Category Archives: Pastoral Reflections
To what extent does inerrancy extend?
To what extent is the Bible inspired and thus inerrant? Does the inspiration extend only to the ideas conveyed or to the very words of scripture?
A debate that has been taking place between the Orthodox branches in the church and what is normally called the Neo-Orthodox movement, is over the question of the extent of revelational authority. Another way of phrasing the question is, “Is the Bible the word of God or does the Bible contain the word of God?” This presents a contrast between a view of the inspiration of scripture and the view of the plenary inspiration of scripture.
The Neo-Orthodox movement in the church has held that it is not the words of scripture that contain the inspiration of God, but it is that when those words find themselves to rest upon the ears and the heart of a believer, then, and only then, genuine inspiration takes place. This allows the Neo-Orthodox theologian to not get very hung up by source critical arguments because, after all, it is not the words of scripture that are important; rather, it is the effect that those words have on the believing heart that is important. As one can see, this scheme of understanding revelation becomes extremely subjective and robs the text of any genuine content, for content, according to this view, comes from the hearer’s interpretation of the words. Exegetical theology also becomes nearly impossible, for exegesis becomes about “what this text means to me…” instead of what this text actually says. And though this position can be attributed to Neo-Orthodoxy today, it is not a new sin, but one that can be traced all of the way back to Adam and Eve who doubted God’s word that they would die if they ate of the forbidden fruit.
In response to this, the Orthodox theologians have taken a strong stand on the plenary (or complete) inspiration of scripture. In other words, every single word of scripture is a result of the inspiration of God. Every noun, every verb, ever preposition, every adjective, every pronoun, ever article is a result of the breathing out of God and thus carries with it the full authority of God himself. This view holds that meaning comes from within the text and not from within the hearer. This view holds that God is a rational and intentional God and that as a result, when he rationally and intentionally communicates with his people, he has a plain and intended purpose and meaning behind what was said. This view holds that the very statements of scripture contain propositional truth given to God’s people so that we might know him and glorify him with our lives. This view holds that while we see the stylistic fingerprint of the human authors within each text, that it is God who is writing through them, using all of their gifts and talents to produce his word, and that word—every word of it—is true and perfectly given and preserved by the Holy Spirit.
There are many in the post-modern world that would contend that words in themselves contain no meaning. They would continue that words are nothing but culturally formatted symbols with which we communicate and that it is the context in which language is used that conveys meaning. On one level, there is a degree of truth to this argument. We have already spoken of the dynamic nature of language as it is used by a culture. Many of our words carry with them very different meanings depending on the context in which they are found. For example, depending on the context, the word “dope” in English could refer to illegal drugs, to someone who is foolish or not intelligent, to gossip that is shared, to a form of varnish used on aircraft, or to lubricant that is used as a sealant. Context, then determines which form of the word you are using. This being said, words in a culture do have a fixed and limited set of meanings. Dope does not also mean dog, cat, and grocery cart; it cannot mean anything we want it to mean. If it could, then language would become meaningless, for “Dope dope doped dope” could then mean, “I need you to pick up a gallon of milk at the grocery store.” If such use of language were ever to become the case, then, as a culture, we would be returned to the state people found themselves in at the Tower of Babble, when God confused the languages. Culture cannot exist and reproduce itself if language is rendered meaningless.
Yet, even the post-modern thinker, when pressed on the issue, would assert that language does contain meaning, though it pains them to do so. Post-modern thinkers write books for people to read. Certainly in writing a book, the post-modern thinker expects people to understand what he is trying to teach. When a post-modern thinker goes to the bank and asks that his paycheck be deposited in his checking account, certainly he expects the teller to understand what he is saying and he trusts that the money will actually go into his account rather than in some random account. When the post-modern thinker goes to the emergency room in agony because he has kidney stones, when he communicates this to the doctor, he does not expect the doctor to start by examining his knees. When the post-modern thinker goes to a restaurant and orders an expensive meal, the post-modern thinker expects to be served the meal he ordered. Thus words have meanings and any rational person is forced to admit such by the way they use their words in practical situations. And, as God is a rational God, the words that God speaks in scripture are spoken with an expectation that they be understood—and that they be obeyed!
It is important to note that scripture was not given as dictation, squelching the various personalities through whom God wrote. We see stylistic language, artistic structure of texts, and themes that run through the writings of given authors, showing us something of the human nature of the Bible. Exodus 4:14-17 records the calling of Aaron to be Moses’ prophet (also see Exodus 7:1). God would tell Moses what to say, Moses would tell Aaron what to say and Aaron would speak it. The words that the prophet speaks belong to God (or in Aaron’s case, Moses), but the mannerisms, inflections of speech, and personality belong to the prophet. So too with scripture—the words belong to God, but the structure and personality of the writings belong to the prophetic or Apostolic author.
It is worth emphasizing here that only the Orthodox view of plenary inspiration preserves the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture. When the meaning of scripture becomes subjective, the truth of scripture becomes subjective as well. In addition, scripture itself claims to be the word of God, not just to contain God’s word. As the scriptures claim to be inspired in a plenary sense, to claim otherwise is to invalidate the value of scripture as a whole, suggesting that it is nothing more than a book of lies.
To what extent does Biblical infallibility extend?
If the Bible is incapable of error, to what extent does that infallibility extend, just to theological matters or to all maters to which it speaks?
We have already touched on this idea but it bears repeating. Given that the Bible is written by God, it is impossible for the text to be in error. God is omniscient and as he is the author of the Bible, the Bible reflects his omniscience in all areas. This means that the Bible is inerrant in the history of which it speaks, of the geography of which it speaks, of the science of which it speaks, and of real existence of the miraculous deeds that it records. It is our obligation, when our own understanding seems to contradict the revelation of scripture, to submit our understanding to the revelation that is given. Anything that compromises this view accuses God of being untruthful in his revelation of all things or it denies that scripture is divine revelation altogether and accuses its authors of being charlatans and frauds in the name of religion.
How do we know that the Bible is complete and unified?
How do we know that the Bible is a unified and complete book in its presentation to us and that it alone contains the written revelation of God for his people?
While the Bible has many human authors through which the text was written, there is one divine author. This is clear by looking at its overall unity. There is not a humanly produced book, wherein multiple authors have contributed over a long span of time, that contains the unity that scripture contains. Not only does the Bible not contradict itself, it also presents a progression of theology that could not have evolved from the imagination of men. Themes and theological concepts are found in their infancy in early Old Testament writings, are developed further in later Old Testament writings, and are found complete within the New Testament—all without contradiction or inconsistency.
More importantly than its unified nature are the many claims that the Bible makes of itself being God’s word. Throughout the scriptures there are commands to “write this down” or “speak this to my people” given by God to his prophets and apostles. The Old Testament itself contains more than 600 instances of “and God said” or “thus says the Lord.” That in itself is an occurrence of about once every 35 verses. The New Testament contains numerous direct quotes from Jesus himself, again being God’s speech recorded by the Apostles. The Bible goes as far as to refer to itself as being the very “breath” of God and thus the revelation of God to his people.
To those who would suggest that there are other texts that necessarily supplement the Bible that also contain God’s word, the Bible contains strong warnings that judgment will come upon those who suggest such things. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians and told them that anyone who proclaimed a gospel not consistent with that of scripture would be accursed. The consistent witness of every prophet and apostle within the history of the Biblical writings is that these words that are recorded in the scriptures contain the very words of God.
The Apostles’ Creed
I Believe: The Creed begins with an affirmation of belief. It is important to make note of this and be reminded of what it means to “believe” something. Belief in these truths does not necessarily imply saving faith, James reminds us that even the demons believe, yet the demons remain in their rebellion. Yet, belief does imply an understanding of a body of information and at least some level of intellectual assent to the truth claims of that information. It is impossible for you to “believe” something that you intellectually cannot assent to. For example, were I to tell you that you were really invisible, yet you could see yourself and others seemed to be acting as if they could see you, you would think that I was severely mistaken if not deluded.
In addition, belief requires that there be some body of information upon which that belief is based. Just as one cannot intellectually assent to things that you know not to be true, one also cannot intellectually assent to things that one knows nothing about. Assuming the premise that I know no Chinese (which is a true premise), were someone to hand me a philosophical statement written in Chinese and to ask me if I could assent to it as true, I could not do so. Does that make the statement untrue? Certainly not. Yet, unless I first can read and understand Chinese, or a good translation is provided in English for me to read, I have no information upon which to base a belief. Thus, to believe, requires both a content of knowledge upon which those beliefs are based and an intellectual assent to the truth-claims of those beliefs.
Thirdly, belief also requires a volitional act. Before one intellectually assents to a given truth claim, certain decisions and evaluations have been made. Does this information seem reasonable? Is it consistent with other truth claims that are held? Will my assent to this truth claim mean that I must abandon other truth claims that I have assented to previously? All these questions must be addressed as the intellect decides to accept or reject what has been presented. One of the great problems with the post-modern mindset is that it encourages the abandonment of this aspect of belief. Post-modern thought affirms that information must be had to have a belief and it affirms that belief requires an intellectual assent to truth claims of that information, yet it rejects the idea that one must evaluate the claims that one is assenting to and it rejects that such an evaluation must take place in the presence of all other truth claims that one has assented to previously. Thus, the post-modern mind regularly affirms multiple truth claims that are mutually exclusive and that contradict one another, creating schizophrenic behavior as one lives out life in various contexts, each with its own set of compartmentalized truth claims and beliefs. The Christian world-view is not this way, but seeks to holistically unite all aspects of the Christian’s life under a consistent and united set of truth claims—truth claims that have been given within God’s word.
I believe in God: Following the statement about belief, the creed lists a series of truth claims that are assumed and that are expected to be understood by the believer. These are ideas the creed assumes that the believer has intentionally thought through and has intellectually assented to. The first of these is the belief in God. To begin with, the Christian is a theist, he cannot be considered an atheist. One of the false accusations that was made of the early Christian church is that they rejected theism. While it is true that the Christians rejected the polytheism of the Romans, it was equally true that the Christians did not reject theism altogether. Instead, Christians are fiercely monotheistic, recognizing the fullness of the Three-in-One, Trinitarian, God of the Jews—the one and only true God, and this creed affirms just that idea. We believe in God. Though the persons and attributes of this God have not yet been explicated at this point in the creed, there are some implications that we can draw from the statement.
If we believe in God, we must have some information about this God in which we are placing our belief. So, where does this information come from? Some comes from the natural world, but the bulk of the information we base our belief in God upon comes from scripture. That very fact, though, implies something very important for the Christian that is sometimes lost in the debates over the veracity and inspiration of the Bible. If you are going to claim the Bible as the factual basis upon which you intellectually assent to a belief in God, by definition, you must then assent to understanding God in the way that the Bible understands him. The problem with many liberal theologians today is that they want to hold to a “knowledge” of God, but the character of the God that they are assenting to is contrary to the character of God that is presented in the source upon which they are claiming to base their assent! This kind of scholarship ends up in absurdity, for the basis upon which the scholar is assenting to information of God has nothing to do with the way the Bible presents that information and everything to do with the preferences of the particular scholar. When this is done, it is no longer the Christian God that is being assented to, but a humanistic substitute that can no longer be called Christian or God at all.
Also, if we are stating our belief in God, knowing that the basis of our belief is found in the presentation of that God in scripture, it would seem to imply that we are acknowledging at least some level of submission to his authority and to the authority of scripture. The scripture is clear that there is one God only and that God will share his role and reign with no one. The scriptures present God as being king and ruler over all of his creation, and if we are going to affirm that position as true, doesn’t that imply some degree of responsibility toward him on our part? Thus, in affirming that God is God, we are also affirming that we are not God and that we are set in submission to God who is greater than we are. This too, is part of what it means to be “Christian.”
The Father Almighty: Two affirmations are being made within this clause. First, it speaks of the “Fatherhood” of God. This can be understood both in terms of his relationship to the second member of the Trinity, God the Son, Jesus Christ, and it can be understood in terms of God’s adoption of believers into his household, making himself our divine Father. Thus, the Christian, in affirming this creed, is affirming the Father-child relationship and his or her submission to God as “child.”
The second affirmation that is made is that of God’s almighty power. There is not anything in the heavens or in the earth or below the earth that can rival God. There is nothing in the seas or that is in the air that can stand before God and claim power and might. God is infinitely more almighty than his creation and he will not permit a rival. Yet, when this is applied to the believer, it takes on a whole new level of meaning. If God is almighty and you are a child of God, in submission to his Godhead and rule, then you also understand that you are not mightier than God and are not in a position to tell him what he must or must not do. All too often Christians fall into the trap of trying to tell God what he got right and what he got wrong about the way he did this or that. Just as God is God and we are not, the Christian affirms that it is God who is almighty over the Christian’s life, not the Christian. Paul reminds the Roman church of this great truth when he quotes from the prophet Isaiah and asks, “who has been his counselor?” God is almighty and we are not. Yet do not miss the connection between these two affirmations. While God is almighty, he is an almighty Father who exercises fatherly care over those whom he has called his children. Just as a little child trusts in the strength of his or her earthly father to guide and protect them, so too, Christians can take great confidence in the power of our almighty Father to guide and protect us as we serve him in this life.
Creator of heaven and earth: This statement affirms for the Christian, the creating nature of God. Not only is God almighty, but God has demonstrated a portion of his might in creating the heavens and the earth. This is a reference back to Genesis 1:1, which is what some people refer to as a “mirism.” A mirism is when two extremes are used to imply not only the extremes but everything that falls in between. In other words, not only did God created the heavens and the earth, but he created everything in between. In addition, the reference to Genesis 1:1 implies also that the context of Genesis 1:1 must be kept in mind. God not only shaped and formed creation as some would suggest, but God created ex-nihilo—he made all things out of nothing. The term that is used in this passage is the Hebrew verb arb (bara), which, when God is the subject, speaks of God’s sovereign creation. Thus, in affirming that God is the “creator of heaven and earth,” you are affirming the intent of Genesis 1:1 that God created all things and he created all these things out of nothing. This is in direct contradiction to the naturalistic explanation of the cosmological origin of the universe, yet many who call themselves Christians fail to understand what they are affirming when they recite the Apostles’ creed or they have been too blinded by post-modernistic presuppositions allowing them to equally affirm two mutually exclusive views separated by artificial contextual barriers of their own creation. Theology that is Christian, by its very definition, affirms the creative work of God as it is reflected in scripture.
And in Jesus Christ: The next affirmation that is made moves from the first to the second member of the Trinity, God the Son. This affirmation begins with an identification of who the one and only-begotten son of God happens to be—and his name is Jesus. The name Jesus comes from the Hebrew root [vy (yasha), which means, “to save.” Hence, when Joseph was being given the pronouncement that the child born to Mary would be called Jesus, it was because, “he will save his people from their sins.” Thus, the second member of the Trinity is the one through whom salvation was worked for his people.
The next word in the creed is the word “Christ,” which functions as Jesus’ title during his earthly ministry. Christ, or Cristo/ß (christos) in the Greek, is taken from the Hebrew word x;yvim’ (mashiach), or “Messiah.” Both words literally mean, “the anointed one” and speak of the one through whom God’s promised redemption would come. Thus, the Christian affirms that Jesus, whom we call the Christ, is the one that was promised throughout the Old Testament for the redemption of his people.
His only Son: This is a reference back to John 3:16, that though God will adopt sons and daughters, he only has one son that is “begotten” of him. The term that John’s gospel employs is that of monogenh/ß (monogenes), which refers to one who is unique in his nature, unlike any other. God has many children (by adoption), but he only has one child who is of the same divine essence as God the Father. Thus, not only is Jesus the Christ, but he is God’s only Son, the only one able to bring sinners to the Father. As Peter proclaimed, “there is only one name under heaven whereby men must be saved!”
Our Lord: This is the first point in the creed where the first person plural pronoun is used. This in itself is a reminder that not only is this creed meant to be personally believed, but it is meant to be used as a corporate confession and symbol of the faith. Jesus is not simply “the Lord” nor is he listed as “my Lord,” but the creed refers to him as “our Lord.” And note the importance of the use of the term “Lord.” This is remarkably significant for two reasons. First of all, in ancient times, the Jewish people developed a superstition around the third commandment and fearing to use God’s name in vain, they opted to not ever use it at all. Thus, instead of speaking the covenantal name of God, which is hwhy (Yahweh), they would substitute yn”doa] (Adonai), which is Hebrew for “Lord.” This name, Lord, being ascribed to the Son of God is language that affirms his deity, connecting him with the divine name of hwhy (Yahweh).
Secondly, proclaiming Jesus to be our Lord implies that the church body (remember the plural nature of this clause) is standing in submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ. How often Christians think of themselves as being autonomous and neglect the Biblical model that has been set before us of our being servants in the house of Jesus Christ. How often Christians proclaim Jesus to be their Lord but live as if Jesus’ only role is to help out during times of difficulty. Once again, we see the effects of the post-modern mindset affecting Christian thinking.
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary: In this clause of the creed, the dual nature of Jesus is articulated more specifically. Jesus is fully human as he was born of a human woman. Yet, Jesus does not have a human father, but a divine one. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she became pregnant. More will be discussed on the reason for this when we reach our discussion of Christology, but this simple affirmation is an affirmation of the dual nature of Christ. The writers of the creed correctly understood the importance and the Biblical testimony on this issue, that you simply cannot call yourself a Christian if you deny either the full humanity or the full divinity of Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Note also that Mary was a virgin. God has left no room in the equation for the possibility that Jesus could have really been conceived from Joseph or from another. Also, it is a reminder that God is the one who opens and closes the womb and that he is able to do this work in his servant Mary without the aid of human intervention. Mary’s virginity reminds us also of her integrity as a woman, having remained chaste until her marriage and that at no time in between the conception and the birth did Joseph and Mary actually consummate their marriage vows.
Suffered under Pontius Pilate: This is not to suggest that the only suffering that Jesus had was while he was on the cross, but it is a reminder that the cross was the climax of Jesus’ suffering, it was real, and it was suffered under the hand of Pilate, who was trying to appease the crowd. In addition to our Lord’s suffering, there is another crucial element to this clause in the creed. Pontius Pilate’s name is set before us. The religion that we have is a religion that is set in history and can be attested to by outside sources. The life and suffering of Jesus is a real, historical fact, documented by numerous primary sources and cannot be refuted. The Christian affirms the historical nature of the Christian faith and the outworking of God’s plan in human events.
Was crucified: This is a reminder that the prophetic statements about the Messiah were fulfilled on the cross. It is a reminder that the death that Jesus endured was a horrific one and it is a reminder that it was a Roman one. The Jews did not execute by crucifixion; the Romans did. Much more could be said on this matter, but we will again leave that for the section on Christology.
Dead and Buried: Jesus did die on that cross and was buried in a tomb. He paid the penalty for our sin in its fullness and Jesus entered into the grave just as you or I will do when these physical bodies of ours die. There are some who have chosen to reject the idea of Jesus’ death on the cross, creating a story of him entering into a coma on the cross or otherwise some sort of pseudo-deathlike state to trick the Romans. First of all, the Romans knew death and they knew the difference between a dead body and an “almost dead” body. The piercing of his side was done to confirm that he really was dead. The creed does not allow for such nonsensical teachings like this and affirms that Jesus really did die and that he really was placed in a tomb. Christianity offers no hope if Jesus did not die, for with no death there was no completed sacrifice. The Christian understands this and thus affirms the real, physical death of Jesus Christ.
He descended into Hell: This is one point in the final formulation of the Apostles’ Creed that differs significantly from the older Roman form. Historically, there was developing a theology, based on an interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19, that suggested that during the time Jesus’ body was in the grave, his spirit descended into hell, proclaimed the gospel to the Old Testament saints (some suggested that it was to all) and those who would believe would follow him into heaven. The point of this study is not necessarily to go into a detailed exegesis of 1 Peter 3:19 and Ephesians 4:9-10, but let us suffice to say that it misunderstands what Peter and Paul are seeking to communicate. In addition, it makes Jesus’ statement to the thief on the cross that “today, you will be with me in paradise” nonsensical. This theology would eventually be referred to as the “Harrowing of Hell” and it would become part of the Roman Catholic understanding of intermediate states between heaven and hell. It was a theology that was becoming established in the church in the early parts of the seventh century, about the time that the final formulation of the Apostles’ Creed was being established by the church. Hence, it should not be a surprise that the language was included in the Creed’s finished form.
The protestant Reformers rejected this theology as un-Biblical, but were faced with the question of how to explain the theology to their people if the Apostles’ Creed were retained. Though there are a few different approaches to the question, most simply say that this refers to the entrance of Jesus’ body into the grave for three days and three nights. While this interpretation is not fully consistent with the language of the Creed, the reformers have pointed out that while the Apostles’ Creed is truly an ecumenical creed, the clause about the descent into hell is a later addition incorporated by the church. This is further confounded by the fact that the Athanasian Creed incorporates this language of Jesus’ descent as well, yet, as we have discussed before, there are some questions about the dating and authorship of that particular creed.
The third day he rose from the dead: Three simple affirmations are made within this clause. First, that Jesus did not remain dead. Therein lies the hope of the believer in Jesus Christ, for as Christ rose, so too will we rise with him in the resurrection. Were Christ not to have risen from the grave then we could have no hope that we too might one day be raised as well. Second that Jesus was dead. He was not simply placed in the tomb alive then revived later, but he was dead in every sense of the word. And thirdly, this line in the creed affirms the duration of Jesus’ time dead in the grave, which in itself is a fulfillment of prophesy. Just as with many other points of Jesus’ life, there are some scholars who have sought to deny in one way or another the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave and at the same time call themselves, “Christian.” This simply cannot be done. When you deny the resurrection you have essentially denied the heart of the Christian faith and have reduced it to moralistic teachings; something that Christianity was never meant to be.
He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: This affirmation naturally follows the previous statement, for if Jesus rose from the dead, one must ask, to where did he ascend? And here is the affirmation that Jesus did rise from the dead and that he triumphantly ascended into heaven and that he sits at the right hand of his Father: God Almighty. Note two things about this affirmation. First, Jesus sits. Sitting signifies a completion of the work that one came to do. Yes, Jesus still lives to make intercession for his people, but the work of redemption that Jesus came to earth to do was complete, and as victorious kings of the ancient times would do, after the completion of his victory, he took his seat at the right hand of his Father. The second thing that is worth noting is the location where that seat happens to be. In ancient times the right hand seat of the king was the seat of honor and dignity. Jesus, in ascending, is honored by his Father for his completed work. In other words, the sitting denotes honor and majesty, not complacency.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: The language of this clause looks forward to Jesus’ glorious return to bring all into judgment. The reality of judgment implies that there is a standard by which judgment will be carried out. It also implies that there are some who will be exonerated and some who will be convicted. It also implies that there will be a judge who discerns who is acceptable by the measure and who is not acceptable according to that measure.
This is where the post-modern line of thinking leads people into grave error. To say that a judge does not have a rule by which justice is measured, but who allows those who are being judged to construct their own rule by which justice may be measured is silly and removes the power from the seat of the judge and places it in the hands of the individual being judged. In doing so, justice loses all meaning, for who would condemn themselves to eternal damnation when it is within their own ability to free themselves? The concept of judgment becomes laughable.
Instead, the Christian faith affirms the reality of a standard by which men are judged, that it is singular in nature, and that mankind is unable, as a result of sin, to meet that standard. Thus, we stand guilty of the penalty of eternal damnation. In turn, what we need is not to recast the laws, but one who can substitute himself for us who will pay the penalty that we owe. Jesus did just that and intercedes for us to boot. Thus, those who are trusting in Jesus for their eternal salvation stand as righteous before the law as the penalty of the law has already been paid on our behalf. This clause of the creed affirms the nature of Christ and his authority to redeem his people. At the same time, it is a reminder that Jesus has the authority to condemn as well. Jesus has the authority as judge over all—the quick (meaning living) and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost: While this is structured as a separate statement, it is connected theologically back to the language of belief in God, now affirming the third member of the Trinity. For theology to be Christian, it must affirm all three members of the Triune Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Many of the heresies of the early church were over the nature of the Trinity as well as the dual nature of Christ. It is important to recognize that the church has always understood these questions as questions that one may not compromise and there is no room for discussion. We may debate this view or that view of some ordinance of the church or the meaning of this text or that, but the nature of God is not open for debate, and Christian theology as well as creedal formulations all affirm this great Biblical truth about our Triune God.
The Holy catholic Church: The term “catholic” means “universal” and the statement is a reminder that there is only one body of Christ and thus only one true church. Yes, there are different denominations and different congregations in different geographic locations, but the body of Christ is still united in Jesus Christ. The term “Church” is derived from the term ejkklhsi/a (ekklasia), which simply refers to a gathering. Yet, the creed reminds us that this gathering is a holy gathering. Why is it a holy gathering? First, God’s people have been set apart from the world for his service and for his glory, and second, God’s people have a holy calling upon their lives to live in a holy way, just as God is holy and lives in a holy way. This statement affirms both the unity of the church in Christ and the call to holiness that is placed upon the church—notably that is placed on the life of every member.
The Communion of the Saints: This statement, while not found in older creedal formulations, does not introduce any new theology to what has already been stated, but simply reiterates the previous line. Originally, this language was meant to communicate the idea that the saints who have died and gone on to heaven are in communion with one another and with Jesus Christ. As the creed began to be more and more widely used, it began to be understood to reflect the communion that believers have with one another here on this earth as well. Either way, the statement simply affirms the unity and fellowship of God’s people as one body of Christ both here and in heaven.
The Forgiveness of Sins: This statement almost goes without saying due to the implications of past elements of the creed. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross guaranteed forgiveness for his people and ascension to the right hand of God the Father is our assurance that forgiveness has been granted. At the same time, for a sinful people who struggle with the temptations that befall them in this world, this statement is sweet and meaningful enough that it deserves repeating over and over. In Jesus Christ there is forgiveness for wretched, fallen, sinners such as I—and such as you, assuming we come to him in faith and repentance. Were there no forgiveness there would be no hope for anything but wrath and judgment. In Christ there is hope and this frames how the Christian lives in and interacts with the world.
The Resurrection from the Dead and Life Everlasting: Have you ever stopped and considered what you are stating when you state that you believe this? What the Christian is affirming is that after he or she dies, and after his or her body has been placed in the ground, and after it has decomposed over the years to nothing more than a skeleton or even to ashes, that when Christ comes, he or she will rise and live again. This concept is something that is ludicrous to the modern mind. Certainly some have sought to go to extreme measures to preserve their bodies from death and some have gone to even more extreme measures to preserve their body on the brink of death for some future time when their diseases might be curable, but the Christian need not do such things. In fact, the Christian need not fear dying because the Christian understands that at some future point, a point fixed by God’s design, Jesus will return in the clouds and those who are dead in Christ will be resurrected free from the ailments that have brought death to their bodies. In fact, this resurrection body will be so perfect that it will not succumb to disease and the believer will be able to live forever. In addition, during the intermediate years, the believer’s spirit will reside with Christ. This great truth is an essential tenet of Christianity. The afterlife is not some sort of eternal sitting on clouds practicing harp-music as some skeptics would portray, but it is life everlasting, being bodily resurrected from the dead.
Amen: Many times when the Apostles’ Creed has been recited, the word “amen” is appended to the end. The word itself comes from the Greek ajmh/n (amen) which in turn comes from the Hebrew !ma (aman or amen). The Greek use is normally translated as “truly” in our Bibles and the Hebrew word is simply the verb that means, “to believe.” In other words, the closing word is a final, repeated affirmation that these are things that are held to be true in the most absolute sense. It is true that many people in the modern world would suggest that there is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute error, only truth and error that is relative to the situation that one finds oneself in. This is not the Bible’s presentation of what it means to be Christian. The Bible presents God as absolute and his word as objective truth with the expectation that the Christian will say “Amen” to the fullness of what God has revealed. So too, this creed ends with a resounding, Amen!
Through this formulation, the early church took the teachings of scripture and sought to concisely answer the question, “what must I believe if I am to claim to be a Christian.” In fact, many pastors echo this understanding even today as their churches recite the Apostles’ Creed. Just prior to beginning the recitations, many will introduce the creed by saying, “Christian, what do you believe?” The church then replies by reciting this creed in unison.
There have been two criticisms made of the assertion that the use of arb (bara) is used of God’s sovereign creation ex-nihilo. The first cites passages like Isaiah 43:15, where God is spoken as the “Creator of Israel.” The suggestion is that God did not create the people who made this nation from nothing, but that he gathered them together and formed them into a nation. Yet, people who make this argument miss the point of what the Biblical writer is asserting. Yes, God did gather the people together to form Israel, but Israel as an institution—as God’s people—was formed by God’s sovereign call, and in a very real, theological sense, the nation was formed ex-nihilo even though it incorporated many individual people. The second assertion builds upon the first. They argue that since arb (bara) can mean “to form from existing matter” then Genesis 1:1 can be understood in terms of God forming eternally existent matter to shape the cosmos as we know it (this is the predominant Mormon view). This can be easily refuted when one notes both the mirism that is employed (see above) and that if this mirism includes all things that are—from what did God create unless he created ex-nihilo? Secondly, in the creation account, the term hf[ (asah) is used in every instance where God is taking existing matter and making or forming aspects of the created order. The term arb (bara) is only ever used in the creation account to refer to that which God is making completely new—ex-nihilo.
Again a reminder of Jesus’ humanity, for were Jesus not fully human he could not have suffered and died.
Please note that though the theology of the Harrowing of Hell was not popularized until the 7th century, the theology had some minority support for many years. Likewise, there are older versions of the Apostles’ Creed that do contain the language of Jesus’ descent into Hell, but this language is not in the oldest versions, nor is it in the majority of the texts until we find ourselves in the sixth and seventh centuries.
The Names of God
It is worthwhile to spend some time reflecting upon the various names of God, particularly those names given in the Old Testament. In thinking on these names, it is important to reject at the outset of this discussion the theological error of attributing the many names of God to a variety of cultic traditions which were later combined together to form what we know as Old Testament Judaism. These names do not reflect multiple cultic groups, but rather reflect ancient Israel’s attempt to understand the fullness of God’s character from multiple angles. These names are designed to reflect specific character traits of our infinite God, and as God is infinite, so too are the angles in which one may seek to express his character. Just as one needs more than one lens on a camera to take a three-dimensional picture, the multitude of names given to God give us multiple lenses by which we can perceive God’s character and thus have a fuller picture of his character.
Primary Names of God: While there are many names given to our God in scripture, there are five names that are most commonly used in the Old Testament to speak about God:
hwhy (Yahweh): By far the most commonly used name of God is Yahweh (6,828 times in the Old Testament). This is the name that God gave to Moses on Mount Horeb at the burning bush so that Moses could identify God to the Israelites back in Egypt. It is the name that God gave to his people by which we can know him throughout the generations. This name literally means, “I am who I am,” or “I am who I will be.” In other words, it reflects the eternality and self-existence of God’s character. There never was a time when God was not, nor will there ever be a time when God will be, God simply “is.” In the New Testament, the language that refers to God as “the one who was, who is, and is to come” is built on the idea of the covenantal name of Yahweh. In addition to speaking of the eternality of God, the giving of this name also reflects God’s covenantal nature and is often found used in a redemptive context.
~yhiloae (Elohim): This name of God, used 2,602 times in the Old Testament, reflects his strength and power, especially in the context of Creation. Oftentimes, the fact that this name is found in the plural is cited to speak of the plurality of God’s person, yet the plural usage of this name, as discussed above, may also simply be seen as reflecting the idea that God’s might and power are so abundant that it is not suitable to speak of it in the singular. In addition, this name is also understood to represent God as lawgiver in the lives of his people.
yn”doa; (Adonay): The root word for this name of God, found 444 times in the Old Testament, is !Ada” (adon), which simply means “lord” in a very generic sense. Yet, when the y ‘ (ay) ending is added, the term takes on new meaning. This ending elevates the word to a title of exaltation. God is not simply being referred to as Lord, but as the Lord of all Lords, or as the greatest and mightiest Lord that has or ever will exist.
tAab’c. hw”hy> (Yahweh Tsebaoth): God is called “Yahweh of Armies” or “Lord of Hosts” on 242 occasions in the Old Testament. This name is a constant reminder not only of the might that is found in God’s own hand, but that he is the God of hosts of armies. God is the mightiest Emperor in all of the universe, no Czar, no Caesar, no Pharaoh, no King or General can stand against him—God reigns and no other has the might to rival him.
lae (El): This is a more generic name for God that refers to his might and to his power. It is found 200 times on its own in the Old Testament, but is usually found in connection with one of God’s attributes, reflecting that God is the greatest in righteousness, holiness, etc…
Secondary Names of God: There are a number of other names that are given to God that are reflections of some of God’s many perfections. They help us see the fullness of God’s glory, his grace, and his goodness and the abundance of these names is meant to enhance our worship as we see God in the context of these various attributes. As mentioned above, many of these names are composites of the name lae (El) and one of God’s attributes.
yD:v; lae (El Shaddai): This name literally means, “God of the Mountain,” but is often translated as “God on High,” reflecting God’s exalted state resting high above the mountains. It might also be seen as an allusion of our relationship to God, sitting under the mighty shadow of his presence, not unlike the Israelites when they dwelled under the shadow of Sinai.
!Ayl.[, lae (El Elyon): This name means “God Most High,” and is a name that reflects the exalted nature of God himself. Jesus is also referred to as the “Son of the Most High,” which is a direct reference to this divine name.
Yair| lae (El Raiyy): “God of Seeing.” God sees all things that men do; nothing escapes his sight.
~l'(A[ lae (El Olam): “God of Eternity” or “Everlasting God.” God is forever, there is no end to him or for him, thus we who belong to him may rest in him forever as well.
hn”Wma/ lae (El Emunah): “God of Faithfulness” or “Faithful God.” God is faithful to the ends of the earth, we need to fear him to be whimsical or capricious, but in him lie everlasting stability and faithfulness.
tA[DE lae (El Deoth): “God of Knowledge.” God is all-knowing and omniscient; God knows all things to an infinitely thorough degree. There are no surprises to God and there is nothing is not eternally and intimately known to God on high.
rABGI lae (El Gibor): “God of Strength” or “Mighty Warrior God.” This name of God reminds us that the battle is the Lord’s, it is his might that brings victory at every stage, and not our own.
tAlmuG> lae (El Gemuloth) and tAmq’n> lae (El Neqamoth): “God of Recompense” and “God of Vengeance.” God will bring vengeance upon his enemies and upon those who cause harm to his people. “Vengeance is mine,” says the Lord.
yliyGI tx;m.fi lae (El Simchath Gili): “God of my Jubilation and Exultant Joy”. This is probably one of my favorite, and could even be simply translated as “God of my joy joy” to echo the old children’s song about having God’s joy down in our heart. This title used only once of God expresses the almost uncontainable joy that one feels when he or she comes into the presence of the Lord of their life.
yY”x; lae (El Hayay): “God of my Life.” This name is the simple reflection of the Lordship of God in all of life—God is a jealous God and he will share his people with no one.
New Testament Names: Though the New Testament does not contain the abundance of names for God as does the Old Testament, several new Testament Names are worth mentioning.
qeo/ß (Theos): This Greek term is the most common name that is used to reference God. It can be applied to refer to any supernatural entity, but within the Greek New Testament, it is most commonly used to refer to the God of the Bible. It is the term from which we get “Theology” and “Theophany.”
Pa/ter (Pater): Normally when we think of God in terms of his Fatherhood, we think in New Testament terms. We think of how, as believers in Jesus Christ, we are adopted into God’s household and given the privilege of calling him Father. Yet, we must also recognize that this language is not alien to the Old Testament as well. God is referred to as Father of believers in ancient Israel as well. In addition, as a sign of God’s great mercy, God is also referred to as a “Father to the fatherless.”
uJio/ß (huios): As we move into the New Testament, we find the Trinitarian names of God coming into prominence. And while we will spend time speaking of the many names and titles given to Christ when we deal with the section on Christology, it is important to remember at the onset, that God is Triune and thus the names applied to the Son apply to the Trinitarian Godhead as a whole. God is not Father alone, but he is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in perfect Trinitarian union as discussed above.
a¢gion pneuvma (hagion pneuma): The third member of the Triune God is God the Holy Spirit, again, as we have seen above, who has been spoken of in the Old Testament, but presented with far more clarity in the New Testament. Again, we will discuss the Holy Spirit more fully when we deal with the section on Soteriology, but it is important to mention Him here as we present the names of God.
Kurio/ß (Kurios): This is just as much a name as it is a title. It is the Greek term which is used to translate both hwhy (Yahweh) and yn”doa; (Adonay) from the Old Testament. In the New Testament, its primary usage as a name of God is applied to God the Son, who is Lord of our lives as believers.
∆Emmanouh/l (Emmanouel): Once again, the name “Immanuel” is as much a title as it is a name, and means “God with us.” While this name is most commonly thought of in terms of the naming of Jesus, we must be reminded that this name, like that of Pa/ter (Pater), has Old Testament roots.
While there are many other names of God that we could explore and reflect on, rich names like “Lord of Lords,” “Lord of Kings,” “Lord of the Whole Earth,” and “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the aforementioned names demonstrate for us how these names reflect upon the character of God as a whole. In some ways, looking at these names, like looking at God’s many perfections, is like gazing at a diamond from many different angles. As you turn the diamond, the light catches the different facets from different directions and the gem never ceases to sparkle and gleam in slightly different, but increasingly captivating ways. The deeper we look at God and his perfections, the more deeply we must be drawn into him, the more deeply we must love him, and the more deeply we shall adore him.
Note that the very fact that we have names of God given to us in scripture is just one more affirmation that our God has made himself knowable to his people. Note also that these names do not originate in the ideas that men have about God, but as scripture, they originate with God and come through inspired men who are seeking to describe what God has revealed to them about himself.
Because of the uncertainty of the vowels for the covenantal name of God, many older texts transliterate this name as Jehovah, yet most modern scholarship leans toward Yahweh as the proper pronunciation of God’s covenantal name. Most of our English Bibles will render this name as LORD or LORD (depending on the typeset) to reflect the Jewish tradition of substituting yn”doa; (Adonay, which means “Exalted Lord”) out of reverence for the divine name.
Revelation 1:4,8; 4:8. Revelation 11:17 and 16:5 also pick up on this idea, though they only contain part of the formulaic language.
Pillars: Marks of Good Theology
It would be unwise for us to end our preliminary discussion of theology by simply defining theology on the basis of what it is not (see Pitfalls); thus it is prudent for us to add marks that define what a good theology looks like. A biologist might begin a discussion about a bumble-bee by explaining the differences that it has with a wasp or a hornet, but until the characteristics of what does make a bumble-bee a bumble-bee are known, the student will still be at a loss to identify a genuine one out in the wild with any mark of surety. Thus, we lay before us key elements that are marks of a good theology, and though they may not be exhaustive, such elements are so fundamentally necessary to good theology that no good theology can exist without the things we will mention below.
It Must be Biblically-Accurate:
Though this may seem to be a rather obvious first mark, the presence of many bad theological strains in our culture demands that this principle be laid before us. How may a God who is infinite be known apart from the way he reveals himself to his creatures? Ultimately, while God has revealed many of his characteristics in nature, it is only when we come to his divine word that we find the complete and perspicuous revelation of his being. Ultimately, God has revealed himself in his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Bible is a book that is eminently about Jesus Christ. Though our place in this introductory chapter is not to defend the plenary inerrancy of scripture, that position will be stated and defended vigorously in the chapter on Prolegomena, let it suffice to be said here, that the things which come directly from God—that are “God breathed”—are incapable of being at fault. Thus, for a theology to not be scripturally accurate is defeating the purpose of doing theology at all. Good “God talk” must be consistent with the “talk” that God has uttered about himself from on high.
One final note about a theology that is Biblically Accurate: there is always some degree of proof-texting that is done when doing any kind of theology. We will always cite this verse or that group of verses in support of this position or another. If done well, this adds a level of credibility to theological arguments as it always reminds the reader that the theologian is not the authority upon which a particular argument stands or falls—but scripture is. Yet, when proof-texts are taken out of their context, they can be made to mean things that they are not stating at all. Careful exegesis must be done before any proof-text should be used or considered valid; one must always endeavor to understand any given text in the broader context of the larger argument or passage that it is a part of, in the context of the particular book that it is located within, and in the context of the other writings by said author. In addition, Even a book’s location within the revealed canon of scripture must be taken into account as well as scriptural teaching as a whole. D.A. Carson is fond of reminding his students, “A text taken out of its context is a pretext for a proof-text.”
It Must Accurately Describe the World Around Us:
As we will discuss further in the section on Prolegomena, God has revealed himself not only in the scriptures but also in the created world. Certainly God’s word, being the revelation of an inerrant God, is the lens through which we must view the world around us; to do otherwise would be foolish. God’s revelation of himself in creation is mediated through our senses and through our understanding—both of which can be demonstrated again and again to be fallible; God’s word is not. At the same time, God has given us reasonable minds with which we can study the world around us. We can observe through our senses, recognizing that though there is a significant degree of error within our sensory observation, we do live in a world with a benevolent God who does not play tricks upon our senses. Thus, the theology that we have must be consistent with the things in God’s created order that we can observe, though recognizing that there are limits upon our senses and that there are no limits upon God’s senses.
For example, when many of us were younger, particularly if we attended a government-run school, we were taught by our teachers that Christopher Columbus discovered that the world was round and that prior to Columbus’ discovery, most people still believed that the earth was flat and that we were capable of falling off the edge of the earth if we sailed too far. Though many of my Elementary School teachers passionately affirmed this falsehood, it simply was not true. The Pythagoreans, more than 2000 years before Columbus, had demonstrated mathematically that the earth was round and had even estimated its diameter with a fair degree of accuracy. Now, when my young mind was first confronted with this truth by a mathematician and scientist, I had a choice to make: do I believe my elementary school teacher or do I believe one who is a trained authority on these particular matters. The answer was obvious: I submitted my previous knowledge to the teaching of one who was an authority in his field. In the same way, is not God the ultimate authority on the creation that he has brought into being? When there is potential for our own errors in observation, ought we not submit ourselves to the teaching of one who is the authority on every subject? Thus God, in his word, provides us with a lens through which we can see and properly understand the world—yet there is still a world out there that we are looking at. As mentioned above, we must not do theology “in a vacuum;” rather, when doing theology, we must always understand it in reference to how it relates to life and the world that God has created around us.
It Must be God-Centered:
This principle is the counter-point to the mark of a bad theology, that of man-centeredness, that was mentioned above. Theology must always be God-talk and not man-talk. Scripture begins with the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” There can be no doubt that the scriptures begin with the assumption that God exists and that he is primary over his creation. Of course, were there no God, there would be no revelation in scripture, and then the Bible itself would be the greatest farce ever perpetrated by men, for the Bible itself claims to be God’s word, not men’s. Thus, our theology must always reflect the glory and majesty of the one who created us and must genuinely be speaking of the one true God.
It Must be Christ Centered:
As mentioned above, the scriptures also are given for the purpose of pointing toward, speaking of, and proclaiming the glory of Jesus Christ: God the Son. All of the Old Testament points toward Jesus and all of the New Testament is a result of Jesus’ work, or, as the Apostle Paul records it, “All of God’s promises (speaking of the Old and New Testaments) find their yes in Him.” The answer that scripture presents to all of the problems of man is Christ and him crucified. It is through Christ that our sins are atoned for; it is through Christ that God becomes propitious towards believers; it is by Christ that we are brought into the presence of God the Father and adopted as sons and daughters, as the church, being made the very bride of Christ. It is through Christ that we know the true meaning of sacrificial love and it is only when we observe the majesty of Christ that we can understand what is genuinely beautiful and pleasant in this world. It is in Christ Jesus that we can find peace and hope not only for this life, but for all eternity. It is in Jesus that we can finally find meaning for our lives and freedom from the bondage that sin places us in. It is in Christ that we become “blessed,” and any theology that does not prominently present Jesus Christ is a theology that has no value to the lives of men and women, who ultimately need him more than they need life itself. Good theology is centered on Christ.
It Must be Doxological:
The Westminster Shorter Catechism begins by asking the question: “What is the chief end of man?” In other words, “What is mankind’s reason for being on earth?”, or more succinctly, “What is the meaning of life?” The answer that the catechism brings forth is, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” What a wonderful statement! While philosophy sends many a man on lifelong and frustrated quests to try and discern the meaning of life, the catechism presents an answer that is so simple that a child can understand it and yet so profound that it will take a lifetime to live it out and enjoy its implications. And this is the purpose for which man was created—to glorify God with the aim of enjoying him eternally.
Jonathan Edwards loved to deliberately misquote this catechism question. “What is God’s chief end?” Edwards would ask. The answer? “To glorify himself with the aim of bringing us to enjoy him forever.” Some have suggested that such a stance would be rather an arrogant one on the part of God, yet, in all of God’s manifold perfections, is he not worthy of all praise? Indeed, do we not find the greatest pleasure in life by enjoying God fully? If God is infinitely satisfied in himself, and he is, can we not also be infinitely satisfied in him? When we center our theology on God’s Triune person, our theology cannot help but be doxological.
The bottom line is that if your theology does not drive you to worship God in all of his fullness and majesty, it is not a good theology at all. Heaven is described as being a place where believers, surrounded by creation and myriads upon myriads of the heavenly host, will be wonderfully and gloriously singing praises to God on high and to the Lamb. If we are not finding our ultimate joy in worship here in this world, what does that say about our hope for an afterlife? Has the fall made us so schizophrenic that we will want then what we detest in this life? May it never be said! As a believer, the fullness of our joy in this life and the next must come through worship, and if our theology does not aid us in that end, our theology falls woefully short of its goal.
It Must be Both Eschatological and Protological:
Good theology must be both eschatological in that it anticipates the return of Jesus Christ and protological in that it looks backwards to see God’s hand ordaining the events of history. God is the God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and we must never lose sight of the fact that he is a God who has demonstrated his might in the events of history. He has raised empires and he has crushed them into the dust and God has given us his word through history so that we might understand all that he has done. To forget this is to live in denial of the greater portion of God’s revealed word. At the same time, we are not to be a people who always are looking backwards, but we are to be a people of anticipation, looking forward to the great culmination of history in the second coming of Jesus Christ. The scriptures themselves close with the promise of Christ, “Behold, I am coming soon!” Our theology must reflect the truth of that great promise. In a sense, we are to be people always actively engaged with the tasks of the day, yet with one hand looking to the sky, wondering and waiting, when our Lord will return as he left us.
It Must be Ecclesiastical:
Christians are not to find themselves as believers in isolation from one another. As appealing as that may sound at times, given that sometimes other believers are the ones who can drive us mad, God has ordained that we are part of one church—one body in Christ Jesus. Though we may constitute many parts based on our giftings and backgrounds, we are meant to understand ourselves as interconnected with other believers—rejoicing together and weeping together during the highs and lows of life. All of this has one great and wonderful end, when the Church, described as the bride of Christ, is presented to her groom as one, unified, clean, and perfect whole, and all to the glory of God. John sums up this principle in his first letter, when he writes that our fellowship with one another is what “makes our joy complete.” Our theology must reflect that sense of a believer’s connectedness with other believers.
It Must Encourage Sanctification:
John Calvin wrote that one of the purposes of our theology is to teach us piety. Calvin would continue in the same passage:
By piety I mean that union of reverence and love to God which the knowledge of his benefits inspires. For, until men feel that they owe everything to God, that they are cherished by his paternal care, and that he is the author of all their blessings, so that nought is to be looked for away from him, they will never submit to him in voluntary obedience; nay, unless they place their entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves to him in truth and sincerity.
In the fall, we not only found ourselves separated from our intimate communication with God, but the image of God, the Imago Dei, within us was warped. In God’s wonderful graciousness, he loves his people so ddeply that he not only justifies us through the saving blood of Jesus, but he works his Holy Spirit in us to restore the Imago Dei little by little. In other words, God is at work in the lives of believers to change them and to remold them, making their lives more and more reflect that of Jesus Christ. If our theology is not encouraging us to want to be sanctified, if it is not encouraging us to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification, it falls short of its intended goal.
It Must Encompass All of Life:
The final mark of good theology is that it must encompass all of life. Abraham Kuyper once commented that as Sovereign Lord of creation, there was not an inch of the life of man that Christ did not put his finger on and declare, “Mine!” Modern man has a tendency to “compartmentalize” his life, living one way in church and another way before a watching world. Good theology does not allow one to do so. Theology is meant to be applied to all things that we do, and thus unify our life in a meaningful way before the throne of the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything that we do in one area or venue of life has an impact on what we do in every other area of life and our theology must be the thing that governs it all. Our theology must also engage both our hearts and our minds as well, challenging us to shape our very lives according to God’s revealed word. God is perfect by the very definition of who he is; should we not expect that he can perfectly order our steps? Indeed, that is the kind of God we have and that is the kind of God that our theology should always reflect.
It is worth noting that in the Old Testament alone, “thus says the Lord” is uttered more than 600 times. God is without question a God who talks to man—it is in the fall, though, that we lost the intimacy of that talk being face-to-face—something that Jesus came to undo.
Exegesis is the study of understanding what is being conveyed by any particular statement within its particular context.
Though little is known about the actual man, Pythagoras, the Pythagorean school was established in Samos, of southern Italy, about the year 525 B.C. Pythagoras was reportedly Ionian by heritage, having moved to Italy, and there is documentation that his disciples traveled as far as India, perhaps influencing their idea of reincarnation.
In 1643, a group of more than one hundred preachers and theologians representing the Scottish church, the Anglican church, and the Separatists, met in Westminster Abbey to begin what would be a five year discussion, endeavoring to articulate a concise statement of Biblical Doctrine. In 1649 the first edition of what are known as the Westminster Standards were published, complete with longer and shorter catechisms for the training of youth and directories for the application of this doctrine to life. Though different denominations have made many revisions of this doctrine over the years, the original language has rarely been improved upon, but has simply been nuanced to fit a particular denominational preference.
Edwards was one of the most influential American theologians of the 18th century, and along with George Whitefield, the English, Methodist preacher, paved the way for the first “Great Awakening” in America.
This is the heart of the message in Psalm 78—tell your children what God has done in the past so that they might live in hope of what God will do tomorrow (see especially Psalm 78:7).
Much theological confusion comes as a result of people ignoring one or both of these aspects. We must look to the future, but at the same time remember that an understanding of the imagery that is employed to speak of the future is found rooted in the Old Testament. The book of Revelation, in other words, cannot be understood apart from the prophets in the Old Testament Canon. At the same time, the Old Testament cannot be properly understood unless it is understood in light of the revealing of Christ in the New Testament. How many Jewish scholars lay frustrated because they are unwilling to see this great truth!
Pitfalls: The Marks of Bad Theology
Dead Orthodoxy:
The first pitfall that must be deliberately avoided is that of a “dead” orthodoxy. In the year 164 BC, the Jewish people celebrated the rededication of the temple after they had thrown off their Seleucid Syrian oppressors. Antiochus Epiphanies had not only looted the temple of its gold and silver, but had gone as far as to sacrifice a pig on the temple altar and set up a phallic symbol of Zeus in the Holy Place. This sparked the Maccabean revolt, let by Judah, Jonathan, and Simon Maccabees. After this victory, the Maccabeans assumed the role of kings, establishing what is referred to as the Hasmonean Dynasty. Remembering that the Maccabees were Levitical priests by decent, this joined the role of King and High Priest into one office, causing a great deal of resentment within the more orthodox Jewish community. The power of this combined position also led to corruption within the rulership. As a result, two groups emerged during this time: the Essines and the Pharisees.
The Essines were a separatist group that withdrew from their Jewish communities and established their own fortified communities, training in theology and warfare, and preparing themselves to be the army of the Messiah when said Messiah came. The Pharisees were a more moderate reform group, seeking to bring religious reform working within the Jewish society. They established rules for behavior and piety and they lived lives that were deliberately structured to promote obedience to the Law of God. When Jesus taught that the people’s righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees to enter the kingdom of heaven, this was not said tongue-in-cheek, but was a comment that would have shocked the people, as the Pharisees were perceived to be the holiest people that most Jews had ever encountered. The problem, though, within this sect, was that in their zeal for personal holiness, they had turned the law of God into a legalistic system of rules to check off. If you just did this and that and did these things in the prescribed way, the Pharisees taught, you are guaranteed heaven. They forgot the intent of the law, which is to demonstrate our total inability to be holy before God, and were expecting eternal life as a reward earned by the works of men. For this, Jesus would rebuke them in the strongest language.
Yet, this provides for us a good illustration of what can happen when one’s orthodoxy becomes dead and lifeless. The word orthodoxy itself means “right or sound doctrine,” coming from the Latin, “orthodoxos,” and begs the question—can “right thinking” about the things of God ever truly be without life? God is the source of all life, and thus, proper and right teaching about God must too be filled with the life of God. How sad it is when individuals and churches loose sight of the heart behind God’s word and fail to point to the life that comes from the God of light, whose very word is given as a light to our paths. As C.S. Lewis also warned, beware when the God of the “God talk” is lost or forgotten. Such happens when your orthodoxy becomes legalism.
Wildfire Passion:
The second mark of bad theology, and the exact opposite of “dead orthodoxy,” is an uncontrolled passion that burns like a wildfire, consuming all that it touches. This is not to deny the importance of passion in terms of faith—it is essential, but just as genuine orthodoxy builds up the believer, strengthening him with the truth of God’s word, so too does genuine passion. And just as there is a counterfeit orthodoxy that brings with it nothing but cold and stale death, so too there is a wildfire passion that might burn hot for a time, but which burns out the individual (and often those around them) and leaves nothing but a smoldering zone of death.
We must always remember that our passions are part of our divinely created makeup, and thus, as we grow in grace, our passions and our actions ought to better and better reflect the nature of God himself. Are God’s passions uncontrolled? Does God act out of a sense of emotionalism? Does God’s Spirit destroy those within whom he dwells? Certainly not! God’s Spirit brings life to the one in whom he dwells! So too, theology and religion, while it must address and move the passions, must not set them out of control, burning like a wildfire amongst dry timber.
Vain Theology:
The Hebrew term for vain is lb,h, (hevel) and is used to describe things that are empty and insubstantial like one’s breath or an idol. Sometimes our theology becomes so speculative that it looses its substance all together. Sometimes our theology becomes so influenced by ideas of men (rather than scripture) that it loses any solid foundation that it might have once had. We can ground theology in scripture because scripture itself is qeo/pneustoß (theopneustos), or “God-breathed,” but that which is the breath of men, that which is anqrwpneu/stoß (anthropneustos), is lb,h, (hevel). While good theology does at times enter into a degree of reasonable speculation, good theology is never founded upon speculation or wild ideas, but is consistently and perpetually grounded in the inerrant truth of God’s revealed word. One further note: in a post-modern era, we live in a culture that is ready and willing to affirm multiple, mutually-exclusive ideas as truth. As a result, many professing Christians have a theology that is a mixture of orthodox Christianity as well as non-Christian religions and ideas. Many professing Christians also have a proclivity to adapt their theology to fit new ideas that appeal to their minds rather than judging the new ideas through the lens shaped from a solidly scriptural theology. When theology becomes fickle, it becomes vain.
Man-Centered Theology:
Our final category of bad theology is a man-centered theology. As theology and religion did not originate in the mind of man, as liberal and natural theologians would suggest, it is not the right of mankind to determine how God is to be understood or worshiped. Indeed, that right belongs solely to God himself. And, as God is the source of the “God-Talk,” it is to be rightly assumed that God should be the center of such talk. The only man that should ever be exalted by our theology is Jesus Christ himself, who, while fully man, is also fully God. A theology based upon the works and glory of men—even one designed to give man comfort where no comfort is warranted – is a bad form of theology, and is truly no “God Talk” at all, but “man-talk.” Man exists to glorify God, not the other way around.
Their father, Matthias, was an elder priest in the temple who fled Jerusalem with his family, rallied the people to himself, and began the revolt against the Seleucid governors. Matthias and his sons Eleazar and John would die early on in the fighting, leaving his remaining three sons to continue the battle and overthrow the oppressors. The Maccabees proved themselves to be tactical geniuses in guerilla warfare and are still studied today as a model for how a smaller force of soldiers can overcome a larger, more organized foe.
The Time is Coming Soon
One of the themes that you cannot get away from when you read the book of Revelation is the theme of the “soon-ness” of Christ’s glorious return. Yet, for many, this has been a stumbling block. They say that if John expected that Jesus’ return would be soon, and if Jesus himself said that his coming would be soon, how is it that nearly 2000 years have gone by? Were they wrong?
Some have sought to answer this by going to 2 Peter 3:9, to point out that God’s sense of time is different than our sense of time. This answer is not overly satisfying, though. In context, Peter is speaking of God’s patience in bringing the elect to himself, and reminding the readers that God will endure great spans of time to accomplish his plans. Peter quotes this statement from Psalm 90:4, where the psalmist (Moses in this case) speaks of God’s eternality.
So how should we understand this language of Jesus coming “soon.” Christians are to be a people of anticipation. Indeed, we look back at all that God has done to learn, but we also look forward with expectation to what God is going to do—namely that Jesus will return, bring sin into final judgment, and then remake heaven and earth in glorious perfection. We look forward to that day when we too will join with the saints in singing that “New Song” before Christ’s glorious presence (Revelation 5:9). We eagerly anticipate when we will experience that same bodily resurrection that Jesus experienced and will dwell eternally with our Lord, free from sickness, heart-ache, and the effects of sin.
As John writes this, he is seeking to keep this sense of anticipation before us. As believers, we are to live every day as if Christ were coming any moment. Think of the busy anticipation that you feel as you await the arrival of a special guest at your home. There is the business of rushing around putting everything in its place and finishing all of the preparations. Yet, there are also those excited looks out the window, wondering when that special guest will arrive. Friends, as believers, this is how we are to live our lives. Christ will come—we can be assured of that—we just don’t know the timing. We should be hard at work, making sure our spiritual houses are in order, yet always look to the sky, asking the question: “Could this day be the day when Christ returns?” The language of the “soon-ness” of the second coming is meant to help engender that sense of anticipation.
The Contagiousness of Worship
Worship, when it is filled with the Holy Spirit, is contagious. I expect that this is part of the reason that the scriptures emphasize that believers are to live within a covenant community. Not only can we support one another, but in our joined worship, we enable each other and lift each other up. I don’t expect that this principle could be displayed any more graphically than it is displayed at the end of Revelation, chapter 5. As soon as the twelve elders finish their song, they are joined by the four living creatures, the four cherubim, that are around the throne. Then they are joined by “myriads of myriads” of angels.
If you are interested in mathematics, a myriad is 10,000. Thus, a myriad of myriads, would be 10,000 times 10,000, or 100,000,000. And John describes “myriads of myriads,” both being plural. Thus, if we take this number literally, there are hundreds of millions of angels around the throne singing praise (this would require a choir loft that was 10 miles long and 10 miles deep!). Regardless of whether you take this number literally or figuratively as an uncountable number, it is one heck of a large chorus!
I had the blessing a number of years ago to participate in a evening worship service at a youth retreat where there were an estimated 90,000 youth and adults—all lifting their praises to heaven. It was a beautiful thing to behold. In Exodus 15, we are told that when the Israelites had crossed over the Red Sea safely, they sang praise to God—the men being led by Moses and the women by Miriam. We can safely assume that there were at least a million people present at this event. The sound of their voices must have shook the earth! Now multiply that and imagine for a moment hundreds of millions of angelic voices lifted up in perfect harmony to our Lord and God! What an amazing thing that must have been for John to witness!
And if that wasn’t enough, all of creation lifted its voice to join the heavenly song! True worship is contagious, oh believer, what joy you have to look forward to! This chapter closes appropriately, indeed. Once this amazing chorus finishes it’s last verse, the four cherubim around the throne, say, “Amen!” And the elders fall on their faces and worship. Loved ones, this is what God has planned for you. Don’t be too busy worrying about the individual blessings that are promised in scripture—in comparison to this—they are nickels and dimes.
O For a thousand tongues to sing
my great Redeemer’s praise,
the glories of my God and King,
the triumphs of his grace.
Hear him, ye deaf; his praise ye dumb,
your loosen’d tongues employ;
ye blind, behold your Savior come;
and leap, ye lame, for joy.
-Charles Wesley
The Dating of the Exodus
There is a great deal of debate as to the dating of the Exodus. Some scholars, based on archaeological evidence, place the Exodus in the 13th century BC. Others, citing both Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, place it in the 15th century BC. To support the later dating, scholars like John Currid cite the massive building projects that took place in the 13th and 14th centuries BC. They also note that one of the greatest of the builders was Rameses II, who reigned between 1290 and 1224 BC, who built a new capitol city in his honor, named Pi-Ramesse (“Domain of Rameses”). Exodus 1:11 records that the Jews were used to build the cities of Pithom and Raamses. It is also important to note that it was not until the 13th century that Egypt lost its control over Canaan as a province. There are also Egyptian reliefs that depict the Israelite conquest of Canaan that date between 1224 and 1214 BC.
The most convincing evidence, though, places the Exodus in the 15th century BC. Scholars like Keil and Delitzsch begin with the termination of the 70 year exile, which took place in the first year of Cyrus’ sole reign (536 BC). Thus, dating backwards, the captivity began in 606 BC. According to the chronologies in the book of Kings, Judah was carried into captivity 406 years after the year the building of Solomon’s temple began, placing its beginning in 1012 BC. 1 Kings 6:1 also tells us that the building of Solomon’s temple began 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt, placing it at the year 1492 BC. Their dating concurs with the traditional Christian and Jewish chronologies which date the Exodus. This also concurs with archaeological evidence which shows that the likely date of the destruction of Jericho was in the early 1400s BC.
How do we understand this earlier dating of the Exodus in light of modern archaeology? First, archaeology is not an exacting science, but a lens through which to view history. Archaeological facts are largely the result of educated deductions and scientific hypotheses, not divine revelation. In terms of the specific evidence, Exodus 1:11 speaks of the building of tAnK.s.mi yrE[‘ (store cities), not capitol cities. There was likely a store city of Rameses already in existence when Rameses II build Pi-Ramesse. With respect to Egyptian influence over Canaan, Israel would not have been considered a kingdom by the Egyptians until the enthronement of Saul. Given the upheaval in the land during the time of Joshua’s conquest and the time of Judges, the point where Egypt would have lost all of it’s influence in the land would coincide with the later accounts of the judges or that of Samuel, where some sense of identity was firmly established in the land.
To set this event in its larger context, it is worth recognizing what is going on in the world surrounding Egypt and the wilderness at the point of the Exodus. Assuming an early date of 1492 for the Exodus to have begun, the city of Sparta would be formed two years into the Israelite wilderness wanderings. In addition, the nations of Athens (1556 BC), Troy (1546), and Thebes (1493) had been founded at this point. What would later become the Olympian Games (then called the Panathenaean Games) also had its beginnings during this era (1495). The Areopagus was established in 1504 BC, and in 1493 Cadmus is credited with bringing the 15 Phoenician letters into Greece, which gradually changed in form to become the Romans letters used predominantly in Europe and America today. Though these events may not seem to bear very heavily upon the Biblical text, it is important to note that this era was a time when civilizations were being born and establishing themselves. Growing up in the Pharaoh’s household, Moses would have been aware, particularly of the politics of these (largely Greek) new nations. Who better than one trained in such legal codes to receive and teach the Law of God to God’s people? Who better to organize God’s people into a nation than one who had watched nations form?
The Horn of Salvation
“and he raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, his servant.”
(Luke 1:69)
The theme of the “horn of salvation” has important Old Testament Biblical-Theological implications, yet, before we delve back into the Old Testament history of this language, it is important that we set the context of the passage and make several observations:
- Note that this statement is part of the prophesy of Zechariah at his son, John’s, birth. It is prophetic in its scope, but note the use of the past tense with the verb “raised.” This is what is called the “prophetic past,” and it is a common element in Hebrew prophesy. Rather than speak of what God will do in the future tense (which the prophets do as well), the prophets speak of what God will do in the future but use past tense verbs to communicate the absolute nature of this event coming to pass. In other words, the prophet is saying that we can be so sure that God will fulfill this event that we can speak as if it has already taken place even though it is yet to take place. Such language is always used with prophesies that are unconditional and irrevocable. Here, Zechariah is prophesying about the reality of God having fulfilled all of his covenantal promises in the coming of Jesus—John being the forerunner; Zechariah is certain that even in the coming of this child in the womb, God would fulfill all of his plans through his Messiah and there was nothing that the enemies of God’s plan could do about it. Even the might of the Roman Empire is but a bug to be squashed under the heel of our God!
- Note for whom this promise is given: for “us.” How is this, when the coming of Christ will bring about the in-grafting of gentiles? Judaism was never meant to be an isolationist religion—a central temple, yes, but isolationist, no. They were to bring in converts from all of the nations, yet rarely worked to do so. One of the great Messianic promises is that this Messiah would bring in gentiles to the fold, that people from every tribe and nation would come to faith and be part of God’s covenant people. See the prophesies of Zechariah 14, for example, which speak of all the nations coming together to celebrate the festival of Booths together as one people—signaled by the coming of the Messiah. Even as far back as the creation account, where Adam and Eve were commanded to reproduce and fill the world with their kind (Genesis 1:28)—was this not for a purpose? Certainly, it was to subdue the creation so that God would be worshiped in every corner of the earth. This same commandment God gave to Noah and his children (Genesis 9:7), yet, in their sin they settled in Babel and God confused their language to force them into obedience. This is the great downfalls of mankind—refusing to give proper and right worship to God the creator—in Christ, once again, God is hardening the hearts of the Jewish people to bring in the gentiles—forcing them into obedience to the command to spread God’s worship throughout the earth. Thus the promise of the coming Messiah is for “us” from the Jewish perspective, for it is God fulfilling his plan for them.
- “in the house of David:” This communicates the agency by which God will fulfill this promise—by the line of David. We might as easily translate this Greek preposition (ejn) as “by” or “through.” It is not so much that the promise will be fulfilled within the house of David, but it will be fulfilled through one who is from said line. Note too that John the Baptist was from the line of Aaron, not the line of David. There is absolutely no confusion in Zechariah’s mind as to just what is going on with his son. It is interesting to see the change in Zechariah that has taken place in these past 9 months of his life. In the earlier account, he is seen as humble, but doubting God’s promise. Here he is boldly proclaiming the truth about what God is doing in the lives of the people of Israel. Sometimes, when God silences our lips from speaking, we can finally hear the truth that God is speaking to us through his word. We may be moving into some degree of speculation here, but I don’t think that it is too unlikely that Zechariah would have spent much of his imposed silence seeking out God’s face in prayer and the study of the scriptures—perhaps we would all do well to experience such a trial.
- Finally, note the last clause in the passage. Normally, our English Bibles translate this word as “servant” (as I have translated above). Yet, in Greek, it is the term paivß (pais), not douvloß (doulos) as one might expect. The word paivß (pais) is related to the word pai/dion (paidion) and can also be translated as “child,” which is important to note. In speaking of one’s servant in language that would denote kinship, it communicates the idea that there is a significant level of affection that is found between the Master and the servant. A good example of this kind of affection is found in the account of Jesus’ healing of the Centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-13). Were this an ordinary servant, why would the Centurion have gone to such trouble to see the servant healed? Certainly it would have been a sign of disgrace for a Roman Centurion to go to a Hebrew Rabbi for healing. Clearly, there is great affection within this relationship. In the case of Zechariah’s prophesy, this concept of affection is especially pertinent. David is one whom scripture describes as being a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22) and it is to David that the promise comes to establish an eternal kingship (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Thus, we might even go as far to translate this clause, “in the house of David, his beloved servant” or even, “in the house of David, his child.” Either conveys the idea that Zechariah is communicating.
With the context of Zechariah’s prophesy before us, let us look at the passages that also communicate this idea:
- 2 Samuel 22:3. At the end of David’s life, he composes a song of praise to God that we find recorded here, in chapter 22 of Second Samuel. David sings of God’s fullness and of his provision even in the face of certain destruction. At the beginning of this song of praise, David uses a series of parallel statements that communicate the nature of God’s deliverance. God is described as deliverer, rock, refuge, shield, horn of my salvation, stronghold, refuge (a second time), and savior. What can be said about all of these images?
1. They are all defensive images—this speaks primarily of God’s redemption and not of his judgment upon his foes.
2. They are all passive images in terms of David. One is defended within the fortress or by the high and firm rock. One takes refuge within these safe places, the places do not move from here to there.
3. One may find rest in all of these places. One of the great themes in the Old Testament is that of seeking rest from one’s enemies. David is saying that as tumultuous as his life has been, rest has been given to him in the refuge of God alone.
4. The Hebrew term for “horn” that is used here is the term !r<q, (keren), and is normally used to describe an animal’s horn or something made in that general shape. In particular, it is also this term that is used to describe the four horns of the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 38:2). There are a number of things that are particularly interesting about this connection.
o While we don’t know the origin of the tradition, it seems that in Ancient Israel, people held the belief that clinging to the horns of the altar would provide them sanctuary and refuge from their oppressors. In 1 Kings 1:49-53, we find Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, running and clinging to the horns of the altar for protection. Soon afterward, as recorded in 1 Kings 2:28-35), we also find Joab doing the same. It seems that Solomon puts an end to this tradition, for while he pardons Adonijah, he has Joab slain while still clinging to the altar’s horns.
o In a similar vein, though this is a negative example, when God speaks through the prophet Amos, commanding him to speak of the judgment that is coming upon the people, one thing he states is that he will “cut off” the horns of the altar at the time of said judgment, implying that the presence of the horns on the altar was at least symbolic of God’s protection for his people—that in this judgment that is coming, there will be no place of refuge for the people to go (see Amos 3:14).
Note that this is not the term that refers to a musical horn made from the horn of an animal—that word is rp;Av (shophar) and the two words are not interchangeable.
- Psalm 18:2. This is the psalm that is based on the Psalm above, written by David as a praise to God for deliverance from his enemies, thus, even though the language varies slightly, the idea remains the same, the language of the “horn of salvation” is again used to describe taking refuge in the Lord.
Thus, how are we to understand Jesus as the “horn of salvation”? The answer should be fairly obvious at this point; the horn of salvation is a symbol of a place wherein one can find refuge from the assaults of this world—the greatest enemy we face being sin and temptation to sin. And, indeed, that is exactly the context in which Zechariah is speaking. In Luke 1:68, Zechariah speaks of God having redeemed his people, then in verse 69, he speaks of that redemption in terms of God having raised up the horn of salvation. As the praise song goes, “He is our refuge in days of trouble, he is our shelter in times of storm, He is our tower in the day of sorrow, our fortress in the time of war.” Oh, beloved, God is a strong fortress wherein which we can rest from the oppressors of this sinful world—he is our horn of salvation, clinging to which we cannot be destroyed and our sin before God is forgiven—we are truly redeemed. What a wonderful promise that God has given us in Jesus Christ! As David also wrote:
“Serve Yahweh with fear and rejoice with trembling!
Kiss the Son lest he become angry and you perish in the way!
For his anger will soon burn!
Blessed are those who take refuge in him!”
(Psalm 2:11-12)
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word!
What more can he say than to you he hath said,
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?
-From John Rippon’s selection of hymns
And in the spirit of Zechariah’s prophesy of the coming Christ:
Say to those who are fearful hearted,
‘Do not be afraid,’
‘The Lord, your God, is strong, with his mighty arm,’
‘when you call on his name,’
‘He will come and save…’
-Fitts & Sadler
Bought Out and Set Free
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
“Once a man sees himself in the light of the cross, he sees the horror of that self-centered view in its every aspect.” -DM Lloyd-Jones
“God’s chief end is to glorify himself with a view to bringing man to enjoy him forever”
-J. Edwards
How often when asked to witness our faith to others do we begin with “this is what God did for me.” What a sad statement it is, when our view of salvation is centered on ourselves. I am not the object of redemptive history; God is. What a skewed view we have in the church.
Part of the power of the cross, when brought to bear on the lives of God’s people, is to break this idea that there is anything about the process of salvation that we deserve. We are but wretches before God, our righteousness, as Paul put it, is nothing more than a filthy rag (and we won’t discuss that imagery). We are nothing more than desperate beggars brought into the house before the storm. Yet, somehow, once we are in the house, we begin to think ourselves the master of the place. We see the meal that is brought to us as something that is deserved and we see the comforts within as our rightful place to recline.
When I was in High School, I worked for a wealthy couple tending their property. They had sixty acres of land and it was my job to keep it up and to do whatever odd jobs they had for me. Each year at Christmas, the St. Clair family had a huge and wonderful party for all of their friends. They often had as many as 70 people in their home for these parties. One year, they hired me to help direct traffic with people coming and going. Maryland winters are often quite cold, and I stood outside the festive home, all bundled up, directing people where to park.
After the party was well underway and the guests had all arrived, Mr. St. Clair came outside and invited me into their home to enjoy the festivities. Once inside, he introduced me as if he were introducing an honored guest and instructed me to eat my fill from the buffet table.
I did eat and was welcomed warmly by the guests, but at the same time, I had an overwhelming feeling of being out of place. Here I was, a high school student from a modest family, dressed in jeans and a sweat shirt, with mussed up hair from being under a stocking cap all night, mingling with some of the most wealthy people of the region who were dressed to the nines. I enjoyed myself on that evening immensely, but never once did I begin to feel that I deserved to be a part of these festivities. My presence was solely due to the grace of the host.
Our attitude toward our salvation ought to be the same as mine was at that party. How we don’t deserve to be present in the master’s house, but God has brought us in out of the cold, introduced us as an honored guest, and sat us at his table as his child. And why does he do this? Because of the work of his son on the cross. Oh, how we ought to cherish that cross! We are the recipients of God’s wonderful grace. It is something that we must never take for granted!
The New Man
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
Oh how often we take this casually. We are made new in Christ, but so often we daydream back toward the sinful days of our past and forget the wretchedness of our life apart from Christ. I was reading the biography of John Paton recently. Paton was a missionary to the cannibals of the New Hebrides islands (and a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, I might add). One of the things that he described in his journals was the insatiable craving for human flesh that these cannibals had. The small island where he served housed no less than 10 warring tribes. These tribes would roast the bodies of the enemy warriors they had killed in battle. Their lust for flesh was so strong, though, that when fresh bodies were scarce and they had no enemies to eat, they would dig up the corpses of recently buried people to feast on their remains. Depravity begets depravity.
Yet, I would argue that we are not all that different. We might not be in the habit of digging up dead bodies to eat, but drug addicts often sink to that same level of desperation to get their next high. Gambling addicts mortgage their homes and steal from their businesses to feed their craving. Sex addicts will risk ruining their marriages and the lives of their children for one more night of illicit ecstasy. Work-aholics will miss every important events in the life of their family for the opportunity to make another dollar even when the things that money can buy can never match the value of a presence in the life of a child. Depravity begets depravity.
But we, by virtue of the work of Christ on the cross, are made new. We are no longer bound by the downward cycle of sin. Yes, we will still sin, but there is forgiveness in Christ and there is strength through his Holy Spirit so we can resist temptation. Light has been shined in the darkness of our sinful lives and for the first time we can begin to see the path that we are on, albeit dimly. Let us not look back, then, at the way our lives used to be. The Christian has no use for the depravity of his old man for depravity begets depravity. We are called to be Holy as God is Holy. The contrast could not be more drastic.
Signposts
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
“Today, missed some fine opportunity of speaking a word for Christ. The Lord saw that I would have spoken as much for my honor as for his, and therefore, he shut my mouth. I see that a man cannot be a faithful, fervent minister until he preaches just for Christ’s sake, until he gives up trying to attract people to himself, and seeks to attract them to Christ. Lord, give me this.” -R.M. McCheyne
Spurgeon once likened the Bible to a road map of England. He pointed out on the map that every road, even if through a circuitous route, led into London. So too, he argued, did every verse, lead to Christ. And no matter how good your skill as an orator, no matter how well you have mastered the ancient languages, and no matter how apt your sermon illustrations are, if you do not point people to Christ, your preaching has wasted everyone’s time. We must ask ourselves of our preaching what Dr. Lloyd-Jones asked of our living, “Is God the chief end and object of your life?”
This is the model that I have tried to adopt within my own preaching. If I am to preach, I must become a beacon that points clearly to Christ and the cross. Exegesis and structure and illustrations and everything else that goes into writing a sermon is terribly important, but just like that road map, it does not matter how detailed and in-depth my directions are, if they lead the listener to any place but to Christ, then all my time and preparation are wasted and I might as well have said nothing.
In turn, this is the model that is set before us in living. We must constantly be asking ourselves if what we are doing is pointing people to Christ. Peter reminds us in his first letter that it is by our humble and submissive faithfulness to our Lord and Savior that people will be drawn to Christ. Too often we treat winning souls as a conquest. We hold revivals thinking that the Spirit of God somehow follows our lead when it comes to changing the hearts of man. This model could not be further from the truth. It is true that the Holy Spirit has moved at times to bring revival to a community through the preaching of one of his servants, yet for us to walk in with the expectation that we will be the next Whitefield or Wesley is sheer vanity. If you want to see true revival in our land, then it will come most reliably through Christians living faithful and humble lives in the sight of an unbelieving world. Our lives should be as street signs pointing to Christ, saying, “don’t look at me, but look at my Lord; I am merely a pointer so that He might be glorified.”
Is this how we approach the day? Is this how we approach witnessing? I suggest that it usually isn’t. So often, like Robert Murray McCheyne, we miss the opportunity to faithfully witness because our directions revolve around ourselves and do not point clearly to Christ and him crucified. Let us be deliberate in our lifestyle with Christ as the goal of every direction we give.
Walls
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
“The wall in Berlin, you see, is not the first wall that has been built in this world to separate people from one another. The World has always had its iron curtains. We change the terminology but the fact has always been there: the middle wall of partition, Jews on one side, Gentiles on the other side, and between them, a bitter hatred and animosity, which we can scarcely even imagine.” -D.M. Lloyd-Jones
What I find to be interesting about walls is that we are so careless about how and where we put them up. Walls do not have to be bad things. A good, stout wall can provide a defense against the attacks of enemy armies. It can bring comfort to all who are within it when the guardsmen are alert on the ramparts. I have endeavored to make my home that kind of place. My desire is that the sin and foolishness of the world not be able to encroach upon those who live within the walls of my home. This carries over to how I treat my wife and son and it carries over to the expectations that I place on them. Our home, I intend, is to be a place of building up, not a place of tearing down.
Likewise, our churches should reflect the same thing. Like shepherds, pastors must protect and build up the flock that God has given them. The church needs to be a refuge from the infighting and the frantic pace of the world. The walls that we build around the church are not to keep people out, rather they are to keep the seeds of the serpent that inundate our culture out. In a very real way, the church within should look very different than the world without.
Yet, sin muddles things up, doesn’t it? Sin causes us to build walls inside of our homes and within our church. No longer are the walls a sign of defense, but they become a thing of separation. We have a long tradition of building these kinds of walls, built with stones of pride and ignorance. The first of these human walls was built as far back as Eden, when Adam and Eve chose to break covenant with God and eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. While we don’t talk about it much, the thing that I think is amazing is that neither Adam nor Eve was repentant when confronted by God; they just played the blame-game. In that act, a wall was created between creation and God that could never be breached from our side.
But what a gracious God we serve. God paid the price of his only son on the cross, breaching the wall from the other side. Like prisoners of war that have been broken from our dark and filthy cells and brought out into the light, we who have been saved from our sin are indebted beyond comprehension to our Savior! We put up a wall that we could never hope to break down, but Christ shattered it!
To those who would accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, believing in their heart and confessing with their lips, God has given them eternal life. And he builds another wall around them, and what a wall it is! For this wall is one that does not separate one from God, but is a wall that joins them together in covenant permanently, for God will permit none of his chosen to slip from his hand (John 10:29).
We must take the time to survey the walls that we have constructed in our lives. We must look for cracks in those meant to defend against the attacks of the evil one and we must seek to tear down the ones that separate us from our families, our neighbors, and others around us. Christ has torn down the wall between us and God, let us tear down the walls between us and man that we might take the gospel to every corner of the world and apply it to every corner of our life.
Commandos of the Cross
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
“The power of the devil, the power of evil, is so great that every human being ever born into the world has been defeated by it.” -D.M. Lloyd-Jones
I am sure that you have rented or watched movies before that were recommended to you by a friend, but once you watched them, you sat aghast, wondering why ever this friend would have suggested such a film. A few years ago, my wife and I rented one of “these” kinds of films. I don’t recall the title but the movie was basically a modern rendition of the Faust story, where a Lawyer makes a pact with the devil to get to the top of his profession. Sadly, as is the way with most contemporary films, the Devil was portrayed in a good light and the lawyer’s decision was shown as a noble one. There was one redeeming line within this movie. The main character and the Devil were discussing “means” and the Devil made this comment. “The best thing that I ever did was to convince mankind that I do not exist.” How true this statement is.
In The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis, Lewis develops much of the same idea. Wormwood is constantly urged by his Uncle Screwtape to manipulate things from the background. I know that as I read that book, I was convicted of many sins that I had never even thought were within my life. In his book, Out of the Silent Planet, Lewis describes fallen earth as a darkened place. The people in Malecandra (Mars) cannot peer into the affairs of men. Oh how we can say with the Apostle Paul that we see through a glass darkly in this world. Even the humanist, Mark Twain, understood this idea that our eyes are clouded to the truth when he misquoted Paul by saying, “we see through a glass eye darkly.” Of course, one sees nothing through a glass eye at all!
We are born into a mess of sin in our lives. There is nothing we can do about it. It is all around us and it is within us. It does not take very long before you realize, as a parent, that your little baby is quite sinful. In fact, I would argue that anyone who denies the doctrine of Original Sin could never have had children. We are born spiritually dead on arrival. Not only can we not get away from it on our own, but we cannot understand why we ought to get away from it on our own. Pelagius argued that if you ought to do something you are capable of doing it. Yet, sin blinds us even from understanding what we ought do. One of the themes of the Epistle of James is being a hearer and a doer of the word. You cannot be a doer if you have not heard, but you cannot even really hear without a movement of the Holy Spirit in your life enabling you to hear it and internalize it. Without the work of the Holy Spirit you can no more expect someone to act upon the preached Word of God than you can expect the stones of the Church’s foundation to act upon it.
And here is the triumph of the Cross! Satan may ”own” us at birth, but we, the elect, are more like prisoners of war that God will send, in his time, the special forces to rescue through the power of the Holy Spirit. We often do not think of ourselves as soldiers or that we are at war; this is Satan convincing us that he is not at work. But the teachers and preachers of the Word of God are in a sense the Special Operations team of the church. We are fully equipped through the power of the Holy Spirit, but we are operating deep in enemy territory to seek and save those captive souls for the Lord Jesus Christ. If that is the case, we, like the Special Forces, need to be about rigorous training throughout life. Our weapons are the sword of scripture and the rifle of prayer.
But the victory is not ours to claim. We are simply instruments, servants, working in our master’s household and for his glory. Christ was the ultimate Special Force, for it is he that faced the very wrath of God for the sins of his people. When we meditate on that it ought to make us rejoice and weep at the same time. It ought to make us rejoice for that battle has been won and we, who are believers in and on the Lord Jesus Christ have been saved. And it ought to make us weep, for it is because of our sin that the Lord Jesus had to suffer so. We ought to reflect on this always.
Do Not Love the World
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
The cross of Christ is not a simple stop on the road of life, but it is the very road to life. Jesus did not stop at telling the Christian simply to take up their cross, but he commanded that they follow. Too many people think that the “taking up” is the most important thing. They might struggle to lift the burden, but once it is squarely upon their shoulders, they say, “enough of that,” and promptly drop the burden on the dirt. This is not the way that Christ has set before us. Yes, we must heft the cross that the Lord calls us to bear, but we must carry that cross, following Jesus. It will not be a pleasant load, for sure. There will be times when the splinters and the knots of the wood will dig deeply into your exposed back. You will be made to carry it across rough fields, potholes, dense brush, and the like. But even in the most difficult, painful, and unpleasant times, it will be a sweet load to bear, for it is the load of your savior.
Before I became a Christian, I gloried in the world. In fact, I went out of my way to draw attention to myself. I would do wilder and wilder stunts and gimmicks as if to say “look at me!” Some of these things were quite silly and foolish, but many were downright shameful. Not only was there no good within me, but I paraded and gloried in that which was detestable. The problem that arose when I became a believer was not one of grieving over my past wicked ways, but of putting those ways behind me, and not looking back.
This is the way of all believers. It is not good enough to simply confess that you have sinned and then go on living like a pagan; repentance means to turn around. Sadly, in my own life, there have been many when I have stumbled under the weight of trial and temptation. My heart has followed the example of Lot’s wife, looking back and longing for what I cannot have.
A pastor friend of mine once argued that the reason that Christians hold onto their sins so long is that human nature makes us hold on to things until they are too painful to grasp. We are like children reaching for the stove. At first we might receive a simple, “no” or a hand slap. But as we persist in trying to reach for the stove, the discipline becomes much more severe. This is not because our parents take joy in disciplining us, but it is because they want to prevent us from being burned severely. Sometimes the Holy Spirit’s fire of sanctification may seem too much to bear, but the sting of spiritual discipline will mature us where the fire of sin will consume.
So often, we find we are greatly tempted to look back fondly at the life God has saved us from. When that happens, let us remember well that the life God saved us from may seem sweet to the memory, but was only filled with bitterness once it passed the tongue. Let us be a people who live for their Lord; who keep eyes focused on the finish-line of heaven; and who never look back at our forsaken sins.
Shouts and Whispers
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
“I know of nothing so wonderful in the whole world today [than the cross]. That is why I do not preach topical sermons, I have something to tell you that is worth listening to!”
-D.M. Lloyd-Jones
I am going to gripe just a bit to get it out of my system—accept my apologies in advance. The question that I have is this. How many preachers can claim, with Dr. Lloyd-Jones, that they have something to say that is worth listening to? And if they do, why are so many of them being silent about it? When there is a report of an incoming tornado, the radios buzz with noise. When a major event happens in our community, not only is the grapevine buzzing, but it is announced in the streets with excitement. But what greater thing is there to announce or to hear than the news of the cross?
Why is this? Do we as Christians not have an urgent message to proclaim? Do we consider ministry something that is only done by trained professionals? Does the message of the cross of Christ weary us? Is it too inconvenient to take the time to share the Gospel with someone you have met? If this is the case, I say shame on you. We ought to leap with joy at the opportunity to share the good news of Jesus Christ!
I do not mean to disparage my brothers in ministry or in the church. I love them and I love you dearly. And there are many who are going out of their way to serve God both locally and elsewhere. It is not these that I gripe about, but it is those who wish to see the fruit of God’s blessing without being willing to plant in the spring. Yes, this is one of my soap-boxes. My wife tries to hide them from me, but I usually find them without difficulty. Some may think that I am a bit off my rocker, wanting the Gospel preached to every person in the city which I live and in the world which God has set me in. But, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the life-blood of the church. Without it, she dies. My prayer is that each of us would take the standard of the cross and raise it high in our lives. May it be seen from Jackson to Matherville, from Mississippi to Maryland, and from America to every corner of the earth! Yet, as far as it may reach, it needs to start with our own lives as Christians. We have a message to tell, and it is a wonderful one. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether or not we believe it is wonderful enough to step out and share.
The Cross: Lifeline or Lodestone
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
“The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is either an offence to us or else it is a thing above everything else in which we glory… These are the only two positions—offence, or glory.” D.M. Lloyd-Jones
Sadly, the cross in our society has become more of an ornament than it is a symbol of our Lord’s passion and our redemption. People have taken that old rugged cross, sanded out all of the burs and splinters, added some decorative beveling to the corners, stained it, and coated it with eight careful coats of polyurethane. The resultant cross is something beautiful to behold with the eye but has lost all traces of the savior who had hung there. The resultant cross is something that can be casually dangled from the neck for good luck but does little to remind us just what our salvation cost.
While many Christians do not wear a cross for this reason, which is ultimately idolatry, I prefer to wear, a cross. Yet, when I wear a cross around my neck, I see it as a brand of ownership, always reminding me to whom I belong. According to Levitical Law, when a slave is freed, if he chooses to remain a slave in the service of his master, his master is to take him into a doorpost and drive an awl through his ear (presumably to add a stud or ring) as a sign of that permanent ownership (Deuteronomy 15). While I do not suggest that all Christians to enlist their pastors to start driving awls through their ears, the principle is the same. I see the cross as a sign of ownership. My slavery to Christ cannot and will not be rescinded.
The bottom line is, though, that there is no middle ground when it comes to your understanding of the cross. You either glory in it–as it is and for what it is–or you hate it and all that it stands for. When you hate it, you are prone to cover it up and smooth it over, making it more acceptable to your sensibilities. The problem is that God is not concerned about our sensibilities. We must conform our lives to the image of God, not attempt to conform God to our image.
Before I came to seminary, I served as an interim pastor of two small Methodist churches in the country. One of those churches, in their sanctuary, had what I considered to be the most elegant cross that I have ever seen. It was made from rough-cut fence-post lumber and lashed together. The cross was rough, full of splinters, the beams were not symmetrical or completely straight, and it looked as if it had weathered a thousand storms. To me, it was a thing of beauty. Why? Because it was a constant reminder of the cost my savior paid for my soul. The cross will be either our lifeline or our lodestone in this sea of the world; there is no “neutral buoyancy” anywhere within it.
The Wondrous Cross
“But may it not be for me to boast if it is not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”—Galatians 6:14
“The Cross is the strength of the minister. I, for one, would not be without it for the world. I should feel like a soldier without weapons, like an artist without his pencil, like a pilot without his compass, like a laborer without his tools. Let others, if they will, preach the law and morality. Let others hold forth the terrors of hell and the joys of heaven. Let others drench their congregations with teachings about the sacraments and the church. Give me the cross of Christ. This is the only lever which has ever turned the world upside down hitherto and made men forsake their sins. And if this will not do it, nothing will. A man may begin preaching with a perfect knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; but he will do little or no good among his hearers unless he knows something of the cross. Never was there a minister who did much for the conversion of souls who did not dwell much on Christ crucified. Luther, Rutherford, Whitefield, M’Cheyne were all most eminent preachers of the cross. This is the preaching that the Holy Ghost delights to bless. He loves to honor those who honor the cross.” -J.C. Ryle
After preaching at the homeless shelter regularly for about three or four months I began to become frustrated. I was constantly facing the same kind of issues and failures in the lives of the men. I felt as if we had dealt with this or that issue in a previous sermon and now we should be able to move on. To be fair, there is a lot of turnover at the shelter, so we dealt with many new people all of the time, but the real problem was not in the men, the real problem was with me. My pride was telling me many things, but ultimately my pride was telling me that my preaching was about what I was interested in and not about what these men needed. When pride finds its way into preaching, the cross is the first thing that gets left out.
If the cross is not at the center of my life and my message, it means that I have forgotten how truly wonderful a gift and message the cross is. As Paul, we ought to revel in the cross. We are not to minimize it, spiritualize it, turn it into a decoration, or to apologize for it. The cross is our hope! As ugly and wretched as that cross was, it is the center for the most magnificent and wondrous gift that could ever be given, and was given for me. Without the cross, it is only judgment and condemnation that lies in my path.
As I struggled with this idea and with my pride, I ran into a quote from Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon described the Bible as a roadmap of the area around London. He challenged someone to show him a road that did not lead, even if the path were circuitous, into the heart of London. The man could find none. “The Bible, too,” Spurgeon said, “is like that map. Every verse in scripture either points to or is a direct result of the work of Jesus Christ. And if in your preaching you do not point clearly toward Christ, directing your congregation to follow the map, then you have wasted everyone’s time.” Christ is not only to be at the heart of our preaching, he is what motivates preaching, drives our preaching home in the hearts of our congregation, and he is the very reason that our congregation is drawn to worship in the first place.
And for the cross of Christ to be the center of a preacher’s message, the cross must be the center of his life. And while this message is essential for the preacher to learn, it is also a message that is essential for the life of every Christian. The cross is our only source of hope; it is the bridge through which sinful man can be brought into relationship with a holy God; it is the roadmap through which eternal life may be found; and it is the standard for the church today—a church in the wilderness, looking to it to be spared death. The cross of Christ means salvation and if it is not the center of the life of the Christian, then whatever is will likely lead him astray.
We sing of the “Wondrous Cross” of Christ in worship, but do we take the time to ponder the wonder of the cross and what happened on that day, nearly 2000 years ago. Do we simply see the cross at a point in history or do we glory in it as the apostle did? My fear is that we don’t. As we ponder the cross of Christ, let us remember that God did not have to do what he did for us, yet he chose to send his son to die on the cross that those who would call on the name of Jesus would be saved from eternal damnation. We do not deserve what he did on that frightful day, but let us proclaim God’s glory that he did.
When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.
-Isaac Watts
Metanoeo and Worldview
There are actually a couple words in the New Testament that are used to convey the idea of repentance and conversion, of which “metanoeo” is one. You always need to be careful in defining a term according to its constituent parts, as sometimes that will lead you widely astray. For example, if we were to go out to lunch and I ordered a “hotdog” to eat, you would not expect that I was talking about a fuzzy little animal that had been outside in the sun too long. There are more and better examples of misleading compound words, but you can get the point.
That being said, metanoeo can be broken down. In Greek usage, “meta” functions largely as a marker of association and “noeo” (there is not a “noesis” in the Greek New Testament, but “metanoia” is the reciprocal noun) refers to the way in which one thinks. Nous is the Greek word that refers to disposition of thought and perhaps even to worldview. Thus metanoeo literally means, “having to do with one’s way of thinking” or “having to do with one’s worldview.” When used in its Biblical context, it reflects a fundamental change from the world’s way of viewing life to God’s way of viewing life.
Another term that is used in the context of repentance is epistrophe (see Acts 15:3 which translates this term as “conversion” in the ESV). What is interesting is that the term “strophe” was originally used to denote the movement from right to left made by a Greek Chorus. Thus, this picture of conversion, with epi, which means “on or above the surface” refers to more of a bodily re-alignment, a physical change in the outward way of life that reflects the change in thinking reflected above.
There is also the term “strepho”, which means to “turn around” or to “change position.”
The Hebrew term that is usually used is “shuv” (pronounced with an “oo” vowel sound), and means “to turn around” or “to turn away from.” This is the word that is found in 2 Chronicles 7:14 “and turn from their wicked ways…”
Bottom line is that it is safe to say that “repentance” reflects a complete change in worldview, and a complete change of worldview ought to bring a complete change in living, with both ideas bound together inseparably. One of the problems we face in our culture, though, is that most folks have such an inconsistent worldview or have such an impotent worldview that the change in worldview does not effect a change in living. Hence you have so many professing Christians nurturing deeply rooted sins.
He is Worthy!
Oh how important it is for us to worship Jesus! He is worthy of our praise and no one else is. Mohammed was not worthy, Buddha was not worthy, Krishna was not worthy, our governments are not worthy, humanistic teachers are not worthy—no one but Jesus is worthy of our praise and adoration.
Jesus is worthy first because of his perfect character. From the beginning of time, Jesus is and was infinitely perfect in all of his ways. He is God. And for that simple fact, he deserves our worship. Friends, not only is the unbelief of the non-Christian a sin, but the refusal to worship both of the non-believer and of the casual churchgoer is also a sin. Had Jesus never done any work of redemption, he still would have been infinitely worthy of our praise and honor.
Yet, in his work of redemption, how much more worthy is he! He condescended to take on flesh and walk with us. He came to us while we were still rebels against God, wallowing in our sin—and he called us to himself. He did the work of redemption that bridged the infinite gap between a Holy God and a sinful man. He did that for me. And if you are a born-again believer, he did that for you as well. Because he did for me what I could have never done for myself, how much more is he worthy of my praise!
Praise Him! praise Him! Jesus our blessed Redeemer!
Sing, O Earth, his wonderful love proclaim!
Hail him! hail him! highest archangels in glory;
strength and honor give to his holy name!
Like a shepherd, Jesus will guard his children,
in his arms he carries them all day long;
Praise him! praise him! tell of his excellent greatness;
praise him! praise him! ever in joyful song!
–Fanny Crosby
Notes on Sabbath Use
In terms of how we are to celebrate the Sabbath day, God gives us five commands within the Pentateuch to guide our worship:
1) The Sabbath is given to us as a day to rest from our labors and reflect on their completion:
Gen. 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and wall the host of them.
Gen. 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
Gen. 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
2) The Sabbath is a day for the commemoration of God’s creative work;
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
Ex. 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Ex. 20:11 For min six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
3) The Sabbath is a day that commemorates God’s setting apart of a people to himself as holy and set apart:
Ex. 31:12 ¶ And the Lord said to Moses,
Ex. 31:13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.
Ex. 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Ex. 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
4) The Sabbath is a day for the gathering of God’s people:
Lev. 23:1 ¶ The Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
Lev. 23:2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
Lev. 23:3 “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places.
5) The Sabbath is a day that commemorates God’s redemption of his people:
Deut. 5:12 “ ‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
Deut. 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
Deut. 5:14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
Deut. 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Jesus said of the Ten Commandments that not a yod or a seraph (smallest letter and smallest mark in Hebrew) would pass away until his second coming.
Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matt. 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matt. 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
We still need the Sabbath:
1. The Christian Sabbath is still a needed rest from the labors of the week.
2. Not only do we commemorate God’s creative work, which was begun on a Sunday, but we anticipate God’s re-creative work in the new heavens and the new earth, which was secured on a Sunday, as it is Christ’s resurrection that secured for us an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading (1 Peter 1:4).
3. We commemorate God’s election, setting us apart as a holy priesthood (1 Peter 1:14-16).
4. We gather as a people in the name of the Lord.
5. To commemorate God’s redemption of His people, not only through the history of redemption, but also in the saving work of Jesus, through which we have been redeemed from our bondage to sin and are being prepared for eternity with Christ in heaven. Because Christ is resurrected, we have the hope of resurrection as well (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18).
The Preacher's Study 