Pictures of the Supper: The Marriage Feast

The final picture of the Supper is the substance of the anticipation of the Supper: The Marriage Feast of the Lamb

The Lord's Supper occurs in light of eschatological expectation. We have seen the principle of fellowship meal over bread and wine with Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14. We have seen the institution of the Passover meal, that looked back to redemption from Egypt and grew to look forward to the coming of Messiah and final sacrifice. In both Passover and the Exodus 24:11 covenant meal we have seen the principle of a celebratory meal in light of sacrifice. Since the Supper happens in light of this eschatological expectation, we naturally ask if it is the full realization of eschatological expectation or if the Lord's Supper also looks forward to another reality.

The first example we might cite that the Supper is looking forward to a future time is Paul's instructions on the celebration of the Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:26. There, Paul states that “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. ” The final clause “until he comes” indicates the Supper is an instituted ritual that will continue until such time as Christ returns. They question arises, why would the celebration of the Lord's Supper cease at that time?

Jesus hints at a future aspect to the Supper at the institution of the Supper. In the Luke account, eschatological references are made when Jesus tells the disciples that “I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 22:16) Similarly, Jesus reflects on the cup that “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” (Luke 22:18) This selection indicates that there will be a continuation of eating and drinking in the eschaton. Since Paul has indicated that feast is not equivalent to the Lord's Supper, we must inquire as to what is that meal.

Of significance to note in our study is the treatment of another meal in the Scriptures. Isaiah 25:6-8 gives some relief to the oracles of judgment against Israel by foretelling the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. Full restoration is pictured as a feast on a mountain with rich food and aged wine. This is the time of comfort, where the Lord “will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth.” (Isaiah 25:8) The same themes are repeated in Isaiah 65:13-17, where new creation is also added to the picture of the wedding feast.

The first coming, and so the Lord's Supper, must be seen as corresponding to the promise of Isaiah 25 and 65. The promise of the Supper was a communion with Christ's blood and body. (1 Cor 10:16) In commenting on this passage, John Calvin suggests that “from the physical things set forth in the Sacrament we are led by a sort of analogy to spiritual things.” Scripture describes the purpose of both bread and wine in Psalm 104:15, where it is written God gives “bread to strengthen man's heart” and “ wine to gladden the heart of man.” Scripture seems to understand that this can, to some degree be experienced in the Lord's Supper, with the first fruits of comfort and new creation. The first coming inaugurated the blessings promised in the imagery of Isaiah 25 and 65. John 2 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus turns the water into wine when the wine had run out. This was a "sign" because the Old Testament promised an age of abundant wine, and Jesus was beginning to fulfill that promised age.

Although there is already an aspect of the eschatological hope of the Passover and covenant meal in the Lord's Supper, that hope is not yet fully realized. Isaiah 25 functions within a broader deliverance section that includes chapter 26, where the resurrection of the dead is promised. (Isaiah 26:19) Although Jesus is the first fruits of that, final fulfillment awaits the resurrection of believers. If Isaiah 26:19 awaits Jesus' second coming for fulfillment, it is not a stretch to say Isaiah 25:6-8 also has not been realized in fulfillment. Although God in Christ is present at the Lord's Supper when we celebrate it, it is not in such a way that there are no more tears and a new incorruptible creation as Isaiah 25 and 65 promise, respectively. This promise of comfort comes in the context of the previous chapter where commentator Alec Motyer notes the reference to the elders in Isaiah 24:23 looks back to Exodus 24:11.* Isaiah 25 connects Exodus 24 with this eschatological hope as well. Since Exodus 24 also looked forward to the Lord's Supper, we must say that since the promises of Isaiah 25 have not been realized, and the Lord's Supper too still looks forward to this eschatological feast.

The unrealized aspect of the eschatological hope in the Lord's Supper and the marriage feast of the lamb is confirmed by the re-occurrence of the imagery of the marriage feast in Revelation 19:6-10. This passage in Revelation has obvious parallels to Isaiah 25:6-8 and Isaiah 65:13-17. Since Isaiah 25:6-8 pictures the feast as the place of God “wiping away tears” and Isaiah 65:13-17 pictures the feast as the place of new creation, we see the bridal picture of Revelation 21:1-6 also reflects this wedding feast. The Wedding Feast in Isaiah 25:6-8, 65:13-17 and Revelation 19:6-10, 21:1-6 all are pictures of this one feast, the culmination of the eschatological hopes of the end of suffering, new creation, and the unencumbered reign of Christ, where sin no longer not only has no rights, but no influence over the creation and the believer.

In this way, we see the Lord's Supper looks towards the Second Coming of Christ. Russell Moore described the eschatology of the Supper as “The meal Jesus feeds us then is a sign of an eschatological banquet, with the church acknowledging the 'already' and pining for the 'not yet.'” The not yet would be the consummation of the marriage. Figuratively, this would indicate the enjoyment of the full benefits of union with Christ. These benefits, then, will not be “through a mirror darkly” inhibited and encumbered by sin, but in a state of sinless enjoyment. The sustenance of bread would no longer be spiritual and in hope, but actual and perpetual. The joy of the wine would never decline, but ever increase. Since both of these point to their reality in the person of Christ, the reality of the blessings are apprehending, depending, and delighting in the person of Jesus Christ, the Lord God and Savior of His church in the marriage feast of the Lamb at the end of the age.

*[Alec Motyer. Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 171.]

Pictures of the Supper: Covenant Meal - Exodus 24

Exodus Meals

The narrative of Exodus includes two prominent community meals. Exodus 18:12 records a meal of Jethro and the people of God. First an offering was offered, and then the community came together to eat “before God.” In Exodus 24:11, within the context of covenant renewal and after the sprinkling of the blood of atonement over the people, the Israelites share a meal. Here too, God is said to be present, for “they saw God.”

Neither of the meals recorded in Exodus are recorded as Passover observances. Even though they are not in the direct line from the Passover to the Lord's Supper, they have relevance and Eucharistic significance. They have similarities to the Passover in that a sacrifice or atonement precedes the meal. Commentator Peter Enns notes, “An element essential to both the Passover and the Lord's Supper, and one that is also prominent in Exodus 24, is the shedding of blood...the sprinkling of blood...is an integral element in a covenant celebration.”* The meal, then, is enjoyed in celebration of a reconciliation of the people and God through sacrifice. Both Exodus 18:12 and 24:11, also, record the meal as being in the presence of God. This apparently is enabled by the preceding sacrifice before the meal can be enjoyed.

The Exodus 24:11 meal also happens in the context of a covenant. In Exodus 24:11 covenant meal is the product of the Exodus redemption. The people had been redeemed by the blood of the lamb. Here, the people are sprinkled against with blood after the giving of the law in Exodus 20. Exodus 20 begins with the affirmation that “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exodus 20:2) The imperatives of the law were given in light of the indicative of redemption. In Exodus 24, the people are reminded of the covenant (Exodus 24:7) and reminded of their redemption by blood (Exodus 24:8). In light of covenant redemption, the people eat and drink.

Although the Exodus meals are not a direct celebration of Passover, they share a covenantal nature with Passover. When Christ takes the cup and declares it to be “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20) although we typically think of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 34 with the language of new covenant, we also must think of Exodus 24 with the connection of blood and covenant. Passover, the Exodus 24:11 covenant meal, and the Lord's Supper, are all celebratory meals in light of the redeeming blood of the covenant. The Passover and covenant meal sacrifices required repetition, but the Lord's Supper happens in light of the “once for all” sacrifice of Christ. (Heb 10:10)


*[Peter Enns. Exodus: The NIV Application Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2000), 496. And no this is not a full endorcement of all things Enns. However, his Exodus commentary is very helpful]

Pictures of the Supper: Passover

The second major picture of the Lord's Supper is the Passover:

Passover

Exodus chapter 11 records the Tenth plague against the Egyptians. This plague was a destruction of the first-born of all those who did not put the blood of a lamb over the door of their house. This final plague convinced the Pharaoh to release the Israelites from Egypt in order for them to return to the land God had promised them.

In the original observance of passover, the passover lamb was killed and the blood smeared with a hyssop branch on the doorposts of the family's home. (Exodus 12:21-22) These instructions for the observance of the passover must have a future orientation, since the original Passover was one night and this instruction for observance is to be practiced over seven days. (Ex 12:15) The flesh of the lamb is eaten along with unleavened bread. (Ex 12:8) It appears that only later was wine added to this ritual. Eventually four communal cups were used and passed around for the family to drink. Eventually, a dispute arose over whether to have four or five cups. A compromise came that four cups were used, and a fifth was set for Elijah. This is sometimes thought to be a proxy for Moses or that Elijah is prophesized to come before the Messiah, adding an element of eschatological hope of a future redemption to the meal. Each Passover, the Jews were reminded that though they celebrated a past deliverance, they also looked forward to a greater future hope in the Messiah.

The Gospel writers all seem to present the Lord's Supper as happening during the time of Passover. Luke 22:8 records Jesus giving the instructions to his disciples to “prepare for us the passover that we may eat it.” Most commentators assume that if the four cup ritual was in use at the time of Jesus, that his words relating the Passover elements to himself come with the third cup, a thanksgiving to God for bringing forth the fruit of the vine.

Supper in the time of the Passover: The Hallel passages of the Psalter were typically sung in the passover season (pss 113-118). Hence, since these songs were in the minds of the Jews, Christ was greeted by these words (Ps. 118:25) when he entered Jerusalem. (Matt 21:9) Although we can not be certain as to the significance of this selection from a Passover psalm in the minds of the children, the author of the gospel of Matthew certainly expected the connection to be made with his Jewish audience that this was a song sung during the celebration of passover and it anticipates Christ.

Paul most clearly makes the connection, when in 1 Corinthians 5:7 he refers to Christ as “our passover, sacrificed for us.” Christ is anticipated in the lamb, for only after atonement would the celebratory section of the meal begin. In taking the elements of the meal, Christ also infuses meaning into these portions of the meal as well. Christ associates the bread with his body (Luke 22:19) and the wine with his blood. (Luke 22:20) Although we did not see the wine or bread as anticipating directly Christ's coming before Christ, after the institution of the Supper in the Gospels, we now do.

The Passover can be seen to anticipate Christ in two important ways. First, the lamb whose blood redeems the covenant family points to Christ's sacrifice. Second, the meal looks towards a celebratory event. The celebratory nature of the meal in light of reconciliation should be instructive. Jewish practice was not a solemn mournful meal, but a celebration of the reality of what comes after atonement, forgiveness and resurrection.

Pictures of the Supper: Abraham and Melchizedek

The Lord's Supper is not the only instance of a meal of significance. Throughout Scripture there are pictures of meals of fellowship, covenant renewal and worship. Here, I would merely like to display a few of those pictures as they inform how we look at the Lord's Supper in a Biblical Theological manner.

Picture 1: Abraham and Melchizedek




The first instance in recorded Scripture of a shared meal of bread and wine is Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18. Here, Abraham (then Abram) and the king of Sodom share a meal in celebration of a victory and Abraham gives a tenth of his wealth to Melchizedek. This precipitates a remembering of an oath,* perhaps a covenant oath, to God, and the praise of God for Abraham's provision.

Melchizedek is associated with Christ in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, in chapter 7, cites this encounter (Heb 7:1-2; Gen 14:17-20), as a proof of the superiority of the order of Melchizedek, one whom Abraham paid tithes to as an inferior. Hebrew 7:22 then makes the connection to Christ, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the guarantor of a better covenant. The parallels between Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7, as the relation between Abraham and Melchizedek in covenant, blessing and paying honor relate to Christ and the church. So also it would imply the communion enjoyed between Abraham and Melchizedek in the meal of wine and bread may also point forward to the communion enjoyed between Christ and the Church in the Supper of bread and wine.


[See Meredith Kline. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. (Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 312.)

Bavinck on the Church and the means of grace

In light of my recent post on the strategic plan, I thought I would let Herman Bavinck argue my case, since he does a better job than I in explaining how God intends to accomplish His mission:

"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 no 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

PCA Strategic Plan: Thoughts

[This is an opinion piece about an internal discussion in the PCA. If you are not in the PCA, you are welcome to skip it as it contains matters of an internal debate, which will in no way diminish my appreciation for the PCA and its work]

A few weeks ago, the CMC released the PCA strategic plan. This plan looks into the future and attempts to make changes to plan for the future and how the PCA will see its own role in the future in American Christian mission and religious life. I wanted to take some time to read the plan and reflect on it. I do this not as a voting member of Presbytery, but merely as a person under care of a Presbytery looking toward ordination in the PCA. Thus, my thoughts are tempered and are only suggestive to those who might be voting members.

The plan, spearheaded by President Bryan Chapell of Covenant Seminary, has a few general themes, some BCO change recommendations and some suggestions on changing the affiliations of the denomination. As I comment, I would also like to say I have benefited greatly from Chapell’s work especially on preaching and respect him as a minister in good standing. I would like to briefly comment on the proposed themes and changes.

1. Require contribution to the PCA Administrative Committee for participation in GA.

Many prominent PCA ministers, including Lig Duncan, have supported this part of the plan as a step in the right direction towards a more Presbyterian church government. After all, even the Southern Baptist Convention, a looser confederation than the Presbyterian form of government, requires contribution to vote at their convention. Over half of the churches in the PCA contribute nothing to the PCA and have voting rights.

Generally, I would agree that this perhaps is the historical structure of a Presbyterian governed church. That half of the churches contribute nothing is embarrassing. The requested amount is less than 1% of a church's budget, hardly a bank breaker.

However, we must recognize where the PCA comes from. The PCUSA had a strong denominational structure that still hamstrings some individual churches in regards to property ownership. PCA churches are, and should be, weary of a strong denominational government, not due to the current ethos of the denomination, but the possible future status of the denomination. If a church becomes concerned with the use of its resources in the future, if they protest by withholding contribution that would deny that church a vote at GA. Such a move empowers the denomination over the local church. Although more churches should contribute, and be petitioned to contribute, none should be required to.

That leads to a second objection. Might I quote a Baptist who may have a point where he is more Reformed that the PCA strategic plan: "The local church is the focal point of God's plan for displaying his glory to the nations." This is the motto of 9 Marks, Mark Dever's organization for reforming churches according to Scripture. This perhaps should be the dominant philosophy of the PCA in the future. This leads to our next theme:

2. Redirecting the mission focus of the PCA away from NAPARC

NAPARC is the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. This Council consists of confessional Reformed and Presbyterian Churches like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the United Reformed Church. This organization is dedicated to confessional expression of the Reformed tradition and presenting a unified front on in this endeavor of advancing confessional Reformed churches in North America.

Page 26 of the Strategic plan recommends withdraw from this organization. The reasoning is given in Bryan Chapell's video that this organization consists of "micro-denominations" that have fewer members than the PCA but have equal vote. This organization is said to be draining our time and energy since it "shares our doctrinal identity, but not our ministry focus." This statement is never clarified, however, from the rest of the plan this seems to mean a new focus to work with organizations, outside of our confessional identity, that do not share our doctrinal distinctives but give the PCA more "influence," presumably as a Reformed voice among non-Reformed Christians in missions organizations.

This proposal, I believe, is the most telling of the vision of the strategic plan. The plan introduces various "means" towards achieving the goal of a larger "influence" in American Christianity. This is misguided on a number of fronts, but this is chief:

If we do not share the ministry focus of NAPARC, then we are do not truly share their doctrinal identity.

Confessional Reformed doctrine believes the means of achieving the mission of God in the world are the means God has ordained. These are not parachurch organization, though they may have some role, but the "ordinary means" as outlined in the Westminster Larger Catechism Questions 154-160. These means are the Word, read and preached, the sacraments and prayer. In other words, the means of accomplishing the mission of God is the church performing its ordinances given to it by God, by which He has promised to bring fruit. When the Word is preached, that is the means by which people are converted (Romans 10:14-17, 1 Cor 1:21). Baptism and the Lord's Supper are visible words, proclaiming that gospel alongside the Word (Ephesians 5:26; 1 Cor 11:26) and prayer is the means of advancing the kingdom (Mathew 6:9-13, See Matthew 6:10 NET). A focus away from the local church towards the denomination, denominational programs and parachurch organizations due to a leveling off of church membership displays an approach driven by numbers and a desire to manipulate those numbers by means other than the ones we are commanded to be faithful to perform. (Tim 4:13)

The concern of the PCA should be our faithfulness to what God has called us to and leave the numbers to God. If we see numbers declining, our recourse is repentance, and renewed vows to faithful to preach and administer the sacraments, the duty given to us in the Great Commission. (Matt 28:19) The means given was not certain programs and parachurch affiliations but the ordinances of the church. The advancement of the Great Commission then is the duty of the church and that is where the PCA should focus its energies (along with the other denominations in NAPARC)

What has attracted me to the PCA is the churchly spirituality of the Reformed faith as expressed in the PCA. I believe the PCA is well positioned to offer a biblical churchly spirituality to a culture that is greatly lacking true spirituality instead chasing fleeting experience, psychological comfort and charismatic mirages. I would like to see the PCA continue to do so rather than become more generically evangelical.

Alternatively, the PCA as a denomination certainly could establish structures and programs that would help advance the mission of the church, but these must be with a focus to the local church, not programs or parachurch associations.

Here are a few alternative suggestions:

1. Establish an internship fund of the PCA.

The OPC has a general fund to pay those seeking ordination in the OPC to work within a local church for up to a year. This allows a future minister to focus on learning the craft of ministering from a local minister, whose church may not be large enough to support that intern alone. This also allows the ministerial candidate to focus on the craft of ministry solely for the year of preparation rather than also maintain a full time job, thereby shortchanging his internship experience.

2. Fully fund RUF ministers and Missionaries through the PCA.

Either we consider RUF minister to actually be ministers or we do not. Currently, most RUF ministers are only half-supported by the church and half-supported by individuals. A minister is one who is supported by the church, as Paul tells us, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." " (1 Tim 5:17-18) Only half supporting missionaries in MTW and MTNA and RUF ministers, if we truly consider them ministers, reduces them to half a minister and, though popular in American mission structure, a skirting of Scripture's command for the church to support their ministers.

3. Fund Church planting

Most church planters also are forced to raise support from individuals rather than the church. The same applies to these evangelist ministers. Either they are an elder/minister or not. If they are, the church ought to fund them, if not, then do not call them ministers.

If the PCA would take steps towards advancing the gospel and the kingdom to an even greater degree than they thankful have done, in the manner of supporting the local church, the first measure for more funding would meet with a greater welcome by me. However, the lack of faith the strategic plan seems to have for the ordinary means and the local church forces me to recommend to any that are attending GA this year to vote to defeat the strategic plan in regards to changing the BCO to require church funding of the denomination, and to vote against withdraw from NAPARC.

The focus must be brought back to a biblical focus on the local church, the means of grace, and the proclamation of the gospel purely and simply. This is the hope of the world and the future of God's universal invisible church. May the visible church in the PCA align itself as closely and faithfully to the command of God as possible.

Assumed, Confused then Rejected Gospel

Justin Taylor has a helpful review of a book that asks some hard questions for pastors about whether the Gospel has moved from accepted to assumed to confused to rejected:

Was the gospel in the sermon Sunday morning?

Do you hear the gospel in people’s prayers?

Could you have preached that sermon if Christ had not died on the cross?

Could you have developed that leadership principle had Christ not been crucified?


Full post: here

Argument Chart

I have no time for a Fulfillment Friday this week. Instead, a chart on levels of debate. I find most discussion, if it is lucky, rises to the level of DH2.

Message and Methods

The conventional wisdom today is that the message stays the same but the methods change. But what if God ordained the methods as well? Is He allowed? What would it look like if we followed His methods in ministry?

Ligon Duncan answers these questions masterfully in a talk at Twin Lakes Fellowship:

Ligon Duncan: A Case for the Ordinary Means

Dordt on Atonement

Often, we have heard as an explanation from both sides of the Limited versus unlimited atonement debate that the atonement was sufficient for the world, but efficient for the elect. Few know, this is actually the language of the Synod of Dordt, that coined the 5 points of Calvinism:

Second Head of Doctrine of Dordt:

"This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

"The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe."

"For this was the most free counsel of God the Father, that the life-giving and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect. It was His most gracious will and intent to give them alone justifying faith and thereby to bring them unfailingly to salvation. This means: God willed that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which He confirmed the new covenant) should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and tongue all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and were given to Him by the Father. God further willed that Christ should give to them faith, which, together with other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He acquired for them by His death; that He should cleanse them by His blood from all sins, both original and actual, both those committed after faith and before faith; and that He should guard them faithfully to the end and at last present them to Himself in splendour without any spot or wrinkle."

Are the Seventy Sevens about Jesus?

I recently was listening to someone make the case that the church has never seen the seventy sevens in Daniel 9:24-27 as a prophecy about Christ until the last 200 years. Specifically mentioned was that the Reformers did not make that case and neither did the early church. So, it was asserted, it was generally known to be a prophecy about Zerrubbabel or Joshua the High Priest and no one before the past 200 years said anything different.

So, while they were still speaking I checked the Calvin commentaries on my computer and found this on the reference in Dan 9:25:

"Some desire to take this singular noun in a plural sense, as if it were the Christ of the Lord, meaning his priests; while some refer it to Zerubbabel, and others to Joshua. But clearly enough the angel speaks of Christ"

-John Calvin. Daniel Commentary on Dan 9:25


Then I looked at the early church and found:

"Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation, For Daniel says [And quotes Daniel 9:26]."

-Tertuallian. Answer to the Jews Ch 8. [2nd Century AD]

"[Quotes Daniel 9:24-27]...and thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks."

-Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. Ch 21. [2nd-3rd Century AD]

"The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled."

-Origen. De Principiis. Bk 4. Ch 1. [3rd Century AD]


Now, this doesn't mean that Daniel 9:24-27 has to be about Christ. But I do wonder why people make up evidence that is easily falsifiable to help their case. All it did was convince me not to trust this person's appeals to evidence without lots of documentation.

Fulfillment Fridays: Christ as Judge

God provides a Judge

Jdg 2:18-19 Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. But whenever the judge died, they turned back and were more corrupt than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways.

The Good Judge?

2 Sam 15:4-6 Then Absalom would say, "Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause might come to me, and I would give him justice." And whenever a man came near to pay homage to him, he would put out his hand and take hold of him and kiss him. Thus Absalom did to all of Israel who came to the king for judgment. So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

The deceit of the Judge
2 Sam 15:10 But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, "As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, 'Absalom is king at Hebron!'"
Only God is the good judge

Psa 50:6 The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge! Selah

Isa 33:22 For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us.

Jesus can judge

Joh 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

The Word will judge

Joh 12:47-49 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak.

Jesus given authority to judge

Rev 20:1-5 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Augustine on Defining "a people"

"A people is an assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love, then, in order to discover the character of any people, we only have to observe what they love...it will be a superior people in proportion as it is bound together by higher interests, inferior in propotion as it is bound together by lower."

-Augustine. City of God. 19.24.

Fulfillment Fridays: Christ as Son of David, King

David's everlasting kingdom

2 Sam 7:8-16 Now, therefore, thus you shall say to my servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel. And I have been with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'"

Praise for God's Davidic Covenant

Psa 89:1-4 I will sing of the steadfast love of the LORD, forever; with my mouth I will make known your faithfulness to all generations. For I said, "Steadfast love will be built up forever; in the heavens you will establish your faithfulness." You have said, "I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David my servant: 'I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations.'" Selah

Psa 89:27-37 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever, a faithful witness in the skies." Selah


Jesus is the Son/offspring of David

Matt 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Mat 9:27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David."


Jesus is the Greater Son of David

Mat 22:41-45 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?"

Jesus as the Conquering Son of David

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

Questions and Answers on Israel and the Church

This is a great look at Scripture concerning Israel and the Church in the form of a Catechism. Questions are asked and then Scripture is given verbatim for the answer:

http://katekomen.gpts.edu/2010/03/some-questions-regarding-nature-of.html

For Example:

Q.1. Who is a Jew?

A. “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart” (Romans 2:28-29).

Fulfillment Fridays: The Cleansing Priest

Priestly Defilement

Zec 3:1-10 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?" Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, "Remove the filthy garments from him." And to him he said, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments." And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD was standing by.

And the angel of the LORD solemnly assured Joshua, "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch. For behold, on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven eyes, I will engrave its inscription, declares the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of this land in a single day. In that day, declares the LORD of hosts, every one of you will invite his neighbor to come under his vine and under his fig tree."

The Final Perfect Priest

Heb 7:11-28 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'" This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

Fulfillment Fridays: The Good Shepherd

God will be our Shepherd

Ezekiel 34:11-15 "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land. There they shall lie down in good grazing land, and on rich pasture they shall feed on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord GOD.

The son of David will be our Shepherd

Eze 34:22-24 I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep. And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken.

Jesus, God and the son of David is the Good Shepherd.

John 10:11-18 - I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

Fulfillment Fridays: The Prophet

A greater prophet than Moses will come

Deut 18:15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to him you shall listen--

Waiting

Deut 34:10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Jesus, a prophet

John 4:19 The woman said to him, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.

John 4:25-26 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things."Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."

Jesus, greater prophet than Moses

Heb 3:1-3 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God's house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses--as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.

Cowper: Hymn on Desire

MY SOUL THIRSTETH FOR GOD. by William Cowper

I thirst, but not as once I did,
The vain delights of earth to share;
Thy wounds, Emmanuel, all forbid
That I should seek my pleasures there.

It was the sight of thy dear cross
First wean’d my soul from earthly things;
And taught me to esteem as dross
The mirth of fools and pomp of kings.

I want that grace that springs from thee,
That quickens all things where it flows,
And makes a wretched thorn like me
Bloom as the myrtle or the rose.

Dear fountain of delight unknown!
No longer sink below the brim;
But over flow, and pour me down
A living and life-giving stream!

For sure, of all the plants that share
The notice of thy Father’s eye,
None proves less grateful to his care,
Or yields him meaner fruit than I.

Fulfillment Fridays: Seed of Abraham

God's Promise to Abraham

Genesis 17:1-9 -When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly." Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.



Christ as the fulfillment of the oath to Abraham

Luke 1:68-79 - "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."

Christ as the Seed of Abraham

Galatians 3:1-29 - O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Lamentable Worship

Recently, I finished Shane Hipps' "The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture." As a work of prescription, it is mostly deeply flawed. However, as a work of analysis, it is extremely helpful. One section I particularly enjoyed:

"Electronic media culture has a natural bias toward efficiency, entertainment and consumption. These three values have become the new holy trinity in our culture - to challenge any one of them is an act of heresy. Taking cues from these biases, worship in the modern church is often equated almost exclusively with joy and celebration. Worship often serves as a kind of pep rally...We have a strong legacy of denying our suffering in favor of celebration...over time it leads to an inauthentic and unhealthy spiritual life.

Authencitiy and integrity in worship will mean employing the pattern of the psalms, which express both lament and praise. Each element completes the other. Without lament, praise is little more than shallow sentimentality and a denial of life's struggles and sin. Without praise, lament is a denial of hope and grace, both of which are central to our faith and to God's promises. To value one over the other is like suggesting that breathing in is more important than breathing out.

This is not only an issue of authenticity and integrity. It cuts to the heart of hospitality and pastoral sensitivity. For those coming to a worship service immersed in the depth of pain and suffering, celebratory praise takes on a mocking tone that excludes those who are suffering. They are unable to join honestly in these choruses. By incorporating expressions of sorrow, pain and grief into our worship, the hurting are ushered into God's presence with honesty. At the same time, the rest of the congregation is reminded of the suffering community gathered in their midst. Here they are invited to weep with those who are weeping."

-Shane Hipps. The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture. pg 160-161 [emphasis added]

Fulfillment Fridays: Seed crushing Serpent

The Seed will crush the head of the serpent

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

God will crush the head of the house of the wicked

Hab 3:13 You went out for the salvation of your people, for the salvation of your anointed. You crushed the head of the house of the wicked, laying him bare from thigh to neck. Selah

Christ's body, the church, will crush Satan

Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

For Christ defeated Satan

Rev 12:10-11b And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb

Calvin: How do we receive the Benefits of Salvation?

"We must now examine this question. How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son - not for Christ's own private use, but that he might enrich poor and needy men? First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called 'our Head' (Eph 4:15) and 'the first-born among many brethren.' (Romans 8:29) We also, in turn, are said to be 'engrafted into him' (Romans 11:17), and to 'put on Christ' (Gal 3:27), for as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yet since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is offered through the gospel, reason itself teaches us to climb higher and to examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits...The Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself."

- John Calvin. Institutes. 3.1.1

Some interesting Vos Quotes

Jesus is not a second Moses:

“There prevails still a subtle form of legalism which would rob the Saviour of his crown of glory, earned by the cross, and would make of him a second Moses, offering us the stones of the law instead of the life-bread of the gospel.”

- Geerhardus Vos, Grace & Glory (Carlisle, Pa.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 102.


Our doctrine of resurrection depends on our doctrine of righteousness.

“The resurrection stands related to righteousness in the same way that death stands related to sin.”

- Geerhardus Vos, Grace & Glory (Carlisle, Pa.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 159.

Faith of Abraham

"When God promised that his prosperity should be numerous as the stars, he believed and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. But with reference to the promised inheritance of the land he doubted."

- Vos. Biblical Theology. pg 85.

Torrance on Christ's Deity

Torrance as a theologian works in words the way painters work in paint. Here's Torrance on the necessity of the deity of Christ:

"The full reality of Christ's deity is essential for salvation, for the reality and validity of salvation are grounded upon the reality of Christ's deity. Man's salvation must be an act of God, else it is not salvation. The deity of Christ tells us that the action of Jesus in the incarnation and on the cross is identical with God's own action. How can man be saved? The answer is given in the words, "You did not choose me, but I chose you' (John 15:16) - but if the 'I' is not God himself, it is ultimately an illusion. Everything depends on the fact that the whole course of Christ's life is identical with the course of God's action towards humanity. The whole of our salvation depends n the fact that it is God in Christ who suffers and bears the sin of the world, and reconciles the world to himself.

The validity of our salvation depends on the fact that he who died on the cross under divine judgment is also God the judge, so that he who forgives is also he who judges. The reality of our salvation means that its reality is anchored on the divine side of reality, that the lamb is slain before the foundation of the world, that he has ascended to the right hand of God the Father almighty, and sits down with God on his own throne because he is God. Everything depends upon the fact that the cross is lodged in the heart of the Father.

It is important to see that if the deity of Christ is denied, then the cross becomes a terrible monstrosity. If Jesus Christ is man only and not also God, then we lose faith in God and man. We lose faith in God because how could we believe in a God who allows the best man that ever lived to be hounded to death on the cross - is that all that God cares about our humanity and its search after God, after truth and righteousness and peace? Put Jesus Christ a man on the cross and put God in heaven, like some distant god imprisoned in his own lonely abstract deity, and you cannot believe in him, in a god such that he is monstrously unconcerned with our life, and who does not even lift a finger to help Jesus...But put God on the cross, and the cross becomes the world's salvation. The whole gospel rests upon the fact the it is God who became incarnate, and it was God who in Christ has reconciled the world to himself...He who reveals God to man, and reconciles man to God, must be both God and man, truly completely God, and truly and completely man. If the Son was to redeem the whole nature of man, he had to assume the whole nature of man; if in the Son man is to be gathered into the fellowship and life of God, it must be by one who is truly and completely God.Only he can be mediator who is himself the union of God and man."

-T.F. Torrance. Incarnation pg. 189-190

Harmonizing Vos on Forensic and Mystical Language

"Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith one-sidedly - only in its connection with justification - for the Reformed Christian it is saving faith in all the magnitude of the word. According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place. Everything depends on this justification, which is losable, so that the believer only gets to see a little of the glory of grace and lives for the day, so to speak. The covenantal outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps the instantaneous justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet Priest and King as his rich full Messiah."

-Geerhardus Vos. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. pg 256

"In our opinion Paul consciously and consistently subordinated the mystical aspect of the relation to Christ to the forensic one. Paul’s mind was to such an extent forensically oriented that he regarded the entire complex of subjective spiritual changes that take place in the believer and subjective spiritual blessings enjoyed by the believer as the direct outcome of the forensic work of Christ applied in justification. The mystical is based on the forensic, not the forensic on the mystical."

- Geerhardus Vos. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. pg 384



The Mystical and Forensic in Paul and Vos

Within the same volume of Vos' writings, we find these two quotations. Vos affirms both that the mystical is subordinate to the forensic AND that mystical union precedes forensic justification in the believer. Is Vos contradicting himself? Did Vos change his mind? Or can Vos hold both these positions simultaneously?

First, Vos declares that in the ordo salutis, the mystical union is prior to, and even the source of, the benefits of redemption including forensic justification. Justification is found “in Christ,” and is part of the spiritual blessings given to the believer in union with Christ (Eph 1:3). Although they come simultaneously, there is a logical priority to union with Christ before justification in Reformed soteriology, which avoids the “legal fiction” charge leveled against Lutheranism by Roman Catholics. This also seems to best conform to the language of Scripture about the benefits of redemption being rooted in union with Christ.

So how does the second quote on subordination of the mystical to the forensic not contradict this? Because the second quote is dealing with how the Gospel is accomplished and communicated. Vos is addressing the proclamation in totality of Christ's Gospel to the Church. In declaring the gospel, Vos says that the mystical is subordinate to the forensic and the mystical depends upon the forensic. This is certainly true in that if the forensic is the accomplishment of salvation by Christ in regards to the Law. Christ obeys the law in life, and takes the penalty of the law in death. This is an accomplishment in history rather than in the believer and so is often called the historia salutis. The mystical, on the other hand, is the application of the accomplishment of salvation in the Spirit uniting the believer to Christ (enumerated in the ordo salutis). Therefore, Christ must accomplish salvation in history before it may be applied to us. The application by Spirit in uniting us to Christ depends upon the accomplishment of Christ fulfilling the law. The ordo salutis depends on the historia salutis. The mystical depends upon the forensic.

There is, however, another context where we would bring the mystical aspect to the surface as of utmost importance. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 brings the mystical union to the forefront when addressing the context of the use of prostitutes by members of the church. Paul applies union to rebuke his audience that their conduct was inconsistent with the mystical salvation that belongs to believers: i.e. the body of Christ cannot be united to a prostitute. Yet, Vos' broader point (about the subordination of the mystical to the forensic) still remains true. Even this mystical aspect depends upon the accomplishment of the forensic/legal demand that Christ fulfills for His church. Paul begins 1 Corinthians with the defense of his preaching of the accomplishment of salvation by Christ's crucifixion (1 Corinthians 2:1-2). Paul must first establish the priority of the historical accomplishment of Christ (historia salutis) before the implications and benefits that come from union with Christ (ordo salutis).

In this way, Vos is not contradicting himself and we ought not fight between two different Voses. Rather, we ought to acknowledge that in the application of salvation to the believer, mystical union establishes justification. However, the basis of this mystical union applied to us is Christ's accomplishment forensically of salvation outside of us and is logically prior to us or the application of salvation to us. If we discuss the relation of the historia salutis and ordo salutis, then the forensic precedes and is necessary before any talk of the mystical can occur. But if we discuss specifically the ordo salutis by itself, then the mystical precedes, because it applies, the forensic.

Doctrine? What's that good for?

Why Study Doctrine?

Doctrine literally means “teaching.” It comes from the Greek "διδάσκω” which is where we get the word didactic. Jaroslav Pelikan describes doctrine this way: “What the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine”

Doctrine deals with the intellectual teaching about the faith. Typically, when Doctrine is addressed, one of these objections comes up:

1. It is better to be concerned about godly living.

2. It is better to be focused on evangelism

3. Doctrine is Divisive

But How does Scripture treat doctrine? A few things to consider:

Romans 16:17 - I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

Paul tells us that it is wrong doctrine that divides, not true doctrine. Bad doctrine causes division. This also may tell us the basis for unity: good doctrine. And Good doctrine creates the right kind of unity. According to Scripture, doctrine unites, it does not divide.


1 Peter 3:15 - but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

How can we answer if we do not know?

“defense” here is apologia. (and ‘reason’ is logos) This is where we get the word Apologetics, the defense of the faith to the unbeliever. Paul uses this word in reference to answering a charge in a law court. Such a defense, typically, had to be well reasoned, able to communicate to another party in understandable language. Never did “apologia” in the eight times it appears in the New Testament refer to: “just a feeling” or “my personal experience” which unfortunately is how Christianity is often explained to an unbeliever: As an unexplainable, irrational feeling that you can only feel, but not think. According to Scripture, doctrine is necessary for evangelism, not against it.

1 Timothy 4:6-8 - If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

6:3-4 - If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing

For Paul, good doctrine is the root of godliness. Bad doctrine is against godliness. To shun doctrine for “godliness” is to shun godliness. According to Scripture, one cannot be godly without doctrine. To assert otherwise is arrogance, not piety.

Thus we study doctrine for the purpose of Unity, Evangelism, and Godliness. To refuse to study doctrine is to be disobedient to those commands to be one, to evangelize and to be godly.

Yet, this does not mean that doctrine is an end of itself:

“Doctrine is not the only, not even the primary, activity of the church. The church worships God and serves mankind, it works for the transformation of this world and awaits the consummation of its hope in the next. The church is more than a school...but the church cannot be less than a school.” -Jaroslav Pelikan

IOW – We study doctrine to know God, in order to properly worship and serve.

Evangelical and Liberalism: What's the difference?

[Reason #132 why I reject the label evangelical]


According to a 2008 PEW study, 57% of self-identified Evangelicals don't believe Jesus is the only way to eternal life.

A 2010 survey of the Presbyterian Church USA (the "liberal" one) showed 43% disagree or strongly disagree that “all the world’s religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth.” (that would make 57% left over) and majorities of members (60 percent), elders (68 percent), and pastors (66 percent) at least agree that “the only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ.”

Therefore, I will now no longer call the Presbyterian Church USA the "liberal" denomination, but the evangelical denomination, for there is no real difference in reality between the two words. Also, if someone in the PCA says they want to be more evangelical and less Reformed, I will rebuke them.

What's first, the Baptismal or the Table?

A question that comes up in both credo- and paedo-baptist communities is "Should a person be baptized before taking Communion [the Eucharist]?" This might be represented visually above as: "Does one need to come to the baptismal fount before one comes to the Table?"

This question comes up in both Baptist and paedo-baptist communities when baptism is delayed, for age, Catechesis or a special season of baptism, such as Easter. It comes up in many Episcopal Churches with open communion, where everyone, even unbaptized people are welcomed to take the Eucharist. The situation in all places arises: If a person has faith and seems to understand what the significance of the Supper is, why have them wait or deny them the Supper merely because they are unbaptized?

Many times this is left in the realm of personal conscience, which one can see in places where the question is asked, usually the answer most preferred is "As long as you're doing this from your heart and you love Jesus, you're okay. "

Against such an answer, suggesting a rigid priority may seem "legalistic" or nit-picky. However, I believe there are good Biblical, Confessional, Catechetical and Historical reasons for only allowing baptized Christians to partake of the Eucharist.

Historical/Confessional

Historically, the earliest and consistently repeated answer of the Church throughout history has been to delay partaking the Eucharist until after Baptism. One of the earliest documents of the Church, outside the Bible, was the Didache which was a manual of sorts for accepting new converts into the Church. The instructions make very clear:

Didache 9:5: "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized."

The reasoning may sound rather harsh: "for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: 'Do not give what is holy to dogs.'" (9:5) This merely points out that the Eucharist is considered the meal of the Church, and one was not considered a part of the Church, and so not a Christian, until Baptism. There are no instances in the first millenium of the Church where partaking of the Eucharist was allowed before being baptized.

This is way the major Reformation faiths always place teaching about Baptism before the Lord's Supper. Baptism is seen as initiatory rite, and the Supper as a rite of fellowship. Before one joins the community, one cannot have fellowship with that group. To have fellowship is to be a member, and baptism is the rite of membership for someone to be in that community.

Biblical

The Scriptures display a heavy weight towards Baptism necessarily coming before Communion. Firstly, Baptism precedes the Supper in notable places in Scripture's teaching and narrative. In Acts 2, Peter offers Baptism (2:38) before we have an account of the first Christians breaking bread (2:42). The Gospels record the Baptism of John before the Last Supper. Paul speaks of acknowledging Baptism (1 Cor 10:2) before the Supper (1 Cor 10:3 and following). This is logical, for we must be united to Christ (Rom 6:4) before we can participate in him (1 Cor 10:16).

But why? What's the big deal?

The Scripture's main way of explaining the sacraments is through the story of redemption of Israel. We are told of the baptism Israel experienced in the sea (1 Cor 10:2). We are also told of Israel eating manna in the wilderness, pointing to the Supper (John 6). It is simple observation to observe that Israel experienced baptism in the sea before eating the manna. Israel did not eat manna from God before the sea. And I think this is the most important point for how the sacraments teach us about the reality of the Christian life and salvation.

Catechetical

Israel did not need food from God before the sea, for their slave owners in Egypt gave Israel food. The episode of the baptism in the sea for Israel irrevocably severed the connection between Israel and their slave owners. After the baptism in the sea, although Israel often wanted to go back and were unthankful to their Redeemer God from Egypt, Israel no longer could take food from their former slave owners.

For us to insist on Baptism before the Supper requires a high sense of what Baptism is. Baptism in the early church often included a ritual of exorcism and a question to the person presented for Baptism, "Do you renounce Satan and all his works?" This is because Baptism was an important entry into the church and break from the world of Satan, just as crossing the sea was an important event for Israel as forming of a common people of the baptism and breaking from the world of Egypt.

This is why Baptism ought to proceed the Supper. Baptism should be an instrument of teaching entry into the covenant and community of faith (Acts 2:38-39) and the Supper should be an instrument of teaching the lasting need of continual sustaining by God (Psalm 104:14-15; John 6). To allow eating the Supper before Baptism teaches a dual loyalty and dual mastery the Scriptures do not. One cannot eat the manna from God while under the slavery of Egypt. One also cannot eat the food of Egypt after being redeemed by God. If baptism teaches the need of new birth, and the Supper the need of spiritual feeding, one must be born before one can eat. To allow the Supper before Baptism teaches that one can be enslaved to Satan and receive the saving benefits of God. In other words, it confuses the person who eats while unbaptized for it does not conform to Jesus who taught one must either be for or against him. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. " (Luke 16:13) One cannot be identified with Egypt and eat the manna of God. One cannot be slave to Satan, and receive the blessings of God. One must be identified as a slave to God in order to receive His benefits. One must be in covenant with God in order to receive the benefits of that covenant.

That is why I believe, like the picture above, one must go to the baptismal before one can go to the table. It is not a matter of legalism or nit-picking, but a matter of what Scripture teaches and what we teach with the catechetical tools that God gives to us with Baptism and the Supper. Do we teach a dual loyalty to two slave owners? Do we teach service, loyality and identification to Sin, Satan and what Egypt represents can continue at the same time as receiving taking what identification with God, Christ and His Righteousness gives us?

Or, do we teach that God fully redeems us from our former slave owner, though a Stockholm Syndrome may still exist, we identify and receive our sustenance from our Redeemer and new Master, Jesus Christ? The matter should not be too difficult, however, for if we determine that a person is ready for the sacrament of the Eucharist, then they are certainly ready for the sacrament of Baptism. Just let them be born before they eat, and let God be their slave master before they take food from Him.

Calvin Finds God's Glory in Interesting Places

As I work my way through Calvin's Institutes, he never fails to amuse me:

"The Creator of nature himself abundantly arouses this gratitude in us [for our abilities in art and science] when he creates imbeciles. Through them he shows the endowments that the human soul would enjoy unpervaded by his light..."

-John Calvin. Institutes 2.2.14

Pelikan on Church and Doctrine

“What the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine. Doctrine is not the only, not even the primary, activity of the church. The church worships God and serves mankind, it works for the transformation of this world and awaits the consummation of its hope in the next. The church is more than a school...but the church cannot be less than a school.”

-Jaroslav Pelikan
Introduction to Christian Tradition