While we certainly should keep Christ in Christmas, we need to keep Him in Thanksgiving too.

In Reformed theology giving thanks has always been the major reason for keeping the law of God. The Heidelberg Catechism even puts the exposition of the Ten Commandments under living in thanksgiving for salvation.

So this thanksgiving, let us reflect on whether we are constantly and diligently praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit so that we will be able to keep the law more and more, even though we will make only a small beginning in obedience during this life.

Reflect on your inability to keep the law of God and give thanks to God for the righteousness of Christ imputed to you.

Or if you are not a Christian, ask yourself if you could ever thank God with your imperfect and small tokens of goodness or good works. He does not need your thanks. Go before God with empty hands to receive the gift of faith if He should choose to bestow it upon you. And then start giving thanks to God by cleaning up your life.

Soli Deo Gloria...to God alone be the glory. Amen.

Labels: reformed theology thanksgiving

Click here to listen to this teaching.

There were at least four kinds of officers in the New Testament church: apostles, evangelists, overseers/elders, and deacons. The apostle and evangelist offices were temporary in order to establish the foundation for the church. The offices that continue to today are overseers/elders and deacons. An apostle could perform the roles of evangelist, elder, and deacon. An evangelist could perform the roles of elder and deacon. And an elder could perform the role of a deacon. Elders and deacons operated within a particular church, whereas the apostles and evangelists were officers for the whole church.


How are they chosen?

Elders:

Acts 14:23 - "they appointed elders in every church" or

"And when they had chosen for them, by suffrage [election], elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed" (Thomas Witherow, The Apostolic Church - Which is It? -- this post is a summary of the best in his argument).

The verb translated appointed in this verse is often noted to mean to vote by stretching out the hand - in other words, the elders were elected by the people. The only other place this word occurs is 2 Corinthians 8:19:

"And not only that, but he [Titus] has been appointed by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace...."

Here the meaning is clearly that Titus was chosen by the churches to travel with Paul as an evangelist. In any case, the evidence is slim...it is unclear if Paul and Barnabas chose the elders for the churches or if they oversaw the election of elders. Nevertheless, after the apostles are gone it should not be surprising that the people would elect elders. Moreover, the point was to discover the will of God - who had God chosen to lead this particular church. Witherow notes that even election was used for choosing a new apostle to replace Judas Iscariot (there together with straws to decide between the two chosen by election).

Deacons:

Acts 6:2-3 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty." (ESV)

Here it is clear that deacons were chosen by election from among the members.

How many are in each church?

Acts 14:23 - "they appointed [see above] elders in every church"

Note that there are elders - there is more than one elder in each church.

How are elders and deacons set apart (ordained) to the office?

Ordination is an act of the church: The laying on of hands by elders. This is not so controversial, it is very clear from the texts.

Where do we see the first example of a gathering of elders above the local session of elders?

Acts 15: Paul and Barnabas tried to convince the local church that you did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. The local church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some of the others

"to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question."

"The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter."

The apostles and elders had the church in Jerusalem

"to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas."

And they sent them with a letter. The church asking for a ruling on the matter received the letter with joy.

Acts 16:4 As they [Paul and Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. (ESV)

Thus a local session of elders can appeal to an assembly of elders.

The Test
In what system of government are the officers elected by the members of the congregation, have a plurality of elders in each local church, ordain officers by a plurality of elders, can appeal to an assembly of elders who exercise government at a level above the session of elders in the local church, and the only head of the church is Jesus Christ?

The three options:
Monarchical (Hierarchical) Rule by a Sacred Leader (pastor, pope, etc.)
Congregational Rule by Congregation (pure democracy)
Presbyterian Rule by Elders (session of elders)

It is worth noting that some congregations are presbyterian at the level of the congregation but not organized into presbyteries. And other denominations may be presbyterian without the word presbyterian in their title.

Labels: congregational, deacons, elders, episcopal, pastor, pope, presbyter, presbyterian

Are you perplexed by Pentecost? By far, the least understood part of the Death, Resurrection, & Pentecost event-complex is Pentecost. These three things are inseparable and unrepeatable works of Christ. And together they mark the beginning of a new era for God's people. But most of us are much more familiar with the significance of His death and resurrection than with Pentecost.

If you are perplexed by Pentecost, notice that we are not the first people to ask: "What does this mean?" Luke tells us that those who were there were "bewildered" (Acts 2:6), they were "amazed and astonished" (Acts 2:7), they were "amazed and perplexed" (Acts 2:12). They said to each other, "What does this mean?" (Acts 2:12).

And the first interpretation of Pentecost put on someone's lips in this story is, "They are filled with new wine." In other words, 'they must be drunk.' Yes, our narrator, Luke, had told us earlier, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." But those looking on did not know this. They would have to listen to Peter, himself filled with the Holy Spirit, as he refuted this competing interpretation that they were drunk by noting that it was only 9 a.m. ("the third hour of the day," Acts 2:15), it was too early for them to all be drunk.

Then when Peter begins to explain the significance of this perplexing and bewildering experience he quotes Joel who says that God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. This is actually quite interesting because when we explain Pentecost we might want to begin with the Tower of Babel. You should remember that in Genesis 11, God confused the language of the people and scattered them all over the earth. It is a productive line of biblical theology to observe that Pentecost in Acts 2 was a gathering of Jews from all over the place who could understand each other due to the supernatural intervention of the Spirit of God. However, while that is true, if we are going to understand Peter's interpretation of what is going on, we also need to look at another story from the Torah.

The Story

The story begins for us in the background of Joel 2. Joel was prophesying that what Moses wished for in Numbers 11 would indeed take place.

Numbers 11 is the story of a grumbling people and their grumbling leader Moses. In scene 1: the people complained about their misfortunes and angered the Lord but then Moses interceded for the people and the fire God sent died down (Num 11:1-2). In scene 2: the people complained about not having meat. There are several verses explaining that the manna that they had to eat was quite good food - it was attractive looking and it tasted good (Num 11:7-9). They had no good reason to complain. But Moses did not intercede for them this time. Instead, he complained about the people. In judgment, God tells Moses that the people will get their meat - so much of it that they will regret having ever complained about not having any - and that Moses will get help. God said, "I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on" seventy of the elders. These elders would help Moses bear the burden of the people. Let us begin reading the story at verse 24:

Numbers 11:24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord. And he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it. 26 Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the Spirit rested on them. They were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. 27 And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, "My lord Moses, stop them." 29 But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!" 30 And Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp. (ESV)

So what happened here was that God took part of the Spirit He had put on Moses onto these seventy elders. When they received the Spirit, they briefly prophesied in order to show that they had received the Spirit. Two of these elders were not anywhere near Moses when the Spirit was poured on them and they prophesied too. Now Joshua was very concerned about this because it meant that the work of the Spirit of God did not need Moses present. And if so, then Moses' authority as the unique prophetic mediator of Israel was in danger. Joshua's concerns were founded because from this point forward in Numbers the people questioned Moses' leadership. So Joshua urged Moses to stop them, but Moses instead of focusing on the judgment that God was bringing on his leadership focused on the blessing of the Spirit being poured out on others. Instead of grumbling again, Moses had learned his lesson and said that it would be wonderful for the Spirit to be poured out on everyone.

The Answer to the Story

So what is the answer to the story? This is what we find in the New Testament. The first answer to the story is that we need a prophet greater than Moses who will intercede for His people even when they are all ready to desert Him. Where Moses failed to intercede for his people - to go before God on their behalf, Jesus did not (John 17). Jesus offered up what is often called the "High Priestly Prayer," which really should be called the "Prophet Greater than Moses Prayer of Intercession," because intercessory prayer was part of the prophet's job. But the more important answer for the purposes of our passage (Acts 2) is that the exalted Jesus poured out the Spirit He received from the Father onto all flesh. What Moses wished for, and Joel prophesied, Jesus accomplished.

And the people briefly prophesied. That is, Luke tells us that the people told the mighty works of God (Acts 2:11). We know that some people during the age of the apostles were given the gift of prophecy and the gift of speaking in tongues. But the people who prophesied on Pentecost were not given this gift perpetually. And just because everyone could hear everyone else tell the good news of the mighty works of God in their own dialect did not mean that speaking in tongues was a gift that remained the case for them. Instead, just like in the case of the seventy elders they briefly prophesied to show that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on them.

Notice the content of their prophecy. In Acts 2:11 the summary was simply that they told "the mighty works of God." What were these mighty works? If you have any doubt, look at Peter's prophetic comments. He explains the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost as the work of the exalted Christ. Beginning at verse 22, Peter speaks as the Spirit gave him utterance about Jesus Christ. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst." The mighty works were the works of Christ. His works included wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below. It is "this Jesus" who, "exalted at the right hand of God," did the mighty work and wonders and signs of Pentecost (Acts 2:33).

This mighty work at Pentecost was a sign of what the Spirit-filled church would do. The gospel was to go to the ends of the earth, which meant that the good news would need to be spoken in many languages and dialects, just as everyone heard the gospel on that day in their own tongue. The Spirit of God would point all to Jesus.

So "what does this mean?" It means that Jesus had poured out the Spirit on all flesh. Therefore, if you want the gift of the Holy Spirit, to quote Peter,

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

Bridging Contexts to Today (How to Get from the Ancient Text to Today)

Pentecost was a fundamentally unrepeatable event. So if there is not to be another Pentecost today, then how is our story different?

People today have the same need for union and communion with the risen Christ through the Spirit. And people today still need to seek to be filled with the Spirit of Christ.

1. With His resurrection, Jesus Christ became the possessor and conveyor of life in the Spirit. And with the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, he conveyed the Spirit to all flesh. In case anyone doubted that this was limited to the Jews and earlier converts to Judaism, the rest of Acts narrates how the Spirit also came to the Samaritans (mixed race of Jew and Gentile) and the Gentiles. The Spirit was poured out on all flesh, "all" here does not mean all in the sense that everyone who ever lived after Pentecost is saved, instead "all flesh" means to convey that the Spirit would not discriminate between Jews and Gentiles.

2. One difference between our situation and the opening of Acts 2 is that we do not need to speak in tongues as a prophetic sign that we have the Spirit. In fact, not everyone who receives the Spirit in the book of Acts briefly speaks in tongues like at the beginning of Acts 2 - there is no account of those that Peter preached to at the end of the chapter speaking in tongues or prophesying when they received the Spirit. Some do speak in tongues briefly when the Spirit comes to them elsewhere in Acts - these are unique situations though: for example, in the case of Cornelius' household it served as a prophetic sign that the Spirit was poured out not just on the Jews but also on the Gentiles. While Peter preached in his home, the Holy Spirit fell on all who were there. The text says,

"For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God" (Acts 10:46).

When He reported this to show that the Spirit was for the Gentiles too, he said,

15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' (Acts 11:15-16)

Here we have an expansion of the scope of Pentecost. As Peter said, "the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning." "The beginning" that Peter means is when the Spirit poured out on Pentecost and caused them to speak in tongues so that others could understand the good news in their own language. It was not a repetition of Pentecost but the unfolding of Pentecost in a new setting where a sign was helpful to verify that it was the will of God that the gospel go to the Gentiles without them converting to being Jews first. But then when other Gentiles became disciples later, they did not speak in tongues when they received the Spirit because the sign had already shown the people that the Spirit was not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles.

3. Moreover, we have to appreciate something else that was unique in the situation in Acts. That is, there were believers before the Spirit was sent on Pentecost. Many of them had been baptized with water but they awaited Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire that came on Pentecost. For them there would be two-stages - one could be a Christian and not be baptized with the Holy Spirit yet. They were saved in the same way that we were, just as those in the Old Testament era were, but like most believers in the Old Testament era they did not possess the power of the Holy Spirit yet because of their timing in the history of redemption. However, for us, Scripture teaches that we who are Christians after Pentecost receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when we become Christians.

4. Not every believer during the age of the apostles had the gift of prophecy but they were all prophets. They were not prophets in the sense of revealing new things that have been hidden until now: all prophecy has as its content Jesus Christ and everything necessary for our salvation concerning Him we have in Scripture. This was not the case for the church during the age of the apostles when the Scriptures were not complete, but it is the case today. All Christians after Pentecost are prophets in the sense that as we have the Holy Spirit. We can confess the truth about the risen Christ to the world and He gives us the words we need to say to point people to Christ. And all Christians are prophets in that we can all offer up intercessory prayer on the behalf of others. The Reformers taught about the priesthood of all believers, we likewise may speak of the prophet-hood of all believers.

Application

Christ continues to apply the benefit of Pentecost to us through a repentant faith that calls upon His name. Each of the points above in bridging contexts supports this application.

People today have the same need for union and communion with the risen Christ through the Spirit. And people today who have the Spirit still need to seek to be filled with the Spirit of Christ. The only answer to these needs is to call upon the name of the Lord.

38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

So are you going to repent? Are you going to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

There are signs that show the world today that you have the Holy Spirit. If you have received the Spirit, you will show concern for the poor. For Luke it was as Christ was anointed with the Spirit of the Lord God that he brought good news to the poor (cf. Isa 61, Luke 4:18). And He ends this section on Pentecost by noting that they sold their possessions and belongings and distributed the proceeds to all, as any had need (2:45). If you have received the Spirit, you will devote yourself to the apostle's teaching and fellowship, you will worship and fellowship with other Christians daily, and you will be numbered with the saved. (Acts 2:42, 46-47). In short, you will be a disciple of Christ.

The paradigm for receiving the Spirit today is not the opening to Acts 2 but the ending. If anyone says: But you did not speak in tongues and prophesy so how can you know that you have the Spirit? Your reply can be the same as the Magisterial Reformers to the radicals (oft-called Anabaptists but not to be confused with modern anabaptists) on the issue of miracles. The Anabaptists said that they had miracles to support their views. The Reformers replied, 'We have all the miracles of the Bible to support our teachings.' Likewise we might say, 'We have all of the cases of speaking in tongues and prophesying when the Spirit came upon the people in Acts as signs that we indeed have the Spirit because we have a repentant faith.' After all, those at the end of Acts 2 are never said to speak in tongues.

Labels: acts 2, joel, miracles, numbers, pentecost, pentecostalism, prophecy, speaking in tongues

Click here to listen to this teaching.

There is probably no subject where there are more varying views among Reformed theologians and churches than on the significance and observance of the Lord's Supper. Even the names given to the sacrament show different emphases: the Lord's Supper, communion, and the eucharist (a thanksgiving meal). Nevertheless, the PC(USA) Book of Confessions is remarkably consistent in its teaching on the Supper. It is a Spiritual feeding on Christ and as such a means of God's grace.

Scots Confession:

"In the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ's body, and of wine into his natural blood, as the Romanists have perniciously taught and wrongly believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by means of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once broken and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of his Father. Notwithstanding the distance between his glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we must assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ's body and the cup which we bless the communion of his blood.

Thus we confess and believe without doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord's Table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that he remains in them and they in him; they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone that as the eternal Godhood has given to the flesh of Christ Jesus, which by nature was corruptible and mortal, life and immortality, so the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus does the like for us." (3.21)

The Lord's Supper is not merely symbolic. This teaching is compared to the Roman Catholic Church, which taught that the bread and wine turn into the blood and body of Christ as physical food, the Lutheran Church, which did not teach transubstantiation but did teach that the sacrament is a physical feeding on Christ, and the view of Zwingli (a Reformed theologian), which taught that the sacrament was merely symbolic. John Calvin (Reformed theologian) tried to compromise between the Lutherans and Zwingli by arguing for a Spiritual feeding on Christ. This is the position of the confessions we hold.

Heidelberg Catechism:
This was a compromise document between the Lutherans and Reformed and it follows Calvin's teaching.

Q. 79. Then why does Christ call the bread his body, and the cup his blood, or the New Covenant in his blood, and why does the apostle Paul call the Supper "a means of sharing" in the body and blood of Christ?

A. Christ does not speak in this way except for a strong reason. He wishes to teach us by it that as bread and wine sustain this temporal life so his crucified body and shed blood are the true food and drink of our souls for eternal life. Even more, he wishes to assure us by this visible sign and pledge that we come to share in his true body and blood through the working of the Holy Spirit as surely as we receive with our mouth these holy tokens in remembrance of him, and that all his sufferings and his death are our own as certainly as if we had ourselves suffered and rendered satisfaction in our own persons. (4.079, w/emphasis)

Second Helvetic Confession:

THE SUPPER OF THE LORD. The Supper of the Lord (which is called the Lord's Table, and the Eucharist, that is, a Thanksgiving), is, therefore, usually called a supper, because it was instituted by Christ at his last supper, and still represents it, and because in it the faithful are spiritually fed and given drink. (5.193, with emphasis).

The most of the rest of the section on the Lord's Supper spells out that this means the same as above.

The Westminster Confession of Faith:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. (6.167, with emphasis)

However, there is a major difference between our confessions and polity in the PC(USA) and it is debated within other denominations:

The confessions teach that children of the covenant cannot participate in the Lord's Supper until they are of age and discretion to examine themselves or they are silent on the participation of children even though they spell it out for baptism.

Scots Confession:

We hold that baptism applies as much to the children of the faithful as to those who are of age and discretion, and so we condemn the error of the Anabaptists, who deny that children should be baptized before they have faith and understanding. But we hold that the Supper of the Lord is only for those who are of the household of faith and can try and examine themselves both in their faith and their duty to their neighbors. Those who eat and drink at that holy table without faith, or without peace and goodwill to their brethren, eat unworthily. (3.23, emphasis added).

Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. 81. Who ought to come to the table of the Lord?
A. Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, and who nevertheless trust that these sins have been forgiven them and that their remaining weakness is covered by the passion and death of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and improve their life. The impenitent and hypocrites, however, eat and drink judgment to themselves. (4.081)

Interestingly, the first preface to the catechism explains that it is to be taught to children in preparation for their admittance to the Lord's Table.

Second Helvetic Confession stresses self-examination but is silent about the issue of children as far as I could find.

The Westminster Standards addresses the issue in the Larger Catechism:

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ?
A. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves. (7.287, emphasis added)

So Why Do We Allow Children to Come to the Table? (paedocommunion)

Other covenant meals (like Passover) included children of the covenant at the table. Since the Lord's Supper replaces those sacramental meals, it too should include children. Those Old Testament meals also required self-examination for adults (and presumably self-examination for children to the extent that they could do so). Thus when Paul says that you must examine yourself he is speaking primarily to adults, just as when the Old Testament said the same for other meals.

After all, Jesus told Peter,

"Feed my lambs" (John 21:15)

and

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

It is still important that we insist that those who are unrepentant keep from the table. For Scripture says,

"Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor 11:28-29)

Labels: communion, consubstantiation, eucharist, Lord's Supper, mass, paedocommunion, transubstantiation

The basic arguments for the Reformed view of Baptism including infants note the parallel of circumcision and baptism and the household formulas in Scripture. Here is an explanation:

Listen to This Teaching

In ancient covenant procedure, you took an oath of allegiance (i.e. "the pledge to God for a good conscience" of 1 Peter 3:21) and did rites symbolizing the ordeal sanctions of the covenant (enacting what would happen to you if you failed to keep covenant). Whenever someone went to their king in the ancient near east and went through the ancient covenant procedure they did so on their own pledge and their pledge of loyalty to the king was for those that he or she represented. Thus under the Old Covenant, the servant of God would be circumcised and have his children circumcised. And under the New Covenant, the servant of God would be baptized and have his or her children baptized. God deals with families in terms of the representative authority of the head.

The pattern of God's dealings with humanity is by household - during both the Old and New Testaments. Everyone agrees that this is so during the Old Testament. Infants were circumcised because they belonged to the household of one who chose to follow the Lord. We do not need to establish whether there were infants in the households mentioned in Acts or not. What we need to establish is whether God still works with households in the New Testament just as he did in the Old Testament.

Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. (ESV, emphasis added)

Joshua 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (ESV, emphasis added)

Those times when the little children are excluded it was expressly stated: i.e., Gen 50:7-8; 1 Sam 1:21-22

Matthew 10:12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. (ESV)

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." (ESV, emphasis added)

Acts 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (ESV, emphasis added)

Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. (ESV, emphasis added)

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (ESV, emphasis added)

The baptism of households was the norm in the New Testament. When an authority unit of the home professed faith and was baptized, then the entire household was included under his or her authority. Thus children can be told to obey their parents in the Lord (Eph 6:4).

What about verses like Acts 16:31-32?

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. (ESV, emphasis added)

Children can be instructed to fear God from a very young age.

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (ESV, NIV says infancy)

The word translated childhood here is the same as the babe in the womb of Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), and the word babe for the baby Jesus (Luke 2:12), and the word infants in the story where the disciples rebuked the people for bringing their very young children (Luke 18:15). It clearly means infants and very young children.

But take a look at the next 2 verses:

Acts 16:33 "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." (ESV, emphasis added)

Notice that the verb for who believed is singular - it was because of his faith. This is obscured in many translations, but anyone who knows Greek can see that it is a singular verb. If I remember correctly this argument is made in an article in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge.

At the end of the day, whether one is baptized as an infant or an adult the sacrament has dual sanctions. And "drowning" will come to those who respond to God in unbelief and blessing to those who respond to God in faith. God sets forward his promise in the sacrament. How we respond to that promise does not change God's action. This blog post relies heavily on the explanation of Lane Tipton of Westminster Theological Seminary.

Labels: anabaptism, baptism, circumcision, covenant, household formula, infant baptism, judgment by ordeal, paedobaptism

Meredith G. Kline's God, Heaven, and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos is a fun book for the biblical scholar. Kline is still providing volumes of insight within a single sentence, but this time with much fewer hyphenated words. There was one paragraph with "altar-throne-temple-city" and the customary coined Klinisms like Glory-Spirit still show up from time to time. But, by and large, the sentences are a little more readable.

The book accomplishes its goal (telos). Tracing from the beginning of the cosmos to the telos of the theme of the Mount of Gathering from the Genesis Garden of Eden to Revelation's resurrected Har Magedon. The biblical story is much more fascinating, as related by Kline, than all of the fictional tales out there on "Armaggedon."

Like Alleluia should be Hallelu-yah (Hebrew for Praise Yah--the nickname of Israel's God: Yahweh), this really should be transliterated as Har Magedon not Armaggedon. In both cases, the Greek has a rough breathing mark that corresponds to the guttural "h" sound but the English translators ignore. Har is Hebrew for hill or mountain, the latter being preferable here since this would the top of the world - figuratively speaking the highest mountain. And Magedon, Kline explains, is really Moed in Hebrew. Moed is Hebrew for assembly or gathering or congregation. The -on ending is common for Hebrew nouns. And the "g" sound is trying to transliterate a soft guttural letter 'ayin that we usually do not pronounce at all. Moreover, John always explains transliterated words by giving a translation into Greek. Here that is found in the sentence too: "he gathered them to the place called in Hebrew har magedon." Thus Har Magedon means Mount of Gathering. Kline also makes other points to solidify the argument, including where the phrase is the cosmic polar opposite to Hades or the pit. Thus the Heights of Zaphon on the one hand, and the depths of the pit on the other. The pit in Revelation is the Hebrew term Abbadon, the angel of the Abyss or Hades or Sheol, and often a synonym. It is found where we would expect the opposite of Har Magedon to be in Revelation.

Kline traces this motif from the mountain of Eden through Ararat through Sinai-Horeb through Jerusalem-Zion to the new Jerusalem. In the end, he provides a stellar explanation of the 3 and 1/2 times interval in Daniel and Revelation. And he avoids the errors of pre and postmillennialism and provides positive development of the so-called amillennial view, which really believes that the millennium is the period between AD 70 and Christ's return. The 1000 years is time from the heavenly perspective, total and complete. But the time is 3 and 1/2 years and not FOUR from the perspective of the saints suffering persecution and martyrdom. Four is the wisdom number for complete. Thus, from the perspective of the saints, HOW LONG? will not be too long. We will not be utterly destroyed and consumed. Throughout this discussion, Kline remains Christocentric or better yet Christotelic in explaining the victory belongs to Jesus Christ on the Mount of Gathering at the end of the present world order.

For those of us who are living in the symbolic "3 and 1/2 years" that have taken from AD 70 into the present and possibly beyond, not knowing when Christ will return on the clouds, this book removes much of the confusion that others would frighten us with. May all the glory go to God. May He gather us to Har Magedon soon. Amen.

Labels: amillennialism, armaggedon, daniel, eschatology, kline, mountain of God, protology, revelation, telos

John H. Sailhamer's Introduction to Old Testament Theology, lays out the argument that we are developing and building upon (we are especially adding its relevance for the Christian).

The shape of the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah-Prophets-Writings, see the posting below) is intentional and apologetic. It marks a historical shift from the spoken word of God (sometimes alongside the written) to the written exclusively. And it marks a shift from prophets to wise men (wisdom teachers). The shape of the Hebrew canon was meant to guide the faithful Israelite to wisdom to know the will of God for their life between the cessation of prophecy and the return of the prophet Elijah and then the prophet greater than Moses.

The way the Torah-Prophets-Writings are stitched together reveals this agenda, which is from God.

Torah: The compositional strategy of Genesis is easily seen when one observes where the poems fall within the text. The same pattern is also true on a larger level in the Torah. Genesis itself has as its finale a poem and then an epilogue. Numbers and Deuteronomy do the same. Each of the epilogues looks forward to the next leader within Israel.

However, in Deuteronomy there is then a second poem and a second epilogue written from the perspective of the editor of the canon. In them Moses is dead. This is traditionally one of the most controversial issues of Torah scholarship - how can one say that Moses wrote it if Moses died during it. The answer: Moses did not write the second poem and second epilogue, which do not fit the original compositional strategy of the Torah but clearly betray a later redaction. This later edit is fully the word of God as well as fully the words of this editor. The second poem repeats themes from the Genesis 49 poem. But here the role of the Levites are treated more comprehensively - because the Levites teach the written word to the people [the Levites are wise men, wisdom teachers]. The poem says,

"They shall teach Jacob your rules and Israel your Torah" (Deut 33:10).

The second epilogue reveals the editor's intentions by describing Joshua as

"full of the Spirit of wisdom" (34:9).

The agenda is to make Joshua more like a wisdom teacher than a prophet. That this is written when prophecy has ceased in Israel (for at least 400 years before Christ came) and when it was not expected to resume until the end is clear from the next verse.

"And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom YHWH knew face to face" (Deut 34:10) and "none like him for all the signs and wonders that YHWH sent him to do" (Deut 34:11-12).

Thus concludes the Torah. No prophet greater than Moses has appeared. Prophecy has ceased. Look to Wisdom to know the will of God for your decision-making.

Prophets: The canon editor then stitched this together with the Prophets section. Joshua, opening the prophets, is portrayed as a wisdom leader. God tells Joshua,

"Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the Torah, which Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go" (Josh 1:7).

Not turning to the right or to the left is wisdom language, and the promise that this will bring success is common in wisdom literature. As if to make this connection to wisdom concrete, the introduction to Joshua continues in this vein,

"This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success" (Josh 1:8).

Here we see the move from the spoken word of the prophet to the written word ("the book of the Torah" that you meditate upon) and we see the wisdom themes continue.

The Prophets ends with the Book of the Twelve, concluding with Malachi. The shape of the latter prophets within the Prophets moves in the direction of priestly concerns. Ezekiel would have been a priest and shows deep concern for priestly issues and the Book of the Twelve shows the same movement because the last three books are concerned with priestly issues. Malachi, for example, focuses on the job of the priests as teaching the Torah:

"True instruction was in his [Levi] mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek Torah from his mouth, for he is the messenger of YHWH of hosts" (Mal 2:6-7).

Malachi ends with these words, though they are not necessary for the book on its own,

"Remember the Torah of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of YHWH comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction" (devoted to destruction) (Mal 4:4-6 in English Bible).

Here the editor concludes the Prophets on much the same note that he concluded the Torah. The prophet greater than Moses has not appeared (it was not Elijah). Prophecy has ceased, adding that it will return with the return of Elijah before the coming of the prophet greater than Moses. Until then, look to Wisdom (study Scripture) to know the will of God for your decision-making.

The editor stitched the Prophets to the Writings just like he did the Torah to the Prophets. These seams are parallel.

Writings: The writings open with Psalm 1. Of course, Psalms 1 & 2 serve as an introduction to the entirety of the book of Psalms. This book has been compiled intentionally as well. But for our purposes remember that Psalm 1 is much like the opening to Joshua.

Psalm 1: Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. 4 The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; 6 for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish (ESV).

Here again the way of wisdom is presented and the righteous wisdom teacher meditates on the Torah of YHWH day and night - and he prospers.



How is this relevant for those who live on this side of the New Testament canon?

The Old Testament is shaped to answer the question: "How do I know the will of the Lord when prophecy has ceased?" Now that we have a complete New Testament canon, with nothing to add or subtract, and prophecy has again ceased, "How do I know the will of the Lord?" Study the Torah, Prophets, Writings (Old and New). Study the written word of God under wisdom teachers because that has replaced the spoken word of the prophets. The written word is sufficient - we need nothing more to know the will of God for our salvation or to make any decision. We have the advantage of the Holy Spirit poured out on all flesh - the Wisdom of God is in our hearts and can show us the way of wisdom as a rule by using the written word of God. How do we know when one Proverb applies and another does not? This is a wisdom question. Wisdom is the paradigm for Christian living during this time between the end of prophecy (the end of the New Testament era) and the return of Jesus Christ.

This conclusion of course is not one that my Pentecostal friends (of which I have many here in Appalachia) can follow: they believe that the infallible spoken word still is to sought for direction from the Lord. They will often say, "the Lord told me to say..." or "the Lord has revealed to me...." But prophecy has ceased, just as it did before. I do not deny that God will work with some people non-discursively (bypassing teaching) but He does not do so infallibly today just as discursive prophecy (preaching) is not infallible today. Yet the shape of the Scriptures clearly show the advantages of the latter. Much more important is this consideration: NT writings like Ephesians do not describe being filled with the Holy Spirit as being someone who speaks in tongues or does other special prophecy but instead they say the Spirit-filled address one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; sing; make melody; give thanks to God; and the Spirit-filled household is a place of mutual submission (Eph 5).

As an additional note for those interested in the discipline of Biblical Theology: this makes a way for us to appreciate the role of wisdom literature. The question had always been: "How do books like Proverbs fit into Biblical Theology?" This gives these texts a place in redemptive history - they speak to how to live during the era between prophecy's cessation and Christ's arrival just as they point forward to an era of prophecy's cessation and Christ's return. Thus the almost instinctive drive to put Proverbs in pocket NT's is very wise indeed.

3 May 2008: I would like to add that in seminary we looked rather extensively at the hints within the NT that prophecy would cease with the end of the apostolic age. I was reading something that said the writings are always the last to be received as part of the canon -- this was true with the OT writings as well as the NT writings. Revelation was one of the last books to receive recognition as being within the canon. And it was part of the writings, but not just placed anywhere within the writings, it was put last. It is noteworthy then that Revelation ends this way:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen" (Rev 22:18-21, ESV).

What a fitting end to the NT canon. Like the ending of OT Torah and Prophets it acknowledges the gap between the end of canon and the coming of the Christ. And thus it serves as an appropriate end to the book as well as to the NT writings. Moreover, its warning about adding or subtracting from the book also then applies to the whole canon. This is my primary issue with the error of pentecostalism, it has to do with Scripture's own doctrine of Scripture, for infallible prophecy to continue is to add to Scripture. The problem is pastoral -- how can I help you discover the will of God to make decisions in your life? Wisdom, not prophecy, is the answer Scripture gives. And we discern wisdom in the community of faith -- thus issues of calling require both an internal and external call.

Labels: bible, biblical theology, book of the twelve, canon, cessationism, deuteronomy, elijah, Genesis, hebrew scriptures, joshua, malachi, moses, pentecostalism, prophets, psalms, sailhamer, torah, wisdom

OT Canonical Order assumed in the NT: Jesus said,

"everything written about me in the Law of Moses [Torah] and the Prophets and the Psalms [Writings] must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44).

The Psalms, the first and largest book of the writings section, is often used to refer to all of the writings. And Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees,

"on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sancturary and the altar" (Matt 23:35).

Jesus is refering to the first book Genesis (where Abel is the first death) and the last book of the Hebrew canon Chronicles (where this Zechariah is the last death). Thus he is using this as shorthand for all of the righteous saints who died in the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus assumed the OT canonical order stated below.

It is the order found in Jewish Bibles. Thus, the Hebrew Scriptures are often called the Tanakh (in Hebrew, T is for Torah, N for Prophets, K for Writings). Here the Westminster Confession of Faith could use some reformation as it lists the Old Testament books in a different order reflected also in English language translations of the Bible. Notice that the New Testament follows the same God-given pattern...

Torah: In the beginning (Genesis); Exodus; Leviticus; In the wilderness (Numbers); and These are the words (Deuteronomy). The phrases are the Hebrew titles (the first word in the Hebrew text).

Prophets: Joshua; Judges; Samuel; Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; The Book of the Twelve (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

Writings: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.

New Testament Torah: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

New Testament Prophets: Acts

New Testament Writings: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Eugene Peterson suggests that Acts is partially Torah and partially Prophets, making the fifth book of NT Torah. Then he makes most of the epistles Prophets while James and Revelation are writings. Sometimes I am persuaded by this argument.

Early comments: As you might guess, you can compare the Books of Moses to the gospels and Joshua to Acts. And putting them this way helps you see why Daniel and Revelation have so much in common -- they are both apocalyptic (genre) writings (section). Nevertheless, do not flatten the Bible and ignore the historical nature of special revelation.

First observation: Old Testament books that have been divided in the English Bible into two should be read as one book. For example, 1 Kings and 2 Kings is one book as is 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles. One you might not realize is that Ezra-Nehemiah is also one book. And it is very important to read the so-called minor prophets instead of as separate books as The Book of the Twelve. They have been edited together to be read as a single book. It would also be appropriate, though divided in the order of the New Testament, to read Luke and Acts as one book. The reason that the gospel of John divides them in our canon is that John is assuming that you already know the stories we can find in Matthew, Mark & Luke. Thus he writes a book that reflects much more theologically on the life of Christ.

It is worth noting, unlike in the OT the 1 Letter, 2 Letter, 3 Letter designations in the NT are indeed separate letters and should be read as such but putting them next to one another also encourages you to see the connections between them. In this order the authors of the epistles are separated: Romans through Philemon are by Paul, Hebrews is by an unknown author, James, Peter, John, and Jude are as the names suggest.

Second observation: You should read Scripture according to these divisions (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Old and New). How you read the OT Torah is different than how you read the OT Writings.

To build on this observation: Each book needs a unique reading strategy and knowing where they fall in the canoncial order helps. One thing that is necessary for interpretation is to identify the kind of writing (the genre) that you are reading. You read a grocery list differently than a love letter and a fable different than a history textbook. And so you should read Matthew differently than Revelation and Psalms differently than Isaiah. Not every scholar will agree on the genre of a text. For example, one person might say that you should read Deuteronomy like you would read the gospels. It contains his speeches but it also includes information that is likely told by someone telling us the story. Another will mention that the book resembles an ancient treaty formula. Actually both of these observations are helpful for Deuteronomy, especially the former given our discussion. Knowing which section of the canon a book falls into will help you to identify the genre. For another example, Daniel is a wisdom book (found in the writings alongside other wisdom books) and not one of the prophetic books. This does not mean that Daniel does not include prophecy but it does mean that you should read it differently than one of the prophetic books. It is a failure to recognize this truth that has led to all sorts of interpretive mistakes.

Third Observation: And when we read the books in order we should also interpret them in order, thus Ruth and the woman in Song of Songs are examples of the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 (in the Hebrew order it is Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs).

May you read Scripture afresh. Amen.

Labels: bible, book of the twelve, canon, daniel, deuteronomy, ezra-nehemiah, hebrew scriptures, prophets, proverbs 31, psalms, ruth, scripture, song of songs, Tanakh, torah, writings

Labels: commandments, confessions, creation, depravity, election, grace, idolatry, justification, perseverance, predestination, providence, revelation, revival, sanctification, sovereignty, trinity