Posts in Biblical Theology
Some Thoughts on Paul's Doctrine of Christ's Parousia

The following is from my forthcoming exposition of Paul’s Thessalonian Letters, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven” which will be made available as a free download for those who complete season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast.

_______________________________________________

Paul answers the question asked by the Thessalonians, “do those who die before Christ’s return miss out on the benefits of our Lord’s return”?

In verse 15b, Paul responds, stating that “we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.” There is no diminished blessing for those who die before our Lord’s return. They don’t miss out on anything so there is no need to worry about them. They already possess eternal life as spoken of by Jesus in John 5:24—“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” All those who have died in Christ will return with Jesus when he does (1 Thessalonians 4:14).

Paul describes Jesus’s return as his parousia (παρουσία), a term with a very rich cultural background. According to Gene Green, parousia is . . .

a term that commonly meant the glorious “coming” of a deity or the official visit of a sovereign to a city, who himself was often honored as divine. An imperial visit was an event of great pomp and magnificent celebrations, with rich banquets, speeches that praised the imperial visitor, a visit to the local temple, rich donations, celebration of games, sacrifices, statues dedicated, and arches and other buildings constructed. Money was minted to commemorate the event, crowns of gold might be given, and at times a new era was inaugurated. . . . The officials and a multitude of people would head out of the city to receive the one who came, all dressed with special clothing.[1]

When Jesus returns with his heavenly host, his people who are living at that time will be caught up to join him in his triumphal return.

Read More
John Wesley's Take on Election and Human Obedience (in Light of the Canons of Dort’s Declaration that Basing Election on Obedience Is an Error)

The following comes from John Wesley's famous sermon "On Free Grace," (1740).

This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself.

[The doctrine of Predestination] directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God.  I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that the doctrine itself, -- that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, -- has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell.

Says Wesley, the Christian life is to be lived in light of the hope of a future reward and the fear of punishment. But are hope and fear the proper basis for good works? Should not good works arise from a thankful heart and done out of gratitude? No, says Wesley.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
One Implication of the Birth of Our Savior – “There Is No Other Name Under Heaven Given Among Men by Which We Must Be Saved” (Acts 4:1-22; Isaiah 41-45 selected texts)

Jesus Came to Save us from Our Sins

Jesus is the eternal word, who took to himself a true human nature, and was born of a virgin. Jesus did this to save us from our sins. The incarnation is truly a wonder of wonders, but one implication of our Lord’s birth the first Christmas often goes unspoken. If Jesus is the only savior and salvation can be found in no one else, then Christianity is the only true religion and we as Christians are making the claim that all other religions are false no matter how sincere non-Christians may be, and despite how much self-flattery and false comfort these religions bring to their adherents. But to dare say such a thing (and to make such an exclusive claim to truth) is to commit the unpardonable sin in modern America. So this implication which arises from Jesus’ birth is a point well-worth considering now that Christmas has come and gone. The birth of Jesus Christ—that mere babe in the manger—changes everything, for Christians and non-Christians alike.

We are not the first Christians to face these implications of Christmas and we won’t be the last. In fact, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the importance of his incarnation as a truth claim becomes clear in the opening chapters of the Book of Acts when the apostles begin proclaiming the gospel to the Jews. Jesus had been crucified and buried just weeks earlier, although his followers believed that he had risen from the dead.

Better Than Silver or Gold

The first 22 verses of Acts chapter 4 record some of the fall-out associated with the dramatic events which just transpired in Acts 3, where we read that near the gate called “beautiful” (which was between the inner and outer court of the Jerusalem temple), Peter and John encountered a man who had been handicapped from birth. When this man (who survived by begging for alms) asked Peter and John for money, we read in Acts 3:4ff that . . .

Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, `Look at us.’ And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, `I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!’ And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. And leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God.

Those who knew the man and had passed him daily came running to see what was going on. According to Luke, the people “were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
“The Babe, the Lamb, and the Lion of Judah” An Exposition of Revelation 5:1-14

The Babe in Bethlehem

In their opening chapters, the synoptic gospels give us a wonderful picture of God incarnate, a helpless babe in a manger, virginally conceived, and born to a young woman named Mary. When we see him in Bethlehem, the Christ-child is like a defenseless lamb, anything but a roaring lion.

Yet, in Revelation chapters 4 and 5, the Apostle John gives us an entirely different perspective on this newborn’s true identity. John recounts being caught away by the Holy Spirit where he was given a vision of God’s throne in heaven–a much different perspective upon our Lord’s advent from that given to us in the gospels.

A Different Perspective–The Throne of Heaven

Struggling to describe the scene he is witnessing, John sees one who is both a lion and a lamb. The glory of the one sitting upon the throne, says John, has the appearance of precious gems and reflects virtually every color of the spectrum. A rainbow encircles the throne, from which emanate flashes of lightening and peals of thunder. Surrounding the throne are twenty four elders, representing God’s redeemed people from both testaments. Also present are four living creatures (angels) who have six wings and who are covered with eyes. The living creatures represent all of creation. Together, with the elders, the living creatures worship the one seated on the throne. But they also worship another—a Lamb who was slain and yet who is also the Lion of Judah (Revelation 5:5). He alone is worthy to open the mysterious scroll containing God’s plan for the future chapters of redemptive history.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
On the Nature and Frequency of the Celebration of the Lord's Supper

Introduction

1n 1555, John Calvin asked the following of the Magistrates of the city of Bern regarding the celebration the Lord’s Supper:

Please God, gentlemen, that both you and we may be able to establish a more frequent usage. For it is evident from St. Luke in the Book of Acts that communion was much more frequently celebrated in the primitive Church, until this abomination of the mass was set up by Satan, who so caused it that people received communion only once or twice a year. Wherefore, we must acknowledge that it is a defect in us that we do not follow the example of the Apostles (John Calvin, Letter to the Magistrates of Berne, 1555).

The practical issues surrounding the nature and frequency of the Lord’s Supper have been with us from the earliest days of the Reformed tradition.

The purpose of this essay is to offer a rationale for the frequent (weekly) celebration of the Lord’s Supper. To accomplish this, I will: 1). Address the idea of the Supper as spiritual nourishment by surveying the biblical evidence which speaks to nature of the Supper, then 2). Consider biblical evidence for frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and then 3). I will briefly address common objections to frequent celebrations of the Supper, before 4). I will wrap up with a discussion of the pastoral benefits of frequent communion.

The key take away from this essay is that nature of the Lord’s Supper defines (or at least it should) its frequency. What the supper is–a spiritual feeding–ought to provide the rationale for when and how often we celebrate it.

To read the rest, go here: On the Nature and Frequency of the Lord's Supper

Read More
The Five Solas of The Protestant Reformation (re-post)

The Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation

Many churches which trace their theological ancestry back to the Protestant Reformation, commemorate Reformation Day. October 31, 1517, is the traditional date when Martin Luther, a young biblical scholar and troubled son of the Roman church, nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in the city of Wittenberg. Professor Luther sought to challenge the Roman church’s understanding of the sacrament of penance. The act of posting written theses (objections) was simply the way in which professors of that day called for academic debate.

Luther was as surprised as anyone when his 95 Theses gave voice those to countless German peasants who felt that the Roman church had grown increasing greedy, corrupt, and indifferent to their needs. When the Dominican friar Johann Tetzel came through Germany selling indulgences–which supposedly shortened the time that a sinner spent in purgatory–ordinary Germans were outraged. How dare Rome send an emissary into Germany to sell indulgences at a time of great economic hardship, especially when the proceeds from the sale went to pay for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome–a grand church which no German peasant would ever see.

While German peasants hated the Roman church because of the church’s arrogance and indifference, for Luther, the issues were theological. When Luther’s theses were published and quickly disseminated across much of Germany, it soon became clear that this was not just a debate about a fine point of doctrine (penance), but a fundamental challenge to the nature of religious authority as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. This was, in fact, a direct challenge to Rome’s teaching on good works, merit, faith, and the nature of the gospel. It was not long before Protestantism was a wide-spread movement and a burgeoning theological threat to the Roman church–especially in northern Europe. Although Protestantism soon separated into Lutheran and Reformed branches, the Protestant objections to Rome quickly crystalized around the so-called “five Solas” of the Reformation. These five “onlys” include: Scripture alone, grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone, and glory to God alone.

The Roman church believed Scripture was God’s word. But Rome didn’t see Scripture as the primary ground of religious authority–there was also church tradition as an equal authority. The Roman church believed in grace, but defined grace as a substance dispensed through the sacramental system of the church, and that such grace must be energized by the human will in order to be effective in matters of salvation. Rome militantly defended the deity of Christ and his sacrificial death for sins. But Rome taught that the merit of human good works must be added to the merits of Christ in order for sinners to be made right with God (justification). Rome also taught that faith was an essential Christian virtue, but understood that simple faith must be formed into an active faith which then produced those Christian virtues and good works which merited (earned) favor from God. While in theory the Roman church gave all glory to God, in practice, Rome’s theology spread glory around to Mary, the papacy, the church, the saints, and even to human good works.

What has separated Protestantism from Rome since 1517, is not Scripture, grace, faith, Christ, or glory to God. What caused the great divide between Protestants and Catholics was the Protestant insistence upon that little adjective “sola” or “only.” Scripture alone. Grace alone. Christ alone. Faith alone. Glory to God alone.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
“I Delight to Do Your Will, O My God” -- An Exposition of Psalm 40

Background

One of the best-known Psalms among our contemporaries is Psalm 40. No doubt, this is because for many years the Irish rock band U2 closed out their concerts with a very moving rendition of it, in which huge audiences sang along with the band. As written, Psalm 40 reflects the author’s (David) thanksgiving for deliverance from urgent danger. In light of this sense of immediate need for deliverance of which David is speaking, John Calvin–who was very reticent to speak about himself–describes his conversion as being pulled from the mire of his addiction to the papacy, a direct reference to verse 2 of this particular Psalm. Calvin goes on to say, “God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life.”[1] In light of this Psalm’s historic importance, and current familiarity, an exposition of Psalm 40 would be beneficial.

The Book of Psalms was the hymnal of ancient Israel. The Psalter is also one of the most beloved portions of God’s word, provides Christ’s church with much of its song, and also serves as the foundation for the devotional life of God’s people. The more we know about the Book of Psalms, the greater our desire to read, reflect upon, and sing them as God’s people have done throughout the ages.

The Five Books of the Psalter

The Psalter is composed of 150 songs which reflect the entire range of human emotion, from despair to jubilation. Although the Psalter was written by different authors over the course of much of Israel’s history, most Psalms are closely tied to the life and times of David (Israel’s most prominent king). Many of the Psalms reflect Israel’s worship of YHWH during this turbulent period in the nation’s history. There are a number of different types and genres of Psalms. There are Psalms of praise, Psalms of lament (67 of them), there are imprecatory Psalms (which invoke God’s judgment on his enemies), there are messianic Psalms (which prefigure the coming of Jesus Christ), there are “enthronement” Psalms (which speak of God as king and ruler of all), there are wisdom Psalms (which reveal to us wisdom from God), and there are Psalms of trust, (which express confidence in God’s power, and in God’s faithfulness in keeping his covenant promises).[2] And then, there is the famous “shepherd Psalm,” the twenty-third Psalm.

There are also a number of names attached to the 150 Psalms (i.e., David, Solomon, Moses, Asaph, the Sons of Korah). 73 of the Psalms are ascribed to David (king of Israel). 12 Psalms are ascribed to Asaph (who was one of David’s three temple musicians, along with Heman and Jeduthun). 11 Psalms are ascribed to the Sons of Korah (who were a guild of temple singers), 3 are ascribed to Jeduthun (a Levite), 2 are connected to Solomon, as well as one each to Moses, Heman (a grandson of Samuel), and Ethan (a symbol player in David’s court and thought by some to be another name for Jeduthun). The remainder of the Psalms are unattributed. With the exception Moses, the others to whom various Psalms are ascribed are mentioned throughout the two books of Chronicles, so we know certain details about them and their service of YHWH. Even though not all of the Psalms were written by David, it is reasonable to speak, as many do, of the “Psalms of David” since the vast majority of them are ascribed to David or his known associates.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Richard Muller on the Ministerial (or Instrumental) Use of Reason

There are two common extremes regarding the relationship between faith and reason. The first is rationalism, which attempts to base theological claims on universal principles of reason and absolute knowledge, The second is fideism, which makes theological claims with no attempt at arguing their basis, usually in opposition to reason and knowledge.

However, “faith seeking understanding” is the proper relationship between belief and knowledge. This is consistent across the arts and sciences: in every pursuit of truth a basic interpretation of reality is presupposed.

The Christian faith is not opposed to reason, but to its suppression and perversion in unrighteousness against the truth of God. Therefore, faith must not be opposed to knowledge. Every Christian doctrine transcends reason’s comprehension, but does not contradict reasonable apprehension. A “ministerial” or “instrumental” use of reason in which God’s revelation is apprehended and interpreted is necessary to understand the basic teaching of the Bible. But a “magisterial” use of reason (in which human reason seeks to discover truth apart from divine revelation) is to be rejected. It is this magisterial use of reason against which Martin Luther railed,

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
More Places to Find Paul's Two Age Eschatology

Paul’s two age eschatology can be seen in various ways throughout Paul’s letters.[1] Here are several examples:

• First, the contrast which Paul develops in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49, between Adam (the first man, the biological and federal head of the human race, whose disobedience brought about sin, guilt, and death) and the “last” Adam (Christ), whose one act of obedience brings righteousness and life to his people. Adam is of this age, Christ is of the age to come.

• Second, Paul’s contrast between “flesh,” (what we are in Adam, fallen, and “jars of clay”–2 Corinthians 4:7) and “the gift of the Spirit.” Those who are indwelt by the Spirit possess eternal life according to 2 Corinthians 2:4-18, where Paul contrasts what is seen with what is unseen.[2] Paul also speaks of those who are sealed by the indwelling Holy Spirit until the day of the redemption of our bodies at the resurrection (Ephesians 1:11-14).

• Third, Paul contrasts death as the inevitable outcome of life in this present evil age with eternal life, which is described as participation in the new creation, inaugurated by Jesus at his resurrection (Romans 8:20-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; Colossians 1:15-17).

• Fourth, Paul speaks of the wrath of God, which is the fate of all things associated with “this age” in contrast with the reception of the promised inheritance (all that is ours in Christ, i.e., resurrection life, eschatological glory, etc., as in I Thessalonians 1:10; Ephesians 2:3, 5:6).

• Fifth, Paul contrasts the law (associated with this age, and a major point of discussion in Galatians 2-4) with the gospel (God’s work of redemption in Christ). This, of course, is a major theme in confessional Protestant theology.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
He Is Risen! A Blessed Easter to You and Yours!

From the Heidelberg Catechism . . .

Q & A 45 How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?

A. First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he obtained for us by his death.

Second, by his power we too are already raised to a new life.

Third, Christ’s resurrection is a sure pledge to us of our blessed resurrection.

Read More
The Great Tribulation and the Great Commission—Disciples, Witnesses, and Martyrs

The Great Commission and the Great Tribulation Run Concurrently

It is common for Christians to discuss the Great Commission in a missionary context and to consider and develop its role as the final marching orders coming from Jesus to his church. In Matthew 28:18–20, we read, “And Jesus came and said to them, `All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”

It is also common for Christians interested in eschatology to discuss and debate the nature of the great tribulation (i.e., “when?” and “how long?”). In a previous essay (The Great Tribulation -- When and How Long?), I wrote,

In light of the tendency to relegate a time of "great" tribulation to the distant past or the immediate future, it is important to briefly survey the biblical teaching on this topic. When we do so, it becomes clear that the time of “great tribulation” cannot be tied exclusively to the events of A.D. 70, nor to the seven years immediately before our Lord’s return. The Bible does not speak of tribulation in this manner, and as we know, many of God’s people have already faced periods of horrific tribulation following the days of Christ’s redemptive tribulation on the cross, and that such tribulation for the people of God will continue until Jesus returns at the end of the age to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.

But it is not often that the Great Commission and the tribulation are discussed in relation to each other (they are connected), and seen as running in parallel throughout the entire inter-advental age. Each give us quite different perspectives on the same period of time—this present evil age. In what follows, I will attempt to draw out and highlight the connection between the mission of the church to go out among the nations, and the opposition from those nations which that mission generates. Jesus himself tells us that this mission extends throughout this present evil age (“I am with until the end of the age”), and provides the context of the nature and mission of the church which Jesus established—to make disciples. It also is apparent that this mission will be conducted in an atmosphere of hostility—i,e., the age of tribulation.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
"Maranatha! Our Lord, Come" in Biblical Context

Although I grew up in “Bible Churches” in which exposition of the Bible was standard fare (if given through a dispensational interpretive grid), I don’t recall hearing any discussion of Paul’s use of the term “Maranatha” found at the end of 1 Corinthians 16:22. But when I occasionally attended Calvary Chapel, I noticed the word Maranatha, was ubiquitous. Everyone seemed to know it came from an Aramaic word which means “the Lord Come.” Maranatha appeared on bumper stickers and tee-shirts. Calvary’s rapidly growing music enterprise was labeled “Maranatha Music,” which had its own a slick logo complete with the Calvary Chapel dove. At the time, this struck me as odd since Paul was obviously referring to the parousia of Jesus when using Maranatha and not Pentecost.

A quick internet search will reveal a surprisingly wide range of businesses, churches, and other enterprises which use Maranatha as a title—presumably to identify themselves as evangelical Christians of a particular sort even if not directly affiliated with Calvary Chapel. I use the term to end each of my podcasts, since it is the perfect way to end any discussion of Paul’s letters, just as he closes out his first Corinthian letter in the same way (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:22).

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Church Fathers, Origen, and Augustine on Antichrist

The earliest Christian documents which mention the Antichrist contain slight theological reflection, apart from a brief mention of him in connection with a particular biblical passage. Over time, the short-shrift given him begins to change. Some tie Antichrist to heresy (appealing to the epistles of John). Others speak of him in connection to the persecution of the church. Some think he will be an apostate Jew who would appear at the time of the end in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem while introducing destructive heresies. Other focus upon his role as a deceiver. Some follow the biblical texts closely (i.e., Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians, the Epistles of John, and Revelation 20), while a number indulge in more fanciful speculations. In other words, the church fathers, Origen, and Augustine have diverse views on the subject, many quite similar to interpretations offered in our own day.

The Epistle of Barnabas (4:1-5), written soon after the close of the apostolic age, identifies the fourth beast of Daniel 7 as the Roman Empire, while specifically referring to the beast as Antichrist.[1] A similar reference surfaces in the writings of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was born about AD 70 and likely martyred about AD 156 A.D. In 7.1 of his Epistle to the Philippians (written about AD 135), Polycarp quotes from 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 2:7 and contends that Antichrist is the spirit of heresy.[2] This is the same emphasis found in John’s epistles, to the effect that the threat from Antichrist arises from within the church, takes the form of apostasy and heresy, and is not connected to state-sponsored persecution like that of the beast of Revelation 13.[3]

In his Dialog with Trypho, Justin Martyr (who was put to death in Rome about AD 165) speaks of the appearance of the “man of apostasy” who speaks “strange things against the Most High” and ventures to “do unlawful deeds on the earth against us Christians” (Dialog with Trypho, 110). Justin is clearly alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, but does not specifically speak of this individual as Antichrist.[4]

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Some Thoughts on the Dating of The Book of Revelation (Part Three)

Arguments in Favor of a Post-A.D. 70 Dating

1). The most important reason for dating The Book of Revelation after A.D. 70 is evidence of the presence of emperor worship and the imperial cult underlying much of what takes place throughout John’s vision.

A number of texts such as Revelation 13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4, all indicate that Christians were being forced to participate in the emperor cult in ways which violated their consciences. As Moffat once put it, whether persecution of Christians had already become widespread or not, “the few cases of repressive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor (and elsewhere) were enough to warn [John] of the storm rolling up on the horizon, though as yet only one or two drops had actually fallen.”[1] While the persecution of Christians in Rome was already beginning during the reign of Nero, it was not widespread until the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or even later. As several recent studies of Nero have demonstrated, the evidence shows that persecution of Christians in Rome (and not in Asia Minor, where John was) began under Nero because he used them as scapegoats for the great fire which destroyed much of Rome, not because they refused to worship him.[2]

Important studies of the historical background of Asia Minor during this time, such as those by Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), and Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, (1990), indicate that by the time of Domitian’s reign the imperial cult and emperor worship was in full-flower.[3] Although Thompson admits that Roman sources depict Domitian as an evil tyrant without exception,[4] nevertheless he proceeds to argue that persecution of Christians under Domitian’s reign was actually quite isolated and Domitian may not be the monster Roman historians made him out to be. Yet, as Thompson goes on to state, if the imperial cult preceded Domitian by “many reigns” it also continued long after Domitian was gone.[5]

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Some Thoughts on the Dating of the Book of Revelation (Part Two)

Arguments for a Pre-A.D. 70 Date of Authorship and Responses

(1). In Revelation 11:1-12, John, supposedly, mentions the Jerusalem temple as though it were currently standing when he was given his vision.[1]

If the temple was still standing when John recorded his vision, then the Book of Revelation must have been written before the temple’s destruction at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. The passage (Revelation 11:1-2), reads as follows; “I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, `Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.” If John is speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, and it was still standing when John was given this vision, this demands a date of composition before the temple was destroyed.[2]

Response:

The post-A.D. 70 response to the prior interpretation is to notice the highly symbolic language throughout the passage which points the reader in a direction away from that of the physical temple in Jerusalem. As G. B. Caird points out, “in a book in which all things are expressed in symbols, the very last things the temple and the holy city could mean would be the physical temple and earthly Jerusalem.”[3]

Caird goes on to note that if John is referring to the Jerusalem temple, then a rather remarkable thing is said to occur. The Gentiles, which according to the pre-A.D. 70 dating, would mean the armies of Titus (cf. Luke 21:24) occupy the outer court for three and a half years, but leave the inner court (the altar) undefiled. This, of course, did not happen when the temple was destroyed. If true, it would make much of the passage unintelligible because it lacks any historical connection to the actual events of A.D. 70. This also ignores John’s use of the symbolism of the outer court and the inner sanctuary as a reference to the church.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
Some Thoughts on the Dating of the Book of Revelation (Part One)

Introduction

Preterism — Pre-A.D. 70 Dating:

A theological position is only as strong as its weakest point. The preterist interpretation of John’s figures of antichrist and the beast (i.e., Revelation 13) is based upon the assumption that John (the presumed author of Revelation) was given his apocalyptic vision before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A pre-A.D. 70 date allows preterists to identify the beast of the Book of Revelation with Nero, thereby limiting antichrist to the series of heretics mentioned in John’s epistles who will plague Christ’s church until the Lord’s return (1 John 2:18-22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). According to preterists, the visions given to John recorded in Revelation 13-18 lay in the past and were fulfilled before A.D. 70. There will be no future manifestation of a Nero-like beast or a personal Antichrist who will persecute the church immediately before our Lord’s return at the end of the age.

If it can be shown that the Book of Revelation was written after A.D. 70, the preterist interpretation of the beast as entirely a figure of the past becomes untenable. While the case for a future antichrist and manifestation of the beast is surely strengthened by a post-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation (through the elimination of a competing view), the case for non-preterist varieties of amillennialism (such as my own) are not dependent upon the date when the Book of Revelation was written.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
"A True and Perfect Sacrifice to God" -- B. B. Warfield on The Death of Jesus

The Biblical doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ finds full recognition in no other construction than that of the established church-doctrine of satisfaction. According to it, our Lord’s redeeming work is at its core a true and perfect sacrifice offered to God, of intrinsic value ample for the expiation of our guilt; and at the same time is a true and perfect righteousness offered to God in fulfillment of the demands of His law; both the one and the other being offered in behalf of His people, and, on being accepted by God, accruing to their benefit; so that by this satisfaction they are relieved at once from the curse of their guilt as breakers of the law, and from the burden of the law as a condition of life; and this by a work of such kind and performed in such a manner, as to carry home to the hearts of men a profound sense of the indefectible righteousness of God and to make to them a perfect revelation of His love; so that, by this one and indivisible work, both God is reconciled to us, and we, under the quickening influence of the Spirit bought for us by it, are reconciled to God, so making peace—external peace between an angry God and sinful men, and internal peace in the response of the human conscience to the restored smile of God. This doctrine, which has been incorporated in more or less fullness of statement in the creedal declarations of all the great branches of the Church, Greek, Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed, and which has been expounded with more or less insight and power by the leading doctors of the churches for the last eight hundred years, was first given scientific statement by Anselm (q.v.) in his “Cur Deus homo” (1098); but reached its complete development only at the hands of the so-called Protestant Scholastics of the seventeenth century (cf. e.g. Turretin, “The Atonement of Christ,” E.T. by J. R. Willson, New York, 1859; John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” (1648), Edinburgh, 1845).

Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Theology, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 278.

Read More
Put Not Your Trust in Princes -- An Exposition of Psalm 146

Background to the 146th Psalm

My guess is that almost everyone reading this can recite the 23rd Psalm from memory. Yet can you recite Psalm 146 from memory? Probably not. Although not as well known as the 23rd Psalm, Psalm 146 is certainly worthy of our time and study. Consider the fact that Christians frequently use expressions like “praise the Lord,” and “hallelujah.” Where do these expressions come from and why are they used? These expressions come from biblical passages like Psalm 146. Like many other Americans, Christians are prone to place their trust in great men (politicians, military heroes, people of fame, wealth, and power), because such people can exercise influence upon over lives and our ways of thinking. But in Psalm 146, we are reminded not to place our trust in anyone or anything other than God, who is the creator and sustainer of all things. And then it is our Lord Jesus who alludes to this Psalm when beginning his messianic mission. So there is much here for us to consider in the 146th Psalm.

Psalm 146 is representative of an important group of five Psalms at the end of the Psalter, the so-called Hallel Psalms (146-150). As we will see, Psalm 146 is a joyful Psalm of praise. Together with Psalms 147-150, these five Psalms bring the fifth Book of the Psalms (Psalms 107-150), as well as the entire Psalter, to a close. The five Hallel Psalms are classified as “Psalms of praise,” and are used as daily prayers in most synagogues. Collectively these Hallel Psalms reflect a sense of joy and delight and although not as well-known as other Psalms (such as Psalm 23) this group of Psalms does include Psalm 149 (in which we are urged to “sing a new song”) and Psalm 150 (with its famous refrain, “let everything that has breath praise the Lord”).

Psalms of Praise

There are Psalms written by David, Moses, and the sons of Korah. Psalms are used in the temple (for worship), royal Psalms (with messianic implications), wisdom Psalms, and a Psalm such as the well-known 23rd Psalm, often classified as a “Psalm of trust.” Here, we consider another genre (or form) of Psalms–a Psalm of Praise. This Psalm has been used as the text for several German hymns, and Isaac Watts’ hymn “I’ll Praise My Maker While I’ve Breath” is also based upon this Psalm. The 146th Psalm is a Psalm which directs us to offer praise to the Lord, as well as to exercise great care in choosing in whom we place our trust.

To read the rest of this exposition, follow the link below

Read More
“Jesus — The Lord of the New Year” Paul on the Course and Purpose of History in Ephesians 1:3-14

New Year — A Time to Reflect Upon the Past

In the minds of most Americans, New Year’s Day is a day for parades and college football. But the coming of the new year is also considered a time of new beginning–coming as it does a week after the busy Christmas holiday. This time of year, people are often in the mood to stop and reflect upon all the significant events of the past year.

The various news outlets and social media venues will spend much time this week recounting the names and faces of those influential figures and celebrities who have died in the past year. I am always amazed at how many of these people are already largely forgotten within a year of their death. Life is fleeting. News programming will broadcast a number of video montages of the significant events of the past year–from the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the threat of nuclear war, the huge cultural shifts and tribal political warfare now under way, the on-going effects of Covid-19 and lockdowns, to a host of other human tragedies and poignant moments. A great deal has happened the past year.

But that is not all we associate with the New Year. As is the custom, we are all supposed to make a series of New Year’s resolutions about what we will do better next year, or not do, as the case may be. If we break our resolutions within moments after making them, it really does not matter, it is the making of them that counts.

The combination of all these things makes the coming new year a great time to stop and reflect upon the events of the recent past, as well as our hope for the future. Such a time of reflection has been the historic practice of Reformed churches. Article 37 of the URCNA church order lists New Year’s Day (along with New Year’s Eve, Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Pentecost and Ascension Day) as occasions when the consistory may call the congregation together for worship, although, to my knowledge, New Year’s day services are not widely held in our churches except perhaps when New Year’s Day falls on a Sunday.

Henry Ford on History as “Bunk”

As with most things, the Christian take on the events of the past and our expectations for the future stands in sharp contrast to the non-Christians around us. One place where the antithesis (i.e., the stark contrast) between Christian and non-Christian thinking is most striking is in how we as Christians view the past and ground our hope for the future. Most Americans, I think, would agree with Henry Ford (the founder of the automotive company which still bears his name) who is widely quoted to have said, “History is more or less bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More