Hebrews 1:5-14

To be sure, we tackled a large chunk of Hebrews this time.  In addition, there is a clear break with the beginning of a second line of argument at the chapter break.  Remember that these epistles were not written within the pericope system so that these section headings did not exist; these were just letters and in this case probably a sermon.  Still, the subject headings are useful.

The remainder of chapter 1 consists of a number of references both to the OT scripture and to the Gospels.  It can be argued that there are also references to a few of Paul’s letters, this being a ground for much conjecture on Paul’s authorship of Hebrews.  The base of the argument is not only is Jesus much superior to angels, but He is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Creator and the Redeemer.  Once again, notice the verbs in this passage.  They are all in the perfect mood, completed action, either in present perfect or past perfect.  We are in the realm of the indicative.  Notice that there have been absolutely no imperatives in the first chapter.  This is a key point.  When we come to the discussion of perseverance in Christ, all of the imperatives are grounded in the indicatives of this section of the epistle.

In an aside, I would point out that all of the epistles, especially the Pauline epistles, are written this way.  There are no imperatives without first grounding them in the indicative.  What this means is that the Gospel comes first; application flows out of the Gospel.  Said another way, correct doctrine leads to correct practice.  The corollary to this statement is this: if you start from ethics and imperatives, you will never find the Gospel; but if you start from the Gospel indicatives and then move to the imperatives, you will do so with the Christian liberty and freedom from the Law that enables you to actually accomplish some good through Christ.  Christ not only Sanctifies us, but He Sanctifies our Works as well.  This is a large argument to which I will return in later posts on Hebrews.

Let’s look at the passages of the OT referenced in the first chapter of Hebrews.  Several Psalms figure prominently in the discussion.  Starting with Psalms 2:7, we have a direct reference to the Messiah being the Son of God.  But each of these lines is grounded in at least one Psalm.  Psalms 89, 97, 104, 45, 102, 110 and 34 are all cited.  Take a moment to read from the Psalms and then compare them to Hebrews 1:5-14.  In addition to the Psalms, Hebrews takes direct citation not only from the Septuagint, but also from the Prophets.  This weaving back and forth between these portions of OT scripture in an important Evangelistic technique of the Apostles.  Look at the Apostolic example in the book of Acts.  Peter, Steven and Paul all discuss the historical events of the Resurrection and point to their fulfillment of OT scripture and prophesy.  There is a remarkable absence of the telling of their stories.  Isn’t Peter’s story pretty impressive?  And yet he, in particular, lays the groundwork for this Evangelistic technique at Pentecost.

In summary then, we have the author setting out indicatives from historical events and from scripture in a sort of proof of the Divinity of Christ.  He will be moving into a discussion of Salvation next.  Only the Messiah, the Living God, can make Salvation possible.  This is the point of chapter 2, that we will be discussing next week.

—Troll—

A Review of Eschatology

In this post, I am going to attempt to lay out the various views of eschatology, and then suggest which I believe makes the most sense.  To begin, I have posted a two part series on Daniel 9 in the past, (Daniel 9, part 1 post, Daniel 9, part 2 post), which gives a good background for this discussion.  Daniel 9 is important because one particular interpretation of those passages drives much of the popular apocalyptic fiction available today.  After reading this background post, tackling those two posts on Daniel 9 will be significantly more easily accomplished.

While eschatology is the study of redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation, it is often condensed to a discussion of end times.  The reason that this occurs is that there are presuppositions concerning which events have already occurred.  As Christians, we can generally agree that Jesus, the messiah, has already come incarnate, died, arose and ascended into heaven.  This covers a lot of time, but it is important to state explicitly what is assumed to have already occurred before discussing what is potentially yet to come to pass and also what may or may not have already come to pass.  That particular event in redemptive history we will call the First Coming.

How we interpret the whole Old Testament, particularly the prophets, Jesus, Acts and the Epistles will weigh heavily on how we view end times.  You will notice that I have not even mentioned Revelation.  Eschatology is contained in every word of the Bible.  The mistake that is easily made is to try to interpret John’s Revelation without any redemptive historical context, or with an inaccurate historical context.  Before we even wade into Revelation, at least some sort of framework or grid for dealing with that book is very helpful.

Let us start with a concept called the millennium.  This is literally a thousand year period.  Most views of eschatology that we are going to discuss will be either named or classified based upon their understanding of that term.  To begin, from where in the Bible does this term originate?  For the rest of this discussion, you will find these charts helpful.  Follow this link and then click on the pdf file link on that page to get the charts.  By the way, I want to take this opportunity to plug both the series of lectures found on the right column of that link on eschatology called Amillennialism 101 as well as both of Dr. Riddlebarger’s books on this topic, A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin.  Back to the Bible, let’s try 1 Chronicles 16 for a moment.  I do not believe that this is the first mention of this idea of a thousand generations, but it is certainly clearly expressed here.  In verses 15-16, we see the idea of a thousand generations for the duration of Abraham’s covenant.  Interestingly, the Genesis text uses words like everlasting to describe the duration of the covenant.  So this reference is clearly a mixture of texts by David.  Even the Davidic Covenant prophesy in 2 Samuel 7 contains the word forever.  In fact, it is clear that this reference refers to the Mosaic Covenant found in one instance in this section of Deuteronomy 7.  We can therefore begin to understand the confusion among the Jews concerning the covenants when David himself is quoted (perhaps misquoted) as saying that there is a thousand generation duration to the Abrahamic Covenant.  In Psalm 105, David is again quoted as saying the same thing regarding this time span and Abraham.  But the point of this verbal gymnastic is this: perhaps this is a metaphor for a very long time that equates with forever.  Psalm 90, called A Prayer of Moses, seems to suggest this very point.  We’ll come back to that thought in a moment.

Now, let’s go to the back of the book, Revelations 20.  This clearly talks about a thousand years.  Go to the charts for a moment and notice that in all four charts, the millennium comes prior to the Last Day of Judgment.  The differences lie in two important areas.  The first difference depends upon the idea of whether the thousand years are literal or metaphorical.  In the first two charts, Dispensationalism and Historic Premillennialism, there is a clear and definite literal millennium.  But these two also have a second difference.  In these two, first Christ comes back to establish the Millennial Kingdom, then He comes back again at the end of the Millennium for the Last Day of Judgment.

Now, let’s break down the differences between the first two and the second two, Postmillennialsim and Amillennialism.  Dispensationalism is a subset of Premillennialsm in which, not only is there a second period of apostasy after the Millennial Kingdom and an actual second revolt before Judgment Day, but the dispensations and periods are marked by the changing focus of Redemptive History.  We are in the pre-Rapture period where God is dealing primarily with Gentiles.  Notice in the chart that in the post bodily second coming millennial period of Jewish conversion, that there is a return to Temple Worship.  This should be a red flag to your Christology that absolutely sinks this system beyond any possible consideration, and yet this is the most commonly held position in the US today.  So many passages suggest that there is no role for the Temple after the Ascension that this idea is preposterous.  The Historic Premillennialism view softens some of the rhetoric, no rapture and no post second coming temple worship, but still has a revolt of believers after the second coming of Christ, and the split of the second coming into two events separated by a thousand years.  Even if you turn my prophets seeing two mountains as one argument from a few weeks ago back on me now, do you really think that having believers in a millennial kingdom revolting against Christ is theologically sound?  And the last issue against these premillennial systems is the splitting of the Second Coming and Judgment Day into two events.  There are simply too many passages that suggest that these are one event.  Let’s try out this passage of Matthew 25 for starters.  It all sounds like one event when Christ comes back to me, and, frankly, to the reformers as well.

The other two systems either do not look at a millennial kingdom at all, or that the millennial kingdom is figurative.  The idea of pre- versus post- millennialism is based upon whether the Second Coming is before or after the millennium.  In these last two systems, since the Second Coming is concurrent with Judgment, the Second Coming is after the millennial period.  The difference between these two models is that Post-Millennialism still requires the transformation of this present age into a predominantly Christian realm prior to the Second Coming, while Amillennialism doesn’t care about the state of this present evil age, only that the Gospel has reached all corners of the world.  This difference between the need to actually convert the majority of the world versus actually just deliver the Gospel to all corners of the world is subtle, but important.  One could certainly argue that Christ may come back at any time now if you are Amillennial in your views.

So, which system do I support, if I haven’t made this clear yet?  The millennial arguments did not come into popular believe until the last 150 years.  The Chilists, or historical premillennialist appeared in the fourth century, but their view was refuted by Augustine and later the reformers.  Amillennialism as a system satisfies all of the pertinent texts without leaving unanswered questions and contradictions.  Therefore, the hour of the King’s return is completely unknown, and it could be tonight, and it might not be for thousands of years still.

The most important aspect of eschatology is that your hermeneutic for Biblical interpretation determines your eschatology.  A completely Christocentric hermeneutic combined with Covenant Systematic Theology yields an amillennial view of the end times.  These things go together naturally and easily.  If you keep those charts available whenever you read passages that have eschatological importance, and they are everywhere in the Bible, and then go through the exercise of deciding how to interpret these passages in each of the four systems that I presented, you will soon see both which system you prefer, and what assumptions you have to make for that eschatology to work.

—Troll—

Disclaimer

I noticed today that I had been attributing the following verse to Isaiah rather than to Elijah in 1 Kings.  I know that this has been done more than once.  If you find examples of this as you read, please email me with the date or title of the post in question so that I can edit my mess.  Thank you.

--Troll--

Hebrews introduction

Two topics leapt to mind on our opening day of Hebrews.  First, there was the example of God’s redemptive story that was played before us.  I discussed this with our fearless leader afterwards and would embellish upon it now.  Second, there is the issue of redemptive history and its conclusion in the Apocalypse.  Some system of eschatological organization should be agreed upon.  Otherwise, the discussion of eschatology in the New Testament can be easily diverted to various distractions.  Therefore, in this post we will tackle the former issue, and in the next post we will address the latter issue.

In Hebrews 1:1-4, several assumptions are made by the author.  He can make these assumptions because he is writing to a mature church, but one that probably consisted primarily of converted Jews.  The writer’s main theme as we move through the book will be one of endurance and perseverance in Christ.  Therefore, he will assume much of the Gospel is known.  These assumptions are manifest in these first four verses as we saw our leader flesh this out on Tuesday. 

These verses are the beginning of a lengthy argument concerning the person of Jesus.  Starting with verses 1-2, we have the declaration that there has been a change in the manner of God’s revelation of redemptive history.  There has been a sentinel event from which historical accounts will be measured.  History is divided between Long Ago and these Last Days (note to Mormons: Last Days, not latter days).  The implication is clear: these Last Days will lead up to a Second sentinel event about which we will converse in the next post.  Also, there is a declaration of who Jesus is, consistent with the first chapter of the Gospel of John.

The next two verses tell us more about Jesus; particularly that He is of the same nature as God, an exact imprint in fact.  Jesus upholds the universe by the word of His power.  This language is consistent with Isaiah as well as John, and it sets the stage for the whole book in which the writer will be making many references to the Old Testament with which he will assume that his readers are familiar.  But in this post, I want to spend time focusing on verse 3b.  In this short phrase, the writer summarizes all of Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross.  This is the assumed to be known reference to the Propitiation, Romans 3:25, given to us through the meritorious work of Jesus on the Cross.

In the example that we staged in the room, I would modify the drama in these ways in order to introduce the missing player.  In this passage of Hebrews, the focus is squarely upon Jesus.  In our Bible study drama, we added God the Father.  I would like to include the third person of the Trinity as well.  Let’s proceed with our drama, then.

Humanity was arrayed in a circle around God.  This is a good image with God in the center of our world and lives.  However, after the fall, we all turn our backs on God.  Picture everyone in the room spinning their chairs around and facing away from the center, away from God.  Now, we are all enemies of God.  If we make a move, it will be away from God.  From God’s perspective, all He sees now are dead people, doomed people.  The gap that sin has created between us and God is huge and we cannot bridge it, because we are facing away from God; we are His enemies.  Therefore, God does something remarkable.  While we were still enemies of God, He sends His Son to intervene.  His son takes the sin of the believers upon Himself, and places His coat of perfect righteousness upon His flock.  Next, He sends the Holy Spirit into the world.  The Holy Spirit goes and turns some of the chairs back around to face God.  Then, the Holy Spirit points the way to Jesus, who bridges the gap to God.  All whom the Holy Spirit turned will receive a white robe of righteousness from Jesus that will cover them so that God sees us through the perfect righteousness of Jesus.  God is now pleased with us, and He grants us the inheritance in Jesus. 

All three Imputations are represented in this drama.  The imputation of sin upon all of us by Adam turned all of us away from God.  The imputation of the sin of the believer is taken back by Jesus.  Finally, the imputation of righteousness from Jesus to the believer is also portrayed.  All three persons of the Trinity are portrayed.  Jesus is now next to God, and the Holy Spirit moves the elect to face the creator.  All persons of the Trinity are of the same substance, “the exact imprint of His nature.” Jesus is also fully human, so that He can be that bridge for the believer back to God.

And finally, as I said during Bible study, all of the verb tenses in the first paragraph are perfect tense.  All of the action is complete.  The only exception is verse 3a, which is the declaration of the Divinity of Christ that I just quoted.  That declaration is an eternal truth rather than an action.  The events that justify the believer, to which the writer refers in verse 3b, are all completed actions.  Again, this dovetails with John 19:30, in which Jesus says, “It is finished.”

This concludes the discussion of the dramatic demonstration.  In verse 4, the writer will launch into his first example of Jesus being much more than something else, in the first case, angels.  In my next post, we will discuss various views of the whole study of redemptive history, eschatology.

--Troll--

Does God Love the Sinner, but hate the Sin?

Usually, Troll doesn’t just plow into a topic that falls into the area of Ogre, but today will be different.  Two of my dear friends, in the same week, used the old saw “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.” In both instances, I stated that I did not agree, but in neither case was the circumstance appropriate to elaborate.  Since this perspective is so pervasive in the US, I thought it needed a good discussion.

The statement above implies a couple of things.  First, it implies that deep down inside, man is basically good.  Secondly, it implies that even if the sin of Adam was federally imputed to all of mankind, the role of the Atonement becomes a clearing of the slate.  This further implies that the standard of God can be less than perfection, because Jesus gives the gift that keeps on giving, unless you are Roman Catholic, in which case you’ve got some work to do in Purgatory.  Both of these examples are works theologies, and typical of the liberal perspective.  Let us look at this statement from a theology of Grace instead of a theology of Works.

Is man basically good?  I’ve addressed this issue many times in the past, but here are just a few passages that speak to the issue.  Jeremiah 17:9, Psalms 5:9, 14:1-3, Isaiah 6:5, 59:7-8, Ecclesiastes7:20, and of course Romans 3:9-12.  We have a problem of sin.  Notice how Paul describes the condition of sin in Romans 5:12-21.  He is contrasting the imputation of sin by Adam on the whole human race to the imputation of perfect righteousness by Christ to the elect through the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit.  The problem here is that we are born sinners and we will die sinners.  We require an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is outside of ourselves, a righteousness that we can obtain from someone else, to satisfy the Justice and Glory of God.  And here is the rub: without this alien righteousness, our own deeds, our own works, condemn us to hell. 

Therefore, can we truly say that God loves the sinner?  Perhaps, if we argue that while we were still enemies of God, He provides us with this perfect righteousness, then we can say that God loves us anyway.  But here is the problem with that line of reasoning.  God doesn’t save everyone.  There is an elect remnant, Romans 9, that God has held back for Himself from before time.  For these, He loves us and gives us the free gift through Grace of faith in the meritorious work of Christ on the Cross.  So, does God love us due to any particular virtue of our own?  Of course not.  He loves us because of the imputed righteousness of Christ that is added to our account.  Without this imputed righteousness, He truly does not love us, but instead, we suffer His Just Wrath.

What if we come to the problem from an Arminian, Semi-Pelagian or Roman Catholic perspective of the Atonement?  What does this mean?  The work of Christ on the Cross was sufficient for all people to wipe our slates clean, in these systems.  Our free will, being thus cleansed of sin, is now capable of following the commandments.  Our salvation is based upon our efforts and works during this life.  If we make an effort, God will forgive the rest in the first two cases, or give us a time in Purgatory in the third case.  Now, I’d like for a moment to discuss how this violates the Holiness of God.  We are saying here that God will accept sinful people into heaven.  Check out Matthew 5:48.  The standard is perfection.  No joke.  Perfection.  Dwell on that bad news for a minute.  Do we really expect that God’s love implies that He will simply overlook our sin?

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.  John 3:16.  We all know this verse, but we seem to turn off our brains when reading it and add some stuff that just isn’t there to the equation.  God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believed in Him and followed the commandments and took one step towards Him and prayed the prayer at the altar call and voted Republican would not perish, but have everlasting life.  Hmmm.  All that stuff is not actually in there, (except the bit about voting Republican.  It’s in the Grand Old Pachyderm Revised Standard Version (GOPRSV).)  As C.S.Lewis put it in the Screwtape Letters, just get them to add something to the Gospel, add anything to the Gospel, and then it’s no longer the gospel.  What this verse does say is that the work of Jesus on the Cross is 100% efficacious for all believers.  This means that salvation is based upon faith alone.  Certainly, I could have selected many other passages, particularly in the Pauline epistles, that are more explicit on this subject, but this is from John, and it is very well known.

Finally, God hates sin.  God abhors sin.  Any who sin, or are born in the condition of sin in Adam, in other words everyone, is condemned to hell.  God went about a rescue mission for an elect remnant of native vines and wild vines (Jews and Gentiles) in which He not only provides a perfect sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath, but also reconciles us to God through Christ Jesus’ blood.  Our sin, the sin of all believers, before we were born, was imputed to Christ.  His righteousness was imputed to all believers, and this righteousness is credited to our account on the Last Day.  Therefore, He lived the Life we could not live.  He died the death we could not die as a perfect sacrifice.  He arose from death and ascended into Heaven, becoming the firstborn from the dead.  On the Last Day, He will raise all of us and clothe His elect in His own righteousness, so that we may walk boldly in Judgment, confident in a perfect righteousness that isn’t our own.  God gets to see us through this perfect righteousness and His Holiness and Justice remains intact.  God, in this way, is not diminished by our sin.  We are accepted immediately and completely, full inheritors of His Kingdom.

Why did God go through all of this for us?  I’m sure He’ll tell us all someday.  Until that Day, the Last Day, we must trust in the scripture and believe.  Our reaction to this gift of faith and mercy is obedience and humility.  We will sin again and again as long as our bodies are IN Adam (until we die), and though it drives us nuts and upsets us that we cannot be the perfect man that Christ was, we persevere in the certain hope that our Salvation is secured in Christ.

That, my friends is why I do not agree with the opening proposition.  The theology of works is not my claim to salvation.  I’ll take grace, thank you.  Don’t give me what I deserve.  I’ll simply accept that free gift that the Holy Spirit has given me.  As bad is the bad news really is, the Good News is much better than you can possibly imagine.

--Troll--

Horner's Bible Reading System

This is a gift from a friend.  I've started using this system, and I can immediately see the benefits of doing the reading in this fashion.  Give a try.

Professor Grant Horner's Bible Reading System.

--Troll--

Responding to the Response

In writing this blog post, I think it is important first to be sure that we all understand exactly what Rick Perry has documented as his reasons for this event.  From the event website, we find the following information. 

On August 6, the nation will come together at Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas for a solemn gathering of prayer and fasting for our country.

We believe that America is in a state of crisis. Not just politically, financially or morally, but because we are a nation that has not honored God in our successes or humbly called on Him in our struggles.

According to the Bible, the answer to a nation in such crisis is to gather in humility and repentance and ask God to intervene. The Response will be a historic gathering of people from across the nation to pray and fast for America.

In the video message on the home page as well as elsewhere on the site, Perry likens our current political crisis to Israel in the book of Joel.  Let’s look at the statement above carefully from a Biblical context as well as his assertions from the book of Joel, and then examine some of the various responses that we have heard.

Notice on this page, Perry’s exposition of Joel 2.  He also makes reference to Acts 2 and 13 as well as the First and Second Great Awakenings.  To wade through this mishmash of theological and secular references, we should start with a proper exposition of Joel 2, and then proceed to that which Perry asserts.

The large question of the book of Joel asks about Judgment Day.  Joel is one of the Minor Prophets.  It is argued that this book was probably written during the early period after the Second Temple was built.  The first chapter can be viewed in a number of ways, and this leaves open a number of directions for misinterpretation as well.  Are the locusts of chapter one natural events of the past or future?  Or is this allegory for invasion by an army past or future, worldly or eternal?  It would seem that two versions are the most likely.  There has been a literal and natural disaster that has impacted the tithes for the Temple.  And there has been a literal Babylonian army that laid waste to the First Temple, and threatens the Second Temple.  The Large question of Joel 1 is to what is the prophet referring when he says The Day of the Lord is near.

The second chapter has four parts.  The first part would seem to answer the Large question of chapter one concerning the Day of the Lord.  With the mention of Zion and the imagery of the horses, one has a hard time missing the obvious references to Judgment Day, the Last Day.  This certainly appears to be an Apocalyptic passage.  The real question of Joel 2 starts in verse 12: to whom shall God grant the opportunity for repentance.  The call to Zion again, the heavenly mountain, keeps the passage rooted in the Apocalyptic genre, Zion referring to those who will be saved.  Still, there is no clear indication who those people might be.  Through verse 17, the question remains open.  Who are His people?  Starting in verse 18, there is a clear change in tone.  It seems very much a covenant renewal of the Law and the Mosaic type land promise.  But again, Zion is referenced, drawing question on this interpretation.  The allegory of armies and enemies being to the north is perpetuated even through Revelation.  It is not necessary to assume that Joel speaks to Second Temple Israel alone. 

Finally, the imagery of God among us and pouring out His Spirit on all flesh is a clear reference to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Paracletes.  The final verses of chapter 2 are a return to the imagery of the Last Day and Revelations.  Therefore, it is reasonable to extrapolate Joel to a more universal prophesy concerning Salvation and the broader meaning of Israel under Zion.  This is consistent with way in which the Major Prophets handled their discussion of post Second Temple prophecy.  Certainly, Paul universalizes the prophets to have this broader meaning in Christ.

The key to determining whether Rick Perry has exposited Joel 2 correctly perhaps lies within Joel 3.  There is clear geographical reference to a specific land called Eden with known rivers named.  There is no question that dispensationalists will point to this passage as a post-rapture Armageddon scene as much as a discussion of the coming of the messiah, or the coming of Judgment on the Last Day.  Often the OT prophets looking forward into the future see the messiah, and also the Last Day.  But because they are so close to the event of the messiah right in front of them, they cannot see that the Last Day is a separate event far into the future.  It is like coming before a mountain and not seeing the mountain behind the first mountain.  We have the benefit of altitude and we can see that there are two mountains, while the prophet could not discern this clearly.  This is why several passages of prophesy would seem to have duel meaning.  They are describing simultaneously the First and Second Comings of Jesus as if they were one event.

Going back to the beginning of Joel, the prophet reports on a past evil event and warns Israel to repent.  Zion will receive salvation through the Grace of the Lord.  Israel is now all who call on the name of the Lord for salvation, all believers from all nations who believe in the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.  Zion is the Heavenly Kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem its great city.  The whole of the book is allegorical and prophetic, dovetailing with the other prophets, universalizing the promise through Zion, not Sinai.

Rick Perry makes several assertions that need to be addressed.  He asserts that Joel speaks to “a” nation in crisis.  No, he speaks to Israel, a specific nation.  Even when universalizing the prophesy as I have done, Joel speaks to a newly defined but still distinct group of believers called Israel, containing both native and wild branches from all nations grafted into the family tree.  This is not an arbitrary call for any random political entity to repent.  This is a specific covenantal appeal to those who believe.  The Lutheran distinction of two kingdoms is very important here.  Joel is in every way making a Kingdom of the Right appeal, not a Kingdom of the Left appeal.  As a civil magistrate, Rick Perry, in his office of Governor, has authority in the Kingdom of the Left.  But he is not a priest, pastor or bishop.  He has no authority in the Kingdom of the Right.  We will come back to that point soon.

Perry asserts that the foundational point of the covenantal language is morality and faith.  This is, of course, the Wesleyan, the Roman Catholic and the Pelagian view of Righteousness and Salvation.  It is not surprising that repentance is confused with morality in that context.  But, the standard of the Law is perfection, and we are all guilty.  We all need to repent prior to receiving the gift of faith in the Holy One of Israel and His meritorious work on the Cross.  The Law convicts, the Gospel saves.  The Law tells us how to behave, but it doesn’t give us the ability to do it.  The Gospel offers a free gift of faith to those whom the Holy Spirit chooses.  This alien righteousness through this external gift from God is the basis of our covenantal claim to Abraham, regardless of our national origin.  The basis of this righteousness is faith alone, not morality.

The next issue is that of national salvation in juxtaposition to personal salvation.  The only national covenant ever made in the Bible was with Mosaic Israel.  All other covenants are based upon the individual and his faith.  One of the great confusions of two kingdoms is this assuming some sort of national covenant by extrapolating events of the Pentateuch to the present.  It is wrong when people use this sort of maneuver for various Liberation theologies, and it is wrong when applying this maneuver to nations.  Perry states that God wants people to understand that a lack of morality is the problem.  God views sin as the problem, and this is not the same thing.  Any moral code in a Biblical sense is beyond our ability to comply.  This leaves all of us in sin and in need of God’s intervention.  Perry says that God intervenes as a response to prayer.  Joel and the other prophets say that God intervenes as a result of his Covenant promise to Abraham.

Finally, it is important to realize that Israel was a theocracy.  The United States is not a theocracy.  After Christ, it is clear that there is no longer a single (Christian) theocracy in the world, but a spiritual Israel consisting of believers from all nations of the world.  Therefore, while leaders in Israel were often both King and Priest, though only Jesus was Prophet, Priest and King, no one in the history of this country has been in the authoritative position of both civil magistrate and priest simultaneously in terms of a theocracy.  Not only does the Bible lead us to a two kingdom distinction, but our own Constitution calls for a separation of church and state.  It is noteworthy that Perry does not even attempt to make a Biblical appeal for his church authority.  Instead, he appeals to civic, national precedent.  Never mind that the Constitution is clear on the point.  A precedent of error does not justify his actions.

Now, there have been a list of criticisms of Perry for this event.  Which criticisms hold water either in a civic sense or in a theological sense?  One criticism is that Perry is holding this rally for political gains.  If this is the case, I would suggest that he fire his campaign manager.  Polarizing the electorate and loosing the middle is not the way to win elections.  How many counter assemblies are being held for one reason or another?  If unifying the electorate to his political cause was his goal, then he isn’t very good at it.

Some argue that a national day of prayer and other events such as this are a violation of the separation of church and state.  I would agree.  Think of the point of view of Ben Laden after the First Gulf War.  Islam has no two kingdom distinction and therefore all governments are theocracies.  He viewed an infidel nation placing an infidel army on his Holy Land, the Arab Peninsula.  When our President appeals to God and Christian righteousness, and One Nation Under God, what else would Ben Laden think.  After 9-11, Bush stood in an edifice called the “National Cathedral” and declared that this nation is united by God and prays for justice.  He has both violated the Constitution and violated the doctrine of two Kingdoms.  When Christian leaders stand with a president who makes these sorts of statements, they are failing in their offices as ministers of Christ’s Word.  The truth is that this is a nation of freedoms including religious freedoms.  We have the World’s largest population of Jews outside of Israel.  We have a huge Muslim population.  We are Catholics, Protestants, Wesleyans, Pelagians, Atheists, Buddhists, Shinto, Hindu and other creeds.  We are not a Christian theocracy.  It is not appropriate for civic magistrates to declare days, hours, minutes or seconds of prayer.  It is outside of both their civic and religious authority to do so.

One final aside, Perry refers to the First and Second Great Awakenings as great moments of prayer that resulted in national revival.  That statement leaves me dumbfounded.  He truly needs a history lesson.  The ignominious birth of Protestant Liberalism is not a cause célèbre.  Nothing has done more harm in this country to Christian doctrine than those two philosophical and social movements.

Am I saying that is wrong to pray for the nation?  Absolutely not.  Many churches pray for the civic governments to use wisdom and mercy in exercising their authority.  Jesus and the Apostles gave the stamp of approval on this form of prayer.  The authority for such prayer, though, resides within the church, not within the state.  A protest of misguided brothers and sisters is beside the point.  We do need, however, to educate our brothers and sisters as to the true message of the Gospel.  Rick Perry is not a Gospel authority, and he should not have exercised his civic authority to organize this event.

--Ogre--

Why is this relevant to me?

It has been brought to my attention that some of my newer readers are unaware of my mission statement.  While Ogre certainly has other fish to fry, for myself, this mission is simple.  I want to take that question and bury it in facts.  One of my realizations is that the quest for “relevance” has, in fact, almost paradoxically, rendered the Gospel untaught and unknown to vast numbers of nominal Christians.  This is a situation that, once it was shown to me, in all facets of the word, angered me.  I was angry for spending half of my life in the dark.  I was angry for my own culpability in my failure to seek out the truth (only later understanding that the Holy Spirit seeks me.) I was angry for the failure of my church in my youth and through my young adulthood to teach me what I regard today as the essentials of the faith.  The bottom line is that I was made to do the heavy lifting that should have been done on Sundays by the church.  I perceive that the virus of Protestant Liberalism has so infected the traditional Protestant churches, that the Gospel has been lost.  Therefore, as I leave the world of physicians and patients, I hope to turn my healing energies to the church militant in general and the church corporate in specific.

Why is this relevant to you, my dear reader?  You are a part of the church militant by definition.  The church militant are those Christian believers who are still alive in this present evil age.  But the church corporate is where I level the charge of failure to teach the Gospel, and therefore, as I move forward in the next phase of my life, that is the fertile ground for my skills as healer.  Since those of you who come by these notes through a Bible Study posting are also members of a particular church corporate, you have the opportunity to double dip into my medicine cabinet.

Why should you care?  The Episcopal Church was one of the traditional Protestant denominations that upheld the tenets of the Protestant Reformation.  Knowing why our church exists is important to our culture as a church corporate.  Do we understand the issues that caused Europeans in general, and the English in particular, to split from the Church of Rome?  Are there historical documents that speak specifically to these issues?  For Episcopalians, why do we use a Book of Common Prayer?  From where is this historical piece of literature derived?

When dealing with those questions, I am led naturally to application in the present day.  When diagnosing the current condition of the church militant and the church corporate, I find that the answers to those questions above are no longer known or honored by either.  If you believe that the Gospel is independent of culture and time, and I do, then you will look at cultural forces to be irrelevant in the consideration of the Gospel.  A timeless truth is self defining as independent of those forces.  Would we not expect the Word of God to be such a timeless truth?  Certainly, for timelessness and truthfulness are at the heart of our very understanding of God.  We need the perspective of our past to understand where we have arrived, and to evaluate if that journey was, in fact, a journey with God.

Therefore, in my writings, you will find several threads, several types of posts.  I will tackle particular sections of scripture based upon the conversations and questions that I have during the week.  In these types of posts, I will attempt to exposit the meaning from the traditional reformed position.  In another type of post, I will discuss historical issues relevant to the Reformation in general and the Episcopal Church in particular.  Posts such as the series on the heretics, the historical documents of the Reformation, particularly the 39 Articles as they are our Anglican and Episcopal heritage, will naturally be undertaken to give perspective to our modern conversations.  They are relevant because history is always relevant to modern man.  We build our lives on the shoulders of our ancestors.  Those who forget our history are doomed to make the same mistakes.  One scholar said that we should read at least one source on theology from antiquity, or at least from a different century, for every 5 modern books we read, not because they were necessarily right, but because they made different mistakes.  The third type of post is topical.  Posts on topics such as the Trinity or the Holy Spirit or women in pastoral roles or marriage make up the bulk of those posts.  Those posts are often authored by Ogre, rather than Troll, as often they are confrontational with positions that I find unBiblical.  Those authored by Troll, tend towards the instructive rather than the confrontational.  My style is often reminiscent of the social graces of Trolls and Ogres, and thus we can understand the monikers. 

But the focus of this blog never changes.  I am first and foremost a Christian, who happens to believe that the Reformers of the sixteenth century, following in the tradition of Jesus, Peter, Paul and Augustine, got it right.  Secondly, I am unashamedly Episcopal, unashamed because I know the history of our church and the wisdom of that book we use in worship every Sunday, the Book of Common Prayer.  I also understand that we cannot, as we have done, lose sight of the source text, the Bible, as we worship on Sundays.  The Bible must remain our focus as reformed believers who uphold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  My mission statement then is to heal from within.  Nothing that I write is my own.  I stand upon the shoulders of greater men, who ultimately put all of their faith in the meritorious work of Jesus and our imputed righteousness based upon it.  This is the Gospel, and the Gospel is worth defending, teaching, spreading, discussing and learning.  I hope this has helped you understand why I choose some of the topics that I choose, and why I believe that it is relevant to us today.

--Troll--

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Baptism

I realize that it has been quite a while since we discussed the Heidelberg Catechism, but we must finish what we started.  Here is the last section that contains the introduction to the section on the sacraments.  Today, the topic is Baptism.

 Of Holy Baptism

26. Lord's Day

Question 69. How are you admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to you?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (Matthew 28:19) adding thereto this promise, (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; Matthew3:11; Mark 16:16; John 1:33; Romans 6:3-4) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.

This is the notion of not only atonement, but expiation of sin.  Sin is completely wiped clean, through the Blood of Jesus and His meritorious work on the Cross.

Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?

Answer: It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ's blood, which he shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; (Hebrews 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2; Revelation 1:5, 7:14; Zechariah 13:1; Ezekiel 36:25) and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. (John 1:33, 3:5; 1 Corinthians 6:11, 12:13; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12)

This section is thick with talking points.  Starting with the Hebrews, 1 Peter and Ezekiel quotes, we have wonderful scripture for those who insist that sprinkling is not Biblical.  Hmmm.   Maybe, just maybe, sprinkling is, in fact, Biblical.  Next we have the wonderful Revelation 1:5 quote that uses the words firstborn of the dead.  We see that Jesus is the firstborn of those who will receive resurrection bodies.  He is the first to be whole and complete.  He will usher in the Age to Come, but through Him, the Age to Come is already bleeding through into this current evil Age.  That's some two kingdom stuff for you.  The second set of quotes includes language about us dying with Christ through Baptism and being raised with Him through faith.  This gets to the heart of the sacrament.

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?

Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) And "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism "the washing of regenerations" and the washing away of sins. (Titus 3:5, Acts 22:16)

The little verse from Mark is not trivial.  This verse is a problem for the Lutheran view of Baptism, and this is why I prefer the Covenantal  view on Baptism.  Here Mark says something very similar to what Paul says to the Galatians concerning circumcision.  In essence, the argument is that if you take the covenant seal of Baptism, believers are saved.  But by the same mechanism, unbelievers seal their doom.  All will, of course, be sorted out on Judgment Day, but accepting the Seal of the New Covenant without true faith in the meritorious work of Christ on our behalf is as much as seal of doom as it is a seal of faith for the believer.  This is tough teaching.  It means that there are souls who are Baptized and in our pews who are doomed.

27. Lord's Day

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: (Matthew 3:11; 1 Peter 3:21; Ephesians 5:26-27) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (1 John 1:7; 1 Corinthians 6:11)

More interesting stuff from 1 Corinthians.  This verse states that justification and sanctification are both instantaneous and conferred at Baptism to the believer.  While many passages discuss the process of Sanctification, the reformation argument is that Sanctification is both instantaneous and a process.  This is a difficult concept at first, but the point is that sanctification will never be complete during this lifetime.  We make only small steps towards it.  But our faith freely given to us by the Holy Spirit confers both justification and sanctification instantly.  It is because our bodies remain IN Adam, that we require a process while we are still IN Adam. 

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (Revelation 1:5,7:14; 1 Corinthians 6:11) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (Mark 16:16; Galatians 3:27)

No new stuff here.  We do get the image of "putting on Christ" from the Galatians passage, which meshes well with the idea of being clothed in His righteousness.

Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (Genesis 17:7) and since redemption from sin (Matthew19:14) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (Luke 1:15; Psalms 22:10; Isaiah 44:1-3;Acts 2:39) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (Acts 10:47) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (Genesis 17:14) instead of which baptism is instituted (Colossians2:11-13) in the new covenant.

Just when you thought that it was safe to go into the water, someone let the kids come to the party.  The best argument for infant Baptism, of course, is the covenant argument.  The Colossians passage hammers home the point concerning covenant, while the other passages bring the children into the discussion.  Of particular interest in the discussion of circumcision taking place on or after the eighth day after birth.  This truly opens the door for Baptism as the New Covenant Seal.

Baptism has the potential to spark tremendous debate.  This section of the Heidelberg Catechism does an excellent job of outlining the Covenant argument for this sacrament.  In the next post, we will examine the other sacrament: Holy Communion.

--Troll--

Nehemiah, Jeremiah…and Bears! Oh, my!

In this concluding post on the book of Nehemiah, I want to try and accomplish three things.  First, I would like to drag some of the prophesies of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel into the discussion, particularly Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in order to establish that the second temple truly was a prophetic event realized in redemptive history.  Second, I want to complete the discussion of covenants in terms of Nehemiah, his actions and his results.  Third, I want to put the Second Temple back into its place in redemptive historical context.

The book of Isaiah is far too long to tackle in one post, but a brief overview is worth the time here.  Isaiah is roughly divided into three sections based upon time.  Because Isaiah is thought to have lived in the earlier time period, the second two sections are viewed as being prophetic.  The middle section, chapters 40-55 assume a Jewish audience in Babylonian exile.  The last section, chapters 56-66 assume a Second Temple Jewish audience and speak to time eternal.  In the middle section, after foretelling the Diaspora, Isaiah tells Israel that they will need to return to Jerusalem.  The details have more to do with the politics of the situation and less to do with the actual temple and city, but there is plenty of prophesy and covenant conversation for the reading.  I posted on chapter 59 just this weekend.  For our purposes today, let us move on to Ezekiel and Jeremiah.

Ezekiel and Jeremiah were personally part of the exile.  They witnessed the fall of Jerusalem.  Their prophesies are therefore full both of lament for the covenant curses that have befallen an unfaithful Israel as well as our indication that God did indeed intend to restore Israel to Jerusalem for a time in the Second Temple era.  In fact, some people hold that Lamentations was a further work of Jeremiah.  In it, the people of Israel hold out hope that despite their deservedly received Wrath, they will yet receive the Mercy of God.  Jeremiah and Ezekiel are more specific.

In Bible study, we have already seen how Ezekiel foretold the fall of the first Temple in chapter 8, and gave us the reason for it.  Israel has persisted in horrible sin in the House of God, in His Temple, and in verse 18, for this they will receive His Wrath.  Through the middle chapters, we get the fall and the exile.  Finally, starting in chapter 40, Ezekiel tells of his vision of the Second Temple.  I would draw some attention, besides to the obvious overlap with Ezra, to the details of language concerning the prince and the son of man in chapter 44.  There is talk of separation.  There is discussion of circumcision by heart and flesh.  These are the key points of Ezekiel, and we see the echoes of this vision in the actions of Nehemiah.  It is no wonder that Nehemiah goes bananas in chapter 13 when he finds that Israel is already committing the same abominations in the Second Temple that caused their downfall in the First Temple.

As we go back through Nehemiah chapter 9 and 10, notice the correlation between those and Ezekiel 43.  There is clear instruction and obedience demonstrated here between Ezekiel and Ezra a century or more later.  Further, the admonishments by God to Ezekiel in chapter 44 are echoed by Nehemiah.  The correlation is not accidental.  We will come back at the end to these important issues.

Jeremiah lived through the same events.  He and his scribe Baruch record much of the historical events in much the same manner as other books.  But let’s find some of the true high points of his book.  Let us focus for a moment on Jeremiah17:1-13.  As you read this, compare this with two sections of the NT.  First, notice the blessings and curses language that is similar to the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5.  Notice also, that Jeremiah comes down hard on the sin of man.  Look at verses 9-10.  This is bad news, folks.  Yes, God sees inside our hearts, and what he sees is desperately sick and deceitful.  Compare this with Paul in Romans 3:9-12.  Paul didn’t make that stuff up.  Here is but one place where the heart is described harshly.

Jeremiah 25 is a sobering account of God’s Wrath.  There are a couple of items to point out here.  First, when we are saved, we are saved from God’s Wrath.  Nowhere is this more clearly recorded.  Secondly, the Wrath of God will be delivered to all nations.  Jeremiah doesn’t just deliver the Wrath of God to Jerusalem, he goes everywhere.  We tend to view the Old Testament story in terms of Israel alone.  Remember that Israel are a type and shadow of the true Israel, those who believe in the promise, those who include the wild vines grafted into the family tree of Abraham.  Jeremiah, and later God, will give this cup of Wrath to all nations. 

Jeremiah 29 is a passage that gets abused and taken out of context.  Much of the Old Testament suffers the same treatment in this present evil age.  But this particular assault is fresh on my mind.  Looking at verses 10-23, we find a prophesy for the return to Jerusalem for the exiled.  Early in Bible study, I made a statement concerning the covenant relationship of God with the Second Temple.  I asked the question, where is the God side of the Covenant?  God speaks through His prophets as well as through fire.  This is not a new covenant; this is a renewal of the old Sinai covenant.  It reads like Law, just as Sinai reads as Law.  Here is God granting the return of the exiled to Jerusalem.  But, importantly, there remain the blessings and the curses.  This is still a “do this and you shall live, do it not and you shall perish” type of Law Covenant.  But in this, we can see the reason that Nehemiah and Ezra looked to Moses rather than to Abraham.

Is it surprising, then, that we find statements such as Nehemiah 13:30-31?  Nehemiah is operating in terms of the blessings and curses principle of the Law.  Remember me for my good deeds.  Can we say then that Nehemiah is a Patriarch about whom we should view as righteous based upon his belief in the promise?  I am not the Fruit Inspector General, but it would seem that Nehemiah condemns himself with those words.  God will use believer and unbeliever alike towards His purpose.  Is belief in God enough for salvation?  Jesus says a resounding “no” to this question.  Even the devil believes in God.  Nehemiah clearly demonstrates his belief in the prophesies concerning the return to Jerusalem, but did he believe also in the promise, as did Abraham? 

For extra credit, try Romans 4 for a moment as Paul explains the covenant meaning of circumcision.  Going back to the notion of circumcision of the heart and of the flesh from Ezekiel 44, we can say that Paul spiritualizes circumcision of the flesh to mean that full and complete cutting off of Jesus.  Through our Baptism, we become covenant members of this circumcision through the Blood of Christ, the Grace of which we have renewed in us through Holy Communion.  The circumcision of the heart is the gift of faith, by the Holy Spirit, that transforms our hearts, making us new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5), through the meritorious work of Jesus on the Cross.  All that we hold to be true in the New Covenant was first foretold in the Old Testament.  All of the types and shadows of the OT have meaning, and come to fruition in the New Covenant in Christ.

Through all of this prophesy, from Isaiah and Ezekiel and Jeremiah, Israel remains laser pointed at the Law, completely overlooking other aspects of the prophesy.  Jeremiah 23:3-5 concerns the righteous branch of David.  Read it now.  There was a purpose beyond the restoration of ethnic Israel to a land and renewal of old long broken covenants to the Second Temple.  That purpose was the introduction of the root of Jesse, the righteous branch of David, the Prophet, Priest and King, the Messiah, the Son of Man, our Savior, our Only Mediator and Advocate, the Paraclete.  All of these phrases appear or are described first in the Old Testament concerning the One who will come.  This is the purpose of rebuilding the Temple.  God will enter into the world from the Eastern door of the Sanctuary of the Temple (Ezekiel 44).  And thus Jesus was born to the East of Jerusalem, in the city of David.

Nehemiah fulfilled his purpose unto God.  Israel was restored to the land for a time, and the Second Temple and the wall was built.  But in the book of Nehemiah, I see that man is not changed.  Man is still fallen.  Man still needs a Savior.  Man needs a New Covenant where God does all the work for us.

--Troll--