Parable of the Sower: Some Thoughts.

The parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-23)

Mat 13:18-23 "Hear then the parable of the sower:
[SOIL 1] When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.
[SOIL 2] As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
[SOIL 3] As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
[SOIL 4] As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."


1) Seeds on the Path

The seed never takes root. The seed touches the hearer, but is immediately taken away, forgotten. The hearer is apathetic. They sit under the preached Word and think about what's for lunch. WHY NO FRUIT?: “Never understood.” Never considered. Though details of life, finances, stories, their own self-interests are worthy of their thought and mental energies, the importance of the words of their Creator and God are things of indifference.

2) Seeds on the rocky ground

The person takes hold of the word “immediately” and with “joy.” This may be an emotional conversion. Emotion is not bad. This phrase of receiving with joy is used elsewhere positively. Yet here, it is not directed emotion. They have no root in them. Most commentators like to play on Christ being called “the root” and point out, Christ is not the root of this person's emotion or point out there is nothing but the emotion to sustain it. WHY NO FRUIT?: Hardship. Trial. The acceptance of the word was based on a false premise. It was excepted in emotion, therefore when the happy times are gone, so is the supposed faith. It is not rooted in truth, but shallow. This is a man of the moment.

3) Seeds among the thorns

This is one that hears, but this is no barren field. There exists something there already: thorns. WHY NO FRUIT: The plant is choked out. The interesting thing is the last soil was plagued by hardship, but this is plagued by “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches.” Not bad times, but good times. Not pain, but pleasure. What was there before survives, but what is planted latter loses out.

4) Seeds on good soil

This one hears, believes, and does care to actually listen, understand and consider the message, has no shallow merely emotional reaction, no previous growth of thorns that is not uprooted. This bears fruit, though not the same for every plant. Some 30, some 60, some 100.

Lesson for the disciples:

The seed will drop and different responses follow. The disciples have seen this when Jesus teaches. They have seen this when they were commissioned to teach on their own. The fact is now lodged in their minds. Now that they know this, they are to learn why.

Paul tells us that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. If one does not believe, the disciples would be tempted to doubt the message. Maybe something else will sell. Look at the big churches, Osteen, etc. maybe their message is better because they have larger responses. No. Non-reception is no indication of the truth of the message and the faithfulness of the disciples in preaching it.

The disciples were commissioned with a very specific job. Their job was to preach the message. Their job was not to make people believe. Their faithfulness and success was not based on the number of people that believed. Their success was determined on their faithfulness to scatter the seed, know and preach the message.

Martin Luther on the parable of the sower:

“Here we see why it is no wonder there are so few true Christians, for all the seed does not fall into good ground, but only the fourth and small part; and that they are not to be trusted who boast they are Christians and praise the teaching of the Gospel; ... All this is spoken for our instruction, that we may not go astray, since so many misuse the Gospel and few lay hold of it aright. True it is unpleasant to preach to those who treat the Gospel so shamefully and even oppose it...What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it? It must be that many are called but few are chosen. For the sake of the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience, the seed must also fall fruitless by the wayside, on the rock and among the thorns; ... For wherever the Gospel goes you will find Christians. "My word shall not return unto me void" (Is. 55:11).”

Did you read and understand that middle sentence? “What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it?” Luther knew his job. Not the response, but the message.

LESSON: Preach the Gospel, share the gospel, knowing that the response is not our job.

In explaining this, I am going to try and maintain two truths explained here in tension. So let me explain both before judging.

Lets also answer the difficult question: Which of the soils are saved?

A perspective from an article in a Christian periodical: “The Lord divides the responsiveness of people in four categories. One group rejects Christ and never comes to faith. A second group comes to faith and then later falls away from Christ. A third group comes to faith and maintains their Christian profession till the end, but have limited fruitfulness in their Christian life. And a fourth group maintains their Christian profession to the end and bring forth much mature fruit.”

Their conclusion: “The first group is lost, the last three soils are saved.”

The justification of saying this?

The last three soils "received" or believed in the narrative. If salvation is by faith, then those who believe are saved.

Then we must ask: is it Biblical to say one can believe in a sense and not be saved? Don't we believe in salvation by faith alone? If one can believe and not be saved, does one then argue for salvation by works?

Consider:

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

Demons believe. Are they saved? Of course not.

James speaks of a dead faith and that “that faith will not save you.” The opposite of dead non-saving faith is living saving faith. Our theology and how we view the world requires us to have a category of false profession, of dead non-saving belief. Of a person that has something of a faith, but is not finally saved. James says, there is a type of faith that “will not save him.” It is not true saving faith. This is the faith of demons, and juxaposed to the faith of the saints.

How do you tell the difference between the faith of demons and the faith of the saints? What is the evidence?

Matt 12:33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit."

This is the same thing James says. The distinguishing outer quality is the fruit. If there is fruit, it is saving faith. If there is no fruit, there is no saving faith. And this is what is difficult in saying, because then it sounds like works are required. Don't we believe in “faith alone”? That's something I have struggled with. Because we know Paul says it is not by works, but faith apart from works. I think it would help to remind ourselves of the pure free gracious offer of the gospel, and where works come in. A good way to think about salvation is by two different aspects:

Payment and Renewal
Purchase and Renovation
Justification and Sanctification.

The work of God in our lives is two fold. Some call it the duplex gratia. It is essential to distinguish these two, but not to separate them. One: God redeems us by the merits of Christ, no works of our own. Two: God changes us by the Spirit, causing us to do works consistent with New Life. The work God does in us is not payment. The payment is not dependent on our works. Justification is an event with no work from us. [The Catechism calls it an act of God Q33]. Sanctification is a process, done to us resulting in us doing good works. As Ephesians 2:10 says, “we are God's workmanship created for good works” - the Catechism calls this a work of God Q35].

Another way it has been described is that we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone. For God NEVER Justifies a sinner, without also beginning the work of Sanctification. Paul says all who God justifies, He also glorifies, (Romans 8:30) and sanctification is not an option along that course, and sanctification bears fruit, evidencing the goodness of the tree.

TRUTH 1: ONLY THE FOURTH SOIL, THAT BEARS FRUIT, IS SAVED.

Now follow me with another truth we must keep in tension. I will illustrate this with an example:
Let me give two models:

The First is called a Christian. That person is involved with other Christians. They even teach others true things about Christ and have a long time they profess to be a Christian. This persons profession is dealing in finances and eventually, with the cares of this world the person gives up their Christianity instead seeking money without really understanding that he can't have both. [Sounds like a Soil 3 person, caught up in the deceitfulness of riches, the soil that seems to have the most hope of accompanying Soil 4 in salvation]

The Second is called a Christian. That person does the same as the first, is involved with other Christians and is bold and teaches others about Christ. This person even seems a little over zealous. Then, when a troubling time comes, the person can't stand it and out loud, something the first person didn't really do, says “I never was a Christian.” [Sounds like a Soil 2 person, coming on tribulation]

Who was the first person I described? The person that looked like soil three, the one we hold out hope for, is Judas Iscariot. The second person, the one that looks like soil two, that we have little hope for? That's Peter.

The next parable in the text is of the wheat and tares. When good crop grows up with bad, servants ask if they should uproot the tares (the bad) out of the field of good (the wheat). The Master replies:

Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.

Tares and wheat look very similar. It is very hard to tell the difference. In identifying someone as good, they may be bad, and in identifying one as bad, they may be good. Our job is not to be the final judges of the genuineness of someone's faith. We are poor fruit inspectors.

TRUTH 2: TRUE CHRISTIANS MAY LOOK LIKE THE OTHER SOILS

The lesson of the parable is to spread the message indiscriminantly, not to be an expert on who is which soil. We may perceive someone looks like the other soil. Our job then is not to infallibly cast judgments on their eternal state, but work to bring them back. We are commanded to comfort or rebuke a brother in trial or sin, (personally, and as the church with church discipline) BECAUSE we don't know. If they were saved as soil 2 or 3, why bother? Also on the other side, if they can be certainly judged as lost as soil 2 or 3, why bother? This is the reason we place people under church discipline and even excommunicate them from the church, to let them know the seriousness of their situation, to give an opportunity for the Spirit to work and renew the Peters of the world to repentance, bringing them to a place of repentance.

Ultimately, the only One that can guarantee a good soil, a prepared place for the gospel is God by His Spirit. As William Cowper wrote ina hymn on the parable of the sower:

Father of mercies we have need
Of thy preparing grace;
Let the same hand that gives the seed,
Provide a fruitful place.

What is the difference between those that hear and those that don't?

1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive?

The message, not the response is our job. The One that gives growth, that makes the one who hears to differ from those that do not, is God, not us.

Prayer of Confession

O Lord,
No day of my life has passed
that has not proved me guilty in Your sight,
Prayers have been uttered from a prayerless heart;
Praise has been often praiseless sound;
My best services are filthy rags.

Blessed Jesus, let me find a hiding place in Your appeasing wounds.
Though my sins rise to heaven Your merits soar above them;
Though unrighteousness weighs me down to hell,
Your righteousness exalts me to Your throne.
All things in me call for my rejection,
All things in You plead for my acceptance.
I appeal from the throne of perfect justice
to Your throne of boundless grace.

Grant me to hear Your voice assuring me;
that by Your stripes I am healed,
that You were bruised for my iniquities,
that You have been made sin for me
that I might be righteous in You,
that my grievous sins, my many sins,
are all forgiven,
buried in the ocean of Your concealing blood.
I am guilty, but pardoned,
lost, but saved,
wandering, but found,
sinning, but cleansed.
Give me perpetual broken-heartedness,

Keep me always clinging to Your cross,
Flood me every moment with descending grace,
Open to me the springs of divine knowledge,
sparkling like crystal,
flowing clear and unsullied
through my wilderness of life.

-A Prayer from Valley of Vision

Martin Luther on the Parable of the Sower

"True it is unpleasant to preach to those who treat the Gospel so shamefully and even oppose it...What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it? It must be that many are called but few are chosen. For the sake of the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience, the seed must also fall fruitless by the wayside, on the rock and among the thorns; inasmuch as we are assured that the Word of God does not go forth without bearing some fruit, but it always finds also good ground; as Christ says here, some seed of the sower falls also into good ground, and not only by the wayside, among the thorns and on stony ground. For wherever the Gospel goes you will find Christians. "My word shall not return unto me void" (Is. 55:11).”

Whose Kingdom Shall Have No End...

Kim Riddlebarger talks through differences between a traditional amillenial view of eschatology and dispensational premillenialism. The interview of Kim Riddlebarger, a Reformed pastor, is with the host of the show Todd Wilkins, a Lutheran pastor, since traditional Lutheran and Reformed teachings on eschatology are essentially identical. These interviews are worth considering no matter where you fall to know the arguments on both sides and consider the texts that are brought up. Kim is fairly gracious, as a former dispensationalist, in an arena that can include some non-gracious language.

On the "Rapture."

On the "Tribulation."

On the 1000 year reign of Christ.

On True Israel

Also found here: Issues Etc webpage. Issues etc on itunes

Kim is the author of the book: "The Case for Amillenialism" and the article: Jesus Christ: the Sum and Substance of Biblical Prophecy.

Those humble Anglicans

The "new logo" of the Church of England. I find it a little true to life after having a short conversation with an Anglican priest that called my Presbyterian church: "half-way between parachurch and an actual church" (By the way, this is a joke, I love my Anglican brothers!)

HT: Hardly The Last Word

"I'm first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a Paedobaptist and fifth a Presbyterian. I cannot reverse this order."

-John Duncan. a Scottish minister

Happy 500th Birthday John Calvin!

This is the 500th Aniversary of the birth of John Calvin, the French/Swiss Reformer. Some can go overboard in hero-worship or villifying of Calvin. I was first introduced to Calvin as a villian in Restorationist and Baptist circles. "Calvinism" was as evil of a term as "pagan." Later, I actually read sections of the Institutes and found a different character. John Calvin certainly was neither a messianic being sent from above, nor a villianous demon from hell. Yet, he was a man with great devotion to Christ, His Church and the Word of God in Scripture.

Calvin is frequently misunderstood. I remember hearing that Calvin was a cold intellectual technician of predestinarianism. Then, I heard another college professor complain that Calvin's commentaries were not technical enough, but read more as devotionals. Chesterton once commented that if one person says a certain man is too fat and another too skinny, and one person says that certain man is too tall and another person says too short, one starts to doubt the people talking rather than trying to imagine a tall short fat skinny man.

There is a set of lectures, if one is interested, on how reading Calvin revealed a different picture than what is typically painted especially by foes. They are worth a listen if you are encountering Calvin and are interested in a different picture of the man:

"The Calvin I Never Knew" (itunes download)

Bible: Explicit Content

Over the past three years, I have studied Scripture in a way that I only pretended to before. Such a project has yielded quite a few surprises. Prophecy does not work the way I thought it would. The narrative has a finer point, and a more singular theme, than I assumed. And the content is not as family friendly as expected.

It is a cliché today that if the Bible was made into a movie, it would at least be rated R. We say that mostly because of episodes of violence such as most of the book of Joshua. We may even mean hints of sexual immorality in characters like Judah and David. It is well known that some graphic episodes are recorded.

This is not what I am talking about. What I mean is the words of men, speaking on behalf of God, saying things that would get them an "explicit content" warning if they put it on a CD, or a “banned” status in a church library. Not that you have noticed these things, because the English translators tend to protect our tender ears. Three passages have stood out to me, that when I have studied them more closely have shocked me at their actual content, none of which comes across in modern English translations, like say, in the ESV or NIV.

The legitimate question arises: to what degree does a Christian have the right to shock with their language and in what way? What may be helpful is to see how the Bible does so, assuming of course that the Bible is not to be condemned for its language. The point is to see what the Bible does in its language as a pattern for our own limits of speech, not to look at “naughty” parts in the Bible for shock or “giggle” effect.

We'll start off tame.

First is a familiar verse.

Phillipians 3:8:

Php 3:8 ESV - "Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ."

THE IMAGE: The word translated as “rubbish” is much more specific. The word “σκύβαλον” or skubalon refers to, according to the NET note, “a vulgar term for fecal matter.” Wycliffe chose the word “turds” for his medieval English translation. A closer translation would be, (as privately explained by a Greek expert) a harsher term than crap, closer to “sh*t.” Martin Luther used an equivalent in his German translation of the Bible. (and Daniel Wallace concurs in a word study on σκύβαλον)

THE PURPOSE: Paul is using sh*t as an image of what is produced apart from Christ. It has no worth or value. It is considered to be as worthy of honor as feces. Paul does not use this image as a teenager might for the “naughty” or “giggle” factor, but to shock his audience that may be tempted to honor their works. He wants them to know their works are not just worth a little less, but worthless. As worthy as of a place in their trophy case as their excrement.

ISAIAH 64:6

Isaiah 64:6 ESV - We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

THE IMAGE: The word translated “polluted garment” or in other versions “filthy rags” also is much more specific. The NET, again, is more literal: “all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight.” BDB confirms the word translated “filthy” is purposefully mistranslated, instead means “menstrual.” The image is one of a soiled rag used during female menstration. In our modern speech, it would be more understood as “a used tampon.”

THE PURPOSE: Paul learns his explicit language from Isaiah who is using his language in the same way. Isaiah is comparing the best, the “righteousness acts,” of the people of God to something that is valueless. They have the market value of “used tampons.” Not a positive value, but a negative value. Isaiah uses this imagery to shock Israel into a re-evaluation of their own goodness.

EZEKIEL 23:20

Eze 23:19-20 ESV - Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses.

THE IMAGE: The ESV extremely sanitizes the image of Ez 23:20 to the point that the translation no longer communicates the message. The translators of the ESV might as well have left the verse in the original Hebrew. Multiple words are archaicly translated or mistranslated to hide the meaning. “paramours” are concubines, prostitutes or as the ESV translates it in other places: whores. “Members” is the word that can be translated "flesh" or here meaning “penis.” And the word “issue” is so opaque as to hide the true definition: “semen discharge.” One can see why the ESV (and most other modern) translators wished to keep it vague. If your child had a book that read, “she lusted after whores, whose penises were like those of donkeys, and whose semen discharge was like that of horses” you probably would freak out a little.

THE PURPOSE: Ezekiel is a strange book to me. Revelation has nothing on it in my mind. This is one image I truly read and wonder what was the purpose. It seems nearly to be shock for the sake of shock. Yet the image does have a striking and powerful point. The point is that Israel had committed idolatry, and an image so disgusting had to be painted in order to show just how offended God was by their behavior. This was not a small matter, a small offense, something God was just supposed to shrug off. The image is of an act of adultery so shocking and vial as to make one completely sure that it was unforgiveable. The grace of God is only shocking, and loved and something to shead tears over in pursuing, and obtaining, when the weight of our own sin is personally felt, disgusting to us, and mourned.

WHY THE LANGUAGE?

In seeing three examples (and there are more in that barely-cracked OT section of your Bible), we see Paul, Isaiah, and Ezekiel using images that are hard to read, and definitely not comforting. They were not meant to be. Which pushes us to a few natural questions:

1)Why do translators protect us from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Paul's offensive language?

Is it to sanitize the Bible so as to make it “family friendly” or to purposeful hide the message? The former is almost certainly so. Modern translators are not conspiring to hide God's truth. They probably wish not to be offense to the reader. But sanitizing the Bible also has another effect. In the American church, sin is not mourned, and when it is, it is rather hated in easily identifyable and foreign terms. It is identified as the acts of those outside the church (read: homosexuality, drug use, etc.) and not as Paul, Isaiah and Ezekiel identify it: as acts of those in the church. The church could use some shocking language of their own sin.

2)To what degree should such explicit language be used by Christians communicating the kerygma?

This is a harder question. Perhaps the most famous of “shock quotes” comes from Tony Campolo who said in a few speeches:

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh*t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said 'sh*t' than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

One of my favorite artists, Derek Webb, used a similar line (“give a sh*t”) in a new song of his. The question is: are Derek Webb and Tony Campolo being like Paul, Isaiah and Ezekiel?

Not exactly. I think the use is more crude with Campolo. Paul uses the word with a direct comparison. Skubala = what you value that came before Christ. For Campolo, the word is merely an explative. Phrases such as “give a sh*t” or “what the f*&$” are merely vulgar without a shocking comparison. The words do not fill in or compare to something that we are offended are being compared to it. The purpose is shock for the sake of shock and showing a comparison of your shock at one offense at another. It is comparing two sins, my vulgarity and your apathy, rather than comparing your sin to something. Perhaps a good rhetorical device, but not exactly on the level of Paul or Isaiah. I don't necessarily condemn it though, as a use in art (Webb's new song) or as a speech to a certain audience (Campolo). However it is a different question than:

Should a preacher use such language? Here, I think my answer must be yes/no. The Campolo use (shock for the sake of shock) is not the job of a preacher. Paul did not say “you don't give a sh*t about the gospel!” or “what the f*%k are you Galatians doing abandoning the gospel?!” Rather, Paul used the word to shock his readers in a comparison of values. What you value is worthless. Worse than worthless, it is feces. So too, with Isaiah. Ezekiel uses his image to show not that he can shock with language, but how shocking the sin of the people of God is, as shocking as an explicit image of adultery. When used this way, when following the text, the preacher should use explicit language to expose the hidden idolatry and shocking sin of his congregation. The Bible does so and the Bible is the text of the preacher's proclamation.

The lesson from looking at this text is not to be shocking for its own sake, at least in the pulpit. Rather, it is to be selectively shocking. The preacher must be careful not to desensitize the audience to explicit and shocking images, but to indeed expound them when presented in Scripture to the end that Scripture demands. Scripture demands we be shocked about our idolatry, sin and misguided affections. Scripture does not merely give us warrant to be shocking from the pulpit for the shear effect. So while I like Derek Webb's music, and he is free to do things in his music a preacher would not do, I would not quote it in the pulpit. Now Isaiah is an entirely different matter...

Derek Webb's new album...

...should be coming out soon. A bit of the feel of the album is here below. I love the title: Stockholm Syndrome. This is "a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed."
[UPDATE: Check out my take on Webb's use of explicit language here]


Sounds like what happen to us with Sin to me.


The Spirit vs. Kickdrum
(click here for an mp3 of an early mix)

I don’t want the spirit; I want the kickdrum
I don’t want the spirit; I want the kickdrum
I know how it works, so I’m not dumb
I don’t want the spirit; I want the kickdrum

Like sex without love
Like peace without the dove
Like a crime scene without the blood
I don’t want the spirit; you know I want a kickdrum

I don’t want the son; I want a jury of peers
I don’t want the son; I want a jury of peers
Stares go low when you see my tears
I don’t want the son; I want a jury of peers

Like lies without the truth
Like wine without the food
Like a skydive without the chute
I don’t want the son; you know I want a jury of peers
I don’t want the spirit; you know I want a kickdrum

I don’t want the father; want a vending machine
I don’t want the father; want a vending machine
I know, what’s your point if you know what I mean
I don’t want the father; want a vending machine

Like heaven without gates
Like hell without flames
Like life without pain
I don’t want the father; you know I want a vending machine
I don’t want the son; you know I want a jury of peers
I don’t want the spirit; you know I want a kickdrum

Pilgrim's Progress: Who beats up Faith?

[A Selection from Pilgrim's Progress]

Now when I had got about halfway up, I looked behind me, and saw one coming after me, swift as the wind; so he overtook me just about the place where the Settle stands.

Chr. Just there, said Christian, did I sit down to rest me; but being overcome with sleep, I there lost this Roll out of my bosom.

Faith. But good Brother hear me out. So soon as the man overtook me, he was but a word and a blow, for down he knocked me, and laid me for dead. But when I was a little come to myself again, I asked him wherefore he served me so? He said, Because of my secret inclining to Adam the First: and with that he struck me another deadly blow on the breast, and beat me down backward, so I lay at his foot as dead as before. So when I came to myself again I cried him mercy; but he said, I know not how to shew mercy; and with that knocked me down again. He had doubtless made an end of me, but that one came by, and bid him forbear?

Chr. Who was that that bid him forbear?

Faith. I did not know him at first, but as he went by, I perceived the holes in his hands and in his side; then I concluded that he was our Lord. So I went up the Hill.

Chr. That man that overtook you was Moses: He spareth none, neither knoweth he how to shew mercy to those that transgress his Law.

Calling the Sabbath a Delight

שׁבת - shâbath / BDB Definition: to cease, desist, rest

A Challenge (largely to myself) to remember the Sabbath:

What our priority on the Lord's Day? Its not whether you have a long list of fun stuff you are sure not to do that day, but what takes priority? Does worship become sacrificed to leisure on the Sabbath? Does private worship become sacrificed to entertainment? Do we fill a whole day with recreation, watch 3 hours of television, go for a 2 hour walk, go shopping for 3 hours and get home and say: “well, I don't have time tonight for prayer, Scripture, or learning more about God through a teacher.” Why don't you have time? Is it because Sunday is the same as Saturday in all but a couple hours in the morning? If we find ourselves with no time to read Scripture for more than a few minutes during the week, or a book on the gospel or on Christ, or memorizing the Catechism, or praying for more than a few minutes, then you have a whole day dedicated to doing so. Is there even an hour set aside for private worship? Or is it the same as every other day? The problem with our observance of the Sabbath is that the Sabbath looks like every other day, busy with the unimportant things, and lax with the ultimate concerns. We are the busiest generation of American, and the most in need of resting in Christ.

"If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

- Isaiah 58:13-14


You, O Lord, stir man to take pleasure in praising You, because You have made us for Yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.” (Chapter 1)…I enjoyed much in [secular] books…But in the books of philosophers no one hears Him who calls “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Chapter 7)

-Augustine of Hippo. The Confessions.

Meditation: Rev 21:5

My friend Jay has posted his sermons before, so I will take his lead that doing so is not bad form. I was asked on somewhat short notice to give this meditation, and I wan't able to work on it as long as I'd like. So here is the somewhat hurried text from my first ecclessial sermon/meditation. It is not what I think may be a typical sermon for me. It is not DTS-approved, for it does not have 3 points and a conclusion. It is not puritan-like, for I did not hone down a propositional truth to expound. It was just a mediation on the text and answering two simple questions:

1) Why is Revelation 21:5 worth memorizing?
2) How does it invite us to the table?


SERMON TEXT

Today, we are continuing our series: “Texts you should memorize,” with one from a book you may not have many verses memorized from, and so perhaps, you are not as familiar with. Revelation 21:5.

Rev 21:5 And He who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all
things new."

So often, by the text of Scripture itself, by other Christians and by our own encounter with nature, we are prompted to look on nature and praise the workmanship of God. We see the complexity of ecosystems working together in nature, and we marvel at the harmony of Creation. We see the vastness of Space and galaxies thousands of light-years away through Hubble telescope, and are baffled at the vastness of Creation. We see micro-organisms and are blown away by the micro-world that thrives around us unseen.

Yet, almost as if to jolt us down from our cloud, nature shocks us with its horror. A friend of mine just last week sat next to the bed of his godly sister in her 30s, as she constantly felt the pain in her body of an aggressive form of cancer. 10 years ago, to the day she was diagnosed, my friend's father had died from the same form of cancer. Last week, he also lost his sister, as genetics and nature destroyed her body, and she passed away. In moments like that, we do not look at the harmony, or wonder of Creation and marvel. No, we look at how the world functions and instead of praise, we cry out at the pain and disappointment of creation, of a world that is not as it ought to be.

We have sympathy in those secret times, that we believe we are not supposed to have, with another man who died young, in his 20s. Stephen Crane penned a short poem we had to study in high school. It reads:

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"That fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation”

A wonder at the universe can quickly turn to the recognition of a harsh coldness present in it.

We don't think we should have such feeling. But such feelings are not unChristian. It is a recognition of the reality of this world. Though creation can instill a sense of wonder, it can also produce unease, anger, and pain, and fear as we understand that something is deeply wrong with this world. This is a fact not lost to the same Scriptures that laud the workmanship of nature. Paul writes “the whole creation has been groaning together in pain.” And we know, too, from Scripture that our own sin did this to creation, but we long to be out from under it. We long to be free of this decay.

So why this verse from Revelation 21? We need this verse close to our hearts because of the world we now live in. Here, we are told in verse 4 of another time, when,

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no
more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the
former things have passed away."

These words do not come cheaply, but from Christ, Who Himself knows tears, for he wept, Who knows mourning for he mourned for those who died and for their souls, and Who knows pain from the small pains of hunger, to the greater pains of injury and death.

In verse 5 we are told, The one who has the power to create this world, has the power to do an even greater work. He has the power to re-create this world. John saw “a new heaven and a new earth.” And it was not the same as the current creation. It was not a world plagued with the realities of this world, of mourning, or pain or death. It is a new world in which the crooked things are straightened. Where deformities are healed. A new world where we no longer inflict sin and pain on others, and where sin and pain is not inflicted on us. Where cancer and no evil design can enter to disturb the enjoyment of God by His people.

This is the world where Christ Himself declares in four simple words in the original Greek:
1) Behold or Look, gaze upon this, keep this in front of you.
2) I am making, in the present. This is my current project.
3) All things – the whole of creation, you and all things.
4) New – begun again, not as they were before.

Though we may have reservations with some particulars of it, many of us saw a few years ago, the movie “The Passion.” The director made an interesting choice in including these words from Revelation 21:5 in the story of the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ tells his mother as He goes to the cross: “Behold, I am making all things new.”

It was an appropriate choice to include these words here, for the work of new creation was begun with the resurrection of Christ, with His resurrection, new creation body. The Heidelberg Catechism states His resurrection is a pledge and surety that we will receive resurrected bodies. [Q45 & Q49] The payment for sin is complete, yet the work of new creation is just begun. Paul, after telling us creation groans under the weight of sin, tells us in Romans 8:23:

Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits
of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the
redemption of our bodies.

To we who are in this world, and find ourselves groaning inwardly, Christ invites us to the table. Scripture calls the Supper a “communion” or “partaking” with Christ's flesh and blood. This is Christ inviting believers, His people, to the table to receive again the pledge of new creation. In coming, we commune with Him, and he assures our souls that indeed, what He has started in us, He is faithful to complete. That the tears and pain, that man has inflicted on himself, will not be healed by man, but by Christ, by the God-man, the sure pledge of the redemption of our redeemed bodies by the Renewer of all things.

Christ in the end declares “Behold, I am making all things new.” Today, we trust in the truth of our Redeemer's word, that He indeed will make all things new. Come, and feast on Christ's sure word, made visible in the Supper: that He is making all things new. Amen.

Revelation 21:5a

REVELATION 21:5a - And He who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new."

I'm giving the mediation at Vespers tonight on this verse. Say a prayer for my first ecclesial sermon.

Bavinck on Christ as Word of God

"He [Christ] is the Logos in an utterly unique sense, revealer and revelation alike. In him, all revelations of God, all words of God, in nature and history, in creation and re-creation, under the Old and New Testaments, have their ground, their unity and center. He is the sun; the particular words of God are its rays. The word of God in nature, in Israel, in the New Testament, in Scripture may not for a moment be detached or thought about apart from Him. God’s revelation exists only because He is the Logos. He is the principium cognoscendi [the principle of knowing], in the general sense of all knowledge, in the special sense, as logos ensarkos [the word infleshed], of all knowledge of God, of religion and theology."

-Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1. pg 402.

Calvin: The Divine Exchange

"Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament [of the Lord's Supper], as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that everything which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own.

This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness."

-John Calvin. Institutes. Bk 4, ch 17.2

Apostolic Fathers: The Sweet Exchange

"And when our iniquity had been fully accomplished, and it had been made perfectly clear that punishment and death were expected as its reward, and the season came which God had ordained, when He should show His goodness and power (O the exceeding great kindness and love of God!), He did not hate us, nor did He reject us, nor did He hold a grudge against us, but was patient and forebearing, and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but His righteousness would have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us lawless and ungodly men to have been justified, save only in the Son of God?

O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected benefits; that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in One Righteous Man, and the righteousness of One should justify many that are sinners!

Having then in the former time demonstrated the inability of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed a Saviour able to save even creatures which have no ability, He willed that for both reasons we should believe in His goodness and should regard Him as nurse, father, teacher, counsellor, physician, mind, light, honor, glory, strength and life."

(Epistle to Diognetus. 9:2-6. circa 130 AD)

Hymn: Thy Mercy, My God

Thy Mercy, My God
by John Stocker

Thy mercy, my God, is the theme of my song,
The joy of my heart. and the boast of my tongue;
Thy free grace alone, from the first to the last,
Hath won my affections, and bound my soul fast.

Without Thy sweet mercy I could not live here;
Sin would reduce me to utter despair;
But, through Thy free goodness, my spirits revive,
And He that first made me still keeps me alive.

Whene'er I mistake, Thy kind mercy begins
To melt me, and then I can mourn for my sins;
And, led by Thy Spirit to Jesus's blood,
My sorrows are dired and my strength is renew'd

Thy mercy is more than a match for my heart,
Which wonders to feel its own hardness depart;
Dissolved by Thy goodness, I fall to the ground,
And weep to the praise of the mercy I’ve found.

Thy mercy is endless, most tender and free;
No sinner need doubt, since 'tis given to me;
No merit will buy it, nor sin stop its course;
Good works are the fruits of its freeness and force.

The doors of Thy mercy are open all day
To the poor and the needy who knock by the way;
But those that bring cash in the mouth of their sack;
The rich and the proud, shall be empty sent back.

Dear Father, Thy merciful word I my all;
Thy promise supports me when ready to fall;
When enemies crowd, to cause doubt and despair,
I conquer them all by the spirit of prayer.

Thy mercy, in Jesus, exempts me from hell;
Of Thy mercy I'll sing, of Thy mercy I'll tell;
'Twas Jesus, my Friend, when He hung on the tree,
That open'd the channel of mercy for me.

Great Father of mercies, Thy goodness I own,
And the covenant love of Thy crucified Son;
All praise to the Spirit, Whose whisper divine
Seals mercy, and pardon, and righteousness mine.

Sunday Worship: The Work of Man?

To wrap up the implications for worship of word and sacrament, we will learn one more concept.

Word of the day: "Gottesdienst"

You may have heard worship characterized as something along the lines of: "You need to give something in worship" or "worship is about giving something to God," or perhaps you have been told that wanting to 'get something' out of worship is wrong. Certainly, the congregant should and must act in worship, but there may be something else behind such statements.

Such statements may have a conception of worship primarily as man giving something to God. You can see such a focus in many of our song with titles begin with "I." Even if it is "I Give You Praise" or "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever," many times, though all the music may include God, the subject of the verbs (the noun doing the action) in the songs is "I." God is the object of the actions of "I."

As we have seen, Scripture presents Word and Sacrament in a different light. The preached word is the divinely appointed means of the communication of the demands of the law and the answer to those demands in the gospel of Christ. Baptism is the work of God in extending the promises of the covenant. The Lord's Supper is the communication of the life of Christ to the partaker. If Sunday worship is centered around the means of grace, then our view of worship changes. God is the subject of the verbs, doing the action on us the objects.

Worship centered around Word and Sacrament sees the service on Sunday not as being primarily man's work but God's work. Some churches will call the service: "The Divine Service." This is perhaps well formulated in the name given to it by German Lutherans of "Gottesdienst" or "God's Work." We come to worship with empty hands to receive the gifts of God for the people of God. It is appropriate to come to the service to 'get something' provided the something is a word of grace from God. We come to hear the Gospel declared and the finished work of Christ.

We then certainly do actions towards God. What we give, thanksgiving and praise, are based on the solid foundation of the gifts of God, God's first initiative in moving towards us as He works in word and sacrament on each Lord's Day. The primary "actor" on Sunday is not us, but God. The Lord of the Sabbath works, as we rest.

Word of the day: "Gottesdienst"

The means of grace and the church

"The means of grace, after all, do not stand by themselves but are closely connected with the church and the offices of the church, with Christ's person and work. One might as well ask whether God could not regenerate and save sinners apart from Christ and forgive sins aside from satisfaction. But such questions lead nowhere: we have rest in God's good pleasure, which distributes salvation in no way other than in and through Christ. He is the mediator between God and humanity, the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved [Acts 4:12]. Furthermore, it was equally God's good pleasure to distribute salvation in not other way than through and in the church of Christ...The rule is that God freely binds the distribution of his grace to the church of Christ."

-Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4. pg 446-447

Barth: Relationship of Word and Sacrament

I am not a disciple or devotee of Karl Barth. I do, however, like his emphasis in theology on Christ, and enjoy the way he has with words on those subjects where I agree with him. Barth comes from a Reformed background though his theology does not develop in a way we would always like, he does hit the nail on the head when speaking of the difference of Word and Sacrament relations in "Evangelical-Reformed" theology and in Roman Catholic Theology:

"In [Roman Catholic] dogmatics, preaching is not only assigned less importance, but virtually no importance at all compared to the sacrament which is received and celebrated so zealously. Nor is it merely that Roman Catholicism overemphasizes the sacrament in the same way Protestantism does oral preaching.

The fate of preaching here is quite simple: Silentium altissimum. Roman Catholic dogmaticians pass on from the treatise on grace or from that on the Church to the treatise on the sacraments. They develop a doctrine of the sacrament of the priestly ordo. They consistently speak of the teaching office of the Church as though preaching did not even exist as an indispensable means of grace that demands serious attention...

[In Roman Catholicism] a man may be a priest without ever preaching...preaching can have a place only at the extreme margin of the Church's action. In Roman Catholic practice it cannot be more than instruction and exhortation. The grace of Jesus Christ can be understood as a causare gratium ex opere operato [me: as receiving grace by the mere action of doing the sacraments]...

The Reformers, however, did not see themselves as in a position to construe the grace of Jesus Christ in this way. They thought it should be understood, not as cause and effect, but as Word and faith...To be sure, they could not and would not assign to the sacrament the place which falls to preaching according to Roman dogmaticians. Proclamation...is essential for them...Hence, not the sacrament alone nor preaching alone, nor yet, to speak meticulously, preaching and the sacrament in double track, but preaching with the sacrament, with the visible act that confirms human speech as God's act, is the constitutive element, the perspicuous centre of the Church's life...the Evangelical Churches, Lutheran as well as Reformed, can and must be termed the churches of preaching."

-Karl Barth. Dogmatics Vol I.1 / 3.1

Take to the World: The Result of Churchly Life

So does the ministry of word and sacrament promote an ingrown, self-focused tendency in the church? Does this view of Spiritual Life as Churchly Life ignore the world?

No, and this is why a worship service ends with the benediction. The benediction reminds the people that they have received blessing and grace from God by the Word and that should be taken back to the world.

Derek Webb has a great song called "Take to the World" that functions much like a Benediction. The first few lines communicate that well, asking that our "ears ring long with what you've heard" and that the "bread on your tongue, leave a trail of crumbs to lead the hungry back to the place that you are from."

Take to the World
by Derek Webb

go in peace, to love and to serve
let your ears ring long with what you’ve heard
and may the bread on your tongue
leave a trail of crumbs
to lead the hungry back to the place that you are from

(chorus)
and take to the world this love, hope and faith
take to the world this rare, relentless grace
and like the three in one
know you must become what you want to save
‘cause that’s still the way
He takes to the world

go, and go far
take light deep in the dark
believe what’s true
He uses all, even you

Hymn: The content of the message of the Word

I think this hymn cries out for what we should long for in worship every week. From the prayers. From the hymns and songs. From the sermon. From communion.

If we do not hear the name of Christ from all those sources, we should leave the service despondent from the burden of a law that kills. If we are only given imperatives, and not an indicative, a truth of gospel done on our behalf, we die under the curse of the punishment of a law we will never fully keep. But as the weight of the law alone kills, the salve of the gospel of Christ revives. If we think all we need is more advice and imperatives, and that our need of the gospel is past and merely a once applied event, then we do not know our need. In word, sacrament and prayer, in all these forms we want, we mortally need one substance: Give me Christ or else I die.


Give me Christ or Else I Die
A hymn by William Hammond.
(From Gadsby's Hymnal)

Gracious Lord, incline thy ear;
My requests vouchsafe to hear;
Hear my never-ceasing cry;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

Wealth and honor I disdain,
Earthly comforts, Lord are vain;
These can never satisfy:
Give me Christ, or else I die.

Thou dost freely save the lost;
In thy grace alone I trust.
With my earnest suit comply;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

Thou dost promise to forgive
All who in thy Son believe;
Lord, I know thou canst not lie;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

Calvin on "This is my body"

"Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. — (To think that he would feed us with shadows and empty representations.) Hence it is regarded by me as beyond all controversy, that the reality is here conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread....


There now remains but one difficulty — how is it possible that his body, which is in heaven, is given to us here upon earth? Some imagine that Christ’s body is infinite, and is not confined to any one space, but fills heaven and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24) like his Divine essence. This fancy is too absurd to require refutation. The Schoolmen dispute with more refinement as to his glorious body. Their whole doctrine, however, reduces itself to this — that Christ is to be sought after in the bread, as if he were included in it. Hence it comes, that the minds of men behold the bread with wonderment, and adore it in place of Christ. Should any one ask them whether they adore the bread, or the appearance of it, they will confidently agree that they do not, but, in the mean time, when about to adore Christ, they turn to the bread. They turn, I say, not merely with their eyes, and their whole body, but even with the thoughts of the heart. Now what is this but unmixed idolatry? But that participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor an infinite extension of his body, nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.

But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol (A sign and evidence) of Christ’s body. Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding...

These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the means of satisfying their appetite."

-John Calvin. Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:26

The Ordinary Means: The Word and the Supper

On the night before his death, Jesus held a final supper with his disciples.

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Two elements were used: Bread and Wine. The institution was short and poignant. But what did it mean? Why do we do we continue to do it? Mere ritualism? Because we have to (we are commanded to)?

To ask how this Sacrament accompanies the word in Christian worship, and thus Christian spirituality, Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 is very helpful. There are 3 important points Paul makes that we need to explore:

1)Word and Sacrament.

As we saw, the word and baptism are intricately associated, symbioticly linked, so that without the word, baptism is a mere wet action. In the Lord's Supper, we again given a similar description:

1Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

In baptism, we were "washed in water by the word." (Ephesians 5:26) Here, a similar concept emerges. In the Supper, Christ's death is "proclaimed." It doesn't take much of a word study before one sees the close relation between word and proclaim. The usual content of proclaiming in Scripture is the word.

The Lord's supper is a "visible word" as Augustine calls it. John in his first epistle declares the word as "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life." (1 John 1:1) The problem for believers now is that though we have the word in our ears, we lack the word present to our other senses. Christ walked with, could be seen and touched by the disciples. To engage more than our sense of hearing, God condescends to our infirmity and proclivity to doubt by declaring Christ, and him crucified, also to our tongues and to our fingers. The message of Christ appears visibly before us.

2)It is to be done in remembrance

“Do this in remembrance of me”

The meal is also a vehicle of memory. We may know the story, but remembrance is an important necessity after the fall. Throughout the Old Testament, the narrative pauses to instruct the reader to do something (a meal or ritual) to remember an instance of God's salvation, either the Passover or the parting of the Sea (either the Sea of reeds or Jordan) and to use it to declare the salvation of God. Jesus, exercising his station as Lord, does the same with the disciples. We are forgetful creatures, so we require repetition for memory.


3) It is a communion with Christ.

1Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation (κοινωνια) in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation (κοινωνια) in the body of Christ?

The word "κοινωνια" can be translated as "communion" or as in the ESV "participation." The word denotes a communication, a transaction or intercourse between two things. Paul here gives further interpretation to the words "This is my body/blood" spoken by Christ. Paul instructs us that these words cannot be construed as we may wish to construe them. Typically, these words are understood as "This represents my body" or "This signifies my blood." Yet a "κοινωνια" with the blood of Christ denotes much more than a symbol or sign.

Certainly, the bread signifies the body. The bread does not carry the atoms of Christ's physical body. Yet in the Lord's Supper, more happens between Christ and the faithful. With the bread and wine, the believer also communes/participates with the very flesh and blood of Christ.

Should this surprise and offend us? The disciples certainly were offended when Christ talked of it:

⁵²Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" ⁵³Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. ⁵⁶Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:52-56)

Jesus was very specific with his words. What he meant to communicate was more than mere belief:


⁶¹Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? ⁶²What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! ⁶³The Spirit gives life" (John 6:61-63)

We should not think that Jesus backs away from pointing to His flesh and blood which stood before them, but he does give more meaning to His words. The disciples are still offended after the explanation, but admitted they stayed not because he explained to their satisfaction that Jesus merely meant believing, but because they had no one else to go to (John 6:68-69). When Jesus explains that the Spirit gives life, He gives the agency of the communion between Jesus and His disciples. The Incarnation, Jesus as God taking on Humanity, has deeper layers of meaning and spiritual consequence than we typically think.

The flesh Jesus took on was the same as all men, a mortal flesh. Yet, in His taking on flesh, he displayed the compatibility of Immortality with flesh. Christ's life does not end, and the flesh he took on was raised and glorified. Such is the fate of the flesh we now sport. The source of vivification of that flesh is also the same, the life in the Person of Jesus, human and divine. That life Christ shares with us in union with Him. (Romans 5:15-17 ; 6:4 ; 8:11) The Spirit carries that life from Christ to the believer:

"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:11)

Paul holds out the life in the flesh and blood of Christ to believers in the Supper. Not that the believer chews Christ, but yet with the act of eating, truly feeds on Christ, and the life in His flesh and blood, nonetheless. In it, the believer is vitally participating in the flesh and blood of Christ, received by faith, by the agency of the Spirit.

This is why we continue to come to the Supper. We come to the Supper for a similar reason we come to hear the word preached and why we pray. In each of them, we commune with the same reality, Christ, yet in different ways. They do not replace one another, as if we can go to a sermon rather than pray, or go the the Supper rather than a sermon. They each are points of communion with God, yet in different manners. We do not merely "do the Supper" because we are commanded to, but because of what we receive in the Supper, namely Christ.

Hymn: Christ's Baptism of the Church

Christ comes to claim his bride the church with water and the word (Eph 5:26). This hymn is an exploration of the truth of Ephesians 5:26, 1 Cor 3:11, among other texts. I chose it related to baptism for the first stansa which is Ephesians 5:25-26 in poetic form. This is by Samuel Stone, an Anglican minister in the nineteenth century.


The Church's One Foundation

1. The church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died.

2. Elect from every nation,
Yet one over all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

3. Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping;
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.

4. The church shall never perish,
Her dear Lord to defend
To guide, sustain and cherish,
Is with her to the end
Though there be those that hate her,
And false sons in her pale
Against a foe or traitor,
She ever shall prevail

5. Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
’Til, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blessed,
And the great church victorious
Shall be the church at rest.

6. Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee.

What Baptism is...and is not

Modern times have seen a decrease in the priority placed on the sacraments and especially baptism within Protestant churches. We have a fear of being Roman Catholic, where we perceive a faith in the sacraments as man's deeds performed before God, rather than a trust in Christ. The Lord's Supper becomes a sacrifice, performed for meritorious gain. And baptism becomes a work performed to "Christianize" someone by religious performance and ceremony.

In reaction, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have seen a de-emphasis on sacraments. Many churches only occasionally have the Lord's Supper, perhaps quarterly, perhaps only in an evening service, and without much ritual and an explanation of what the supper is NOT. Some churches do not perform baptisms anymore, or perform them outside of the church for the benefit of the person connecting their experience of conversion immediately with baptism.

Such a situation led Peter Leithart, a profoundly intelligent scholar, to write a small (and problematic) book called "The Baptized Body." So much time had been spent saying what baptism doesn't do, Leithart wanted to ask "What does Baptism do to the baptized?" What Leithart wants to know is what baptism objectively does to every single baptized individual.

Leithart's conclusion thesis is that baptism admits the baptized to the visible church, and that that visible church is the body of Christ, and therefore, every baptized individual:

1) Is united to Christ as a member of his body

2) Is married to Christ as part of his Bride

3) Is granted a share in the cross

Leithart always wants these consequences to be part of the effect of baptism. The problem is these things are not granted by ritual ceremony. This belief is called "ex opere operato" or "in the doing of the doing," or "by the very act." However, I would contend that these benefits require reception.

Calvin compared baptism and the promises given in it (the offer of the gospel) to pouring water over vessels. If the vessels have an opening of faith, the promises and grace fill the vessels. If the vessels have no opening, then the vessels are merely drowned in water. The gospel effects of baptism occur for the elect, not the non-elect.

Leithart does admit that cursing and judgment can occur after baptism, but he applies to those who are united, married and sharing in the cross by baptism. Does baptism first perform a positive work (union with Christ) then condemning (in their apostasy)?

The comparison of baptism to the word here may be appropriate. Under the preached word, does the preached word always have the desired effect of softening and conversion? Does everyone who hears become converted? Or does the same word go out, and to some it is received and to others it is rejected? The same Spirit accompanies the word to both people, one to soften, the other to harden. Yet the preached word does not first ALWAYS convert and then in some later harden. So too, baptism does not ALWAYS unite and marry the recepient then only to condemn some later.

We do well to restrict the invisible church, the true elect, as known only to God and as the recepients of the benefits of baptism as the Westminster Confession does (25:1) and assign to the visible church the status of mixed community or kingdom that encompasses both elect and non-elect in the church as Scripture also does in Matthew 13 (and the WCF does in 25:2).

So what does baptism do? It always serves as entrance into the visible church. Yet, what else it does depends on what the Spirit desires to do through it. To those who are granted faith, baptism is seen as the place where the promises of God were extended, and the laver of regeneration exhibited. To those who reject the faith, baptism is the place where they rejected the offer of substitution in the baptism that Christ spoke about:

Luke 12:49-50: "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

For the faithful, Christian baptism is their being united with Christ and His baptism, while for the unfaithful, their baptism of judgment and fire still awaits. Void of faith, their baptism did not unite them to Christ, through Whom salvation from the baptism of judgment is offered. Yet, for the faithful baptism is their salvation in Christ, since for them the baptism of judgment was already suffered by Christ on their behalf.

The Lord assures the faithful:

"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine.
When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you;
when you walk through fire you shall not be burned,
and the flame shall not consume you."

-Isaiah 43:1-2

The Ordinary Means: The Word and Baptism

There are countless definitions that have been given of baptism. We may, however, categorize them as one of two varieties. One defines baptism as something like:

"Baptism is an act of faith and a testimony that one has been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, that one has experienced spiritual circumcision. It is a public indication of one's commitment to Christ." (Millard Erickson. Christian Theology. pg 1110)

The first way is how Erikson defines baptism, as an act done by the believer, confirming the believer's experience and publicly commiting to Christ.

The second variety, however, defines baptism quite differently:

"We don’t think of baptism as something we do, but rather as something God does–at least in the ultimate sense. While the recipient physically gets wet, God washes the elect too with the Holy Spirit unto regeneration in effectual calling." (Preston Graham, pastor)

The second way is how Graham defines baptism, as something God does to the believer. But how does the Bible speak of baptism? I would like to here argue (and though it should be clear, argue I must) that Ephesians 5:26 gives us a picture of the Scriptural understanding of baptism:

Ephesians 5:25b-27: Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So how does Christ wash his Bride?

Paul gives husbands a rich object lesson for their love for their brides in Ephesians 5, saying they must love their wives as Christ loved the church. Yet, when Paul gives this picture, he includes “washing of water with the word.” What does this washing refer to?

John Gill emphatically says it is “not baptism, which is never expressed by washing” but is “the blood of Christ.” This answer has a huge problem reconciling that fact that Paul here specifically mentions “water” not blood. Images exist for washing in Christ’s blood in Heb 9 and Rev 7:14, but these will specifically mention blood and not water. To eliminate any thought of baptism is bold but unfounded. Also, Gill’s comments that baptism is “never expressed by washing” defies the way Scripture uses the word “baptism,” which is used to mean “washing,” in both Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where the disciples are reprimanded by Pharisees for not washing (baptizing) before eating.

Another possibility that has recently been posited is that Paul means an ancient form of “bridal washing.” Commentator Harold Hoehner cites an occasionally practiced rite of washing that a bride performs before a wedding in Greek culture. This, however, would be a poor metaphor, as the husband is said to do the washing in Ephesians 5:26, but the ancient marriage rite would not be done by the husband, for the bride does this to herself before the wedding. (S. Safrai “Home and Family” in The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social Cultural and Religious Life. Ed S. Safrai and M. Stern. 1987 Volume 2, pg 758)

I would submit that the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, and even credo-baptists need not react immediately against such a proposition. Indeed not all credo-baptists do, as John Piper to his credit comments on the verse saying, “The water of baptism is a representation of that spiritual washing. Notice that the cleansing from sin in verse 26 comes from the self-sacrifice of Christ in verse 25. So it is with baptism.”

The commentators Gill and Hoehner share a common prejudice they bring to the text. Hoehner explicitly states he rejects that Ephesians 5:26 refers to baptism because “the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin.” (Hoehner, Ephesians. 753) Both Gill and Hoehner bring to the text an assumption about baptism, rather than letting the Scriptures tell them whether “the rite of baptism” cleanses from sin, and in what sense it would do so. If we can recognize the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, we can learn a great truth about baptism from the text.

The word used for washing in 5:26 is “λουτρῷ”. The only other time the word λουτρῷ is used is used is in Titus 3:5, in refering to the washing of regeneration. However there is a variation used 1 Cor 6:11 and Acts 22:16, which uses the variation ἀπελούσασθε. This variation is also used in regards to baptism in Acts 22:16, where the command is given to be “baptized and wash away your sins.” The word λουτρῷ would also come to have a variant that would be used for a baptismal fount, letting us know how the church received Paul’s use of that word (if the explicit connection by early church writers Cyprian and Marius Victorinus aren’t enough.). But just thinking logically, where is the one place where water would be associated with any member of the church? The only time a church member would come in contact with water in a religious context would be in baptism.

How are we to understand Baptism as washing then? Does the physical act of baptism cleanse the church of sin? This is where careful attention to Paul’s wording of “washing of water with the word” becomes very important. The sacrament is only effective by means of the word. No word = no sacrament. This is not because the words become an incantation where a magic act occurs, but because the outward sign points to and teaches with the word the inward reality that accompanies the sign.

Scripture makes a distinction between the inward reality and the outward sign. Paul had already mentioned the inward reality of “sanctification” in 5:26, so the outward reality of washing with water is natural. As Calvin says: “Having mentioned the inward and hidden sanctification, he now adds the outward symbol…that pledge of that sanctification is held out to us by baptism.” (John Calvin on Ephesians 5:26 in Commentaries, on Galatians and Ephesians. pg 319)

If one were to ask Peter what baptism does, we see his answer in 1 Peter 3:21, that yes “Baptism saves,” but, “not as a removal of dirt from the body.” It is not the waters that cleanse, but the spirit through the word. In other words, the mere act of water touching skin does nothing of itself, but baptism is effectual “as an appeal to God.” The appeal is to the promises of God made in baptism that create a good conscience, not an appeal to God in a self-created good conscience. The washing is something God in Christ through the Spirit does, God is the Effecter, baptism is Christ washing the bride, not the bride washing herself.

Paul so richly tells us the relationship between sign and reality in Romans 2:28-29, when speaking about circumcision, the sign under the old covenant: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” There were many times when the Israelites confused sign and reality, yet, throughout the Old Testament, never was the physical act of circumcision resended. The physical was important, necessary and commanded, yet the inward that accompanies the outward was the reality.

In Ephesians 5:26, the image of washing points to baptism. The wording of washing and the use of water as a symbol that points to the reality, as well as sealing that reality by action. To divorce the two completely tells more of an attempted reading of one’s own theology into the passage than what the passage actually means. The reference is not an acknowledgment of some magical power in the water of baptism, but a testament to the sanctifying nature of the love of a husband for a wife, and of Christ for his church which is figured, exhibited, and conferred when accepted by faith in baptism. Baptism ultimately is something God does for the benefit of the baptized, not something the baptized does for the benefit of other people.

In such a way, baptism is a means of grace for the church. In it, the word is made visible, and the act that the word promises is displayed. Baptism is the place of washing, where Christ washes His bride, those receiving (and not giving something) in faith, in the word of His promise.

[But this may still leave questions as to specifically what Baptism does...]