Contemporary Ritualism

One of my first significant steps out of the Plymouth Brethren, Bible Church background of my youth was a visit to an Evangelical Covenant church when I was living in New Hampshire. A co-worker attended there, and asked me to go with her one Sunday, in order to sing and play guitar on a couple of numbers during the service. It was a bit foreign to me, particularly due to the carefully laid-out order of worship. In a later conversation with the chaplain of the ministry I was working at, the chaplain asked me what I thought of the service. "It was okay," I said, "except for the liturgy." "Everybody has a liturgy, even the Plymouth Brethren," he said. Looking at his watch and pretending he was in a Brethren worship service, he said, "Brother Bob should be standing up in three, two, one, and there he goes," referring to a man standing to lead the congregation, presumably spontaneously led by the Holy Spirit. I realized how right he was. Though the attempt is to be spontaneous, that can only be achieved to a degree. God made man to be a creature of habit, of ritual, of liturgy. This is a good thing, and we naturally look to create order in every aspect of life. Even the free-form approach of the Brethren has a certain structure - at a certain time the meeting begins, it ends at a certain time, the bread and the cup are distributed at a certain point, and so on. If spontaneity were a sign of genuine worship, why can't this order also be counted as "stifling the Spirit"? The truth is that, far from a Biblical notion of true worship, this spontaneity finds its roots in Revivalism and 19th century Romanticism, and not Scripture. God is a God of order, and to assert that structure is somehow unspiritual is contrary to the Bible. Yet the idea continues to be propagated in contemporary circles. A contemporary church can cry out against rituals and yet have a specific order of worship every Sunday. Every contemporary church, if it really is a church, observes the Christian rituals of baptism, the Lord's Supper, and preaching. If they are Christian, they pray, and most often end their prayers with the liturgical "in Jesus' name, Amen." They pray before their meals, and have their "quiet time" regularly. And praise God that they do. Order is discipline, and shows reverence to God and to those around us. One can cling to cliches like a security blanket and decry the "ritualism" of "all those traditional churches", or "all those denominations" out there, as if they were the only ones that could fall into the error of cold, sterile worship. I would suggest that more careful thought on the matter is in order. It may very well be that those cliches are the worst form of ritualism of all.

The Meditative Monotony of Gardening

Many gardeners will agree that hand-weeding is not the terrible drudgery that it is often made out to be. Some people find in it a kind of soothing monotony. It leaves their minds free to develop the plot for their next novel or to perfect the brilliant repartee with which they should have encountered a relative's latest example of unreasonableness. -- Christopher Lloyd

"Our Father"

Was struck by this quote from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones read by Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn today. Dr. Lloyd-Jones is commenting on the Lord's Prayer:

"Our Father." Yes. But because of our debased conception of fatherhood, he hastens to say, "Our Father, Which art in heaven." The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the kind of Father we have. But there are many people in this world today, alas, to whom the idea of fatherhood is not one of love. Imagine a little boy who's the son of a father who is a drunkard and a wife-beater, and who's nothing but a cruel beast. That little boy knows nothing in life but constant, and undeserved thrashings and kickings. He sees his father spend all his money on himself, while he himself has to starve. That is his idea of fatherhood, and there are many. If you tell him that God is his father and leave it to that, it's not very helpful, and it's not very kind. The poor boy of necessity has a wrong idea of fatherhood. That is his notion of a father, a man who behaves like that. So our human, sinful notions of fatherhood need constant theological correction.

The Lenten Gardener

Every experienced Christian gardener knows that there is a spiritual spring which comes just as surely as nature's spring. The Lenten spring is God's invitation to prayer, fasting, penance. Like the deep-rooted thistle weed, some of our worst habits withstand all but the most persistent, persevering, and strenuous exercise. A quick pull on the root, however, will not do the trick, nor will an aggressive chop of the hoe. Patience is needed, and the humble willingness to drop down on one's knees and work carefully with the hand fork and trowel. The Christian gardener patiently picks sin from the soul's soil and cultivates it with care and attention to the tender new growth of faith. The Christian gardener also respects the fact that God appoints each soul to be "the sort of garden it is to be." "Your job," Underhill admonishes, "is strictly confined to making [your soul] as good as it can be of its sort." Some of us will be contemplative in the manner of a rose garden, and others are more earthy and restless, like a potato patch. -- Vigen Guroian

"An Epistle to the Reverend Mr. George Whitfield" by Charles Wesley

The following is Charles Wesley's poem "An Epistle to the Reverend Mr. George Whitfield". Wesley wrote this as a reflection on the separation of fellowship he and his brother John had from Whitfield, stemming from their debates on salvation and the sovereignty of God. Separation in a sinful world is often inevhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifitable. But nothing is so beautiful as the restoration of fellowship (Psalm 133; 2 Cor. 2:5-11, 7:8-11).

Those who wish to learn more about the relationship between Whitfield and the Wesley's can check out this article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1993/issue38/3834.html

**************************************

Come on, my Whitfield! (since the strife is past
And friends at first are friends again at last,)
Our hands, and hearts, and counsels let us join
In mutual league, to' advance the work Divine,
Our one contention now, our single aim,
To pluck poor souls as brands out of the flame;
To spread the victory of that bloody Cross,
And gasp our latest breath in the Redeemer's cause.

Too long, alas! we gave to Satan place,
When party-zeal put on an angel's face;
Too long we listen'd to the cozening fiend,
Whose trumpet sounded, "For the faith contend!"
With hasty blindfold rage, in error's night,
How did we with our fellow-soldiers fight!
We could not then our Father's children know,
But each mistook his brother for his foe.
"Foes to the truth, can you in conscience spare?
"Tear them, (the tempter cried,) in pieces, tear!"
So thick the darkness, so confused the noise,
We took the stranger's for the Shepherd's voice;
Rash nature waved the controversial sword,
On fire to fight the battles of the Lord;
Fraternal love from every breast was driven,
And bleeding charity return'd to heaven.

The Saviour saw our strife with pitying eye,
And cast a look that made the shadows fly:
Soon as the day-spring in His presence shone,
We found the two fierce armies were but one;
Common our hope, and family, and name,
Our arms, our Captain, and our crown the same;
Enlisted all beneath Immanuel's sign,
And purchased every soul with precious blood Divine.

The let us cordially again embrace,
Nor e'er infringe the league of gospel-grace;
Let us in Jesus' name to battle go,
And turn our arms against the common foe;
Fight side by side beneath our Captain's eye,
Chase the Philistines, on their shoulders fly,
And, more than conquerors, in the harness die.

For whether I am born to "blush above,"
On earth suspicious of electing love,
Or you, o'erwhelm'd with honourable shame,
To shout the universal Saviour's name,
It matters not; if, all our conflicts past,
Before the great white throne we meet at last:
Our only care, while sojourning below,
Our real faith by real love to show:
To blast the aliens' hope, and let them see
How friends of jarring sentiments agree:
Not in a party's narrow banks confined,
Not by a sameness of opinions join'd,
But cemented with the Redeemer's blood,
And bound together in the heart of God.

Can we forget from whence our union came,
When first we simply met in Jesus' name?
The name mysterious of the God Unknown,
Whose secret love allured, and drew us on
Through a long, lonely, legal wilderness,
To find the promised land of gospel peace.
True yokefellows, we then agreed to draw
The' intolerable burden of the law;
And jointly labouring on with zealous strife,
Strengthen'd each other's hands to work for life;
To turn against the world our steady face,
And, valiant for the truth, enjoy disgrace.

Then, when we served our God through fear alone,
Our views, our studies, and our hearts were one;
No smallest difference damp'd the social flame:
In Moses' school we thought, and spake the same:
And must we, now in Christ, with shame confess,
Our love was greater when our light was less?
When darkly through a glass with servile awe,
We first the spiritual commandment saw,
Could we not then, our mutual love to show,
Through fire and water for each other go?
We could:- we did:- In a strange land I stood,
And beckon'd thee to cross the' Atlantic flood:
With true affection wing'd, thy ready mind
Left country, fame, and ease, and friends behind;
And, eager all heaven's counsels to explore,
Flew through the watery world and grasp'd the shore.

Nor did I linger, at my friend's desire,
To tempt the furnace, and abide the fire:
When suddenly sent forth, from the highways
I call'd poor outcasts to the feast of grace;
Urged to pursue the work by thee begun,
Through good and ill report I still rush'd on,
Nor felt the fire of popular applause,
Nor fear'd the torturing flame in such a glorious cause.

Ah! wherefore did we ever seem to part,
Or clash in sentiment, while one in heart?
What dire device did the old Serpent find,
To put asunder those whom God had join'd?
From folly and self-love opinion rose,
To sever friends who never yet were foes;
To baffle and divert our noblest aim,
Confound our pride, and cover us with shame;
To make us blush beneath her short-lived power,
and glad the world with one triumphant hour.

But lo! the snare is broke, the captive's freed,
By faith on all the hostile powers we tread,
And crush through Jesus' strength the Serpent's head.
Jesus hath cast the cursed Accuser down,
Hath rooted up the tares by Satan sown:
Kindled anew the never-dying flame,
And re-baptized our souls into His name.
Soon as the virtue of His name we feel,
The storm of strife subsides, the sea is still,
All nature bows to His benign command,
And two are one in His almighty hand.
One in His hand, O may we still remain,
Fast bound with love's indissoluble chain;
(That adamant which time and death defies,
That golden chain which draws us to the skies!)
His love the tie that binds us to His throne,
His love the bond that perfects us in one;
His love, (let all the ground of friendship see,)
His only love constrains our hearts to' agree,
And gives the rivet of Eternity!

On the Death of Don Cornelius

The apparent suicide of Don Cornelius is a sad thing, to say the least. Soul Train wasn't of interest to me, but I remember it coming on TV every Saturday afternoon after American Bandstand when I was a kid. Very little has been said in the articles I looked at about the fact that this was a suicide. Perhaps it's a reflection of the degenerate state of our culture, or perhaps it is just considered inappropriate, or too early, to comment much on that aspect. But it's amazing how common something like suicide is among the famous, or maybe moreso among the formerly famous. I can't say whether Don Cornelius was a Christian, of course. But it is certain that whatever the case was, he wasn't looking to Christ as his source of salvation. There was at least a serious failure in the realm of sanctification, or he never would have considered suicide. When this life is all you have, though, and especially if you think you've screwed that up, then it's easy to see why some consider suicide an option. But this sets out in sharp contrast the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous, the children of God and the children of the Devil. It's easy for the righteous to envy the unrighteous in their momentary pleasures. For a brief time, and with a limited view, they can fool most anybody into thinking that they hold time in their hands, and that their prosperity will follow them forever. But they fade like the beauty of the flower, as Scripture says, and meet the same end as everyone else. The wealthy, the famous, the talented - they aren't all they seem. We do ourselves well to refrain from thinking too much of celebrities.

Ex Cathedra

There's something really troubling about the fact that some 150 Evangelical leaders, who promote studying God's Word for onesself and who present themselves as the opposite of Roman Catholicism's hierarchical approach, think they need to get together en masse and declare which candidate all other Evangelicals need to vote for. What makes less sense is that no list of the names of those participating in the meeting has been released. What's that all about? It would be fairly simple to put a list together and post it on the Web. If you won't do that, then why should anybody listen to you? I suppose Evangelicals can forget about that "using your own brain" stuff. The College of Cardinals has spoken.

Foundations That Can't Be Destroyed

"If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3) Many a preacher has used this verse as a rallying cry to the faithful, calling on God's people to rise up to action, in fear that the wicked may destroy God's work. And it has been useful to stir up emotion, and, no doubt in some cases, to bring about genuine diligence in the service of the Lord for His glory and for the blessing of His Church. But I think this is a misreading and therefore a misapplication of the verse. There is a quote that begins in verse 1 with the phrase "Flee as a bird to your mountain," and the question is: where does the quote end? I would suggest that it ends after the phrase "what can the righteous do". The speaker, whom the writer David is hearing and responding to, has lost sight of the all-seeing, all-directing, loving and sovereign Lord, in whom David trusts. Should I flee to the mountain? Should I fear when the wicked bends his bow? No. The foundations can't be destroyed. The Lord and Maker of the universe is in control of all things, including the wicked acts of wicked men. God will bless the righteous, but the wicked he will bring down in judgment. Rather than being used to stir up fear, this psalm is meant to give us comfort when we seem to be surrounded by evil, when we are tempted to believe there is no hope.

A Short Defense of Infant Baptism

In an email dialogue tonight, a friend asked me to articulate a defense of infant baptism. A better defense would have been longer, but I threw this together rather quickly, brevity being key. I believe it gets to the core, and does a decent job explaining why we believe infant baptism is consistent with the teaching of Scripture.

***********************************************

God's way of relating to man is through His Covenant. The Covenant takes many forms throughout Scripture, which is something I won't get into right now. But we see in the Old Testament that the Covenant included not just believers, but also their children. In the Old Testament, the sign of the Covenant was circumcision. That's why God required Abraham, the recipient of God's covenant promises, to circumcise not only himself, but also his sons, his male servants, and their sons. They were all in God's covenant under Abraham's headship, so they had to receive the sign that they were in the covenant. The New Testament makes it clear that circumcision is no longer something to be practiced, because the Old Covenant (or Testament - the words are interchangeable) is over. A new sign has been instituted, though, and that is baptism. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Lest we think that children are no longer in the covenant, and recipients of the covenant promises, Peter says in Acts 2:39, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And in the same breath, in verse 38, he commands all to be baptized. Rather than excluding children, he seems to very clearly include them. And in that context of his sermon, it's clear he is talking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Colossians 2:11-12 seem to associate circumcision and baptism together - the circumcision of Christ, in which the body is put off, is the burial and resurrection of baptism.

One argument to consider is this: Hebrews 8:6 refers to the New Covenant as being a better covenant than the Old Covenant. How can it be a better covenant if children are excluded from it?

The baptist will say there are no infant baptisms in Scripture. But we would say that's irrelevant. There are three household baptisms mentioned in the NT: the Philippian jailer's household (Acts 16), the household of Lydia (also Acts 16), and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). The implication of the word "household" is such that if infants were present, they would be included, as the whole household was baptized, none excluded. Also, while there are changes from the OT to the NT, there are lots of things that aren't changed. And we are offered no evidence in the NT to suggest that children are no longer in the covenant, and therefore aren't supposed to receive the covenant sign. Quite the contrary. To put it succinctly, God doesn't have to repeat Himself. And if he wants us to stop doing something, he always makes it clear. He nowhere says, "the covenant sign is only for those who are old enough to clearly and verbally articulate faith in me, and consent verbally to the covenant sign." That wasn't required in the OT, and so unless He tells us otherwise, we can safely assume that it isn't required in the NT.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Saw "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" this evening. Enjoyed it. A couple of thoughts below (and some spoilers).


1.) Some have said it's better than the first one. I can't say I agree with that. But it was a good film.

2.) The most negative thing I have to say about it is that there was some measure of innuendo - some playing around with the notion of an unhealthy emotional relationship between Holmes and Watson, and other innuendo besides. Most of it came near the beginning of the film, but there were other moments throughout. It was a bit much, and enough to distract me from much of the rest of the good in the film. Many who watch this film probably won't be as attuned to such things; I'm not sure that's necessarily good. It's been a bigger trend with Hollywood of late, and one I wish they would lay off of.

3.) Good action scenes.

4.) The acting was great, as one would expect.

5.) The portrayal of Moriarty was fantastic. A wonderful and convincing bad guy, a perfect mixture of the psychotic and the genius.

6.) It's PG13, but there are things I wouldn't want my 13 year old to see if I had kids. Older teens, maybe, but not younger teens. For details, parents can always consult the parental advisory section on IMDB.com.

Our Native Narcissism

When a person has any sort of ongoing illness or disease, they think everyone else should be as conscious of it as they are. Everyone in the world should be in their awareness walk fundraiser. When we have a close relative or friend dealing with a particular culture issue that affects them personally, why everyone else doesn't see it to be as important as we do is baffling to us. Those obsessed with Christian counseling see everything in terms of Christian counseling, and those who believe being "missional" is central to the church don't understand how we can't see what a radically important thing it is. Hands don't think feet are really needed, and feet don't get eyes. Our thing is always the only indispensable one. And in all of this, it never occurs to us that we aren't God.

The Waters of Baptism as Journeying Through the Wilderness

"He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness" (Psalm 106:9, KJV). Israel's baptism in the Red Sea prefigured the baptism in the wilderness that they were about to undergo. Likewise, Jesus' baptism was immediately followed by his testing in the wilderness. "Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?' And they said to him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared'" (Mark 10:38-40, ESV) Jesus' baptism symbolized the suffering he was to endure; in the same way, the Christian's baptism not only points back to Jesus' baptism, being in union with him and his salvation, but it also symbolizes the sanctifying suffering each Christian experiences in this life, the wilderness journey prior to entering the promised country.

An Unfinished Ecclesiological Primer

This is something I started writing for a specific situation a few years ago, but never completed or used. I thought I would put it here in its unfinished form, just for kicks. Comments are welcome.

***************************************

1.) There are three basics institutions in the world that were established by God. They are the church, the family, and the civil government. Because of the reality of living in a sinful world, these three institutions will often find themselves at odds with one another, and discerning how to reconcile them will often be difficult. All other institutions are secondary and derived, whether rightly or wrongly, from these three. Since God didn't establish these other institutions, their necessity and propriety is from the outset questionable. This isn't to say secondary institutions aren't necessary. But it is to say the burden of proving a particular institution's necessity is on the one who insists it is necessary, not on the one who questions it. Also, these secondary institutions are to be understood as temporary within the context of history, and for the purpose of addressing a specific problem. The only permanent institutions (that is, permanent until Christ's second coming) are the ones God Himself established. Secondary institutions exist because those in authority in the primary institutions are failing in the task God has assigned to them. Just because "things have always been done" thus and such a way, whether for the past ten years or the past one thousand, that doesn't mean they should be. If that were the case, then we should all be Roman Catholics and under the Divine Rule of the Queen of England.

2.) When God created the church, He intended it to follow a certain pattern. A church isn't just whatever we want to make it, and just because an organization bears the name "church" doesn't mean it is one, or that it is rightly ordered. Just like other issues in the Christian life, Scripture isn't always as clear on this as we would like it to be. God often speaks in veiled ways to us about these things, and it is our duty to find them out through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and to the best of our ability. And then, when we approach Scripture, we tend to take our own cultural baggage with us, which clouds our vision. Nonetheless, I believe certain things can be determined about church life, through study and reflection, which cannot ultimately be refuted. These would include the following.

A.) Church independency is unbiblical. There are no examples in Scripture of little pockets of believers starting up meetings that they call "church", who then remain structurally disconnected from all other local meetings. From the get-go in Acts, believers are saved, not in the fives and tens, but in the thousands. That means that there was never just one small parish church in each town in the early church, but lots of little churches that then composed one large church. This was true of Jerusalem, and that is why we are told that they broke bread house to house (Acts 2:46). To break bread means to celebrate the Lord's Supper together, which means worship. Where city churches are established in the New Testament, it is natural for us to think that meant one local congregation. But I would suggest that the word "church" in those contexts mean "a collection of individual parishes, all under one centralized authority", and all the historical and archaeological evidence points to that conclusion. In addition to this, the churches were started by and overseen by the Apostles and their authorized delegates, and so church unity existed under their authority.

All of this is not to say that those who start up a local church that is disconnected from all other churches are not saved, or that they are intentionally being disobedient. But it is to say that they are not following the pattern of Scripture, and a failure to follow Scripture always has negative results. Groups of people who are in unusual situations and who start churches (say, those living under a Communist regime who are consequently disconnected from the rest of the world) are to align themselves with other church bodies as God provides them the opportunity. And so, where church independency exists, it can only exist as a necessary evil.

This also means that denominationalism exists as a necessary evil as well. There should be structural unity between all true Christians throughout the world, but sin has created division. Whereas some Christians will break fellowship with you because you looked at them funny, others will unite with you no matter what you believe. Unity is the goal, but not at the expense of truth, though we might add that certain truths are more central than others.

B.) There are certain men to whom God has assigned the task of instructing other believers within the context of the church. They are referred to by different titles by different Christian denominations, but for simplicity's sake we will refer to them as the pastors of the church. Their office was established by the Apostles, and they were entrusted with the Gospel in a way that sets them apart from the laity of the church. This isn't to say that all believers aren't entrusted with the Gospel. But there is a sense in which the leaders of the church were entrusted with the Gospel in an authoritative way, distinct from the average Christian.

There are two lay offices in the church, that of the elders and deacons. They are to be able to teach, but their teaching is in addition to the teaching of the pastors, and is not essential to the church in the same way as that of the pastors.

There are opportunities for laypeople to teach, particularly within the family. Fathers are to teach their families; both fathers and mothers are to teach their children. We are to speak the truth, all of us, to one another, and you could call that, in a sense, teaching, though no authority is involved in such a situation, except insofar as the words spoke correspond to Scripture. But the task of teaching, within the authorized meetings of the church, is specifically assigned to the pastors. Any other teaching that takes place is extraordinary, and is generally, but not always, a result of a failure on the part of the pastorate.

If there are no pastors in the meeting of a group that it considers itself a church, then the group in question isn't a church. It may be filled with people who are truly saved, but their organization isn't a church, as Scripture speaks of it.

C.) The main meeting of the church is the Sunday worship service of the church. It is held on Sunday because Sunday is the New Testament Sabbath. It is also appropriate that it is held in the morning, in order to correspond roughly with the time of Jesus' resurrection, though this particular matter isn't absolutely necessary. The worship service is comprised of a few necessary elements: Singing Scripture-based songs, reading Scripture, preaching, prayer, Baptism (only when there is one present who needs to be baptized), and the Lord's Supper. These elements take different forms. For instance, the corporate confession of sin in worship is one form of prayer, and the declaration of pardon is one form of preaching. Without these elements, there is no Biblical worship service. That isn't to say that there isn't a sort of worship service happening when one or more of these elements is missing, or that the people involved aren't worshipping God. But the service they are participating in isn't structured after the Biblical pattern, and therefore isn't a Biblically constituted worship service.

This means that testimonies by laypeople, skits or any other form of drama, puppet shows, dance performances, or any other such activity that is common in Evangelical worship today, is unbiblical. This isn't to say that there isn't a place for such things elsewhere, but they have no place in corporate worship. These things have emerged in the church for a couple of reasons. Laypeople haven't carefully examined what Scripture says about worship. The ministers of the church have failed to teach on the subject. There has been a general antipathy toward the historic practice of the church in general, particularly with regard to worship. And popular culture (which may be better called commercial culture) has infiltrated the church and has so come to order our lives that we allow it to dictate everything we do.

There may be other worship services throughout the week, or additional services for prayer at other times. But the only service of the church that is binding upon the Christian is the once a week Sunday worship service.

Some Recent Typological Thoughts

Just a few things, mostly related to Revelation 11, which my Bible study group is currently in.

*********************************************

In Luke 3, John the Baptist tells the people that whereas he was baptizing with water, one (Jesus) would come after him and baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (vs. 16). Peter follows the same pattern in 2 Peter 3 in distinguishing between the destruction of the ancient world and the destruction of "the heavens and the earth that now exist" (vs. 7). John the Baptist was a New Noah, leading the... repentant to safety through the flood waters, and bringing judgment on the unrepentant (1 Peter 3:18-22). Jesus would come to do the same, only this time with fire. As such, this seems to be the general pattern of the Old Testament (water) and the New Testament (fire), but also the pattern of the Christian life. Water is the means of Christian initiation, and fire the means of the Christian's sanctification (1 Peter 4:12).

********************************************************

The parallel between the Flood and the destruction of Jericho had never occurred to me before until this morning. Noah and his family entered the Ark, and in it was the only safety from the Flood. Likewise, the two spies told Rahab to bring her Father's family into the house. Outside of its doors none would be safe, but inside its doors none would be harmed by the flood of the Israelite army. It is reasonable then to see in both the Church, which is in Christ. All who are in Him are safe from destruction.

*********************************************************

The two spies that Joshua sends to Jericho remain strangely unnamed in the text. But it is obvious that they are intended to point back to those faithful spies Joshua and Caleb, who first spied out the land, with ten others who also were unnamed, and were the only ones who believed God's promise. In a similar vein, we see in Revelation 11 the two unnamed witnesses, testifying against Jerusalem (...vs. 8). The typology tells us they are intended to point back to Moses and Elijah (vs. 6). Like Moses they came in the spirit of the Law, and like Elijah they came in the spirit of the Prophets (Rom. 3:21), testifying against those who would not believe in Jesus, the one who fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, and through whom God would fulfill His promises. The same type of destruction that came upon Jericho would come upon Jerusalem as well.

*********************************************************

Absalom was killed while hanging from an oak tree, having been caught in the branches. And so he was a type of Christ. "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13)

*********************************************************

The two witnesses of Revelation 11 also point back to the two angels/men that Yahweh sent to examine Sodom after His conversation with Abraham (Genesis 18 & 19). It is the pattern of Scripture that judgment is made upon the testimony (witness) of two or three persons (Deut. 17:6, 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). And God, fulfilling His own Law, sent two angels, that they might exami...ne the state of Sodom and Gomorrah, to determine whether it was worthy of destruction (Gen. 18:20-21). As Yahweh sent fire down upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24), so also fire would come from the mouths of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 as a judgment upon Jerusalem (Rev. 11:5). And lest we miss the parallel, we are told that this city was "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8). Jerusalem had become Sodom as well as Jericho; the Jews had become pagan Gentiles, persecuting the Messiah and His True People, the Church, and were receiving the judgment of God for it.

**********************************************************

God had told His people Israel that if they did not obey the words of His covenant, he would bring the plagues that he put upon Egypt upon Israel themselves, and even take them back in captivity to Egypt (Deut. 28:60, 68). This was partly fulfilled in the days of the reigns of Jeroboam and Rehoboam. Jeroboam brought Egypt and its false worship to Israel, by setting up golden calves in Israel (1 ...Kings 12:28-29). Just as Israel herself in the Exodus had failed to learn from Lot's wife (Lk. 17:32) and looked back to the food and worship of Egypt, so Jeroboam sought to turn Israel spiritually from Yahweh and back to Egypt. And in accordance with God's promise of judgment, Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25-26). As the Israelites had once plundered the Egyptians as a blessing from God upon their leaving Egypt (Ex. 12:35-36), so now they were plundered by the Egyptians, who even took vessels from the Temple and the king's palace, some of which had been made from the very materials that Israel had originally taken from Egypt. Though God at first intended to bring the full judgment of slavery He had promised, Rehoboam humbled himself and God relented from His anger (2 Chron. 12:7-8).

But in Revelation 11, we see the plagues of Egypt that God had promised finally brought in full upon Israel. Like Moses and Aaron coming with signs and wonders, bringing plagues upon the Egyptians and calling them to cease their persecution of His people, so the two witnesses would come with signs and wonders, bring those same plagues upon Israel, and deliver His Church from her.

Hello, Old Friends

I'm finally catching up on your comments. I apologize for my absence. It's been a hard year, as my mother has had two strokes since December, leaving me as something of a caretaker. Lord willing, I will continue to blog, mostly on things that have little to no connection with Jonathan Sperry. If you are a Jonathan Sperry idolater, you may do well to look elsewhere. Otherwise, I invite you to visit me here often. But whatever your case may be, God bless you, and thanks for stopping by. Here's hoping you'll make a habit of it.

Thoughts on the Stoning of Disobedient Children in the Mosaic Law (Deut. 21:18-21)

As is evident, my blog posts are few and far between these days, largely due simply to life's circumstances. I do, however, find time for interaction with friends and acquaintances on Facebook, occasionally to some profit. Few of these are of a nature that can be easily turned into blog posts. But every once in awhile one ends up readily transferable to this page, and I had one such conversation this past week. The question began with a link to this article, and was followed by a friend bringing up the matter of the supposed stoning of disobedient children under the Mosaic Law, as is often brought up by atheists wanting to refute Holy Scripture. What follows is my response to the question. My response is a bit exploratory, and I will readily admit that I have never heard anyone approach the passage the way I have below. Nonetheless, I do so anyway, but not without some caution, and the awareness that I could be completely wrong.

***********************************************

Well, my reason for pointing to a situation like this isn't necessarily to say whether or not capital punishment is wrong, even capital punishment of disobedient children. The point is to dispel the myths that modernist Muslims tell regard...ing what "true Islam" is. They claim it is peaceful, meaning that this is something real Muslims don't do, and that people like this are "extremists". But the heaping up of situation after situation like this proves that, if these are extremists, they sure are a common lot. And the Koran would confirm this as well.

The fact, too, that we're talking about Islam, a false religion, is another issue here. It is wrong for a Christian to marry a non-Christian. But for a non-Christian to marry another non-Christian is a matter of indifference to me, and not only to me, to Scripture. The true law of Scripture trumps all its competitors.

Now, does the Old Testament injunction still apply today? This isn't something I've studied in detail, but I'll take a preliminary crack at it. A couple of things are obvious in the passage (Deut. 21:18-21). First, the son (notice it says "son" specifically, not "daughter", or "child") is of some age of discretion. You don't have five year olds that are drunkards. And yet, this son is not fully an adult, because issues of obedience and discipline are in play. So we're talking about an older child or teenager, prior to independence.

Also, this is clearly not a case of one-off disobedience. This is a case of extreme, prolonged rebellion, that manifests itself in many ways, and is societally disruptive. And not only is the result that the son is doing things he shouldn't be doing; he also wouldn't be doing things he is supposed to be doing. He isn't assuming the role in home and society that he is required to assume. He is failing to be productive in an extreme way, and is not only counterproductive, but downright destructive.

Then there is the issue of who carries out the capital punishment. Notice that it isn't carried out by the parents in the home. The situation has to reach the point that the parents (both of them together, not just one of them) are willing to take the child to the elders for judgment. However brief, there is a trial, with the testimony of the parents, and then execution, by the men (women aren't mentioned) of the city.

And how many parents, no matter how bad things got, would be willing to take that step? It would be pretty rare, to say the least. The parent would always be praying for the child's repentance, and only when things had gotten bad beyond imagining would a parent drag their child off to their death - unless, of course, the parents themselves were just extremely wicked, a rarity among God's people. And one would expect the elders of the city, if they were wise and godly men, to be hesitant to carry out the action, without some discussion - which the text does not exclude the possibility of occurring.

All taken into account, the situation here is a far cry from the way the Old Testament is often portrayed, and a far cry from Islam, which is a religion of violence at its heart.

And having considered all of these things, I would make some suggestions of my own about how the text is to be considered (once again, the scholars probably have a better take on this). The larger issue involved isn't one of mere rebellion, but one of maturing and taking one's role as a man and therefore a leader in society. The law doesn't apply to daughters, only sons, and only sons beginning to reach an age in which they are taking on responsibilities and becoming rulers in the family, the church, and the larger community.

The point is heading off future trouble. Every man fails in his own ways. But this is a case of not only a few failures, but behaviour that is all-around destructive. This individual, if allowed to live, will lead people away from the truth of God, and cause unspeakable trouble. He isn't just a well-meaning person who makes a few mistakes; he lives to sin and to destroy people's lives. The fact that leadership is the core issue here is also pointed out by the fact that it is specifically the men of the city who carry out the execution, I would suggest.

Some would seek to take these civil laws and apply them in the New Covenant to the church - the parents in the New Covenant should take the son to the elders of the church, and he will be subject to church discipline. But while I think it should go without saying that that should occur, I don't see Scripture giving any reason to eliminate it from the civil realm today. I don't see the Intrusion Ethic of Meredith Kline as being a legitimate reading of the Mosaic Covenant, and while I can see some adjusting of Old Testament law for the New Covenant situation (Scripture itself does that), Kline's idea that the civil penalties applied to Old Covenant Israel only doesn't hold water with me. I can't say for sure that allowing for capital punishment in this situation today is appropriate, but I would lean that direction.

Like I said, this is just exploratory on my part, and subject to some measure of correction, I don't doubt. But based on this analysis, I would say that it doesn't apply to daughters; it doesn't apply to someone who has just committed one sin, however major (there are other laws for major sins); it isn't an "honor killing", and isn't conducted for vengeance; and is carried out by the civil courts. And Islam is a false religion, so how we approach them is entirely different.

So I see application for today, in a Christian society, in the civil realm. That won't satisfy your atheist friends, of course.

It should be pointed out that the occasion of such an event was to cause all Israel to hear and fear (Deut. 21:21). It was to warn Israel that spiritual declension was in its midst, that it might rectify its ways, and not become what that son was. It typologically pointed to Israel himself as the son of God who was to fail God through such rebellion, and to point to Christ, who was to take the punishment of rebellious son(s).

Hardware Mispronunciations, pt. 4

Some time ago I had posted three lists of mispronounced terms and words overheard at a hardware store I used to work for. After much delay, here are the last of those mispronunciations. Those who are interested in the rest may go here:

http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2007/10/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-1.html

http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2007/10/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-2.html

http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2008/03/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-3.html

*********************************

Jig jag blades - jig saw blades

Inchulation - insulation

Eproxy - epoxy

Limber - lumber

Almanacre - almanac

Ben Gay Roach Spray - Bengal (the brand of roach spray)

Java rocks - lava rocks

Butane tanks - propane tanks

Helium tanks - again, propane tanks

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, on the Differences Between the Heresies of Men and the Heresies of Women

From the book The Invisible War, by the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, former pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Dr. Barnhouse was writing in the early twentieth century, and so his times were slightly different than our own. As since his time American culture has found itself more confounded in its understanding of gender distinctions, the differences he notes aren't as sharp as they used to be. Nonetheless, he is addressing matters that are derived originally from the creational difference between men and women, and as such, the distinctions will always be largely correct, until the effects of the Fall are completely eradicated from the world.

*****************************************

"(I)t is enlightening to note the familiar pattern of difference which runs through those false religions which have come from women teachers as opposed to those which come from men. The religion put out by an Annie Besant, a Mrs. White [Ellen G. White}, a Mrs. Eddy [Mary Baker Eddy] or their imitators, is much more subtle than what might be called a masculine heresy. For Theosophy, Seventh-day Adventism, Christian Science, New Thought, Unity and other religions which have come from women, stress the love of God, without His hatred for sin, and with fair words deceive. They offer a "key" to the Bible which says that the Book is true, and then denies its truth. Men are different in their heresies. Boldly they affirm that the Word of God is not true. Modernism strikes at the first chapters of Genesis as folklore and legend, and declares the birth of our Lord to be a biological impossibility. He was mistaken, they say, when He declared Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, and so on throughout the account. There is a brazen characteristic in most of the heresies put forth by men which is not found in the women's heresies, and there was this same difference in the sin of the garden as seen in Eve and in Adam." (pg. 90-91)

On Mark 1:40-45

It is significant that Jesus, in healing the leprous man, chose to touch him. Such an act would have made Jesus ceremonially unclean, and unable himself to enter the Temple or to participate in Israel's cultic life. By touching the man, Jesus showed himself to be greater than the Temple system (Mt. 12:6), that his work was bringing it and the Old Testament order to an end. As Jesus' work was not complete and the old order still in effect, Jesus did command the man to act in obedience to the commands of Moses. Yet the man in his actions showed that the old order was becoming obsolete by Jesus' coming. Rather than proclaiming the law of Moses by his works, he proclaimed Jesus with his mouth. And this, in spite of the fact that we are told that "Jesus sternly charged him" (vs. 43). How could the man have ignored such a command? Though the man may not have known it, he had already shown himself to the Heavenly High Priest, Jesus, and whereas the earthly high priest could only declare him clean, Jesus the true High Priest could make him clean. We also see in this act that Jesus symbolically took the man's uncleanness upon himself, and gave the man His own cleanness, which he would later do definitively upon the cross. Jesus was shut out of Israel's religious life, and therefore shut out from God, on our behalf. The diseases that Jesus went around healing were exactly the diseases that made people unable to participate ceremonially in the life of Israel. He was opening the way into the Temple for those who had previously been excluded. Yet a new Temple had arrived, Jesus himself, and it was into himself that he was ultimately calling all men.

Two on Baptism

1 Peter 3:18-22 tells us that in the event of Noah's ark and the flood we should see baptism. As the ark passed through the flood, so we pass through the waters of baptism. But it also points to the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17). The dove that Noah sent out first returned to rest at the ark, finding no land. Being sent out a second time, she returned with an olive leaf. And being sent out a third time, she found a resting place elsewhere, and did not return to the ark. The fact that she was sent out every seven days, seeking a Sabbath rest, in essence, should not be overlooked. This occurred as the waters receded, and the ark came up out of the waters, as it were. In Jesus baptism, the Spirit descended as a dove and rested immediately upon Jesus as he came out of the waters of the Jordan. Jesus is our ark of deliverance from the waters of God's judgment.

*****************************************

In Matthew 3:11-12, John the Baptist tells of the coming of Jesus, who he says will baptize "with the Holy Spirit and fire". The baptism with water by John precedes the baptism with fire by Jesus. Baptism is a sort of judgment. For the righteous, it is purifying and saving. For the wicked, it is destructive. We then see in vss. 13-17 the arrival of Jesus and His own baptism with water. To accomplish is mission of baptizing with fire, He Himself must first pass through the baptism with water. This is echoed in Peter's treatment of the coming judgment in 2 Peter 3. The judgment on the ancient creation came first by water (vss. 5-6), speaking of the flood. But the judgment to come would be by fire (vss. 7-12). Jesus himself spoke of this judgment by fire in connection with baptism (Luke 12:48-49). He would first pass through His baptism by fire, only later to bring the fire of judgment upon the earth Himself. I will leave aside, for now, questions of the fulfillment of 2 Peter 3. It is worth noting, however, that Jesus Himself never passed through a judgment of literal fire.