cultural affairs of the city. As a result of this intense persecution and slander, Christians in Smyrna were forced to live in abject poverty. Many were arrested and imprisoned. Even though Satan persecuted them to the point of death, Jesus promises to give them the crown of life.
To read the rest, follow the link below
We are a weak and sinful people. But God, in his grace, gives us tangible signs and seals of his promise to save us from the guilt of our sins and to free us from sin’s bondage. These tangible signs and seals are the water of baptism and the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. This brings us to a discussion of the sacraments, the means God uses to nourish and sustain our faith.
We move into a new section of our confession, those three articles dealing with the sacraments (Articles Thirty-Three through Thirty-Five). We begin by noting the obvious–at the time in which our confession was written in 1561, the sacraments were a very divisive issue, separating the Reformed churches from Rome, from the Anabaptists, and from the Lutherans–divisions which remain to this very day. Not only did the new Reformed churches need to summarize what the Bible teaches about the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (hence the production of our confession), but the author of our confession must also refute both the Anabaptist and Roman Catholic views on the subject, as well as differentiate the Reformed view from that of the Lutherans.
As we work our way through these three articles, it is surely proper and fitting to keep in mind that the author of our confession (Guido de Bres) was put to death by Roman Catholic authorities for serving communion to congregations of Reformed exiles. We should not forget that our confession was written in martyr’s blood.
To read the rest of An Exposition of Article Thirty-Three, "to Nourish and Sustain"
We’ve completed our fourteen-part series on the Book of Galatians. But one question remains unanswered. What happened after Paul sent his letter to the churches in Galatia? In Acts 15, we get our answer. The Judaizing heresy became an issue of concern far beyond Galatia. In response, the Apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church convene a church assembly–known to us as the “Jerusalem Council.” The assembled churches and their leaders wanted to hear from Paul about the great success of the Gentile mission. But they must also address the controversy in the churches which arose precisely because so many Gentiles were coming to faith in Jesus Christ. The question was being asked in many churches where there were also Jewish converts to Christianity present. Must Gentile converts live as Jews? How does the law of Moses apply to the people of God in light of the gospel? Although Paul addressed these matters in his Galatian letter, the issues raised by the Judaizers were being debated throughout Judea and especially in Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas were currently ministering. It became necessary for the collective churches to meet in Jerusalem and respond to on-going the Judaizing controversy.
In this episode I’ll also answer listener questions and offer a first-take critique of N. T. Wright’s new commentary on Galatians.
Postscript to Season One of the Blessed Hope Podcast on the Book of Galatians
I was recently interviewed by Isaiah Burridge, host of the “Depends On How You Look At It” Podcast.
We had a wide-ranging conversation on all things amillennial—from the Antichrist, postmillennialism, preterism, dispensationalism, to the date of the Book of Revelation: You can listen to it here (by following the link below) , or you can go directly to the podcast feed ("Come Lord Jesus: A Discussion of Amillennialism with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger")
To listen to the embedded podcast here follow the link below
I recently saw a news story with pictures of a Ukrainian soldier using an odd rifle-like device to disable Russian drones. Apparently, these “drone defenders” (American made) are quite effective in disturbing the radio signal directing the drone, causing them to crash land.
So, I did a quick google search and found a short instructional video demonstrating how the thing works. As the modern battlefield and security needs change, weapons like this will become increasingly important and commonplace.
To read the rest and watch the videos follow the link below
The good folks at Tabletalk have been keeping me busy. Here’s my essay from the September 2022 issue.
Tabletalk -- "Man as a Body-Soul Composite"
I am the first to admit the temptation to take delight in the affliction experienced by obvious villains. But when it comes to the death of an arch-enemy of the gospel (Arius of Alexandria), there is a measure of satisfaction when what appears to be divine justice prevails. It falls to Athanasius (the famed defender and of the faith) to inform us of manner of Arius’s death, the very night before the latter was to be ordained as Bishop.
“When the Bishop Alexander heard this (that Arius had under oath
declared that he held the right faith) he was greatly distressed, and
entering into the church stretched forth his hands unto God, and
bewailed himself; and casting himself upon his face in the chancel, he
prayed laying on the pavement . . . . If Arius is brought to communion
tomorrow let me, Thy servant depart, and destroy not the pious with the
impious; but if Thou wilt spare Thy Church . . . . take off Arius, lest
if he enter into the Church, and the heresy also may seem to enter with
him, and henceforth impiety may be accounted for piety.’ When the
Bishop had thus prayed, he retired with great anxiety, and a wonderful
and extraordinary circumstance took place. . . . Arius . . . talked
very wildly, [but] urged by the necessities of nature withdrew, and
suddenly, in the language of Scripture,falling headlong he burst
asunder in the midst,' and immediately expired as he lay, and was
deprived both of communion and of his life together. Such has been the
end of Arius.”[1]
Athanasius concludes, “the antichristian gang of the Arian madmen has been shewn to be unpleasing to God and impious.”[2] Indeed, “will not the judge of the whole earth do right” (Genesis 18:25)?
______________________________________
[1] Athanasius, “To Serapion, Concerning the Death of Arius,” in NPNF, Vol. IV. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978), 564 ff.
[2] Athanasius, “To Serapion, Concerning the Death of Arius,” in NPNF, Vol. IV. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978, 565.
Throughout the Book of Revelation, Satan is depicted as an already defeated foe, who, in a final act of desperation, wages war on the people of God. In certain instances, we read of Satan empowering the Beast to persecute Christ’s church using the full power of the state and the point of the sword. But in other instances, Satan takes a much more subtle approach. As the father of lies, Satan is not only the persecutor of the church, he is also the seducer of the church. In the Book of Revelation we not only read of the Beast who makes war upon the saints, we also read of the harlot, who seduces the peoples of the earth. Like the church in Smyrna, the church in Pergamum faces intense persecution from the God-hating Roman empire. But the church in Pergamum also faces an enemy from within, a seductress who entices God’s people to commit spiritual adultery.
When we come to Christ’s third letter to the churches of Asia Minor, our Lord’s letter to the church in Pergamum, it is important to recall that each of these seven letters are part of a larger vision which began in Revelation 1:12 with John’s description of the resurrected Christ. When John is granted the privilege of seeing Jesus in his post-resurrection glory, he attempts to describe what he sees. But words obviously fail him. John describes the struggle between Jesus Christ and his ancient foe, the devil, using apocalyptic language in which words are used are symbols to point to the “story behind the story,” namely, Jesus Christ’s certain victory over Satan and all of those allied with him.
No longer depicted as a bruised reed, the Jesus of the Book of Revelation is the Almighty, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the one who was dead but who is now alive forever more. Jesus is the great high priest who not only purchases us with his own blood but who also makes us to be a kingdom of priests (Revelation 1:5). In this book, Jesus is God’s final prophet, as Jesus speaks to us about the course of this present evil age which is the great tribulation, that final period of human history, depicted throughout the New Testament as the “last days.” In the Book of Revelation, Jesus is described as God’s all-powerful king.
To read the rest, follow the link below
There is no subject which brings as much tension as the subject of church discipline. While church discipline is always a difficult thing to do, it is something we must do. A church which does not discipline erring members is a church which risks heresy in its midst, or which allows erring members to profess that they are Christ’s and then through shameful conduct bring disgrace to the master whom they claim bought them (cf. 2 Peter 2:1). While we are all sinners, we are not allowed to bring scandal upon the church, nor shame to its head, Jesus Christ.
We miss the whole point of church discipline if we see it as people often do, the self-righteous removing unpopular or victimized people from their midst. That is not what church discipline is about. Church discipline is about ministers and elders who have been called to shepherd the flock, driving savages wolves away from the sheep. No one likes doing it, but it must be done.
We come to the last article in the Belgic Confession dealing with the doctrine of the church. In Article Thirty-Two, our confession now fleshes out some of the practical ramifications of Paul’s exhortation to the church of Corinth, “but all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). As we have seen, the New Testament teaches that local churches are to be governed by elders together with the minister(s), and that these same churches are to be served by deacons who ensure that no one in the congregation goes without. Collectively, these men form the church council, which conducts the day to day business of the church.
We have seen that the local church is the visible manifestation of Christ’s invisible body, and that God equips the members of his church for service by giving us gifts of the Holy Spirit for the common good. Since the church is so important to the well-being of every Christian, the New Testament has no category for someone who professes faith in Jesus Christ, but who is also not a member of the local church. Our confession has also identified the three marks of a true church; the clear and consistent preaching of the gospel, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline. It is the third mark–church discipline–which is the subject of Article Thirty-Two.
To read the rest, An Exposition of Belgic Confession Article Thirty-Two
In 1914, B. B. Warfield was invited to contribute an essay to the volume The Church, the People, and the Age, edited by Scott and Gilmore. There were 105 contributors, each of whom was asked to answer the following questions. 1). Why are so many people indifferent to the claims of Christianity? and 2). Would it be a step forward for the church (and presumably Christianity in general) if the only requirement for church membership was the desire to love God and our neighbor (which, ironically, was a suggestion from Abraham Lincoln fifty years prior). The contributors included Charles Augustus Briggs (who, at the time, was busy undermining the authority of Scripture), as well as German theologian and sycophant to Kaiser Wilhelm throughout the Great War, Adolf von Harnack. Scottish theologian James Orr also contributed a chapter.
The volume was compiled on the eve of the First World War which plunged all of Europe into chaos as “Christian” nations waged brutal war upon each other in the name of preserving Christian civilization. There was obviously a foreboding sense that Christian civilization was on the edge and the editors were seeking a format to discuss and offer solutions.
I’ve not seen the original volume, but my guess is that Warfield’s chapter suggests much different answers to both questions than the majority of contributors. As for the reason why people are indifferent to Christianity, Warfield points what should be obvious to anyone who has read the New Testament. Christianity is for sinners who know they need a Savior. People who sees themselves as capable of loving God and neighbor on their own will remain indifferent to Christ and his gospel.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Luther’s Interest in Psalm 46
Most people cannot recite Psalm 46 from memory. But many are so familiar with the words to Martin Luther’s famous hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” that they can sing it without looking at the hymnal. “Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott” is actually Luther’s paraphrase of Psalm 46. This Psalm has several very familiar lines, has been cited by American presidents (most recently by Barak Obama), and portions of it appear in well-known Jewish prayers. Found in Book Two of the Psalter and attributed to the Sons of Korah, it is classified as a “Psalm of Zion.” It contains loud echoes from Psalm 2, where that divine protection promised to the king, is extended to include his capital city (Jerusalem). Charles Spurgeon aptly speaks of the 46th Psalm as “the song of faith in troubled times.”[1] Martin Luther thought this Psalm of such comfort, he put it to verse.
It is important to reflect upon Psalm 46, because we sing this particular Psalm as often as any other–often in the form of Luther’s famous paraphrase. Before we take up the text of the Psalm–where we will find much deep and rich biblical theology–I think it appropriate to consider Luther’s use of this Psalm, then debunk one of the persistent myths surrounding the version of the Psalm which appears in the KJV, and then look at the context in which the Psalm was originally composed. Then, we will look at the text of the Psalm while making various points of application as we go.
As for Luther and “A Mighty Fortress,” although there are many theories about when it was written and for what occasion, Luther’s hymn first appears in a 1531 hymnal which would indicate that Luther wrote it several years earlier, likely in 1527-29. This was ten years or so after his 95 theses were circulated throughout Europe, igniting the theological fire which became the Protestant Reformation. The black plague was especially virulent throughout much of Europe in the winter of 1527, nearly killing Luther’s son. Luther was also a physical wreck during this time (from exhaustion). He began spending much time reading and reflecting upon Psalm 46, especially its promise that God is the bulwark (fortress) who never fails. From Luther’s reflection on that word of comfort, the famous hymn was born.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Charles Hodge’s reply to Pius IX’s invitation to attend Vatican I (which convened in 1870) remains a theological gem—a classic and succinct Reformed response to Romanism. I doubt Pius IX ever actually saw it, much less read it. I can just imagine a papal secretary informing Pius in a meeting when the agenda came to correspondence received. “Your holiness, we have received a negative reply to attend the assembly from the sect of Presbyterians in America.” Who knows, it may have ended up the Vatican trash. In any case, thanks to Banner of Truth for maintaining this remarkable letter on on their website.
I simply post the first two paragraphs to whet your appetite to read Hodge’s entire reply, which he signed on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the USA.
_______________________________________
Believing as we do, that it is the will of Christ that his Church on earth should be united, and recognizing the duty of doing all we consistently can to promote Christian charity and fellowship, we deem it right briefly to present the reasons which forbid our participation in the deliberations of the approaching Council.
It is not because we have renounced any article of the catholic faith. We are not heretics. We cordially receive all the doctrines contained in that Symbol which is known as the Apostles’ Creed. We regard all doctrinal decisions of the first six ecumenical councils to be consistent with the Word of God, and because of that consistency, we receive them as expressing our faith. We therefore believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the person of Christ as those doctrines are expressed in the symbols adopted by the Council of Nicea AD321, that of the Council of Constantinople AD381 and more fully that of the Council of Chalcedon AD451. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are the same in substance and equal in power and glory. We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and so was, and continues to be, both God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. We believe that our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the prophet who should come into the world, whose teachings we are bound to believe and on whose promises we rely. He is the High Priest whose infinitely meritorious satisfaction to divine justice, and whose ever prevalent intercession, is the sole ground of the sinner’s justification and acceptance before God. We acknowledge him to be our Lord not only because we are his creatures but also because we are the purchase of his blood. To his authority we are bound to submit, in his care we confide, and to his service all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted.
_______________________________________
You can read the rest here, at the Banner of Truth’s website: Charles Hodge's letter to Pius IX
Jesus Warns His Disciples — “The World Will Hate You If You Love Me”
In the fifteenth chapter of John’s gospel, Jesus tells his disciples, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (v. 18). In his letter to the church in Smyrna, Jesus tells this struggling congregation that they will suffer great persecution, even to the point of death. The one responsible for this persecution is Jesus Christ’s ancient foe, the devil, who conducts his campaign against the church in Smyrna through the agency of the local synagogue and the local government. In Revelation 2:8-11, we see, in part, the historical outworking of that about which Jesus was warning his disciples in John 15, the inevitability of the persecution of God’s people at the hands of Satan. But Jesus Christ is the Lord of his church and even when persecuted unto death, his people triumph because he is their champion and the Risen Lord.
The Risen Lord Speaks to His Churches
The letters to the seven churches are part of a larger vision which began in Revelation 1:12 which opens with John’s description of the resurrected Christ. John describes seven golden lampstands which are symbolic of Christ’s presence with his church as well as the Holy Spirit’s empowerment of these congregations to serve as light to the unbelieving world which lives in darkness. These letters are part of a larger vision which begins with a description of Jesus Christ in all of his post-resurrection glory. It is Jesus who is the Almighty, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and Last, that one who was dead but is now alive forevermore. Jesus holds in his hand the keys of death and Hades. It is this Jesus who walks among his churches. He knows the exact circumstances that each one of these congregations is facing. He knows their troubles and the nature of the evil they must confront. Jesus commends these churches for their faith and perseverance, but also confronts them with their sins.
To read the rest follow the link below
Musings:
-
Richard Muller on Misrepresenting Aquinas with Prejudice
-
This guy was really swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it! Swallowed by a Whale -- Jonah, Anyone?
-
Amazon . . . The Beast or the False Prophet???? If this thing scanned the back of my hand, I'd really be worried
-
Dr. Godfrey continues his lecture series, "Whats Going on Right Now?" (Lecture 15)
-
A Great Interview with Rosaria Butterfield on Human Sexuality (AG Radio)
-
Scott Clark on "Three Things Dispensational Apologists Should Stop Saying
-
The Vatican has big-time money woes. Too Big to Fail? The Vatican's Deficit Projections Gives Uncertain Outlook
To read the rest of my “Musings” follow the link below
It is the Apostle Paul who tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 that we are to “we ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you.” But this is certainly not how ministers are viewed in modern America. If you look at recent public opinion polls which ask people about what professions they regard the highest, ministers finish near the bottom, just above politicians and telemarketers and about on par with lawyers and car salesmen.
While this is a sad situation, there is a reason why people feel the way the do about the church and its leaders. Because American Christians often ignore what the Bible says about how the church should govern itself, the door is opened wide to all kinds of scandal and abuse, the very things which have brought the ministry into such disrepute.
In Article Thirty-One, The Belgic Confession deals with the three offices of Reformed/Presbyterian church government: ministers, elders, and deacons. In this article, the confession takes up the subject of how men are to be chosen for office and how they are to view each other and those they serve, as well as how they are to be viewed by members of the congregation. In this sense, Article Thirty-One continues the same line of thinking found in the prior article, which gives us a definition and defense of Reformed or Presbyterian church government such as that found in the New Testament, in which the church is to be governed by ministers and elders (a consistory) and served by deacons, who collectively administer the day to day business of the church.
The local church is the visible manifestation of Christ’s invisible body. Since the church is the body of Christ, God has given to the members of his church numerous spiritual gifts for the building up of the body for works of service and for the edification of its members. This is why all Christians are bound to join a congregation of like-minded believers. This helps to explain why we should not be content to be on our own (as our confession puts it), apart from the church.
To read the rest of this exposition, click here: Article Thirty One -- "Chosen By the Lord"
From my recent essay on Ligonier.org:
Christian forms of meditation are closely associated with prayer. Prayer is a conversation with another to whom we turn—someone outside ourselves. We pray to God the Father, through the mediation of Jesus Christ in His role as intercessor between God and His people (1 Tim. 2:5), in the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:12–17). There is no possibility of prayer if we turn within. Who will answer me? Am I praying to myself? What if I get an answer? That is a sign of much deeper trouble.
Simply turning within ourselves offers no enduring hope for the relief from those stresses, pains, and frustrations that decidedly Eastern-religion practitioners of meditation are seeking. We need a Savior greater than ourselves, who, crucified for our sins and raised from the dead, has ascended to the Father’s right hand where He lives to make intercession for His people (Heb. 7:25). Such a Savior can and does hear our pleas, and He answers when we cry out to Him.
To read the rest, "What is Meditation"
B. B. Warfield is always worth reading. This essay, published in The Expositor in 1918, is a great example of Warfield’s erudition and his passion for the gospel.
Warfield writes,
Paul is writing the Address of his Epistle to the Romans, then, with his mind fixed on the divine dignity of Christ. It is this divine Christ who, he must be understood to be telling his readers, constitutes the substance of his Gospel-proclamation. He does not leave us, however, merely to infer this. He openly declares it. The Gospel he preaches, he says, concerns precisely “the Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord.” He expressly says, then, that he presents Christ in his preaching as “our Lord.” It was the divine Christ that he preached, the Christ that the eye of faith could not distinguish from God, who was addressed in common with God in prayer, and was looked to in common with God as the source of all spiritual blessings. Paul does not speak of Christ here, however, merely as “our Lord.” He gives Him the two designations: “the Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord.” The second designation obviously is explanatory of the first. Not as if it were the more current or the more intelligible designation. It may, or it may not, have been both the one and the other; but that is not the point here. The point here is that it is the more intimate, the more appealing designation. It is the designation which tells what Christ is to us. He is our Lord, He to whom we go in prayer, He to whom we look for blessings, He to whom all our religious emotions turn, on whom all our hopes are set—for this life and for that to come. Paul tells the Romans that this is the Christ that he preaches, their and his Lord whom both they and he reverence and worship and love and trust in. This is, of course, what he mainly wishes to say to them; and it is up to this that all else that he says of the Christ that he preaches leads.
The other designation— “the Son of God” —which Paul prefixes to this in his fundamental declaration concerning the Christ that he preached, supplies the basis for this. It does not tell us what Christ is to us, but what Christ is in Himself. In Himself He is the Son of God; and it is only because He is the Son of God in Himself, that He can be and is our Lord. The Lordship of Christ is rooted by Paul, in other words, not in any adventitious circumstances connected with His historical manifestation; not in any powers or dignities conferred on Him or acquired by Him; but fundamentally in His metaphysical nature. The designation “Son of God” is a metaphysical designation and tells us what He is in His being of being. And what it tells us that Christ is in His being of being is that He is just what God is.
To read additional excerpts from this essay, follow the link below
“To the Church in Ephesus”
Letters to the Seven Churches (2) – To the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)
__________________________________
The Lord of His Churches Addresses the Ephesians
Jesus Christ is the Lord of his church. He walks among the seven lampstands and holds the seven stars in his hand. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. He is alive forevermore and holds in his hands the keys of death and Hades. Jesus Christ is our great high priest who has freed us from our sins through the shedding of his own blood. He has made us to be a kingdom of priests to serve his God and father. That same Jesus now comes to us with words of exhortation and rebuke found in the seven letters addressed to the churches of Asia Minor.
In the opening section of the Book of Revelation (chapters 2-3) we find seven letters which were originally addressed to the seven churches scattered throughout Asia Minor (Turkey) and to whom John is sending this circular letter we now know as the Book of Revelation. The letters to the seven churches are part of a larger vision which begins in Revelation 1:12 and which continues on to the end of chapter 3. But before we go any farther, it is important to put these letters in their proper context in order to interpret them correctly.
To read the rest, follow the link below
No Longer a Carpenter’s Son
Throughout his messianic ministry we see Jesus in his state of humiliation. In the four gospels Jesus is revealed as the Son of God whose true and eternal glory is hidden by a veil of human flesh. In the gospels Jesus hungers. He thirsts. Jesus suffers. And he bleeds. When our Lord died upon the cross, we see him in his most humble estate, torn and bloody, bearing the wrath of God toward our sins in his own flesh. But the gospels do not end with the cross and Jesus’ humiliation. The gospels end with the account of our Lord’s bodily resurrection, the empty tomb and Christ’s glorious exaltation. The Christ we meet in the opening chapter of the Book of Revelation is not the carpenter’s son. Nor is he the humble and suffering Christ. The Christ we meet in the Book of Revelation is the Exalted Christ, the Risen One who is Lord of his church. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords!
It is sad that so many Christians avoid the Book of Revelation because of its difficult and mysterious nature. It is even sadder, perhaps, that so many use this book as a springboard for speculation about the Bible’s relationship to current events. Revelation is not a guide for interpreting breaking news. Instead, Revelation depicts Jesus Christ’s victory over all his enemies as the final chapters of redemptive history draw to a close. Therefore, we should not be afraid to read and study this book. Nor should we handle it irresponsibly by attempting to connect it to recent headlines as though John predicted every war, earthquake, and global crisis which could possibly befall the human race. John does not do this.
What John does do is describe the on-going struggle between Christ and Satan until our Lord returns to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new. While John may not predict specific future events in exacting detail, he does provide us with a theological explanation of all the wars and rumors of wars, the earthquakes and famines, and those signs of his coming which Jesus called the birth pains of the end (Cf. Matthew 24:8).
To read the rest follow the link below
If there is one single Bible verse which characterizes the Reformed understanding of the church and the way it should be governed, it is 1 Corinthians 14:40–“But all things should be done decently and in order.”
We are in that section of our confession (Articles Twenty-Seven through Thirty-Two) which deals with the doctrine of the church. When working our way through previous articles from this section, we have seen that the church is the visible assembly of the mystical (invisible) body of Jesus Christ. This is why all believers are bound to join a local congregation of like-minded believers. In fact, the New Testament has no category for a professing Christian who is not also a member of a local church.
The reason church membership is so important and why our fathers in the faith (such as Calvin and De Bres) argued that apart from the church there is no salvation, is not because the church dispenses grace as the Roman church argues, but because the local church is that place where the gospel is to be preached, the sacraments are to be administered, and where church discipline is exercised over erring members. It is the presence of these so-called marks of a church which tell us whether or not a denomination or a particular congregation is a true church. The false church, on the other hand, assigns more authority to church tradition or extra-biblical sources than to Holy Scripture and the false church frequently persecutes the true church and its members.
To read the rest: An Exposition of Article Thirty -- Good Order in the Church
Jonah Leaves Nineveh in a Snit
In verse 5, we learn that “Jonah went out of the city and sat to the east of the city and made a booth for himself there. He sat under it in the shade, till he should see what would become of the city.” We do not know how long an interval between the time he finished preaching and the interchange between Jonah and YHWH in verses 1-4 of this chapter. It appears as though Jonah still has not sufficiently wrestled with YHWH’s question. Jonah remains stubborn and camps outside the city to the east to sit and wait to see if YHWH relents yet again and actually does bring judgment down upon the city. Jonah has completely missed the point. YHWH’s question was designed to change Jonah’s attitude. Instead of learning the lesson YHWH intended, Jonah builds a shelter, and waits in the hope that YHWH will eventually see things Jonah’s way and bring down his judgment upon the city. Talk about stubborn!
One of the theological foundations we discover throughout the Minor Prophets is YHWH’s sovereignty over the doings of people and nations. In the Jonah Story God’s sovereignty is revealed in very specific ways. Jonah fled, but YHWH sent the storm (literally he “threw” the storm). Jonah was thrown overboard, but YHWH sent the fish who swallowed Jonah. Now, as Jonah bakes in the heat of Syrian desert in his little hut to the east of the city, waiting for YHWH to destroy the place, we are told in verse 6, that “now the Lord God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort. So Jonah was exceedingly glad because of the plant.” The Hebrew for plant is “vine,” so this was some sort of a leafy plant (ivy? gourd?) which YHWH caused to grow rapidly and shelter his pouting prophet from the scorching heat of the desert sun.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Riddleblog Updates: * The mountains are calling — the annual Summer slowdown here at the Riddleblog is at hand. Our regular programming will resume in August. But there will be a few signs of life in the meantime
-
The second season of the Blessed Hope Podcast is in the works—a deep dive into the Thessalonian letters. Also, I’ll have a big announcement for those of you who make it through the first season of the Blessed Hope Podcast (the fourteen episodes on Galatians)
-
New Warfield and Biblical Studies Tabs have been added to the Riddleblog header
-
My lectures on “Apologetics in a Post-Christian Age” from the C-Ref Wednesday night Bible studies are now posted under sermons and lectures (Apologetic in a Post-Christian Age (scroll down)
To read the Musings, follow the link below
“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” — James 2:14-26 (Part Two)
From a sermon series on the Book of James, preached at Christ Reformed Church in 2007 and edited for the Riddleblog
_______________________________________________
Part Two
With this important background in mind, we turn to specifics of the text, James 2:14-26.
In this section of chapter 2, James makes a general appeal to his readers that when someone claims to have faith, and there are no accompanying good works, their so-called “faith” can be called into question. James moves on to give an illustration in verses 15-16 drawn from the earlier discussion in chapter 2 about discriminating against the poor and favoring the rich. In verse 17 he offers up the conclusion that faith without works is dead. Then, in verses 18-19 James connects faith and works, as cause and effect–faith produces works. James then appeals to the examples of Abraham and Rahab, sandwiched around his main premise in verse 24–“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” In this section, James makes his main point three different ways. Faith, if not accompanied by works is dead (v. 17). Faith without works is useless (v. 20). Faith without works is not a living (or justifying) faith (v. 26).[1] James’ primary point is simply this–genuine faith leads to the performance of good works. To put it another way, a person who claims to be a Christian (and professes faith in the Lord of glory) will demonstrate that faith to be genuine through the performance of good works.
To read the rest, follow the link below
“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” — James 2:14-26 (Part One)
From a sermon series on the Book of James, preached at Christ Reformed Church in 2007 and edited for the Riddleblog
_______________________________________________
It would be hard to find a passage of Scripture which is more controversial than James 2:14-26.
The reason for the controversy is James’ assertion in verse 24 of chapter two of his epistle that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” On its face, this seems to fly in the face of a number of passages in Paul’s letters where Paul appears to be saying the exact opposite thing. Take, for example, Galatians 2:16. “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Are James and Paul on the same page? Yes, they are as I intend to demonstrate.
Those who believe that the justification of sinners is a process which is not complete until death (Rome), view James’ assertion here as a classic proof-text which supports this view. But those who see justification as an instantaneous declaration made about the sinner because the merits of Christ are imputed to them through the means of faith, seem to stumble all over James’ declaration that works are somehow tied to justification, and that we are not justified by faith alone. But as we will see, James and Paul do not contradict each other. In fact, when James’ assertion is put in its proper context, there is nothing whatsoever in James 2 which conflicts with the doctrine of justification sola fide.
To read the rest, follow the link below
From the Blessed Hope Podcast (Episode Four, Galatians 2:11-21)
The Success of the Gentile Mission Raised Questions
As new churches were established in Gentile areas north of Palestine, one pressing question needed to be addressed. How were Jews and Gentiles to get along with one another in these new churches? This was especially the case in Asia Minor where Jews lived in many cities among large Gentile populations. Jewish Christians remained steeped in Jewish life and culture. No doubt, they struggled with the fact that recent Gentile converts had different sexual mores, ate things Jews did not, and who, when pressed about matters of the law may have asked, “who is this Moses fellow you keep talking about?” How would close fellowship between Jewish believers and “unclean” Gentiles in Galatia and Antioch be seen back in Jerusalem? The dicey relationship between Jew and Gentile meant that a collision between the weak-willed Peter and the iron-willed Paul was at some point inevitable. In verses 11-14, Paul demonstrates that even apostles must have their doctrine and conduct checked in the light of Scripture, specifically the revelation of Jesus about the gospel.
Moving on from recounting his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem, Paul tells the Galatians how he was forced to confront Peter to his face when the latter had caved in to pressure from messengers from James possibly claiming they were sent by the Jerusalem church. This confrontation likely occurred not long after Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after their prior visit to Jerusalem. As N. T. Wright points out, it is easy to overlook the fact that the reason why this seems so vivid in Paul’s account is because these events had taken place quite recently [1].
There is a noticeable progression in Paul’s recounting of his relationship with Peter, especially in light of the burgeoning Gentile mission undertaken by Paul, Barnabas, and others. Paul describes being Peter’s guest for fifteen days during his first trip to Jerusalem post-conversion (Galatians 1:18-20). Then, he speaks of Peter as a fellow apostle when recounting his second trip to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10), before, finally, describing a confrontation with Peter when the latter falls into serious doctrinal error (Galatians 2:11-14).[2] While it is difficult to know how much of this is a word for word account of what Paul said to Peter and how much is a summation, what follows amounts to a major confrontation between the two men over the ground and meaning of the doctrine of justification.
To read the rest, follow the Link Below
Whenever we talk about the marks of a true church, we immediately enter a minefield of controversy. To say that one church is a true church is to say that another church is a false church, even when that church may be filled with sincere people who love Jesus. To speak of true and false churches is to pick a fight which the vast majority of modern Americans find completely offensive. But the fact of the matter is the Bible teaches us that there are churches which are faithful to God’s word and there are churches which are not. To complicate things even more, most American churches fall along a continuum somewhere between a true and a false church. As Reformed Christians who stress the necessity of believing certain things and then confessing these same doctrines before the unbelieving world, the discussion of what constitutes a true church and what makes a church a false church is not a discussion from which we can we walk away, no matter how distasteful our contemporaries find the subject. That being said, this is a subject which we must discuss with great care and certainly with a great deal of charity.
Our confession has previously defined the church as a holy congregation of all those who profess a common faith in Jesus Christ and who assemble each Lord’s day to hear God’s word, receive his sacraments, submit to Christ’s yoke, worship according to pattern we find in God’s word, pray together as God’s people, and give thanks through prayer, praise, and our offerings. Such a church is not limited to one congregation, one denomination, or one country, but it can be found throughout the world and across the ages. As Reformed Christians we are also “catholic” Christians.
To read the rest: Article Twenty-Nine of the Belgic Confession -- "Easy to Recognize"
Jonah Is Angry With God, Again . . .
What pleased God (the repentance of Nineveh), only made Jonah mad[1] – a rather ironic sentiment from someone called to be YHWH’s prophet. Why was Jonah so upset that YHWH brought salvation to pagan Ninevites? Jonah, you’ll recall sought to flee YHWH’s call to preach in Nineveh, but YHWH took him on an unexpected detour–a great storm arises, Jonah is thrown overboard and then spends three days and nights in the belly of a great fish. But Jonah eventually fulfilled his prophetic calling, and preached repentance to the Ninevites. The result of his preaching? Many Ninevites believed Jonah’s message. Even their king believed Jonah’s warning. He ordered a time of mourning and fasting, even exhorting his people to call upon God and cease their violent behavior.
As we learn in chapter 4 of his prophecy, Jonah is angry with God. The prophet is perplexed by the fact that the Ninevites were spared from YHWH’s judgment even as his own beloved people, Israel, are about to come under God’s covenant curse. In the closing chapter of Jonah, we find the prophet right back where he was when first called to preach. His disdain for the Ninevites surfaces again. “Why was Nineveh spared when Israel will not be?” As his prophecy concludes, Jonah is given yet another lesson in God’s mercy.
As we consider the final chapter, once again we discover that in the Book of Jonah, irony seems to jump off every page. You would think that YHWH’s chosen prophet would be thrilled to witness huge numbers of people believe in YHWH and spared from judgment through his own preaching. Yes, pride is a sin, but there is a certain allowable sense of satisfaction about witnessing people come to faith, repent of their sin, and then amend their ways. Jonah should have been thrilled to witness what God has done in Nineveh–extend salvation to countless Gentiles beyond the confines of his covenant with Israel. But as we have come to expect in the Book of Jonah, the ironic becomes the norm.
To read the rest of this exposition follow the link below
Part Three
Part One of Three
Part Two of Three
Warfield takes Chafer to task for mishandling the biblical text both in translation and in the original language. If you’ve read any of the Warfield essays, you know that Warfield was a master lexicographer. His patience with Chafer is obviously running thin at this point in his review.
It is a temptation to a virtuoso in the interpretation of Scripture to show his mettle on hard places and in startling results. Mr. Chafer has not been superior to this temptation. Take but one example. “All Christian love,” he tells us (p. 40) “according to the Scriptures, is distinctly a manifestation of divine love through the human heart”—a quite unjustified assertion. But Mr. Chafer is ready with an illustration. “A statement of this is found,” he declares, “at Rom. 5:5, ‘because the love of God is shed abroad (lit., gushes forth) in our hearts by (produced, or caused by) the Holy Spirit, which is given unto us.’” Then he comments as follows: “This is not the working of the human affection; it is rather the direct manifestation of the ‘love of God’ passing through the heart of the believer out from the indwelling Spirit. It is the realization of the last petition of the High Priestly prayer of our Lord: ‘That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them’ (John 17:26). It is simply God’s love working in and through the believer. It could not be humanly produced, or even imitated, and it of necessity goes out to the objects of divine affection and grace, rather than to the objects of human desire. A human heart cannot produce divine love, but it can experience it. To have a heart that feels the compassion of God is to drink of the wine of heaven.”
To read the rest of this “review” follow the link below
Part Two of Three
Having introduced Chafer’s book, He That Is Spiritual, and exposed the glaring theological contradiction championed by its author, Warfield turns his attention to Chafer’s use of several biblical passages marshaled in support of his notion of a bifurcated Christian life—a lower or “carnal” level and a higher or “spiritual” level of Christian experience.
Mr. Chafer opens his book with an exposition of the closing verses of the second and the opening verses of the third chapters of 1 Corinthians. Here he finds three classes of men contrasted, the “natural” or unregenerated man, and the “carnal” and “spiritual” men, both of whom are regenerated, but the latter of whom lives on a higher plane. “There are two great spiritual changes which are possible to human experience,” he writes (p. 8),—“the change from the ‘natural’ man to the saved man and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the ‘spiritual’ man. The former is divinely accomplished when there is a real faith in Christ; the latter is accomplished when there is a real adjustment to the Spirit. The ‘spiritual’ man is the divine ideal in life and ministry, in power with God and man, in unbroken fellowship and blessing.”
Upon close inspection, Warfield realizes that Chafer’s system includes three levels of human experience, not two. The biblical data, supposedly, reveals potential movement in several self-determined stages; first from an unregenerate state (the natural man), to a second entry-level rung on the Christian ladder. This is the so-called “carnal Christian” who, after becoming a Christian, remains content not to advance up the ladder and achieve victory over sin despite the availability of sufficient divine power to do so. Any Christian who truly desires to move up to the higher level of Christian experience can do so by making an “adjustment to the Spirit.” Upon reaching this higher level, the so-called “spiritual man,” can live in unbroken fellowship with God and blessing from others. Chafer identifies this as “the divine ideal (i.e., God’s will).
To read the rest, follow the link below
B. B. Warfield held the chair of Polemical and Didactic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary from the Fall of 1887 until his death in 1921. His job title sounds a bit stodgy perhaps, but there was nothing stodgy about Warfield or the duties associated with the prestigious chair which he held. Simply put, it was Warfield’s task to defend the Reformed and Presbyterian faith from any and all challenges. For most of his career, Warfield devoted his time and energy to combating the new German critical scholarship then making its way into the American theological bloodstream. The famous Briggs case comes to mind, along with the numerous essays reprinted in Inspiration and Authority (P & R), and Christology and Criticism and Studies in Theology (from the ten volume Oxford edition of his collected works). But German critical scholarship was not the only theological threat to catch Warfield’s attention.
Warfield spent the last few years of his life addressing the errors of one Charles Grandison Finney, along with critiquing various “Higher Life” movements as the volume of Warfield’s collected essays on these matters, “Studies in Perfectionism” (P & R) attests. Warfield also turned his critical gaze upon a number of evangelical luminaries including Andrew Murray and R. A. Torrey (the founder of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, now Biola University). But the man singled out for Warfield’s most biting critical review was Lewis Sperry Chafer.
To read the rest of this “Review” follow the link below.
A Few Updates * Thanks to all of you listening to the Blessed Hope Podcast. Season One (my niche exposition of Galatians) is doing much better than I anticipated. Thanks too to those of you who gave me five-star reviews and comments! Please keep `em coming! The more reviews the easier it is to find and subscribe to the podcast.
-
Lord willing, I’ll have a free gift for those of you who make it through all fourteen episodes of Season One. Details to come once the entire first season is posted on the various podcast feeds. If you can stand me for fourteen hours, you ought to get something for your efforts. Watch for updates.
-
Also, watch for updates on Season Two, which will be devoted to Paul’s Thessalonian Letters. Lots of Eschatology! Coming in the Fall, Lord Willing.
-
The annual summer slowdown at the Riddleblog is drawing near. I retired from Christ Reformed Church at the end of 2020, and then took up the role of visiting professor at Westminster Seminary California in February of 2021, teaching a class or two each semester since. With Covid disrupting travel, I and my missus have not had a break since I retired. So . . . a break is coming. The mountains are calling . . .
-
The move from the old Riddleblog to this new version is nearly complete. If you want any of the stuff posted on the old blog, get it now. Sermon texts on the old Riddleblog (in PDF) will eventually move to the Christ Reformed website archives (and perhaps here too).
-
I’m doing some editing and updates of the blog. A couple of new tabs are in the works to make finding things more accessible.
To See the “Musings,” follow the link below
Church membership is not an option for those who profess faith in Christ. Since the church is the mystical body of Jesus Christ, all those who profess faith in Jesus Christ are obligated to join a local congregation of like-minded believers. But membership in such a local congregation of like-minded believers entails a number of privileges and responsibilities. And these privileges and responsibilities are now set forth for us beginning in Article Twenty-Eight of the Belgic Confession.
We are in that section of our confession (Articles Twenty-Seven through Thirty-Two) dealing with the doctrine of the church. Article Twenty-Seven of our confession defines the church as “a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.” This church has existed from the beginning of redemptive history, first in the form of the family, then throughout the patriarchal period through the extended family (clan) and, then, finally, the church was manifest in and through the nation of Israel. Just as there has always been one gospel and one covenant of grace, so too, there has always been one people of God manifest in different ways throughout the course of redemptive history–Israel in the Old Testament and the church in the New.
That being said, there is a significant redemptive-historical shift during the New Testament era from what had been a narrow focus upon the Jews and national Israel in the Old Testament to a universalizing of the promise which now extends to the Gentiles nations throughout the earth. According to Paul, now that the fulness of time has come with the birth of Jesus (cf. Galatians 4:4-6), believing Gentiles are presently being grafted into the righteous root (who is Christ) from which national Israel has been removed until immediately before the end of the age (cf. Ephesians 2:11-22; Romans 11:17 ff). This explains why the writers of the New Testament often use messianic prophecy to prove to unbelieving Jews that Jesus Christ is the true Israel (the obedient son), and that his mystical body is also the true temple of the Lord, which is now indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
To read the rest: An Exposition of Article Twenty-Eight: The Yoke of Jesus Christ
You Can Run But You Can’t Hide – Jonah Re-Commissioned
Chapter 3 of Jonah’s prophecy opens with Jonah back on dry land in a virtual rewind of verses 1-2 of chapter 1. Jonah is to “arise,” “go” and “call out,” but with one major difference–this time Jonah does not attempt to flee.[1] “Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, `Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.’ So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord’” In light of all that has happened to Jonah, it is remarkable that he is neither rebuked, nor is he allowed to go on his way. The word of the Lord came to him a second time, which, in effect, indicated that YHWH re-commissions Jonah to go and preach to Nineveh to fulfill his original mission. Notice too that Jonah is given the message which he is to proclaim to the Ninevites–one of the distinguishing marks of YHWH’s prophets is that they speak his words, not their own.
Aside from the significance of YHWH ensuring that his greater purposes will be fulfilled when Jonah is re-commissioned–the gospel will go out to the ends of the earth, in this case to Nineveh–we also see in Jonah’s re-commissioning that God often gives us second chances to accomplish that of which we have already made a significant mess. Jonah is an example to us in that he is sustained in his time of trial by his knowledge of God’s word (specifically the Psalms), and he is also an encouragement to those of us who often take more than one time to do things the right way. YHWH commissions Jonah but does not abandon him when Jonah rejects YHWH’s call. YHWH loves his people enough to discipline them. And his purpose for Nineveh still stands.
To read the rest, follow the link below.
Without any doubt, the prophets in the Spirit saw that Christ would be the greatest transgressor, assassin, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever existed on earth. When He was made the sacrifice for the sins of the entire world, He is no longer innocent and without sin, He is no longer the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary but a sinner. He has and carries the sins of Paul, a blasphemer, an oppressor, and a persecutor; of Peter, who denied Christ; and of David, an adulterer and murderer (he is to blame when the Gentiles blaspheme the name of the Lord). In brief, He is the One who has and has carried the sins of all human beings on His own body, although He, Himself, did not commit them, but willingly received them. We are the authors of the sins we have committed, but they were placed on His own body so that He could satisfy them with His own blood. Thus that same sentence given by Moses [“everyone”] also includes Him (although in Himself, He was innocent) because He was found among sinners and thieves. This is no different from the judge’s guilty sentence pronounced against anyone found among thieves and sinners, although such an individual did not do anything worthy of death. Now, Christ was not only found among sinners, but of His own will, and by will of the Father, He was a companion of sinners. He took on Himself the flesh and blood of sinners, thieves, and those who have fallen into all kinds of sin. Therefore, when the law found Him among thieves, it condemned and put Him to death as a thief.
— Luther, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535), Lecture 20 on Galatians 3:13
The Binding of Satan — Background and Introduction to the Controversy
In Revelation 20:1-3, John is given a remarkable vision:
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.” In verse 7, John adds, “and when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison.”
The binding of Satan as depicted in this passage raises several obvious questions, especially in light of the on-going debate between amillennarians and premillennarians about the timing and character of the millennial age. This is the only biblical text which specifically mentions a thousand year period of time in which Satan’s power and activity are curtailed (the millennial age). The two most obvious questions raised by John’s vision are, “what does it mean for Satan to be bound in such a manner?” and “are the thousand years a present or a future period of time?” Amillennarians and premillennarians take quite different approaches to this passage and offer conflicting answers to these questions.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Of course, we have no idea what Paul looked like—the varied paintings and historic mosaics bear this out. The Bible is not concerned with such things, and there is no known description of Paul from his lifetime.
But there is one physical description of Paul, written about 160 A.D. It is found in an apocryphal writing, known as the Acts of Paul. Its veracity is a matter of some debate. Often, there is just enough truth in such accounts that they gain acceptance. Here is what we have:
And he (Onesiphorus) proceed along the royal highway to Lystra and stood expecting him, and according to the information of Titus, he inspected them that came. And he saw Paul coming, a man small in stature, bald-headed, crooked in legs, healthy, with eyebrows joining, nose rather long [lit. somewhat hooked], full of grace; for sometimes he appeared like a man, but sometimes he had the face of an angel.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Although most New Testament scholars simply assume that Paul had never seen Jesus prior to Paul’s Damascus Road experience, Stanley Porter raises the fascinating possibility that Paul and Jesus had indeed crossed paths before Paul’s conversion. The argument can be found in summary form in: Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought and Letters (Eerdmans, 2016), 33-38. A more extensive (and expensive) version can be found here: When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
Porter’s case is based upon several lines of evidence.
First, Jesus spent much of his time in Galilee, but went to Jerusalem on several occasions. Jesus also spent the last part of his messianic mission in the city. Given the fact that Paul too spent significant time in Jerusalem as a teen studying under Gamaliel, and that Jesus was a very well-known and controversial figure within Pharisaical circles, Paul likely knew of Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem, even if he had not seen him personally. But given Jesus’ controversial ministry among Jews in the city, a zealous young rabbinical student like Paul very likely would have been quite interested in evaluating Jesus for himself, possibly on one or more occasions. Paul and Jesus were in the same place at the same time so it is very plausible that Paul would have been curious enough to go and see Jesus for himself.
To read the rest, follow the link below
There are a number of important points made by Luke in Acts 15, but three stand out for brief mention here, especially when considered in light of Paul’s recently written Letter to The Galatians (which I take to be written in A.D. 48, a year or so before the Jerusalem Council convened). Paul, Barnabas, along the with apostles (James and Peter) and the elders of the Jerusalem church (including Judas called Barsabbas and Silas) were present to debate the matter of whether circumcision was required of Gentile converts to Christianity, if they were to be saved (Acts 15:1-2).
First, despite the ethnic and cultural differences between Jew and Gentile, both groups were equal and full members in the Israel of God which is Christ’s church (cf. Galatians 6:16). As Paul made clear in his Galatian letter, the gospel is not based upon human obedience to the Law of Moses or submission to circumcision (“works of the law”—Galatians 2:16), which supposedly made the Jew superior to Gentiles. It is clear that the gospel is the preaching of Christ crucified, through which, God in his grace, calls his elect to faith in Jesus Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile.
To read the rest, follow the link below
The New Testament has no category for someone who is professes to be a believer in Jesus Christ but who is not also a member of a local church. The reason for this is so obvious that we take it for granted. Since all true believers become members of the body of Christ by virtue of their union with Christ through faith, the New Testament assumes that those who are members of Christ’s body will quite naturally identify with a local assembly of those who likewise believe in Jesus and confess him as Lord before the unbelieving world. Sadly, many Americans have different assumptions.
Given the rugged individualism of American culture and our populist suspicion of authority and institutions, many Americans who consider themselves faithful Bible-believing Christians, make no connection whatsoever between their own personal faith in Jesus Christ and membership in a local church. This is indeed a sad state of affairs and clearly indicates that one of the most pressing issues of our day is the general ignorance of the doctrine of the church and the necessity of membership in a local congregation of fellow like-minded believers. In fact, John Calvin writes in his commentary on Isaiah, “We cannot become acceptable to God without being united in one and the same faith, that is, without being members of the church.” These two things, “justification by grace alone through faith alone,” and membership in Christ’s church are inseparable for Calvin, because the Bible clearly indicates that all those whom our Lord justifies through faith, he also gathers together is a visible assembly.
To read the exposition, An Exposition of Article Twenty-Seven of the Belgic Confession
Jonah -- Preacher of Repentance (3): A Fool's Errand -- Attempting to Flee from God
Jonah on a Fool’s Errand
God called the Prophet Jonah to go to the city of Nineveh (in the heart of the Assyrian empire) to preach YHWH’s word to the Ninevites. Refusing to go to Nineveh, instead Jonah undertook the fool’s errand of attempting to flee from YHWH, boarding a ship which Jonah hoped would take him as far away from Nineveh as humanly possible. But why was Jonah, known to us as the “reluctant prophet,” so hesitant to go where YHHW was sending him? The answer is both religious and political. Jonah is an Israelite. Assyria is Israel’s enemy and a serious military threat. Jonah knows that his own people (Israel) are hardening their hearts against YHWH and are likely to come under YHWH’s judgment. Jonah also knows that should he go to Nineveh and preach, YHWH might bring about the city’s repentance, sparing it from imminent judgment. As a loyal Israelite, Jonah fears that his preaching might be YHWH’s means of sparing Assyria from judgment. Jonah refuses YHWH’s call to go and preach and attempts get as far away from Nineveh as he can. But his plans are about to change in ways he cannot yet begin to imagine. YHWH will change Jonah’s mind and his destination.
As we move deeper into the Book of Jonah, (chapter 1:4-10), we read of Jonah fleeing YHWH’s prophetic call, only to find himself thrown overboard by terrified sailors and then swallowed by a great fish, where Jonah spent three days and nights entombed in conditions beyond human imagination. As we discussed previously, when we raised and answered the “Who?” “When?” “Why?” and “What?” questions, the assumption often made by readers about the Book of Jonah is that the story is so implausible that it cannot be historical. When viewed in this manner, the fictional story of Jonah becomes an object lesson or moralistic tale about obeying God’s will so as not to suffer the consequences–like those which befall the reluctant prophet.
The Prophetic Word Goes to the Gentiles Too
But when we look behind the well-known details of the Jonah story and consider God’s greater purpose in calling Jonah to go and preach YHWH’s word in Nineveh, we discover the true message of this prophecy; God’s purpose is to save Gentile sinners outside the ordinary bounds of his covenant people, Israel. Looking at the redemptive-historical context for the Minor Prophets (of which Jonah is one), we see that while in Canaan, YHWH’s people were to be witnesses of his mercy and righteousness to the Gentile nations all around them. Because of Israel’s failure to drive all the Canaanites from the promised land (as recounted in the Book of Joshua) over time, the people of God became more pagan than Hebrew (the message of the Book of Judges).
Israel’s idolatry and failure to keep the terms of Israel’s covenant with YHWH, led to a terrible civil war and a divided nation–Israel in the North and Judah in the South. Given Israel’s rapid and downward spiritual spiral the Northern Kingdom never did serve as a missionary witness to the surrounding Gentile nations. Instead, Israel became a sad example of sin, disobedience, and religious compromise. Israel faced certain judgment as YHWH’s long suffering patience came to an end.
But had Israel been faithful to God’s word and covenant, YHWH would have protected his people from the surrounding Gentile nations, including Syria and Assyria to the north. A very important element to the back story of the Book of Jonah is that YHWH’s call of Jonah is part of YHWH’s greater missionary purpose to ensure that his word is preached to Gentile nations–even to Israel’s enemies. YHWH sent the prophet Amos to Israel to call the nation to repentance. But YHWH sends Jonah to Nineveh in Assyia–Israel’s fiercest enemy to call Gentiles to repentance. Although the Jews are YHWH’s chosen people, his redemptive plan includes Gentiles. YHWH will extend salvation to the very ends of the earth.
We risk missing the message of the Book of Jonah if we understand it merely to be a moralistic fable about not obeying God’s call and suffering the consequences. The Book of Jonah is a prophetic revelation of God’s missionary purposes for his people as is typical of the Minor Prophets. Since Israel has failed in its mission to be YHWH’s witness to the Gentiles, YHWH calls Jonah to be his witness to Assyria.[1] Jonah’s reluctance to go to Nineveh reflects the fact that he is a loyal Israelite who does not want to see his enemy (Assyria) repent, when he knows his own people will be crushed by the Assyrians unless YHWH intervenes and saves Israel.
Jonah Flees to Tarshish
YHWH will intervene, but not to deliver Israel from Assyria, but to ensure the gospel is preached in Nineveh. Jonah hates the very thought of his enemies repenting. So much so Jonah flees to Tarshish, telling the reader in chapter 4:3 that he would rather die than see his enemies repent and be delivered from YHWH’s wrath. But YHWH’s missionary purposes require that someone from Israel like Jonah to go to Nineveh and preach YHWH’s call to repentance. Jonah’s reluctance to go, reflects Israel’s national sin manifest in the nation’s collective unwillingness to be YHWH’s witness to the Gentile nations surrounding Israel. That YHWH overcomes Jonah’s reluctance in the most dramatic of ways reinforces the importance of YHWH’s greater purpose–his people are to take the gospel to the ends of the earth–even to Nineveh.
Keeping the greater redemptive historical picture in mind, we can see why YHWH will not let Jonah escape his prophetic call. In verse 4 of chapter one, we learn that soon after Jonah’s ship left port, sailing west to Tarshish in Spain, “the Lord hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship threatened to break up.” We know from the opening verse of this prophecy that Jonah previously refused to obey YHWH’s call, left Israel and traveled to Joppa (the modern city of Jaffa), a seaport on the Mediterranean coast. Jonah booked passage on a sailing ship headed for the Phoenician city of Tarshish at the opposite end of the sea.[2] This was as far as humanly possible for someone like Jonah fleeing Nineveh to go. Nineveh is about 500 miles to the Northeast of Zebulun, where Jonah was based. Tarshish is nearly two thousand miles west from Jaffa.
A Great Storm Suddenly Appears
The Hebrew of verse 4 places the subject first (YHWH) and the verb following–which is unusual. This tells us that YHWH’s purpose, not Jonah’s disobedience, will determine the outcome of all that follows. Jonah’s unwillingness to preach in Nineveh will not thwart YHWH’s sovereign purpose. Foolishly thinking he could escape YHWH’s prophetic call, Jonah boards a ship, but the crew knows nothing about him, or his desire to flee YHWH, the God of Israel and the creator of all things. YHWH sends a fierce storm (literally he “throws” a fierce storm like someone would throw a spear or a javelin)[3] completely surprising the crew because of the storm’s suddenness and ferocity. Experienced sailors know how to read the weather so as to avoid storms whenever possible. Most sailors on a ship like this were experienced seamen and ordinarily would not panic should bad weather cause rough seas.
But the storm YHWH throws at them is completely expected and is no ordinary storm. It was sent by YHWH for the purpose of preventing Jonah from fleeing Nineveh. The sovereignty of God over the affairs of both people and nations is a frequent theme throughout the Minor Prophets–Jonah included. Just as YHWH threw this storm to prevent Jonah from fleeing, he will “appoint” the great fish to swallow Jonah alive once he is thrown overboard by the sailors. YHWH, the sovereign God, will accomplish his purpose. His word will be preached in Nineveh.
Israel is a nation with little if any naval or seafaring history. Solomon had a small navy (1 Kings 22:48-49). The prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah spoke of the ships of Tarshish (Phoenician) sailing throughout the Mediterranean. But it falls to the prophet Jeremiah (23:19-20) to remind us that YHWH is the Lord of the storm. “Behold, the storm of the Lord! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his heart.” There is a hint of YHWH’s wrath in Jonah 1:4, though YHWH’s purpose is not to destroy his reluctant prophet, but to save Jonah and the crew, to fulfill his missionary call to Nineveh.
The Terrified Crew
The storm thrown by YHWH was so fierce that the ship on which Jonah sailed the crew feared the vessel might break up. We read three times in the passage of the sailor’s fear. In verse 5, “then the mariners were afraid, and each cried out to his god,” in verse 10, “the men were exceedingly afraid,” and again in verse 16, “then the men feared the Lord exceedingly.” Then as now, professional seamen are a multi-racial bunch and these men cried out to their own deities–as though these “gods” could actually do something about the fierce storm which YHWH threw their way.
One of the emergency measures taken by the crew was to lighten the ship so as that it would better ride out the waves without being swamped. They “hurled the cargo that was in the ship into the sea to lighten it for them.” This too indicates the great level of fear in their ranks, since the crew would be held responsible for any lost cargo and/or missing rigging and ballast. The suddenness and ferocity of the storm not only frightened the crew, but the situation is becoming a matter of life and death. We get the sense from the crew’s action in calling out to their gods and jettisoning their cargo that some of these sailors may have been doing so in the sense of offering sacrifices to their respective gods to bring an end the storm. The Book of Jonah is filled with repetitive Hebrew puns, one of them is that as YHWH’s “throws a storm,” so too the panicked sailors “throw” their cargo overboard.[4] Soon they’ll “throw” their passenger–the source of their woes–into the sea.
Where’s Jonah?
Amidst the fear and chaos onboard the ship Jonah is nowhere to be seen. We are told that “Jonah had gone down into the inner part of the ship and had lain down and was fast asleep.” A series of puns appear again. Jonah “went down” to Joppa (v. 3), now he again “went down” into the ship to sleep, with the Hebrew word for “fast asleep.” rhyming with the verb “going down.”[5] Just as Jonah flees YHWH’s calling by “going down” to Joppa, he escapes the fury of the storm by going down in the interior of the ship to sleep. For whatever reason–whether that be exhaustion from his travels, emotional fatigue from fleeing from God–Jonah is dead to the world. He is completely out of it, sound asleep while the sailors topside are struggling mightily to save their vessel, and are beginning to realize this just might be the end.
Next Time, “Man overboard!”
To read the first in this series, Jonah the Preacher of Repentance (1): Who Was Jonah?
____________________________________
[1] Estelle, Salvation Through Judgment and Mercy, 33-34.
[2] Billy K. Smith and Franklin S. Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, vol. 19B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), on Jonah 1:3.
[3] Smith and Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, on Jonah 1:4.
[4] Donald J. Wiseman, T. Desmond Alexander, and Bruce K. Waltke, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 26, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), on Jonah 1:5.
[5] Estelle, Salvation Through Judgment and Mercy, 43.
As readers of this blog are no doubt aware (because I keep reminding you), B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) is widely hailed as one of America's greatest theologians. His books have remained in near-continuous publication since his death in February, 1921. Although dead for over a century, Warfield remains a theological force with whom to be reckoned.
As professor of polemical and didactic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Warfield published 781 book reviews over his long and exceedingly productive career. Some of Warfield's reviews are published in his collected works, while many are not. I thought it might be of interest to bring some of these currently unpublished "Reviews" to light. The first review discussed was "Children in the Hands of the Arminians". The second was Warfield's review of C. F. W. Walther's book, Gesetz und Evangelium (Law and Gospel), Warfields Review of C. F. W. Walthers' "Law and Gospel". For this installment, I have chosen Warfield's "Review" of Rev. Andrew Murray's book, "The Spirit of Christ," published in 1888, and which Warfield reviewed the following year. This influential book still remains in print (The Spirit of Christ) and is available from Whitaker House, a charismatic/Pentecostal publisher.
A brief word about Andrew Murray is in order. Rev. Murray (1828-1917) was a Dutch Reformed minister who labored in South Africa. Murray had a life-long passion for missions and was a champion of the South African Revival of 1860. Murray was devoted to the so-called "Keswick" theology which stressed the "inner" or "higher life." He also endorsed faith healing and believed in the continuation of the apostolic gifts. He was a significant forerunner of the Pentecostal movement--a remarkable accomplishment for any Dutch Reformed minister (I am being facetious, of course).
Murray was a prolific author, cranking out more than fifty books and hundreds of pamphlets. We sold cases of them in our bookstore (when I was growing up) and for which I have long since repented. So when I first ran across BBW's "Review" of Murray's book, I was very interested in what Warfield would have to say. Needless to say, the Lion of Princeton was not terribly impressed with Andrew Murray.
_______________________________________________
Warfield appreciates Murray's warm piety and obvious sincerity, but then raises one of his longstanding concerns--reducing biblical Christianity to mystical experience.
The Spirit of Christ: Thoughts on the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Believer and in the Church. By Rev. Andrew Murray. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1888.) 394 pages. The author treats this greatest of all Christian subjects with adequate reverence and tender devoutness, but scarcely with sufficient judiciousness. The mystical spirit has been always of the greatest value to the Church, and sometimes the sole preservative of true Christianity in a materialistic or legalistic age. But no tendency requires a stricter watchfulness to preserve it from extravagance.
To paraphrase Warfield, Murray is obviously sincere, but has paid too little attention to biblical teaching. Murray's heart-felt religion is expressed in terms of personal experience, not in biblical language or theological expression. Warfield regarded mysticism and rationalism as polar opposites. Elsewhere he had written if you cool down a mystic, you get a rationalist. Conversely, if you heat up heat up a rationalist, you get mystic. In either case, if you ground the Christian faith in either reason or experience, and not in Scripture, you will make a mess of things--as Rev. Murray has done.
Mr. Murray’s mystical tendency shows itself especially in laying too great stress on the duty of being conscious of the Spirit’s working within us, and in an odd insistence on the duty of exercising “faith in the indwelling Spirit” as the source of life—as if the Scriptures proclaimed the necessity of any other faith than that in Christ.
The Holy Spirit works through means (word and sacrament), something a Reformed minister ought to understand. Murray's stress upon "feeling the Spirit" at work within us, causes us to focus upon the inner life, not the external written word. This grounds the Christian life in subjective experience (emotions and feelings), and bypasses the hard work of sanctification in daily life--a work accomplished within us by the Holy Spirit even when we are not aware of his work (experientially). If pressed, Murray would be forced to base his argument for this in terms of his personal experience, because he could not do so from Scripture.
Warfield points out that Murray's phrase "faith in the indwelling Spirit" (focusing upon our experience of the Spirit's work) is not an expression found anywhere in Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible speak of faith "in the Spirit." Rather, the Bible repeatedly speaks of faith "in Christ" (and occasionally of faith "in God").
Another concern raised by Warfield, is Murray's attempt to bifurcate the Christian life into an "entrance level" experience (coming to faith--regeneration) and a second level experience (the deeper level--sanctification), such as now commonly associated with the charismatic/Pentecostal notion of the Baptism of the Spirit as a second work of grace after initial regeneration.
Warfield identifies Murray's error in separating the Christian life into two parts (stages).
Here [Murray] introduces an undesirable dualism into the Christian life, finding two moments of development in it corresponding to the two objects of this twofold exercise of faith. He rightly modifies Mr. Boys’s statement as to the nature of prayer for the Spirit, and modifies it in the right direction; but it is a great pity that he adopts the confusion of the charismatic and gracious work of the Spirit upon which Mr. Mahan bases his separation of regeneration and sanctification. We must not separate these two works of the Spirit: it is no more true that whom God foreknew, them also he predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, and whom he predestinated, them also he called, and whom he called, them also he justified, than it is that whom he justified, them also he glorified, which surely includes more than external acceptance into the heavenly glory.
Warfield's concern is that the Bible knows nothing of a Christian stuck at the first level, and then missing out on the second level experience of a "higher life." God gives all his people all of his blessings through faith in Christ at the time of our conversion. There is no "second" level of experience, or a second work of grace which comes later.
The essence of this passage is to teach that God selects his children, chooses the goal to which he shall bring them, and brings them safely to that goal; and it justifies us in saying that without exception “whom he regenerates, them also he sanctifies.” The separation of these two begets the very evil which Mr. Murray deprecates, of failure to live up to our privileges.
Warfield cautions folk like Murray not to write before they read and process the work of others, a sin not limited to Rev. Murray, but one often committed in the current age.
Enthusiastic minds like Mr. Murray’s need to exercise special care in adopting forms of statement from other writers. We meet every now and then in the book with a phrase or a doctrine the implications of which have scarcely been thought through by him. For example, the crude trichotomistic anthropology of p. 34 is an excrescence [i.e., a disease or abnormality] on his thinking, and is adopted only to be laid aside. On p. 54 he speaks for a moment like a fully developed Schleiermacherite.
Two theological errors which result are here identified. The first is his embrace of trichotomy--a widely held view then and now, which holds that humans are a tri-parite composite of body, soul, and spirit, and are not as Scripture teaches, a psychosomatic union of body and soul-spirit. The other error is that Murray unwittingly ends up with the same epistemology as the father of Protestant liberalism, Schleiermacher. Murray's careless expression implies that God cannot be known (i.e., there is no such thing as propositional revelation--Scripture), but can only be experienced through the feelings--the consequence of Murray's stress upon being conscious of the Spirit's present work within us.
Murray's lack of care in saying things in a biblically faithful, theologically sound, and logically coherent way frustrates the uber-careful Warfield. Murray's pen is far ahead of his mind when he writes.
And every now and then we strike against a sentence delivered as if it contained the very kernel of the Gospel, which quite puzzles us. For example, what idea of “holiness” underlies the assertion that “It is as the Indwelling One that God is Holy,” offered in defence of the statement that the Spirit is “the Holy Spirit” only as sent forth by the incarnate Christ? And what shall we do with the statement made in the same connection, “It is not the Spirit of God as such, but the Spirit of Jesus that could be sent to dwell in us,” in the face of the biblical usus loquendi? [use of speech]
Murray does not intend any heresy and does not openly teach it. But his strange and confusing formulations certainly open the door to such.
At the end of the day, Dr. Warfield is not very impressed with Rev. Murray's book, nor his proto-Pentecostalism.
The book is marred everywhere by such straining after novel and striking forms of statement, a vice, we may add, very common with books of this class.
The Presbyterian Review X, no. 37–40 (1889).
Sadly, books of this class and their common vices are still Christian bestsellers. We can only but wonder what the Lion of Princeton would have done with Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyer. Or with the Word-Faith folk who still love and read Andrew Murray?
Scale Model of the Jerusalem Temple
In light of periodic calls to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple (Time to Rebuild the Temple?), the matter of whether or not this will come to pass is part and parcel of the on-going debate about events associated with the end times and the return of Jesus Christ. The very possibility of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple raises a number of serious theological questions which ought to be addressed, especially in light of the dispensational expectation of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the dawn of the supposed seven-year tribulation period, which then functions as a center of worship during the millennial age.
As for the possibility of the temple actually being rebuilt, I am one who says “never say never” about future world events. I have no idea what will happen over the long run in Jerusalem and Israel. That said, I do not think such a thing is even remotely likely, given the current tensions in Jerusalem over control and access to the Temple Mount, much less the long-term political circumstances of doing so. Should Israel develop the religious and political will to occupy the Temple Mount (something unforeseeable at this point in time) and eventually take the steps necessary to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is the third holiest site in Islam), the Jewish state would face the wrath of the entire Islamic world as well as that of much of the secular West. Since dispensationalists often connect the rebuilding of the temple to the geo-political tensions necessary to foster the appearance of the Antichrist, who, they claim, will make a peace treaty with Israel before betraying the nation leading to a final end-times catastrophe, such upheaval is not beyond the realm of possibility. Dispensationalists expect the Jerusalem Temple to be rebuilt and fervently hope for it.
As far the possibility of a rebuilt temple is concerned, the most important question is not geo-political, but theological. “What does a rebuilt temple mean to the larger drama of redemptive history?” “Why is it such a serious theological mistake to believe such a thing?”
Essential to a proper understanding of any future temple in Jerusalem is the prophecy found in Ezekiel 40-48, wherein we find the prophet’s vision of a new and still future temple. G. K. Beale’s important and stellar book on this topic should be read by anyone who has questions about Ezekiel's vision (Beale -- The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God).
As Beale points out, there are four main interpretations of Ezekiel's prophecy and how it is fulfilled in the New Testament. Dispensationalists believe that this vision is a prophecy of an earthly temple to be built within Israel during the millennial age [1]. They base this interpretation upon their literal hermeneutic, which they say demands that a prophecy such as this one be interpreted literally, unless there is good reason to believe the prophecy should be interpreted figuratively. They reach this conclusion only by skipping over the profound echoes from Ezekiel’s prophecy found in Revelation 21. According to dispensationalists, what the New Testament seems to say about this temple cannot be applied in this case because such would mean that the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy would not be “literal.” Furthermore, this expectation for the temple also seems to require a return to memorial animal sacrifices, an act occuring after Jesus’ completion of the work of redemption which approaches blasphemy.
Unlike dispensationalists, advocates of the other main interpretations all agree that the context demands a non-literal interpretation. I agree, if by non-literal interpretation you mean a real, but future eschatological fulfillment. Some see this an ideal temple never intended to be built upon the earth, a view which, in my estimation, is the weakest interpretation. Others see this as a vision of the ideal temple yet future, which still falls short of what Ezekiel describes. I am of the opinion that this is a picture of a real heavenly temple in the latter days which will be established on the earth in a non-structural way.[2] In other words, Ezekiel is giving us a picture of the new earth in prophetic images with which his readers were familiar.[3] This is a picture of the new earth as the dwelling of God. Ezekiel foresees it in earthly terms (complete with all the temple utensils), while John describes its fulfilled version (in eschatological terms).
Based upon a number of factors (described below), Ezekiel’s prophecy points to a non-structural end-times temple.
First, the prophecy cannot be interpreted literally and still make any sense. When God places the prophet on a very high mountain (40:1-2) he sees something like a city (obviously Jerusalem). Yet, there is no such high mountain near Jerusalem from which the prophet could have had such a vantage point. But this literal high mountain is required by the dispensational view and its “literal” hermeneutic. Where is it? Given the nature of Ezekiel's prophecy, this language should alert us to the fact that what follows is given the symbolic geography of the prophet. Some have responded that given the massive topological changes to Palestine and Jerusalem supposedly associated with the beginning of the millennial kingdom (i.e., Isaiah 26:15; 33:17; Jeremiah 31:38-40; Ezekiel 48:30-35; Joel 3:18; Obadiah 17-21; Zechariah 4:7; 14:1-10; Micah 4:1-2; 7:14), the vision of Jerusalem from a high mountain might indeed be literal. But all of these passages speak of the promised renewal associated with the messianic age in material terms, but which point beyond mere earthly prosperity to the spiritual prosperity of being found “in Christ” in whom our inheritance is ultimately realized.
The symbolic nature of Ezekiel’s prophecy is confirmed in Revelation 21:10, where John is carried away "in the Spirit" to a high mountain from which he sees the Holy City coming down out of heaven. Obviously, the visions are related to each other as type-antitype (earthly language, eschatological fulfillment). What Ezekiel foresaw as future, John sees as a reality. Yet, the reality seen by John far exceeds anything in Ezekiel's vision. As Beale points out, there are a significant number of other instances in this prophecy which make the literal interpretation very unlikely, if not impossible. Rather, the Ezekiel’s vision speaks of a heavenly structure which descends in the midst of God’s people, and not to an earthly structure built by human hands.[4]
Second, there are a number of features within the prophecy which refer to something much greater than a localized temple in Jerusalem during the millennium. In verse 40:2, Ezekiel sees a structure "like a city" (the temple), while in the final verse of the prophecy (48:35) he says that the cities' name is "the Lord is there." Here we have the expansion of the localized temple into an area the size of the entire city of Jerusalem. This expansion of God's temple is a consistent theme throughout Ezekiel.[5] There are allusions to Eden throughout the prophecy (47:1-12). The city is depicted as a perfect square and the reference to the river is obviously symbolic, since it is deep enough that it can only be crossed by swimming (47:5).
Third, it is obvious that Revelation 21 interprets Ezekiel's vision in its consummated fulfillment. In other words, John is given a vision of the same temple which Ezekiel saw, but now from the vantage point of Christ's death and resurrection and the dawn of the new creation--something which would have made no sense whatsoever to Ezekiel or his hearers. As Beale points out, the new heavens and earth are now the Holy of Holies, as well as the new Jerusalem, and the new Eden.[6] On the last day, all of creation becomes the temple of God. The temple has been expanded (extended) from a building, to a heavenly city, to all of creation.
Finally, the most egregious theological error of those who see a rebuilt temple as an essential feature of biblical eschatology, is that it ignores our Lord’s own teaching about the temple, namely that he is indeed the true temple, and that the temple in Jerusalem pointed to the heavenly temple spoken of by Ezekiel and John (see Jesus Christ the True Temple).
I conclude that Ezekiel's vision is one not of an earthly temple (although the prophet uses earthly language his readers could readily understand), but of an eschatological temple, depicted in its consummated form and unspeakable glory by John in Revelation 21-22.
Thus, any call to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple to serve as a center of worship in a millennial kingdom, is ultimately a claim that Jesus Christ’s finished work is to be commemorated by the very same types and shadows that his once for all death for sin fulfilled and forever set aside.
_______________________________________________
[1] Horner, Future Israel, 71, 165-166; Pentecost, Things to Come, 393; Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies, 169.
[2] Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, 335.
[3] Hoekema, The Bible and Future, 205.
[4] Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, pp. 336-340.
[5] Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, pp. 340-345.
[6] Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, pp. 346-345.
- My favorite political theorist, Yuval Levin, nails it (again): Levin: How to Cure the Culture War
- A great summary from Craig Carter: 25 Theses on Classical Christian Trinitarianism
- Putin is not alone. More wannabe autocrats are on the rise. The world order is changing, and not for the better: The Age of the Strong Man
- The prophecy pundits must be going crazy over this one—a call to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. Granted it is one thing to call for the temple to be rebuilt, but entirely another to actually clear off the Al Aqsa Mosque and begin construction. A more important question: “why would you want to see the Temple rebuilt with animal sacrifices resuming?” If you think this is a great idea, please re-read the Book of Hebrews: Time to Rebuild the Temple
- As if calls to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple were not enough, Putin wants his chunk of Jerusalem back. Sounds to me like he’s still sore about the Crimean War, when the Orthodox, Roman, and Coptic churches fought over the keys (yes, the physical keys) of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which led to one the last wars of the colonial period and one of the first of the modern era. This time, it is about the Alexander Courtyard in Jerusalem. Putin demands return of Russian Orthodox holy site in Jerusalem
- Even if time travel were possible, for those of you who would like to go back in time to hear Calvin preach, or witness Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, beware. You are in for a shock. Everyone there would stink! In fact, if we could go back in time, the very first thing we would notice would be the awful smell of just about everything: The Past Stinks! Literally!
- A good friend has a new book on Christian evidences available on Amazon Kindle. Check it out. D'Virgilio: Univented: Why the Bible Could Not Be made Up
- This is a great resource to bookmark. Lots of great BBW stuff here: Log College Press: Compiled Warfield Resources--Many Unpublished
- My dad loved Tennessee Ernie Ford. We sold a gazillion of Ernie Ford’s gospel records in our Christian bookstore way back when. Me, I’m a child of the 60s-70’s and love classic rock. So when I saw a couple of the all-time guitar greats (Jeff Beck and Billy Gibbons) doing a cover of Ernie Ford’s biggest hit—Sixteen Tons (from 1956)—I thought I’d pass it along.
Site of the Dura-Europos Church in Syria — Thought to Be the World’s Oldest Church
When We confess the Church to Be ApostolicI know that this might come as a shock to my fellow baby-boomers, but the Christian church wasn’t founded by the Jesus people in the 1960’s—although their own congregation might have been. Americans often think about the church as though it was founded by Charles Finney during the Second Great Awakening. It was not. Nor was the church established by Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield during the First Great Awakening. The church was already fifteen centuries old when Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to reform it at the time of the Reformation. There is even a sense in which the church is as old as Adam and Eve and the first family. And Calvin was absolutely correct to affirm that the church existed in its infancy in the midst of Israel before the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Christian church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ when he called his apostles to follow him, and is then given a significant Spirit-filled role in redemptive history after Pentecost. When we consider that the church of Jesus Christ is apostolic, this is where we begin.
It is fashionable in those circles dominated by critical biblical scholarship to think of the church as a worshiping community in need of a Messiah–the first Christians supposedly elevated an itinerant apocalyptic prophet (Jesus of Nazareth) to his messianic status and then put pithy “Jesus sayings” back in his mouth. The church was not the fruit of the organizational genius of a group of followers who came to believe that Jesus had risen in their hearts (the so-called “Easter experience”) as they tried to cope with the disappointment they felt once Jesus was put to death by the Romans and his glorious kingdom did not manifest itself as promised. Rather, the biblical record tells us that the church was founded by a Risen Savior who left behind an empty tomb and then appeared to a number of his chosen witnesses the first Easter, confirming that his death on Good Friday was the ultimate triumph over human sin. The church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ, victorious over sin, death, and the grave.
The numerous post-resurrection appearances of our Lord to his disciples and recounted in the gospels do not take place in a vacuum. The disciples’ encounter with the risen Jesus take place against the backdrop of his three-year messianic ministry during which Jesus foretold of his own impending death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21-28). His miracles demonstrate that he was that one promised throughout the Old Testament who had come to establish his kingdom and establish his church (John 10:38). Pentecost (as recounted in Acts 2), is often considered the official birthday of the church, but is better understood as the culmination of all of our Lord’s messianic promises and only makes sense against the backdrop of our Lord’s death and resurrection, along with the gift of the Spirit and the dawn of the new creation.
While Israel may have had an infant church in its midst, the on-going progress of redemptive history meant that one day the infant church must grow to maturity. Indeed, when the fullness of time had finally come, God sent forth his son to redeem those born under the law (Galatians 4:4-6). When Jesus began his public ministry shortly after his baptism and reception of the Spirit, we read in Matthew 4:23 that Jesus “went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.” A new epoch in redemptive history has begun. The kingdom of God was at hand. The people of God would no longer be limited by the strictures of the Mosaic economy and Jewish nationalism. The gospel must now be proclaimed to the ends of the earth as God’s rule is extended to include every race, nation, and language under heaven.
Shortly after Jesus’ own messianic ministry began, in Matthew 10:1 we read, that Jesus “called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.” Having called these men to himself, Jesus sent them out on a very important mission. They must preach the message of the kingdom as defined in Matthew 10:5-42, just as Jesus had commanded. Why these twelve men? And why this particular message?
To answer these questions we need merely consider the fact that the apostles are sent to bear witnesses about Jesus Christ, to go throughout the towns of Israel proclaiming the message which Jesus had entrusted unto them. From the moment the twelve are called to follow Jesus, they are also commissioned to be preachers of that gospel which Jesus personally taught them. As witnesses of Jesus Christ and his gospel, they will become the foundation of the church which Jesus came to establish. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul looks back at the founding of the church several decades earlier. He speaks of the church as being “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” Jesus not only founded a church, he founded his church upon the preaching of the gospel, that message which Paul defines as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The gospel message Paul preaches is described as “publicly placarding Christ” (Galatians 3:1). The connection between the calling of the twelve and the preaching of the gospel is an essential one. When we confess that the church is apostolic, we are confessing that the church was founded upon the very same gospel which Jesus revealed to his apostles.
According to Matthew 16:18, Jesus promised his disciples that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. In that same passage, Jesus gives to his church the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:13-20). Confessing Jesus to be “the Christ, the son of the living God,” Peter will become the leader of the early church, later joined by other apostles and elders, meeting together to use the keys given them by Jesus and to make decisions regarding the doctrine and practice of the church (Acts 15:1-21). When we confess that the church is apostolic, we mean that the church exercises the authority of its founder, Jesus, through those officers called and commissioned to rule in the name of their Lord (Ephesians 3:2-7; Acts 6:1-7; 20:17; 1 Timothy 3:1-15).
Finally, before his ascension into heaven, Jesus gives his disciples one last point of instruction, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus preserves his church through the preaching of the gospel, the making of disciples, and in the proper administering the sacraments. Although things may seem bleak at times for the people of God, it is God who will preserve his people and his church upon the earth. Recall that in the days of Noah, the people of God had dwindled to eight in number! In the days of Elijah, the number of believers in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal was a paltry seven thousand. Yet, in every case, dark days for the people of God are a harbinger of a significant advance of Christ’s kingdom.
Indeed the final words of Jesus to his church in Matthew 28:18-20 bear this out. As we read in Acts 2:41, some three thousand were saved on the day of Pentecost alone. That number had grown to over five thousand shortly thereafter (Acts 4:4). In Revelation 7:9, the multitude clothed in white and standing before the throne is so vast that no one can count them. They come from every nation, tribe, and people. But they all confess the same thing–“Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” Jesus has founded his church by calling his apostles. He gave to them his gospel and his authority to bind and loose. Now Jesus promises that he will be with his church until the end of the age. Jesus is not an absentee landlord, he is present with his people until he comes again at the end of the age.
When we confess that the church is apostolic, we are confessing that the churches to which we belong today, stand in direct continuity to the church we see in the Book of Acts. We need not trace an unbroken line of Popes from Peter down to the present day. But we do confess that the gospel Jesus gave to his apostles should be the same gospel we preach and confess today. This gospel summons men and women to faith in Jesus Christ. When received through faith, this gospel justifies sinners and fills us with Christ’s Spirit. This gospel grants Christ’s church authority to bind and loose. This gospel calls us to serve our Lord in his church, just as when Jesus called his first apostles. When we preach and confess this apostolic gospel, we can be assured of our Lord’s favor, protection, and presence.
This, then, is why we confess Christ’s church to be apostolic.
Jonah — The Preacher of Repentance (2): Preaching to Your Enemies
Jonah: Factual Account or Mere Parable—”Dare to be a Jonah”?
When it comes to the “why” and “what” questions associated with the Book of Jonah, these are difficult to answer because they are tied to the nature of the book itself. Critical scholars openly scoff at the assertion the Jonah is describing historical events. Was he really swallowed by a large fish, and spent 72 hours in a fish’s belly? Surviving despite a lack of oxygen and despite the fish’s digestive juices which ordinarily would have dissolved Jonah’s remains rather quickly. Because the book cannot be accepted as historical the critics contend, the Book of Jonah must be an allegory telling some sort of moralistic tale: “dare not to be a Jonah,” or “obey God when he calls you, so you don’t suffer the consequences,” or some such.
The better critical scholars see a broader redemptive historical purpose in Jonah. Israel failed in its mission to be YHWH’s witness to the Gentile nations, a reason why YHWH was about to bring judgment upon the nation. So, before Israel’s destruction in 722 by the Assyrians, YHWH raises up a prophet (Jonah) who will do what Israel failed to do, go to the source of Israel’s impending destruction (the heart of the Assyrian empire) and call for Gentiles to believe in YHWH and repent of their sin. To these scholars, Jonah’s apologetic purpose (in the form of a sermonic parable) does not require the events with the book to be true. This is certainly a possible interpretation of Jonah’s overall mission and this apologetic purpose may indeed be behind YHWH’s prophetic call of Jonah.
But if this is true, why does Jonah so actively resist YHWH’s call to the point that he states he would rather die than see the Ninevites repent (Jonah 4:3)? Jonah is a loyal Israelite. We know from 2 Kings 13 that Israel had been continuously at war with Syria, the Gentile kingdom immediately to the north. Syria was a sometimes client state, sometimes rival of Assyria, growing in power and geographically to the north of both Syria and Israel. According to the account in Kings, YHWH kept Syria at bay through Assyrian aggression, weakening Syria so they could not invade Israel and preventing either nation from conquering the Northern Kingdom. YHWH even granted Israel military success against Syria during the reign of Jeroboam II. These nations would have been Israel’s (and Jonah’s) natural enemies.
Jonah’s Mission: A Reluctant Witness to the Gentiles
On this interpretation, Israel failed to be a witness to the Gentile nations around them. So God sends Jonah to preach to the Gentiles, even though Jonah personally despises the Assyrians. But this is just one of the dynamics going on within Jonah’s prophecy. Jonah knows YHWH’s mercy can convert those whose destruction he (Jonah) truly desires. Jonah would rather see Assyria destroyed than converted by YHWH. How difficult it must have been for Jonah to know that through his own preaching, YHWH will spare hated Assyria from judgment, likely anticipating that Assyria then would be YHWH’s agent to bring judgment upon his own disobedient people, Israel.
There are two issues in the Book of Jonah frequently raised by critics. The first is the account of the fish, and the second are historical factors associated with Nineveh; the city possessing a king, being described as so large that it took Jonah three days to walk through it, and the fact that the city repented through Jonah’s preaching when there is no evidence this is the case. Nineveh, is mentioned in Genesis 10:11, as the city founded by Nimrod after Noah’s flood. The city was located just outside modern day Mosul in Northern Iraq. The fish story is said by critics to be impossible. The historical events associated with Nineveh are considered highly improbable.
Jonah in the Fish’s Belly? Really?
As for Jonah being swallowed by a fish and surviving, we must not overlook the fact that critical scholars begin with a hermeneutic of suspicion (anything miraculous in the Bible must be discounted, “guilty until proven innocent”). But the exact opposite is (or should) be the case. We should ordinarily accept things as true, unless and until there are reasons not to. The fact that Jonah is tied to a well-known historical family and time period (the reign of Jeroboam II about 760 B.C.) points in the direction of a factual account–not a parable or allegory. Some defenders of the book have tried to argue that it is possible for someone to be swallowed by a large fish (the Hebrew text indicates this, and not a whale) and still survive. But on its face, this critical objection appears to be a powerful argument–people ordinarily do not survive in the digestive tract of large animals.
There are several responses to this. In an article in the learned publication The Princeton Theological Review (from 1927, vol. 25, 636), the author considers the account of a whaler actually being swallowed by a sperm whale and surviving, leaving behind both verbal and written testimony to that effect. Such reports are interesting, but I am not sure this is the best way to defend the historicity of Jonah’s account of being in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights.
The matter is much better resolved by considering the fact that on at least three occasions (reported in Matthew 12:39-41; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32), Jesus appeals to the “sign of Jonah,” (i.e., Jonah being in the belly of the fish for three days and nights) as prefiguring his own death and resurrection. Simply put, if Jesus believed Jonah’s account to be historical, then so should we. If Jesus was raised bodily from the dead after three days in the tomb, then there is no reason to reject the account of Jonah on the supposed ground of implausibility. The bodily resurrection of Jesus establishes God’s supernatural intervention into history, not as a mere possibility, but tied to specific historical events. Jonah, and Jesus’s resurrection being but two instances of things supposedly impossible actually occurring in human history.
Nineveh and Critical Scholarship
As for Nineveh, it is quite an interesting place and very important to the message of Jonah. As mentioned in Genesis, Nineveh is one of the oldest cities of antiquity, likely settled as far back as the neolithic period (new stone age–6000 B.C.). Later, the city became a center of Ishtar worship (the Assyrian equivalent of Baal), but was destroyed by a great earthquake, only to be rebuilt by the Assyrians about 1800 B.C. Over time the city declined in importance. But about 700 B.C. (shortly after the ministry of Jonah), the Assyrian king Sennacherib turned the city into a magnificent showplace with square streets and a huge palace with winged lions in relief. Nineveh was completely destroyed when Assyria fell to the Medes and Persians in 616 B.C. Sadly, the archeological remains of the city were seriously damaged by Isis in 2016.
When Jonah mentions the “king of Nineveh” in chapter 3:6, critical scholars contend that such a king would be king of Assyria, not Nineveh. But the same manner of speaking occurs in the Old Testament, when Ahab, the king of Israel, is called “king of Samaria,” because Samaria is within the larger area over which he ruled (1 Kings 21:1). Critical scholars also claim Jonah’s speaking of Nineveh in the past tense must mean the prophecy was composed after Nineveh was destroyed in 616 BC. Therefore, critics contend, Jonah’s prophecy is not historical but written long after the time period it purports to describe. Since ancient Assyrian records mention Nineveh as an important city long before the time of Jonah, and indicate that the city was a winter residence of Assyrian kings during the time of Jonah, it may be the case that by the mid-700's B.C. the city was not as important as it once had been–explaining Jonah’s use of the past tense.
Critical scholars also contend that the city was not big enough in the mid 700's B.C., to take someone three days to pass through it. But there were a number of villages surrounding the city (as suburbs). If such villages were part of the city, that could add considerable distance to Nineveh’s circumference. It could also be that Jonah walked into the city on day one, preached on day two, walked out on day three.[1]
As for the mass conversion of the city as reported in Jonah 3:4, critics point out there is no historical record of such a thing happening–which is indeed the case. Jonah’s report is the only record we have, but that does not mean such a thing did not happen–there is no reason why the biblical record is not to be trusted as primary source documentation. We do know that several significant cosmic and historical events were witnessed by the Ninevites about the same time as Jonah’s preaching. Between 765-759 B.C., Nineveh experienced a total eclipse of the sun and two significant plagues–this may have made the citizens receptive to Jonah’s preaching. One of the Assyian kings who ruled shortly before Jonah’s prophetic mission to the city–a man named Adad-Nirari III–was a monotheist, worshiping the god Nebo. Nineveh may be been quite ready for a Jewish prophet like Jonah so that when YHWH’s word was preached to them, “the people of Nineveh believed God” (Jonah 3:5).[2]
I mention these matters in this detail only because it is important to see that there is nothing problematic with the historicity of Jonah, other than critical scholars looking for a way to discredit Jonah’s prophecy. The evidence clearly points in the direction of Jonah being historical and the arguments against this book being factually true arise solely from modern prejudices, not from any compelling historical evidence.[3]
Jonah’s Prophetic Call
As for the contents of the book of Jonah, the book opens with Jonah’s prophetic call and his fleeing from that call (1:1-3). Then, in chapter 1:4-16, Jonah encounters pagan sailors who see him as cursed and a threat to their safety, they throw Jonah overboard. We’ll take this up next time. In 1:17-2:10, we read of Jonah’s gratitude for being spared from certain death. In chapter 3, Jonah is re-commissioned for his prophetic call–preaching to the citizens of Nineveh. In chapter 4, we discover Jonah’s anger at God before learning of YHWH’s purpose in being merciful to the inhabitants of Nineveh, who otherwise would be wiped out.
With the “Who?” “When?” “Why?” and “What?” questions answered, we turn to the introductory words of Jonah. We have already taken note of Jonah’s prophetic call, and his ancestry. “Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai.” The specific content of YHWH’s call to Jonah is given in verse 2. “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.” A loyal subject of Israel, YHWH is calling Jonah to go and preach to a city and a people whose sin has “come up before me,” says YHWH. Jonah is commissioned to “call the people out,” because of their great sinfulness. While the biblical record is clear that all people are sinful–Adam being our biological and federal head–there are times when evil seems to be concentrated in particular places. God will bring judgment upon one such place, Nineveh, unless the people heed Jonah’s preaching and repent. The Bible singles out several cities as centers of evil–Nineveh is one such place, but so too the cities of Tyre (in nearby Lebanon), and Babylon are mentioned as places of concentrated evil, rebellion, and hostility to God and his people. [4]
Nineveh — A Center of Evil and the Enemy of His People
But virtue of his prophetic call from YHWH, Jonah is instead sent into one of these “cities of man” filled with great evil–Nineveh. Jonah is not to flee the city, but is to go into the city and call its inhabitants, including its king, to repentance. Jonah is to “call out against [Nineveh], for their evil has come up before me.” The task is difficult enough, but Jonah’s personal circumstances make it much more difficult for him. Nineveh is not only filled with evil, it is in the heart of that empire soon to destroy Jonah’s own people. Not seeing YHWH’s greater purposes, and only realizing the threat such a mission poses both physically and emotionally to himself, Jonah instead, decides to attempt to run away and not fulfill his prophetic commission. We read in verse 3 that “Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa and found a ship going to Tarshish. So he paid the fare and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the Lord.”
Nineveh was five hundred miles to the north–not an easy trip, but doable given the well-established trade routes. Fleeing YHWH’s call, Jonah instead heads to Joppa (modern Jaffa), which is the nearest seaport. on the Mediterranean coast. Jonah paid his fare, and boarded a ship bound for Tarshish, likely a Phoenician seaport in what is now Spain–some two thousand miles to the West, completely across the Mediterranean Sea. If Jonah was going to foolishly attempt to flee the presence of the Lord, he would go to the very end of the earth, as far away from Nineveh as someone in that age could possibly travel. Jonah’s act is nothing less than open rebellion and defiance against the Lord’s prophetic call. No wonder he is often called the “reluctant prophet.”
It is not until chapter 4:2, we learn of Jonah’s reason for his disobedience. “And he prayed to the Lord and said, `O Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.’” Jonah knew that YHWH was merciful. He also knew that if he preached YHWH’s word to these people–no matter how much evil was present in the city–YHWH might just spare them. Jonah’s struggle is “what if the Ninevites (his enemies) repented?” Well, then, they would be spared. Imagine the knot in Jonah’s stomach when he saw his own people, Israel stubbornly refuse to repent and return to the Lord. But YHWH’s salvation might come to hated Assyria, even as judgment would come upon Israel. Jonah surely struggled with this possibility. But the Lord will ensure that his word will be proclaimed to the Ninevites whether Jonah is willing or not.
Fleeing from God — A Fool’s Errand
As we proceed to work through this fascinating book, let us keep two things in mind. In the foreground, we have the story of Jonah, the reluctant prophet. His story is compelling and a lesson to us all–Attempting to flee from God due to some sin we have committed, or because of spiritual rebellion is a fool’s errand. As David once lamented in Psalm 139:7–8, “where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!” When we attempt to flee from God we may not end up in the belly of a giant fish, instead the Lord will hold us captive in a much more difficult and demanding prison–the prison of our own guilty conscience. Often, he will allow us to remain in this prison until we seek his face and forgiveness, through the merits of Jesus–his shed blood and his perfect righteousness.
But the bigger picture throughout the prophecy of Jonah is the revelation of God’s gracious purpose to take the gospel far beyond the borders of Israel to the ends of the earth–the Ninevehs and Babylons of Jonah’s age and ours. The Book of Jonah is not just a moralistic tale about obeying God. It is a book about world mission–the word of YHWH going out to ends of the earth. The truth of that gospel which calls us to faith in Jesus, is grounded in his death on the cross for our sins, and in his bodily resurrection from the dead–“the sign of Jonah.”
Ironically, it is Jonah, the reluctant prophet, who reminds us of the great missionary calling of Christ’s church. “Go to Nineveh!” “Take the gospel to the ends of the earth.” Amen.
To read the first in this series, Jonah the Preacher of Repentance: Who Was Jonah?
To read the next installment in this series: Jonah Preacher of Repentance: A Fools Errand -- Fleeing-from God
________________________________________________
[1] John D. Barry et al., eds., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), entry on “Jonah and History.”
[2] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), entry, “Jonah, Book of.”
[3] Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 440.
[4] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NICGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 850, 900.
Okay; “if I am justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, then why should I do good works?” The answer is because I am justified by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone! The same act of faith which links us to Christ so that his merits become ours and thereby provides the basis upon which God pronounces us “not guilty,” also begins the life-long process of sanctification, in which old sinful habits begin to weaken, new Godly affections begin to grow, and we begin to obey (however, feebly), not some, but all of God’s commandments. Indeed, only justified sinners can actually do good works.
We are in that section of our confession (Articles Twenty-Two through Twenty-Four) which deals with familiar doctrines to many of us: faith, justification, and sanctification. These wonderful doctrines not only unfold throughout the pages of Holy Scripture, but the Reformed formulation of these truths, such as we find in our confession, clearly differentiate Reformed Christianity from Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism at the time our confession was written in 1561. But these doctrines also differentiate Reformed Christianity from Romanism and much of American evangelicalism today. This is why it is so important to be familiar with our confessions, so that we know what we believe and why we believe it. How can we proclaim the truth to the unbelieving world around us, if we do not know the truth?
Articles Twenty and Twenty-One of our confession summarize and describe the saving work of Jesus Christ, which provides the ground or the basis of our justification. Jesus Christ not only satisfied the wrath of God when he suffered upon the cross for us and in our place, so also he came as our high priest who represents us before God. In addition, Jesus came as the mediator of the covenant of grace, so that through his own perfect obedience to the covenant of works and the law of Moses, Jesus’ saving merits (his personal and perfect righteous) are reckoned to us through the means of faith.
To read the rest, Article Twenty Four: The Sanctification of Sinners
The Triple Cure
Jesus Christ — Our Prophet. Priest, and KingThe diagnosis is not very good: we are ignorant, guilty, and corrupt.
As a litany of biblical texts reveals, we find ourselves as fallen sinners ravaged by this threefold consequence of our sins. Our foolish hearts are darkened (Romans 1:21) and our thoughts are continually evil (Genesis 6:5). Our minds are clouded by sin and ignorant of the things of God (Ephesians 4:17-18), although in our folly we often boast about our supposed knowledge and great wisdom. Paul tells us that we have exchanged God’s truth for a lie (Romans 1:25). Our minds are “blinded by the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Like a blind man pitifully groping his way through life, so our sin has blinded us to the truth of God. Intoxicated by our own self-righteousness, like boastful drunkards we stumble through life seeking to justify ourselves before God.
We labor under the tremendous weight of guilt–the penalty for our many infractions of the law of God. While many of us are quite adept at ignoring God's just verdict against them, many others feel like they will buckle under the weight of God's heavy hand. Not only are we guilty for our own individual violations of God’s law in thought, word, and deed, but we are also rendered guilty for our participation in the sin of Adam, whose own guilt has been imputed to all of us as his biological and federal children (Romans 5:12, 18-19). While we may delude ourselves into thinking that we have sinned against our neighbors only, David knew that this was not true. “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,” (Psalm 51:4). Because of our guilt, there is no way we can dare stand in the presence of God. “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Psalm 130:3). He does keep such a record and we cannot stand.
But ignorance and the guilt of sin are not the only things in view as we survey the Scriptures. We also suffer from the destructive pollution of this inherited sinful condition, which infects every part of us from the moment of conception. Born in sin as the Psalmist declares (Psalm 51:5), there is no good residing in us (Psalm 14:1-3). Our bodies, which are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), become instruments to act out the wickedness that would otherwise lie hidden in our hearts (Romans 6:13). It is the guilt and the pollution from this sin that renders us so miserable. Life apart from God's forgiveness is described in the language of sickness-the trembling, sweaty weakness of a sick body trying to fight off a high fever (Psalm 32:3-4). We have no peace with either God or neighbor (Romans 3:17), and we are “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12).
Sin leaves us ignorant, guilty, and polluted, and therefore utterly miserable. Indeed, while the diagnosis is bad, the prognosis is far worse, for this disease is always fatal and earthly doctors have no cure. There is, however, one account of a glorious and miraculous cure from this disease: The good news of the Gospel proclaims that while this is impossible with men, nevertheless, with God, “all things are possible!”
The Development of the Three Fold Office
It was John Calvin who brought the munus triplex, or the so-called"threefold office" of Christ into prominence. Picked up by most of the subsequent Reformed tradition, and adopted by many Lutheran theologians as well, the threefold office presents Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, and king, who, in his saving work, fulfilled all the anointed offices of the Old Testament.[1] Calvin utilized these categories to accomplish several things.
First, it helped Calvin give shape to his overall Christology, which focuses primarily on Christ's work in terms of being mediator of a covenant of redemption, the one chosen by God to be the savior of the elect.
Second, Calvin used the threefold office to bind together Christ’s person as the eternal Son of God, fully human and fully divine, to his work as redeemer, as seen in his titles “Christ” and “Messiah,” which themselves are indicative of his being the “anointed one.”[2] For Calvin, “the Son of God, therefore, is not properly called Christ apart from his office, for it is there, in his official capacity, that he manifests as the true fulfillment of the offices of the Old Testament his threefold work as prophet, priest, and king.”[3]
This model also offers an excellent way to connect redemptive history to systematic theology. Since Christ's three offices, prophet, priest, and king, “represent the three offices of ancient Israel to which men were appointed as servants of God,” Calvin could connect the incarnation directly to Christ’s work as mediator. This means that “the prophet, the king, and the priest are united in Christ, are perfected, and are thereby fulfilled and brought to conclusion in the one who is both king and priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”[4] In the threefold office, Calvin offers an excellent and compelling way to make sense of a large block of diverse biblical data.
Later Reformed theologians, such as Francis Turretin, introduce the threefold office of our Lord as the divinely revealed solution to the threefold disease of ignorance, guilt, and pollution described above—the triple cure. It is Christ, as prophet, priest, and king, who offers the threefold cure to our fatal condition. Turretin sets out the threefold office as the remedy for human sin as follows:
The threefold misery of men introduced by sin-ignorance, guilt, and tyranny and bondage by sin-required this conjunction of a threefold office. Ignorance is healed by the prophetic; guilt by the priestly; the tyranny and corruption of sin by the kingly office. Prophetic light scatters the darkness of error; the merit of the Priest takes away guilt and procures a reconciliation for us; the Power of the King removes the bondage of sin and death. The Prophet shows God to us; the Priest leads us to God; and the King joins us together and glorifies us with God. The Prophet enlightens the mind by the Spirit of illumination; the Priest by the Spirit of consolation tranquilizes the heart and conscience; the King by the Spirit of sanctification subdues rebellious affections.[5]
Turretin’s conception is not only eloquently stated-certainly powerful evidence against the argument that scholastic theology lacks devotion-but it effectively captures the thrust of the biblical data concerning Christ's person and work to rescue us from the horrible consequences of sin.
Christ Our Prophet
Christ’s prophetic office means, in effect, that Christ represents God to man. Jesus is the light of the world (John 1:4-5), who comes to show us God the Father (John 14:9). Under the old covenant Christ taught us by means of types and shadows, the history of redemption, and by his providential care over the people of Israel. Since the Old Testament prophet is “one who sees things. . . who receives revelations, who is in the service of God, particularly as a messenger who speaks in His name,”[6] our Lord Jesus exercised these functions both before and after his incarnation (1 Peter 1:11). It was Moses who foretold of “a great prophet” as follows: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen–” (Deuteronomy 18:15).
And it is Peter, who immediately after the birth of the Church, applies this passage to our Lord (Acts 3:22-23). Jesus speaks of himself as such a prophet (Luke 13:33–“Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem”), and our Lord expressly claims to speak only what his father has told him to say (John 12:49-50; 14:10, 24; 15:15; 17:8, 20). Jesus speaks of the future (Matthew 24:3-35), and speaks with an amazing authority unlike all others (Matthew 7:29). Indeed, our Lord’s words are backed by the power of God, for his mighty works serve to confirm the truth of his message (Matthew 21:11, 46; Luke 7:16, 24:19; John 3:2, 4:19, 7:40, 9:17). In John 6:14 we are told “when the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, `This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!’”
Christ’s prophetic work does not cease, however, with the end of his earthly ministry at his Ascension. As Louis Berkhof notes, Christ “continues His prophetical activity through the operation of the Holy Spirit. His teachings are both verbal and factual, that is, He teaches not only by verbal communications, but also by the facts of revelation, such as the incarnation, His atoning death, the resurrection and ascension.”[7] Jesus is the one who sends the Holy Spirit, and as the Spirit of Christ, he is the one who “when he comes . . . will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8).
As Christ is the Word incarnate, and the central figure in biblical revelation, so too we cannot divorce the work of his Spirit from the written word. Since Christ fulfills the office of prophet, and since he continues to speak to us through his word-and only through his word-the Reformed are very reticent to give any credence to supposed “words from God,” or “words of knowledge” from our contemporaries who repeatedly make such claims to speak forth Spirit-led utterances.
Christ Our Priest
The priestly office of Christ occupies a major place in the New Testament and includes not only a discussion of the office itself, but also of Christ's sacrificial death to redeem sinners from their sin. The key passage in the New Testament, Hebrews 5:1 and following, lays out the characteristics of a true priest. First, “every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins” (v. 1). Second, such a priest is appointed by God (v. 4). Third, the high priest “offers gifts and sacrifices for sins” (v. 1). In addition, the priest makes intercession for the people (7:25), blessing them in the name of God (Leviticus 9:22). Jesus Christ is the high priest par excellence.
The Old Testament predicted a coming Redeemer. The Psalmist records God saying about his chosen one: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: `you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek’” (Psalm 110:4). Zechariah tells us that the coming Redeemer “will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne” (Zechariah 6:13). As Berkhof notes, there is no doubt that “the Old Testament priesthood, and particularly the high priest, clearly prefigured a priestly Messiah.”[8]
The author of the book of Hebrews is clearly cognizant of this. Although he is the only New Testament writer who applies the term to our Lord, he repeatedly speaks of Jesus as a priest. We are told “Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,” (Hebrews 3:1). We are informed that “since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession” (Hebrews 4:14). “So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest” (Hebrews 5:5), for the author applies the words of Psalm 110:4 to him: “having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 6:20). Jesus is the kind of high priest who “has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself” (Hebrews 7:27). Christians are able to take heart, for our high priest, is the “one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 8:1).
A great deal of biblical data is devoted to Christ’s work as high priest, but we can only briefly survey it here.[9] Scripture points us in several directions. One aspect of this, which we may easily overlook but which is extremely important to notice, is that not only does Christ the high priest offer an all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, but he also is himself the all-sufficient sacrifice for sin. We get a strong hint of this in the Mosaic era of biblical revelation (during the time the Sinaitic covenant is in force), through the nature of the sacrifices that were instituted, and which themselves were mere types and shadows, pointing us to the Messiah and his once for all sacrifice yet to come.
The sacrifices offered during this time temporarily expiated the guilt of the sins of the people through the sacrifice of the substitute-in this case, an animal who was offered up to God. But the Psalmist, who records for us the prophetic words of the Messiah himself, takes this further. “In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, `Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:6-8). The Messiah indicates that his own coming sacrificial death will supersede the Old Testament sacrificial system.[10]
The New Testament quite frequently and powerfully makes this very point-Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death is the fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Mosaic system. The author of Hebrews, as but one example, makes it very clear that Jesus Christ, through his one sacrifice, has done something that the blood of bulls and goats could never accomplish. While the blood of animals could not take away sin, the blood of the Messiah, on the other hand, is that through which “we have been made holy” (Hebrews 11:10). This is a major theme throughout the New Testament.
Just as Christ's prophetic work did not cease when he completed his earthly ministry, so neither has his priestly work. Though Christ took his place at the right hand of his Father, because his redemptive work was finished (Hebrews 11:12), Jesus Christ presently intercedes for us when we sin (1 John 2:1-2). While we are correct to focus on what Christ has done for us as our high priest, we must not forget those things he is doing for us even now. He prays for our sanctification (John 17:17). He is now our “great high priest who has gone through the heavens,” so too we can now “approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:14-16). Even now, our great high priest is building us “up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
What comfort we can take knowing that our Lord is in heaven, preparing for us to see his glory (John 17:24). For the great high priest who intercedes for us never sleeps nor wearies, he never prays without full effect, and he is ever mindful of our continuing struggles with the world, the flesh, and the devil (Hebrews 2:18). Jesus Christ is both the author and the finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). He is our great high priest and the good shepherd, who even now guards his flock. No one shall ever snatch us from his hand (John 10:28-29), and nothing will ever separate us from his love (Romans 8:37-39).
Christ Our King
The biblical writers would have been quite mystified, I think, at much of the evangelical discussion about “making Christ Lord”-as though it was through a decision on our part that Christ becomes “the Lord over our lives.” And they certainly would have been perplexed by those who insist on reading the kingdom language of the New Testament through the grid of the American nationalism of the Christian right, or the moralistic social gospel of the Christian left. They would, I think, be equally confused by our dispensational brethren, who insist on undercutting the present reign of Christ by arguing that Christ’s kingly office (especially the regnum gratiae-the “kingdom of grace”) does not come fully into view until a future millennial age commences and at long last Christ supposedly begins to exercise his full authority from the earthly city of Jerusalem. Most of this confusion comes from a failure to properly understand this third office of Christ, his kingly rule.
The Scriptures plainly declare that “the Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19). We don't make Christ anything-He is the Lord over his creation. His throne is in heaven, and he is king over creation. This kingship is therefore to be seen as “his official power to rule all things in heaven and on earth, for the glory of God, and for the execution of God's purpose of salvation.”[11]
If Christ is not presently ruling in this capacity, we must ask ourselves, just who exactly is minding the store? Reformed theologians usually argue that there are two aspects to this kingly rule. The first is Christ's regnum potentiae (kingdom of power–i.e., the civil kingdom) and the second is the regnum gratiae (the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of Christ).
Unlike the dispensationalists, who argue that Christ delays the full manifestation of his rule in this present dispensation, the Reformed argue that Christ presently exercises full dominion over all, even now. He is king and his kingdom is presently a kingdom both of grace and of power. He is in full control and he is ordering all of human history as he sees fit. This means that at his Ascension, Jesus Christ ascended to the right hand of his father and even now rules as sovereign Lord over all of creation (regnum potentiae) and over his church (regnum gratiae) as mediator of the covenant of grace in his three-fold office.
In the kingdom of grace, Christ is seen to rule the church of which he himself is head. As such, this rule is a spiritual rule, since it is exercised in a spiritual realm (primarily in and through the word and sacrament ministry of the church). As Berkhof puts it, “it is established in the hearts and lives of believers.” [12] The New Testament repeatedly speaks of Christ as “head of the church” (Ephesians 1:22, 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:19). Christ’s rule over his church is closely related to the mystical union formed between Christ and the church, which the Scriptures describe as his “body” (1 Corinthians 12:27). Christ’s rule over this kingdom is based on his redemptive work. “No one is a citizen of this kingdom by virtue of his humanity. Only the redeemed have that honor and privilege.”[13] It is a spiritual kingdom, so it has no flag, no world headquarters, and no post office box. But it is certainly and powerfully present wherever Christ’s people gather to hear God’s word proclaimed and to receive the sacraments (Romans 14:17). This kingdom is identical to that which the New Testament repeatedly calls the “kingdom of God.”
Lest we forget, this kingdom is a conquering kingdom (Matthew 12:28), though we err greatly if we connect the advance of this kingdom to cultural, economic, or political institutions (John 18:36–“my kingdom is not from the world”). The wicked will not inherit this kingdom (Galatians 5:21), though our own children, seen by the world as “the least of these,” are already members of that kingdom (Luke 18:16). It is a glorious kingdom (1 Thessalonaisn 2:12), and despite what some may say, it is a present reality (Matthew 3:2). It is a kingdom, which as the Creed declares, “has no end” (2 Peter 1:11).
The kingdom of power, on the other hand, refers to Christ’s rule or dominion over all of creation. As creator of all, he is also Lord (Colossians 1:16-17). He orders the affairs of nations (Isaiah 40:17), and controls the lives and destinies of individuals (Acts 14:15-17, 17:24-27). Quite simply, the Scripture puts it this way: “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (Psalm 115:3). This serves as the basis for understanding all of history as ultimately serving the purpose of the redemption of God’s people, since we know that God is working together everything after the purpose of his will (Ephesians 1:11) and that he is ordering all things, so that human history is racing to a great and final climax, the return of our Lord to Earth for the resurrection and the final judgment. It is this kingly rule of Christ that gives us comfort in the midst of the tumult of the signs of the end of the age: earthquakes, disease, wars and rumors of wars.
Some Final Thoughts
The threefold office of Christ has profound ramifications for the Christian life. First and foremost, this model enables us to connect the work of Christ, who has secured our redemption (which we discover only in the pages of Scripture), with our present experience and struggles as Christians. As Calvin noted, the threefold office of Christ is certainly one of the best ways to explain our Lord’s redemptive work. As we have seen in Turretin, Christ’s work overcame our ignorance, our guilt, and our corruption, and which even now provides us with illumination, redemption, and hope in the present.
Take for example, Christ's prophetic office. Christ was revealed in type and shadow in the pages of the Old Testament. Though he was the central character, he remained hidden. In the New Testament, however, our Lord steps out from the shadows of darkness and assumes center stage in the drama of redemption (Galatians 4:4). “That was then,” some may protest, “but what does he do for us after his Ascension when he had finished his earthly ministry?” How does his prophetic office help us in the midst of our current struggles?
Perhaps it would be useful to think of it this way: If the Scripture bears witness to Christ (John 5:39), then the Holy Spirit, who is Scripture's divine author (2 Timothy 3:16), will open our minds and our hearts to hear our Lord's voice as we read his word (John 16:12-15; Acts 16:14). This is what theologians have historically spoken of as illumination. Since we are blind to the things of God, the Holy Spirit must provide the understanding we need through the Scriptures. Christ our prophet speaks to us today though the pages of his word. In fact, whenever a minister of the word opens the Scripture for us, there is a profound sense in which Christ our prophet is speaking to us through his word every bit as much as if he himself were standing in our presence and speaking these words audibly. Therefore in Scripture, God’s word written, we find a voice that is certain, not like the extemporaneous musings of those today who claim to speak for God.
The same pattern holds true for Christ’s priestly work. Not only has Christ done what is necessary for our salvation through his sinless life (his active obedience) and through his sacrifice for sin (passive obedience), but at this very moment he has assumed his place at the right hand of his Father where he now intercedes for us. What comfort we derive from the knowledge that he is there as our advocate and friend, pleading our case whenever we sin! It is also important to note that since he has been tempted in all the ways that we have been tempted, our great high priest not only knows our weakness-and is there to help us when we ask-but in addition he has promised us that he will never give us more than we can bear and that he will always provide us a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Christ’s kingly office provides us with a wealth of comfort and assurance. For while the nations rage one against another; while the earth groans beneath our feet; while there is sickness, disease, and economic hardship (Matthew 24:3 ff.) even now our Lord is ruling and reigning, until he makes his enemies his footstool (1 Corinthians 15:22-27). And so while unbelievers may look around at these world conditions and see the apparent chaos as an excuse to scoff, saying “where is this `coming’ he promised?” (2 Peter 3:3-4), the believer can take heart, for the signs of the end are exactly that. The tumult we see around us is, in fact, proof that Christ is reigning and that he is directing all of history toward a great and final consummation, when he will come with great glory with his angels, as the great conquering king (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11).
This then, is our hope and our comfort-Jesus Christ is the final prophet, the great high priest, and the conquering king. There is a miraculous cure for the disease of ignorance, guilt, and pollution after all. It is what is known by some Reformed theologians as “the triple cure.”
As Calvin said, in Christ “God has fulfilled what he has promised: that the truth of his promises would be realized in the person of the Son. Believers have found to be true Paul's saying that `all the promises of God find their yea and amen in Christ’” [14]
______________________________________________
[1] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Baker Book House, 1985), 197.
[2] Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 31 ff.
[3] Muller, Christ and the Decree, 31 ff.
[4] Muller, Christ and the Decree, 32.
[5] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2 (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1994), 2.393.
[6] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1986), 358.
[7] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 359.
[8] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 362.
[9] Helpful treatments of this can be found in, Leon Morris The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982); and in a more popular version, The Atonement (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985).
[10] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 364.
[11] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 406.
[12] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 406.
[13] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 407.
[14] Calvin, Institutes, 2.9.2.
We, in the West, cherish our liberal intellectual heritage: our free markets, our individual freedom and liberties, our republican form of limited government, and our practice of electing national leaders to office for short terms in office, with clearly defined responsibilities and limits. From his recent comments, it is clear that Vladimir Putin sees things much differently. Those things we tend to cherish are anathema to him. He is in every sense an dictatorial autocrat, but also a self-professed Russian Orthodox Christian with an incomprehensible worldview to most in the West (identified in recent Russian academic thought as Eurasian Nationalist Bolshevism). Putin loathes what he sees as western decay and decadence. America is responsible for many of the evils in the West which he deplores.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is only the most recent in a series of military endeavors which are the logical outcome (perhaps the necessity) of his view of Russia and his hoped-for recovery of lost empire. He seems obsessed with his personal role in determining just what that Russian future might be. “How will history remember me?” We will think of him as a tyrannical war-criminal who will go down in memory as a despised butcher of non-combatants. But he thinks of himself as the savior of the Slavic people, a man who is recovering the Slavic soul—a heroic effort for which those living in the future Russia will venerate him for generations to come.
I find myself continually frustrated by much of cable news analysis coming from the 24/7 news channels and the legion of retired American generals and political wonks who strive to understand Putin through the lens of American partisan politics and western categories. Yes, the battlefield tactics and outcomes are important, and we are well-served here by those who know Russian military doctrine and capabilities. Yes, I am interested in what NATO can do for Ukraine as well as in the dramatic changes in the modern battlefield and its weaponry. But I also want to know what makes Putin tick. Is he a mad-man? Has his personality dramatically changed over time, as some have claimed? Why take the risk he has taken in invading Ukraine? Why the brutality and indifference to the suffering of not only Ukrainians, but even to his own people due to the crushing economic sanctions his actions brought down upon them?
Thankfully, I came across some credible and helpful answers to my questions about Putin’s view of the world. Waller Newell, a professor of political philosophy at Carleton University, is the the author of Tyrants: Power, Injustice, and Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2016), and the forthcoming Tyranny and Revolution: Rousseau to Heidegger (Cambridge University Press, 2021). In a recent essay, Vladimir Putin, Tyrant, Newell gives us a cogent and clear-eyed look at what it is, exactly, that drives Putin to do the things he is doing in Ukraine and elsewhere. This essay (and the podcast interview with Newell referenced below) brought about a complete category reset in how I see Putin and his recent actions. Both are highly recommended.
In Vladimir Putin, Tyrant, Newell sets the stage for discussing the contrasting worldviews described above, reminding us of how our foreign policy professionals see Putin’s actions vastly different than he does.
When Vladimir Putin sent Russian forces into Crimea in 2014, then-Secretary of State John Kerry professed bewilderment that such imperial aggression could happen in the modern age. It was like something out of “the 19th century.” Kerry’s reaction to Putin’s recent invasion of Ukraine was equally baffled, as the patrician American diplomat lamented that the war would distract Putin from working with him on climate change. Common to both reactions was the astonishment that the material calculations and preoccupations of Western democracies might be blown away by a resurgence of old-fashioned tyrannical ambition.
What does Putin actually want?
It’s not that he doesn’t want prosperity for Russia. His early popularity was based on stabilizing the ruble. But the economy must rightfully take a distant second place to restoring Russia’s national pride and dignity after what he views as the “catastrophe” of the Soviet empire’s humiliating defeat in the Cold War. Our foreign policy experts too often forget that dictators like Putin don’t have to worry about public opinion and economic performance the same way that democratically elected leaders do. Rulers for life, they can put these to one side for prolonged periods of time in service of the greater goal of national honor.
Why would Putin decry the old Soviet system?
Although Putin’s ambition is to restore Russian control over its former Warsaw Pact captive states, he in no way wishes to restore the Soviet regime itself. Russian history has long been riven by a cultural conflict between those who look to Europe, the West, and the Enlightenment as the path that Russia should follow and those who are loyal to Slavic nationalism, which is deeply religious and not interested in economic prosperity. In literature, this divide was typified by the different outlooks of Turgenev and Dostoyevsky, which Tolstoy crystallized as the difference between St. Petersburg and Moscow. During the era of anti-Soviet dissidence, this split was typified by Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. Putin is in the Slavophile camp. A devotee of Berdyaev, a Slavophile critic of Marxism-Leninism, Putin believes that Soviet communism was an import of European rationalism that poisoned the authentic Russian soul, which has nourished the country’s national and artistic greatness.
How will it end?
Putin is therefore a rational actor only to a point, and in a very different way from how that is understood in the West. His aims are for Russia to be honored, feared and powerful. He is no Hitler or Ahmadinejad, willing to pursue his imperial ambitions to the point where he and Russia risk going down in flames in a final Götterdämmerung, like Hitler in his bunker. But Putin is ready to go a very great deal further in pursuing his ambitions than elected democratic leaders are—a fact that he knows, and which he believes gives him a key advantage in his confrontation with the West. He is willing to march up to the very edge of a general war in Europe, or perhaps even cross that line, and he is willing to put the Russian people through extreme material deprivation rather than settle for a slice of the pie as measured out by foreign powers. Honor and national pride come first. That is why we need to remind ourselves over and over again that the ambition to tyrannize and a lust for honor at the expense of material self-interest are unalterable features of human nature.
You can read the essay here: Vladimir Putin, Tyrant. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Dr. Newell was also a recent guest on The School of War Podcast. Dr. Waller Newell on Putin and Tyranny
The topics covered include the necessity of a “secular apocalypse” (i.e., regime change, a revolution, a war) to facilitate a “tyrannical millennial” (i.e., the utopian rule of the revolutionary and their cronies—i.e. Putin, his generals and oligarchs). Fascinating stuff and a critical feature of nearly all modern tyrants since the French Revolution and Robespierre. Newell does not mention it, but this is also a feature of much Christian eschatological speculation as well.
Newell also addresses a question that tying Putin to closely Russian Orthodoxy does not answer. “How can Putin justify his and his oligarch buddies robbing Russia blind” in the name of recovering the Slavic Soul and Eurasianism? Newell identifies three different sorts of tyrannies, one of which displays its vast power through accumulated wealth. While we westerners may have trouble understanding non-economic motivators for state action, this is not a factor in Putin’s thinking. If the Russian people must endure and do without so that mother Russia fulfills its destiny in liberating its people from Western decadence, so be it.
Newell also addresses the relationship between Putin and Xi, and Xi’s variety of tyranny in China. Different men and situations, yet have much in common. Again, thought provoking stuff.
Newell gave me a lot to think about.
We discussed amillennialism and the problems associated with dispensational premillennialism.
Jonah — The Preacher of Repentance (1): Moral Tale or Historical Event?
3rd Century Roman Sarcophagus Depicting Jonah and the Great Fish
A Well-Known Story
Most everyone knows the story of Jonah. Jonah was a reluctant Hebrew prophet who, while fleeing from his divine commission, was thrown overboard in the midst of a horrific storm by his terrified shipmates, only to be swallowed by a big fish (usually assumed to be a whale). Jonah then spent three days and nights in the fish’s belly, before being vomited up by the fish on a foreign shore. Once safely on land, Jonah fulfilled his evangelistic mission, went to Nineveh as commanded, and preached to the Ninevites who repented en masse. The story is simple enough it can be understood by a child, but profound enough that theologians and biblical scholars still debate its meaning.
Whenever considering any book of the Bible it is important to ask and answer several questions to make sure we interpret the book and its message correctly. Who was Jonah, when did he live, why did he write this book, and what is in it? How does this particular prophecy compare with the other Minor Prophets who lived and ministered about the same time? These questions are especially important with a book like Jonah, which many think to be an allegory or a moral fable, seeing the story as so implausible that it cannot possibly be speaking of historical events. How can someone be swallowed alive by a whale and live for three days? No, the critics say, this cannot be history, so it must be an allegory, a teaching parable, or a work of fiction, designed to teach us some important spiritual or moral truth.
When we interpret Jonah’s prophecy through this fictional lens, the reader’s focus usually falls upon Jonah himself, the prime example of a reluctant prophet who refuses to obey God’s will. By not obeying God, Jonah finds himself in the belly of a whale, until God relents and the whale then spits Jonah out safe and sound–if a bit shook up. The moral to the story is that should God call you to do something you do not want to do, learn the lesson of the story of Jonah. Obey the Lord and avoid the kind of calamity which comes upon those who, like Jonah, will not do what they know God wants them to do.
No Mere Morality Tale
But when we ask and then answer the “Who?” “When?” “Why?” and “What?” questions, it becomes clear that Jonah’s prophecy is not an allegory, nor does it offer such a trivial and moralistic message. This is not a “once upon a time in a land far away” kind of book. The prophecy opens with Jonah’s personal ancestry–revealing the name of his father enabling us to compare other biblical references to this family, thereby tying Jonah’s ministry directly to the reign of Jeroboam II, one of the last rulers of Israel (the Northern Kingdom).
Jonah’s prophecy comes in the form of a prophetic narrative (much like 1 and 2 Kings) with a song/Psalm included within the narrative (chapter 2). It is clearly set in a particular period of time–the final days of Israel (the Northern Kingdom). Yet unlike the books of the Kings, the Book of Jonah does not emphasize God’s prophet’s obedience to undertake a difficult prophetic call. On the contrary, the Book of Jonah focuses upon the prophet’s determined reluctance to fulfill his mission.[1] But what is that mission? That is the critical question not often properly considered.
When the reader steps back from the sensational particulars of the story–the sailors and the storm, the big fish, the three days–what becomes clear is that God’s ultimate purpose (whether Jonah responds appropriately to that purpose or not) is to extend salvation into the heart of the same nation (Assyria) which is about to invade Israel (the Northern Kingdom), wiping Israel out and killing, capturing, or exiling its inhabitants. Jonah’s reluctance to preach YHWH’s message to Israel’s enemy highlights the importance of his message. During the days of judgment upon Israel and Judah (mid 700's B.C.), YHWH’s gracious purpose is to save sinners, and that purpose is not limited just to Israel.
God’s Mercy Upon Israel’s Gentile Oppressors
As for the prophecy, Jonah is the one through whom God’s purpose is revealed. He clearly functions as the protagonist in the story. But we must not miss the larger the redemptive-historical thrust of the prophecy which emphasizes God’s intention to extend salvation to the pagan Gentiles who are outside the covenant line of Israel. When we look at the message of Jonah through the wider lens of redemptive history, his prophecy takes on a whole new and expanded meaning–God’s mercy extends to the ends of the earth–not just to Israel. Jonah’s actions must be interpreted in light of YHWH’s greater purpose. Just as he was merciful to Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II–YHWH sent prophets to warn the nation and call them to repent at a time when the nation turned away from YHWH to gross idolatry–so too YHWH will be merciful to the Gentiles in Nineveh, and even to Jonah’s pagan shipmates [2]. As we read in Revelation 7:9, God’s gracious purpose is to save a multitude so vast they cannot be counted. This becomes clear when the ministry of Jesus comes to its climax and Jesus himself speaks of the “sign of Jonah” as the reason why Israel must believe and accept Jesus’ teaching–the “sign of Jonah,” foretells of Jesus’ forthcoming resurrection from the dead after three days and nights in the tomb. Christ’s death and resurrection is the foundation for that gospel which is to be preached to the ends of the earth–the “sign of Jonah” lives on in the church’s mission to preach the gospel to all nations.
Who Was Jonah?
Well then, who was Jonah? We learn in verse 1, that Jonah was the son of Amittai, who is mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25 in connection with the reign of Jeroboam II, who “restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher.” Jonah lived about 760 B.C., is the son of a prophet, and from Gath-hepher near Nazareth (in the region of Zebulun). Unlike his contemporary Amos–whose ministry to Israel was on-going when YHWH called Jonah to preach to the Ninevites–Jonah was an Israelite. His name means “dove,” which some commentators consider a subtle message about the book itself–that Jonah is a fictional character who is passive and prone to running away. I see nothing symbolic. This is Jonah’s name, nothing more or less.
Amos and his prophetic oracles are much different in structure and purpose than the prophecy and ministry of Jonah. In fact, the Book of Jonah is unique among the Minor Prophets in terms of its style. Its prophetic narrative is unlike that of the other minor prophets who reflect more the oracle/prophetic contents of a prophet like Amos. The two contemporaries, Jonah and Amos, could not be more different. Amos was not from a prophetic line or guild. Jonah was. Amos was from Judah (the Southern Kingdom). Jonah was a loyal son of Israel–a patriot of sorts, who detested the Assyrians to the north, to whom he was sent to preach, and to whom he refused to go. Amos was called in a dream and then given a series of visions to preach to Israel–a difficult task because his message was confrontational and intended to expose Israel’s sin and call the people to repentance. Jonah also received “the word of the Lord which came to him” establishing him as a prophet in the line of Moses. But Jonah was called by YHWH to go and preach to Nineveh–Israel’s enemy. So the “who?” and “when?” questions find straightforward answers. Jonah is a prophet. He’s contemporary of Amos, and was called by YHWH to preach to the Ninevites about 760 B.C., during the reign of Jeroboam II.
The “why” and “what” questions are more complicated because they are tied to the nature of the book itself. We will tackle these questions next time
To read the next in this series, Jonah, The Preacher of Repentance: Preaching to Your Enemies
________________________________________
[1] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary, 435.
[2] Bryan D. Estelle, Salvation Through Judgment and Mercy (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2005), 28-29.
- Here’s the next lecture in Dr. Godfrey’s excellent series on “what is going on right now?” in which he deals with Freud: Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, "What Is Going On Right Now?" (12)
- There’s much discussion of natural law in Reformed circles these days. This essay is must reading if this topic is of interest to you: Richard Muller on Natural Law in Kuyper and Bavinck
- A religious war at its heart? More on the Russian Orthodox church’s support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine: Putin's Jihad in Ukraine
- But the rest of the Orthodox world sees things much differently: The Orthodox Churches Respond to Putin's Jihad in Ukraine
- Here’s a helpful essay on a perennially disputed topic. Biblically speaking, what can women do in the churches? S. M. Baugh on the Role of Women in the Church
- This came as a huge surprise. 53% of Americans cannot name all four of their grandparents: The Sad Decline of the American Family
- The Chinese Intelligence agencies do not care about cute puppies, your child’s first steps, or various teenage antics. Their massive collection of America data is much more sinister than that. This essay was eye-opening. China's Data Collection -- Stay Off Tic-Toc
- The stupid “ghost rule” will be back for 2022. MLBPA shirkers (the players) lobbied to have extra-inning games begin each new inning with a runner on second base (the ghost) making it easier to score, thereby shortening extra inning games.
- This is truly an amazing discovery from Western China: 3000 Year Old Pants -- A Marvel
- Why do so many commercials feature people dancing? I’ve never even once thought of dancing around my house because I found some new product, or learned of a medication with a gazillion side effects. I know many of you like to dance, but I’m with Jerry Seinfeld on this one. When asked by a young woman if he often went out dancing, Seinfeld replied, “no, because it's so stupid.”
- Judge Judy is a curmudgeonly battleaxe who gets worse with age, but she is one of the few people left in American culture who tells people “I don’t care about how you feel,” just give me the facts.
- If you have been following my series on Job, you might like the “Job Action Figure” below.
The “Action Figure of Job” complete with sores (or else he’s wearing a camouflage shirt)
After Wandering for Forty Years in the Sinai Wilderness, Joshua Leads The People of Israel Into Canaan
When the angel of the Lord appeared to Mary (who was betrothed to Joseph) the angel informed her that although she had never been with a man, she will become pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. The angel also appeared to Joseph and instructed him regarding his future wife, “she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The name “Jesus” is so familiar to us that we can easily overlook the significance of his name in light of redemptive history.
Our Lord’s name “Jesus” is indicative of the reason why he came to earth–to save his people from their sins. Yeshua is a shortened form of Joshua (Yehoshua), which means “Yahweh is salvation.” The Greek version is Iesous—Jesus. This name ties Jesus to one of the great figures in redemptive history–a man used by God to deliver his people and bring them into the promised land. That man was Yehoshua (or Iesous), a name which comes down to us in Romanized form as “Joshua.”
Joshua is one of Israel’s greatest heroes. He first appears as a skilled commander who directs Israel’s army in battle against the Amelkites (cf. Exodus 17:8-16). Joshua is identified as Moses’ assistant who is with Moses before the latter received the commandments of the Lord (Exodus 24:13 ff). Joshua is said to have never departed from the tent where Moses led the Israelites (Exodus 33:11), and he assisted Moses in the governance of the nation (Numbers 11:28)
Joshua is also one of the twelve Israelite spies who entered the promised land of Canaan (Numbers 13:16-17). Along with Caleb, Joshua never doubted God’s promise to give the land of promise to Israel, despite the ferocity of the Canaanites who lived there. God punished Israel because of the unbelief of the other ten scouts and the willingness of the people to accept their mistaken notion that God could not give Israel the promised victory. The Lord forced his unbelieving people to wander in the wilderness of the Sinai until that unbelieving generation perished in the wilderness. Because he believed the promise, Joshua was granted entrance into the promised land (cf. Numbers 14:30, 38; 26:25).
Joshua was never anointed to the offices of prophet, priest, or king, but he was consecrated to serve as Israel’s leader by Moses and more importantly, YHWH himself. Moses laid his hands upon Joshua before the people, giving him the authority to lead the people of God (Numbers 27:20-23). When Moses died, YHWH appeared to Joshua confirming him as the one to lead Israel into Canaan (Joshua 1:1-8).
Although not a biological ancestor of Jesus, Joshua was in many ways a type of Christ. As Joshua led the people of Israel into the promised land, he represented the people before God and served them as a minister of YHWH. Although not a king, Joshua functions as the leader of Israel in a royal capacity. He carries out a number of messianic functions, prefiguring the kingly office of David. Although not a prophet in an official sense, Joshua communicated God’s will to the people of Israel. He stood not as mediator of the covenant, but as a minister of the covenant, and in this sense reminded Israel of God’s word which had been revealed to them at Mount Sinai (Exodus 34) and again when the covenant was renewed on the plains of Horeb (Deuteronomy 5:2).
Most important, however, Joshua leads the people of God to a salvation of sorts–not from the guilt and power of sin, but to victory over those Canaanite tribes which blocked Israel’s entrance into Canaan, and which prevented Israel from entering the promised land where they would be “saved” from their enemies and then enter into that good land flowing with milk and honey. While this was a wonderful blessing for Israel, which the people enjoyed as long as they obeyed the terms of the covenant, these temporal blessings were fleeting as was the ministry of Joshua, who died at the age of 110. He was given a remarkable memorial. “Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work that the Lord did for Israel” (Joshua 24:31).
There was good reason, therefore, why the angel commanded Joseph to name the child who was conceived in the womb of the virgin, “Joshua.” Although Joshua was a sinful man who needed a savior, his role in leading the people of God to victory over the Canaanites prefigured the coming of Jesus, who leads the people of God to victory over our greatest enemies, death and the grave through Jesus’ cross and empty tomb. While Joshua led the people of Israel into the land God had promised them, the greater Joshua, Jesus of Nazareth, will lead us to that heavenly city, a land of pure delight, where there are no more tears, suffering, or pain, and where we will dwell forever in the presence of God.
“God is in control.”
These words can be of wonderful comfort to people struggling with common phobias, natural fears, apprehension of impending bad news, or even deep-seated terrors resulting from past trauma. A biblical reminder that God is sovereign over all things often brings great relief. That nothing can happen to us that does not first pass through the will of God is comforting in many fearful or worrisome situations.
But there are times when the words “God is in control” might actually make matters worse. A terrified Christian may have already wrestled with the fact that God is sovereign, yet since their fears have been realized, they arrive at the misguided conclusion that God is punishing them, or worse, that God has abandoned them to the very things which terrify them. At the root of such fear and anxiety is not whether God is in control of all things (a doctrine most Christians readily accept), but a fear that God really is in control of all things. “Why would God allow my fears to become my reality?” “Perhaps God hates me or has rejected me” they reason, only ratcheting up the intensity of their own dread and terror. The reality is for some that the awareness of God’s sovereignty may not be a source of relief—only another source of doubt, frustration, fear, or even anger at God. Fear can do this to people, even Christians, who intellectually know better.
There are a couple of points I think worthy of consideration when confronting our fears in the light of God’s sovereignty. The first is to undertake a brief refresher course as to what those biblical passages actually say when they tell us that God is “in control.” There are many such passages and we can but survey them here. When we have a good (or better) grasp of the extent of God’s control over all things, we are reminded that nothing which comes to pass is either random or outside the will of God. The Psalmist reminds us, “for I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods. Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth” (Psalm 135:5-6). In Proverbs we read that God’s sovereignty extends even to seemingly incidental things. “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:33). This information is given to remind us that nothing—no matter how seemingly insignificant—can happen to us which is outside the scope of God’s eternal decree.
God knows when a sparrow falls from the sky, and if he cares for them, how much more does he care for us? (cf. Matthew 6:26). Paul tells us that “for those who love God all things work together for good” (Romans 8:28). James states “let no one say when he is tempted, `I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). James adds, “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” God does not tempt us or cause us to be afraid. He gives us all good things, and he promises to turn everything (even our fears) to our ultimate good.
This short list of biblical passages reminds us that any fear we may be facing can bring God glory, or be turned by God to our ultimate good. The passages tell us that God generously grants us needed reassurance when we are afraid. Scripture calms our fears by reminding us that God is our heavenly Father who loves us, who cares for us, even when we fear him, or dread the outcome of his sovereign purposes. He still loves us, even when we are afraid that he doesn’t.
A second thing to consider is that if anyone believed in God’s absolute sovereignty, it was Jesus, God incarnate. The gospels reveal that knowing God’s purpose in advance, and knowing that the outcome of his suffering would be a glorious triumph over death and the grave, nevertheless, Jesus felt both tremendous fear and anxiety before the ordeal of the cross. Through a consideration of Jesus’ own fear and anxiety we can find great relief for our own.
In Matthew 26:36-38, we read “Jesus went . . . to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, Sit here, while I go over there and pray.’ And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them,My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.’” Jesus also said, “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ Again, for the second time, [Jesus] went away and prayed, `My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done’” (Matthew 26:41-42). In Luke’s account the extent of Jesus’ fear is revealed. “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). Clearly, Jesus was afraid. The witnesses observed that the Lord was in great emotional stress—even fear of what was soon to happen. Jesus knew full well what was to come in the hours ahead—the agony of a Roman crucifixion. But the fact that Jesus experienced and manifested such fear, tells us that fear and anxiety are not necessarily sinful–that Jesus was anxious before his suffering upon the cross proves this to be the case. Fear of pain, or awareness of life-threatening danger is quite natural.
Yet in the midst of our Lord’s anxiety in Gethesame, he nevertheless trusts his Father to see him through the horrific ordeal to come. Jesus may sweat drops of blood, but he still drinks the cup of wrath to save us from our sins—and that cup blessedly includes any fear we may have which arises from unbelief or doubt of God’s promises. Remarkably, Jesus is not only an example to us when we are afraid, but as the sinless sufferer his suffering and death removes any guilt we may have for doubting God’s promises, or fearing his approach, or fear of the outcome of his sovereign purpose. Jesus died for our all sins, including all sinful fear, worry, doubt, and anxiety.
We have a great high priest, who never sleeps nor slumbers, and who knows what it is like for us to experience fear and anxiety. It is Jesus to whom we pray when we are afraid, and it is Jesus who prays for us, even as we pray to him—often times in fear, worry, and anxiety (Heb. 4:14-16). His love for us is said to cast out all fear (1 John 4:18). Jesus, our blessed mediator, knows full well what fear is, and when we are afraid, even brief reflection upon his death for us and in our place, gives us much needed perspective if we are ever tempted to recoil upon hearing the words, “God is in control.”
Our kind and gracious intercessor is, after all, the man of sorrows.
This wonderful essay is now available as a booklet, or as a Kindle or E-Pub download: You can find it here: Warfield's "Emotional Life of Our Lord"
As the two volumes of John Miley’s Systematic Theology were published in 1892-1894, B. B. Warfield reviewed each volume upon release. Miley was a noted Methodist theologian who taught at Drew Theological Seminary in Madison, New Jersey, not far from Princeton, where the Lion of Princeton (B. B. Warfield) held the chair of “polemical and didactic theology.” It was Warfield’s task to pounce upon any and all challenges to Reformed orthodoxy.
Miley, who some have called the “Methodist Charles Hodge” (because he wrote a similar theology text two decades after Hodge completed his), was a capable theologian in the Methodist/Arminian tradition. Miley stated in his Systematic Theology that his efforts were, in part, to be seen as a Methodist corrective to the recently published Calvinist theologies of both Charles Hodge and his son, Archibald Alexander Hodge.
Warfield appears eager to see these volumes come into print as Miley was a capable sparring partner, whose work, Warfield was sure, would illustrate the profound difference between the two systems. Warfield, playfully (if not sarcastically), speaks of his objections to Miley’s Methodism as the fruit of our “Calvinistically warped mind.”
The excerpts below (quotes from Warfield’s “Review” of Miley’s work and my interaction with both Warfield and Miley) are taken from my Lion of Princeton (2015) and edited for publication here.
Warfield appreciates Miley’s clarity and consistency regarding the Methodist/Arminian system.
The material is handled in a masterly manner, and the volume as a whole sets forth the Arminian scheme of salvation in as powerful and logical a form as that scheme admits of. For Dr. Miley presents himself here as above all things an Arminian, and as above most Arminians ready to follow his Arminianism to its logical conclusions. Here, indeed, we find the highest significance of the book. It is the Arminian `Yea’ to the Calvinistic declaration of what Arminianism is in its essential nature, where its center of gravity lies, and what it means with reference to that complex of doctrines which constitute the sum of evangelical truth.
Warfield challenges Miley’s use of divine foreknowledge to escape a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination
We cannot think, however, that he has followed out his own arguments to their legitimate conclusions. They not only involve the admission of the certainty (as distinguished from the necessity) of free actions (p. 183), which is all any Calvinist believes; but they distinctly imply the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. For example, he acutely reduces the difficulties which are asserted to stand in the way of God’s foreknowledge of the free acts of men to absurdity, by pointing out that the same difficulties would press equally against God’s foreknowledge of his own free acts. This is unanswerable. But it will require an immeasurably more acute logic still to distinguish God’s foreknowledge of his future choices, from a fore-intention to make these choices; and this is just the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.
Warfield addresses Miley’s faulty conception of natural revelation
He there seems to posit a reception by heathen men of a divine revelation, which comes to them through their human faculties, and is not verified to the recipient as from God. Here he seems to step beyond the wall of his own definition, with the effect of throwing himself into the hands of the mystic rationalists. We must hasten to add, however, that when he comes to treat formally of mysticism (p. 16), he rejects the mythical path for attaining religious truth altogether, and deals very stringently with the modern doctrine of the Christian consciousness. We must confess that we do not know how the views expressed at p. 11, as to a not uncommon revelation to heathen seekers, can be accorded with the criticism here; unless we are to suppose that God is nearer to the heathen than to Christians, and deals more intimately with them than with Christians.
Warfield points out the fatal flaw in Miley’s treatment of governmental theory of the atonement
Miley’s clarity is commended, because in this case, “the Governmental theory of the Atonement is expounded and advocated with freshness and force.” Since, as Miley himself freely admits, “freedom is fundamental in Arminianism,” therefore, “the [Arminian] system holds accordingly the universality of the atonement and provisory nature of the atonement, and the conditionality of salvation.” The problem which Miley faces, according to Warfield, is “to find a doctrine of atonement comfortable to the Arminian fundamentum, which Dr. Miley does not hesitate to locate in its psychology of the will.” Dr. Miley, being the capable theologian that he is, again follows this Arminian fundamentum through to its logical conclusion. To demonstrate this, Warfield cites Miley’s contention that “
the cardinal doctrines of the Wesleyan Soteriology' are—that the atonement is only provisory in its character, rendering men savable, but not necessarily saving them'; and that salvation is conditional in the sense of a real Synergism (p. 169).”
Warfield contends that there is no necessity in Miley’s scheme for the death of Jesus
When the logic of Miley’s conception of the atonement is set forth, there can only be one conclusion in Warfield’s mind. “If it be
safe' to forgive sin on the ground of asubstitute for penalty,' it would seem just as `safe' to make a sincere personal repentance that substitute as to make the suffering of an alien such substitute.” Warfield concludes: “Dr. Miley’s argument seems to us to issue in setting aside all real necessity for atonement.” Warfield notes that in Miley’s Methodist system, “forgiveness itself remains an act of pure grace,” therefore, there is no need for atonement in the first place, and the question is raised as to why Christ suffered at all. Why did the Son of God have to die if some other possible means of dealing with sin, such as personal repentance, could serve as a legitimate method of remitting the penalty due us as sinners?
To read the essay on its entirety, click here: Warfield's Review of John Miley's Systematic Theology
It was Martin Luther who once stated that the doctrine of justification is the article by which Christ’s church stands or falls. Luther was absolutely correct about this. If we do not understand how it is that we as sinners are made right before a holy God, we may misunderstand the gospel and therefore risk standing before God on the day of judgment expecting that our own righteousness will be sufficient. But we will also miss out on the wonderful comfort which this doctrine provides. As justified sinners, our sin has been reckoned to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness has been reckoned to us. We now possess the greatest gift imaginable, a conscience free from fear, dread, and terror. The knowledge that our sins are forgiven and that God is as pleased with us every bit as much as he is with his own dear Son, not only quiets our conscience and creates a sense of joy and well-being, but it also provides powerful motivation to live a life of gratitude before God. What is more, understanding this doctrine is the only way we will be able to give all glory and thanks to God, which is the ultimate goal of our justification.
Article Twenty-Three of our Confession summarizes the biblical teaching regarding the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. Article Twenty-Two deals with the nature of faith, point out that justification occurs when the saving merits of Jesus Christ become ours through the means of faith. These merits, which are the ground (or basis) of our justification, are based upon Christ’s active obedience; his perfect obedience to the law of God, as well as his passive obedience, in his voluntarily laying down his life for our sins.
To read the rest, An Exposition of Article Twenty-Three of the Belgic Confession: “Freeing our Consciences from Fear, Dread, and Terror"
Reflections on the Book of Job (12)
The Ordeal Is Blessedly Over!
The Book of Job is known for its wonderful ending. Job’s good name, his wealth, and his family are at long last restored to him. The suffering prophet has endured an intense and terrible period of suffering without cursing God, nor blaming God for his troubles. Satan has been proven wrong and his attack upon the righteous ways of God has utterly failed.
Although Job is a justified sinner, he stands as YHWH’s blameless and upright servant. Job is not the self-centered opportunist who obeyed God only so that he would prosper, as Satan falsely charged. Once everything Job had was taken away, Job still refused to curse God to his face, as Satan predicted. Having successfully graduated from the school of suffering and then personally instructed by YHWH in the nature of true wisdom, Job’s ordeal comes to an end. The Lord restores to Job all the things he has lost, and then some. God is faithful to his covenant promises, his ways are proven righteous and just, and in his word alone is true wisdom to be found.
When we come to the conclusion of the Book of Job, there is much to consider. In an act of grace and condescension, God spoke to Job from the midst of the storm. Job was sick and suffering from sores all over his body. Job was thinking he was about to die, and nearly crossed the line when he demanded that YHWH issue a written indictment against him. Yet, God did not come to Job in judgment, nor confront him with a list of his sins. In fact, God did not answer any of Job’s specific questions about why all of this had come to pass. Nor did God deal with Job as Job demanded.
After the Lord appeared to Job from the midst of the storm and spoke to him about the nature of true wisdom which could be seen in all that God had made, Job knows that everything will be okay. He is reassured. He knows that his Creator-Redeemer is not angry with him, although Job complained of being abandoned. Throughout the dialogue with his friends, Job even wondered out loud whether God was being just with him. But the appearance of God to Job in the storm is actually an act of grace and brings Job’s ordeal to a blessed end.
Job’s Dramatic Change in Perspective
Job was on the receiving end of sincere but cruel counsel from his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, who accused Job of having sinned, because they completely misunderstood the principle of divine retribution. In their minds, a simple syllogism explains Job’s troubles. God must punish all sin (true). Job is suffering horribly (true). Therefore, Job must have sinned (false). Since it is self-evident that the righteous suffer and that the wicked prosper, Job was easily able to silence his three friends whose faulty understanding of God’s justice prevented them from seeing the obvious. Yes, God must punish all sins, but not necessarily in this life. Despite the loss of everything including his good name, and despite his horrible physical condition, his fever and his open sores, Job refused to curse God.
Yet the heated and intense dialogue between Job and his friends brought about a dramatic change in Job. While well within his rights to defend his honor against the cruel and false charges of his three friends that he had committed a whole list of secret sins, Job slowly but surely lost perspective on his own situation–a difficulty that all sufferers face as sickness, fever, and lack of strength can rob them of their endurance and their clarity of mind. Job now feared that God had abandoned him or was treating him unjustly. The efforts of his friends to “comfort” him, only made everything worse. But knowing that he had done nothing to bring about the covenant curses–as his friends falsely charged–Job became increasing demanding as he sought to be vindicated from this falsehood. By the time we come to Job’s final speech in chapters 29-31, he is demanding that God answer him on Job’s own terms and that he be treated like a prince. Job nearly crossed the line.
But before Job goes too far, Elihu, a young man who has been listening to the debate from the beginning, jumped into the fray. While reminding Job’s three friends of how completely they have failed in their attempts to deal with Job’s situation, more importantly Elihu’s speech points out to Job that he has gone too far in seeking to justify himself, rather than God. Elihu’s speech is the means by which the way is prepared for the Lord to speak to Job from the midst of the whirlwind. It is Elihu, speaking as a prophet, who reminds Job and his friends that true wisdom does not necessarily come from advanced age, personal experience, or even observation, but must be revealed to us by God. This is exactly what happens beginning in Job 38.
When the Lord speaks to Job as recorded in chapters 38-41, it is Job who is twice challenged to brace himself like a man. This is an athletic image drawn from the ancient world in which the goal is to best one’s opponent by removing their belt or else subduing them with it. Not surprisingly, it is Job who is quickly subdued and who loses the contest with his Creator-Redeemer over the nature of true wisdom. Speaking as the interpreter of his own work of creation, YHWH reminds Job that his wisdom is openly displayed in the heavens, on the earth, and in the creatures who populate both. It is God who hangs the stars in space. It is God who separates the day from the night. It is God who controls the seas and directs the storms. It is God who sends forth lightening, snow, and rain. How can Job demand anything from God? Why would Job seek to justify himself rather than God? Job’s suffering does not give him the right to question God’s justice.
But when Job is finally confronted with the greatness of God, two things change dramatically. On the one hand, Job is immediately and completely humbled. Job has gone from demanding to be treated like a prince to repenting in dust and ashes. Yet, Job is not consumed by God’s holiness. Nor does God belittle Job, or mock him. But God does put Job in his place. No one can be said to possess true wisdom unless they understand the distinction between the creature and the Creator! Once God speaks to Job from the midst of the storm, the Creator-creature distinction is something which Job now understands! When God speaks, Job must listen. Here is the wisdom Job has been seeking all along. Unlike Job, God is neither bound by time or space, nor are his ways subject to human approval. Our God does whatever pleases him (Psalm 115:3). His ways are always holy, righteous, and good, even if we do not understand or even like them.
On the other hand, the very fact that God condescended to speak to Job, immediately puts Job’s suffering into its proper perspective. Job is not being punished because of some particular sin he has committed. At no time does God ever reveal to Job the reason why he is suffering. YHWH does not answer Job’s list of questions and demands. God’s ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. No one can fathom him. But when Job is directed to the holiness and justice of God as seen in the glories of the natural order, Job realizes that such questions are futile and that God has been with him throughout the entire ordeal. God has not abandoned him. It was sinful of Job to even think such a thing. And this despite the fact that God never once answers any of Job’s specific questions, nor gives Job any explanation whatsoever as to why he is suffering. Once God speaks to Job, none of that even matters. For having gained true wisdom, Job knows that God is good and that all his ways are just. Who is he to question God?
Satan Fails
As we come to the end of Job’s ordeal, we need to notice Job’s reaction to God’s appearance. Job is painfully aware of his great sinfulness. We read in Job 42:1-6: “Then Job answered the Lord and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” No longer will Job seek to justify himself, rather than God. Only God can vindicate his ways since God alone is without sin. At the end of the day, there is nothing left for Job to say. All Job can do once he realizes the greatness of his sins is to despise himself and repent.
In the specific terms of the trial by ordeal–in which Satan had contended that once stripped of all of his wealth, his family, and his health, Job would curse God to his face–Job has done nothing wrong to bring about his suffering and the loss of all of his possessions. But Job has become increasingly defiant as he seeks his own vindication before his friends. But who is Job to question YHWH? Who is Job to demand anything from God, especially when God in his grace, has condescended to speak to Job reminding Job that he has never left his side? And all of this occurs, we must remember, before Job had actually been restored. Surely, this is intended to remind us that Job is a justified sinner who believes in the God of the promise, and who as a fruit of his faith, is the blameless and upright servant of the Lord, about whom it can be truly said that there is no one else like him on the earth. Most importantly, it means Job has now prevailed in the trial by ordeal. Job’s ordeal is now over!
When Job repents of his sins the dialogue is now complete, and it is in the epilogue (Job 42:7-17) that we finally learn the outcome of the story when Job receives the vindication he has been seeking all along. God will restore his good name among his friends and by implication, to the citizens of Uz.
Job Is Vindicated! Now His Friends Must Repent!
As we read the amazing account of Job’s vindication and restoration, we ought notice the fact that this process takes place in the reverse order from which these things were originally lost.[1] The first thing restored to Job is his good name and his reputation among his friends. It is only after Job’s good name and reputation is regained, that his family and wealth are restored to him as well. In fact, we almost want to cheer when we read the words of verse 7, “after the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” Job has spoken correctly about God. He did not blame God for his trial. This also means that Job’s friends are finally confronted with their cruel and thoughtless behavior toward their suffering friend. Despite their folly, they never once entertain the thought that they might be wrong about God’s justice and therefore, needed to repent–God is gracious to them as well as to Job.[2] They too will be forgiven.
When Job confesses his sins and performs this humble act of repentance, it appears as though he is finally doing what his friends told him to do all along, confess his sins so that God can restore him. But Job is not repenting of sins which he did not commit. Rather, Job is repenting of those sins that he did commit once the ordeal began, namely those sins associated with trying to justify himself rather than God. At the end of the story, the verdict is clear. Job’s three friends had spoken incorrectly and accused Job of things he did not do. They too need to repent in order to be restored.
God’s gracious remedy to this matter is now spelled out in verse 8. “Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” Remarkably, Job serves as mediator on behalf of his three friends, by making a burnt offering sufficient to cover the guilt of all their sins. By acting as mediator for his friends, God will effect reconciliation. Job will not only be able to forgive his friends for what they have done, but he is vindicated in their eyes as well so that the friendship can be restored. When Job is chosen to be the one to pray for them another principle of redemptive history is brought out into the open.
Since Job is chosen to offer the sacrifice on their behalf, he is not only vindicated in the eyes of his friends, but YHWH pointedly calls Job “my servant.” This is covenantal language and confirms that Job’s victory over Satan in the trial by ordeal is finalized.[3] Through the burnt offerings, YHWH is reconciled to sinners, sinners are reconciled to YHWH, and the four sinners (Job and his three friends) are now reconciled to each other. The foundation of the gospel is still intact. God is both just and righteous in all his dealings with his creatures, despite all of the scheming of Satan to undermine the gospel through his attack upon God’s righteous servant, Job. Job has been vindicated by God. God has vindicated himself. Satan is shown to be a liar, who hates all righteous servants of the Lord.
While Job did not serve God so that he might prosper materially as Satan had charged, nevertheless, God’s creation is good, and the blessing promised to God’s people that the meek might inherit the earth comes to full flower in the life of Job.[4]
As the story comes to an end, Job is still clothed in dirt and ashes. He is still sick and has nothing left of his great wealth and happiness. But all of that is about to change. While we have learned throughout the Book of Job that there is no direct connection whatsoever between someone’s piety and their corresponding prosperity, nevertheless, God rewards Job for his faithfulness. God does this not because Job deserves anything from the hand of God–Job is and remains a justified sinner–but because God is gracious to his servant and because God always keeps his word.
Job’s Fortunes Are Restored
The final turning point in the story now comes in verse 10, when we read that “the Lord restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.” It is only when Job assumes his mediatorial office on behalf of his friends, that restoration finally comes. More importantly, we are pointed ahead in redemptive history to the coming messianic age and God’s promise that his people will receive a double blessing (Isaiah 61:7).[5] At this early point in redemptive history, the material blessings given to Job are a type and shadow of heavenly blessings which are so much greater that we have difficulty even conceiving of them. We can understand what it means to own great tracts of land, large herds of cattle, much gold and silver. But this side of the dawn of the age to come we cannot begin to comprehend the heavenly blessings which await God’s people in heaven. Material blessings in this life are intended to illustrate spiritual blessings which we cannot see in the next.
While Job receives a double portion, pointing us ahead to the spiritual blessings of the messianic age, we must be clear that the material blessings given him are not an end in themselves. This is what Satan mistakenly thought. These material blessings should point us ahead to something far greater. Job’s restoration is important because it serves as both his public vindication and as a powerful reminder that God keeps his promises. Job’s restoration cannot match the heavenly inheritance all of God’s people will receive–an inheritance, the very thought of which fills us with inexpressible and glorious joy. The restoration of Job’s great wealth, points Job (as well as all of us who read his story) ahead to our heavenly inheritance.
But Job’s restoration is important in its own right and is described for us in verses 11-17. As the story comes to an end, we read, “then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.” The restoration of Job’s relationships with extended family and life-long friends is the sure sign that Job has been vindicated and that his good name has been restored to him. His reputation now is as least as great as it was before his ordeal began.
But no restoration would be complete without Job receiving the consolation and comfort from all his friends. The gifts which are given to Job probably indicate a recognition of the honor due to him, once people learned that his ordeal did not stem from some secret sin. And while nothing is said of Job’s healing, we do read that his friends and families now comforted him, indicating that a time of healing and convalescence began in earnest.
The double portion promised to God’s people can be seen beginning in verse 12. “And the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys.” This, of course, stands in contrast to the seven thousand sheep, the three thousand camels and the five hundred oxen and donkeys that Job had before this horrible trial by ordeal suddenly came upon him. It is safe to assume that Job sees his wealth with a new and even greater appreciation.
The same glorious restoration held true for Job’s family. “He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first daughter Jemimah, and the name of the second Keziah, and the name of the third Keren-happuch. And in all the land there were no women so beautiful as Job’s daughters. And their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers.” That Job’s daughters are named while his sons are not, may be a result of the fact that Job’s daughters share in the inheritance of their brothers, a remarkable thing given the attitude toward women throughout the ancient world.[6] This implies that Job’s family life was at least as happy afterwards as it was before his children were taken from him. Job also has renewed hope that his deceased children are members of the covenant and will be raised with him at the end of the age.[7] Job has boldly confessed his belief in a bodily resurrection at the end of the age and in the fact that the Redeemer himself would stand upon the earth (Job 19.25-27).
I Know My Redeemer Lives
The fact that Job lived such a long and full life after having suffered so much is clearly a sign that he probably lived during the age of the patriarchs, when long life was characteristic of men of faith.[8] God pours out his gifts on Job as gestures of God’s amazing grace, not as a reward for certain virtues manifest in the life of Job.[9] All of this is done out in the open so that his vindication and reconciliation to God are not hidden.
The Book of Job ends with these wonderful words, “And after this Job lived 140 years, and saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, four generations. And Job died, an old man, and full of days.” The best response any one can give to this declaration comes from Job himself–“blessed be the name of the Lord.” Job is now in the presence of his Creator-Redeemer awaiting the day of resurrection when, with his own eyes, he will see his blessed redeemer face to face.
________________________________
[1] Kline, Job, 489.
[2] Andersen, Job, 293.
[3] Kline, Job, 489.
[4] Kline, Job, 489.
[5] Both Kline and Andersen agree that it is not Job’s repentance which begins the restoration, but the assumption of his role as mediator.
[6] Andersen, Job, 294.
[7] Kline, Job, 489-490.
[8] Kline, Job, 89-490.
[9] Andersen, Job, 294.
- So, will Vlad the Invader use nukes? What is current Russian military doctrine regarding the use of tactical nuclear and chemical weapons on the battlefield? There is an informative (if disconcerting) discussion of Russian doctrine in episode 21 of the School of War Podcast. This one is highly recommended, especially as the tides of war seem to be shifting in Ukraine’s favor. The more Vlad the Invader is backed into a corner, the more this becomes an issue.
- Another installment of Dr. Godfrey’s great series. Dr. W Robert Godfrey: " What is Going on Right Now?" (11)
- Arians beware! Here’s a helpful look at the doctrine of eternal generation: Scott Swain on John 8 and the Eternal Generation of the Son
- The prophecy pundits are back! To all who think (and preach) that Vlad the Invader’s attack upon Ukraine is predicted in biblical prophecy, here’s a nice rebuttal. Jesus did predict wars and rumors of wars as a characteristic of the inter-advental age, but many have got the whole “Gog” thing wrong (More End Times Fiction)
- Here’s yet another reason why a proper distinction between law and gospel helps us to understand all the Bible. Scott Clark on Luke 18:18-30 and the Rich Young Ruler
- A basic primer on why (and how) to read the Old Testament: Harrison Perkins on Why We Should Read the Old Testament
- Vlad the Invader’s Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, may get the left foot of fellowship from the rest of the Orthodox world: Russian Orthodox Patrarich Kirill -- "No Prayers for You!”
- I’m very much looking forward to this one: Geerhardus Vos' Lectures on Natural Theology
- I’m absolutely thrilled baseball is back and that most of the goofy rule changes from 2019-2021 are gone. Play ball!
- I am no fan of Woodrow Wilson. Neither is the National Review’s Dan McLaughlin. One gripe I have with Wilson is his “I’m here to show you how it is done” smugness in the days of promulgating the Treaty of Versailles. But it is his comment that it was his job as president of Princeton and his prime role as an educator to make boys as much unlike their fathers as is humanly possible, which angers me most. I would add his tacit racism, openness to eugenics, and his championing of segregation as good reasons why I would place him near the bottom of a ranking of American presidents. And don’t forget how progressives (like Wilson) love “experts.” The Hater's Guide to Woodrow Wilson
Uncanny resemblance. . .
B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) was professor of polemical and didactic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. The Lion of Princeton published 781 book reviews over his long and exceedingly productive career. Simply an astonishing accomplishment.
Warfield's review of the German born Lutheran theologian, C. F. W. Walther's book, Gesetz und Evangelium (Law and Gospel) appeared in1894. The book was first published by Concordia in 1893, and Warfield gave it a brief review the following year. Walther's book remains in print and can be found here: C. F. W. Walther on Law and Gospel.
Warfield describes the format behind Walther's book, noting that Walther had given a series of lectures on Friday evenings to theological students. These lectures were then transcribed into thirty-nine chapters, corresponding to Walther's lectures with each centering around a particular thesis, then discussed in detail. Warfield clearly appreciates the content produced in “freer” interaction with such a "live" audience.
Besides his academic lectures, Dr. Walther was, it seems, accustomed to give to the whole body of students, assembled usually on a Friday evening, series of freer talks on theological and practical topics. Among these was a course of twenty-two talks on “Inspiration;” one of twenty-two talks on “The Truth of the Christian Religion;” one of forty-nine talks on “Justification;” one of sixty-two talks on “Election and Justification;” and (among still others) two courses, one of ten and the other of thirty-nine talks, on “The Law and the Gospel.” The Introduction to each talk, the citations used in it, and the plan of treatment, exist in Dr. Walther’s own hand; for the rest full stenographic notes of his students are available. From this material, it is proposed to publish the whole of them in due time; and the present book, which contains the shorter course on “The Law and the Gospel,” makes the beginning.
Warfield also appreciates the clarity found in Dr. Walther's exposition of confessional Lutheran doctrine, along with the importance of the getting the distinction between law and gospel right.
Like all that Dr. Walther wrote, these talks are characterized by accuracy of statement, thoroughness of theological knowledge, and entire devotion to confessional Lutheranism; and they have in addition much of the fire and freedom of the extemporary address. The thirteen theses [note: the current edition lists twenty-five theses] on which they are based recognize the importance and difficulty of rightly distinguishing between the law and the gospel; and point out some prevalent modes of conception by which the distinction is confused.
Warfield notes Walther's usefulness in discussing how law and gospel are often confused along with the serious consequences which result when they are. He agrees with Walther in that confusing them leads to a number of errors, especially when the gospel is understood or presented in the form of an imperative--as though the gospel is something we do, not truth we embrace through faith (Jesus Christ's saving work and merits).
For example, the confusion between law and gospel, made by papists, Socinians and rationalists, in making the gospel itself a doctrine of works, is deservedly scored; men are warned not to mix the gospel with the law, or the law with the gospel, but to preach the law in its full strictness, and the gospel in its full sweetness; they are warned not to reverse their places, but to preach the law first and the gospel second; not to tell the awakened sinner to work out a peace for himself before he comes to the gospel, and the like.
Warfield wholeheartedly agrees with Dr. Walther on this and obviously sees his Lutheran counter-part as a sort of theological first cousin. Yet, the Reformed understanding of law and gospel which are better understood as a subset of traditional Reformed covenant theology, and along with maintaining the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (which Walther rejects in this volume) reminds us that significant differences do remain between the confessional Reformed and our confessional Lutheran first cousins.
Warfield very much likes the spirit of Walther's work, yet issues a mild word of caution to Reformed and Presbyterian readers.
In theses and treatment alike the strictest Lutheranism reigns, and Calvinists will find something to modify; but through all, the spirit of the man of God throbs. We hope the other series of talks will be speedily published; and we venture to express the wish that the series on “Inspiration” may be next given to us; the times demand it.
Warfield, who, like Walther, was fighting against the rising tide of German higher criticism in the churches and seminaries, eagerly awaits Walther's contribution to the battle. On challenges to the inspiration of Scripture, Warfield and Walther can stand shoulder to shoulder.
Warfield's review can be found in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5, no. 17–20 (1894). Here’s the original review, Warfield's Review of CFW Walther on Law and Gospel (ht. Andrew Compton)
Many evangelical Christians understand the biblical teaching that we are saved by grace through faith and that we are not saved by our good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). And yet, many of these same Christians think of faith as that one thing God requires of us so that we might be saved. Faith is something which God sees in us and which he is compelled to reward. But properly understood, faith is not a work we perform. Faith receives what God freely offers. And what does God freely offer to sinners? He offers us the merits of Jesus Christ, which are more than enough to justify even the worst of sinner (1 Timothy 1:15).
We move to another section of our confession, (Articles Twenty-Two through Twenty Four) which deal with the application of Christ’s saving work to the individual believer. These three articles address subjects which are very familiar to many of us: faith, justification, and sanctification. These subjects are familiar to us because they lie at the very heart of the gospel. They are also familiar because many of us have had to wrestle with these doctrines in our own journey to the Reformed faith. Not only does the Reformed understanding of these doctrines amount to a repudiation of the Roman Catholic understanding of justification as a process (which was the major issue at the time our confession was written in 1561), but the Reformed understanding of these doctrines often differs significantly from the way in which many evangelicals understand them as well.
As you probably know, the Protestant Reformation largely centered upon the question of how sinners are reconciled to the holy God. At the time of the Reformation, the Roman church understood faith as essentially mental assent to the doctrines taught by the church. According to Rome, when enabled and energized by the grace received through the sacraments, this mental assent to the truth became a “formed faith” which produced genuinely good works. Some of these works are of such a nature that God must reward them as a matter of justice (condign merit), while there are other works which God chooses to reward because he is gracious and decides to reward them (congruent merit).
To read the rest, "Jesus Christ Is Our Righteousness"
Reflections on the Book of Job (11)
Job in YHWH’s School of Wisdom
YHWH’s examination now takes the student (Job) beyond matters of day and night, to matters of weather and the heavenly bodies (the first part of chapter 38). It is self-evident to Job that God rules over heaven and earth, because he has created them. Yet Job, a mere creature, has no control over the world in which he lives. YHWH’s examination of his suffering prophet continues, for there is still much for Job yet to learn. YHWH continues his examination of Job as the ordeal challenge continues. Beginning in verse 22 of Job 38, the Lord asks of Job,
“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth? “Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt, to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man, to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass? “Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven? The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth? “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you? Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’? Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind? Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together?
No, Job cannot issue commands to the lightening in the storm. No, Job did not hang the constellations in space. Yet, the lightening coming from the storm is the Lord’s servant. The Lord spoke and the constellations came into being. Job is firmly put in his place–he is a creature, a sinful one at that.
YHWH’s Examination of Job Continues
At the end of chapter 38 and continuing on throughout chapter 39, the focus of YHWH’s exam shifts to the animal kingdom. Job is reminded that he is unable to govern or rule the creatures God has made. While humanity was given dominion over the animals in Eden, this dominion was severely compromised after the fall of the human race into sin. Job cannot possibly know the full and wondrous extent of animal activity, nor can he control the ways of creatures. Job has neither set their boundaries nor established their domains. In Job 38:39 and following, YHWH asks his student,
“Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food? (Job 39:1) “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you observe the calving of the does? Can you number the months that they fulfill, and do you know the time when they give birth, when they crouch, bring forth their offspring, and are delivered of their young? Their young ones become strong; they grow up in the open; they go out and do not return to them. “Who has let the wild donkey go free? Who has loosed the bonds of the swift donkey, to whom I have given the arid plain for his home and the salt land for his dwelling place? He scorns the tumult of the city; he hears not the shouts of the driver. He ranges the mountains as his pasture, and he searches after every green thing. “Is the wild ox willing to serve you? Will he spend the night at your manger? Can you bind him in the furrow with ropes, or will he harrow the valleys after you? Will you depend on him because his strength is great, and will you leave to him your labor? Do you have faith in him that he will return your grain and gather it to your threshing floor?
Job can control none of the creatures. Yet, God ordains their every move. Much less can Job control the birds of the air (Job 39:13-30) as in the following challenge put to Job,
“The wings of the ostrich wave proudly, but are they the pinions and plumage of love? For she leaves her eggs to the earth and lets them be warmed on the ground, forgetting that a foot may crush them and that the wild beast may trample them. She deals cruelly with her young, as if they were not hers; though her labor be in vain, yet she has no fear, because God has made her forget wisdom and given her no share in understanding. When she rouses herself to flee, she laughs at the horse and his rider. “Do you give the horse his might? Do you clothe his neck with a mane? Do you make him leap like the locust? His majestic snorting is terrifying. He paws in the valley and exults in his strength; he goes out to meet the weapons. He laughs at fear and is not dismayed; he does not turn back from the sword. Upon him rattle the quiver, the flashing spear, and the javelin. With fierceness and rage he swallows the ground; he cannot stand still at the sound of the trumpet. When the trumpet sounds, he says ‘Aha!’ He smells the battle from afar, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting. “Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars and spreads his wings toward the south? Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up and makes his nest on high? On the rock he dwells and makes his home, on the rocky crag and stronghold. From there he spies out the prey; his eyes behold it from far away. His young ones suck up blood, and where the slain are, there is he.”
Round One Of Job’s Ordeal Is Over – And Job Doesn’t Win
The first “fall” in the belt wrestling ordeal has been decided. The time has come for Job to admit defeat. In verses 1-2 of Job 40, “And the Lord said to Job: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” Job has no choice but to cry “uncle.” His wisdom is no match for the wisdom of God.
In what follows (verses 3-5), we find that Job will no longer dispute with God as he had done previously in the latter stages of the dialogue with his friends. Nor will Job demand to approach God as a prince, as he had done in the closing words of his final speech. The reality has set in. Job has lost the contest. He is humbled, but he is also assured. We read, “Then Job answered the Lord and said: “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further.”
But Job has not yet learned all that he needs to learn. He has lost the first fall in the belt-ordeal, but the match (which apparently includes two falls, not one) is not over. There is more to learn. Job is ordered to take up the challenge again, to put his belt back on, and to go one more round with YHWH. Job’s initial submission to YHWH is the beginning of true repentance, and Job must fully recognize the unreasonableness and the sinfulness of criticizing his Creator.[1]
Round Two of The Ordeal Challenge Begins
In verses 6-7, the challenge is renewed. “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me” We can only imagine Job’s reaction to the news that the contest is not yet over. Throughout the opening verses of chapter 40, the focus falls upon God’s sovereign work in redemption, often depicted throughout the Old Testament as YHWH’s outstretched hand. Job has no reason to complain about how God does things. Yet, Job’s increasingly self-centered demand to be vindicated amounts to a kind of self-deification, the inevitable result of human sinfulness.[2] Because of human sin, God’s purposes, which are always good and true, even when we cannot see nor understand why things unfold as they do, somehow become subservient to the desires of sinful humans. This is Job’s great failure and exposes his lack of wisdom. As the next round opens (in verses 8-14), YHWH challenges Job yet again.
Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? “Adorn yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor. Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on everyone who is proud and abase him. Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then will I also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can save you.
If Job can do what God can do, then the Lord will worship him! Elihu was right. Job has sought to justify himself rather than God. No, only God can justify himself, because only God is without sin. Job, the sinner, has no right to question the holy God.
YHWH’s second challenge now moves in a different direction. How would Job fare against feared members of the animal kingdom? Beginning in verse 15, YHWH asks Job,
“Behold, Behemoth [the Hippo], which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. “He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh. For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. Can one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?
Job has no chance in a belt wrestling contest against the mighty Hippo. It was common in the ancient world to depict animals in such contests with humans, yet YHWH controls every move made by his creatures.[3]
The same holds true for Leviathan, probably the feared crocodile. In Job 41:1 and following, Job is asked,
“Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering. No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me”
The crocodile was feared in Job’s day. Yet even the crocodile does the will of YHWH. But Job dare not attempt to lay his hand on one.
“I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form. Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle? Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together; each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth. Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him. The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable. His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing. The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him. A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance. His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair. Nothing on earth is his equal-a creature without fear. He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud.”
The Light of Wisdom Begins to Dawn
In Job 40:8, YHWH asked Job, “Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?” It has become clear that God’s mighty power and glorious works point Job beyond God’s works to God himself. God alone is good. His perfect righteousness is displayed in the heavens, on the earth, and in his creatures. If God can do all of this and more, and since Job is a man bound by time and space and also guilty for his own sins as well as Adam’s, then even through the fog of suffering, surely Job can begin to see the obvious. Job has no right to question the Almighty or his ways. Once he understands this to be the case, we can say that Job has begun to grasp true wisdom. And true wisdom tells Job that God is just in all his ways–even when Job does not understand, nor necessarily like, the things that God is doing. The God who created and sustains all things is surely as mysterious to us as he was to Job. And yet, from the consideration of his works, we know that he is good.
Job’s reply to YHWH’s second challenge is quite the opposite of his heartfelt lament of chapter 3. Having gained the wisdom he needed, Job freely acknowledges his sins in going too far in his effort to justify himself, rather that giving glory and honor to God, no matter what his circumstances.
Job’s Haughtiness is Gone
What makes the words of Job 42:1-6 all the more amazing is that Job is still suffering and has not yet received the explanation for the nature of his trial by ordeal! God has not given Job the answer to his question “why?” which Job was certainly expecting. The answer we are given is that God’s ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not ours. Do we hang constellations into space? Do we control the earth’s creatures? To people without faith in Jesus Christ, this is not an answer. Not remotely so. But to believers who know that Christ died for their sins and was raised for their justification, this is the perfect answer! If the righteous one suffered to save us from our sins, then who are we to question God, or to act as though God knows nothing of our pain? Jesus Christ is the man of sorrows! He is like us in every way, yet without sin.
As a man who trusted in the God of the promise, Job shows himself to be everything the Lord has said of him. He is upright and blameless. Job is a justified sinner, and a faithful servant of the covenant. Despite having lost everything, and after going through such horrible suffering, Job still refuses to curse God, and now, having gained true wisdom and being assured of God’s favor, Job humbly repents of his sins in sack-cloth and ashes.
God has been present with Job throughout his entire ordeal. Once God spoke to him from the storm, Job knows this to be true. He should have never doubted it, nor demanded his own vindication, even though he had the legal right to do so. Job knows that nothing can “thwart” God’s will. Job did not know of what he spoke. Now he has learned sufficient wisdom to keep silent. There is nothing left for him to say. God appeared to Job from the whirlwind and reminded his suffering prophet of the wisdom of all God’s ways. All of this has been too wonderful for Job to grasp. He knows that God can do all things, and his ways are always righteous. There is only one proper response in faith. “I despise myself. I repent in dust and ashes.”
It is a fact of Scripture that there is no way that a true believer can encounter the living God without being undone by the guilt of their sin. At no time did God ever tell Job why he suffered. Yet Job has his answer. When God appears to Job from the midst of the storm, Job knows that God is with him, and he is for Job, and that is enough.[4] As Job repents and despises his own actions, God is preparing to restore him beyond Job’s wildest expectations. As the reader of Job is soon to learn, God always keeps his promises. Job’s story, just as ours, must have a happy ending! Why? Because of Christ’s cross and the empty tomb tells us so!
The Lord has taken away, but the Lord will surely restore! Blessed be the name of the Lord!
To read the first in this series: Job: The Suffering Prophet (1)
_________________________________________
[1] Kline, Job, 487.
[2] Kline, Job, 488.
[3] Kline, Job, 488.
[4] Kline, Job, 489.
“The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger” Is Now Available on the Following Podcast Apps:Apple Podcasts: The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger
Buzzsprout: The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger
Spotify: The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger
Google Podcasts: The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger
Amazon Music: The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger
Stitcher: The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger
RSS Feed (for use in any podcast service): RSS Feed for "The Blessed Hope Podcast with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger"
Please give the “Blessed Hope” a listen, and if you like it, or think it valuable, tell a friend and leave a good rating and/or comment.
Here’s the scoop on an important new book, with Michael Horton as a main contributor: Covenental and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture
Here’s the publisher’s blurb:
How does the canon of Scripture fit together? For evangelical Christians, there is no question about the authority of Scripture and its testimony to the centrality of Jesus Christ in God's salvation plan. But several questions remain: How do the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each other? What is the relationship among the biblical covenants? How should Christians read and interpret Scripture in order to do justice to both its individual parts and its whole message? How does Israel relate to the church? In this volume in IVP Academic's Spectrum series, readers will find four contributors who explore these complex questions. The contributors each make a case for their own view―representing two versions of covenantal theology and two versions of dispensational theology―and then respond to the others' views to offer an animated yet irenic discussion on the continuity of Scripture.
Views and Contributors:
- Covenant Theology: Michael S. Horton, Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California
- Progressive Covenantalism: Stephen J. Wellum, professor of Christian theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
- Progressive Dispensationalism: Darrell L. Bock, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
- Traditional Dispensationalism: Mark A. Snoeberger, professor of systematic theology and apologetics, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
Here are the recommendations:
"None of us interprets the biblical text in a vacuum. Those who say they interpret the Bible without bringing any theology to the text are mistaken; they are simply unaware of the theology they hold. This work on covenant and dispensational systems helps us to see larger frameworks that are operating when we read the biblical text. We are challenged by this fascinating book to examine the Scriptures to see what is really so (Acts 17:11). We want to be faithful in proclaiming the whole plan of God (Acts 20:27), and grappling with the different views presented in this book will sharpen us all to be more faithful."
-- Tom Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
"In a day when the air is thick with antagonistic discourse in the broader culture and the church, Brent Parker and Richard Lucas have provided a much-needed breath of fresh air. Despite the differences between covenantal and dispensational theologies, the contributors dialogue and debate over their differences with charity, clarity, and candor. Anyone who wants a better understanding of the various covenantal positions will greatly benefit from this volume. Not only will readers sharpen their understanding of Scripture, they will also learn how to shine light rather than heat into areas of disagreement."
-- J. V. Fesko, Harriet Barbour Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary
"In an age of social media caricaturing and name-calling, this book represents a more mature, constructive dialogue in place of the shrill voices of modern-day 'meme theology.' With straightforward presentations of their views and respectful critiques of other positions, Horton, Wellum, Bock, and Snoeberger rise above tribalistic lambasting. The result is a helpful handbook on differing perspectives as well as an update on the state of the discussion between covenantal and dispensational theologies. Don't let twisted tweets and malicious memes reduce this important conversation to a destructive, fruitless conflict. Give ear to these experts who provide stimulating arguments and irenic rejoinders, demonstrating a zeal for their positions as well as a spirit of grace."
-- Michael J. Svigel, chair and professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminar
"What could be more critical to both biblical and systematic theology than the concept of covenant? And yet, few concepts have proved so controversial in the last century. Divided by rivalry camps, many evangelicals remain confused by a whirlwind of debates over continuity and discontinuity between the testaments. But at last, this book is a beam of clarity. Not only must each theologian put forward his position, but the reader is pressed to decide which position best represents Scripture's relentless witness to God's unfolding plan of salvation. Best of all, this book summons every Christian to wrestle with real consequences today, pressing us all to ask whether our view can substantiate our future hope in a God who keeps his covenant promises. Whether we get the kingdom of God right for the next generation may just depend on debates like this one."
-- Matthew Barrett, associate professor of Christian theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and author of Canon, Covenant and Christology
"Over the last one hundred years, the debate between dispensationalism and covenant theology has often hampered more than helped fellow Bible-believing Christians understand one another or the Scriptures they all uphold as authoritative. This book represents a welcome exception. Each writer makes a cogent case for their respective positions, and the book delivers what the title advertises: four views on covenantal versus dispensational theologies. Still, the framing of all four writers is cordial, respectful, and irenic, without underplaying the differences or the competing biblical and theological rationales that produce those differences. While this book does not exhaust the points needing discussion, it does contribute to and forwards the discussion in a much-needed way."
-- R. Todd Mangum, Clemens Professor of Missional Theology and ThM program director at Missio Seminary
- I grew up during the cold war. I remember duck and cover drills in elementary school. Our teacher told us to stay away from the windows during these drills, because if there was a blast nearby, the glass would shatter and injure us. I grew up hearing the monthly testing of civil defense air raid sirens. There was a small Nike-Ajax missile base just a couple of miles from my house—the missiles pointing skyward for all to see. We knew where the local bomb shelters were and the secret hospitals and emergency bunkers (under shopping centers and county buildings) were not terribly secret. I vividly remember Lyndon Johnson’s famed “Daisy Girl” Political Advertisement, which nuked Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential hopes—one of the most effective television commercials ever run.
I am so very thankful that my wife and I raised our sons without that kind of fear hanging in the air. Apparently, many Europeans in the EU and NATO-allied nations remember those days too, and have decided that Vlad the Invader’s murderous dream to re-incorporate Ukraine into a revived Russian empire cannot stand. In two short weeks, the world has changed. A truly remarkable turn of events. * I’ve read a fair bit about who is to blame for Baseball’s current woes. Jeff Passan has a point—the owners are largely at fault (They Need to Stop Treating Us Like We're Idiots). But the MLBPA is not without blame. I’m no fan of MLB commissioner Rob Manfred, who will forever be in my dog house for all the ridiculous rule changes of 2019-2021. All of that to say, this is the worst possible time to have a very public food fight about gazillion dollar salaries and minor rules tweaking. Whoever is at fault, the optics are terrible—there is a war in Ukraine, high inflation, a covid hangover. Shut up, reach a deal, and play ball. America’s “Pastime” is running out of time. * I found this to be a very helpful explanation of the current geopolitical situation: Paul Miller, professor of international affairs at Georgetown discusses the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin’s mindset, and the possibility of a new cold war. Paul Miller on the Russian Invasion and a New Cold War * One of my new favorite podcasts is School of War. In episode 19, the host (Aaron MacLean) interviews Frank Kagan (of the Critical Threats Project at AEI) about the abysmal performance of the vaunted Russian Army. Fascinating stuff. The School of War Podcast * Monergism is making available as a free e-book download, Dean Davis’ excellent defense of amillennialism: Dean Davis: The High King of Heaven * The debate over the Protestant appropriation of Thomas Aquinas and natural theology is nicely summarized here: Craig Carter Reviews David Haines’ New Book "Natural Theology"
Putin Meets With His Economic Advisors — at an unhinged twenty-five yard distance. Is he afraid of Covid, or being whacked by someone in his cabinet — et tu Brutus?
In a previous post (Putin's Invasion of the Ukraine as a Spiritual Quest ), I noted a line of evidence which suggests that Vladimir Putin (“Vlad the Invader”) considers himself a loyal son of the Russian Orthodox Church, and seems to have the tacit support of that church’s Patriarch. But an archbishop from the break away Ukrainian Orthodox Church has a much different take on Mr. Putin’s spiritual status:
A Ukrainian archbishop and spokesman for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin as the "anti-Christ of our current time" as Russia invades Ukraine.
While Putin appears to be portraying himself as a kind of messianic figure, seeking to reunite the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches (which formally split in 2019), Yevstratiy Zoria put him on the other side of the Christian spectrum.
Bishop Zoria declared bluntly to the BBC,
"Putin is really not messiah, but really anti-Christ of our current time," Yevstratiy Zoria, the spokesman for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, told Harry Farley, religion and ethics producer for the BBC.
"You think he's the anti-Christ of your time?" Farley pressed in an interview broadcast on the BBC's Global News Podcast. "Yes, he is anti-Christ because everything what he does, everything what he do now, is totally against gospel, against God’s law," the spokesman responded.
Meanwhile, Tyler O`Neil, the author of the Foxnews post (Putin Is the Antichrist of the Current Time) came to a very solid conclusion.
While many Western Christians associate Antichrist with the figure from the biblical book of Revelation and look to the Antichrist as a demonic figure who will unite the world in opposition to God, the term "anti-Christ" can also have a much broader meaning, generally referring to a person who opposes Jesus Christ and sets himself up as a false messiah.
The closing line, in many ways, correctly describes Putin’s despotic messianic complex and his long-standing persecution of the people of God.
My friend and colleague (Dr. Scott Clark at The Heidelblog) beat me to it, but Rev. Wes Bredenhof (from the Free Reformed Church in Launceston, Tasmania) has a blog post providing links to two organizations which are providing relief to Christians (and others) in Ukraine: Resources to help the Ukrainian Church.
Also, a number of Reformed and Evangelical Seminaries in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation have issued the following joint statement, Please pray for these dear brothers and their families and for the advance of the gospel!
The Christian Church has been instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Created by the Word of God and directed by the Holy Spirit, the Church confesses one Lord and Savior Jesus, His gospel and law. Therefore, as part of the Church and under the Lordship of Christ, we are called to speak the truth and expose deceit (Eph 4:15; 4:25).
In the light of Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine, we consider it necessary to strongly condemn the open and unjustified aggression aimed at destroying the statehood and independence of Ukraine and based on blatant lies from the lips of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and the country’s top leadership.
We reject Putin’s mythical narrative, which has nothing to do with historical reality, about the alleged artificial creation of the Ukrainian state.
We condemn Putin’s cynical lies about Ukraine’s alleged genocide of the people in the east of the country, lies that Putin uses to satisfy his own geopolitical ambitions, which are clearly contrary to God’s revelation (Deut. 27:17; Prov. 22:28).
We confess the real and unlimited power of God over all countries and continents (Ps 24:1), as well as over all kings and rulers (Prov 21:1), therefore, nothing in all creation can interfere with the fulfillment of the good and perfect will of God. We, together with the first Christians, affirm “Jesus is Lord,” and not Caesar.
We express solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We share the pain of those who have already lost their loved ones. We pray that all of the aggressor’s plans would be thwarted and put to shame. We call on all people of good will around the world to resist the lies and hatred of the aggressor. We call on everyone to petition for a cessation of hostilities and to exert every possible influence on the Russian Federation in order to stop the unmotivated aggression toward Ukraine. We ask you to pray for peace for the people of Ukraine and for courage and wisdom for Christian churches so that they continue to serve those in need.
We pray for our authorities and put our hope in the King of kings and the Lord of lords, who is, and remains, our refuge and our fortress, even in time of war (Ps 46).
Evangelical Reformed Seminary of Ukraine
Baltic Reformed Theological Seminary (Riga, Latvia)
Evening Reformed Seminary (Almaty, Kazakhstan)
Kyiv Theological Seminary
Odessa Theological Seminary
Poltava Theological Seminary
Reformed Theological Seminary of Donetsk (temporarily located in Kyiv)
Reformed Theological Seminary Heidelberg, (Germany)
Seminary in Western Russia (we withhold the name of the seminary)
Seminary in Western Siberia, Russia (we withhold the name of the seminary)
Taurian Christian Institute (Kherson)
Putin kisses icon after receiving the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch
A number of years ago I ran across a fascinating essay claiming that Vladimir Putin was engaged in serious talks with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to restore the church to its former dominance in Russia. Putin openly expressed his willingness to fund new church construction and repair, and work closely with the Patriarch to ban from the Russian state all those forms of Christianity perceived as hostile to Orthodoxy. The JW’s were singled out, but Evangelicals were also targeted as threats because they were engaged in “proselyting” among the orthodox. In exchange for Putin’s money, the Orthodox Patriarch would restore the title “Czar” and grant it to Putin in a grand coronation ceremony to be conducted in the rebuilt orthodox cathedral in Moscow. It sounded far-fetched then, not quite so much now. Since “Vlad the Invader” (I’m happy to grant him a royal title) has moved against Ukraine, I searched long and hard for that essay, but have not been able to find it.
But I did find this recent essay on Putin’s ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill which makes a similar point, and contains a number of fascinating insights about Putin’s motives (Putin's Spiritual Destiny).
On Putin’s professed interest in Kyiv (note: Kyiv is the Ukrainian spelling—Kiev is the Russian name). . .
“The spiritual choice made by St Vladimir still largely determines our affinity today” Putin wrote only last year. “In the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kyev, `let it be the mother of all Russian cities.’”
We, in the West, tend to think about recent events strictly in geo-political terms without possessing sufficient background to the historic connection between the Russian Orthodox church and its relationship to the ancient city of Kyiv. What is now the independent nation of Ukraine was once a significant part of the ancient Russian empire. Since Kyiv was a well-known center of historic orthodoxy and piety, the Lenin-Stalin era sought to erase all historical orthodox ties to the city.
The year is 988. This is the founding, iconic act of Russian Orthodox Christianity. It was from here that Christianity would spread out and merge with the Russian love of the motherland, to create a powerful brew of nationalism and spirituality. In the mythology of 988, it was as if the whole of the Russian people had been baptised. Vladimir [the Rus] was declared a saint. When the Byzantine empire fell, the Russians saw themselves as its natural successor. They were a “third Rome”.
Soviet Communism tried to crush all this — but failed. And in the post-Soviet period, thousands of churches have been built and re-built. Though the West thinks of Christianity as something enfeebled and declining, in the East it is thriving. Back in 2019, Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, boasted that they were building three churches a day. Last year, they opened a Cathedral to the Armed Forces an hour outside Moscow. Religious imagery merges with military glorification. War medals are set in stained glass, reminding visitors of Russian martyrdom. In a large mosaic, more recent victories — including 2014’s “the return of Crimea” — are celebrated. “Blessed are the peacemakers” this is not.
As described in the following, apparently Putin sees himself as destined to recover Kyiv and resurrect the Russian (not Soviet) empire. This explains, in part, Putin’s desire to occupy Kyiv precisely because of its role in Orthodox history and its mystical spirituality. Aside from attempting to divide the NATO alliance (for reasons of self-preservation and personal advantage), Putin also sees himself as the defender of Christendom, although he’s willing to use brutal military power and subjugation of millions of Georgians and Ukrainians to do so.
The Baptism of Rus is the founding event of the formation of the Russian religious psyche, the Russian Orthodox church traces its origins back here. That’s why Putin is not so much interested in a few Russian-leaning districts to the east of Ukraine. His goal, terrifyingly, is Kyev itself.
[Putin] was born in Leningrad — a city that has reclaimed its original saint’s name — to a devout Christian mother and atheist father. His mother baptised him in secret, and he still wears his baptismal cross. Since he became President, Putin has cast himself as the true defender of Christians throughout the world, the leader of the Third Rome. His relentless bombing of ISIS, for example, was cast as the defence of the historic homeland of Christianity. And he will typically use faith as a way to knock the West, like he did in this speech in 2013:
“We see many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.”
The essay cautions us to keep this connection in mind . . .
Such is the centrality of Ukraine in general, and Kyev in particular, to the imagination of the Russian church, they have been prepared to fracture the centuries old alliance of Orthodoxy. Again and again, it’s all about Ukraine, the imagined site of the mother church of the Rus. . . .
The Western secular imagination doesn’t get this. It looks at Putin’s speech the other evening, and it describes him as mad — which is another way of saying we do not understand what is going on. And we show how little we understand by thinking that a bunch of sanctions is going to make a blind bit of difference. They won’t. “Ukraine is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space” Putin said. That’s what this is all about, “spiritual space” — a terrifying phrase steeped in over a thousand years of Russian religious history.
Let us pray for our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, who face the armies of “Vlad the Invader” and the all horrors which go with it. Putin is a criminal autocrat who bows before the picture of Peter the Great which adorns his study—seeing himself as the one chosen to restore the empire which was lost. While Putin decries the “secular” West (seeing himself as the loyal son of a church openly hostile to the five sola evangelicalism of the Reformation and those who seek to spread it), he and his oligarch cronies rob the Russian Federation blind.
Meanwhile, the Patriarch Kirill provides Putin with a historical narrative and spiritual cover. May the fantasies of “Vlad the Invader” die at the hands at the brave Ukrainians!
Christians in Ukraine Gather for Prayer
I know several Christians now living in Ukraine. I know that there are many others—including many Reformed and Presbyterian missionaries and seminary/Bible school teachers—planting churches there. Please pray for their safety and that our Lord will turn this despicable Russian invasion into long-term good. The words of Psalm 2 come to mind—as these powerful words are being read and prayed by many Ukrainian Christians. They know that as Putin plots, the Lord laughs. They have taken up the chief Christian weapon—prayer. They know that the days ahead will be exceedingly difficult and as the beast rages against the people of God and the gospel, their hope is in the Lord to deliver his people. Let us pray for them, their safety, and for the spread of the gospel.
I also know that Putin’s invasion will have a tremendous impact across the globe. The age of the autocrat is here. If Putin is not dealt with now, many more wannabe strongmen eagerly wait in the wings. May the Ukrainian defense forces do to the Russian invaders what the Finns did to Russia in 1940! The higher the price Russia pays now (both economically and militarily), the greater deterrence to those who would seek to do the same to other innocents.
I just saw a horrific security camera video of a young man riding his bike through an unnamed Ukrainian suburb, only to be disintegrated by a nearby missile strike. Thankfully, he never knew what hit him. It made me sick to my stomach. I wondered whether his loved ones will ever find out what happened to him. Will his memory vanish along with his humanity? This horrific scene reminds me that war (for any reason) is terrible, that both innocents and combatants die, that years of work, accumulated wealth, and generational family ties are just wiped away. And for what? So that Putin can imagine himself to be the new Peter the Great who rebuilds the ancient Russian empire?
Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
Join me in praying the words of Psalm 2.
Psalm 2 (ESV)
1 Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,
6 “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
7 I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
We do not go to church to perform a ceremony appease the wrath of the angry God. We do not shed the blood of some poor animal and then consume it in flames as a burnt offering unto God. Nor do we sacrifice a virgin, or throw one of our children into a volcano as a form of human sacrifice. We do not perform some a ritual intended to purify us from our sins and to make God happy with us. Ministers of word ans sacrament are not priests, nor do we celebrate the Mass, offering the transubstantiated the body and blood of our Lord as an unbloodied sacrifice unto the Father so that God’s wrath toward our sins is turned away. We do none of these things. Why? Because we have a great high priest who has already turned aside God’s anger toward our sins! Therefore we assemble to hear yet again that Jesus has already, once and for all, satisfied God’s righteous anger toward our sins when he suffered for us upon the cross, because his sacrifice for sin paid our debt in full.
We are working our way through that section of the Belgic Confession which deals with the work of Christ (Articles Twenty and Twenty-One). Before we move ahead to consider Christ’s work as our high priest–who satisfies the justice of God on our behalf–we need to keep in mind the context in which Christ’s priestly work takes place. That context is human sin. If we do not consider the suffering and dying of our Lord in its biblical context–which is human sinfulness–then we really do risk misrepresenting or misunderstanding what Jesus does on our behalf. In the suffering and dying of our Lord we do not see a picture of human worth, as so many of our contemporaries seem to think. Rather, in the cross, we see the gravity of our sin and the horrible cost that our blessed Lord Jesus paid to redeem us from our sins.
To read the rest, Article Twenty-One: "We Know Nothing But Jesus and Him Crucified"
In a postscript to season one of the Blessed Hope Podcast (our series on the Book of Galatians) I address three issues.
First, what happened after Paul composed his letter to the Galatians? We turn to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 for an answer.
Second, I tackle listener questions.
Third, I have some comments about N. T. Wright’s new commentary on Galatians.
Links for this Episode
R. C. Sproul on the Jerusalem Decree
Dennis Johnson on the Jerusalem Council
N. T. Wright's new Commentary on Galatians
Bibliography for the Series:
F. F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free
Guy Waters, The Life and Theology of Paul
Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians
Moo, Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary)
J. V. Fesko, Galatians, Lectio Continua Series
Music (Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
- Dr. Godfrey continues his series, “What Is Going on Right Now?” These lectures are “must listen”
Dr. Robert W. Godfrey: "What Is Going on Right Now?" (9)
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey: "What Is Going On Right Now? (10)
- The more progressivism seeks to replace religion (especially Christianity), the more it becomes an alternative religion: Craig Carter: “The Religion of Progressivism”
- Critical scholars push the long refuted “Bauer Thesis” yet again. The Jesus of history, and the Jesus of the early church are supposedly not the same person. Here’s a response: Michael Kruger Reviews "After Jesus, Before Christianity"
- In honor of the late humorist P. J. O
Rourke, enjoy his hilarious review of Hillary Clinton’s book, *It* *Takes a Village*: P. J. ORourke's "It Takes a Village Idiot" - When endnotes replace footnotes in academic texts, you can be sure Satan is at work. I hate endnotes! Will publishers finally get it?
- There’s a crisis in the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. A priest kept using the wrong word when performing baptisms. Rome says his baptisms are invalid. I’ve performed several hundred baptisms at Christ Reformed Church. I think I used the wrong word three times. I’m really sorry and leave it you to figure out who needs to be re-baptised (☺). What Happens When You Use the Wrong Words in Performing a Baptism?
- How some revivalists do “church discipline.” By the way, I know that several witches read this blog and I’m gonna sick pastor Locke on you! "She's a Witch!"
Reflections on the Book of Job (10)
God Answers Job from the Whirlwind
Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar have had their say. So has Job. So has Elihu. Now Job will get the very thing he has been demanding–an audience before God. But when God speaks to Job, things will be much different than Job has been expecting. There will be no formal indictment with charges for Job to answer. The Lord will not give Job a detailed response to his list of questions, nor respond to Job’s specious charges that YHWH has not treated him fairly. Instead, God will cross-examine Job through a series of questions designed to teach Job true wisdom. In the end, Job not only will be much wiser, he will be humbled. Yet at the same time, Job will be assured of God’s favor toward him, even in the midst of his trial by ordeal, which blessedly comes to an end.
We move to the climatic closing chapters of the Book of Job (38-42). God speaks to Job from the midst of a whirlwind. At long last we get an answer to the question which has dominated this entire story so far–why do the righteous suffer? More specifically, why does Job suffer? But the answer Job receives from God is not one Job expects nor even necessarily likes. In fact, some would consider God’s words to Job no answer at all. In Job 38-42 we finally discover what God means when he says in Isaiah 55:8, “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord,” and in Psalm 145:3 and Isaiah 40:28 when we read that God’s “greatness is unsearchable.” In our weakness, God condescends to teach Job that God’s thoughts, ways, and greatness transcend anything humans think or imagine. As a result, Job will be thoroughly humbled and transformed in his thinking before, in his grace, God restores to Job all those things which had been taken from him during his trial by ordeal, which is now blessedly completed (chapter 42).
As the final section of the Book of Job unfolds, God’s appearance to Job is utterly gracious. Instead of coming to Job in judgment and confronting this suffering prophet with a list of his sins or rebuking him for his thoughtless questions, God takes Job to the School of Wisdom, where the primary entrance requirement is a diploma from the school of suffering, from which Job has now graduated with highest honors. The Lord will teach Job true wisdom through a series of rhetorical questions, a process designed to remind Job that YHWH, the creator and sustainer of all things, has graciously drawn near and speaks to him about the nature of the world and his Lordship over every inch of all of that he has made.
Yes, God is still on his throne despite all that has happened to Job and despite Job’s fear that he’s been abandoned. Since the God who created all things and rules and governs them, condescends to appear to Job from the midst of the storm, Job is instantly assured that everything is okay, despite his present circumstances. Knowing that God is not angry at him, it no longer really matters to Job what will happen next, since the very presence of God assures Job that all is well and puts all things–even his suffering–into proper perspective.[1]
Lest we forget, God has been preparing Job for this transforming moment all along. Job has come to see that none of his three friends possessed true wisdom. It could be said (and probably should be said) that these three well-intended doofuses (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar) have only darkened the way of understanding. Job’s ability to quickly silence them showed that he was on the right track. But his increasing pride and conceit in his effort to vindicate himself showed that he too was not yet ready to receive true wisdom. It was not until the speech from another friend, Elihu, that Job began to realize that he had gone too far in his demands to be vindicated. It is Elihu, who, by humbling Job, actually prepares the way for the Lord to come and speak to Job from the midst of the whirlwind. Given all that Job had been through, without such preparation, he surely would have been overwhelmed by the Lord’s approach. Job is simultaneously humbled and yet completely assured of God’s favor.
Back to the Beginning — The Story Behind Job’s Ordeal
We also need to keep in mind the reason for Job’s ordeal as revealed in the prologue (chapters 1 and 2). It was the Lord himself who summoned Satan and called his attention to the Lord’s righteous servant, Job. So now God comes to Job, also in the form of a challenge, this time through a series of rhetorical questions. The irony in all of this is that God confronts both Job and Satan with his wondrous works. Job himself is that work of divine grace through which God challenges Satan–“see my righteous servant Job? There is no one else like him on all the earth.” God’s challenge to Job to consider his wondrous works is the means by which God’s work of redemption will be perfected in Job. This enables the righteous servant to triumph over the Devil through his trial by ordeal.[2] In the end, Job will bow his knee before his creator and praise his name. He will not curse God as Satan had predicted. Job has learned true wisdom.
Job’s ordeal also prefigures the coming of Jesus Christ, who will be truly righteous and perfectly obedient, who will finally and totally defeat Satan when he is afflicted with grief at the hands of sinful men and women. Throughout the Book of Job, we find a fundamental truth of redemptive history being set forth in type and shadow–someone must fulfill all righteousness and then offer a full and complete satisfaction for human sin in order to undo the works of the Devil. Job’s obedience does so in a very limited and provisional way. But the suffering Job, who struggles to find wisdom, becomes a type of the greater Job, Jesus Christ, who is the Wisdom of God incarnate.
Out of the Whirlwind!
In Job 38:1-40:2, God delivers his first challenge to Job, followed by Job’s response in 40:3-5, which, in turn, is immediately followed by a second challenge in Job 40:6-41:24. In this installment, we turn to first part of YHWH’s speech to Job beginning in Job 38:1.
The story of Job has been building to this dramatic moment from chapter 4 on. We have heard the three cycles of cruel speeches from Job’s friends, who because of their faulty understanding of the principle of divine retribution, accused Job of having sinned. We have also heard Job’s heartfelt complaint in chapter 3, along with the responses to his three friends and then the increasingly defiant and self-righteous speeches from Job in chapters 26-31. Finally, another friend, Elihu, not one of the three, speaks as prophet and offers heartfelt praise to God for all of his glorious works (Job 36-37). When Elihu comes to the end of his speech, we are told 38:1, “Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind.” The way has been prepared for the Lord to come. The human quest for wisdom has come to a pitiful end. The Lord instructs Job in the way of wisdom and Job will never be the same.
Whenever there is an appearance of YHWH in the Old Testament (a theophany), it is always accompanied by physical manifestations, in this case a “whirlwind” (cf. Psalm 18:7 ff; 50:3; Ezekiel 1:4, 28, Nahum 1:3, Habakkuk 3 and Zechariah 9:14). It is with these images in mind that the author of Hebrews, speaks of God as a consuming fire (cf. Hebrews 12:29). Such upheaval in the natural order not only indicates the presence of the Lord, it illustrates the significance and importance of the divine revelation which was about to follow.[3] It is important for the reader of Job to remember that it was also a windstorm which took the lives of Job’s children, so the reference to the storm is perhaps intended to remind the reader that nothing comes to pass apart from the will of the Lord–even windstorms which take the lives of those we love.
In verses 2-3, the Lord challenges Job. “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.” We read in Job 42:7 that Job spoke correctly about the Lord throughout his ordeal, the Lord’s rebuke of Job is based on the fact that Job spoke in ignorance about the plans (counsel) of God. The creature has no right whatsoever to criticize the Creator, especially when the creature can only speak from ignorance about the mysterious ways of the sovereign God.
The Trial by Ordeal
The Lord’s command for Job to brace himself like a man is an image taken directly from the ancient sport of belt-wrestling in which the winner was able to either remove his opponent’s belt, or else give his opponent such a massive wedgie that they were forced into submission. This was not only an athletic image (the idea of a contest or fete of strength), but grabbing someone’s belt was also the means of subduing them in a court of law or upon capture.[4] As a sign of ordeal, the implication is clear–Job’s trial by ordeal is about to be resolved. YHWH will subdue Job, not to punish him, but as a means of ending the ordeal by teaching Job that which he has been seeking–true wisdom.
We need to be clear that this contest is not merely about God’s power or sheer strength. The issue is not that God is bigger than Job and like a bully can do whatever he wants. God does not belittle Job, given his greatness and Job’s contrasting finitude. Job is not crushed nor consumed by God’s greatness. But he is humbled. There is a big difference. The contest between God and Job centers in the revelation of divine wisdom, not in power for power’s sake.[5] God’s wisdom is presented as that of a skilled craftsman. God’s wisdom is displayed on earth, in the heavens, and in the animal kingdom as seen in the mention of creatures who are beyond human control, but who are God’s pets [6]. While Job is not consumed by God’s greatness, Job does become fully aware of how truly great God is and how sinful and weak men and women truly are.[7] God will now give to Job the very thing he lacks–wisdom. Such wisdom enables Job to accept the ways and purposes of God, whatever they may be, even in the midst of suffering.
Because the ordeal centers in a test of wisdom, the Lord asks Job a series of questions designed to show Job his spatial and temporal limitations. Job will live out the average span of a human life. He can only be in one place at a time and can only understand a small fraction of what he observes. His inherent sinfulness causes him to see things in a self-centered and distorted way. Job, in other words, is a sinful human. But God is not bound by space or by time. He is perfectly Holy, just and righteous in all his doings. Reminding Job of this is the point of this series of questions–which are surely not intended to offer a scientific explanation of origins [8], but which are designed to point out that Job was nowhere to be found when God created the heavens and the earth. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job was nonexistent when God created the earth. God is without beginning or end and predates the earth by countless (endless) ages.
The same thing holds true of the sea (v. 8–11). “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed?’” Even the seas with all their storm and tempest obey their creator–men and women are helpless to control the ocean. Furthermore YHWH sets the day and night in place, as we see in verses 12-15. “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment. From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.” Job must rise with the sun and sleep when it sets. But the Lord creates both the day and the night and has never slumbered, nor ever been sleepy.
The limits of human existence become clear in verses 16-18 when the Lord says to Job. “Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this.” No, Job does not know any of these things. He is bound to one place. He will live and die at a particular time. Not so with the LORD, who does all of the things which he now asks Job in verses 19-21. “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!” In the creation account, God separates the light from the darkness. But Job was nowhere to be seen when God did this. It is important to notice that God is not ridiculing Job, although it is easy take these words as such. As one writer reminds us, it is not unkind nor sarcastic when God reminds a creature of his limitations, “to let God be God”[9]. God is not showing Job up. But he is reminding Job of the difference between a creature and the Creator and understanding this Creator-creature distinction is the beginning of wisdom. The Creator-creature distinction is one the most fundamental truths in all of Christian theology. YHWH has made that clear to Job.
Next Time: YHWH continues to answer Job from the storm
To read the first in this series: Job: The Suffering Prophet (1)
___________________________________
[1] Andersen, Job, 269.
[2] Kline, Job, 486.
[3] Kline, Job, 486.
[4] Kline, Job, 486.
[5] Kline, Job, 487; Andersen, Job, 268-272.
[6] Andersen, Job, 273.
[7] Kline, Job, 487.
[8] Andersen, Job, 274.
[9] Andersen, Job, 277.
In his short essay, "What Is Calvinism?" (from the Presbyterian, Mar. 2, 1904, 6-7), B. B. Warfield writes,
There is a state of mind' says Professor William James in his lectures onThe Varieties of Religious Experience,'known to religious men, but to no others, in which the will to assert ourselves and hold our own has been displaced by a willingness to close our mouths and be as nothing in the floods and waterspouts of God. [James] is describing what he looks upon as the truly religious mood over against what he callsmere moralism'The moralist' he tells us,must hold his breath and keep his muscles tense': and things go well with him only when he can do so. The religious man, on the contrary, finds his consolation in his very powerlessness; his trust is not in himself but in his God; and the `hour of his moral death turns into his spiritual birthday.
Says Warfield in response,
the psychological analyst [William James] has caught the exact distinction between moralism and religion. It is the distinction between trust in ourselves and trust in God. And when trust in ourselves is driven entirely out, and trust in God comes in, in its purity, we have Calvinism. Under the name of religion at its height, what Professor James has really described is therefore just Calvinism.
William James, by the way, once called himself a Methodist without the Savior.
“Sanctification and Good Works: The Cause and the Effect” — The Westminster Shorter Catechism Q & A 35I have heard Christians recite the following formula: “Christians are saved by grace, justified by faith, and sanctified by works.” On first hearing, this sounds right as the slogan attempts to capture three important biblical emphases. Yes, we are saved by grace and not by our works (Romans 6:14; Ephesians 2:8). Yes, the ground of our justification are the merits of Christ, which become ours through faith alone (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16). And yes, good works will be found in the lives of those who are saved by grace and justified by faith (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:18). But here is where the slogan takes us in the wrong direction–we are not sanctified by our good works.
This is an important point and is often misunderstood. The reason why the last part of the above formula is incorrect (“sanctified by works”) is because when discussing sanctification, the formula confuses the cause (God’s grace) with the effect (good works). To put it another way, while the process of sanctification inevitably leads to the production of good works, good works do not produce our sanctification. Rather, they are the effect of sanctification.
Although many Christians are confused about this, thankfully, the resolution to this is made plain in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. In Q. 35, the question is asked, “What is sanctification?” Answer: “Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”
According to the Shorter Catechism, our sanctification is said to be the work of God’s free grace. Sanctification does not result from the performance of good works. God’s people must be careful not to confuse the cause (grace) with the effect (good works) when it comes to this important doctrine. We are not sanctified by our good works. Rather, because God sanctified us, by grace, he produces good works in our lives. In fact, we do not sanctify ourselves, any more than we justify ourselves. Sanctification is God’s work, and his work within us produces good works, or what Paul describes elsewhere as “the fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-24).
This critical point is made throughout the Scriptures (which the Catechism effectively summarizes). In Ezekiel 36:27, we read the Lord’s declaration, “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” The cause is God’s indwelling Spirit, the effect of God doing this is that we obey his rules (i.e., we do good works).
In two New Testament passages, Paul makes the same point. In Philippians 2:13, we read, “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,” and then in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle states “but we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” In both verses, Paul is clear that God is the author of our sanctification. It is God who renews and sanctifies us. There is nothing said here renewing and sanctifying ourselves.
And yet, once we have been renewed by God’s grace, the effects of God’s work within us inevitably begin to manifest itself. In fact, in Ephesians 2:10, Paul puts it this way. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” In Romans 6:4, Paul states that “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” In our union with Christ (of which baptism is the sign and seal), we die to sin so that we rise to newness of life. Paul goes on to say of those who have died and risen with Christ, “present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (vv. 13-14).
The apostle Peter speaks of this cause and effect relationship in equally direct terms. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” (1 Peter 2:24). Christ died for our sins, so that we might likewise die to sin and then live our lives accordingly–in righteousness.
So, while the slogan “saved by grace, justified by faith, sanctified by works” is well-intended, it misses the mark. It is better to say “saved by grace, justified by faith, and sanctified by the Spirit.” Indeed, having been justified by faith alone, we are renewed by God so that we die to sin and live in righteousness. Yes, we must do good works. But they are the effect of God’s grace, and not the means by which we are sanctified. As the Catechism puts it, sanctification is “the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” There is probably not a Christian alive who does not know this verse from memory. Yet, is there anyone reading this who can recite Romans 3:25 from memory? “Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” Both of these verses tell us something very important about the death of Jesus Christ. But why do we tend to memorize verses which speak of the love of God while often overlooking those verses which speak of the justice of God? This question brings us to the topic of Article Twenty of the Belgic Confession which deals with the justice and mercy of God in Christ. It also brings us to one of the greatest problems in the Christian church today, a sentimental understanding of the cross.
We move from those articles dealing with our Lord’s incarnation (Eighteen and Nineteen) to those dealing with the work of Christ (Twenty and Twenty-One). In fact, we cannot speak of our Lord’s person–the Word who became flesh, who possesses two distinct natures (one divine, one human) joined together in one person (Jesus of Nazareth)–without also speaking of our Lord’s saving work on our behalf. The person and work of Jesus Christ are inseparably linked. Jesus Christ is that redeemer promised throughout the Old Testament, even from the moment of the fall of our race into sin. Jesus is also the mediator of the covenant of grace, making him the only mediator between sinful men and women and the Holy God.
To read the rest: Article Twenty of the Belgic Confession: A Most Perfect Love
Isaiah 65 in the Geneva Bible
One of the most remarkable prophetic scenes in all the Bible is Isaiah’s vision of a new heavens and earth (Isaiah 65:17-25). Isaiah’s vision speaks of the created order being renewed and transformed to such a degree that former things will not be remembered. Jerusalem, too, will be renewed as her years of mourning turn to joy. The scene given us by Isaiah speaks of long life, the bounty of the land, carnivores (lion and wolves) eating straw with lambs and oxen, and with poisonous serpents no longer feared. Although Isaiah’s vision was given in the eighth century BC, it points ahead to the distant future; both to the coming messianic age (Christ’s first advent) and to the final consummation at the end of the age (Christ’s second advent). Here is the text:
Isaiah 65:17–25 (ESV)
17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress.
20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the Lord, and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the Lord.
The nature of Isaiah’s prophecy raises questions about when and how the scene will come to pass. When the prophet speaks of long life is he speaking literally—that the current human life span will be extended past one hundred years, and that carnivores will become herbivores? Is he foreseeing that the earthly city of Jerusalem will be the center of piety and the worship of YHWH? Or is Isaiah speaking of things which are eternal (a post-consummation new heavens and earth) using temporal earthly images (which people can understand) to point to eternal things which, on Isaiah’s side of Christ’s resurrection, would be impossible to understand.
There are several interpretations of this passage familiar to those interested in eschatology: (1) The dispensational view, (2) The postmillennial view, and (3) The amillennial view. We will take them up in order.
According to traditional dispensationalists (such as J. Dwight Pentecost), Isaiah is referring to a millennial kingdom on earth (the thousand year reign of Christ), which commences after his return. Dispensationalists, who strive to interpret Isaiah’s prophecy “literally” (a dispensational operating assumption), conclude that Isaiah foresees the following: ordinary human reproduction, the removal of the curse, the end of sickness and bodily deformity, along with universal peace and economic prosperity. Pentecost concludes his list of millennial blessings with the following statement regarding “the perpetuity of the millennial kingdom.” He writes, “that which characterizes the millennial age [presumably the things Pentecost has listed] is not viewed as temporary but eternal.”[1] Some changes to the natural order do occur in the millennial age after the return of Christ, but final transformation of the earth does not come about until the creation of the new heavens and earth following the final judgment at the end of the thousand years. The millennial age, therefore, is a sort of half-way step toward the final consummation.
Contemporary dispensationalists have tweaked the traditional view a bit, with one writer describing the passage as referring to “the intermediate kingdom.”[2] Matt Waymeyer interprets the scene depicted by Isaiah as a mixture of an “intermediate kingdom” and the eternal state. This, he believes, creates a serious challenge to the amillennial view which understands the fulfillment of the passage in eternal terms—a new heavens and earth.[3] If people die during this period, then Isaiah cannot be referring to the eternal state, and the amillennial view (discussed below) becomes untenable. Progressive dispensationalist Craig Blaising contends that “Isaiah 65:17-25 describes the new world of the eschatological kingdom, a condition of real joy and blessing. But curiously, death still remains a feature in that world order (65:20).”[4] If Isaiah’s vision for the “new world” includes physical death (although human life-spans are substantially lengthened) and a greatly transformed quality of natural life, yet still falling short of eternal life, then Isaiah’s vision must be pointing to a future thousand year millennial reign established by Jesus at his return, which, in many ways, anticipates the eternal state.
The dispensational interpretation of the vision fails for a number of reasons. First, the primary error of dispensationalists and premillennarians such as Blaising, is a hermeneutical one. These writers draw the conclusions they do only by overlooking a fundamental interpretive rule—the New Testament interprets the Old. Insisting that a “literal” reading of the Old Testament predetermines what prophecies such as Isaiah 65 must mean in the New Testament, ignores how Jesus and the apostles handle and reinterpret various Old Testament texts (like Isaiah 65), in light of Jesus’ conquest of death and the grave, and his promise to return at the end of the age. Before our Lord’s death and resurrection, the idea of life in resurrected human bodies such as Christ’s glorified human nature was incomprehensible to Isaiah’s original audience (eighth century BC Israel). Yet, after Christ’s death and resurrection, it becomes clear that Isaiah was using images of prosperity and long human life to describe something associated with a consummated messianic age, not a temporal, earthly, millennial kingdom. When Isaiah 65 is read through the lens of New Testament hindsight, we find that in two texts (2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1), Peter and John tell us that Isaiah’s vision refers to “the eternal dwelling place of God’s people, who are the New Jerusalem.”[5] Paul speaks of a “new creation” in Galatians 6:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17, both times in connection with entrance into eternal life (via regeneration through the power of the Holy Spirit) associated with union with Christ. According to Paul, the new creation is inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection, ushers in the age to come (provisionally), and points ahead to the final consummation when death itself is swallowed up in victory at Christ’s return (1 Corinthians 15:50-56). Paul appeals to Isaiah’s “new creation” language as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and associates it with the fullness of the age to come.
Second, the very idea that death occurs in a millennial kingdom supposedly established after Christ’s return is highly problematic and creates much confusion as to how we are to understand the unfolding drama of redemptive history. When Jesus returns, three events occur which bring about the final consummation and usher in the age to come in all its fullness. These are the general resurrection (Daniel 12:2, John 5:29, Acts 24:15, I Corinthians 15:22, Revelation 20:12), the final judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, Revelation 20:14-15), and the establishment of the new heavens and earth (Romans 8:21; 2 Peter 3:10) as foretold by Isaiah (65:17). When Christ returns, the temporal gives way to the eternal. How can there be people on the earth in natural bodies who die, after the general resurrection brought about by Jesus at his return? All people are raised and judged at that time, as seen in the separation of the wheat from the tares, the sheep from the goats, the elect from the reprobate. One group enters eternal life, the other eternal perdition. The premillennial contention that people make it through the second coming in natural bodies to repopulate the earth is simply a biblical impossibility.
This leads to a third point, which is closely related to the previous. As noted above, our premillennial friends are very comfortable asserting that the kingdom foreseen by Isaiah includes those born by natural means after Christ returns, as well as those who coexist with them in glorified bodies—the mixture of the temporal with the eternal mentioned previously. Yet, Jesus denies the very possibility of the temporal and eternal coexisting (including procreation) after his return. In response to a trick question put to him by the Sadducees (Luke 20:27-33), Jesus addresses this matter directly in verses 34-36. “And Jesus said to them, `The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” Jesus makes it perfectly clear, there is no human existence in unresurrected and unglorified bodies after his return.
To summarize, in a number of places the New Testament writers interpret Isaiah’s prophecy as referring to the eternal state (the new heavens and earth). Each of these texts are highly problematic for dispensational and premillennial interpreters, as well as for postmillennarians (the second interpretive option), to which we now turn.
According to postmillennarians, Isaiah’s vision refers to the latter day glory of the church on the earth which precedes the second advent of Jesus. J. A. Alexander (1809-1860) the author of an influential commentary on Isaiah, and who taught at Princeton Seminary in the days of Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge, saw Isaiah 65 as a reference to a time “naturally connected with moral and spiritual changes than with one of a material nature,” tying this to Paul’s “new creation” language associated with regeneration and conversion.[6] Isaiah is not referring to the eternal state (a material change) but the world-wide effects (a moral and spiritual change) brought about through the gospel ministry of the church.[7] J. Macellus Kik agrees with Alexander’s exegesis. “In its context it [Isaiah 65:17-25] cannot refer to the consummate kingdom.”[8] John Jefferson Davis agrees, offering a more detailed explanation. He writes . . .
The blessings of the church’s latter-day glory spoken of in Isaiah 11:6-9 are reiterated and expanded in Isaiah 65:17-25. The intensified period of spiritual blessing produces conditions in the world that are termed
new heavens and a new earth.’ (V. 17). This refers to the dramatic moral renovation of society rather than to the eternal state, since Isaiah speaks of a time when children are still being born (v. 20), when people are still building houses and planting vineyards (v. 21) and engaging in their earthly labors (v. 22). Paul uses similar language when he says that salvation in Christ is like anew creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17), or again in Gal. 6:15, `for neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.’ The conditions of health and temporal peace of which Isaiah speaks in 65:17-25 are not the essence of the gospel, but they are properly the consequences of the gospel when its impact is intensive and extensive in the world. The message of reconciliation with God also produces as its fruit reconciliation between man and man and even with the natural order itself. It should also be noted that 65:17-25 makes no reference to the Messiah’s physical presence on earth. In the latter days, God desires to create in Jerusalem (the church) a rejoicing (v. 18). But the realities of verses 18-25 refer neither exclusively to the eternal state nor to the time following the second advent, but rather to the messianic age when Christ still rules at the right hand of the Father in heaven.[9]
In light of the preceding comments, we note that both amillennarians and postmillennarians agree that the second coming of Jesus Christ follows the millennial age, which ends with the great apostasy immediately before the Lord’s return. Therefore, the differences between the two positions are not structural as is the case of amillennialism over against premillennialism. But there are two questions and their conflicting answers which do distinguish postmillennialism from amillennialism: (1) When does the millennial age commence? and (2) What is the nature and character of the millennial age? Often times, this debate centers around those who claim an eschatological optimism (postmillennialism) vs. those inclined to eschatological pessimism (with premillennialism and amillennialism often lumped together).[10] Unfortunately, the optimism/pessimism paradigm obscures some rather obvious exegetical differences between the different schools of thought.
The critical difference of opinion between amillenarians and postmillenarians about the nature and character of the millennial age seen in the work of postmillennialists Alexander, Kik, and Davis just cited, is given an exclamation point in the work of one popular writer who did much to bring about a brief postmillennial resurgence in the 1980s and 1990s. David Chilton tells us that Isaiah 65:17-25, the prophet “cannot be speaking of heaven, or of a time after the end of the world; for this ‘new heaven and earth’ there is still death (at a very advanced age— ‘the lifetime of a tree’), people are building, planting, working and having children . . . The only point I will make here is that it is clearly a statement about this age, before the end of the world.”[11] Postmillenarians, therefore, agree with dispensationalists and premillennarians that Isaiah 65:17-25 is speaking of an earthly scene, although dispensationalists and premillennarians mix earthly with eternal elements, and place the passage’s fulfillment after Christ’s return. But Postmillennarians disagree with amillennarians, who hold that Isaiah is speaking exclusively of eternal things even if using earthly images to point ahead to the end of the age.
Since amillennial interpreters affirm that Isaiah’s vision refers to the eternal state (as in those biblical texts cited above where multiple New Testament authors associate Isaiah’s vision with the eternal state—a new heaven and earth and heavenly Jerusalem), much of what amillennarians contend about Isaiah 65:17-25 refutes the postmillennial interpretation of the passage as referring exclusively to this age (temporal), and in no sense to the age to come (eternal). As with the unfortunate propensity of dispensationalists and premillennarians to insist that Old Testament texts (in their literal sense) must predetermine New Testament meanings, in this instance, such is also true of postmillennarians. By not allowing the New Testament authors to tell us to what Isaiah’s prophecy is referring, postmillennarians must conclude that Isaiah is referring to an earthly scene, which is therefore limited to gospel success (important as that is) and to the church’s latter day glory in a world characterized by material blessings such as long life and economic prosperity—but not the eternal character of the age to come. Here, I must chide my postmillennial friends, “isn’t your vision a bit pessimistic?”
As for the amillennial position, a number of points should be made. First, as J. Alec Motyer points out in his commentary on Isaiah, in terms of its literary structure, Isaiah 65:1-66:21 is a chiasm. In a chiasm, the logic of these two chapters flows from the opening verses (A1) toward the conclusion, which comes in the middle of the chiasm (E), not at the end (A2) as in a typical syllogism—A implies B, therefore C. The structure of Isaiah 65-66 looks something like this: A1 (65:1) > B1 (65:2-7) > C1 (65:8-10) > D1 (65:11-12) > E (65:13-25), < D2 (66:1-4) < C2 (66:5-14)
Reflections on the Book of Job (9)
Job’s Faith Is Re-Kindled
Despite all appearances to the contrary, and despite the cruel counsel coming from his friends (most recently Eliphaz), Job still expects vindication. Job knows that God is good, keeps his promises, and that some how and in some way, his ordeal will end and it will be clear to all that Job is not hiding some secret sin.
As the dialogue between Job and his friends continues to unfold, in Job 16:18-17:3, the glowing embers of Job’s faith reappear. With this hope arises, as Job calls out his erst-while friends for their cruel and self-righteous counsel. He calls them “mockers.”
O earth, cover not my blood, and let my cry find no resting place. Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and he who testifies for me is on high. My friends scorn me; my eye pours out tears to God, that he would argue the case of a man with God, as a son of man does with his neighbor. For when a few years have come I shall go the way from which I shall not return. `My spirit is broken; my days are extinct; the graveyard is ready for me. Surely there are mockers about me, and my eye dwells on their provocation. Lay down a pledge for me with you; who is there who will put up security for me?’
Job now realizes that the answer to the “why?” question (which he has asked of YHWH), along with his personal vindication before his friends, might not come until after his own death. But yes, Job will get his answer. He will be vindicated—if not in this life, then certainly in the next. His friends do not understand nor, apparently, do they care to.
Because of this glimmer of hope and because Job still has faith in the God of the promise (however, weak that faith may be under the circumstances), Job knows his friends cannot help him. He sees their efforts are futile, if not cruel. There is nowhere else to go. Job’s only hope is in God. Yet, his mood still swings wildly, bringing him right up to the point of despair. But in the balance of Job 17, Job possess enough of his prior faith to continue to call out his friends for their faithless response.
My spirit is broken; my days are extinct; the graveyard is ready for me. Surely there are mockers about me, and my eye dwells on their provocation.
Lay down a pledge for me with you; who is there who will put up security for me? Since you have closed their hearts to understanding, therefore you will not let them triumph. He who informs against his friends to get a share of their property— the eyes of his children will fail.He has made me a byword of the peoples, and I am one before whom men spit. My eye has grown dim from vexation, and all my members are like a shadow. The upright are appalled at this, and the innocent stirs himself up against the godless. Yet the righteous holds to his way, and he who has clean hands grows stronger and stronger. But you, come on again, all of you, and I shall not find a wise man among you. My days are past; my plans are broken off, the desires of my heart. They make night into day: ‘The light,’ they say, ‘is near to the darkness.’ If I hope for Sheol as my house, if I make my bed in darkness, if I say to the pit, ‘You are my father,’ and to the worm, ‘My mother,’ or ‘My sister,’ where then is my hope? Who will see my hope? Will it go down to the bars of Sheol? Shall we descend together into the dust?
Not only is Job giving back as good as he is getting from Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, but only a man who has done nothing wrong will fight so hard to be vindicated–as Job is now doing.
Bildad’s Second Speech—More “Belly Wind”
As Bildad makes his second speech one thing is becoming clear–Job, the suffering prophet, is longing to probe deeper into the mysteries of God’s providence, while Job’s friends focus entirely on the their distorted views regarding the suffering of the wicked. Bildad is clearly resentful of Job’s low estimate of his three friends’ theological abilities.[1] Whereas Eliphaz tried to moderate his second speech, Bildad is much more cantankerous. In verses 1-4 of Job 18, Bildad responds to Job with words which reflect the former’s growing frustration and anger. “Then Bildad the Shuhite answered [Job] and said: `How long will you hunt for words? Consider, and then we will speak. Why are we counted as cattle? Why are we stupid in your sight? You who tear yourself in your anger, shall the earth be forsaken for you, or the rock be removed out of its place?” Bildad’s challenge is that if the law of divine retribution is immutable (God must punish wrong-doing), and if Job refuses to repent, he will foolishly continue to throw himself against the fixed law that God must punish all sin.[2] How dare Job think that he is above the fixed laws of YHWH’s sovereign will!
As Bildad sees it, the moral order of the universe is set in stone. Since God will punish the wicked for their sins, in the balance of the chapter, Bildad recites a catalogue of the troubles of the wicked, all designed to appeal to Job’s conscience so that he is convicted of sins. The problem with Bildad’s speech is that Job’s conscience is clean. Says Bildad,
Indeed, the light of the wicked is put out, and the flame of his fire does not shine. The light is dark in his tent, and his lamp above him is put out. His strong steps are shortened, and his own schemes throw him down. For he is cast into a net by his own feet, and he walks on its mesh. A trap seizes him by the heel; a snare lays hold of him. A rope is hidden for him in the ground, a trap for him in the path. Terrors frighten him on every side, and chase him at his heels. His strength is famished, and calamity is ready for his stumbling. It consumes the parts of his skin; the firstborn of death consumes his limbs. He is torn from the tent in which he trusted and is brought to the king of terrors. In his tent dwells that which is none of his; sulfur is scattered over his habitation. His roots dry up beneath, and his branches wither above. His memory perishes from the earth, and he has no name in the street. He is thrust from light into darkness, and driven out of the world. He has no posterity or progeny among his people, and no survivor where he used to live. They of the west are appalled at his day, and horror seizes them of the east.
Job’s Speech — He Knows His Redeemer Lives
With that, we come to one of the most remarkable speeches in all the Bible (Job 19:25-27). Job’s words inspired Handel when writing the Messiah, and they continue to profoundly move all who read them. Job’s speech is so profound because it is not as though Bildad’s words contain no truth. Yes, God will punish the wicked. But Bildad’s cold and formulaic “canned” answer does not fit the facts at hand. This may be true of the wicked when they suffer. But what about the righteous? They suffer too. Thus the issue is not what fixed moral law Job has broken. For Job, the issue is “why has God turned his back on him?” And so Job presses on, seeking understanding of the great mystery which now stares him in the face: “Why do the wicked prosper while the righteous suffer.?”
In verses 1-12 of Job 19, Job describes his frightful sense of isolation–even though his friends have come to comfort him.
Then Job answered and said: `How long will you torment me and break me in pieces with words? These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me? And even if it be true that I have erred, my error remains with myself. If indeed you magnify yourselves against me and make my disgrace an argument against me, know then that God has put me in the wrong and closed his net about me. Behold, I cry out, ‘Violence!’ but I am not answered; I call for help, but there is no justice. He has walled up my way, so that I cannot pass, and he has set darkness upon my paths. He has stripped from me my glory and taken the crown from my head. He breaks me down on every side, and I am gone, and my hope has he pulled up like a tree. He has kindled his wrath against me and counts me as his adversary. His troops come on together; they have cast up their siege ramp against me and encamp around my tent.
Job longs for that day when God will respond. His suffering is bad enough. Waiting for an answer from God is even worse. YHWH’s silence pushes Job back to the point despair again. Job is all alone—or at least feels like he is all alone. He cries out in verses 13-19,
He has put my brothers far from me, and those who knew me are wholly estranged from me. My relatives have failed me, my close friends have forgotten me. The guests in my house and my maidservants count me as a stranger; I have become a foreigner in their eyes. I call to my servant, but he gives me no answer; I must plead with him with my mouth for mercy. My breath is strange to my wife, and I am a stench to the children of my own mother. Even young children despise me; when I rise they talk against me. All my intimate friends abhor me, and those whom I loved have turned against me?
In these words, we see that things are changing—Job has had enough of the accusations and false charges from his “friends”! A remarkable confession of faith is about to come! Since even his closest friends don’t believe him, in verses 23-24 Job demands that a record of his integrity be written down for all to see. Job demands, “Oh that my words were written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book! Oh that with an iron pen and lead they were engraved in the rock forever!” Job wants an indelible record so that all who come after him will know that he is innocent and that long after he is gone, his name and reputation will be vindicated. Given the very early stage of redemptive history in which he writes, Job looks ahead to a time when he will finally be declared “not guilty!” His ever-increasing hope that a redeemer will come (hinted at in Job 9:33 and in Job 16:18 ff.), now comes to full-flower. Despite all that he has endured, despite the terrible counsel from his friends, in verse 25 Job declares, “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.” Although everyone else doubts him and has deserted him, Job knows that a heavenly go el (a redeemer, the next of kin, who rights wrongs and settles estates) will do what his friends, wife, and townspeople will not–believe his testimony and vindicate his good name.
But Job does not stop. In verses 26-27, he declares, “after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!” Job longs for the resurrection from the dead–a time when his current suffering will be nothing more than a dim memory and his sick and afflicted body will be renewed. As one writer puts it, “here are the beginnings of what progressive revelation would ultimately enunciate in the doctrines of the coming of Christ at the end times, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.”[3] Remarkably, Job desires the same thing Paul describes in Philippians 3:7-11. “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
With his eyes set upon the future, Job warns his friends that the coming resurrection will impact them as well. He tells them in verses 27-28, “I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me! If you say, ‘How we will pursue him!’ and, ‘The root of the matter is found in him.”
Zophar Again — And Job’s Response
In Cycle two–round three, Zophar has been listening. He regards Job’s words of faith in a coming redeemer as an insult. Job’s three friends have been using the same tired script–focusing exclusively upon the fate of the wicked and placing Job in that category. As Meredith Kline puts it, “Job [has just] struck chords of redemptive truth as to thrill angels, but Zophar, having ears, hears not . . . . Zophar . . . is content to draw the inspiration for his lyrics from the dunghill where the friends found Job.”[4] So Zophar lets fly in verses 2-14.
Therefore my thoughts answer me, because of my haste within me. I hear censure that insults me, and out of my understanding a spirit answers me. Do you not know this from of old, since man was placed on earth, that the exulting of the wicked is short, and the joy of the godless but for a moment? Though his height mount up to the heavens, and his head reach to the clouds, he will perish forever like his own dung; those who have seen him will say, ‘Where is he?’ He will fly away like a dream and not be found; he will be chased away like a vision of the night. The eye that saw him will see him no more, nor will his place any more behold him. His children will seek the favor of the poor, and his hands will give back his wealth. His bones are full of his youthful vigor, but it will lie down with him in the dust. `Though evil is sweet in his mouth, though he hides it under his tongue, though he is loath to let it go and holds it in his mouth, yet his food is turned in his stomach; it is the venom of cobras within him.
All Zophar can do is rant. As Job sees it, his friends have offered no explanations at all. Rather, they have denied the mystery of suffering and affliction, simply because their view of retributive justice does not fit with reality. There are wicked people who flourish and righteous people who suffer. Yes, Job’s friends are right–God will punish all sin and reward good. But Job is starting to see that this punishment will come at the end of time (on judgment day) and not beforehand. With faith and hope stirring his heart, Job rises above his disappointment and answers Zophar with words of hope.
In Job 21:2-3 Job challenges his friends. “Keep listening to my words, and let this be your comfort. Bear with me, and I will speak, and after I have spoken, mock on.” In verses 4-9, we see that Job looks for an answer from God: “As for me, is my complaint against man? Why should I not be impatient? Look at me and be appalled, and lay your hand over your mouth. When I remember, I am dismayed, and shuddering seizes my flesh. Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power? Their offspring are established in their presence, and their descendants before their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, and no rod of God is upon them.” The fact of the matter is that the wicked do live on regardless of their sin. The ground does not open beneath them and swallow them. The fate that has befallen Job does not fall upon the wicked. Oh, they will be judged, but on the last day. Their ultimate fate—YHWH’s wrath—does not always come in the course of this life.
The answer is slowly beginning to come to Job, as apparent in verses 14-20 of Job 21.
They say to God, ‘Depart from us! We do not desire the knowledge of your ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit do we get if we pray to him?’ Behold, is not their prosperity in their hand? The counsel of the wicked is far from me. `How often is it that the lamp of the wicked is put out? That their calamity comes upon them? That God distributes pains in his anger? That they are like straw before the wind, and like chaff that the storm carries away? You say, ‘God stores up their iniquity for their children.’ Let him pay it out to them, that they may know it. Let their own eyes see their destruction, and let them drink of the wrath of the Almighty.
Though his friends are convinced they are right and that Job is still lying, Job is fully convinced they are wrong. In fact, as he ends his reply to Zophar (v. 34), he tell his friends, “How then will you comfort me with empty nothings? There is nothing left of your answers but falsehood.”
The smoldering embers of faith are still burning in Job’s heart. He is sure that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, however sincere, have no answers, only falsehoods. Job is a justified sinner. He is a righteous man, and yet still he suffers. The words of his friends hurt deeply, and do not heal. They cannot explain the obvious–wicked people do prosper, and righteous people do suffer. As Job is beginning to understand, God may indeed have a purpose in his suffering which does not fit with Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar’s insufficient grasp of the situation. As the dialogue progresses, Job’s heart is now stirred and moves him to confess his faith in a coming redeemer, even through tears of pain, doubt, and fear! Job knows that his redeemer lives! Job knows his redeemer will one day stand upon the earth. And Job knows that he will see that redeemer with the eyes of a resurrected body! In the midst of his terrible circumstances, the suffering prophet nevertheless confesses “for I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.”
And the Lord will soon answer all of them from the midst of the storm.
To read the first in this series: Job: The Suffering Prophet (1)
To read the next in the series: God Answers Job from the Whirlwind (10)
_____________________________
[1] Kline, Job, 475.
[2] Kline, Job, 475.
[3] Kline, Job, 476.
[4] Kline, Job, 476.
From October of 2015
Pastors are always more than a little apprehensive during weddings. Why? Because even though the couple you just married are thrilled that after months of preparation that they have finally been pronounced man and wife, that moment is immortalized on film. Lots of film. Every pastor who conducts a wedding knows they are one slip-up away from being on America’s Funniest Home Videos.
Behind the obvious joy of the moment, there is pastor buzzkill-caught looking over my glasses with a disapproving scowl on my face even as the newlyweds express their heart-felt joy.
I'm glad this charming couple found humor in this photo--they teased me with it--and I'm sure they know there was nothing about that day of which even remotely I disapprove.
Here is yet another reminder that the camera catches all, including my lunch backing up, or that moment when my thoughts began to turn to what it is that I was to do next in the ceremony.
Whatever I was thinking or digesting, here I am, pastor buzzkill in all my glory! The moral to the story, "smile!" The camera is watching!
And to you young ministers reading this, don't eat fast food in a rush right before conducting a wedding. The inevitable verp awaits . . .
Occasionally, we find in church history an account of an event long since past but which sheds much light on difficult biblical passages. Such information may even give us pause about our own long-held interpretations of certain passages and might push us to further reflection and study. The famed church historian, Eusebius, recounts one such event.
Eusebius was born about 260 A.D. and died in 348/349. He lived during the Constantinian Period in the Roman province of Syria Palestina (which includes the modern nations of Israel and Syria, as well as portions of Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt). Eusebius is best known for his Ecclesiastical History (which covered the apostolic age until his own) and his unfinished Life of Constantine. Eusebius was an early sympathizer of Arius, but eventually signed off on the homoousion.
In his history of the church, Eusebius recounts an event which sheds some interesting light on one biblical passage which has long perplexed interpreters—Revelation 13:13-15. There we read that the second beast [from the land] “performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain." This beast performs signs, including making an image of the first beast speak. He also coordinates the persecution of the faithful.
Prophecy pundits often take Revelation 13:13-15 to be a prophetic prediction of a high-tech mode of deception used by the Antichrist to enslave the world after the church is removed at the Rapture. On this view, John is envisioning some sort of future technology (perhaps an AI computer-generated hologram or similar) used to create a dazzling and deceptive image which successfully attracts the bulk of those living on earth to worship the image of the first beast so that people willingly take his mark (cf. Revelation 13:16 ff). This beast also orchestrates the persecution of the faithful left behind and converted after the Rapture.
Critical scholarship, by and large, understands John to be speaking of the Roman imperial cult dominant throughout Asia Minor at the time John records his vision. The imperial cult centered upon veneration and worship of deified emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Vespasian, Domitian, et. al.), as well as various Greek and Roman gods, whose images and temples dominated the Palestina region. Eusebius reports that Christians were persecuted in scattered locales for refusing to worship the divinized emperor or the accepted Roman gods. In fact, Christians were often denounced as "atheists" for refusing to worship the pagan and Roman “deities.”
In his Ecclesiastical History (Book 9:5), Eusebius describes a remarkable act of deception during the reign of Maximin Daia (who ruled the eastern portion of the Roman empire from A.D. 308-313), and his lackey Theotecnus (which, ironically means "child of God" in Greek) and who was the city comptroller of Antioch. Eusebius tells us . . .
Time and time again this man [Theotecnus] engaged in hostilities against us, trying every means to hunt our people out of hiding as if they were thieving villains, using every subterfuge to slander and accuse us, and even causing death to countless numbers. Finally, with illusions and sorceries, he erected a statue of Zeus [like the one in Olympus, pictured above] as a god of friendship, and after devising demonic rites, initiations, and repulsive purifications for it, he displayed his magic even in the emperor's presence through whatever oracular utterances he pleased. . .
Eusebius goes on to describe the fall of Maximin and the arrest of Theotecnus after Constantine's rise to power:
Justice also summoned Theotecnus, determined that what he did to the Christians should never be forgotten. After he set up the idol at Antioch, he seemed to enjoy great success and indeed, was awarded a governorship by Maximin. . . . When, under torture, they [Theotecnus] revealed that the entire mystery [the oracle from Zeus] was a deception contrived by Theotecnus" [Book 9.11].
Eusebius' account indicates that the priests of the imperial cult were able to deceive and shake down their emperors through the use of fake "oracles from Zeus." Sounds very much like ventriloquism was at least one of the modes through which the image of the beast (in this case, the statue of Zeus) was made to seem alive and perform deceptive signs and wonders.
There are a couple of points of interest here. The use of occult deception and the hunting down of believers sounds much like the kind of thing proposed by prophecy pundits as characteristic of the future seven-year tribulation period. The problem for those who think this is limited to a future seven-year tribulation (i.e., our dispensational friends) is that this kind of Satanic deception was occurring in the fourth century, and was clearly a continuation of that spasmodic persecution of Christians by Roman emperors depicted by John in the Book of Revelation.
Far from being something isolated to the future (after the Rapture), the occult deception described here seems to characteristic of the efforts undertaken by the dragon (Satan) to seduce the nations throughout the entire inter-advental period. In this localized fourth-century persecution, we see the power of the gospel "restraining" (or binding Satan), as will be the case until the very end of the age when the dragon is said to be released from the abyss immediately before the return of Christ. Then, the dragon is allowed to universalize and intensify his war on the people of God until cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7-10).
When we read of Christians being persecuted, reviled, and even put to death, we see the same Satanic war on the people of God that Eusebius' witnessed in the days of Theotecnus when deception was foisted upon the people by the priests of Zeus. Dispensationalists are correct to remind us that Christians may be persecuted and martyred, and a future technology may be used to deceive the masses. They are wrong (and more than a bit naive) to assume that this sort of thing is limited to a future seven-year tribulation period, when, as John indicates, we are already in the great tribulation and will be until Jesus returns (Revelation 7:14).
Eusebuis’ report confirms this. He gives us a remarkable glimpse of the image of the beast and his account explains why the people of Antioch stooped to worship a lifeless statue of Zeus. The lesson for us; let us not think that we, unlike those naive ancients in Antioch, cannot be taken in by such things. History marches on, but the human heart remains as sinful as ever. People who hate the truth will be given over to deception (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).
- Carl Trueman addresses the question, what do we do when we discover that our favorite theologians have feet of clay? Since they all do, it is worthwhile taking the time to consider what we should think of them when we learn of their flaws and foibles.
- While we are on the topic of the flaws and sins of our heroes, what about the accusation of racism raised against Machen? Scott Clark addresses Machen's racist comments in his private correspondence
- All partisan opinions aside, it is painfully obvious that Joe Biden simply is not very good at being President. “All of you people get off my lawn!”
- Neil Young is gonna lose any fight he picks with Joe Rogan. The response in the Twitter world to Young is hilarious. “Dad, who was Neil Young?” “How is he going to get by losing his $1.37 monthly royalty from Spotify?”
- A great discussion of Putin's aims and agenda in the Ukraine from a real expert--Leon Aron of AEI. Very helpful and informative.
- Carl Trueman addresses whether or not we can "remake" ourselves. No, we cannot.
- Russell Moore responds to J-Mac's “over the top” comments on religious freedom . J-Mac needed to be taken to the woodshed on this one. Moore does just that.
- Great essay on Jesus as the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53 A good follow-up to my recent post on the subject.
Who’d Have Thunk? The Future Is Hard to Predict
In order for any of Adam’s fallen race to be saved, God must act to rescue us from the consequences of our sin. God does so in the person of his eternal son, Jesus Christ, through whom God reveals his justice and mercy. In Jesus Christ, God takes to himself a true human nature and comes to earth to do for us those very things sinners cannot do for themselves; fulfill all the righteous requirements of the law and provide an all-sufficient sacrifice for sin. This is why we must believe and confess that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. We must also believe and confess that Jesus Christ remains but one person. But how can this be? How can two distinct natures–one human and one divine–co-exist in one person? This very important question brings us to a discussion of what theologians call the “hypostatic union” of Christ–two natures, yet one person.
Article Nineteen deals with the two natures in Christ (the divine and the human) and the way in which they are related and yet remain distinct. The reason this question must be addressed at this point in our confession is because the prior article dealt with the incarnation of our Lord. When the word became flesh so as to save us from our sins, the question necessarily arises, how can God truly take to himself a human nature? And if he does, how can both human and divine natures co-exist in a single person? Thus the question we seek to answer is not something theologians speculate about to give them something to do. Rather, it is a question raised by the biblical data itself. How we understand these two natures and their relationship to each other says a great deal about what God did in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins.
Click here to read this exposition: Article Nineteen: "We Profess Him to be True Man and True God"
In the first century Greco-Roman world crucifixion was something that polite and well mannered people didn’t talk about. Considered a cruel instrument of torture and shame, nevertheless, the cross is the one thing in which the Apostle Paul chooses to boast–not just any cross, but the cross of Jesus Christ, where the guilt and power of sin which enslaved us are removed and broken. And yet, because it was an instrument of shame, Paul’s opponents in Galatia (the Judaizers) refuse to preach the cross of Christ. Instead, they are the champions of human merit earned through “works of the law.” They boast about the number of coverts they have made, yet they neither obey the commandments the champion nor can they see that the crucified and risen Jesus has ushered in the New Creation and established the true Israel of God. We have come to the end of Paul’s Galatian letter–the Magna Carta of Christian liberty. When he closes out this letter, Paul points us back to the cross of Jesus Christ, a fitting way to conclude our time in this remarkable letter.
Note: We have completed the first season—our series on Galatians. Please get your questions about Galatians in for the postscript episode. Use the “contact me” tab to send them my way.
Bibliography for Episode Fourteen:
Cornel Venema: Christ and Him Crucified
Michael Horton: God Glorified in the Cross of Christ
Martin Luther: Enemies of the Cross of Christ
Michael Horton: The New Creation
Scott Clark: The Israel of God
Bibliography for the Series:
F. F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free
Guy Waters, The Life and Theology of Paul
Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians
Moo, Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary)
J. V. Fesko, Galatians, Lectio Continua Series
Music (Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegretto (A minor)
I was recently a guest on the Distilling Theology Podcast. We had a great discussion about Credo Baptism (of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 sort) and Paedo Baptism of the Reformed Confessions (The Three Forms of Unity, and the Westminster Confession).
Reflections Upon the Book of Job (8)
The Pain Inflicted by Friends Trying to Help
There is a much greater pain than his sores, sleeplessness, and loss of all his children and possessions–the knowledge that Job’s friends think he has committed some secret sin, that he is guilty before God, is lying when he denies he’s sinned, and has therefore brought about his terrible ordeal.
From the perspective of Job’s friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar), the reason why Job lost all of his possessions, his children and his health is very simple. God is holy, therefore he must punish all sin. In this they are correct. Since it is obvious that Job is being punished by God (to their way of thinking), there can only be one explanation. Either Job, or his children, have committed some horrible sin which has kindled the wrath of God.
But Job knows he is innocent of such a sin. His heart is broken because he has no idea why God is subjecting him to such terrible suffering. Even as he cries out to God, lamenting his sad state and asking “why?” Job knows that his friends have no clue as to why he is suffering. Although arising from a sense of loyal friendship, Job knows their attempts to “comfort him” are actually cruel, self-righteous diatribes which have no basis in fact.
As Job becomes increasingly defiant with his friends, they become increasingly frustrated and angry with Job, who, in their estimation, could easily remedy his situation, if only he’d listen to their counsel, see the light, and then repent of his sin(s). The dialogue between friends found in Job 4-14 (which we have skipped), now becomes a full-blown argument in Job 15-21, which leads to Job’s profound confession of faith in chapter 19. We will look at chapters 15-21 in two parts: first, Job’s argument with Eilphaz (in verses 15:1-16:14) and, second (next time), Job’s argument with Bildad, which is followed by Job’s wonderful profession of faith in a coming redeemer.
What the Reader Knows Which Job and His Friends Do Not (Redux)
When we consider the second cycle of speeches (in chapters 15-16), we ought to keep in mind three key facts which tell the reader why the increasingly heated argument between Job and Eilphaz, and Job and Bildad (which follows) goes so badly off the rails.
First, the reader knows what neither Job nor his friends know–that Job’s trial by ordeal does not stem from some secret sin in Job’s life, but comes about because God called Satan’s attention to this man Job, who is the apple of God’s eye. Ever-scheming, Satan sees a chance to undercut the foundation of the gospel when he challenges God to remove Job’s prosperity and destroy his family. Satan is convinced that Job is not a righteous man, but a self-centered opportunist who fears God and shuns evil only because God provides Job with all kinds of material blessings. Take them away, Satan contends, and Job will curse God to his face.
Yet when Job’s possessions are taken away and his children are killed, instead, Job praises God. And so Satan tries again. This time Satan dares God to take away Job’s health and predicts that Job will curse God to his face. Once afflicted with a horrible skin disease, Job does not curse God. Again, Job praises God and Satan’s scheme comes to naught. But as time goes on, Job is not only a physical wreck (sick and miserable), deprived of sleep and rest, an outcast forced to live on the town dunghill, but Job’s emotional state deteriorates to the point that what had been unrestrained praise for God, becomes a plaintive cry, “why?” and a demand for vindication. Job is heart-broken at the loss of his children. He is sick. He is an outcast. It is Job who ends the silence, pouring out his heart, speaking at times either directly to his friends, while at other times speaking directly to God.
A second thing we need to keep in mind is that Job acknowledges that he is a sinner. Job also believes God’s promise to provide a redeemer who will save him from his sins, which is why Job made burnt offerings on behalf of himself and his children. He knows that his sins are covered. His blameless and upright life is the fruit of his faith in God’s promise to deliver him. This is why Job is so perplexed when these horrible things come to pass. While Job does not disagree with the substance of his friends’ arguments to the effect that God is holy and that he must punish all sin, Job knows that this is not his situation. Job knows that he has done nothing to provoke the kind of divine wrath to bring about the loss of all of his possessions, his children and his health. As his angst increases, Job senses that what is needed is a mediator between the holy God and sinful people. As Job wrestles with those questions associated with the suffering of the righteous, ever so slowly he begins to direct us to the doing and dying of Jesus Christ, that redeemer, who, one day, Job believes, will stand upon the earth.
Third, what probably hurts Job the most is the loss of his good name and reputation. He knows that everyone from his wife, to his three friends (seen in their speeches to Job up to this point), to the citizens of Uz, were all thinking the same thing. “What sin did Job commit which brought all of this to pass?” “What did Job do to bring about such punishment from God?” He knew they were thinking, “Job, just admit your sin and repent already!” But Job knows there is no such sin. He cries out for a trial before God even though he knows God’s greatness is too much for him.
This is why Job demands that God vindicate his good name. Apart from such vindication, it seems to Job that God is his enemy and that the armies of heaven are arrayed against him. Job would rather die than go on feeling like God has turned against him and is punishing him when he has done nothing wrong. Yet throughout this entire ordeal, Job refuses to curse God as Satan predicted he would. Job successfully passes his ordeal, frustrating the schemes of Satan, and introducing the principle into the redemptive drama that a greater Job (Jesus Christ) will one day triumph over Satan through his own perfect obedience.
Eliphaz’s Diatribe Against Job
This brings us to Eliphaz’s second speech in Job 15. Given the fact that Job’s friends are orthodox in their theology (God is holy and must punish sin), and given the fact that Job will not admit the obvious (he is being punished, therefore he must have sinned), coupled with the fact that Job is increasingly defiant towards his friends, Eliphaz now gives up all pretense of his genteel manner of his first speech to his miserable friend. Throughout his second speech, Eliphaz boldly sets out his own wisdom as vastly superior to that of Job’s [1]. Eliphaz accuses Job of both folly and impiety.[2] His frustration with Job is now clearly obvious.
Smarting because of Job’s complete dismissal of his prior words of wisdom, in Job 15:2-3, Eliphaz gets personal with Job. The gloves are off. Eliphaz asks Job, “Should a wise man answer with windy knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind? Should he argue in unprofitable talk, or in words with which he can do no good?” Eliphaz casts himself as the wise man, referring to Job as a “hot wind” (a “belly wind”).[3] As Eliphaz sees it, Job has shown himself not only to be foolish, but according to verse 4, Job’s words are down-right dangerous. “But you [Job] are doing away with the fear of God and hindering meditation before God.” If people get wind of what Job is saying and act in the same way Job is, this will lead them to question God’s will and wisdom. Not a good thing from a man like Job who had been an example to so many.
Up to this point, Job’s friends could only make vague accusations that Job had committed some secret sin. But as we read in verses 5-6, Eliphaz now thinks he has something more specific to pin on Job–his defiant speech, which, in Eliphaz’s mind, proves his point that Job is not the righteous man everyone assumes him to be. Says Eliphaz, “For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you choose the tongue of the crafty. Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; your own lips testify against you.” Yet, Eliphaz’s assessment of Job’s sin really does not matter, since God has already declared of Job in Job 1:22, “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” For Eliphaz, the only possible explanation is the retributive justice–God is punishing Job because he has sinned. But Eliphaz has never once even entertained the possibility that Job’s ordeal might stem from some other reason, that God may have a purpose in this which is not based upon retributive justice. Ironically, it is Eliphaz who limits God. Job has not brought this to pass through some personal sin. But Eliphaz will not consider any other explanation.
In verses 7-10, Eliphaz belittles Job by asking several humiliating questions which stem from Eliphaz’s assumption that he has the superior knowledge. “Are you the first man who was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills? Have you listened in the council of God? And do you limit wisdom to yourself? What do you know that we do not know? What do you understand that is not clear to us? Both the gray-haired and the aged are among us, older than your father.” The gray-haired and aged man is probably a description of Eliphaz, who goes on in verses 11-17, to speak of himself as the one offering God’s consolation. He asks Job, “
Are the comforts of God too small for you, or the word that deals gently with you? Why does your heart carry you away, and why do your eyes flash, that you turn your spirit against God and bring such words out of your mouth? What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks injustice like water! “I will show you; hear me, and what I have seen I will declare.”
In his first speech (Job 5:26), Eliphaz described a good man’s death as follows: “You shall come to your grave in ripe old age, like a sheaf gathered up in its season.” Job took issue with this, replying to Eliphaz in Job 7:9-10. “As the cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up; he returns no more to his house, nor does his place know him anymore.” Overhearing Job’s response to Eliphaz, Bildad also comments on the fate of the wicked in his speech (Job 8:22). “Those who hate you will be clothed with shame, and the tent of the wicked will be no more.” Job’s response (12:6) to him was: “the tents of robbers are at peace, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand.” Eliphaz cannot let this go and the central issue now becomes the fate of the wicked.
In verses 17 through the end of the chapter, Eliphaz speaks in direct rebuttal of Job, doing his best to make the case that not only do the wicked have a miserable death, but that they die before their time. This is the practical outworking of Eliphaz’s understanding of the principle of retributive justice. If God must punish all sin, not only will sinners have a miserable life, they will die prematurely. According to Eliphaz, “I will show you; hear me, and what I have seen I will declare (what wise men have told, without hiding it from their fathers, to whom alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them).” Notice, that Eliphaz is limited to his own observation, and his own wisdom (which he argued was confirmed by a dream).
The wicked man writhes in pain all his days, through all the years that are laid up for the ruthless. Dreadful sounds are in his ears; in prosperity the destroyer will come upon him. He does not believe that he will return out of darkness, and he is marked for the sword. He wanders abroad for bread, saying, “Where is it?” He knows that a day of darkness is ready at his hand; distress and anguish terrify him; they prevail against him, like a king ready for battle. Because he has stretched out his hand against God and defies the Almighty, running stubbornly against him with a thickly bossed shield; because he has covered his face with his fat and gathered fat upon his waist and has lived in desolate cities, in houses that none should inhabit, which were ready to become heaps of ruins; he will not be rich, and his wealth will not endure, nor will his possessions spread over the earth; he will not depart from darkness; the flame will dry up his shoots, and by the breath of his mouth he will depart. Let him not trust in emptiness, deceiving himself, for emptiness will be his payment. It will be paid in full before his time, and his branch will not be green.
As one commentator points out, it is ironic that Eliphaz calls Job a “belly wind” and yet ends his speech with a series of restatements of the same old argument (“you reap what you sow”).[4] This sets the tone for the entire second cycle of speeches.[5] What Eliphaz cannot handle is the self-evident fact that there are wicked people who prosper and righteous people who suffer. Eliphaz does not appreciate the finer points of eschatology–the “reaping” part may not be fully realized in this life, but will certainly be realized on the day of judgment.
The implication from Eliphaz’s speech is not lost upon Job. If Job was really the righteous and upright man he claimed to be, then he would not be suffering. Furthermore, if Job does not admit that Eliphaz is right, then Job is a hypocrite as well.[6] Job is indignant and stands his ground and makes two points in rebuttal. Job is not guilty of some horrible sin and God can do as he pleases, even if that does not jibe with the wisdom of his grey-haired, aged friend.
Job Has Had Enough
As Job sees it, Eliphaz is speaking for all of his friends. In Job 16:1-5, he dismisses their comments with a fair bit of contempt. “Then Job answered and said: `I have heard many such things; miserable comforters are you all. Shall windy words have an end? Or what provokes you that you answer? I also could speak as you do, if you were in my place; I could join words together against you and shake my head at you. I could strengthen you with my mouth, and the solace of my lips would assuage your pain.” In verse 6, Job makes clear that their many words or his own silence bring him no relief. “If I speak, my pain is not assuaged, and if I forbear, how much of it leaves me?” Job feels like he is being assailed by his friends and by God. “Surely now God has worn me out; he has made desolate all my company. And he has shriveled me up, which is a witness against me, and my leanness has risen up against me; it testifies to my face.”
He admits in verse 9-14, that Job feels like God has turned against him.
He has torn me in his wrath and hated me; he has gnashed his teeth at me; my adversary sharpens his eyes against me. Men have gaped at me with their mouth; they have struck me insolently on the cheek; they mass themselves together against me. God gives me up to the ungodly and casts me into the hands of the wicked. I was at ease, and he broke me apart; he seized me by the neck and dashed me to pieces; he set me up as his target; his archers surround me. He slashes open my kidneys and does not spare; he pours out my gall on the ground. He breaks me with breach upon breach; he runs upon me like a warrior.
While this is not the case–we know this to be true from the heavenly scene in the prologue (Job 1 and 2)–we can understand why Job feels the way he does. He’s lost everything. He is sick and miserable. He is an outcast. His friends are now accusing him of something he did not do. This must hurt in a profound way far more than the sores which cover his body
Next time, Job confesses his faith in a coming redeemer.
To read the next in the series: Job: I Know My Redeemer Lives (9)
To read the first in this series: Job: The Suffering Prophet (1)
___________________________________
[1] Kline, Job, 474.
[2] Andersen, Job, 174.
[3] Andersen, Job, 175.
[4] Andersen, Job, 179.
[5] Kline, Job, 474.
[6] Andersen, Job, 179.
From the March 2011 Riddleblog, Harold Camping’s “Save the Date” Tour.
I've been thinking about going on tour to promote my own two books on eschatology (A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin).
I could get a rig like this one, and use flashy graphics to announce that "no one knows the day or the hour” -- Matthew 24:36
Satellite Photo of Israel
Jesus Christ — The Israel of GodIf we stand within the field of prophetic vision typical of Israel’s prophets after the exile, and we look to the future, what do we see? Israel’s prophets clearly anticipate a time when Israel will be restored to its former greatness. But will that restoration of Israel to its former glory mirror the former days of the Davidic monarchy—i.e. a restored national kingdom? Or does the prophetic vision of restoration point beyond a monarchy to the ultimate monarch, Jesus the Messiah, who is the descendant of David, YHWH’s servant, and the true Israel?
The prophetic vision given the prophets is remarkably comprehensive. The nation had been divided, and the people of both kingdoms (Israel and Judah) were taken into captivity or dispersed as exiles throughout the region. Judah was exiled to Babylon five centuries before the coming of Jesus. Since the magnificent temple of Solomon was destroyed by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar and the Levitical priesthood was in disarray, any prophetic expectation related to Israel’s future would naturally speak of a reversal of fortune and the undoing of terrible calamity which had come upon the nation. The restoration to come in the messianic age therefore includes not only the fate of the nation, but also the land of Canaan, the city of Jerusalem, a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem (the so-called “second temple”), as well as the long anticipated heir to David’s throne—the coming Messiah.
Yet, once Israel’s Messiah had come, and the messianic age was a reality, how do the writers of the New Testament understand these Old Testament prophecies associated with Israel’s future restoration? With a Spirit-given sense of apostolic hindsight, Peter says . . .
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” (1 Peter 1:10-12).
According to Peter, Israel’s prophets predicted the coming of Jesus and tie the age of restoration to his person and work.
In Isaiah 41:8-9, the prophet spoke of a future restoration of Israel in the following terms. “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, `You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.'” The same promise is reiterated in the next chapter of Isaiah (42:1-7), when the LORD declares of his coming servant, “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations” (v. 6). Isaiah continues to speak of this servant in chapters 44 (vv. 1-2) and 45 (v. 4). Based upon these passages and how they are interpreted in the New Testament (more on that momentarily), we can say with a fair bit of certainty that Jesus Christ is the true Israel because Isaiah’s Servant Songs are fulfilled in him (i.e., Philippians 2:7).
Furthermore, looking ahead to the “latter days,” Israel’s prophets speak of Gentiles being identified with Israel (see Isaiah 19:24-25; 56:3, 6-8; 66:18-21; Zechariah 2:11). As the gospel goes out to all the earth (the Gentile nations), all Christians become members of Israel through union with Christ–the true Israel (Isaiah 44:1-5). Those who are of faith are children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7-9, 21). For Paul, every believer in Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is a member of the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). In Philippians 3:2-3, Gentile Christians are said to be “the circumcision.” In Romans 9:25-26, the Gentiles are even called “my people.” This is a rather impressive list identifying Christ and his people with Israel.
Not everyone agrees with the preceding, however. Given their so-called “literal hermeneutic,” our dispensational friends are bound to interpret those passages concerning Israel’s future restoration, “literally.” Yet, they cannot make good on this assertion while refusing to acknowledge that the New Testament writers re-interpret these prophetic texts in light of the coming of Jesus Christ. Dispensationalists contend that the Old Testament tells us in advance, what the New Testament must mean.[1] Yet, the Apostle Paul does the very thing dispensationalists say cannot be done. In Galatians 4:24, Paul specifically tells his readers that in light of the coming of Christ, he must look at significant elements of the Old Testament drama of redemption allegorically (i.e., the Abraham story, and the giving of the law to Moses). Yet, the dispensational hermeneutic will not allow this and they are thereby forced to assign the fulfillment of these prophecies of Isaiah and the prophets to a future earthly millennium after Jesus returns, in which a reconstituted nation of Israel supposedly co-exists with Gentile nations under the reign of the Davidic king.[2] In effect, this interpretive gambit amounts to the restoration of the Old Covenant Israelite geo-political monarchy as Jesus takes his place on David’s royal throne in Jerusalem and rules the nations from a restored national Israel.
So, is this how the New Testament interprets these messianic prophecies regarding the servant of the Lord? Who is this servant of the Lord? Is it the nation of Israel, or is it Jesus, Israel’s Messiah? In order to answer these questions, we ask how the gospel writers interpret these prophecies from Isaiah. They see them as fulfilled in the messianic mission of Jesus. There are several examples to consider.
First, in Matthew 12:15-21, when Jesus withdrew from the crowds who had followed him, Matthew reports that this event fulfilled what had been spoken in Isaiah the prophet. This event serves to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised servant of the Lord.
Second, when Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick, Matthew saw in this the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of a suffering servant who would take upon himself our infirmities and carry our diseases (Matthew 8:17 with Isaiah 53:4).
Third, in his gospel, Luke speaks of both Israel (cf. Luke 1:54) and David as the servant of God (Luke 1:69). Yet in Acts, Luke pointedly speaks of Jesus as the servant of God (Acts 3:13). After his crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead so that people everywhere might be called to repentance (3:26). The conclusion is obvious—Jesus is the servant of YHWH and the true obedient son of God, Israel.
Fourth, when the Ethiopian eunuch hears a reading from Isaiah 53:7-8 (the suffering servant) and asks Philip about whom this prophecy refers, Luke tells us that Philip informed the Ethiopian that this passage does indeed refer to Jesus (Acts 8:34-35).
Finally, in Hosea 11:1, Hosea predicted a time when “Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” But in Matthew 2:15, the evangelist tells us that Hosea’s prophecy was fulfilled when his parents took Jesus to Egypt to protect him from Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” (Matthew 2:3-18). Yet, after Herod had died, God called Jesus and his family to return to Nazareth. Matthew takes a passage from Hosea (11:1), which clearly refers to national Israel (as YHWH’s son). Yet, he informs his reader that this passage is fulfilled in Jesus Christ! Jesus is Israel, YHWH’s son. Matthew’s goal is to prove to his largely Jewish audience that Jesus is the servant of the Lord, foretold throughout the Old Testament (especially Isaiah).
According to the New Testament writers, then, Jesus is the true servant, and the true Israel of God. Recall too, that it was Isaiah who spoke of Israel and the descendants of Abraham as the people of God. It is through the seed of Abraham that the nations of the earth will be blessed. This is Paul’s point in Galatians 3:7-8, when he says “know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, `In you shall all the nations be blessed.'” All the promises made by the prophets to Israel of a great future restoration are tied to salvation going out to the Gentiles, which are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Paul’s words are important for several reasons. For one thing, Paul tells us that Abraham believed the very same gospel which the Apostle preached to the Gentile Galatians. There has only been one plan of salvation and one gospel from the very beginning. This, of course, raises very serious questions about the dispensational notion of dual redemptive purposes for national Israel and the Gentiles,[3] as is evident when Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:29, that “if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Believing Gentiles are said to be children of Abraham.
Then, in Ephesians 2:11-14, Paul tells us that at one time the Gentiles were without Christ and excluded from the “commonwealth of Israel” and “covenants of promise.” But now “in Christ” they have been “brought near.” Christ “has made us both one,” breaking down “the dividing wall of hostility” between Jew and Gentile. This one new unit is “the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” now identified as the “dwelling place for God” (2:19-22). The whole point of Christ’s mission to Israel is to unite them and the Gentiles into one people, under one head, Christ. To be in Christ is to be a member of Israel.
Finally, an important word of clarification is in order. As Robert Strimple points out, “We [amillennarians] say: `Yes, the nation of Israel was the people of God in the old covenant. Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of God.’ And thus we quickly run past (or we miss the blessed point entirely) the fact that we Christians are the Israel of God, Abraham’s seed, and the heirs to the promises, only because by faith, we are united to him who alone is the true Israel, Abraham’s one seed.”[4] There has always been one people of God, Israel in the old covenant era, and the church in the new.[5] As South African theologian J. A. Heyns, put it, “The Church is this new people, the new community of the Lord . . . . [But] this does not mean that the covenant with Israel is thereby terminated; it has been extended continuing with other nations. Salvation is not denied to Israel but proclaimed to other nations. The old covenant has not been exchanged for another one, but is perpetuated in a new covenant.”[6] This is important given the dispensational accusation that amillennarians contend that the church “replaces” Israel. The covenant of grace of which Christ is mediator was promised to Adam (Genesis 3:15), commenced with Abraham (Genesis 15, 17, 22), and in light of the texts considered above, is fulfilled in him (Galatians 3-4). To be in Christ is to be a child of Abraham. To be in Christ is to be a member of Israel. And Jesus is the true Israel. There is only one people of God, elect members of the covenant of grace.
According to the New Testament writers (in this case, Paul), the prophecies of Israel’s future restoration are not fulfilled in a reconstituted national Israel, which appears after Jesus returns—as dispensationalists claim. The ramifications for this upon one’s millennial view should now be obvious. If Jesus is the true Israel of God, and if the New Testament writers apply to Jesus those Old Testament prophecies referring to Israel as God’s son or servant, then what remains of the dispensationalist’s case that these prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled in a future millennium? These prophecies vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them!
________________________________
[1] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, Christ’s Prophetic Plans (Chicago: Moody Press, 2012), 10-11.
[2] John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959, 302-304; J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 503-508; Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2010), 91 ff.
[3] MacArthur and Mayhue, Christ’s Prophetic Plans, 10.
[4] Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in Bock, ed., Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 89.
[5] No “replacement theology” here. There is one covenant of grace with one covenant mediator and one gospel from Genesis 3:15 to the closing promise in Revelation 22:20; “He who testifies to these things says, `Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”
[6] J. A. Heyns, The Church (Pretoria, NGKT, 1980), 39-40.
Reflections on the Book of Job (7)
Satan’s Challenge Fails–Job Does Not Curse God
His memories of wealth and joy began to fade, largely erased by Job’s current misery. The presence of Job’s friends mourning his wretched condition brings forth a torrent of heartfelt but provocative words. Job’s doxology gives way to a lament of his birth. The greatest man of the east, is now crushed.
We read in Job 3:1-3, “After this,” [the arrival of his friends and the week spent in mourning] “Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. And Job said: `Let the day perish on which I was born, and the night that said, ‘A man is conceived.’” Job dares to plead with the Lord to remove that day when Job was conceived from human history. Job continues in verses 4-7, pleading “let that day be darkness! May God above not seek it, nor light shine upon it. Let gloom and deep darkness claim it. Let clouds dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. That night—let thick darkness seize it! Let it not rejoice among the days of the year; let it not come into the number of the months. Behold, let that night be barren; let no joyful cry enter it.” Job’s cry can be summarized, “it would have been better if I had never been born.”
The saddest part of Job’s ordeal is that his present pain has obscured the wonderful memories of all the joys he had known before. When life is viewed through the lens of pain and loss, it is easy for the sufferer to reason, “it would be better to have never existed at all than to endure my present sufferings.” Some of us have been there. Some of us are there now. Sustained pain robs us of so much–our joy often goes first, but at times pain even robs us of the assurance of our salvation.
A number of commentators take what follows in verse 8 to be indicative of the depths of Job’s despair. Job invokes magicians to blot out the day of his birth even as they seek to control the monsters of the deep.[1] “Let those curse it who curse the day, who are ready to rouse up Leviathan.” The idea is that the powers which hold destructive forces in check (preventing the chaos signified by Leviathan–who many ancients brought about eclipses and cosmic disturbances), now be used to blot out the day of Job’s birth.[2] Job’s wish is that the night on which he was conceived be blotted out of the historical record. In verses 9-10, Job continues. “Let the stars of its dawn be dark; let it hope for light, but have none, nor see the eyelids of the morning, because it did not shut the doors of my mother’s womb, nor hide trouble from my eyes.” Job does not seek to take his life. Suicide is not an option. But given his current emotional state, Job wishes that he had never been born. Cursed be the day of his birth! Job’s patience has become despondency. Still, Job refuses to curse God as Satan desired
Job Asks the Question Faced by Every Sufferer: “Why?”
At this point in his lament, Job’s cursing the day of his birth gives way to a series of rhetorical questions. “Why?” Since God had not blotted out the day of his birth, why then was Job even born? Job’s despair begins to become apparent beginning in verse 11. “Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire?” But Job was born. In the confusion brought by pain and misery, he reasons, “would it not be better to just die and get it over with?” He wonders about such a fate in verses 13-16, “for then I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept; then I would have been at rest, with kings and counselors of the earth who rebuilt ruins for themselves, or with princes who had gold, who filled their houses with silver. Or why was I not as a hidden stillborn child, as infants who never see the light?” As Meredith Kline puts it, “even confinement in the dark grave–not yet illumined by the resurrection glory of Christ–seemed a far better state of existence. There Job, outcast and a byword of base men and fools would share a common lot with kings and princes.”[3]
In the grave there is no gossip nor stares from the self-righteous. There are no haunting thoughts, no wretched existence. No pain and itching from sores. As Job puts it in verse 17, “there the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest.” Better to be dead, Job reasons, than continue on with such suffering and shame. Job does not speak of an afterlife as a place of reward or of curse, although he certainly does believe in a bodily resurrection at the end of the age (cf. Job 19:25).
Keep in mind that at this point in redemptive history, not much about the resurrection or the afterlife had been revealed. The point being made here is that for Job, death will bring an end to his sufferings. Job will not take his own life, yet he does hope that God will take it for him and bring an end to his travail. We could even paraphrase Job to be saying, “just kill me and get it over with!” But this is not God’s purpose for Job.
As Job’s lament continues, it is clear that he cannot either undo the fact of his birth, nor bring his own life to an end. He works his way to the fundamental question in verses 20-23. Job cries out, “why is light given to him who is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul, who long for death, but it comes not, and dig for it more than for hidden treasures, who rejoice exceedingly and are glad when they find the grave? Why is light given to a man whose way is hidden, whom God has hedged in?” Why does God give such good things like life to those who now wish to die. Why does God not give death to those who want it? If God gives good gifts and death would end Job’s suffering, why does he not give Job the gift of death so that his suffering might come to an end?
It is important to notice the word play in the text. Satan saw the hedge or the limits placed around Job as a sign of God’s favor. Without awareness of Satan’s appearance before the heavenly court, Job now uses the same word to describe how he feels trapped–hemmed in by God’s goodness in light of his own suffering.[5] God’s prior blessing has become a matter of curse. His reasons for gratitude are now gone. He knows what he has lost.
In the closing verses of Job 3, what is clearly revealed are the depths of Job’s anguish. Beginning in verse 24, Job cries out, “for my sighing comes instead of my bread, and my groanings are poured out like water. For the thing that I fear comes upon me, and what I dread befalls me. I am not at ease, nor am I quiet; I have no rest, but trouble comes.” The Hebrew words translated as sighing and groaning are too weak. The former word describes the roaring of lions, while the latter can be used in reference to the crash of ocean waves.[4] This is much more than a mere sigh of resignation or a soft groan. This is a violent and defiant act, something like “bellowing.”
Job did not take his great wealth for granted. He regularly made burnt offerings to the Lord not only to give thanks for all that God gave him, but also to consecrate all of his possessions to the Lord who gave them. But the very thing Job dreads most has come to pass. The loss of his wealth means the loss of God’s favor. Job is now terrified by the thought that God no longer favors to him and Job has no idea why.[5] He has done nothing wrong. He is blameless, upright, fears God and shuns evil. Why has his life come to this? “I have no peace, no quietness; I have no rest, but only turmoil.” The greatest man of the east is completely undone. And our hearts break for him.
How Do We Respond to Job’s “Why?”
First, Job is correct not to curse God or blame God for what has happened to him. By resisting the temptation to do so, Job passes the trial by ordeal and frustrates the purposes of Satan. Second, as a prophet, Job’s own obedience points us ahead to the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, which is the ground of Job’s own justified status before God. Third, in all of this, Job is an example to us in our own suffering. It is perfectly OK to pour out our hearts before God–as though we could hide what we are thinking from God in the first place. But what Job does that we cannot do is curse the day of our birth. God has ordained the number of our days as well as whether or not we will suffer. If we accept good things from his hand, should we not, like Job, be willing to accept suffering and loss when God brings these things to pass? After all, God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass–good and evil.
The thing to keep in mind for the modern reader of Job is that we know what Job does not. We know how the story will end. We know that God is going to restore Job’s family and fortune and vindicate Job’s good name after he passes through the ordeal. Even through Job does not know nor understand the true nature of his trial, we do. Therefore, we have a perspective on Job’s ordeal that he does not have. Like Job we know that God not only promises to turn evil and suffering into good, but he has the power to do the very thing he has promised to do. Unlike Job, we have seen that the promised redeemer whom Job anticipates, has indeed come and fulfilled all righteousness. Given our better redemptive-historical perspective on things, we know that Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins upon the cross. And like the poor sufferer Job, Jesus, too, was innocent. Like Job, Jesus, too, cried out in anguish and asked that haunting question, “why?” Thus words of Matthew 27:45-46 echo the words of Job, “now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is,My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’”
Jesus’s words sanctify the question “why?” Since Jesus asked “why?” so may we. What is more, the one who hears and answers our prayers is a fellow sufferer, who was tempted and tested in all ways as we have been and yet was without sin. But we must also understand that Jesus accepted God’s answer to his question. Jesus must suffer and die so that we might be saved from our sins. The suffering and agony of the cross must come before the empty tomb. This is the pattern we find throughout redemptive-history. So while we may ask “why?” we must be willing to accept the answer. Suffering comes before glory.
That being said, we must also never forget that the victory of the resurrection did come as Christ’s death became a glorious victory over the curse and the devil. When we look at the big picture, not only do we see that God restores Job’s health, wealth and family, but he restores his relationship with Job. The same holds true for the greater Job, Jesus Christ. Even as Jesus suffered and cried out “why?” so, too, God raised him from the dead and gave him the name above every other name. As God has done for his beloved son, so too, God will turn our suffering to good. Our suffering will come to a glorious end and our suffering is never in vain. It has an ultimate purpose, even if that purpose is known only to God.
Therefore, in the midst of trial, loss and sickness, it is perfectly OK to open our hearts and cry out in anguish as did Job. But you must know before you ask “why?” that you may not get your answer until you cross over into glory. Suffering, loss and death most often precede the ultimate and final answer. But since all of God’s promises are “yes” and “amen” in Christ, even as we ask “why?” we can be sure that not only does our own suffering have a purpose, but that somehow, and in some way, God will turn it all into good.
How do we know this? We know this from the story of Job. But more importantly, we know this from Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. Suffering comes before glory. But glory will come, just as it did for Job and for our blessed Lord Jesus. And it will come for all who even now have been called to suffer. Amen!
To read the next in the series: Job's Argument with Eliphaz About Suffering
To read the first in this series: Job: The Suffering Prophet (1)
_____________________________
[1] John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 94.
[2] Andersen, Job, 104.
[3] Kline, Job, 465.
[4] Kline, Job, 465; and Andersen, Job, 109.
[5] Andersen, Job, 109.
[6] Andersen, Job, 110.