The Equipper

Rosh HaShanah 5771

2010-09-09T08:50:00.006-04:00

The LORD spoke to Moshe, saying, "Speak to the children of Yisra'el, saying, 'In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest to you, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall do no regular work; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD.'" Leviticus 23:23-25

Rosh HaShanah 5771, the Jewish New Year (according to the Jewish civil calendar) begins on the sunset of Wednesday, the 8th of September, 2010.

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the chief angel, and with God's shofar. The dead in Messiah will rise first, then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. So we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore comfort one another with these words." I Thessalonians 4:16-18

End Time Cosmic Blackouts/Signs

2010-06-17T15:12:00.000-04:00

This article, like the previous one, is seeking to illustrate the possible danger of "over-cross-referencing", or turning passages into "parallel passages" on the basis of appearance only without contextual support.

Like the problem with the "general judgment theory" in the previous article, passages containing references to cosmic displays and blackouts are often assumed to be speaking of the same event. The cross-reference column in the margin of study Bibles is sufficient to show that the passages involved are assumed to be cross-references on the basis of similarity of words only without regard to context or usage. This problem seems to run across the various viewpoints on end-time chronology.

Here is a list of twelve such passages (not an exhaustive list) in a suggested sequence . . .

Isaiah 50:3
Joel 2:31; cp.Acts 2:16-21
Revelation 6:9-11
Isaiah 34:4
Revelation 8:12
Joel 2:10
Revelation 9:1-11
Revelation 16:10-11
Joel 3:12-17
Matthew 24:29
Isaiah 24:23
Isaiah 13:9-10.

I would suggest that there are at least ten different prophesied cosmic events spoken of in these passages, if not twelve! Just allow the passages in context to speak for themselves before attempting to correlate them. Trying to make them fit into a presupposed "system" will only produce great frustration. I would also suggest that some of the wording concerning end-time cosmic events is so broad that we may conclude that there will be a constant barrage of cosmic disturbances before and throughout the Day of the Lord.

General Judgment Theory or Various End-Time Judgments?

2010-05-26T14:00:00.001-04:00

This article is an example of the danger discussed in the previous article concerning the potential misuse of cross-referencing and the parallel passage approach.

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology (Volume Three, Eerdmans, 1975, pp.844-850), advocates what has been called "the general judgment theory", that is to say that there is one general end-time judgment at which everything that must be determined is determined. Hodge's approach is built on the notion of a "general resurrection" (p.847), a topic which I will not deal with here except to say that the same danger of forcing resurrection passages to all be parallel is involved with Hodge's assumption. In the pages cited, Hodge lists many Bible verses that contain the word "judgment" or some form of it. His assumption is that any verse that contains this word (and is not already completed historically) must be a parallel referring to one single event. His presentation does not prove his point, it merely presupposes it. The same approach would apply to his treatment of the concept of resurrection. I am only citing Hodge because his approach is illustrative of that of many, if not most, preachers and theologians who in turn influence many people with this teaching.

But, if we look at the Bible itself and allow each passage to make its own contribution before we start trying to systematize, we see a different picture. Please note, I am not saying that we should not systematize, I am saying that Bible passages should not be systematized until we have allowed them to speak for themselves in context according to authorial intent.

For example, the "Great White Throne Judgment" of Revelation 20:11-15 is presented as taking place after the 1,000 reign of Christ and the throwing of Satan into the Lake of Fire (v.1-10). The judgment of Satan, therefore, is a distinct event from the Great White Throne. The location of the Great White Throne Judgment is only specified as being at "a great white throne", but other than that it does not say where this happens. It will not be on earth or in the first heaven, for they have passed away (v.11, and 21:1). We might assume this will only leave the second and third heavens as possible locations, and the third heaven is not likely because only unsaved people are being judged at the Great White Throne and they will not enter in to the third heaven. This leaves outer space or some dimension currently unknown to us for whatever reason/s. The purpose of this judgment is to assess the works of the unsaved dead whose names are not written in the book of life (v.12,15). Their works do not determine their lostness, which of course was already determined in that they did not receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ (John 3:36). Rather their works determine the measure of their experience of torment in the Lake of Fire forever, as illustrated in Luke 12:47-48.

The "Judgment Seat of Christ" is a judgment for believers in Christ (Second Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:10-12). Some have even suggested that the "judgment seat of Christ" in Second Corinthians 5:10 is a different judgment than the "judgment seat of God" in Romans 14:10, even though I would actually see these two as valid parallels proving the deity of Christ. The basis of this judgment is the works of the believer, and the purpose is that the believer will receive reward or loss of reward (First Corinthians 3:9-15) in heaven and the coming Kingdom. This judgment must take place by Revelation chapter four, because reward crowns (Revelation 2:10) already appear on the heads of believers in heaven by Revelation 4:4 and beyond. While much more can and should be said about this judgment, this data suffices to show that the Judgment Seat of Christ does not occur at the same time, place, or for the same purpose as the Great White Throne Judgment, so they cannot be the same event.

Revelation 20:4-5 and Daniel 12:1-2 describe a different resurrection and judgment that take place after "the time of distress" for Israel (Dan.12:2) and before the start of the 1,000 year Kingdom (Rev.20:4). This is a reward judgment of believers also, but a different one from the Judgment Seat of Christ as that takes place by Revelation chapter four and this does not take place until chapter twenty.

Other judgments could be mentioned. Alva J. McLain included a listing of eleven different end time judgments in his class notes. Others have observed even more. But these are sufficient to show that "the general judgment theory" cannot be true because it has yielded to the temptation of forcing Bible passages to be parallel when they are not. The danger in this is that it robs the church of greater precision in preaching that in turn robs individual believers of insight, joy, assurance, and motivation for sanctification.

Dangers of the Parallel Passage Approach

2010-04-20T09:28:00.003-04:00

The observation and utilization of cross-references in the Bible is a valid and necessary principle of biblical interpretation. Some cross-references may be verbal, others conceptual, and still others because of extended parallel accounts. When used correctly, cross-references can properly inform one another.

There can be a danger, however, in turning the use of cross-references or parallel-passages into its own interpretive approach, or at least in exaggerating it.

Consider these possible dangers of turning this principle into an entire approach.

(1) It is often assumed that this is a biblical method even though the Bible itself never speaks of it.

(2) It can overlook other important interpretive principles that are more primary, such as observing context or grammar.

(3) There is a danger of reading into a text an interpretation drawn from another text. It may even tend to foist some preconceived interpretation from one passage upon another.

(4) It forgets that every passage makes its own contribution first, before it can be correlated with other passages.

(5) It falls prey to the fallacy that similarities must be parallels (Ocam's razor). Interpreters must not assume that because two or more things look similar that they are parallel, or identical.

(6) It wrongly presupposes that the natural reading of a passage is the one that fits best with other passages. It is more correct to conclude that the natural reading of a passage is what fits best with its own context.

(7) It seems to compel interpreters to force scriptural details to fit together rather than to allow each passage to make its own contribution. The systematizing of biblical truth must not be the imposition of a system over the Bible in order to make things fit. Systematic Theology must have large enough categories to allow passages to teach their own truth. This requires new categories to be considered in the compilation of Systematic Theology (for example, "Gentile-ology" and "Israelology" in addition to "Ecclesiology").

Daniel's People...Daniel 9:24

2010-03-03T18:30:00.001-05:00

I want first to refer readers back to two previous articles. On December 11, 2009 I wrote about the dangers of "reinterpreting" Old Testament passages rather than "interpreting" them according to their own intention. In that article we clarified that New Testament writers do not deny, contradict, or change ("reinterpret") the intended meaning of Old Testament texts. On December 21, 2009 I used Isaiah 7:14 as an illustrative test case, showing that Matthew used this passage in the same way Isaiah intended it - Matthew did not "reinterpret" Isaiah.

Now, from Daniel 9:24, we observe the introduction to Daniel's record of the prophecy of the "70 Weeks". Daniel 9:24 records, "Seventy weeks have been decreed FOR YOUR PEOPLE AND FOR YOUR HOLY CITY". Daniel's "holy city" is Jerusalem. Attempts to make this a "heavenly" or "spiritual" Jerusalem do not work for the entire context through Daniel 9:27 specifies the city of Jerusalem. New Testament passages, such as Hebrews 12:22 do not change or reinterpret Daniel 9:24.

Daniel's "people" are in particular the people of the house of Judah, i.e. the Jewish people. Daniel was taken into Babylonian captivity as one of them. Daniel's prayer and resultant prophecy of chapter nine are in the context of praying according to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the end of the 70 years of captivity for the Jews (9:2). There is no shift in the identity of Daniel's people as we come to 9:24. The 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy are for the Jewish people, Daniel's people. Attempts to reinterpret "Daniel's people" to include the Church are improper attempts change the intent of Daniel's prophecy. New Testament passages like Romans 2:28-29, Romans 11:17ff., Second Corinthians 3:6 and others indicate that Church-age believers are grafted into (joined to and participate in) Israel's covenant promises. Such passages do not redefine Israel as the Church (nor does Galatians 6:16). Neither are such passages reinterpreting "Daniel's people" to include Church-age believers in the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy.

So, Daniel's people are the Jews and his prophecy centers on Jerusalem. The details of all 70 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy, including the 70th Week (9:27), pertain to Daniel's people - not to the Church.

Iranian "Harsh Blow" on February 11?

2010-02-01T16:28:00.001-05:00

This just in today . . . "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejead says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to 'global arrogance' on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution." This would be February 11.

See http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/

From London with Love??

2010-01-29T14:28:00.004-05:00

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during
their recent "Religion of PEACE Demonstration" !!

Date-Setting Example

2010-01-11T15:09:00.001-05:00

In light of my previous post,you may want to look at this article http://www.americanvision.org/article/harold-camping-will-go-mad-on-may-11-2011.

Date-Setting?

2010-01-01T01:03:00.001-05:00

The New Year often brings with it questions about whether or not this could be the year of Christ's appearing in the air to rapture His church. Well, of course it could!!

But, other questions get confused with this. The film "2012" and conversations about the Mayan calendar have caused some to ask the question this way - "Could this be the end of the world?". Let me give a guarantee - neither this year nor 2012 will be the end of the world. From today, there will at least be the seventieth week of Daniel (7 years) plus the millennial kingdom of Messiah (1,000 years) before the world will end. In addition to that 1007 years, there will be whatever time between now and when the 70th week begins, which is unknown, plus at least a 75 day interval between the 70th week and the millennial kingdom (compare Revelation 13:6 with Daniel 12:11-12). Revelation 20:11 and Second Peter 3:10 describe "the end of the world" as the supernatural judgment of God rather than man-made self-destruction.

Another confusion is demonstrated when the question is phrased, "Will Jesus return this year?". We should ask, "Could He?". But, "will He?" or "must He"? We do not know. Be suspicious of anyone who "sets" a date or says this "must" be the time - he/she may be guilty of the sin of presumption/false prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:22). Setting a date is very specific, measurable, and, if wrong, tends to put a "black eye" on the face of all believers in Christ. There is no biblical command against date-setting, but there are abundant warnings against foolishness and presumption.

Matthew 24:42-44 is not a prohibition of wondering, guessing, or even date-setting. It is a statement of the reality that no one knows the day of Christ's return ending the 70th week of Daniel (cp. Daniel 9:27 with Revelation 19:20). It is not a reference to the rapture of the church, although the principle of not knowing can be indirectly applied to the rapture of the church if one just tries to do the math from an unknown reference point.

First Thessalonians 5:2ff. is not a prohibition either. Nor are Matthew 24:42-44 and First Thessalonians 5:2ff. valid cross-references to one another. Jesus and Paul are talking about different, though not unrelated, issues. Paul is asserting that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly on the unsaved world, but not on believers who should constantly be living in expectation of the rapture (cp. 4:16-18 with 5:4-11) and therefore are not surprised. This is further evidence that the "day" of Revelation 6:17 must already be taking place prior to the statement in 6:17, because the unsaved of the earth are hiding in caves expecting the wrath of Christ upon them, but when the Day of the Lord begins it comes upon the lost as a "thief" according to First Thessalonians 5:2ff., not while they are hiding in the mountains, but while they are saying "peace and safety".

Guesses or desires are not in themselves bad things. What can become a problem is one asserting too definitively what one does not in fact know. Rather than mocking guessers, believers would do well to take these conversations as Gospel opportunities.

May this New Year be one for each of us who knows Jesus Christ, of "fighting the good fight", "finishing the course", "keeping the faith", and "loving His appearing" (Second Timothy 4:7-8).

Isaiah 7:14...Christmas Hermeneutics

2009-12-21T16:45:00.001-05:00

The "Jewish Study Bible" (Jewish Publication Society, Oxford University Press, 1999, p.798) makes this comment on Isaiah 7:14 : "Young woman (Heb "almah"). The Septuagint translates as 'virgin', leading ancient and medieval Christians to connect this verse with the New Testament figure of Mary. All modern scholars, however, agree that the Heb merely denotes a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not."

This comment completely ignores the New Testament, as might be expected in a Jewish commentary. It overlooks the fact that not only did "ancient and medieval Christians" make this connection to the virgin birth of Jesus, but that the New Testament itself does so in Matthew 1:23, which is why Christians have followed the teaching. The implication of this statement from the Jewish commentators is that the New Testament is wrong in Matthew 1:23, because it makes an invalid connection between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus the Messiah. In other words, Matthew "reinterpreted" Isaiah 7:14 to fit his "Christian" purposes.
There are at least three more things wrong with the "Jewish Study Bible" (JSB) comment. (1) The Hebrew word "almah" is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to an unmarried virgin (Genesis 24:23, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8), not merely "a young woman of marriageable age". (2) The comment implies that the Septuagint translation had to be wrong. (3) To state that "all modern scholars" agree on this is simply not true, in fact would not be true of "all modern scholars" on anything! It does allow the Jewish Study Bible commentators to call anyone who disagrees with them "ancient" or "medieval", that is, out of touch with current scholarship and reality.

But, the sadder issue is that there are Christian commentators who have done exactly what the JSB has accused them of doing. Trying to acknowledge the historic setting of this section of Isaiah, it is insisted that the virgin is Isaiah's wife (see 8:1-2), and the son is Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz of his prophetess wife (see 8:3), and that Isaiah's son is called Immanuel (8:8,10). In doing this, as for example Herbert M. Wolf does in "Interpreting Isaiah" (Zondervan, 1985, p.91), it becomes necessary for such commentators to conclude that Matthew has used a "reinterpreting" kind of hermeneutic when referring to Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23. Wolf puts it this way, "In the New Testament, Isaiah 7:14 was used in a fuller sense and applied to Mary and Jesus. Mary, unlike the virgin in Isaiah's day, was still a virgin even after becoming pregnant." Did you hear it? Wolf is saying that Matthew is giving a "fuller" meaning to Isaiah 7:14 than what was actually present in the text. Thus, he is implying that New Testament writers can treat Old Testament texts in a different way than the Old Testament writers intended them, as long as the treatment is filtered through the grid of their Christian purposes (Jesus and the Gospel). If you take this approach, I suspect the JSB commentators have just had you for lunch.

It would be much better to recognize Isaiah's actual intent in Isaiah 7, and realize that Matthew is using Isaiah 7:14 in exactly the same way that Isaiah intended it to be used. When Ahaz rejected any sign from the Lord through Isaiah (7:11-12), the Lord by-passed Ahaz and gave the sign to the "House of David" (7:13). The prophesied son is not the son of Isaiah, but a royal son, in accordance with the theme of Yahweh's faithfulness to Zion and David, and fitting with the idiom "curds and honey" as royal food (7:15,22). While Isaiah's son in chapter 8 may be seen as typologically portraying to some extent the meaning of Immanuel in 7:14, the son of 7:14 is in fact the Messiah, Israel's King, not Isaiah's son. As Andrew H. Bartelt points out ("The Book Around Immanuel", Eisenbrauns, 1996, pp.115-117), "The consequences of this message, however, as they were to be played out in the subsequent history of Judah are perceived by Isaiah himself to be long-range rather than immediate." I would add for the sake of the JSB guys, that Bartelt represents some of the very latest scholarship, so "all modern scholars" are not on their side.
An excellent survey of various "evangelical" approaches to the New Testament use of the Old Testament can be seen at http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt1.htm, and http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/bockotnt2.htm in an article by Darrell Bock. Elliot Johnson, S.Lewis Johnson, and Walt Kaiser all represent the authorial intent/single meaning hermeneutic. Though Bock distinguishes between the approach of the Johnsons and the approach of Kaiser, there is in fact little difference between them. Concerning Isaiah 7:14, they would all agree that Matthew is using the text exactly as Isaiah intended. It is edifying to read their articles, footnoted in Bock's article (Bock disagrees with them, by the way). Kaiser's article, "The Promise of Isaiah 7:14 and the Single-Meaning Hermeneutic" can also be found in an appendix of John Ankerberg's "The Case For Jesus The Messiah" (Harvest House, 1989).

What value is this discussion to us? Precisely this - the prophet Isaiah intentionally and accurately predicted the virgin birth of Jesus Christ more than seven hundred years in advance. Matthew 1:23 accurately records the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. This is not a mere Christian "reinterpretation", this is historical fact. This is truth. Our sovereign God, Who alone knows the end from the beginning, has worked out the details of His plan in His Word in such a way that the proof is documented. Let us worship Him in wonder at the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, Who came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

Incorrect Hermeneutics Lead to the Denouncement of Israel

2009-12-11T23:26:00.001-05:00

In todays news from Israel is an amazingly clear illustration of the impact of one's interpretation of the Bible on world politics.

Those of us who acknowledge the importance of agreeing with the author's intent for a Bible passage as a principle of assessing validity in interpretation (as in E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, Yale, 1967) just took a major hit today from some Palestinians who think of themselves as Christians. These Palestinians do not consider it acceptable to allow the Old Testament to speak for itself with its own intent.

Note their position on hermeneutics, clearly stated in the article " 'Christians' of the Holy Land Denounce Israel " (found at http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=79) . . . "The (Palestinian "Christian') leaders then took aim at Evangelical Christians around the world that support Israel based on biblical precepts. 'Jesus came with a new teaching (Mk.1:27), casting a new light on the Old Testament on the themes that relate to our Christian faith and our daily lives, themes such as the promises, the election, the people of God, and the land. For this reason it is unacceptable to transform the Word of God into letters of stone. This is the precise error in fundamentalist biblical interpretation that brings us death and destruction when the Word of God is petrified and transmitted from generation to generation as a dead letter. This dead letter is used as a weapon in our present history in order to deprive us of our rights in our own land."

Observe that Mark 1:27 does not illustrate, support, or teach the concept that they seem to be trying to derive from it.

The hermeneutical approach they use to justify denouncing Israel is this - Jesus cast "a new light on the Old Testament". This is the same dangerous hermeneutic as proposed by George Eldon Ladd years ago within evangelical, "covenant" premillenialism, namely, "But precisely here is our basic hermeneutic. Jesus, and the apostles after Him, REINTERPRETED the Old Testament prophecies in light of Jesus' person and mission" (see Ladd, "The Last Things", Eerdmans, 1978, p.17).

Those of us who have the principle of authorial intent/single intent in our hermeneutical understanding of the Old Testament find the notion of the New Testament "reinterpreting" the Old to be inaccurate and dangerous. Does the New Testament give further information and clarity of Old Testament passages in light of the progress of divine revelation? Of course. But does the New Testament change the intended meaning of any Old Testament passage into a different meaning, i.e. "reinterpretation"? Absolutely not. For New Testament writers to do so would be to deny or contradict the intended meaning of the Old Testament, which is to say that they would have gotten it wrong, because they would have been using an invalid hermeneutic. Such would, by the model of New Testament writers, set all meaning in any text into a sea of interpretive relativity.

In the Israel Today news article, the result of this "reinterpretation" is for Palestinians to change the meaning of "Israel" to something else (or someone else, namely themselves), and to change the meaning of the land of Israel into something else (namely, "our rights in our own land"). Such "reinterpretation" of the meaning of Israel is the same thing that Ladd designed his hermeneutic to do (see chapter of "The Last Things" entitled "What About Israel?").

Do sound hermeneutics matter? In the world scene of today, more than ever. For both Jews and Christians in Israel today, their lives depend on it.

BATTLE INTENSIFIES TO DIVIDE JERUSALEM

2009-12-07T04:30:00.000-05:00

This news just came in from Joel Rosenberg, and I thought readers should see it and pray.

(WASHINGTON, D.C., December 7, 2009) -- The battle to divide Jerusalem is intensifying this week. Sweden is pushing hard to pass an initiative this coming Sunday to persuade 27 foreign ministers of European Union states to endorse a plan to recognize unilaterally East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestinian State. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is doing everything he can to counter the Swedish effort.

The Bible teaches that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob loves Israel's neighbors, but has specifically chosen Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish people and His own prized possession. It is not to be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey.

In Psalm 132:13-16, we read, "For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. 'This is My resting place forever; Here I will dwell, for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her with bread."

The Bible also teaches that the Lord will judge the nations who seek to divide Israel and Jerusalem. In Joel 3:1-2, we read, "When I restore the fortunes of Jerusalem [in the last days] I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance Israel whom they have scattered among the nations and they have divided up My land."

Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation

2009-11-18T13:10:00.002-05:00

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

***********************************************************************************
Join us for one hour of prayer on Thursday, November 26,2009 from 11am until 12 noon at the building of the New Beginnings Grace Brethren Church, Myerstown, PA.

Some Reflections

2009-11-16T12:31:00.000-05:00

The previous two articles on Revelation 3:10 and First Thessalonians 1:10 attracted considerable interest, both via blog comments and private emails. Permit me, please, just two reflections.

When it is all evaluated, there was no disagreement over the two pertinent verses themselves. All of the disagreement related to the application of those verses, especially regarding Revelation 6. While not wanting to minimize at all the importance of the Revelation 6 discussion (there are real issues involved), I do want to point out that the discussion only strengthened the concept that the use of Revelation 3:10 and First Thessalonians 1:10 in the FGBC Statement of Faith is valid. Further, the discussion proved that the conclusions are not arrived at by the imposition of a pre-supposed system upon the biblical text, but through an honest attempt to understand the verses themselves. I do still wish that the FGBC Statement did not use the word "tribulation", but instead used "the 70th Week of Daniel", but that is another discussion.

I want to thank David Mohler for his extended explanation of the sovereign grace of God in Revelation 6. I agree that Revelation 6 is a vivid display of the grace of God. There will be a great number of people saved (at first primarily Gentiles, Rev.7:9, Mt.24:14) during the time of the first six seals - some of them will be martyred (Rev.6:9-11) and others will be raptured as part of the 6th seal (Rev.7:14). David applies this to the past and present age, while I put it in the future, so we would have interpretive differences on the meaning of the six seals, but we agree that there is great grace. I would further say that this does not negate the beginning of wrath, sovereign wrath, in the first six seals, but is fulfilling Habakkuk 3:2, "In wrath remember mercy". I trust that I will never be found disagreeing with the sovereign grace of God whenever or wherever it is displayed.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

2009-10-13T16:03:00.000-04:00

In the previous article I sought to defend the use of Revelation 3:10 as exegetically valid in the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith. The other verse in the Statement which has been challenged is First Thessalonians 1:10 - "and to wait for His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, Who rescues us from the wrath to come."

Granted, genuine believers from varying eschatological viewpoints will either claim this verse as a proof-text or at least a text that fits within their approach. The critical discussion pivots around the extent of the meaning of the phrase "the wrath to come".

Is "the wrath to come" the "second death/lake of fire" poured out on unbelievers at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:12-15)? Probably all believers would say "Yes", that Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath of Hell. Those who are amillennial, postmillennial, or non-"tribulational"-premillennial would probably limit the extent of the meaning of "the wrath to come" to that. Of course, believers are already rescued from any present experience of God's wrath (John 3:36, Romans 8:1), but the issue in First Thessalonians 1:10 is future wrath, not present.

But, does the "wrath to come" only refer to the believer's rescue from Hell (and perhaps some pre-realized deliverance from present wrath), or does "wrath to come" include more? Those who understand Revelation chs 6-18 as describing a yet future sequence of events, see Revelation 6:17 as a crucial verse for this discussion - "the great day of their wrath has come". There will be a future time of God's wrath on earth, and it will happen during the six seals of Revelation 6 and extend beyond that. The verb "has come" (elthen) is aorist indicative, "referring to the previous arrival of the wrath, not something that is about to take place" (from Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary, Moody, 1992, p.457). Any attempts to make elthen into a futuristic aorist, draining any wrath out of the first six seals of Revelation 6, does so quite unnaturally, unusually, and incorrectly.

Thus, the entirety of the seven years of Revelation 6-18 contains the wrath of God. The "pre-wrath" deliverance from future wrath promised in First Thessalonians 1:10 includes deliverance from the wrath of God that will come within the first six seals of Revelation 6. Comparing this discussion with the one in the previous article indicates that what is being spoken of in Revelation 3:10 is also being spoken of in First Thessalonians 1:10.

Therefore, the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith has used First Thessalonians 1:10 properly, as it has Revelation 3:10.

Revelation 3:10

2009-09-28T13:56:00.001-04:00

Before I took a much needed blogging break, I was asked to deal with the passages that are listed in the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith concerning the Rapture of the Church. I had made a comment to the effect that these are valid passages to use, even though they may not be the only or even strongest ones. (As an aside, I am in favor of a revision of the Statement of Faith if the revision strengthens or adds to what is already there in order to communicate more clearly to our present generation, but not if it reduces the content or intent of the Statement of Faith.) Those who raised questions about my statement were suggesting that one could not infer a Pre-Tribulational Rapture view from these verses.

What I am trying to do in this article is to demonstrate what one may know from a few exegetical observations of Revelation 3:10 and how such knowledge applies to the Statement of Faith. By no means am I attempting to be exhaustive in this brief article.

SOME OBSERVATIONS

- The Philadelphia church is recognized as a solidarity, as are the other churches of Revelation 2-3. The "you" of verse 10 is singular.

- The statement "have kept the word of My perseverance" is a beautiful statement of the eternal security of the believer. The church had kept/preserved/guarded/protected this word, a description of her continuance in faith. The word she believed was concerning Christ's perseverance in keeping His own. Both the "perseverance of the saints" and the "perseverance of the Savior" are here, and you do not have one without the other.

- The promise of Christ to "keep" the Philadelphia church cannot be separated from the church's faith, she having "kept" the truth of His perseverance.

- The promise that the church will be kept "from" this time of trial does not mean kept "through" the time of trial. See John A. Sproule, "In Defense of Pre-Tribulationism" (BMH Books, 1980).

- The verse predicts a specific time of testing that was yet future to the Philadelphia church. The definite article with the word "hour" indicates that this is not trial or testing as a generalization or principle, but rather a specific, coming time of trial.

- The predicted time of trial is said to be global, upon the "whole world". No global trial like this happened during the first century experience of the Philadelphia church. The statement does not compare to the one in Revelation 2:10 concerning the church at Smyrna where the language indicates something localized and limited. Any attempts to fit this verse into an "already" model of fulfillment fail before the term "whole world". There is no history to substantiate that there has been any such time of trial like this since Jesus gave this prediction to John. Localized experiences of trial (Roman persecution, AD 70, some unknown persecution upon Philadelphia, etc.) cannot qualify as fulfillment of Jesus' prediction in this verse. Therefore, Jesus' intent of this statement to John could not have been been limited in scope of application of the promise or the prediction merely to the Philadelphia church. The fulfillment is not "already" but "not yet".

- The description of predicted future global events in Revelation chapter 6 and beyond does match the description of the global trial predicted by Christ in Revelation 3:10. Context would determine for the reader that the events of chapter 6 are what Jesus intended by His prediction in 3:10.

APPLICATION

- It is therefore valid to conclude that those who read and believe the Book of Revelation, and meet the condition of faith described in Revelation 3:10, may also appropriate the promise of Revelation 3:10.

- It is therefore also valid for the Grace Brethren Statement of Faith to use this verse in the manner it has.

Systematic Theology or Theological System?

2009-08-10T16:48:00.000-04:00

Should we, in fact must we, seek to organize the results of our Bible study into a form that provides answers for the culture in which we live? Yes!! We should and must systematize our biblical theology. But, should we assume or impose a theological system over our Bible study, which then makes verses read in a particular way that fits the system? No!! We must allow each passage in its context to speak for itself. This must always come first. I hope we can all see and appreciate the difference in these two approaches.

One way some superimpose systems onto our Bibles, on ourselves, and on others, is by turning otherwise helpful tools or observations into "isms". So adherence to biblical fundamentals gets expanded into "fundamentalism" (which historically I thought was a very good thing, but now it is a liable to have the label). Utilization of the observation of historical divine stewardships or dispensations throughout Scripture gets expanded into "dispensationalism" by both friends and foes. This becomes something some feel the need to attack and others feel the need to propagate. The observation that the Bible operates in a covenantal framework gets expanded into "covenantalism", or "covenant theology".

The same can happen with the contributions of individuals, which are then turned into systems or creedal groups. Such is evidenced when a group is named after a person. I appreciate a very significant amount of the work of John Calvin (much celebrated in this memorial year), but far from all (especially considering the implications of his eschatology on his failed Geneva experiment, and the imposition of theocracy even to the point of murder), so I could not be considered a "Calvinist" (even though my "Arminian" friends persist in calling me one anyway). I appreciate Martin Luther's work on justification by faith alone and his theology of the cross (catching up with some of our pre-Reformation primitive Church brethren who believed it all along and were never part of the Catholic system), but certainly disdain Luther's hatred of the Jews, so I could not be a "Lutheran". While I enjoy some of the influence of Menno Simons on the anabaptist development of the believers' church concept, I point out the error in his Christology as it relates to the humanity of Christ, so I could not be a "Mennonite". I am "soteriologically reformed", but not "reformed" in my ecclesiology nor my eschatology, so the "reformed" won't let me use the name "reformed" because I don't believe they "reformed" enough (whew!).

Or, a doctrine can be elevated to an entire system or denomination. I believe in baptism, but I cannot be a "Baptist", elevating that one doctrine into the central one. I believe in the rule of the local church by Elders, but I cannot make that the main identifier of the Church and become a "Presbyterian" or "Episcopalian". Emerging has become "emergent".

The truly sad part of all of this is that it is almost impossible anymore to have a genuinely biblical, spiritual conversation or even do some significant Bible teaching without a high number of people assuming that they already know where you are coming from, because they have already put you into a "system" in their minds.

Let's get back to "living in the world of the Bible" and bringing it to bear on our culture. Brethren, "we have the mind of Christ" (First Corinthians 2:16). Let's keep going back to the Word of God afresh and finding the answers we need to systematize in order to defend the Gospel in our day.

Signs??

2009-07-17T09:21:00.001-04:00

As a result of communicating the information you can read in the posts "PARAGRAPH 67" and "THE DREAM OF A SINGLE, GLOBAL CURRENCY", I have been asked, "Are these events 'signs' that the rapture is soon?"

The question requires a careful answer.

There are no Scripture texts that teach that there are or will be any "signs" leading up to the rapture of the Church. The rapture of the Church is a "signless" event. Since the birth of the Church the expectation has been that Christ could return for His Church at any moment (for example, James 5:9, Second Timothy 4:8). No "signs" or intermediate events are required to happen before the rapture of the Church.

There are, however, "signs" that occur pointing to the coming time of Tribulation on the earth and beyond to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. For example, Jesus Himself discusses "signs" of His Second Coming and the importance of knowing how to recognize them (Matthew 24:32-35). Some events that will take place during the coming time of Tribulation are already beginning to "line up" (the one-world political authority and currency for example, or the nations who will come against Israel at the "Gog from Magog Battle" of Ezekiel 38 for another, and more). These are "signs" that the Tribulation period is soon.

While there are no "signs" pertaining to the rapture of the Church (I use the phrase "rapture of the Church" to distinguish it from other "raptures" throughout the Bible), there is prophetic value to the Church of the "signs" pertaining to the Tribulation and Second Coming. Why? Allow me to illustrate.

Suppose you are driving on an interstate highway. Your know your destination, but there are no "signs" telling you that your destination will be reached in a certain number of miles/kilometers. But there are "signs" for a major city that is beyond your destination. As you observe the distance to that major city diminishing according to the "signs", you know that your destination is even closer than the "signs" indicate.

If there are "signs" for events (the Tribulation and Second Coming) that are beyond the rapture of the Church, that only increases our expectation that the rapture of the Church must be even sooner.

The focus of the Church is not to be on "signs", rather on the destination. Consider Colossians 3:1-2, "Therefore, since you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth."

"Signs" are on earth. Christ is coming from heaven for His Church. We must keep our focus upon Him. His appearing is our Blessed Hope (Titus 2:13). Or consider First Corinthians 1:22-23a, "For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified". We are not looking for "signs", we are looking for Christ. Along the way, if we do happen to observe "signs", we rejoice because Christ's appearing for us is that much closer.

When some of you hear about the "signs", a sense of fear comes over you. Maybe this is because you are not prepared for the unfolding of end-time events. You have never personally and specifically trusted in The God-Man, Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and eternal life. Observe First Peter 3:18, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit." Trust in Christ as your Sinbearer, your Eternal Savior, your Life. When you do, this means that God by His grace has put you in the category of those who have "turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God" (First Thessalonians 1:9). You will experience a new joy and freedom that empowers you "to wait for His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, Who rescues us from the wrath to come (First Thessalonians 1:10).

It is possible that some of you do not look forward to seeing Christ because you are more attached to your sin and the present world than you are to Christ. If you are in reality a believer who has trusted Christ for salvation, this is not to be so. And, if you are not even concerned about your sin and attachment to the world-system, you may not have ever become a genuine believer at all. As a believer, you have the privilege of this promise and instruction - "See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are the children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure (First John 3:1-3)."

Genuine believers are being transformed into a greater reflection of Christ's glory every day as we focus upon Him in His Word (Second Corinthians 3:18). We will instantaneously be completely changed into the likeness of His glory at the rapture of the Church (First Corinthians 15:51-52), when we will "see Him just as He is" (First John 3:2).

Do not let a focus on "signs" rob you of hope today. The destination is what is vital, not the "signs". May nothing stand between you and seeing Christ today. He is the joy and hope of life.

Theology And The News

2009-07-15T13:24:00.001-04:00

Sometimes when one lets news be known in the way I have attempted in the posts "PARAGRAPH 67" and "THE DREAM OF A SINGLE, GLOBAL CURRENCY", the criticism of engaging in "newspaper theology" comes fairly quickly.

"Newspaper theology" is not a correct approach to interpreting the Bible. At least it is not a correct approach to anyone who believes that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient authority for faith, life, theology, worldview, etc. We should not, having seen something interesting in the news, cram the news into the meaning of a Bible verse, or determine the meaning of a Bible passage by what we see in the news. We should also be cautious about saying that "this" in the news is the "fulfillment of that" in the Bible.

We should, however, learn to evaluate the news in light of the Bible. No, We should not evaluate the meaning of Scripture by the news, but we should evaluate the meaning of the news by the Bible. We should not do "newspaper theology", but we should do "theology newspaper".

Everything in the Word of God will come to pass, including the details of Revelation 13:3-4, 16-17. What the news in "PARAGRAPH 67" and "THE DREAM OF A SINGLE, GLOBAL CURRENCY" points out is that the world is being set up for these future events in an unprecedented way.

"Let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober" (First Thessalonians 5:6).

The Dream of a Single, Global Currency

2009-07-15T08:21:00.002-04:00

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev illustrated his call for a supranational currency to replace the dollar by pulling from his pocket a sample coin of a "united future world currency." http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com
"Here it is," Medveded told reporters on July 10, 2009 in L'Aquila, Italy, after the international G-8 summit, "You can see it and touch it." www.bloomberg.com.

The coin, which bears the words "unity in diversity", was minted in Belgium and presented to the heads of the G-8 delegations. Medveded said, "The question of a supranational currency concerns everyone now, even the mints. The test coin means they're getting ready." Medveded has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the US dollar's future as a global reserve currency. Russia's proposals at the G-20 meeting in London back in April, 2009 included the creation of a supranational currency. China also has been a vocal proponent of the global currency system, taking influence away from the US dollar which has dominated global finance and commerce since the end of World War 2. French President Nicolas Sarkozy also joined the band at the G-8 summit in favor of dumping the dollar. www.breitbart.com

This issue is alerting to those who believe the Bible, especially the warning that the whole world will be forced to use a unified economic system under the domination of a wicked, global leader during the future time of world crisis known in the Bible as "the 70th week of Daniel", the "indignation", et.al. (see Revelation 13:16-17). Suspicions are aroused even further when coupled with the release of the encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI calling for a one-world-government, only three days earlier, July 7, 2009 from nearby Rome.

Paragraph 67

2009-07-15T08:10:00.004-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI has published his first social encyclical, which was presented at a Vatican press conference on the morning of July 7, 2009 zenit.org. The presentation was made by Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, and Stefano Zamagni, professor of political economy at the University of Bologna, Italy, and consultor of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The encyclical was then released to the public at noon on July 7, suspiciously just one day before the the G-8 international summit was to begin in L'Aquila, Italy.

The official title of the document is "Encyclical Letter CARITAS IN VERITATE of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women Religious, the Lay Faithful, and All People of Good Will, on INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHARITY AND TRUTH" www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents.

The encyclical is mainly devoted to urging a united world to solve the problems of poverty, injustice, terrorism, starvation, racism, etc. on a global level. It is masterfully written, and in compelling in numerous ways. After all, who would want to be found as opposing "integral human development"?

But it is mainly Paragraph 67 that causes the hairs of Bible-believers (Revelation 13:7-8, 16-17) to stand. This paragraph suggests the means by which these global problems will have to be solved. Look at these quotes from Paragraph 67 carefully . . .

"In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION, and likewise of ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS OF GLOBAL FINANCE, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth."

"TO MANAGE THE GLOBAL ECONOMY; TO REVIVE ECONOMIES HIT BY THE CRISIS; TO AVOID ANY DETERIORATION OF THE PRESENT CRISIS AND THE GREATER IMBALANCES THAT WOULD RESULT; TO BRING ABOUT INTEGRAL AND TIMELY DISARMAMENT, FOOD SECURITY AND PEACE; TO GUARANTEE THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO REGULATE MIGRATION: FOR ALL THIS, THERE IS THE URGENT NEED OF A TRUE WORLD POLITICAL AUTHORITY . . ."

"Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and the civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations."

Now, I encourage readers to check out the entire encyclical for themselves. Defenders of the Pope have already tried to point out that he is not calling for a one-world-political-authority, but is in fact against it www.lifesitenews.com. All I can say, is that when I read the document I surely see the Pope calling for "A TRUE WORLD POLITICAL AUTHORITY".

Ode to Lost Celebrities

2009-07-01T14:27:00.000-04:00

For all his years of exclaiming, "He-e-e-e-e-e-r-e's Johnny!",
did he trust in Jesus Christ?
For all the winners he delivered the money,
did he receive eternal life?

For all her attention over physical appeal,
did she know inner beauty that's real?
For all her fame in acting as an "angel",
did she ever eternity feel?

For all his pushing on infomercials
so people would buy "OxyClean",
did he trust in the death and blood of Jesus
to cleanse him from all of sin's stains?

For all the acclaim from thousands of fans,
did anyone the Gospel tell
to this talented, but sad and lonely boy
who can't do the moonwalk in hell?

For the Scripture says it's appointed for all,
yes even the famous, to die.
On the day their soul is required of them,
then what will their money buy?

For when it's all said and done, and the books are opened,
there will be no one else you can blame;
for all that will matter on that awesome day
is that you've trusted the Lamb that was slain.

It's Israel - No Buts About It

2009-06-27T21:07:00.000-04:00

Recently at our district ministerium I was speaking on the Old Testament book of Habakkuk, pointing out the yet to be fulfilled promises to Judah, especially the promise of the glorious Coming of Messiah in Habakkuk 3:3-4. In the context of the teaching, I mentioned my serious concerns over several messages I had heard fairly recently in which the preachers took Old Testament passages like this, and prefacing their messages with a phrase like, "I know this is about Israel, but . . .", then proceeded to preach an application of the text instead of preaching the meaning of the text itself. While the applications were probably valid, the main thrust of the passage was lost.

After the meeting, several of the pastors came and confessed that they had been committing this same error in their preaching. They also pointed out a number of very prominent preachers from whom they had heard such a comment. I mention one here because he was referred to several times by the pastors and apparently has had some influence on them - R. Albert Mohler, Jr. in his book He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World (2008, Moody). One of my staff members mentioned to me he had noticed this kind of error in Mohler's comments on Ezekiel 37 in chapter ten. I had not read the book, so he loaned me his audio CD of the book, to which I have now completed listening (it takes a lot longer for me to listen to a book than to read it).

If I may, I would like to balance my criticism with these advance thoughts. (1) Apart from the section I am going to point out, I appreciated Mohler's book. I commend the emphasis on the necessity of expositional preaching with the Gospel at the center. (2) I have no objection to using Ezekiel 37 as a model for ministry, evangelism, personal regeneration, or even church revitalization - in fact we should do so. What preacher would not resonate at least somewhat with the chapter title "On Preaching to Dry Bones"? But, these are not the meaning of the passage, nor the main thrust of the passage - they are secondary applications.

Now, here is the statement from the chapter which has been brought to my attention. It concerns the meaning of Ezekiel 37. "This is about the future hope of the resurrection. It is about God's promise to His own people, that He would give them new life. Of course, this prophecy took place at a specific moment in Israel's history, and it was first directed to that reality - a different time and context from our own. But, like every text in the Old Testament, this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Ultimately, it's great hope is not limited to Israel. This is the hope of the Church - restoration and resurrection through the preached Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Please notice the "but" in the middle of this quote. It's about Israel, "but" . . .

Shouldn't the expositor first be seeking the meaning of the text in it's own context? But Mohler seems to want to rush as quickly as possible to use the New Testament to reinterpret to Old, an invalid way to read the text. It would seem that he is doing this to not allow the reader time to even think that there is any other intent for this passage than the one he wants to give it. The New Testament uses the Old consistently with the meaning and intent of the Old, not in a way that reinterprets the Old.

"This is about the future hope of resurrection." Well, yes. But the passage is unmistakably about the reunification of the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel into one, the regathering of all of the tribes of Israel to the promised land, the spiritual regeneration of the whole house of Israel, as well as the resurrection of Israel's believing dead. Mohler has missed all the important stuff.

"It is about God's promise to His own people, that He would give them new life." This is only true if by "His own people" is meant believing Israel. This cannot be forced to mean "His people" indiscriminately.

"Of course, this prophecy took place at a specific moment in Israel's history . . ." Agreed!

". . . and it was first directed to that reality . . ." Yes, Ezekiel's prophecy is directed to the reality of the Babylonian captivity. But, his prophecy is also directed to the reality of the future for that historic people and their offspring. Ezekiel 37 has not yet been completely fulfilled. For example, the Northern and Southern kingdoms have never been reunited. Israel has not yet experienced spiritual regeneration as promised in this chapter. Ezekiel is addressing a reality yet to come.

" . . .a different time and context from our own." Yes! So, we must be very careful about how we hop and skip from the past and future to our own time.

"But, like every text in the Old Testament, this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ." I would like to know what this statement means. Of course we agree that Christ is the fulfillment of everything in the Old Testament (and New Testament as well) - the law, the prophets, and the writings. But, some of this is yet future. If by "is fulfilled" Mohler means that Ezekiel 37 has already been completely fulfilled in Christ, then he is terribly mistaken. Much of this is yet to be fulfilled in Christ. Christ is the future Davidic King presented in this chapter (v.24-28). By trying to compress the meaning of this chapter into the Church age, Mohler has completely missed Jesus Christ presented in this chapter as the future King.

"Ultimately, it's great hope is not limited to national Israel." I absolutely agree. But if the promises to Israel are not actually fulfilled as promised, they cannot be extended to anyone else for they would not even be true. If God does not regather, reunite, and regenerate Israel, nothing in this chapter can give hope for ministry, evangelism, or personal regeneration. If God will not keep His promises to Israel, then you cannot be sure that He will keep His promises to you in the midst of the Church age (this is the point of Romans 9-11).

"This is the hope of the Church - restoration and resurrection through the preached Gospel of Jesus Christ." While again I agree that the hope of the Church is the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is not the "this" of Ezekiel 37. Ezekiel 37 is not about the Church, and applications may only be made to the Church secondarily. The hope for the Church in this passage it is to see that Christ, the Davidic King of the glorious future Messianic Kingdom, will fulfill all of these promises to Israel, and that the Church benefits because we have been grafted in to those promises.

It's about Israel. No "ifs". No "buts". And, yes, a glorious "and" for all those who believe and are grafted in to the promises to Israel's patriarchs (Romans 11:18-19).

Blessing Abraham's Nation??

2009-06-01T13:31:00.002-04:00

Genesis 12:2-3 "And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, and so you shall be a blessing, and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Genesis 17:19 "But God said, 'No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."

In light of such Biblical statements as the above, evaluate these recent news pieces from Israel Today ...

Sunday, May 31, 2009 "Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday told reporters in Cairo that he is convinced that US President Barack Obama is firmly committed to finally ejecting the Jews from Judea and Samaria . . . Meanwhile, Israeli officials cited by Ha'aretz decried the Obama administration's stiff demands that no more houses be built for Jews beyond the pre-1967 borders . . . Other officials attributed Obama's hard-line positions against Israel to his efforts to reconcile with the Arab and Muslim worlds, which will be the focus of a much anticipated speech he will give in Cairo this Thursday."

Monday, June 01, 2009 "Senior officials this week warned that the Obama administration will discontinue America's traditional defense of Israel at the United Nations if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not agree to stop building homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria. The officials were quoted by the New York Times as saying US President Barack Obama is seriously considering no longer vetoing harsh anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council . . ."

Is there any other country left on earth who will bless Abraham's nation? Does Israel have anywhere to go for help, except perhaps to the lying, deceptive offers of the anti-Messiah? What will this mean for America, and for the missionary efforts that come from American churches and mission agencies these days?

Anyone left who still believes that the Book of Genesis is the very Word of God and takes it seriously should be prayerfully and alertly watching.

Dad Writes Again!!

2009-05-16T22:48:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, Saturday May 16, 2009, my son Phillip was married. I get to be the tremendously blessed Dad once again. All my love and the Lord's gracious blessing upon you - Phillip and Emily.

Dad

A Glimmer of Hope, But Then??

2009-03-12T14:32:00.004-04:00

Maybe the previous article along with the prayers and outcries of many of us, actually did some good! Charles (Chas) Freeman actually "removed himself from consideration to head the US National Intelligence Council, a position President Barak Obama tapped him for ...". Why? Because he was "heavily criticized by Israel advocacy groups and congressional Republicans" whom he called "unscrupulous people". Read the Article on Charles Freeman. Thanks to all of you "unscrupulous" ;-) friends out there!

But, here is another headline - "Clinton:There Will Be a Palestinian State, Jerusalem Will Be Its Capital". See Hillary Clinton's comments. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "all but guaranteed that her government will clash with Netanyahu's when she suggested in a joint press conference with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that for Washington, the division of Jerusalem is a foregone conclusion."

I would suggest that Obama, Clinton, and company read Joel 3:1-2 in the Bible and see that there is a coming judgment pronounced by God on behalf of Israel especially for those who have "divided up My land".

Trying to not be on either side usually means you are taking the wrong side - it seems to be in this case.

So Soon??

2009-02-24T22:14:00.002-05:00

I am not surprised to see the Obama administration's disregard and disdain for Israel, but I am surprised that it has been unleashed so soon and so blatantly. Below are some news sources you will want to check out on this matter.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=18296

Headline: "Obama to Pour Nearly $1 billion into Gaza". For what? Relief to Hamas to help rebuild Gaza. Hmmm - why wouldn't he give the money to Israel who actually owns the land? True believers in Christ who live in Palestinian territory actually long to be under Israel. Why would he give the money to this terrorist group that tries to masquerade as a government? Why doesn't this make big-time news when the economy is supposed to be the major issue? Is anyone upset about the US government giving away another billion dollars to anyone, let alone a terrorist group in the middle east?

This only shows that the economic crisis is a smokescreen for the more major, global, spiritual crisis - the international rejection of Israel. How interesting that a billion dollars can slip past almost everyone in the midst of an economic crisis.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=18280

Headline: "Anti-Israel Hamas-embracer to be Named US Intel Chief"

Chas W. Freeman, Jr. has been named as the new head of the National Intelligence Council. He is quoted in this article as having said, "Supporting Israel is not in America's best interests." Hmmm - and all while the Secretary of State is out of the country.

If the administration leadership has read Genesis 12:3, 15:18, 35:9-12, and 50:24, they surely do not believe these verses to be true or authoritative. They fail to accept that this land is promised to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, not the seed of Ishmael or Esau. To try to take a position of neutrality is to fail to support Israel. To aid Israel's enemies is to curse her. One can only wonder what is coming next and how soon - what will discussions with Iran produce? How many more billions will that cost?

http://www.jewishworldview.com/1208/glick121208.php3
http://www.worldofthebible.com/

Headline: "What a PM Netanyahu Faces From Washington"

Many evangelicals are glad that Netanyahu is back in leadership in Israel. But he faces an America that is not likely to help him as in the past.

http://fun.mivzakon.co.il/flash/video/2673/2673.html

This is a helpful video called "What Really Happened In the Middle East".

As Israel's position grows weaker and weaker, the likelihood of the nearness of coming 70th Week of Daniel/Tribulational events grows stronger and stronger.

Even so ... Maranatha.

Pray for Chad Trip

2009-01-09T16:34:00.000-05:00

Below is Pastor Keith's itinerary for the trip to the Chad . . .

SUNDAY, JANUARY 11 : departs Philadelphia, Air France #0365 at 6:55 pm EST

MONDAY, JANUARY 12 : arrives Paris at 8:10 am (2:10 am EST), departs Paris, Air France #0856 at 3:55 pm (9:55 am EST), arrives N'Djamena, Chad 9:45 pm (3:45 pm EST), Dadje Samuel and Kirk Carver will pick up at airport and bring to TEAM Mission station where he will spend the night

TUESDAY, JANUARY 13 : drive from N'Djamena to Moundou with Dadje Samuel, Kirk Carver, and Larry DeArmey , stay at Guesthouse in Moundou !

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14 through SATURDAY, JANUARY 17 : Teaching the General Epistles (Hebrews through Jude) at Kou-Bethanie (training center in Moundou) to potential evangelists/church planters

SUNDAY, JANUARY 18 : preaching at one of the churches in Moundou area

MONDAY, JANUARY 19 : finish teaching the General Epistles in Moundou

TUESDAY, JANUARY 20 : travel to Gadjibian for Chadian National Conference

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21 through FRIDAY JANUARY 23 : participate in Chadian National Conference, including preaching several messages on the theme of "endurance"

SATURDAY, JANUARY 24 : to Bessao ??

SUNDAY, JANUARY 25 : preaching at one of the nearby churches

MONDAY, JANUARY, 26 through FRIDAY, JANUARY 30 : Teaching the General Epistle again, this time to students and faculty at the Bible Institute in Bessao

SATURDAY, JANUARY 31 : return trip to N'Djamena ; depart N'Djamena, Air France #0881 at 11:50 pm (5:50 pm EST)

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 01 : arrive Paris 5:45 am (11:45 pm on Jan. 31 EST), depart Paris, Air France #0366 at 1:30 pm (7:30 am EST); arrive Philadelphia at 4:15 pm EST

The Festival of Lights (Part 2)

2008-12-20T20:10:00.000-05:00

May all of my readers have a very blessed remembrance of the incarnation of Jesus this season. He is the "thematic center", the "hermeneutical principle which unlocks the mystery of the world." And now, here is the rest of the sermon by Helmut Thielcke . . .

WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make if I see in God the Creator of the galaxies and solar systems and the microcosm of the atom? What is this God of macrocosm and microcosm to me if my conscience torments me, if I am repining in loneliness, if anxiety is strangling me? What good is that kind of God to me, a poor wretch, a heap of misery, for whom nobody cares, whom people in the subway stare at without ever seeing?

The "loving Father above in the skies" is up there in some monumental headquarters while I sit in a foxhole somewhere on this isolated front (cut off from all communication with the rear), somewhere on this trash heap, living in lodgings or a mansion, working at a stupid job that gives me the miseries or at an executive's desk which is armored with two anterooms ...what do I get out of it when someone says says, "There is a Supreme Intelligence that conceived the creation of the world, devised the law of cause and effect, and maneuvered the planets into their orbits?" All I can say to that is, "Well, you don't say so! A rather bold idea, but almost too good to be true," and go on reading my newspaper or turn on the television. For that certainly is not a message by which I could live.

BUT, if someone says, "There is Someone Who knows you, Someone Who grieves when you go your own way, and it cost Him something (namely, the whole expenditure of life between the Crib and the Cross!) to be the Star to which you can look, the Staff by which you can walk, the Spring from which you can drink" - when someone says THAT to me, then I prick up my ears and listen. For if that is true, REALLY true, that there is Someone Who is interested in me and shares my lot, then this can suddenly change everything that I hoped for and feared before. This could mean a revolution in my life, at any rate a revolution in my judgment and knowledge of things.

. . . Christmas teaches us that, if we wish to know God, we must in our relationship to the world begin at a completely DIFFERENT end, namely, that we do not argue from the structure of the world to God, but rather from the Child in the manger to the mystery of the world, to the mystery of THE world in which the manger exists. For, if this Child exists, then He is the heart and center of the world, then, to put it in philosophical terms, He is the hermeneutical principle which unlocks the mystery of the world.

Then I see in this Child that in the background of this world there is a Father. I see that love reigns above and in this world, even when I cannot understand this governance, and I am tormented by the question of how God can permit such tragic things to happen. This problem confronts us even at this heart and center of the world; for how could God allow His beloved Son to be born in a stable, how could He allow Him to die on the gallows of the Cross, how could the Lord of the world be driven out of the world, how could there be a darkness which could not be overcome?

BUT if the manifestation of love conquers me at ONE point, namely, where Jesus Christ walked on this earth and loved it, then I can trust that it will also be the message at those points in the story of life which I cannot understand. Even a child knows that his father is not playing tricks on him when he refuses to grant one of his wishes and thus treats him in a way that is seemingly incompatible with love. The highest love is almost always incognito and therefore we must trust it.

So even for the Christian the mysteries of life are by no means solved so far as his reason and understanding is concerned. But as a disciple I can have the peace which passes all understanding and which therefore cannot be shaken by reason either, because it is itself allied with it.

Let me put this in the form of an illustration. If I look at a fine piece of fabric through a magnifying glass, I find that it is perfectly clear around the center of the glass, but around the edges it tends to become distorted. But this does not mislead me into thinking that the fabric itself is confused at this point. I know that this is caused by an optical illusion and therefore by the way in which I am looking at it. And so it is with the miracle of knowledge which is bestowed upon me by the Christmas event: If I see the world through the medium of the Good News, then the center is clear and bright. There I see the miracle of the love that descends to the depths of life. On the periphery, however, beyond the Christmas light, confusion and distortion prevail. The ordered lines grow tangled and the labyrinthine mysteries of life threaten to overwhelm us. Therefore our sight, which grows aberrant as it strays afield, must recover its perspective by returning to its thematic center. The extraordinary thing is that the mystery of life is not illuminated by a formula, but rather by another mystery, namely, The News, which can only be believed and yet is hardly believable, that God has become man and that now I am no longer alone in the darkness.

That's why I celebrate Christmas.

The Festival of Light (Part One)

2008-12-17T15:44:00.002-05:00

Most years about this season I revisit an old sermon that was preached by the German evangelical theologian Helmut Thielicke, entitled "The Festival of Light" (found in "Christ and The Meaning of Life", Baker, 1962). I trust you will find joy and significance in these devotional portions I share...

WHEN I am asked why as a Christian I celebrate Christmas, my first reply is that I do so because something has happened TO me and therefore - but only as I am receptive and give myself to it - something now can happen IN me.

There is a Sun "that smiles at me," and I can run out of the dark house of my life into the sunshine (as Luther once put it). I live by virtue of the miracle that God is not merely the mute and voiceless ground of the universe, but that He comes to me down in the depths. I see this in Him Who lay in a manger, a human Child, yet different from us all. And even though at first I look upon it only as a lovely colored picture, seeing it with the wondering eyes of a child, who has no conception whatsoever of the problem of the personhood of God and the Trinity and the metaphysical problems of time and eternity, I see that He, "Whom all the universe could not contain," comes down into the world of little things, the little things of MY life, into the world of homelessness and refugees, a world where there are lepers, lost sons, poor old ladies, and men and women who are afraid, a world in which men cheat and are cheated, in which men die and are killed.

CRIB and CROSS: these are the nethermost extreme of life's curve; no man can go any deeper than this; and He traversed it all. I do not need first to to become godly and noble before I can have a part in Him. For there are no depths in my life where He has not already come to meet me, no depths to which He has not been able to give meaning by surrounding them with love and making them the place where He visits me and brings me back home.

Once it HAPPENED, ONCE in the world's history it happened, that Someone came forward with the claim that He was the Son of God and the assertion "I and The Father are one," and that He proved the legitimacy of that claim, not by acting like a supernatural being or stunning men with His wisdom or communicating knowledge of higher worlds, but rather by proving His claims through the depths to which He descended. A Son of God Who defends His title with the argument that He is the brother of even the poorest and the guilty and takes their burden on Himself: that is a fact one can only note, and shake one's head in unbelief - OR one must worship and adore. There is no other alternative. I MUST WORSHIP. That's why I celebrate Christmas.

Greek Help - Free!!

2008-12-02T15:00:00.001-05:00

I have suggested several times the site at http://www.zhubert.com/tutorial-daily for help in quickly locating words in the NT text, doing lexical work, parsing verbs, etc. If you have not tried it, you probably really do want to, even if you don't realize it yet.

Recently I have been getting requests to repeat the Greek elements course I have taught for our church. However, there just is not time with all the other courses I'm teaching now. But, there is a free tool to teach you New Testament Greek from the very beginning. Yes, free !! It is done by Dr. Ted Hildebrandt, professor at Gordon College (formerly at Grace College). You can find it at http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Video/00-GTLearnVideos.html.

Happy learning !!

Any Surprise Here?

2008-11-24T12:08:00.003-05:00

Check this article, Testing the Faith.

In it, "emergent church" leader Tony Jones says this: "I now believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and queer individuals can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!), and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state."

I Just Can't Resist

2008-11-24T12:08:00.002-05:00

Can't resist what? Letting everyone know this Monday morning that I am a joyful new father-in-law. Yes, on Saturday, November 22, 2008 my oldest son Joshua was married!! It was a fantastic day, with a ceremony of worship that gave glory to Christ alone.

Laura and I publicly welcome Joshua's wife Gena (formerly Bulgrien) and her family to ours. Congratulations to both of you.

Nothing New Under The Sun

2008-10-22T16:10:00.001-04:00

In just a few lines I'll give you a quote. No, you won't have to guess who it is - I'll tell you. But, do read it before you observe who it is. Why?

Because I suspect you should realize what is being said before you look at who is saying it, and then the significance will be quite obvious.

My comment first: this quote is not trendy, new, different, postmodern, emergent, emerging, relevant, and so on; rather it is quite "modern", liberal, establishment, just plain "old-fashioned", traditional, theistic evolution.

Are you ready? Here it is. Discussing the mess the systems of the world are in (what some of us would call systemic sin), this author says, the mess can "destroy good and living things, devalue what is precious, overvalue what is worthless, foul up the results of millions of years of evolution, and so desecrate and frustrate what I believe is a sacred and ongoing work of the Creator, in us, among us, and through us." There you have it! He said that sin is essentially messing up what evolution has accomplished, albeit through "God".

Who said this? Brian D. McLaren in "Everything Must Change", Nelson, 2007, p. 53.

How irrelevant!

A Biblical Pattern For Expository Preaching

2008-10-10T23:33:00.003-04:00

There is a powerful and exquisite pattern (not prescription) for the exposition of the Word of God seen in Nehemiah 8:1-18. Nehemiah records a preaching event that marked the temporary end of the "famine...for the hearing of the words of the Lord" (Amos 8:11), bringing revival in Jerusalem. Stephen F. Olford suggested in his booklet "Preaching the Word of God" (Encounter, 1984; p.36) that Jesus Himself would have been familiar with this preaching pattern, and followed it in His preaching - the Master modeling the method! Olford shows these same points from Jesus' Emmaus Road conversation in Luke 24:25-35.

Without giving the entire exposition here (but let me assure you, this will preach!!), let's observe some high points from the chapter to help us think about biblical expository preaching. I've organized these high points into three - (1) The People's Motivation, (2) The Preachers' Method, and (3) The Power Manifested.

(1) The People's Motivation (v.1-6)

(a) desire - v.1
-the people gathered of their own desire "as one man...and they asked
Ezra...to bring the book". Wouldn't you love to have that happen when you preach?
We're all here! We're ready! Bring us the Book!

(b) attentiveness - v.3
- "all the people were attentive to the book"

(d) praise - v.6
- agreement with the Word, "Amen, Amen!" with lifting of hands (at the Scripture reading, without music!)

(e) worship - v.6
-humility in worship

(2) The Preachers' Method (v.2-10); the whole method can be taught from just v.8!

(a) Read the Text!
- he "brought the law before the assembly" (v.2) Use a Bible!
-he read it standing "at a wooden podium/pulpit" (v.4)
- he "opened the book in the sight of all the people" (v.5) Let them see it!
- he "read from it" (v.3,8)
- he read it with praise and prayer (v.6 "Ezra blessed the Lord the great God")
- cp. First Timothy 4:13

(b) Restate the Truth!
- they "explained the law to the people" (v.7)
- they "translated to give the sense" (v.8)
- this is the exposition

(c) Relate the Thrust!
- "so that they understood the reading" (v.8)
- "This day is holy" (v.9). Now is the time for response!
- "do not . . ." (v.9,10) - direct application

(3) The Power Manifested (v.9-18)

(a) repentance (v.9)

(b) joy (v.10)

(d) continuation (v.13-18)

(e) rejoicing (v.17)

(f) daily obedience (v.18)

We will look at some other examples in the Bible itself in future articles, but I hope you will consider this one along with my prayer for you as a preacher of the Word of God.

A Question on the way to Exposition

2008-10-10T07:25:00.000-04:00

A responder to this blog raised an excellent question about diagramming the text in preparation for making an expository outline. I would like to make sure that this question does get answered, because it is both helpful and important.

The essence of the question came from my recommendation of Lee Kantenwein's "Diagrammatical Analysis" approach presented in his booklet by that title. The question concerned the applicability of Kantenwein's approach to various literary genres of the biblical text. The responder felt that this approach to diagramming would work best for the epistles or other shorter, fairly direct kinds of passages, but questioned its helpfulness for diagramming other genres.

I do want to point out that Kantenwein has some good examples of using his approach with poetic material, and I have found it personally helpful with that genre. A superb example of this can be seen in George J. Zemek's "The Word of God in The Child of God" (a commentary on Psalm 119 - self published). From page 388 ff. Zemek provides his diagrams for the entire psalm with notes that relate to his expository outlines in the text of the commentary.

But mainly I want to say that I agree with the essence of the question. This form of diagramming is not best used with narrative, apocalyptic, and longer portions of text. It can take way too long to do and yields relatively fewer results than it does with other genres, especially the epistles. So what else should we do?

I probably should have mentioned this previously, so I am glad the question came up so I can mention it now. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. has some great sections in his book "Toward an Exegetical Theology" (Baker, 1981) on what he calls "block diagramming". He gives both explanation and examples of what this is and how to do it in his book. This works well with longer and especially narrative portions of Scripture. It would be well worth your time if you've never seen it.

The point I really want to make is that we need some approach or tool that forces us to consider every word of the text in relation to its context. There is not a prize for getting your diagram correct, but there is great reward in seeing the importance and connection of every word to what is going on in the text itself. Whatever form you come up with to force you to do that work is good.

Trying To Get Back To It!

2008-09-12T17:01:00.001-04:00

I'll try to get back to the series on exposition soon. Looks like the book recommendation project didn't go very well while I was gone. Sorry, especially to the one who requested it. I think the easiest way will be for me to just do what I was doing before, that is listing books from time to time as their importance comes up in the discussion.

I will recommend a few commentaries though: Darrell L. Bock on Luke (2 vols.) and Acts in the Baker ECNT series; Bruce Waltke on Proverbs in the Eerdmans NICOT series. Great resources, whether you always agree with the conclusions or not (remember, commentators are still just "common taters", although some are indeed quite brilliant and helpful). Since I'm currently preaching through Hebrews on Sunday mornings, let me say that I inevitably keep coming back to Homer Kent on Hebrews (BMH). Preaching through Ezekiel on Sunday nights, I have not found yet anything to improve on Charles Lee Feinberg (Moody), but I'm open to recommendations.

Someone asked me recently what novels I read. I confess that I do not have tons of time to put into novels right now, but I do try to stay aware. While I am into one now, the last one I finished was The Appearing by Kristen Wisen (daughter of the late Robert VanKampen). It was recommended to me, and yes it is one of those end-time fiction type novels. This book was written from the "pre-wrath" viewpoint, of course championed by Wisen's father, and the book is endorsed by Marv Rosenthal. It is well written and has a captivating story line. However, I would have to say that it confirmed all of my worst fears about the application of the "pre-wrath" position. What the church in the novel does is stockpile food and provisions, buy land out in the mountains where they make caves into dwellings, leave their jobs and homes behind, and so on. My concerns that warning or threatening Christians that they will go through part of the time of Jacob's Trouble causes them to not live by faith, take their focus off of the Blessed Hope, diverts them from the preaching of the Gospel, and leads them to rather selfishly head for a bunker were all validated in this book. Yes, there were, thankfully, some heroes of faith in the story. But, overall, I give the book a "thumbs-down" on the point it is trying to make.

OK, last one. I've started using Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker) and am finding it a valuable time-saving tool when this comes up in the text. I just used it for Hebrews 7 and Melchizedek and appreciated the sourcework I saw there.

A Reading List for Expository Preachers

2008-07-26T20:11:00.001-04:00

One of the readers of this series has asked for a reading list. This is, of course, a never-ending process, that of updating reading lists. So, since I am right now a bit like an Egyptian mummy, pressed for time, I will go ahead and offer this opportunity:

Anyone who has a book, article, etc. that they feel would be a help in the preparation of expository messages may recommend it on this blog.
Especially helpful would be recommendations of particular commentaries, writings on theology, hermeneutics, homiletics, history, & science.
However, recommend what you feel would be helpful. I like cartoons and humor too.

Yes, I realize there is the terrifying prospect of all kinds of stuff I do not agree with being recommended. Therefore, I give the disclaimer up front that the appearance of a recommendation on this blog does not necessarily constitute an endorsement or agreement by the blog-owner, namely me. I also reserve the right to refuse or to make later comments. So, please try to keep the recommendations helpful and edifying for the benefit of expository preachers.

Just leave your recommendations by posting a comment. Of course, providing full bibliographical information will help people find what you are recommending.

I have, throughout the history of this blog, mentioned some worthwhile books already, so I start the recommendations with those. I will write a follow-up to this, Lord willing, in a couple weeks or so.

From Reading and Prayer to Expository Message

2008-07-22T08:23:00.000-04:00

Every preacher will of necessity have to come up with his own system of expository preparation moving from the reading of the Bible to the actual outlining/writing of the message to be preached. I share some of my system here, not to show that my way is right or best, but hopefully to display some ideas or concepts that will be helpful to all.

As a general practice, not an absolute rule, I am projecting and working on sermons about 18 months in advance, and have a file folder set up for each one a year in advance. This is accomplished through the repeated reading of the Bible book I will be preaching. For example, I currently am preaching through Hebrews on Sunday mornings and am in chapter six. My last three messages have been "Enlightenment, Tasting, and Partaking" (Heb.6:4-5), "When It's Impossible To Start Over" (Heb.6:4-8), and "Full Assurance of Hope to the End" (Heb.6:9-12). The preparation for those was started well over a year ago. I have file folders started already for where I project I will be in Hebrews a year from now, which will be (in the providence of God, of course) at the beginning of chapter twelve. So I have a folder for the message "Run The Race: We Have Witnesses!" (Heb.12:1-3) and one for "Run The Race: Fixing Our Eyes On Jesus" (Heb.12:1-3), and so on. Or, on Sunday evenings I am currently preaching through Ezekiel. I just preached "The Judgment and Future Restoration of Israel" (Ezekiel 20:1-44), for which I had a folder over a year ago. By this time a year from now, again providentially speaking, I should be finishing Ezekiel so I have a folder for each of twelve messages on the Millenial Kingdom, ending with "The Millenial Jerusalem"(Ezekiel 48:30-35). This flows from reading and rereading the book, the accumulation of previous study, and prayerful meditation on the text of the book to get the flow, the sense, the logic, the spirit of the text that helps me divide it into workably sized preaching units.

What goes into the folder? Notes on past work I may have done on this text: thoughts that come as I read and reread the text; notes from my reading and rereading of the Greek or Hebrew text, which I realize not everyone will do or be able to do - my Greek reading is fairly good, my Hebrew is really a struggle, but I keep at it through pure discipline and hard work; notes on all the exegetical spade work and theological study I constantly try to keep going as a lifelong learner; notes from reading commentaries, articles,research, archaeology, science, history, other books, blogs, etc.; notes from things I see or hear or experience that I think might relate to the text; notes on prayers I pray related to the text; in short, anything and everything I can possibly accumulate that might help !! The key - write it down and put it in the folder!! Jonathan Edwards used to do this by pinning papers to his clothing even when he was out on horseback ! No, I don't even have a horse, but if you saw my office you would realize that that I keep writing things down and copying them so I have them for future message preparation. I always keep preparing a collection of messages in my head.

About three weeks before the message is to be preached, I take out the folder and begin to start trying to organize everything in it into some kind of form which begins to sound like a sermon in my mind - this then begins to take the form of an outline. I desire the outline to be formed by the scripture text itself - I still use a lot of the technique found in Lee Kantenwein's book on Diagrammatical Analysis (BMH Books) so it starts out fairly rigid. As I keep working on it the outline gradually emerges into a more flowing, usable preaching outline. Illustrations often come from things I have put in the folder over the year, or things that come to mind as I am putting the preaching outline together. I do not go out of my way to find or force illustrations. Some of you may disagree, but I feel that not using an illustration is superior to forcing one. An illustration should actually illustrate the point that the text is trying to make, rather than bending the text to fit some great story or illustration you think you might have. If you have a really good one, hold on to it and some day it might really work as a good illustration! Then the week of the message I form sermon notes that we put in our church bulletin. The sermon notes are a strategic condensation of the preaching outline from which I preach. I do not write out my sermons word for word in a manuscript, but I do write out key phrases or words I want to use. I do preach through the sermon in my head, so I am hearing what I want to say, and of course there is a constant editing process going on even up until the the preaching of the message itself. In that sense, every sermon has taken an entire lifetime to prepare !! I do not practice preaching the sermon out loud by myself because that makes me feel really weird, although I realize many have found that to be a helpful exercise. I do try to imagine how various kinds of people who will be listening will hear and understand what I'm trying to say and be sensitive to that - although I'll have to admit I often guess wrong on that one. Better to let that up to the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the Lord can and does sovereignly direct that what I planned a year ago gets changed. He does what He wills. But, frankly, it is relatively rare that the schedule gets changed. In reality, I am continually amazed at the mercy and grace of God to his Church in causing even world events to line up with what I had been preparing to preach. He does that in all true, expositional churches. It is the Word that created the Church, and still creates Her by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Oh, what a supernatural privilege to be an expositor of the Word of God !!

How An Expositor Does All That Reading

2008-06-23T16:02:00.001-04:00

If you do what I suggested in the previous article, that is to read sixteen chapters (or your amount) a day six days a week, it could require as much as an hour a day just to accomplish that. Now, busy pastors may already have become nervous just thinking about this. What about family, school, and community activities . . . and meetings, and visitation, and counseling, and building programs, and special events, and emergencies, and weddings, and funerals . . . and ministerium meetings, and conferences, and seminars . . . oh, and I forgot solving all the world's problems that are now unjustly dumped at the doorstep of the pastor (like AIDS, the climate, corrupt governments, finding all the heretics on the internet, etc.) , and on, and on, and on in a way that is more run-on than this sentence.

Of course, then there is also the demand of the rest of sermon preparation - focused reading in the book or passages you are currently preaching, exegetical work, reading commentaries (and articles, and other books, and theology, etc.), organizing your research, developing a preaching outline or format, collecting illustrations, maybe discussing it with your staff or others, thinking through your wording, maybe writing a manuscript . . .

Hmmm, did I miss anything? Could it be ? . . . oh yes, prayer !!!

I have found prayer to be the main feature in the development of right priorities and disciplines, and also in the understanding and conserving of what I read or study. There probably are numbers of things you are doing that just do not need to be done at all, and other things that should be done by other brothers and sisters in the Body or on your staff instead of by you. Remember, as you pray and prepare, the most loving and effective thing a teaching-elder/"pastor" can do is preach the Word. Keep Bible-reading, meditation, prayer, preparation, and preaching foremost among your priorities. This is how the expositor loves God and loves people. Remember 2 Timothy 2:15 ? Matthew 22:37-40 ?

In addition to my Bible-reading time, I also try to devote about another hour a day to other reading (commentaries; books - including "secular" and cultural stuff, fiction; articles, etc.). In addition, I try to devote either a morning or an afternoon each week to reading. Further, in addition, I try to devote a day each quarter to reading. And also, in addition, I try to devote the bulk of a week each year to reading. I do also get some other reading time in on the go - keep reading material handy for when you travel, wait for appointments, eat meals alone, etc. Most reading other than commentaries, Bible study, and theology, comes from the recommendation of others.

Let me close by recommending you read chapter five of John Stott's now dated but classic book on preaching, Between Two Worlds (Eerdmans, 1982). Chapter five is entitled, "The Call to Study". It will be worth your time - that is if you can make the time to read it !!

Reading the Bible - Where Expository Preaching Begins

2008-05-30T12:41:00.000-04:00

I remember clearly the statement by S. Lewis Johnson in one of our summer classes at Grace Theological Seminary: "Most problems of interpretation would be resolved if people would just slow down and read the Bible." Yes, I know that's from the "old days". But it is a practical statement that has served me well over the years.

When I'm asked, "What is the starting point for becoming an expository preacher?", this is my reply - "Read the Bible. Read the Bible a lot. Read it carefully and prayerfully." Now, of course, I'm assuming that I am speaking to someone who is born-again and has the right spiritual receptors in place - if you are not born-again, that is where you start. Assuming you are, though, and have a desire to be an expository preacher, "Read the Bible" !!!

Many of you probably have "Read Through The Bible In A Year" charts - some of you even have them printed in your Bible. If you are not doing at least that already, reading through the Bible this year might be a good place to start. If you read four chapters per day you will make it through in a year (actually in 305 days which lets you take a day off each week). If you "do the math" it is easy to see that eight chapters a day equals twice through in a year, twelve chapters equals three times, and sixteen chapters equals four times through in a year. I recommend that preachers strive for the sixteen chapters a day.

What should we look for as we read? Let me suggest a brief "starter list" . . .

(1) Observe the context.
(2) Ask basic questions - Who?, What?, When?, Where?, How?, Why?
(3) Look for the relationships between words and concepts in a passage.
(4) Compare and contrast various statements with other statements all over the Bible.
The Bible is a unity, and this is a spectacular sight to see. When you touch the
Bible at any point, the whole Book "wiggles". But be careful, too, because not
everything that immediately looks the same is identical (usually related though).
(5) Look for Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ, everywhere.
(6) Observe points of theology that exist in what you are reading.
(7) Note life applications that can be made from what you are reading. Often these
become future sermon titles or illustrations for what you are preaching now.

Please realize this list is not intended to replace your hermeneutical and subsequent exegetical work. This is a beginning. But, it is a really huge beginning. I am concerned that there are scholars, exegetes, professors, preachers, etc. who just do not regularly read their Bible. Some can talk a big talk about some point of relevance, or a doctrinal or exegetical conclusion, but they do not have the fragrance of Scripture (which is Christ) about them. Does this deal with how we preach? Well, meditate on Second Corinthians 2:14-17 and beyond, and I suspect you will see that it does. Make sure to relate verse 17 to what comes before it (the word "for" should make us do that).

So, here is my novel idea :-) . . . Read The Bible !!!

Top Ten Benefits of Expository Preaching

2008-05-13T20:51:00.001-04:00

10. Expository preaching demands that both the preacher and the congregation deal with the whole Bible. Some Bible portions will end up being neglected (often because of perceived difficulty or sense of irrelevance) unless there is a systematic intent to preach through every book of the Bible. When I preached through Leviticus several years ago, it was the first time anyone in our church had ever heard an exposition of that entire Book, even though some had attended "Bible-teaching" churches for over eighty years!

9. The pastor cannot only forecast where the preaching calendar is headed (this minimizes Saturday night panic, and also helps musicians and other worship participants to know how to plan), but he can personally live in the text for months and encourage the whole church to do the same.

8. Every human need or topic will eventually be covered in the course of preaching through books of the Bible. If you only preach topically, you will miss a lot of topics.

7. The congregation receives a vast collection of Biblical truth to compare and contrast, that is with which to do theology. Statements can be made like, "Remember in Exodus we saw this", or "In Romans we saw this", etc. But if you have not preached through those books you cannot build upon them with your congregation. Preaching based on creeds, lectionaries, hot topics, etc. will not produce this vast collection.

6. The congregation gets to have a Biblical benchmark to measure growth and significant events. For example, "I was saved while we were in Matthew", or "My family started coming when we were in Acts", or "Our marriage was saved while we were in First Peter". Maybe no one but me thinks this is exciting, but I find it a thrilling way to measure life and ministry.

5. Everyone can see how God moves personal or world events to match what the preacher is preaching from the Word, rather than the preacher trying to manipulate sermon topics in order to be relevant. I was preaching through Acts when the 9/11 disaster happened. We were all amazed at how the message for the next Sunday was totally matched to the times, even though everyone knew the passage was assigned sequentially from Acts months ahead. This displays God at work in the life of the Church. People are amazed that "That sermon was just for me" even though the passage was announce months ahead. No one can accuse the preacher, this way, of choosing sermon material to personally pick on them. By the way, preachers, have you noticed how whenever you think a certain sermon would be very good for a certain person, inevitably that person is not there that Sunday?

4. Preaching through the Bible keeps passages in context. This guards against improper forms of "proof-texting", misinterpretation, and the imposition of the preacher's pet points.

3. The Bible is eternal truth. The eternal is always relevant. The selection of particular Bible verses or concepts to attempt to be relevant will cause one's preaching to become time-bound instead of eternal. Therefore, the quest for relevance in preaching tends to make the preaching irrelevant (at least fairly quickly).

2. God gets the glory, because the preaching was the proclamation of His truth. When someone says to the preacher, "Good sermon!", the preacher need not be set up for temptation to pride. All the preacher needs to do is respond, "The Word of God!", to which we all say, "Thanks be to God!". The message was not about the preacher's brilliance or eloquence, but rather the faithful proclamation of the Word for the Glory of God alone.

1. Expository preaching is the essential, high act of worship in the assembled church. It is commanded: First Timothy 4:13, "Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching." Second Timothy 4:2, "Preach the Word"!! Without Biblical exposition, the church has not worshipped. The message is an offering by both the preacher and the hearers to God. It is an offering of obedience and the sacrifice of praise. Other details of worship (giving, music, prayers, etc.) are not worship unless they flow to and from the proclamation of the Word.

Exposition of Exposition

2008-05-12T15:54:00.001-04:00

While I'm still working on encouraging systematic, expository preaching, I thought it might be time for a commercial. Dan Kreider has been doing a great job helping with this blog, but he has also been helping us with our church's website. There are two features on the website that I am really happy about. One is our values page http://nbgbc.com/values.html. The other is our messages section, and especially our current series on Hebrews http://nbgbc.com/scripturehebrews.html. Check them out, hold me accountable, see if I "preach what I practice"!!

Can Topical Preaching Be Expository?

2008-04-18T15:40:00.000-04:00

Yes, topical preaching can be expository preaching. Granted, little of it is, but that does not mean it cannot be. So, I'm asking, "How can topical preaching be expository?" and "When is topical preaching not expository?".

Topical preaching can be expository preaching when . . .

a) the topic itself is derived from the Bible, that is from a passage/passages taken in context. These could be word studies, doctrines, concepts, biographical studies,or activities (praying, evangelizing).

b) the preacher does the hard work of making sure that he has not missed looking at and considering any verses anywhere in the Bible that relate to or inform the topic. Because of this necessity, expository topical preaching is more demanding and rigorous than sequential preaching through Bible books. When preaching through Bible books, the preacher must still relate his passage to the whole Bible (the big context), but the pressure is not quite as great because the passage itself is a safety-check, and he usually has the next week or two to fix something he misses. This suggests the great advantage of sequentially preaching through books of the Bible. But sometimes topical messages are necessary - consider the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus does topical preaching expositionally and in context, or Peter's sermon on Pentecost -same thing. Whether topical or sequential, I would humbly suggest that expositors get in the personal habit of reading the WHOLE BIBLE through regularly, maybe once per month or more. In this way, the expositor is constantly looking for those biblical connections that become part of future messages/series. Does this mean that if the preacher is going to do a series on "love", for example, that he must look at and study in context every usage of this word in the whole Bible? Yes!!

c) it is motivated by a sincere search of the Bible to find the answer/s to a real question or problem that the preacher is asking or has been asked of him. In this case, one might say that the topic initially seemed to come from the culture or circumstance and then proceeded to the Bible for the answers. The preacher must be careful that a) and b) above still apply so that the temptation to give a culturally acceptable answer does not over-ride the responsibility to give a biblically accurate answer (see First Thessalonians 2:3-4 and Galatians 1:10).

Topical preaching is not expository when . . .

a) the preacher is choosing to address the topic because of some preconceived disposition to it. Such preconceptions may include: "that topic is really popular now" (or the latest 'new word' or 'fresh moving' of the Spirit), "that seemed real effective when ______ preached it", "this is my latest hobby-horse or pet peeve", "why don't you ever preach about ________?", "pastors who are preaching this seem to have growing churches", etc.

b) the preacher does not do the hard work of Bible study and exegesis in preparation.

c) the preacher just "borrows" someone else's sermons or topics without doing his own work of Bible study, meditation, and prayer. This is not to imply that we cannot or should not glean ideas or approaches from listening to the sermons of others. I love to hear other good expository preachers!! I have learned from them, and sometimes I import their stuff. But we should not make "their stuff" the main framework of the sermon and then just stick in a few of our thoughts. Our messages must come from the biblical text, and what we glean from others becomes insight or illustration.

d) the preacher "takes a text" and uses it to "springboard" into whatever he wants to say. This kind of looks like the preacher is beginning with a Bible text (promising!) but once he gets started the text is never to be heard from again.

e) the preacher superimposes a personal presupposed "theological motif" (or any other motif) to bend the meaning of a biblical text in a certain direction instead of letting the text speak for itself. A list of examples might include liberation theology (to think of recent news headlines), liberalism, covenant theology, dispensationalism, emergent theology, prosperity theology, denominationalism, Reformed theology, etc. The goal of the expositor is to let the text speak in a manner that exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The Spirit of God will use the text to show what of a perspective, system, or motif is correct and how.

Expository Preaching - What is it?

2008-04-07T12:08:00.001-04:00

J.I. Packer - "The true idea of expository preaching is that the preacher should become the mouthpiece of his text, opening it up and applying it as the Word of God to his hearers, speaking in order that the text may be heard, and making each point from his text in such a manner 'that his hearers may discern the voice of God' " (Westminster Directory, 1645, paraphrased).

John R.W. Stott - "It is my contention that all true Christian preaching is expository preaching. Of course if by an 'expository' sermon is meant a verse-by-verse explanation of a lengthy passage of Scripture, then indeed it is only one possible way of preaching, but this would be a misuse of the word. Properly speaking, 'exposition' has a much broader meaning. It refers to the content of the sermon (biblical truth) rather than its style (a running commentary). To expound Scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view. The expositor prizes open what appears to be closed, makes plain what is obscure, unravels what is knotted, and unfolds what is tightly packed. The opposite of exposition is 'imposition', which is to impose on a text what is not there. But the 'text' in question could be a verse, or a sentence, or even a single word. It could equally be a paragraph, or a chapter, or a whole book. The size of the text is immaterial, so long as it is biblical. What matters is what we do with it. Whether it is long or short, our responsibility as expositors is to open it up in such a way that it speaks its message clearly, plainly, accurately, relevantly, without addition, subtraction, or falsehood. In expository preaching the biblical text is neither a conventional introduction to a sermon on a largely different theme, nor a convenient peg on which to hang a ragbag of miscellaneous thoughts, but a master which dictates and controls what is said. (Between Two Worlds, pp.125-126).

Haddon W. Robinson - "Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through him to his hearers". Robinson amplifies his definition with the following statements: "The passage governs the sermon", "the expositor communicates a concept", "the concept comes from the text", "the concept is applied to the expositor", "the concept is applied to the hearers". (Biblical Preaching, pp.20-30).

Stephen F. Olford - "Expository preaching is the historical, grammatical, and contextual examination and presentation of Scripture, in the power of the Holy Spirit, with a homiletical pattern and an evangelical purpose" (Preaching the Word of God, p.33).

Here is a recent attempt of mine - To do expository preaching is to speak in such a way that the Word of God is exposed to the hearers in its truth, accuracy, Christ-exalting richness, Trinity-focused theology, sense, context, spirit, clarity, and power, and that the hearers are exposed to the Word of God in faith, humility, need, joy, conviction, desire, and obedience, all for the glory of Christ.

What is your definition? Are you an expository preacher/teacher/speaker? Have you thought this through?

Preaching The Word Or Mere Application?

2008-03-21T00:39:00.000-04:00

This will be the last of the "distinctions" articles I've been on for a while, but I think it provides a good transition to some discussions about expository preaching which I would like to get into next.

It is possible to not be preaching an exposition of the biblical text, but instead be preaching your exegesis of the text. Thus, a very cognitive, fact-oriented presentation of what is in the text may be given (assuming you got your exegesis right), but not with much power or vital spiritual/conceptual insight. Sometimes this has even degenerated into the preaching of old college/seminary classroom notes. Such a preacher may truly be working very hard and being very faithful to the text of Scripture, but seeing little progress in terms of growth into Christlikeness in the lives of his listeners.

Reacting, perhaps, to the above "dry as dust" kind of preaching, others can tend to go rather far the other direction. Some do not even do any exegesis of the biblical text in preparation for their messages. Maybe they only use a text that they feel says what they want to say to their church. Maybe they get their messages from some other source, like downloading them from their favorite big-name impersonal mentor's website, or from a homiletical lectionary, or book of sermons. Maybe they don't even crack a Bible in their church at all. Maybe they resort to "skyscraper sermons", one story after another. At worst, these may not be preaching the Bible in any real sense at all, and at best they are merely preaching applications (whether legitimate or illegitimate) of the Bible, either of their own choosing or from borrowing.

I'm not about to propose a middle-ground approach, but rather suggest that true expository preaching is a 3rd way, or different way, from the two scenarios I have described above.

Expository preaching is not a lecture about your exegesis of the text. Neither is expository preaching a lack of exegesis that just relates application and stories without serious attention to the text. Expository preaching is the proclamation of the results of your biblical exegesis done in a way that exposes the listener to the accurate meaning of the text in context, and is the proclamation of the results of humble, Holy Spirit controlled meditation that has already produced the results of faith and obedience to the text in the life/application of the preacher.

Study and prayer should not be separated. Exegesis and application should not be separated. Preaching and obedience should not be separated. Doctrine and concept should not be separated. Biblical accuracy and loving, compassionate, bold, warmhearted spiritual fervency should not be separated. Expository preaching is biblical truth set on fire by the Spirit through the lips of a godly man. Those who think they do not like expository preaching have probably never really heard any. Expository preaching is truth, love, beauty, power, holiness, grace, salvation, conviction, wonder, and praise all flowing as one stream out of the heart of a Christ-enthralled man. If you know Christ, what is there to not like about that?

Grace and Church Discipline

2008-03-05T16:36:00.000-05:00

As I listen to pastors and church leaders, I hear (or don't hear) a few things that continue to concern me deeply in relation to the topic of church discipline. Things like, "I always want to err on the side of grace." Well who doesn't? But what does this mean? Or, "We don't do church discipline because only legalistic churches do this." Or, "What do I do about this problem situation (often a person sinning) that is dividing my church?" - when actually church discipline would stop the problem. Or, more commonly I just hear nothing on the topic. I guess discipline has been replaced by people-pleasing.

On the other side, I am also concerned about some who seem to "discover" church discipline, and end up becoming so narrow that suddenly a huge group of people in the church are put under discipline without appropriate biblical instruction. If discipline has been neglected in a church ( and in many cases it has been), careful instruction and patience must be given in implementing biblical teaching on discipline. Sometimes, rather than rushing to discipline, a pastor may need to realize he has inherited a flock of goats instead of a flock of sheep. The answer to this will be the consistent preaching of the Gospel through expository preaching before one starts the disciplinary process. The Word of God and the Spirit of God will sort out the goats until you can see what you are truly dealing with.

The Brethren movement has as its main historic distinctive the loving exercise of church discipline. As I have stated in Childlike Faith (p.30; <www.bmhbooks.com>), "page after page in (Alexander) Mack's writing, and in writings over the the next century and more after him, make allusions to Matthew chapter 18 as the description of Jesus' teaching concerning living in spiritual community with mutual accountability to one another in church discipline." The establishment of "mutual accountability" will need to precede the implementation of a formal or official disciplinary process.

A book that was helpful to me years ago was Disciplined by Grace by J.R. Strombeck (Strombeck Agency, 2nd ed. 1947). Even the title should suggest that grace and discipline go together. We are not operating in grace when we overlook or even give tacit approval of ongoing sin in the life of a professed brother/sister in Christ by our unloving silence. Neither are we operating in grace when we become harsh, legalistic, or self-serving (i.e. "win-lose" attitudes instead of "win-win").

Quite often disciplinary experiences do not end up the way we desire. Our desire is for forgiveness and reconciliation. Jesus predicted that sometimes the final step will be to "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Matt.18:17). Even then the door should be left open for future forgiveness (Matt.18:21ff.). But we must not allow the realities that church discipline can be difficult, is sometimes very uncomfortable, and often does not end up as we desire, to prevent us from doing it the way Jesus taught us. What is at stake if we do not? - marriages, families, personal testimonies, evangelism, truth, the church herself.

Of course we must do this in grace and love. But in these days of apostasy and pseudo-tolerance, the greater danger is that we may not be doing it at all.

Preaching The Gospel and Methodologies

2008-02-25T18:26:00.000-05:00

Back on November 17, 2007 I promised that I would cover a few more distinctions that may help us in doing ministry. This is one of the remaining topics.

When asked what the best method/approach to evangelism is, my response is, "Preach the Gospel." Often the questioner will look at me as if I'm a bit dense in the head, and thinking I've not understood she/he rephrases the question, "But what is the best method for preaching the Gospel?".   Then my reply is, "Preaching the Gospel IS a method - it is THE method - it is GOD'S method."

While you will have to throw out his Anglican sacramentalism, Roland Allen's book "Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours?" (originally written in 1912; 2nd ed. 1927; Eerdmans ed. 1962) will be a refreshing read to many who may have missed it. How did Paul do missionary work? He preached the Gospel ! How did Paul plant churches? He preached the Gospel ! How did Paul carry out his "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18)?   He preached the Gospel ! Allen clearly makes the point that preaching the Gospel IS Paul's method.

How does God "save those who believe" ?   Answer : "through the foolishness of the message preached" (1 Cor. 1:21).    What is God's "power ... for salvation (including justification, sanctification, and glorification) to everyone who believes" ?   Answer: "the Gospel" which Paul was "not ashamed" to preach (Romans 1:15-16).   Paul, even under tremendous pressure, had no alternate method, no "plan B" - only the "boldness in our God to speak to you the Gospel of God amid much opposition" (1 Thess. 2:2,4).

Paul did seem to have some methodology/strategy for meeting people and deciding how he would spend his time. He would go "to the Jew first" and if the Jews were not receptive he would preach to others until he saw who would be receptive and preached to them (Acts 13:45-52). How did he decide who was receptive? He preached the Gospel to them !   Paul would go to places where he thought people who had some spiritual interest might be gathered, and then he would preach the Gospel to them (Acts 16: 13-14).   There are methods for meeting people, for building relational bridges of love into their lives, but the preaching of the Gospel is not up for methodological variance.

Yes, methods of doing things may and must keep changing. They are temporal and finite. I assure you I would not have been writing a "blog" twenty years ago. We are always preaching the Gospel in the context of culture which is changing. We want our message to connect with people's receptors. But, the message does not - must not - change. The Gospel we preach must be the same Gospel Paul preached or it will not save.

Jesus did not say "go into all the world and be the Gospel" - He said "preach the Gospel".   Paul did not go into Corinth to take surveys to find out what people wanted to hear, but rather with "weakness and in fear and in much trembling" he determined that he would know nothing among them "except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" so that their faith "would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Jesus and Paul did not avoid warning people about eternal punishment and hellfire (Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43ff, 2 Thess. 1:6-10, and many more) hiding behind some notion that such is not their "purpose" or "ministry".   Warning people to flee from coming wrath is a major purpose of Gospel communication (Matt. 3:7 cf. 1 Thess. 1:10, 5:9).

If you preach the truth that is eternal, you will always be relevant, because the eternal is always relevant. If you adapt the Gospel to try to be relevant, you preach "another Gospel" (Galatians 1:6-7) and make yourself irrelevant in the process. Far better a smaller group of faithful believers looking for heaven, than a larger group of make-believers who just want their "best life now", and don't even really get that (2 Tim. 4:1-8).

The Gospel IS God's method.

Back From Africa

2008-02-04T16:45:00.000-05:00

Thanks so much to all who prayed for the recent ministry in C.A.R. It was truly a fruitful and significant time. 28 evangelists and potential pastors received training in Bambari, the home of Pastor Mboi Andre. These men are on the move to reach eastern C.A.R. with the Gospel (most churches and believers live in the western portion of the country, so there are still unreached and least-reached people in the east). Mboi Andre is currently on a trip to Zemio, an eastern town, where he is engaging in evangelism and church planting. Pray for his ministry, his travels on rugged roads (and sometimes no roads), and for his family while he's gone.

27 students also received training in leadership and communication at Bangui with Hibaile Augustan's CIDEL ministry. This was a great class with some very sharp students. They are from varied professions, so pray for their impact as salt and light in Bangui.

I also had a great time preaching in the churches, being present for the dedication of the Project Hope and Charity orphan center, meeting and encouraging some pastors I had not met before, and fellowshipping with our missionary staff in C.A.R as well as some others who were visiting from the States while I was there.

If you are following the current unrest in Kenya and Chad, you know the importance of praying for the stability of the Central African Republic. Situated as it is geographically, if it is stable it has the potential to halt the spread of unrest throughout the rest of the continent. If unstable, the unrest could spread through C.A.R. like a wildfire. Great days, maybe the greatest ever, could be ahead for our ministries in C.A.R., but this could be sidetracked by any time of turmoil. Let's pray First Timothy 2:1-4 for Africa in these days.

Truth and Relationships...Continued

2008-01-05T11:43:00.000-05:00

This will be my last entry before I leave for Africa. I will try to resume as soon as I can after I return and recuperate. You may post comments while I'm gone, but I won't be able to respond until I get back. My blog helper, Dan Kreider, will monitor your comments and clear the helpful and edifying ones (and the vast majority have been great!).

If you have not been reading all the comments on the last TRUTH AND RELATIONSHIPS article, you are missing some interesting stuff. I am encouraging additional comments on this article because I feel they are surfacing some very important concepts. To keep up to date you may wish to respond with your comments, even from the previous article, to this article. That way I will be less likely to miss them when I return.

Now for a few more concepts.

I hinted at this one, but no one went for it. So, I'll say it more bluntly and you all can kick it around. Am I the only one, or is professing Christianity/evangelicalism just a lot wimpier than it was 30 years ago? I remember times when men of God who disagreed could confront, argue, and edify one another - like "iron sharpening iron" - and still walk away with mutual respect. Yes, there were some cruel, unloving abuses too. But it seems that now the pendulum has swung so far the other direction that many just suffer in unloving silence for fear of someone getting upset or disagreeing. It seems that we have quite a representation of babies (under the guise of postmodernity?). Consider 1 Corinthians 11:19 - "there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." We need not fear controversy, because controversy reveals those who are approved, and sorts out those who are not. Controversy can sharpen our convictions! Exhortation, rebuke, reproof, confrontation - these do not have to be bad things to avoid. They are, in fact, an important part of biblical love.

Next one; does anyone else feel the danger I feel with this mindset of "major and minor doctrines" (or essential and non-essential, or primary/secondary/tertiary)? Of course, some truths are more central/foundational to our truth claims than others (the Trinity, substitutionary death of Christ, et.al.) But when other matters are made minor, it appears to me that the "minor compartment" keeps getting larger and larger, swallowing up even these very central truths. So, now the push (relative to Islam) is "as long as it is monotheistic"- that is to say, the Trinity is not as important (a minor or secondary doctrine!!). Some may feel I'm being extreme, but this does seem to be the trend. Where does it end? I would say apostasy, except for a relatively small, faithful remnant.

Last one; why does it seem that I am being pushed to settle for the "lowest common denominator" instead of "going for the gold"? Let's learn more and more of God's precious truth instead of settling for less. All for His glory!!

Project C.A.R. '08

2008-01-04T13:27:00.000-05:00

THE MINISTRY OF DR. KEITH A. SHEARER TO THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC (JAN. 08 – 25, 2008) –

Please pray . . .

1.) for the spiritual health and growth of New Beginnings Grace Brethren Church while Pastor Keith is gone (for ministries, attendance, offerings, and a great spirit of worship.)

2.) for Pastor Keith's family during the time of this project.

3.) for safe travel for Pastor Keith (see Itinerary).

4.) for physical health and strength for Pastor Keith.

5.) for revival among the churches of C.A.R. (over 350,000 believers) as Pastor Keith preaches to their National Conference.

6.) for the lost to be saved and the saved to be edified as Pastor Keith preaches at three churches in C.A.R.

7.) for the success of the pastoral leadership training that Pastor Keith will be doing in Bambari, C.A.R.

8.) for wisdom for Pastor Keith to identify one or more new men to be nationwide/continentwide leaders in Africa.

9.) for the training Pastor Keith will be doing for business and government leaders in Bangui, C.A.R.

10.) for the missionaries NBGBC supports there – Mboi Andre, Francois Ngoumape, and Augustan Hibaile – that Pastor Keith will be an encouragement to them.

ITINERARY
Jan. 08    Tuesday
·        Depart Myerstown at 3 PM for Newark, NJ airport
·        Depart Newark at 7:15 PM on Air France Flight #0019

Jan. 09    Wednesday
·        Arrive Paris at 8:40 AM (2:40 AM, EST)
·        Depart Paris at 10:55 PM on Air France Flight #0880
(4:55 PM, EST)

Jan. 10    Thursday
·        Arrive Bangui, C.A.R. at 5:40 AM (11:40 PM – Jan. 09 EST)
·        Depart airport immediately and travel by truck with Mboi Andre to Mbaiki (108 km) which is the site of the national conference
·        Preach at the National Conference of GBC's in C.A.R. at 2 PM (8 AM, EST)
·        Evening – counsel with pastors and leaders
·        spend night at Mbaiki (rainforest)

Jan. 11    Friday
·        Morning – counsel with pastors and leaders
·        Mid-day – travel back to Bangui (truck)
·        Evening – counsel with pastors and leaders

Jan. 12    Saturday
·        Travel with Mboi Andre and team to Bambari (all day truck trip)

Jan. 13   Sunday
·        Preach at the 1st Bambari GBC
·        begin training (formation) of new pastors and evangelist in Bambari
(eastern C.A.R.)

Jan. 14-18   Monday – Friday
·        continue training classes

Jan. 16    Wednesday
·        Preach at the 2nd Bambari GBC

Jan. 19   Saturday
·        return truck trip to Bangui

Jan. 20   Sunday
·        Preach at the Ngou-Mboutou GBC in Bangui

Jan. 21-24   Monday – Thursday
·        SALT training with Augustan Hibaile in Bangui(for key government and business leaders)

Jan. 24   Thursday
·        Depart Bangui airport 11:05 PM (5:05 PM EST) on Air France Flight #0883

Jan. 25   Friday
·        arrive Paris 5:45 AM (11:45 PM, Jan. 24, EST)
·        depart Paris 1:15 PM (7:15 AM, EST) on Air France Flight #0018
·        arrive Newark, NJ 3:40 PM
·        arrive Myerstown @ 8:00 PM

Comments Appear!!

2007-12-22T13:53:00.000-05:00

Readers may wish to recheck the 12/05/07 blog post on Israel and The Church (pt.2). Some new comments have appeared. They are worthwhile and I hope they are not ignored. Thanks to those participants for their contributions.

Grace, Truth, and Incarnation

2007-12-21T13:20:00.000-05:00

As a gift for the Remember-the-Incarnation-Season, here is a brief section from D.A.Carson on John 1:14. Can reading good Bible commentaries bless you? I hope this reading will.

-The words "full of grace and truth" may be descriptive of the Word, especially if "pleres" ('full'), is understood to be nominative, agreeing with "logos" ('Word'); but because 'full' is irregularly declinable (that is, it does not formally 'agree' with any particular word form), it seems best to take the expression as a modifier of 'glory'. The glory of God manifest in the incarnate Word was "full of grace and truth". In that case John is almost certainly directing his readers to Exodus 33-34. There Moses begs God, 'Now show me Your glory' ( Ex.33:18). The Lord replies, 'I will cause all My goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim My name, THE LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion' ( Ex.33:19). God's glory, then, is supremely His goodness. So Moses stands on Mt.Sinai, and, we are told. 'the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there before him, and proclaimed His name, THE LORD. And He passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "THE LORD, THE LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in LOVE AND FAITHFULNESS, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin" '( Ex.34:5-7).

LOVE AND FAITHFULNESS spell out the nature of the goodness which is God's glory. The two crucial words in Hebrew are "hesed" (variously rendered 'steadfast love', 'mercy', 'covenant love' - but it has recently been shown quite clearly that it is the GRACIOUSNESS of the love that is at stake), and "met" ('truth' or 'faithfulness'). This pair of expressions recurs again and again throughout the Old Testament. The two words that John uses, 'full of GRACE and TRUTH', are his ways of summing up the same ideas. The glory revealed to Moses when THE LORD passed in front of him and sounded His name, displaying that divine goodness characterized by ineffable grace and truth, was the very same glory John and his friends saw in the Word-made-flesh.-

Now, as the old saying goes, 'if that doesn't light your fire, you're wood is wet!'. The glory revealed to Moses was "the very same glory" John saw in Christ!! The glory of Christ, the glory which is "full of grace and truth".

May God shine in your heart to give you "the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2. Cor.4:6).

Truth and Relationships: A Distinction?

2007-12-20T17:58:00.000-05:00

I've been asked to write about what I will call a "perceived distinction" between doctrine and relationships. I don't really like doing this because it should not be necessary to "reconcile friends". The question I've been asked to address is, "Which one of these two is higher?". Ideally, the question should not have to be asked. But, we do not live in ideal situations, even in churches, so it evidently takes some work to understand how the friendship between these two works. So, here goes! (I've learned over the years that a lot of patient participation is needed to have this discussion, so I hope there will be a few comments).

Two Bible passages have inevitably been used whenever I have been in this discussion: John 1:14 (grace and truth) and Ephesians 4:15 (truth in love). Somehow a dichotomy gets superimposed over these verses. The dichotomy gets expressed in ways like this: (1) "There are 'truthers' and there are 'lovers'", or (2) "There are 'gracers' and there are 'truthers'", or (3) "We need to keep truth and love (or grace and truth) in balance" (kind of a 50/50 thing). The assumption seems to be that people who are more focused on truth do not tend to be loving or gracious, and, conversely, people who are grace/love oriented are not very concerned about truth (usually meaning doctrine). I suspect the reason for the imposition of the dichotomy is that there ARE people who tend to neglect one side or the other. Then the idea of "balance" is suggested as the answer to the problem. But "balance" actually makes bad matters worse because it implies the lessening of one for the increasing of the other ( i.e. "Don't be so concerned about doctrine - you need to become more relational" - which is usually the way it goes these days; or "Don't be so involved with people - you need to be studying/reading more"). In reality, both sides of these verses are to be viewed as one whole, not a dichotomy. If there is a "balance" it better be a 100/100 one - to be 50% truthful suggests that the other 50% is something other than love. The believer in Christ should never seek to be less than completely truthful, loving, and gracious.

Another way to reveal that there should not be a dichotomy would be to juxtapose terminology in our common usage. We could (and should) refer to the mass of biblical data on relationships (like most of the book of Proverbs, Ephesians 4:25-6:9, Matthew 5-7 as examples among hundreds) as "The Doctrine of Relationships". Wouldn't this be great as a necessary part of the systematic theology curriculum (instead of dividing it off into counselling or some other department)? Or, as we live out friendships, why do we not think of our times together as "theological occasions" ( what a great name for a party! - OK, you may think I've gone too far now:-))? In this light, check out Section Four of my book "Childlike Faith" dealing with communal interpretation < www.bmhbooks.com>.

But, what happens when this is not working properly, which may be a lot of the time? I have asked myself many times, is there any biblical precedent/teaching for rightly sacrificing doctrinal truth in order to save relationships? I have not found any. I also have asked, is there any biblical precedent/teaching for rightly sacrificing relationships in order to save doctrinal truth? I have found, with tears, significant models for this. In a real way, the intent of this sacrifice of a relationship is ultimately to save the relationship too.

Titus 1:9 - 2:1 People who contradict sound doctrine are to be rebuked
Romans 16:17-18 People who cause division by differing from approved teaching are to be avoided
Proverbs 28:23 Rebuke is necessary to preserve relationships
II Corinthians 6:17 - 7:1 "come out"/ "be separate" - "having these promises"

There are negative examples, too, of times when a separation does not occur and one's life is damaged as a result (i.e. Lot not leaving Sodom in a timely fashion). Enough said about this for now.

The result of this line of thought is that doctrine and relationships must go together. But, when there is a breakdown in this whole, truth (including the Doctrine of Relationships) must assume the highest priority. One might ask, "But isn't love the greatest?" (1 Cor, 13:13). Yes, love is the greatest out of faith, hope, and love! But, love "rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor.13:6). Love is higher than faith and hope, but it must be governed by truth, which makes truth greater. The prophet Amos asked this question - "How can two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). It is shared truth that builds shared love.

Israel And The Church (Part II) So What?

2007-12-05T18:31:00.000-05:00

Having established that there is a distinction in the New Testament between Israel and the Church (while yet honoring a continuity), a good question would be, "so what?" I'll just mention a limited selection of implications, but the list really could be made quite lengthy.

First, here are some examples of failing to keep this distinction: Mormonism, which would so hold that they replace Israel that their official doctrine includes the establishment of the Kingdom and building of the Temple on the American continent (hmmm . . . would that influence Mitt Romney's presidential leadership??); Assemblies of Yahweh/Jehovah's Witnesses/other "Sacred Name" cults - all tend to think they are the new Israel and do Israelite-type-things in their systems, such as Jewish festivals, new moon celebrations, Sabbath observance; though not "Sacred Name", Seventh-Day groups whether "Adventists", "Baptists", et.al. have the same problem; Roman Catholicism (amillenialism) is also a "replace Israel" program with a new priestly class, buildings designed to replicate the tabernacle/temple with a holy of holies where only the priest is to go (Protestant amillenialism does the same thing in concept, but not in physical practice because of the "spiritualizing" tendency of their hermeneutic); I rather cringe when I see an edifice with the name "Baptist Temple" (and of course there are Mormon temples - is their a difference?). Keeping the distinction helps us keep God's people away from all such nonsense.

Second, this distinction should keep us aware that God yet has a future program for Israel. All of God's warnings and promises to Israel will come to pass. If this is "spiritualized" rather than "actualized", how would any believer of the current age be able to trust that God's promises will be actually fulfilled for them. There is an actual geo-political future for Israel promised by God (yes the Church will rule and reign in this too, but if it does not happen there will be nothing to rule!). This is what makes the Church (made up of both Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles) the strongest supporter of Israel on earth today. Because of the lack of keeping the distinction there is massive confusion among professing "evangelicals" as to what their posture towards Israel should be (see for example <http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14685 > and <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/novemberweb-only/148-33.0.html>). Even worse, some "evangelicals" are cuddling with Islam in a way that denies the very heart of biblical truth-claims (the Bible, the Trinity, etc.) and insults Israel (see < http://www.yale.edu/faith/abou-commonword.htm.>). For a great example of how to get this right, see Randall Price - "Should Christians Support Israel? (available at < www.worldofthebible.com>).

Third, this distinction enables the believer in Christ to stay focused on the Blessed Hope, the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ. Post-tribulational, mid-tribulational, pre-wrath, and partial-rapture theories of eschatology all ignore the distinction between Israel and the Church. As a result, they project coming tribulational terrors and judgments promised to Israel (and the unregenerate world) onto the Church. Thus, they are more focused on tribulational events than the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, there can be pre-tribulational rapturists who forget that "signs of the times" are for Israel, forget that the rapture is a signless event, and thus are more interested in looking for signs (earthquakes, famines, etc.) than for Jesus - this too is problematic. The distinction between Israel and the church is essential for understanding the New Testament doctrine of the imminency of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in the air to resurrect/catch-up His Church.

Fourth, this distinction produces a heart for Jewish evangelism. "To the Jew first" is taken seriously by those who love Israel. It is not that those who do not share this distinction may not have an interest in Jewish evangelism either. But it certainly is true that most ministries dedicated to the evangelism of Jews do.

Other blessings and understandings flow from this distinction as well. I hope this encourages your ministry and the thinking through of such issues for the glory of Christ.

Keeping Distinctions: Israel and the Church

2007-11-28T12:11:00.000-05:00

At no point does the word "Israel" in the New Testament ever refer to anything other than ethnic Israel. To say otherwise is to superimpose personal theological presuppositions over the text of Scripture. Go ahead, check it out - Matthew 2:6, 2:20, 2:21, 8:10, 9:33, 10:6, 10:23, 15:24, 15:31, 27:9, 27:42; Mark 12:29, 15:32,; Luke 1:16, 1:54, 1:68, 1:80, 2:25, 2:32, 2:34, 4:25, 4:27, 7:9, 22:30, 24:21; John 1:31, 1:49, 3:10, 12:13; Acts 1:6, 2:22, 2:36, 3:12, 4:10, 4:27, 5:21, 5:31, 5:35, 7:23, 7:37, 7:42, 9:15, 10:36, 13:16, 13:17, 13:23, 13:24, 21:28, 28:20; Romans 9:4, 9:6, 9:27, 9:31, 10:19, 10:21, 11:1, 11:2, 11:7, 11:25, 11:26; First Corinthians 10:18; Second Corinthians 3:7, 3:13, 11:22; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:12; Philippians 3:5; Hebrews 8:8, 8:10, 11:22, Revelation 7:4, 21:12. There it is - the complete list.

Nonetheless, some want to continue to insist that the Church has replaced Israel in the program of God, making the Church into "the new Israel". This is entirely unwarranted, is dangerously biased against Israel, and harms a spiritual leader's ability to do ministry because of the cloudiness that results in interpretation of the above passages and the Old Testament promises to Israel. Proponents of this "replacement theology" can only agree that one of the above verses makes their point - Galatians 6:16. Without any exegetical warrant at all, they conclude that "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 must not be believing ethnic Israel (whether in the present or the future), but rather the Church. Apparently to to them adding the phrase "of God" makes the statement mystical enough that it must not mean Israel anymore. From there an entire "replacement theology" has been developed in a way that just assumes itself to be true, but never substantiates itself by biblical exegesis (see for example the irresponsible works like O. Palmer Robertson's "The Israel of God" or Philip Mauro's "The Hope of Israel"). The idea of the replacement of Israel is then constantly superimposed by them over all other pertinent Bible passages, rather than letting these texts speak for themselves. In contrast to the replacement theologians, Alva J. Mclain in his classic "The Greatness of the Kingdom" was clear in stressing from Romans 9-11 that if God does not fulfill His promises to Israel, you cannot be sure that God will fulfill His promises to you either. That is, if the Church has "replaced" Israel, what assurance is there that God will not "replace" the Church?

If we let Israel be Israel in all its usages in Scripture we will be free to let the promises, threats, warnings, etc. of God to Israel be for Israel, and we will be free to let the promises, threats, warnings, etc. of God to the Church be for the Church. It is quite clear in Ephesians 2:11 through 3:12 that the "commonwealth of Israel" (2:12) is not the same thing as the "new man" (2:15), or "God's household" (2:19), or "the mystery" (3:4-7), or "the body" (3:6). Thus a distinction between Israel and the Church is proven by this passage. Just visit Israel and you will not need any more proof than that to see that Israel is not the Church. This superimposing of a mystical "Israel" over other passages cannot be a valid hermeneutical method. Letting each text speak for itself, letting Israel be Israel and the Church be the Church is a valid hermeneutical method. This has massive implications for our ecclesiology as well as our eschatology. In other words, if we want to get ministry right we had best get this distinction right.

For excellent further study see Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum's "Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (pp. 680-699) and Stanley Toussaint and Charles Dyer's "Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost" (pp. 181-195). I also just waded through an outstanding new book, "Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged" by Barry E. Horner (B&H Academic, 2007). Well worth the effort. While I concur with most of Graeme Goldsworthy's "Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics", and certainly appreciate his main sentiment, I found his critique of "evangelical Zionism" (which I consider to be an ungracious slur) to be inconsistent, out of place, and actually "eclipsing the Gospel" in the Old Testament and in eschatology ( pp.169-171).

Thanksgiving

2007-11-19T15:04:00.001-05:00

Thursday is a nationally declared day of thanks in the USA. But does declaring a day produce a grateful heart? The Word of God does more than set aside a day - it commands a continual practice of gratitude to God . . .

"In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." (1 Thess. 5:18)

"Continue in prayer and watch in the same with thanksgiving." ( Col.4:2)

"Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:57)

"And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering said, "Were not ten cleansed? But where are the nine?" (Luke 17:15-17)

"Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands ... enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise; be thankful unto Him, and bless His name. For the Lord is good." (Psalm 100:1,4-5)

And here is one for after you eat on Thursday - ""When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the LORD thy God for the good land which He hath given thee." (Deut. 8:10)

OK, I took that last one out of context, but I trust you will have an enjoyable day to the praise of your Saviour Jesus Christ!!

Ministry's Highest Good: Doxology or Soteriology? (Part II)

2007-11-19T00:02:00.001-05:00

So what are some implications of the distinction of "doxology over soteriology"? I'll make some observations - you may have others.

(1) If salvation is the highest good, there is no explanation as to why God's judgment of lost people in eternal Hell is glorifying to God, yet Romans 9:22-23 indicates that is the case. But if God's glory is the highest good then the lostness of some glorifies God by highlighting His salvation of others.

(2) Making evangelism the highest good in ministry tends to cause us to measure success in ministry by immediate and apparent results (bodies, buildings, and bucks) rather than in bringing glory to God.

(3) Measuring success in ministry by immediate and apparent results tends towards a weakness in yielding to the temptation to resort to gimmicks, questionable methods, or even dishonesty (preachers would never pad their numbers would they?) in an attempt to make oneself or one's church look more successful.

(4) If evangelism is the highest good in ministry, we should be at it all the time! No time for lunch, exercise, marriage, family, vacation, enjoyment of life, etc. These become relative wastes of time if evangelism is the highest good. Maybe this helps explain why so many evangelists have failed morally in relation to their marriages. It is not that they were spending too much time on evangelism, it is that they failed to see their marriages as a means of glorifying God and as being part of their ministry. This is a fragmented view of life and ministry which fails to see all of life as cohesive under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It fails to see every calling/vocation from God as holy. And it fails to consider that God "richly supplies us with all things to enjoy (First Timothy 6:17).

(5) To whatever extent number four above is true, there is a massive, corresponding sense of guilt or even condemnation because the doing or the results of evangelism are not good enough. I have struggled with this in a deeply personal, sometimes morbid, way. I have gone out late at night to find unsuspecting lost people to talk to about Christ because I had not met my quota for the day or had not seen enough results lately. Whatever "converts" I saw that way, in the words of DL Moody, they were my "converts" not the Lord's. I had to have a godly friend tell me years ago, "Keith, some people are going to go to Hell whether you want them to or not." I have watched those with the catch-phrase "Win the Lost at any Cost" find that the cost was their sanity, or health, or marriage. This is not a valid cost. When we are depressed because attendance was down, or the results are too slow, or people are not responding, this is an indicator that we are not ministering for the Glory of God, but for our own success. And often the discouragement leads one to quit the ministry.

(6) When evangelism is viewed as the highest good, the Gospel being preached tends to become man-centered as opposed to God-centered. The message collapses into whatever tends to "work" or get the most results as opposed to what is biblically accurate and exalts God.

(7) When evangelism is viewed as the highest good it actually becomes less effective and less sustainable than when worship is seen as the highest good. Worship is the fuel of evangelism and mission. John Piper has made this point quite well in his book "Let The Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions". Worship is also the best context for evangelism - see First Corinthians 14:24-25. How many weeks have you sustained your typical church outreach visitation program? Two? Three? For evangelism to be sustained it must be fueled by worship. So evangelism will be more effective when it is viewed under the Glory of God. The Great Commission begins with worship (Matthew 28:17) and culminates in worshipers (John 4:23). The glorified experience of worship in Revelation 5:9 includes the results of global evangelism, consisting of people form every extended family grouping, every language, and every ethnicity worshiping before God's throne.

Yes, I share the vision to motivate the Church to be far more evangelistic - to be aggressively evangelistic - in these days. But the way to do this is to hold high the vision of Christ and His Glory displayed through the Church. "Now to Him Who is able to do exceeding abundantly beyond what we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the Glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21).

Ministry's Highest Good: Doxology or Soteriology?

2007-11-17T18:05:00.000-05:00

I want to be clear from the start - I am evangelistic!! I am a soulwinner, and I do not apologize for using the term (by the way, neither did Spurgeon - as I look at my well worn copy of his book "The Soul Winner" in the 1963 Eerdmans edition). I believe that "evangelist" is a necessary gifted equipper of the church (Ephesians 4:11-12), and while I personally am not "wired" as that gift, I have hired one who is as an Evangelist on our church staff. Evangelism is an extremely high good and high motivation. The personal salvation of people is infinitely and eternally valuable. I pray that our Lord will continually keep me broken in heart with a burden and compassion for people who are lost and hellbound without Jesus Christ, like Paul in Romans 9:1-3.

But my question here is not whether salvation/evangelism is important or highly good - it clearly is!! Rather, my question is whether salvation is our highest good, or is there something higher? Is human salvation the unifying glue that provides the theme for the whole Bible, or is there something higher? Is soteriology the portion of theology the forms the rest into a cohesive view, or is it not large enough, big enough to accomplish that? And if not soteriology, then what?

And so I am submitting that doxology is higher than soteriology- that is that it is the Glory of God that is big enough, grand enough, beautiful enough, powerful enough to provide the cohesive theme of all Scripture and be our highest good in life and ministry. I take this from Romans 11:36, as representative of hundreds of Bible verses that could be marshalled to make the point. "All things" in this verse makes it a full and comprehensive statement. "All things" are "from Him (God)" - He is originator, cause, motivator, giver of all things!! "All things" are "through Him" - He is the method, superintendent, means, providential guide of all things!! "All things" are "to Him" - He is the goal, the evaluator, the climax of all things!! Therefore, "to Him be the glory forever, Amen"!! Throughout chapters 9-11 of Romans, it is both the salvation of people and the damnation of people that bring glory to God. Salvation is without question an extremely high means of bringing glory to God. Notice the trinitarian ascription "to the praise of His glory/of His grace" in Ephesians 1:6,12,14. The work of the Father in salvation ( Eph.1:3-6), the work of the Son in salvation (1:4-12), the work of the Spirit in salvation (1:13-14), are all to the praise of His glory!! (Hey, guys, that will preach!). Reflecting again recently on the Church in Heaven in Revelation 4-5 I was struck with Rev.5:13; "every created thing" (people, animals, rocks, trees, fish, demons) which is "in heaven" (redeemed people, angels), "on earth" (everything remaining while the Church is in heaven), "under the earth" (graves, hell), "on the sea" (ships, whales, birds), and just in case we missed anything anywhere "and all things in them" - all things say, "To Him Who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing, and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever!!"

Now, what difference does keeping this distinction make? I will suggest some in the continuation of this article (part 2).

Keeping Distinctions

2007-11-16T16:24:00.000-05:00

To be biblical in our church leadership, distinctions must be made. Distinctions are necessary for both sound biblical interpretation and endurance in life and ministry. I doubt if any seasoned spiritual leader would deny this, although there will be disagreements as to which distinctions are important and right, as well as on which side of a distinction a leader may stand. There are very significant, practical ramifications which flow from the distinctions we make.

These distinctions must not be pre-conceived opinions, theories, or systems imposed upon the biblical text. Rather, they are distinctions which must flow from the biblical text itself. As these concepts flow from the text, they must also, however, begin to inform one another. Another way to say this is that "biblical theology" must always precede "systematic theology", but let us not forget nor omit systematic theology (and both should precede practice/culture). Or, even another way to say this could be that while we must engage in both "exegesis of Scripture" and "exegesis of culture", the two are not equal. Both are necessary, but Scripture Itself is authoritative over culture (in terms of the authority and infallibility of the Word of God, and the desire to experience "biblical culture" as opposed to an "enculturated Bible"). Maybe the simplest way to say it is, "Doctrine really does matter, and we really ought to and need to care about it."

The forming and keeping of distinctions does not imply complete disjunction/separation between the parts of the distinction. There will be both continuity and discontinuity between them. There is, though, an implication of primacy or priority of one part over the other related to the field of thought or the timing application of the distinction.

Here are some examples of distinctions I will be considering in upcoming articles:

*doxological or soteriological highest good (worship and evangelism)
*Israel and the Church
*doctrine and relationships
*preaching the Gospel and methodologies
*grace and discipline.
*expository preaching and application.

More may be added depending on response and interaction. I trust this will be a sharpening and strengthening exercise for God's servants.

Welcome to "The Equipper" Blog

2007-11-08T13:40:00.000-05:00

Hello everyone! Welcome to "The Equipper" blog.

My purpose in doing this is to bring edification and help to leaders and workers in many varieties of church ministry. I am not going to limit myself very much, at least at the start. I will be dealing with Biblical exposition, theological issues, leadership questions, cultural/news perspectives, preaching, book reviews, counseling topics, etc. Sometimes I will just be trying to answer questions I receive. Again, I want to edify and help, not solve all of the world's problems. Perhaps this will become a bit of a forum from time to time, but that is not necessarily a goal.

Why is there a need for another blog/journal doing these things? Maybe there isn't - time will tell. But what may be different from some others is that I will be reflecting a "remnantal" kind of ministry/worldview. I guess we'll find out how different that is.

By "remnantal" I mean that there is a shrinking number of the biblically faithful at the end of the end of this Church age. There have been "difficult times" throughout the entire age (Second Timothy 3:1), but the "time" (singular, Second Timothy 4:3) that is predicted "when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires ..." seems to be in full bloom. The order of the day seems to be "find out what people want to hear and give it to them" rather than faithful exposition of the Word of God. God's faithful remnant will be persecuted (Second Timothy 3:12) and mocked (Second Peter 3:3ff.), even by those who profess to be "the church". But the remnant must remain true to the preaching of the Word of God (Second Timothy 3:14-4:5) and focused on the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ (Second Timothy 4:6-8).

It is my goal, then, to be of help and encouragement to this remnant - that they might remain steadfast and solid in this increasingly difficult time for doing ministry. May God be pleased to raise up these end-time warriors for His glory.