The Judgment Seat of Christ
“Harvest to me my godly ones; ones who cut a covenant with me by sacrifice.”
(Psalm 50:5)
One thing that many Christians misunderstand is the idea of judgment. And here, I am not speaking about the judgment of the ungodly under God’s wrath, but even of the believer. Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 5:10 that we all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Does that imply that there are works expected as part of our salvation? No, absolutely not. When works are included in salvation then grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6). Christ has paid the penalty of our sins, bought we who are God’s elect as his own and there is nothing that we can do to add or detract from that reality — we are clothed in Christ’s righteous, not some kind of blended material.
At the same time, we are accountable as to how we live and the words, “well done my good and faithful servant…enter into my joy” are words that every believer should desire to hear more so than any other words that our Savior could offer. And Scripture sets that idea before us when it speaks of the judgment seat of Christ. And so, in the context of this passage, with God calling the earth and heavens as witness as God testifies against them. Notice how, that when this verse is taken out of its context, it sounds like a wonderful thing; in its context, it is very much a fearful thing.
The idea of harvest is found throughout the scriptures and here as well. The Hebrew word which begins this verse speaks of how the farmer would go and harvest the sheaves of grain from the field and gather them into the barn. This is a task that we are called to enter into (Matthew 9:37-38). At the same time, it is a task that God also commissions his angels to work in the end times (Matthew 13:49-50).
What does the psalmist mean, then, by those who are “godly” or those who are “faithful”? The Hebrew word that is employed here is חָסִיד (hasiyd), which is derived from the Hebrew word חֶסֶד (hesed). The root word refers to keeping faithful to the covenant even when those with whom we are in covenant are unfaithful. It is often translated as mercy, grace, lovingkindness, or loyalty. And while we humans are the ones who fall short of the covenant, the
חֶסֶד (hesed) of God is something that we are called to love (Micah 6:8). So, how are the godly defined? It is those who love and cherish the mercy of God in such a way that they are inclined to show mercy to others.
Yet, חֶסֶד (hesed), in its Hebrew context, always has to do with the Covenant of God toward his people. God does not just bubble away and show mercy indiscriminately, but he does so in the context of his covenant — a covenant that is sealed with blood. In the Old Testament, this was the blood of animals that anticipated the blood of Christ to come. In the New Testament, the Covenant of Grace was fully ratified by the sacrificial blood of Christ being poured out — a once and for all time sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10) that is effectually applied to the elect of God.
So, who are the godly being harvested and brought before God’s judgment seat? It is believers. And that should cause all of us to take a pause and evaluate or re-evaluate or own lives. Is the way we are living the basis of the way we would like to see ourselves judged? Sobering, isn’t it?
The Testimony of Heaven and Earth
“He calls to the heavens from above and to the earth to contend with his people.”
(Psalm 50:4)
The structure of this passage is much like that of a court case. And though God is always true and none can contend against him, as he is just, he follows his own rules and guidelines. Indeed, for a capital sentence to be given, two or three witnesses must be presented (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16). And so, God furnishes witnesses as such. Here he calls to the heavens and to the earth — that which suffered in the place of Adam in Eden (Genesis 3:17), that which testifies to the glory of God (Psalm 19:1), that which still yearns for its own redemption (Romans 8:22) — and he demands that they take a stand to witness not only the faithlessness of the people of God to the covenant but also of God’s faithfulness to the covenant as well.
The remarkable thing about this is not so much that God is calling his people to task, they deserve it, but it is that he is calling his people to task again and again. How remarkably patient our God is with we who are his people! How gracious he is in every way. How merciful. God’s aim for us is a life of repentance and faithfulness; how rarely we live in such a way. Perhaps this is one more reminder indeed, to repent and walk faithfully before him lest the heavens and earth testify against us as well.
Our God is a Consuming Fire
“Our God comes; he is not deaf! Fire devours that which is before him. All around him there is a mighty whirlwind.”
(Psalm 50:3)
What you read here are words of power and might — words that are designed to instill awe in us and to inspire us to worship. How often worship is self-centered and based on what God has done for the individual; here, while the individual is in sight, it primarily revolves around the person of our God. And no, this mighty God is not deaf. He hears our prayers and he hears our praises.
Some translations will render this second phrase, “He is not silent,” presumably connecting this with the second clause and not so much with the first. Yet, this psalm is centered around the fact that God hears our prayers and praises and responds accordingly. How much more appropriate then, it is that we have translated it as we find here — no, our God is not deaf, and thus our prayers and praises are important to Him. Indeed, the prayer of a righteous man has great power (James 5:16). Why does it have such power? It is because God hears those prayers.
What follows is a statement about the might of God that would be demonstrated in person years later with the prophet Elijah. There, upon the Mountain, Elijah had the privilege of an encounter with God — yet God was not in the fire or the wind, but in the “still small voice.” Nevertheless, God surrounds himself with works of power as was witnessed by Elijah — fire is before him and the whirlwind is around him. Did not God appear in the whirlwind to Job (Job 38:1)? Is he not also an all-consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 12:29)? Indeed, the psalmist is celebrating the great truth that our God is mighty and not timid and there is none who can stand in his way. He is a great God, worthy of our praise. Who can stand before a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 9:3; Isaiah 33:14)? No, not one.
Perfect in Beauty
“From Zion, from that which is made perfect in beauty, God shines forth.”
(Psalm 50:2)
The majority of translations render this a little more idiomatically, “From Zion, the perfection of beauty…” and such is a perfectly legitimate way to render the phrase מִכְלַל־יֹפִי (miklal-yopiy). Clearly the psalmist is praising God and celebrating the place of worship that God had ordained (in this case, the Tabernacle as it was placed on Zion in anticipation of a Temple being built. King David had commissioned Asaph, along with others, to prepare for the Temple worship in the days of his son, Solomon.
At the same time, we must ask, what made the Tabernacle beautiful? And, we can ask by extension, what would make the Temple a beautiful building? Certainly both were works of remarkable art and craftsmanship. They were wonders of their day and era. But, was it the artwork that is really to be commended? Could we be missing something by simply viewing the Tabernacle and Temple as beautiful places — like we might view the Parthenon or the Pyramids in Egypt.
The answer to this question is bound to the reason that I opted to translate this passage more literally. The two Hebrew root-words that are brought together in the phrase in question are כלל and יפה. The verbal form of the first refers to that which is made perfect and thus the noun (as it is being used here) has to do with the perfect presentation of something. The second noun that is found in this construction refers to beauty as a whole. To preserve the idea of “being made” in this phrase, I have rendered it as “which is made perfect in beauty.”
But, why is it important to bring out the nature of “that being made perfect” in this passage? The answer lies in the question we have been asking — what made the Tabernacle and Temple perfect and beautiful? The answer is that it is the presence of God which does so. If God’s presence is not there, no matter the craftsmanship, its beauty is not perfect — it cannot be! And thus, God’s presence is what makes Zion to be “perfect in beauty” and worthy of being a place of worship. And indeed, in context, that is what the latter half of this verse communicates: God shines forth!
And so, why is the rebuilt Temple of Nehemiah never described in such terms? Why is the modified Temple of Herod never described in these terms? It is because God’s presence never manifested itself in those places — the Son was the greater Temple to come and is yet the great Temple of God (so why do so many people want to rebuild the old one?!?). And we, as the body of Christ, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, are the new Temple — perfect in beauty when we gather together as one to worship. But remember, we are not perfect in beauty because we are any way beautiful in and of ourselves. We are beautiful because God dwells in us and shines forth from us as we commit our worship and our lives to Him.
God’s Preaching
“A Psalm of Asaph.
God, the Great God, Yahweh! He commands and proclaims to the earth from the rising sun unto its setting.”
(Psalm 50:1)
What an amazing beginning to this psalm. Literally it reads: אֵל אֱלֹהִים יהוח (El, Elohim, Yahweh) — three names of God, each getting more specific as it leads to the Covenant name of our almighty God. Only one other time in the Scriptures does such a phrase arise, and in that case, it is found in the context of an oath that the Tribe of Reuben makes to demonstrate the sincerity of their worship of God (Joshua 22:22) after having set up an altar of witness in the eastern territories, something seen as a form of idol worship. And so, in this way Asaph, who was one of the Levitical singers that was placed over the worship in the Tabernacle by David (see 1 Chronicles 6:31-32,39), begins his psalm of praise and glory to the Lord.
What is it that he speaks of God doing? God is preaching. He is proclaiming to the earth his majesty and glory from the rising until the setting of the sun. And so, here, we are reminded by Asaph, as the author of Hebrews again reminds us, that as long as it is day, we are to sing praises to God that we might not become hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13). Indeed, sin says to us that it will satisfy, yet it cannot deliver on its promise. Satisfaction can only be found in Jesus Christ who is Lord and master of all.
The idea of God preaching is one that looks both backwards and forwards. God essentially preaches creation into being in the beginning and he preaches a sermon on the greatness of his name to Moses on Mount Sinai. And, as we move through the Scriptures, we find God declaring the glories of his name to us that we might not only worship him but also so that we might declare that truth to others. Indeed, we are not always faithful at that task, nevertheless, it is our responsibility to do so and Asaph gives us an inspired model for doing just that.
Why Would God Send Anyone to Hell?
This is one of those questions that tends to come up a lot in conversations with people in the community around me, even amongst professing Christians. When it is raised, it is not typically meant as an exegetical argument that challenges the Christian doctrine of justice, but it is a question that comes from a more emotional level. The reasoning looks something like this. “I don’t think that I could condemn anyone to Hell and God is more merciful than I am, thus he must not send people to hell.”
In my late teens and early twenties, I went through a number of years of rebellion against the church and the things that the church taught. During those years I never became an atheist per say, but I became a universalist based on the above idea. I used to say, “God is love and he is the perfection of love; hence, he must love even those whom I cannot find it in myself to love and surely love would not condemn someone to hell.” I used to tell people that I did believe that a hell existed, but I considered it vacant.
There error in this line of thinking is two-fold. First, it demands that God define norms and actions on the basis of my preferences and standards. Because I could not condemn someone to eternal fire, then God must also not be able to do so. Secondly, it ignores the idea of justice, magnifying one attribute of God over and above all other attributes. In theological terms, God is “Simple,” meaning that not one aspect or attribute of God can be understood outside of the context of all the others — he is indivisible and perfectly consistent in himself.
The thing with justice is that it demands that punishment be given that is suitable to the crime that was committed. In addition, wherever possible, justice also demands that restitution is made. The example that I often give is that if I were to steal something from you, it is not good enough that I be punished for the theft, but you also want your things back (or appropriate compensation so you can repurchase that which was taken). And Biblically, were we to follow God’s established laws for Israel, restitution ought to be greater than the actual value of what was taken, depending on how important that thing happened to be. This greater restitution is designed both as a deterrent for those considering said theft and it is meant as a way of ameliorating the hardships caused by the theft.
And this has to do with theft. What of a more heinous crime like rape or murder? Certainly the punishment must be suitable to the crime. And, while no amount of money could ever atone for a crime like this, it would not be unreasonable to demand a certain degree of restitution from the criminal to compensate the family for medical bills, funeral expenses, etc… Further, a judge that decided to be merciful to a rapist or a murderer out of his or her love for the criminal, would be considered unjust and corrupt. He would be, in fact, promoting that which he should be punishing.
And now, we multiply. You see, all sin that is committed, is not only committed against others, but it is committed against God himself. And, as God is infinitely greater than man, the sin is infinitely more severe. Further, not only must sin be punished to see that justice is satisfied, but restitution must be made for justice to be fully done. Yet, how can man make restitution to God? Indeed, a perfect sacrifice had to be made in addition to the wrath of God being poured out in proper judgment over sin. And since you and I cannot make either the sacrifice nor endure the wrath of God, that is why Hell is our only proper and just punishment.
Does that mean that God is not merciful? That, of course, is the question that the Heidelberg Catechism poses on Day 4 (Question 11). The answer, of course, is to assure us that God’s mercy does not contradict his justice, that both are intertwined in and inseparable from the person of the God we serve. And so justice is served but mercy is shown through the suffering and death of his Son, who was sinless and could thus make a perfect sacrifice (restitution) and could suffer the weight of God’s wrath for all of God’s elect. Mercy, then, is seen in the giving of Christ for all who confess with their lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). Justice melted out on the Son on behalf of those God has chosen since before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) means that mercy can be given to that same body of people.
And, what of those for whom Christ did not die? Justice must still be served and Hell awaits all who are outside of the body of Christ. Interestingly enough, even in this context, God gives a degree of mercy even to those who are reprobate and headed for punishment in Hell. How so? They have a life here on earth marked by many good things — friends, the joy of holding a child in your arms, the love of family, the simple joys of good music and good food. It is a small consolation, indeed, for eternity in Hell; nevertheless, even to those outside of God’s saving grace, God’s mercies can be seen (or at least ought to be seen).
Worship and Wrath: Are they mutually exclusive?
As a child, I grew up singing old hymns of the faith — Isaac Watts, Fanny Crosby, Charles Wesley, and the like. Even today, many of these hymns are deeply ingrained in me. Then, somewhere in my early twenties, praise music became all the rage in the church I attended. And so, I was introduced to essentially a newer and more contemporary body of hymnody — largely written to be accompanied with a guitar than with an organ. And, as with some of the hymns that I grew up singing, some of these “old school” praise songs still can elicit a powerful emotional response.
As I’ve grown older and arguably more mature in my faith, I freely confess that I am drawn more to singing the psalms. This is not a dig against those who are writing hymnody so much as it is a reflection on the fact that I am paying more attention to the words I am singing and desire that those words be as Biblically and theologically accurate as possible. In many cases, when I sing hymns and praise songs, I end up singing with my guard up — something I don’t want to have to do. And so there is a natural gravitation toward the psalms and other Canonical songs.
What has struck me, though, is how different the tone of Canonical singing is than that of the hymnody and praise music with which I am familiar. Namely, I can’t think of too many hymns or praise songs that praise God for his wrath and for the destruction of his enemies. Sure, there is “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war…,” but that’s not really about God’s wrath, its a call to evangelism and spiritual battle. Truly this is an appropriate theme to sing, but it not so much sing praise for God’s work of destroying his enemies in judgment. And I am not saying this because I wake up in the morning thinking, “Oh my, I want to sing of God’s wrath!” But then again, sometimes I do.
What has struck me about the Biblical songs of worship is that they do not just cover the happy parts of the Christian life. They sing of the feelings of abandonment, the struggle with loss, and the righteous anger the Christian ought to feel when facing the abominations of the wicked. And they sing praise to God for his wrath against the wicked.
The reality of this proved striking to me this weekend as I opened our worship. I have been using the songs of praise from Revelation as the language of our calls to worship this year and I arrived on Sunday at chapter 19:1-3, where the multitude in heaven are praising God for judging the great prostitute. That was clear enough, but the words that closed these verses sing praise to God that her “smoke goes up forever!” Indeed! Here are the saints in heaven glorifying God that the destruction of the prostitute, Babylon, is so great that she will burn in hell forever. The language of judgment certainly fills the pages of Revelation, but this passage truly stood out to me.
To be honest, I can’t say that I ever remember singing a hymn or a praise song that contained language like that. Wesley, Toplady, Newton, Watts, etc…, I don’t think I have run into a hymn from one of them that is structured like that. And, if these authors did write hymns praising God for his wrath upon the unbelieving world, they I don’t think they have made their way into any of the hymnals that I have used. Yet, they are in the psalters. Why? Because they are in the psalms.
One of the main errors of the church in America today is that it is theologically unbalanced. Preaching on the Law and on Sin is de-emphasized and preaching on grace is emphasized to such a degree that it dominates the conversation of the Christian. This has created an imbalanced theology in much of America. And, this imbalanced theology has created a culture that don’t think that sin is that bad and they embrace a form of universalism that implies that everyone gets to go to heaven so long as they ask.
Could there be a connection between the way we think and what we sing? I think that there is. Songs have long been one of the most effective ways to teach ideas to people (young and old). This is why we memorize our alphabet using the ABC Song. In seminary, we had to be able to recite the 66 books of the Bible in order — I cannot even begin to say just how many of my peers memorized the books of the Bible as a song. Funny. Music has a way of bypassing many of our intellectual filters and therein lies the danger. When we are singing things outside of the Canon of Scripture, we open ourselves up to the errors of those who wrote the hymn or even to an imbalanced view of God based on the choices made by the one selecting the hymns to sing.
Am I arguing for exclusive psalmody? Not entirely, though it probably would not take much to convince me of the value of exclusive Canonical singing. There are also hymns that are essentially composed of sections of scripture that have been strung together. These can open the door to the potential for using a passage out of its context to make the hymn author’s point, but they are in the realm of what I am growing toward. Recognizing that even exclusive psalm singers are at the mercy of those who translate and versify the psalms, there is no bullet-proof solution. What I am advocating though, is more intentional choices when it comes to the selection of music for worship. Not only ought the music we sing be scriptural, but it also must reflect the breadth of the language with which the people of God are to use as we worship God. In other words, let us not just sing about the wonderful grace and mercy of God, but also of the wrath and judgment he wields over sin.
Unity, Busyness, Tolerance, and Compromise: Not Synonymous
One of the attributes of the church, toward which we are called to strive, is unity. Indeed, how “good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity” (Psalm 133:1) and how important it is that we strive to maintain the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” that must exist within the church (Ephesians 4:3). Truly, it is a wonderful and a beautiful thing to see Biblical unity growing amongst the body of Christ.
But Biblical, Christian unity is hard and it takes work. As a result many other things often get put in its place. Sometimes the church becomes busy with activities, something akin to the work of a beehive, with everyone buzzing around consumed by the things that must be accomplished. At times like this, there is so much going on that it feels as if people are united, though no one has the time to notice that the unity is tenuous at best. Activities unite them rather than the worship of Christ. How sad it is that churches often fall into this trap.
Sometimes those activities take the form of a program — things to research, demographic studies, and drawing conclusions about the community around them. Sadly, of course, most of the conclusions drawn are fairly obvious to those who have lived in the community for any length of time; nevertheless, such studies are often pursued with great energy and vigor. The church that I attended as a child was much like this — there was always a program going on and when a program ran its course, there was a pursuit of a new program to fill the void.
Then something happens and the activities either slow down, come to a close, or are halted for one reason or another. In the absence the activity or program, the problems that these things covered up come to the surface and people begin to face the reality that they have to either avoid one another or begin engaging in more authentic ways. Truly, this does not have to be a bad thing; in fact it is a very healthy thing for the body of Christ. Nevertheless, it is an uncomfortable thing that many people are unwilling to confront and many fall away, seeking other busy places.
Sadly, busyness is not the only thing that the church sometimes substitutes for Biblical unity. Sometimes unity is confused with tolerance. Tolerance is the practice of being willing to accept ideas and practices that one disagrees with for the sake of avoiding strife. This does not need to be an insidious thing, but it becomes so when tolerance is only a public persona and, when in private, the gossip begins. Then tolerance becomes little more than disgruntled resentment. Once again, authentic relationship is avoided lest the anger or frustration come to the surface and the facade of unity be laid bare and shown to be the hollow thing that it really is.
The sister of tolerance is compromise. How often people fail to face or take stands on difficult subjects because of fear of disagreement. Rather than working through differences in submission to a standard (the Bible), those differences are considered to be secondary and non-essential to unity. While indeed, some differences are non-essential to unity, when one begins down the pathway of compromising truth for the sake of unity, eventually essentials will be placed in the category of non-essentials. Further, compromise in this way is often a denial of both the notion of absolute Truth, the belief in the understandability of the Word of God, and also a denial of the rules of logic.
Compromise denies the notion of absolute Truth because it assumes that there is no absolute True answer to a given question. When there is a disagreement, there are only three possible options: Person “A” is right and person “B” is wrong, Person “A” is wrong and person “B” is right, or both Person “A” and “B” are wrong. And since God has given us minds to think and reason as well as His Word to study, shall we not labor to determine the right answer and not compromise?
Compromise denies that the Scriptures can be properly understood when it comes to important matters. In theological terms, we speak of this in terms of “perspicuity” or “clarity.” In other words, we say that the scriptures are crystal clear when it comes to the essentials for salvation while there are other things that are more opaque in nature. Does this principle, then, teach that there are things on which we must compromise? Not really. It simply teaches that there are some things on which we must labor more carefully and dig deeper. Yet, many of these matters have already been fleshed out for us by those who have gone before us and have written the Creeds and Confessions which we have inherited as a church. In this fashion, the church worked through the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, but it also spoke of baptism, worship, and many other things that we still debate about. Isn’t it interesting that our tendency to “pick and choose” what we like from an early council or confession leads us into compromise?
Compromise also denies the rules of logic. Logic no longer seems to be “in vogue” these days, but nevertheless, logic is essential for communication, invention, and life in community. While society might like to play fast and loose with logic, the church must not. The most basic principle of logic is referred to as “The Law of Non-Contradiction.” This can be summarized as the idea that “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time and in the same way. For our purposes, we must be clear that two mutually-exclusive ideas cannot both be correct. For instance, either the sprinkling only view or the immersion only view of baptism is correct. Both cannot be so as they are mutually contradictory positions. Churches that choose to accept any view you hold are making a compromise for the sake of unity, but in doing so, deny the basic laws of logic.
More importantly, in all of these areas (compromise, tolerance, and busyness) we end up seeking to create a kind of unity by human means, not by divine means or by Biblical means. Isn’t it interesting that as much as the Bible speaks about Christian unity, Christians rarely look to the Bible to provide the means and definition of said unity. Whether we attribute it to our sin nature or to our downright active rebellion against God, we as the Church, must address what God says about our unity and then pursue God’s means of achieving it.
To begin with, true Christian unity, begins with an attitude of the heart. King David writes: “Instruct me, Yahweh, in your way so that I can walk in your truth; unite my heart to the fear of your name.” (Psalm 86:11). In other words, if we are going to have any sort of unity in the church, our hearts must first be united in the fear of the Lord and we must be a people who are committed to the instruction of the Lord’s ways. Yet, how often this is the last thing that church bodies look toward when it comes to binding together in unity. Nevertheless, it is the first step in moving in that direction.
The Apostle Paul builds upon what it is that David says when he writes: “I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in order that you all agree and that there might not be divisions amongst you. Yet, be united in the same mind and in the same intent.” (1 Corinthians 1:10). One of the great problems that Paul was addressing in the Corinthian church was divisions and factions which were tearing the church apart and creating all sorts of avenues for sin. Yet, you will notice Paul’s solution. It is not compromise or tolerance or activities. Paul’s solution is to be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. In other words, Paul is saying that the church must have a united world-in-life view before these factions and divisions will go away. And how will that united worldview develop? It develops by sitting under the instruction of the Word of God that we might be united in our fear of Him.
Paul develops this idea further in Ephesians 4:11-16. Paul writes:
“And he gave the Apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers to train the saints for the work of service, for the building up of the body in Christ, until we all arrive at the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, into mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, in order that we may no longer be infants tossed about and carried about by every wind of doctrine or the cunning of men by craftiness and deceitful schemes. But being truthful in love, we should grow up in every way into Him who is our Head, Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together and brought together — every ligament with which it is supplied, working as each is designed — makes the body increase and be built up in love.”
While there is much that can be said about this passage, for our purposes there are two points that should be made. The first is found in the language of God’s goal for the body — that it grow up into maturity. What does that maturity look like? The church is not thrown about as a ship on rough seas by every wind of doctrine and human cunning. In other words, a mature church is a doctrinally sound church. Further, given that a mature church is also a united church, to unite a church means that we must unite the church around true doctrine or teaching. Until that happens, the church will always be thrown to and fro.
The second point that is worth making is that the united body that speaks truth in love is one that is built up into mature doctrine. You cannot speak truth in love if you are not first committed to instruction in the fear of the Lord — the theme of David once again. The point is that right doctrine has an effect on the way people live out their lives. It is not separate from it. And thus, if you are doctrinally sound, you will speak truth in love. And, until you are doctrinally sound, what truth you know will not be spoken in love.
In the end, we are left at the same place we were when we started. If we want unity in the church, it cannot be achieved by man’s rules and ways. It can only be achieved by God’s. And God’s design for unity in the church begins with unity around the Word of God — around doctrine — around truth. If the body is committed to truth, there will be Christian unity. If the body is not committed to Christian truth, no matter how much work you do, unity will never be achieved.
My Land or God’s Land?
“And Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the Sons of Ammon, saying, ‘What do you have against me? For you are coming to me and fighting in my land.”
(Judges 11:12)
You will notice how relationships have now changed in the eyes of Jephthah. Before he was an alien toward the land of Gilead — unwelcome and without a stake in the land. Now he speaks of the land as his and tells the Ammonites that an attack on the land is an attack on him personally. How quickly one’s attitudes can change.
Yet, the character and upbringing of Jephthah begins to demonstrate itself even here. For, though he is now the leader of Gilead and will function as the delivering Judge over the people, the land does not belong to the king. It belongs to God and to God alone. Were he to have spoken rightly, he ought to have said something like, “Why are you fighting against the people of God and fighting on the land that God has set apart for them?” But no, Jephthah, like the pagans in the nations around him, treats the land (and people of the land) as his own.
Now, as we look at the church today, I find it interesting how many people make the same mistake, though with far fewer excuses than has Jephthah. Jephthah didn’t know any better from his pagan culture. People who are part of churches ought to know better. People who have grown up in churches across generations definitely ought to know better and sometimes they are the worst offenders. Jesus is King over the church and that means the church is not “my” church, nor does it belong to any one family or community of people. The church belongs to Jesus. He will defend her, which is something that a king does and he will govern over her which is the other thing that a king does. He will also issue decrees that all those within the church must obey unless they are to find themselves under judgment. The same follows with the church.
We ought not be surprised when confessing Christians have problems understanding that Christ is king over his church because confessing Christians also struggle with the notion that Christ is to be king over their lives. We want things our way. But our way is not an option. Christ’s way is the right option…it is the only option. Jephthah’s worldview is a mess because he has grown up in a pagan society, but recognize the damage that the pagan culture does to our worldview even today.
Good Confidence
In the original German edition of the catechism, the phrase here speaks of having guter zuversicht, it speaks of a good “confidence,” a good “trust,” or a good “faith” in our faithful God and Father. But what does it mean to have a “good confidence” or a “guter zuversicht” in God?
Confidence refers to the level of one’s trust in another. Perhaps one of the classic illustrations of this trust is found in a child jumping off the edge of a swimming pool into the waiting arms of his father — perhaps fearing the unknown of the water but trusting in the strength of his father’s arms and with the assurance that his father will keep him safe. When the prophet instructs us what God demands of us as believers, one of those things is that we “walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:8). That humble walk implies that we are walking having placed our confidence in God.
Interestingly, confidence in the western culture is sometimes viewed as being presumptuous and egotistical. Yet, this kind of overconfident attitude only comes when one is placing confidence in oneself. When one places his or her confidence in God by faith there is no room for bragging or pride. Instead, we are quietly relying on the strength of our God to deliver us from the threat of the situation.
The core of what the catechism is instructing us in question 28 can be found here. It is because God has ordered all things by his divine providence and because I belong to Him in Christ, I have no need to fear what is to come. I have good confidence in the plans and designs of Him who orders and ordains all things by his providence and I will not question his purpose. This, friends, is what it means to have a gut zuversicht.
Even so, sometimes the eighteen inches between the head and the heart can be a difficult bridge to cross. We understand an idea intellectually, but bring our hearts to a point where we live like it can often be a great challenge. We like to worry and fret over things, yet the scriptures and the catechism seem to make it utterly clear that we have a God who hears our prayers, who cares for us in our times of need, and who acts in this fallen world, ordaining all things that come to pass (Ephesians 1:11). So, in what shall we fear? We shall fear none but God alone and serve and love Him as our God and Father with good confidence because is our Father and will use all things to conform us into the image of his Son, Jesus.
Thankful in Times of Prosperity
You might be tempted to think that being thankful in times of prosperity is a given — an easy thing for believer and non-believer alike. You might be tempted to think that thankfulness during good times is quite natural. But, were this the case, the authors of Heidelberg would never have needed to ground faithfulness in a knowledge of God’s providential governance of his creation. So, perhaps genuine thankfulness is not as natural as we might initially think.
First of all, thankfulness, by definition, is a state of being grateful for thinks placed into your life. That sounds pretty benign at first glance, but it raises the question, “to whom” is that gratefulness supposed to be directed? The answer, of course, is that it is to be directed toward the one who brings the gift or blessing into your life. And, for most people, here is the rub. Yes, our neighbor might do us a favor and it is proper to thank him. Yet, God’s providence governs your neighbor’s actions. Yes, a relative might give us a gift and it is proper to thank them, but again, God’s providence governs the actions of our relatives — even of our pagan ones! Yes, good things may happen to me, but God governs all of these things. And, if God’s providence governs all things that take place in our life, then our gratefulness, in the ultimate sense, is to be directed toward Him.
You see, as Question 28 of Heidelberg points out, all things in our life are ultimately governed by God’s providence. So, when good things happen we ought to be thankful, but to be genuinely thankful, we must address that thankfulness toward God. The non-Christian does not naturally thank God — in fact, the non-Christian rejects thanking God for the good things and prosperity in his or her life. In turn, that means that they are not truly expressing thankfulness as they ought.
Yet, it is not just the non-Christian that often struggles with thankfulness, it is also the Christian. Often, thankfulness to God is our secondary response to good things in our life, not our first response. Often, we forget and have to remind ourselves to thank God for the events of the day and often we forget entirely to do so. Worse yet, often, when good things come into our lives, we assume them to be things that we have deserved or earned for ourselves. Yet, even the money paid for the labor of our hands (which is arguably earned) is something for which we must give God thanks for God has given us both the skills of our hands and the opportunity to use said skills in a productive way. All of this has been orchestrated and brought to pass by God’s providence, thus, again, we find ourselves needing to express gratitude to God.
Yet, often we do not express gratitude toward God in any intentional and meaningful way. We might say, “Thank you God for…,” but do we live in a way that demonstrates our gratefulness? Often we do not. As we continue to reflect on the catechism, do make a point of asking yourselves how intentionally you express your gratitude to God for all that takes place in your life…in this case, especially when it comes to times of success and prosperity.
The Elders, Force, and Bad Decisions
“And it came to pass in several days time that the Sons of Ammon fought with Israel. And as the Sons of Ammon fought with Israel, the Elders of Gilead went to take Jephthah from the land of Tob.”
(Judges 11:4-5)
And thus, the thing predicted took place: The Ammonites wage war in Gilead and the leaders of Gilead send for Jephthah. I find it interesting, typically in conversations with those outside of the Reformed movement, how often people think of the office of Elder as a New Testament construct. Yet, that could not be any further from the truth. Here we see one of many examples where the Elders of the community are making decisions that will affect the welfare of all within. Even Moses was instructed to address the Elders of Israel (Exodus 3:16). In fact, if you happen to read the Greek translation of Exodus 3:16 found in the ancient Septuagint, you will discover that Moses is instructed to speak to “the Council of the Sons of Israel.” The simple principle that we must always keep in the forefront of our minds is that the church considered themselves not to be something entirely new, but to be the continuation of the work God had begun in the Garden of Eden. Thus, they chose titles and offices familiar to the Jewish people. The Christians were the continuing Jewish church amongst a Jewish nation that had apostatized in their rejection of Jesus.
Interestingly, the term that is used to refer to the way that the Elders of Gilead went to bring Jephthah from Tob implies that they used force to bring him to Gilead. Most commonly, לקח (laqach) means to grasp or seize something or to take by force. These leaders were not taking a casual stroll in the country. They sought a great warrior to deliver them and Jephthah was the man they chose; he was going to deliver them one way or another. And so, they took him from the land of Tob to bring him to Gilead.
One of the themes that is found regularly in the Bible is the theme of waiting on the Lord. True, the idea can sometimes be a hard one because, how does one know for sure that the Lord has opened a door for you in this direction or in that direction. At the same time, it is easy to see examples of the catastrophes that ensue when one does not wait upon the Lord’s timing. Here is one of those examples. Rather wait for the Lord to relent at the repentance of his people, the people seek out a leader after their own image — Jephthah the son of a prostitute who grew up in a pagan land with pagan friends who had no good character. Folks, it shouldn’t take too much to figure out that very little good is going to come from this arrangement. It never does.
Learning Patience
It’s nice to say that we must have patience in times of trouble, but how is it that we develop patience in our lives? Certainly, that is not typically an easy task and patience is clearly not a spiritual gift with which we are born. If you question that, spend some time volunteering in the church nursery next week. Patience is something that is learned, but how do we go about learning it?
For Calvin, learning patience took place as one sought the common equity of one’s neighbor. In other words, as you apply the golden rule, seeking to ensure that your neighbor receives just and fair treatment, you will (almost as a byproduct) grow in your ability to be patient both with others and during times of affliction.
Let us suppose, for a moment, one of the classic illustrations of needing patience in western society. When we go to the store to buy a product or some groceries, imagine getting to the check-out counter and being stuck in a line that is moving very slowly. This is something that most westerners can relate to quite easily. Imagine discovering that the reason that the line is backed up is because there is a person who is checking every price as it is registered, arguing a discrepancy as to how coupons are to be rung up, and then counting out pennies to finish paying for their purchase! Then imagine that you have somewhere you are supposed to be in a short amount of time. For many westerners, especially Americans, that is enough to make you want to run up and choke the person.
From Calvin’s perspective, the Christian is to ask himself or herself, “How would I want others to treat me were I that person counting out coupons and pennies? Certainly, I would want people to understand my situation and give me the opportunity to take advantage of any discounts I can get. Certainly, I would also desire to not be rushed and to not have other customers rolling their eyes, grumbling, or otherwise making me feel like a lesser human being. And thus, for Calvin, intentionally treating the other person (your neighbor in a Biblical sense) as you would genuinely like to be treated, that develops patience in your person.
But, how is that supposed to develop patience during times of suffering or persecution? To begin with, when you realize that, for the Christian, times of suffering are designed to strengthen our faith and reliance on God, then you realize the one with whom you are being called to be patient is God himself. And, since you know that the intentions of God are to conform you into Christ’s image, is not the end result a good and benevolent thing? So, shall we not patiently persevere recognizing the equity with which God works and desiring that His ends be done in our lives (isn’t that part of what we pray when we pray the Lord’s Prayer?).
Finally, we often struggle with patience towards self. Yet, do we not wish to be treated equitably by others? If so, shall we not treat ourselves with that same equity? And in doing so, patience, even with self, continues to grow.
In the end, being patient during times of trouble is something we must do — and can do as a result of God’s providential governance of all things. But it is also a Christian virtue in which we must invest time and effort. The old statement, “Give me patience and I want it now,” does not apply here…
Patience in Times of Trouble
The thing that amazes me sometimes (and here I am preaching to myself also!) is how often we are surprised when bad things happen. No, I am not suggesting that people ought always to be looking at things pessimistically or be a “gloomy Gus” all of the time, or become a “nattering nabob of negativism,” but if we look realistically at this fallen and sinful world, what should surprise us are the good times when everything comes together exactly as planned, not the bad times when things seem to be falling apart at the seams. In fact, when we get overly comfortable with the blessings of this life, I fear that we also lose our hope of heaven — we cling to these things and fear that which is to come.
Now, I will freely grant that there is nothing wrong with praying for a peaceful, quiet life — that is a intensely Biblical thing to do. At the same time, the Christian should always understand that times of trouble will come because we are not yet in the glorified world and that it is often during these times of trouble that God shows his most profound grace in comfort…and no, it is not Mother Mary that comes to us…but it is God’s Holy Spirit. But how shall we face such times?
Many times, Christians approach such times, desperately clinging to hope and praying for endurance just so they can get through to the other side. And, to be entirely honest, this is a completely human and normal response. I can’t tell you how many times I have ministered to people, in the midst of a crisis, and the focus is, “Just get me to the other side of this.” And, I must confess, that has been my own reaction at times — endurance is a Biblical virtue.
Yet, Heidelberg presents a somewhat different approach that offers us an overall wisdom that is greater than our natural response. Heidelberg states that because of God’s providence (that he governs all things that take place in this world), our response is to strive for patience in the midst of suffering. And while patience is closely related to endurance, there is a difference between patient endurance and desperately seeking to get to the other side of what it is that you are facing.
The why, as to our patient endurance, is obvious. God has ordained whatsoever has come to pass and he has ordained it for our ultimate good, which is to be conformed into the image of Christ. What may not be as clear is the advantage of this approach to times of trouble. When you are simply focused on “just getting through” then it is the trouble and just the trouble that pretty much consumes your focus. When you approach trouble with patient endurance, you are not so much focused on the trouble as the opportunities within the trouble to point to Christ. One thing that I most commonly pray, when I am praying with people in the hospital, is that God would use this hospital stay to point others toward Christ — whether doctors, nurses, caregivers, staff, or roommates.
There is a residual benefit to this mindset. It makes seeing God’s hand of sustaining mercy to you much easier. And maybe, just maybe, this “residual benefit” is one of the reasons that people prefer to grit their teeth and just get through it. Once we are on the other side of the “just get through” mindset, there sometimes creeps in a notion that we got through because of our own strength. When we face trouble with the patient endurance that only God can grant, and are faced daily (even moment by moment) with the grace of God’s sustaining mercy, it is a humbling experience. And being humbled is most commonly not a pleasant experience — but it is for our good and for our sanctification is it not? For Christ demonstrated the truest humility in coming down and taking on flesh — even the form of a poor servant. Shall we not be willing to do the same? Our opportunity to do so, very often comes in the guise of troubles that we must face with patience.
What is Providence?
In today’s Christian sub-culture, it is common for people to claim that just about anything unusual is a miracle. People talk about the “miracle of childbirth” or they speak of the raise they got at work as “miraculous” because it was unexpected and beneficial in its timing. Recovery from a disease or surgery is also spoken of as being a miracle as is surviving a car accident or other potentially tragic encounter. Interestingly, in almost every case, miracles are events that are seen as beneficial. Never once have I heard a Christian say, “It was a miracle that the tornado came through and destroyed my home” or “It was a miracle that the stock market crashed at just the right time that all my investments have been lost.” In common usage, miracles must, I think by definition, be good things. Yet, if a good thing for one person is a bad thing for another person, how now does it get defined?
Our problem, of course, is that we are self-centered as a culture and we also do not understand the difference between a miracle and God’s providence — the difference between primary and secondary causes for events. The Heidelberg Catechism, in fact, places far more in the realm of providence than I think most Christians are willing to concede, at least in our modern era for Question 27 speaks of God’s providence as the way in which God sustains his creation and governs all things so that not one thing that ever happens in this world of ours ever happens by chance.
Let’s start with the miraculous then. A miracle is an act of God’s divine interposition whereby he interrupts the normal chains of events and brings about a result that cannot be explained by ordinary causal relationships. God’s creation of the universe Ex Nihilo or Jesus changing the water into wine are examples of miracles. Biblically, miracles are also designed to testify to the authenticity of a prophet’s office or, in the case of the Gospels, be a sign that Jesus was who he said he was, God in the flesh. With the completion of the Scriptures, which is the ultimate testimony of God, the miracles no longer serve that function and thus are no longer normative for the church, that is, with the exception of God breathing new life into a dead soul when he regenerates one of his elect.
Does that mean that God no longer governs his universe? Of course not. Yet, what it means is that God no longer governs his universe by being the primary cause of events, but works ordinarily as a secondary cause — by his providence, massaging the causal factors in such a way as that they bring out the results He desires. In this work, his hand is still visible to the believer but it remains invisible to the wicked so that they may remain in their unbelief.
And so, God raises up governments and throws them down. God stirs up the storms and calms them. God raises events in people’s lives that stir them to action or that pacify them. All these things God does, but through ordinary means that do not require a miracle to take place apart from regeneration. Yet, as God is God, he still brings about all things according to the counsel of his will so that once again, not one thing happens by chance and everything that is experienced in this world (good, bad, or in between) comes from his Fatherly hand.
The Church Oppressed and Subjugated
“And the nose of Yahweh burned against Israel and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the Sons of Amon. They subjugated and oppressed the Sons of Israel in that year — even for eighteen years all of the Sons of Israel who are beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is Gilead. And the Sons of Amon crossed the Jordan to also wage war in Judah and in Benjamin and in the house of Ephriam. And Israel was enveloped.”
(Judges 10:7-9)
Just as the idolatry of the people during this cycle was excessive, so is the punishment of the people. God brings down the Philistines from the north, the Amorites from the north-east, and the Amonites from the east to subjugate and oppress Israel, this time for 18 years. And so, for nearly as many years as Jair had brought peace to the land, now there is oppression and misery. And why? God’s people had turned from serving their God to serve the gods of the pagan nations. And, if there is one thing that makes God angry, this, my friends, is it.
While the anger of God toward sin is always justified, the patience of God toward our sin never is — but is given entirely as a matter of God’s grace. He suffers long with his people so that when we do fall into sin for which discipline is necessary, we are left without excuse. And indeed that can be said of the people of Israel.
What is sad is that as I look over the landscape of the church in the west, I find myself wondering whether we are not in exactly the same situation and whether we are overdue for judgment and even wrath. Many times people like to apply this in the context of nations, and I agree that there is a place for that, but it is in the life of Christ’s church that God has deemed proper to work. Yet, when the church imports pagan ideas, tolerates practices that are contrary to the Bible, and condones human invention rather than divine decree, what else should we expect but the hand of God to bring discipline?
How often the church remains silent when it comes to matters of truth. It does not matter the reasons why. It might be done in the name of ecumenicity, tolerance, courtesy, tolerance, liberty, or plurality, but all of these things are the idols of the nations. If we genuinely believe our Bibles that God is the God of the heavens, that he created all things, and that he alone is God, then why put up with such nonsense? And if we really believe that it is under the name of Christ alone that we can be saved from eternal judgment, why would we not tell others and proclaim it from the mountaintops no matter the costs? We too (as the church) are worthy of the judgment of God and the oppression of the pagan nations, and I think that this is what it is that we are seeing as people from our congregations are fleeing to the Synagogues of Satan in our midst where their ears can be tickled and their lusts for entertainment can be slaked. What is the solution? Truth and truth without compromise. Will we champion that? Can we do anything other?
A Faithful Father
Repeatedly, the Bible speaks of God as “Father,” and while we sometimes think of this as a New Testament distinction, we find this language in the Old Testament as well — God is the Father of Israel (Hosea 11:1), the father of the Messiah (Psalm 89:26), and the father of the fatherless (Psalm 68:5). Nevertheless, in today’s culture, many have grown up either without fathers or in contexts where their fathers model behavior that is abusive, neglectful, or otherwise self-centered. And in cases like this, the Biblical analogy of “Father” is often one with which people struggle and sometimes even recoil. In light of this reality, how are we to tackle this very Biblical notion of God being our Father.
To begin with, the one thing that we must never do is to abandon the Scriptural analogies. Many in mainline denominations prefer to speak of God as a “faithful parent,” as a “friend for the fatherless,” or even as a mother-figure given that oftentimes people’s maternal relationships have been more loving (though this is certainly not always the case). The big problem with this model is that it presumes the dysfunction of someone’s experience as normative and then rewrites the Biblical norm in light of the dysfunction.
Instead of throwing out the Biblical analogy, we ought to embrace it recognizing that God is the Father who sets the perfect ideal — an ideal that even the best of our earthly fathers never fully live up to and of which they commonly fall short. The reality is that no matter how dysfunctional our earthly fathers are and even if they are absent from much of our lives as was my own biological father, children crave time with their dad. We can try and substitute a variety of things for a father’s influence, but as noble and healthy as those things may be, they never quite reach the bar because God designed families to be constructed in a certain way — namely with both a mother and a father raising their children together and instructing those children in the Christian faith which they model.
And do understand, fathers can be absent without actually abandoning the family completely. How many fathers work so many hours that they never seem to be present in the home? How many fathers neglect time with their children because there is always one more thing to do? How many fathers flee to their workplace to avoid problems in the home with which they should be involved in discovering a solution. How many fathers abdicate their role of spiritual head of the family to their wives? And how many fathers are begetting children without first entering into a lifetime covenant with the woman who will mother their children?
Rather than to do as the mainline churches do, the better solution is to embrace the Biblical analogy as the idea and to set the bar for our men, expecting them to rise to the call and be the kind of Father that God models for them. And then, to recognize that even though our human fathers often fall short — and we do — our heavenly Father never does and we can celebrate that because we all need strong fathers in our lives.
When Civil Servants Aren’t
In the western world, Wikipedia suggest that the term “Civil Service” goes back to 1829 and the expansion of the British Empire — namely that the British government needed people with administrative and managerial skills to manage the resources, the production, and the commerce that took place in their various colonies. The basic principle behind such management, of course, is much older and we see ample examples of this through history. One very early example of this is the work of Joseph while he was serving in Pharaoh’s court.
The word “Civil” goes back to the Latin word, civilis, which refers to a citizen in a given region or city. In turn, behavior that was considered “civil” was understood to reflect that kind of behavior that promoted good will amongst those people who happened to be living in said community. The notion that those who govern are servants, of course, is also a Biblical one, finding its roots in Romans 13:4. When you put these ideas together, you get the notion that a civil servant is someone, ordained by God, whose role is to serve or otherwise benefit the people of a given region or city, promoting the well-being of all who live in said place. They were to be both civil in their behavior and to have the mindset of a servant, seeking the good of the whole, not their own personal agendas.
While the impetus for this essay was originally the shameful behavior of Representative Brian Sims, namely in his bullying of pro-life protesters in his district, the problem is more widespread than that. Sims, himself, is a predator who accosts women and youth, mocking and harassing them in the hopes of driving them off — seeking to use intimidation to rob them of their Constitutional right to peaceful protest. He is an embarrassment to the legislature of our Commonwealth and has made himself a laughing-stock to pundits nationwide. The only thing that surprises me is that he has not been slapped with a harassment lawsuit, but perhaps he already has.
I expect that it is safe to say that most of us expect better from those in political office. The problem is that while there are numerous men and women who do seek to govern with civility and integrity, it is the noisy, ignorant minority, modeled by Representative Sims, that stand out and give a bad name to all. Rhetoric and false information seems to drive much of our modern political process rather than reasoned dialogue and debate (no dear friends, mud-slinging and sophistry is not legitimate debate; legitimate debate is the reasoned exchange of ideas in the hopes of reaching a conclusion that is logically and morally best!). Again, Representative Sims is not representative of the many civil servants that I have had the privilege of knowing over the years, though sadly he is drawing attention away from that which is good given his antics.
So, where am I going with this? First of all, shame on all of our elected officials whose work revolves around their personal agendas. A leader puts their personal preferences to the side for what is best for the whole community. A leader seeks what is true and faithful to those standards that are established for the good of the community. In other words, if you are a Federal official, the Constitution of the United States is your measure and standard. For Representative Sims and others who lead the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is the Pennsylvania Constitution. For local officials, it is the local ordinances. For leaders in church, it is the Bible and the Constitution of the Church or Denomination.
Second of all, Civil Servants should be just that. What does that mean? In Biblical language, that means they have a lot of repenting to do. In more pragmatic, political language, we, the citizens, need to take our elections seriously and vote these self-centered, hate-mongers out of office. Folks like Sims are doing little more than wasting tax-payer money and undermining, rather than promoting, the good of the Commonwealth.
And, so what is the end in all of this? Friends, get involved in the political process. Vote and actively support candidates that not only support Christian values but also who understand the role of a “Civil Servant.” And, as you do so, make sure that you behave with civility. Back when Mitt Romney and Barak Obama were debating, each running for president, my son, then about 11 years old, took an interest in politics for the first time. So, we allowed him to stay up past his bedtime to watch the debates and then to discuss them. Even at 11 years old, he kept saying to me, “Dad, he didn’t answer the question he was asked.” Yes, and it was true of both candidates. If an eleven-year-old can notice sophistry like that, why do we tolerate it? How good it would be if political debates consisted of people actually concerned about solving the problems that face our society in a civil way and not in a way centered on personal or political gain.
Spiritual Discernment
“Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ Turning, she said to him in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means ‘Teacher’).”
(John 20:16)
One of the very curious things about the resurrected Christ is that people don’t always recognize him when they first encounter him. Certainly one could suggest that this may be attached to the terrible grief that those close to Jesus were experiencing as we have discussed already. Certainly it could also be because the horrific torment that Jesus endured would have deformed Jesus and the image of the deformed body was what proved dominant in their minds. One could also make the argument that here, in his glorified body, the veil of flesh no longer hides the glory of heaven from those witnessing the resurrected Christ.
While all of the above things can certainly be said to contribute to the reason that Mary did not initially recognize Jesus, I think that there is another element that needs to be brought into the discussion, and that being spiritual discernment. Think about it, when Peter, James, and John were on the Mount of Transfiguration, just the opposite of this event took place. Instead of not recognizing someone they knew, they did recognize two people that they had never met or seen. And thus, seeing Moses and Elijah on the mountain, they knew who those men were. Since it was not the Jewish practice to paint portraits of people, as that could lead to idolatry, and no photographs were available (it hadn’t been invented yet), the only way these men could have been recognized by the Apostles Was if the Holy Spirit had revealed it to them. Applying the principle in reverse, if the Holy Spirit kept Mary’s eyes closed as to who Jesus really was, this explains her not recognizing him until he called her by name.
And so, in recognizing him, she cries out to him in Aramaic: “Rabboni!” John explains that this means, “Teacher.” Literally, this word means “Great One” and is meant as a title of honor given to those who do teach God’s people the Word. It is a reminder as to the importance that the Jewish culture gave to those who would teach the Torah. They were given respect and honor and the title attributed to them reflected this reality. How sad it is today that so much of the Christian church does not choose to give such honor to those who teach them the Word. How different our churches would be, were that different.
Imitatio Dei
Solomon wrote that there was “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). The nineteenth-century theologian, W.G.T. Shedd, wrote: “Originality in man, then, is not the power of making a communication of truth, but of apprehending one.” One pastor I knew while growing up used to say, “True genius is not creating something new, it is knowing what is good enough to steal (and improve upon).”
I am told that every combination of chords that can be played has been played. And thus, there are no truly original pieces being written — yet, people are still writing new music. It can be said that every possible combination of words has already been written, yet new books are still being written. There are only a finite number of possible plot lines in literature and all of them have been explored, yet new stories are still being told. You can see the shadows of previous designs in every invention, yet we are still trying to build a better mousetrap. And the ideas that seem new or novel to us only seem so because we are generally poor at teaching history.
So, am I suggesting that we do not create? Not at all. In fact, I am suggesting just the opposite. One of the things that makes us human is the fact that we create new things, we learn from the things that others develop and we re-imagine those things to make them better, faster, more efficient, and more useful. It is this work of making new things that not only distinguishes us from the animal kingdom, but that reminds us that we are made in the image of a creative God. And so, as we imitate God, particularly in creative work, we grow in our reflection of His character, that is, so long as we create well.
There is a sense, particularly when it comes to artistic expression, of good creativity and bad creativity. Not every color blends together in an aesthetically pleasing way. Not every chord progression is pleasing to the ear. There are things that belong together and things that clearly do not belong together. Not every alteration on a design is helpful or appealing. And, while certain things appeal to one person and not to another, there are still combinations and compositions that are more or less universally disconcerting and disturbing to the eye, ear, or mind.
C.S. Lewis called this a departure from “the Normal” or the “Sense of Normal.” For Lewis, there was a sense of color, sound, and design that is found in the created order that we humans are meant to imitate when we create things. When we go outside of that sense of “Normal,” we find things to be disturbing and aberrant. That, of course, does not mean that people do not sometimes try and produce art outside of the realm of “the Normal,” but it does mean that the art will tend to only appeal to a certain niche crowd that shares the artist’s disturbing perspective on the world.
I am reminded of my college years and an instance in a class where we were to write a fiction story. I had written a story where the murderous villain was caught but escaped trial on a technicality. The response of my classmates was to be appalled. The technicality was a legitimate one and certainly, people had been released from jail on that technicality before. There was nothing outrageous or unrealistic about the villain’s release. Yet, in the story, I had generated such hatred and disgust for the villain that, when he was not convicted of the murder of these women, my classmates left the story dissatisfied and angry. Or, to put it another way, the sense of “Normal” also includes a basic sense of justice that needs to occur in a plot line.
The challenge we face in society is that as the knowledge of God is attacked and devalued in the classroom, we more and more fail to see the value of this sense of the Normal, which originates and is given value by God’s design. We also fail to see the importance of creating things of interest and beauty to all. Until we really consciously recognize that we are engaged in the imitation of our creator, the motivation for creation will always be self-serving and limited in scope and value. It is only when God’s sense of “normal” is applied to our creation, that true value and aesthetic beauty will be visible.
Ability and Will
One of the most basic principles of logic is that “Ought does not yield Is.” In other words, just because things “ought” to be a certain way does not mean that they will be that way. To assume this to be the case is what is called the “moralistic fallacy” and it would be the basis of what would later be called “Hume’s Guillotine,” in honor of the philosopher who popularized it. It should be noted that the opposite is true as well — “Is does not yield ought.” In other words, just because this “is” what happened does not mean that it “ought” to have been so (to argue thusly is called the “naturalistic fallacy).
Why is this important? There is an important principle that can be drawn from these two logical axioms. Just because you have the ability to do something does not mean that you will be willing to do so. Similarly, just because you have the will or desire to do something does not mean that you have the ability to do so.
Let’s take the simple example of a phobia — an irrational fear of something. I, for instance, am afraid of heights. I am fine on a six or ten foot ladder, but much higher than that my body shuts down and it takes a tremendous amount of intentional will-power to just complete the task I set forth to do. Early on in my time here where I serve as a pastor, one of the men of the church tried to get me to climb the ladder to the top of the bell-tower (about 50’ high). I did get to the first tier where the church bells were kept, but as soon as my eyes perceived my height through the ventilation grills, my legs turned to jelly and I never made it to the top. While my body had the ability to climb to the top of the tower, I did not have the will to do so.
Outside of phobias there are other examples of this notion at work. I do not like liver. In fact, my dislike for liver is intense. When I was speaking in Moscow in 2009, one of the meals I was served was liver and rice (and the rice had a liver-gravy on it). Usually, when I travel, I try and “Do as the Romans do…,” but no matter how hard I tried to be polite, I could not stomach more than a couple bites. Again, the ability was there, but my aversion to liver was so strong that my will did not cooperate.
It works the other way around as well. I went through a season of my life where I wanted to learn to play the drums, but I have no sense of rhythm. My band instructor would clap out a beat and ask me to mimic him, and try as I might, I couldn’t do so. Similarly, in college, I tried a semester of Chinese, which is a tonal language. The problem was that even in the language lab, I could never hear the difference between the four tones. The will was there but the ability was not.
Examples abound, but to do a thing, whatever that thing may be, requires you not only to have the ability to do that thing, but also the will to do it. Intentions are great, but where the rubber meets the road lies with two things: the ability to do it and a will to do so.
And that is the beauty of the final clause of Question 26 of the Heidelberg Catechism. It reminds us that God has the “Ability to do so because he is Almighty God” and the will to do so “because He is my faithful Father.” Ability and will, but for what? To govern all things by his providence and to take every event that happens in my life (even the bad ones) and turn them for my good, further conforming me into the image of Christ. Devils and men often try and pull one over on God, but they are never successful in doing so. He is Almighty God and he is my Faithful Father. So, what have I to fear when storms of challenge come crashing into my life?
For My Body and My Soul
“Throw down your burden on Yahweh; he will provide for you and he will never permit that righteousness be swayed.”
(Psalm 55:23 {verse 22 in English Bibles})
Not only does the catechism promise that God governs all things and that he even uses evil events for the good of our salvation and sanctification as believers, but the language also reminds us that God is the great provider who will give to us all things that we need. Yet, when we think about God providing the things we need, often the first and primary thing of which we think has to do with our physical needs — He provides a place to protect us from the weather, food for the belly, and clothes for the back. And while all of these things are important to us, they are not the most important thing — more necessarily, God provides for the needs of my soul as well.
He provides this ultimately through Christ, who did for me, body and soul, what I could never have done for myself. Christ opened the gate into heaven that I might come in. He nurtures and nourishes my soul through his Word and instructs it through his Word and Discipline. And ultimately, he conforms me into the image of his Son that the Imago Dei that has been warped and twisted within me due to sin, can be straightened and prepared for glory. And indeed, this spiritual care is my greatest need. I can survive for a season on the morsels and tidbits of food that I can scavenge, but I cannot survive for a moment without the care that God provides to my soul. Woe to the one who is apart from God; how wretched is their state of spiritual death.
So, as the Psalmist reminds us, cast your cares on Yahweh, recognizing that these cares are not just those things that plague you in the physical world — nor are they primarily those things that plague you in the physical world — but those cares for the state of your soul as well. Lay your cares upon Him and he will carry you through even the darkest days this life brings.
Turned Toward My Good
One of the great contributions that the Heidelberg Catechism brings to the table of Reformed confessions is that it is so very much first-person and pastoral in nature. As I have noted before, instead of speaking in the abstract, it uses words like “I” and “me” and “my” to convey spiritual truth. And the language of question 26 is no exception to this rule.
The whole phrase that the catechism uses here is: “whatever evil that he sends to me in this valley of tears will be turned toward my good.” That is a remarkably powerful statement. The bottom line is that this world is filled with awful experiences. There are wicked people both inside and outside of the church and tragic events that take place all around. Yet, as Christians, we can be assured that all these events are under God’s sovereign control (Ephesians 1:11) and as a result, they will be used for our good (Romans 8:28).
The real question that we must ask is, what constitutes our God? Romans 8:29 clarifies this as well — that it is to conform us into the image of Christ. And thus, the evil that we experience has a purpose and it works into God’s plan — even the wicked being tools in God’s hands to refine the elect. That is the result of a sovereign God.
Some would argue that God is not absolutely sovereign over all things. And those who claim this, cannot claim the language found in this catechism question — or the promises that God makes to his people in the Bible. In fact, the only assurance that we can have of any good in our life is based on the premise that God is sovereignly in control…but if he is sovereignly in control, then all things are under his control and in his plan — and will be worked for my good — little by little, conforming me into the image of Christ.
Eternal Government
For most of us, the first thing that comes to mind when we hear the word “government” is the government of elected officials that oversee our federal, state, and local communities. These governments seem to be ever-changing between republicans, democrats, and the occasional independent candidate. Despite the varying opinions that people have regarding the laws that get passed or the taxes that get charged to the citizenry, these leaders do have an important role to play in our society. We sinners cannot be governments unto ourselves…if we tried, we would fall into anarchy. They are God’s ministers of justice in our midst and they play an important role in keeping society functioning.
Yet, to look only at the various civil governments that have been established over us is short-sighted. God also governs all of his creation by his eternal counsel and providence. By the way, this is one reason that we, as Christians, reject what is called “the Watchmaker” analogy. That would be the view that God brought creation into being (like a clock), wound it up, and then let it go on its own according to natural laws. Ultimately, such is the view of the Deist, but not of the Christian.
For the Biblical Christian, God not only made everything that is, but everything that takes place has its origins in His will, His design, and His plan. God truly orders all things according to the counsel of his will (Ephesians) and nothing that is can be apart from his design and plan. Indeed, he holds all things together in Christ (Colossians 1:17). Were God to cease governing his creation, the creation itself would blow apart into a million-billion-trillion bits and pieces and would instantly cease to exist. And this government is eternal in the sense that it is rooted in a God who is eternal and has a plan for all he has made.
All too often we do not give honor where honor is due, when we look at the ordinary things of the universe. We see things that look like cause and effect occurrences and treat them as if they are simply explainable by the laws of science. Yet, the laws of science are nothing more than descriptive of what we observe. Furthermore, what we observe is governed by the will of a reasonable and orderly God. So, we should say that the laws of science, rightly understood, are little more than explanations of the orderly government of God over his creation. And, when rightly understood, it ought to drive us to praising God for the order found in this world of ours. Such is the proper (and intended) secondary result of God’s eternal government.
Ex Nihilo: Everything from Nothing
One element of the Christian faith that makes it differ from religious and non-religious beliefs around the world is the idea that all of creation was created out of nothing by an eternal and changeless God. Pantheistic religions like Buddhism argues for a pre-existent natural realm that is an expression of the divine, Greek religions believed that the gods created all things out of pre-existing matter that was formed into the world around us, and atheistic groups hold to the position that matter is eternal. Christianity, though, takes a very different view.
In Christianity, all matter and all life was created out of nothing by divine fiat — God said, and it came into being. This makes all things to be dependent on God for their very existence. Were God to cease to exist, all matter would burst into an infinite number of particles. In philosophical terms, we would say that God is the only “non-contingent” being and all things apart from God are contingent — in other words, our existence depends on God’s, not the other way around.
Why is this important? If God is God…that is, if God is who he says he is…that means he is greater than any being in existence. Yet, to be “greater” or the “greatest” that means he must rely or depend on no one and nothing. Were God to rely on something else for his existence, then that something would be greater.
Why can’t nature be eternal? The Greeks certainly taught that as do the atheists of today. It is primarily because nature is changing and thus contains the potential to not exist. Furthermore, if it cannot provide a first cause (what philosophers would call an “efficient cause”) that actualizes the potential. In other words, every effect must have a cause and that cause must in turn have a cause as well. At the very least, there must be an initial cause who needs no cause (in other words, that initial cause is pure actuality and has no potential).
To some of you, that may seem like another language, but the heart of the matter is that the material world, according to logic, is dependent for its existence on a force or being that is independent or “non-contingent.”
But, that is a broad, philosophical perspective. The more basic Christian perspective is that our Bibles teach that God created all things that are. In other words, prior to Genesis 1:1, nothing but God existed — He simply was and he existed in perfect harmony within his Triune Godhead. Genesis 1:1 begins the work of his created order…and thus it is His to be used as He intends — he governs and sustains it, in other words, but we get ahead of ourselves.
It has become popular in our recent age, to deny the historicity of God’s creative work recorded in Genesis 1-2. People often treat these chapters more as if they are a grand myth and not as if they were historical narrative. Of course, the whole Bible treats creation as historical narrative and the early church believed that a belief in the principle that God created all things was essential to the Christian religion (remember, in Heidelberg Question #26 we are dealing with the Apostles’ Creed). They would go as far as to say that you cannot even call yourselves Christians if you denied the principle that God created all things. Why do we think differently?
The Preacher's Study 