Recently, I was re-watching the 2005 Supernatural movie, Constantine, starring Keanu Reeves, and it reminded me of a question that I was asked about when teaching Systematic Theology to the youth of my church. The question was simple, and it is one that I’m sure every Christian teenager has either asked or been exposed to at one time or another. “Does suicide result in going to hell?”

I mention the movie Constantine because it was a vital component of the movie’s plotline, in which one of the characters commits suicide and is ultimately in hell for that action. But like most movies, we should ask whether this is a factual belief in our religion. Because after watching clips from Kevin Smith’s 1999 comedy Dogma lately, I have realized that I’ve believed some of the plot points of that movie to be religious truths. I guess that goes to show my own progression in knowledge.

Therefore, to answer this question, we do need to examine some historical interpretations of death as it relates to the Christian faith. We want to be able to reason with the answer and not just blindly follow it, because that’s probably how a lot of us ended up here.

Martyrdom in the Church

Though we recognize that death is an inevitability, we also noted that there are two categories of death: (1) justified; (2) murder. The latter may entail any sort of wrongful death, while the former is primarily thought of as an act of justice. We get into some sort of weeds when we talk about martyrdom, though, because it may be justified by state laws or through “just war” theory, but the individual who died would be considered righteous or in good standing, and therefore, their death would appear to be murder. Effectively, we ask whether the death was justified.

μαρτυρέω (martyreō) is the etymological root of the modern word “Martyr,” in which its definition is “to bear witness” or “testify.” Scripturally, many have understood the term to “take up their cross” (Matt 10:38; Luke 9:23; 14:27) literally as they, too, must die in the same manner as Christ. They would view Stephen (Acts 7) and James (Acts 12:1-2) as representatives of true disciples who died for proclaiming Christ. As Scripture states that Christians will feel persecution (Matt 5:10, 44; John 15:20; 2 Tim 3:12), many presumed that death was inevitable, but a noble task.

It was not just limited to the New Testament, but there exist figures that have shaped much of Christian understanding towards righteousness at the time of death. Consider Samson (Jdg 16:30-31), whose death came at the expense of his own action to enact judgment against the Philistines. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (I prefer to call them by their Hebrew names because Daniel got to keep his, so my preference is Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah) also present us a picture of willingness to die for the faith (Dan 3). In these instances, we are given an idea of receiving death as a good thing if we are innocent of the charges (aka, righteous).

With this in mind, the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary best represents the problem,

Simply put, martyrdom refers to the act of choosing death rather than renouncing one’s religious principles. Death then is voluntary, but not wholly so, since some element of compulsion exists, and some noble cause (in this case a religious one) is at stake. Is there a difference between taking one’s life directly and allowing one’s life to be taken?^[1]

This became a legitimate one in the life of the early church, as many faithful believers were practically begging to be put to death. Eusebius will describe the number of voluntary martyrs who brought great concern to the Roman Empire. He wrote,

So great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for their faith. At the same time, he informed him in his communication that he had not heard of their doing anything profane or contrary to the laws,—except that they arose at dawn and sang hymns to Christ as a God; but that they renounced adultery and murder and like criminal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the laws. In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished.^[2]

Augustine would also address this issue, which is that Christians were accepted and admired, even elevated, for seeking death, particularly as a means of instant salvation. But suicide was not prohibited in Scripture, and in several cases, was described without condemnation. King Saul performs the act and so does his armor-bearer (1 Sam 31:4-5), David’s, and late Absalom’s adviser did so (2 Sam 17:23), and we may include Samson from above. Though Job did not take his, Paul speaks that he would be pleased for death if not for more matters in life (Phil 1:23-24). Ultimately, what would prevail is the value of life.

Early Church and Suicide

Two figures would alter the course of Christianity regarding martyrdom. First would be Clement of Alexandria, who contrasts martyrdom with suicide, noting that the latter was often put on with a theatrical display. He would say,

Now some of the heretics who have misunderstood the Lord, have at once an impious and cowardly love of life; saying that the true martyrdom is the knowledge of the only true God (which we also admit), and that the man is a self-murderer and a suicide who makes confession by death; and adducing other similar sophisms of cowardice. To these we shall reply at the proper time; for they differ with us in regard to first principles. Now we, too, say that those who have rushed on death (for there are some, not belonging to us, but sharing the name merely, who are in haste to give themselves up, the poor wretches dying through hatred to the Creator)—these, we say, banish themselves without being martyrs, even though they are punished publicly. For they do not preserve the characteristic mark of believing martyrdom, inasmuch as they have not known the only true God, but give themselves up to a vain death, as the Gymnosophists of the Indians to useless fire.^[3]

The other figure would be Augustine, who would define the act of suicide as “self-murder,” moving the definition away from martyrdom and also making it easier to tie to Scriptural mandates. Specifically, Augustine would state that “self-murder” would be a direct violation of the sixth commandment. But Augustine also appealed to the philosophical discussion of the day and argued that only God had the right to remove the soul from flesh, which he obtained from Plato and not the Bible. Augustine would write,

And consequently, even if some of these virgins killed themselves to avoid such disgrace, who that has any human feeling would refuse to forgive them? And as for those who would not put an end to their lives, lest they might seem to escape the crime of another by a sin of their own, he who lays this to their charge as a great wickedness is himself not guiltless of the fault of folly. For if it is not lawful to take the law into our own hands, and slay even a guilty person, whose death no public sentence has warranted, then certainly he who kills himself is a homicide, and so much the guiltier of his own death, as he was more innocent of that offence for which he doomed himself to die.^[4]

This last concept, where suicide is “self-murder,” is important to internalize because it is what became formalized by the Catholic Church.

Suicide in the Catholic Church

As the movie Constantine revolved around the Catholic Church, as well as Protestantism being a product of Catholicism, it is well to see what the Catholic Church teaches (primarily from the Catholic Catechism found here: Catechism of the Catholic Church), at least in modernity. Diving further into the past will be problematic for conversations with current Catholics, as much has been refined or formulated through many synods and councils. But from the current teaching, does suicide result in going to hell?

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;⁶¹⁸ for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance.”

By the Catholic definition, the only people who are destined for hell are those who deliberately reject God. Their definition of mortal sins (1854-1861) is based on grave actions that are mostly conscious or lacking ignorance. Catholicism gives allowances to ignorance or accidentals (1860). The concern is when we combine 1858, which details a violation of the Ten Commandments as a grave matter, in which, if intentional is a mortal sin, and therefore, results in condemnation to hell because it removes the “state of grace” (1861). This means that suicide, being completely intentional, violates the Ten Commandments at the point of death, whereby one loses their state of grace and has incurred a mortal sin that may not be redeemed. This also aligns with the historical treatment.

Now, with recent developments, the Catechism has undergone some updates to include more modern situations. Suicides are among these topics (2280-2283). For fair treatment, it does not necessarily contradict the prior articles; it does provide two that are important for my conclusion.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

Conclusion

I’m not one to normally side with the Catholic Church, but this is what I teach. For Christians, those who are true believers and value life, suicide is not a cognizant action. It is difficult to justify doing. But this same logic holds true to anger or violence, drug and alcohol abuse, pornography, and many other sins that Christians relapse in. We are not perfect, and in our progressive sanctification, we are all aware that sometimes temptations are too much if we have not established any appropriate boundaries. If we believe that we may fall into these traps and not lose our salvation, then how can we justify suicide being an outlier?

What if your anger results in retaliation that causes your death? Or the same with any substance abuse? Would these be considered mortal sins that could not be forgiven? How can we then rejoice when murderers repent? Not just those in prison, who are serving their time but find conversion, but also the Apostle Paul? To separate the sins into categories does a disservice, but 2282 acknowledges that trauma, suffering, psychological effects, etc., may be contributing factors of weakness that should not be held so dogmatically.

But most importantly, 2283 acknowledges that only God knows and only God can provide forgiveness, so we shouldn’t be in despair. What the Catholic Church lacks is an understanding that it is all based on Christ and His judgment upon us. The church does not have the authority to condemn the soteriological or salvific ends of souls. But Christ does, and Christ is more gracious than we.

Since Scripture is not explicit, we must balance two thoughts. God sees life as extremely valuable and we are prone to fail to temptations. Therefore, it is my firmest attestation that if a Christian, and I mean true Believer, succumbs to a moment of weakness and takes their own life, they will still be in heaven with the Lord. Though it is not something that we should promote or speak of as it is acceptable, we should also take heart that it should not destroy us in this life, as we know of loved ones who took their own lives. I hope this has been fruitful for the topic.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

^[1] James D. Tabor, “Martyr, Martyrdom,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 574.

^[2] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 164–165.

^[3] Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 412.

^[4] Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 12.

In the previous weeks, we explored Ecclesiology based on:

1. Definition of the Church and the Continuity/Discontinuity Issue

2. Marks of the Church over History

3. Church Governance and the Body

4. The Ordinances over History

5. The Mission of the Church and Cooperation with Each Other

And with this foundational knowledge, I’d like to re-examine the Non-Denominational Problem that I proposed before. The proposal was that Non-Denominational churches often do not have a defined ecclesiology. I wrote it as a snapshot of what I was studying at the time and my reflections on the topic of ecclesiology with the non-denominational churches that I have attended. Therefore, to prove my position (which is that non-denominational churches do not have a firm ecclesiology), I want to present 4 case studies of congregations that I have personally attended and served, and will point to their ecclesiastical gaps or flaws. Also, to make it known, I consider each of these still to be churches, and I have a lot of respect for some of the elders of these churches, but it does not mean they have not fallen into error.

Case 1: A Small Church

This first church is unique in the ecclesiastical sphere because its flaws are relatively minor. The first flaw is that they have a narrow view of who is in the church. Though missionaries are reaching a culture because that culture is their environment, it is odd for a church to be so narrowed to only reaching that culture. In their mission statement, they purposefully ask, “Is it culturally relevant?” Without doxing them, the flaw of being directed to promote a culture is like saying you’re a “Hip-Hop Church” and everything you will do is to promote Christ and “Hip-Hop” (I made a ridiculous analogy that I hope doesn’t exist in real life). This would conflict with the priority of Christ above all, as well as challenge the “catholicity” or attribute of the church.

The other issue is that, though they adopted Congregationalism (they don’t state it in the name, but their constitution describes this), they have altered the officers of the church. They simply reject the office of deacon. But they also created an office known as “lay pastor.” Though they have elders and a pastor, who are proposed and appointed by the congregation, having responsibilities of spiritual and physical guidance, the “lay pastor” is selected and dismissed by the pastor. The “lay pastor” does not report to the congregation nor is expected to meet the full qualifications of elder/pastor defined in Scripture, but is tasked with all the responsibilities of the pastor at the direction of the pastor. This is a potential abuse of power. In particular, spiritual abuse as it leaves this individual unchecked except at the discretion of the pastor, who is the one who appointed them.

What they do well:

Though a small church, they are mostly rooted in a historic and tested confession of faith. They hold to the marks of a visible church, and they formally cooperate with a network of churches (which they are a church plant of), including for the purposes of accountability. Even if their catholicity is skewed, they are mission-focused both inward and external, though their application may also require work.

Case 2: A Large Church

This particular church did not start as a church plant but was born from a bible study that grew into a church. Since this church started without the oversight and guidance of any other church, it was left to define itself as it continued to grow and still continues to grow. The fundamental flaw of the church is its polity.

The church operates with a plurality of elders, yet the elders are all related. The founding pastor passed the church down to his son, who is the current lead pastor. The founding pastor has assumed the role of associate pastor, acting as a mentor. The other pastors are the relatives, including the sister and her husband, of the lead pastor. Once again, this is a potential abuse of power.

In this polity, there is no church membership. Instead, the classes are designed to find “giftings” and to place you into appropriate volunteer teams. Leaders are developed from these volunteers to become volunteer leaders, but there is no office of deacon nor any expectation that one of these leaders may become an elder. The longevity of the church may be in question, but the lead pastor and his sister have several children who may be groomed for this “calling.” But since there is no membership, the ordinances are questionable, with the most conservative view being that they are open-communion.

What they do well:

However, they are mission-minded with the community in mind. They are constantly working in the community and looking for new ways to encourage people to enter their church. They are a seeker-sensitive church that does “At the Movies,” but they also commit large resources to serving the community in yard work, cake deliveries, giving out turkeys during holidays, and hosting block parties. Also, they operate a school, planted a Spanish church, accommodate a Korean church, and host/fund missionaries often.

Case 3: A Confused Church

Like the previous, this church was not formed as a plant, but rather, it was a “mutual split,” where disagreements urged these others to either find another church or plant one themselves. They chose the latter. I think this also explains how they approach most of their ministry. They lean more into the “we don’t like that” and avoid pragmatism, instead of being “this is the way to do it” and pursuing regulative principles.

Since not formed as a church plant, the eldership is flawed in that they attempted to replicate another church and established a governing body that is Presbyterian; therefore, they are elder-ruled. Being elder-ruled, they rely on the elders to select the next elders, the elders select the pastor, the elders direct the finances, the elders select the members of the church, the elders dictate the activities, the elders set the schedule, and the elders make all the decisions. The congregation’s purpose is to provide financially for the elders and to pray for them. The potential for abusing power is easy and consolidated.

Uniquely, since the founding was on a split, this church is heavily insulated or isolated. The community is unaware of their existence, and so are many of the churches. The only relations to other churches are through individual interactions, and nothing that can be seen as a sense of cooperation. Though I’m sure there are a number of reasons why, one reason that was provided to me by some elders was that they are protecting the congregation from other theological perspectives. It is this explanation that represents either the overarching control of the elders or the lack of trust in the maturity of the congregation.

What they do well:

The strongest aspect of this church is that they hold and defend a few doctrines as the hills they are willing to die on. But I must be honest. There are some significant flaws in their ecclesiology—mostly due to not having addressed or considered them—that result in error being prevalent in each issue. Most of this is due to the elder-rule concept without any accountability.

For example, while they contribute financially to mission work, the congregation does not know how much or necessarily to whom. These missionaries are also never hosted. The church has no cooperation with other churches, networks, etc. Another deep issue is that they elevate preaching of the Word as the priority, but this priority is not done with care and often leads to more anxiety within its congregation due to strictness and legalism. Thus, while they are active in every part of ecclesiology, there are weaknesses or flaws in each that the church does not necessarily accomplish as much as individual believers do here and there.

Case 4: The Mars Hill Church

I wrote up a long discussion of Mars Hill Church, initially comparing and contrasting it with other prominent Non-Denominational churches like MacArthur’s Grace Community Church and Spurgeon’s New Park Street/Metropolitan Tabernacle. But on reflection, the net was too wide, and the discussion became too deep. I could delete this entire section, but I wanted to include it for the sake of the churches that emerged from the rubble. Each is unique in its own way. Each is still Non-Denominational, but has also learned from the fallout and is more intentional about what it means to be a church. For discussion of Mars Hill and its flaws, there are plenty of resources to digest, such as the podcast, “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.”

What they did well:

Though Mars Hill had an abuse of power, there were many highly qualified individuals to pick up the pieces of what remained. While not every Mars Hill found success, a fraction of them became church plants. And these church plants all have one commonality that I can see. They are all highly community-focused. Community-focused on the edification of their members and community-focused on being a light in the dark, unbelieving world.

From what I have witnessed in the aftermath, they are constantly growing leaders. And these leaders are not held onto and squandered but offered up to other churches that need assistance. I cannot tell you the number of times I see elders being ordained in these churches and then being sent off to the next city or state. These elders are connected to their home church for assistance, and the sending church often assists financially in the transfer. As I cannot attest to all their marks or attributes right now, being simply a bystander, I can say that those who became a plant are thriving in their mission field and are driven in some sense of an eschatological end.

Concluding Thoughts

I feel that I’ve hammered in ecclesiology over the past many weeks. I’m not sure if you benefited from it as much as me even. I liken it to sermons, where you must first preach to yourself. As I was conducting these case studies, the difficulty was distilling what a preference was and what was a concern. My focus on calling something a concern was identifying the ease with which abuse of power may form. Though I may have issues with what was being taught in some of these churches, I also know that preachers come and go, and the message is prone to change. But once a church is established, the foundation being set, it is unlikely to see a departure from the model. Power finds its opening to consolidate, and in the end, Christians will be abused from the inside.

This is not only a non-denominational problem, as many denominations have errors and abuses in their structure. But those have built-in systems of checks and balances. Plenty of Popes have been disposed of in history. And denominations are established and tested by their historic confessions; thus, each church has its guardrails as they grow. But the non-denominational church appears to run on a “trust me, bro” mentality. Not all elders can be trusted. My only recommendation to everyone is to be discerning of where you go. Check their ecclesiology. We aren’t looking for the perfect church or whether we will fit, but we should expect that the church is a safe place for the believer to grow and be corrected.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

In the continuation of this ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) series, our topics will look as follows:

1. Definition of the Church and the Continuity/Discontinuity Issue

2. Marks of the Church over History

3. Church Governance and the Body

4. The Ordinances over History

5. The Mission of the Church and Cooperation with Each Other

Each week aims to build on the previous ones, with the ultimate goal of helping you understand how your church is structured and where there may be areas to volunteer for its growth. Last week, we looked at a mark of a true church, which are the ordinances. Though I did not make a firm case for any position, I introduced their background and various applications of it. This week, we consider what the church is meant to do and how it may achieve it in cooperation.

Questions of Ecclesiology

The easiest way to approach ecclesiology is to simply ask questions. Therefore, the questions we will be asking today are:

1. What is the purpose of the church?

2. How can the church accomplish this mission?

3. What is the end view of the church?

What is the purpose of the church?

The Activities of the Church

When I ask the purpose of the church, I do not mean why the church exists, because that is a much larger and more difficult question. Rather, we ask what the activities or the functions of the church? What are the things that the local church should do? And this is still a difficult question because it asks whether every church must be an evangelical church (which is to imply that it performs social reform) or whether it may be an inward-focused church of mostly making disciples. And in this way, I think it is easier to just give you a very large list. From this list, it is up to you whether you think that the church should or should not be doing these things. But if your church is not doing anything, or very little, it may be necessary to ask why.

Some functions of the church are:

• Ministry through spiritual gifts. This includes prophecy, interpretation, tongues, miracles, and healing. This also includes evangelism (the missionary and street preaching type), distinguishing spirits, administration, exhortation, service, faith, giving, and acts of mercy.

• Ministry through social reform. This is best represented as an organization and not individually (as the above list) through the establishment and administration of soup kitchens, shelters, foster/orphan care, hospitals, schools, recreation facilities, disaster relief, hospice, and government.

• Ministry of worship. This final one is an inward ministry for the sake of the church, such as discipleship (raising leaders and servants), praise, prayer, giving, benevolence, community life, and financial support of the pastor(s).

In these activities, it is the ministry of worship that most churches excel at because it is self-serving. Yet, even in this category, it is often placed only on the shoulders of the elders to perform, or it is not edifying because it is unorganized or chaotic. Likewise, social reform is often a viewpoint of Methodism or requires such a coordinated effort that many churches find difficulty in accomplishing. The question in these difficulties is whether your church is fine being unknown to the community, or is there something that you can still accomplish despite having limited resources?

How can a church accomplish this mission?

Cooperation and Associations

The Episcopalian method develops a hierarchy of elders that often has multiple churches funneling resources to a leader. This leader can then view the resources of many churches and take direct action. It is why there are so many Methodist hospitals and Catholic orphanages. But it does not mean only Episcopal polity can accomplish this task. Historically, Associations have been formed of Presbyterian churches outside of their presbyteries and Synods to devote to communal work. Likewise, Baptist churches have a long history of Associations (e.g., Southern Baptist Convention) that are focused on mission work, both foreign and domestic.

Non-Denominational churches have followed these examples and made networks that do the same. Though many organizations are not building new hospitals or orphanages, they are making schools, recreation centers, soup kitchens, and organizing for disaster relief. These efforts have also historically crossed denominational lines, such as in 17th-century England, often having Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists forming associations or networks to accomplish tasks for the sake of the community. And it is this measure that reveals the attribute of the “oneness” of a true church.

Churches that are insular or refuse to cooperate, normally Independent Fundamentalist churches, long for their individual purity and are uneasy with their congregation associating with other churches because tertiary doctrines are hard to identify as belonging to the universal church. This is not to say that the believers of these congregations are not “in Christ,” but like the Catholic Church, the institutions themselves are highly flawed and in grave error. For example, I am not one to promote a Pentecostal church because I do not find their doctrines convincingly biblical, but if a Pentecostal church started a disaster relief program or organized a soup kitchen, I could not find that these doctrinal differences warrant not participating in helping the city or town where I may live. Though I may not hold hands with them when presenting the gospel message, I will not deny that they are doing a good work for Christ.

It’s not just my opinion, but also that of both the historic and the modern evangelical church, that if a church does not have a presence or is known to their community (specifically known as having a good relationship or providing a good service), that they are a self-serving “church” and I would caution believers from attending them. Because a faith without works is dead (Jas 2:14-17). I don’t see much life happening in these cases. This address is primarily speaking to the leaders of this sort of church, because they are leading their sheep either astray or digging them into an unnecessary trench. Because a believer is naturally inclined to trust their authority. And the authority is supposed to be guiding and leading. Thus, while their salvation may still be secured, I cannot believe that Christ is happy with what He has given them to steward.

What is the end view of the church?

The Vision of the Church

Every church, whether it is laboring for today and tomorrow, preparing for the next Easter and Christmas sermon, or looking at possible expansion projects, should ultimately have the end point of the church in mind. The eschatological end. Every church should ask themselves how they are contributing to the last days. And this is open for interpretation on what holds priority, but simply we must say that the church is the bride of Christ and has a significant role in the new heavens and the new earth. So how is the local church contributing to this?

For some churches, it’s to make earth as close to heaven as possible, either through maturity or reforms. Others may be pursuing to grow the eschatological kingdom by guiding entry into the church. Some are looking to speed up Christ’s return by proclaiming the gospel to every people. Others are preparing believers for a tribulation, and others are preparing believers for endurance. But each church should be doing something, and honestly, there are many that are doing nothing but just waiting, stagnant.

My Final Thoughts

I recognize I just gave some of my thoughts, and it may seem harsh, but I feel that it is the truth and that the Christian faith has a long history of this being the case. Even if we claim the Methodists to be the first Evangelicals in that they looked at social reform, we must be truthful and see many Orthodox and Catholic churches establishing systems of welfare that cared for unbelievers before they gained any sense of political control. Care for each individual soul was viewed both spiritually and physically, and it is the love of the Christians that reached out to the community through the gospel and the actions of the gospel.

But I do wish to also mention that the first list was a ministry of spiritual gifts. The work of evangelism is two-fold. Every Christian should be willing to speak to their neighbors, family, and friends about Christ because there is an established relationship with these individuals. It does not need to be forced, but they must be ready to speak when God makes the time for it. However, to speak to strangers or foreigners is a distinct gift that is not given to everyone. Short-term, youth mission trips are probably more detrimental in that they do little for the country or area that these children are visiting, and it exposes these children to something they are not mature enough for. The school is not a mission field; your children are not missionaries.

Likewise, even adults may lack in mission or evangelism skills. It’s not even if they just have a stutter, but some individuals are just not able to articulate Christ in a way that doesn’t cause doubt. Additionally, many churches do not teach the faith in such a manner to defend against skeptics and unbelievers, leading to potentially false information being given in a time of a gospel message. Or more likely, many Christians cannot articulate the gospel message at all. Therefore, let one be discerning of their gifts and use them wisely. Let the elders and the congregation guide and direct people to be useful. Everyone in the church wants to be a useful tool of Christ, but many churches don’t equip them or point them in the appropriate direction, thus leading many people to venture off in lands that are not their calling.

Conclusion

My assumption is that I have raised more questions about the church than you previously thought of. And that was my intention. For the most part, I barely gave you my opinion, and when I did, I didn’t give you the evidence to defend it. This was intentional. I’m not your pastor (most likely). I’m not your elder. I do not have to defend what your church is doing. But I think it is appropriate to ask your elder, your pastor, why the church is not aligned with what you have discovered or believe. This is healthy dialogue. In the end, you don’t even have to be satisfied with the decision if you trust your elders. My goal is not for you to leave a church, but for every church to operate as healthily as possible. I know a lot of unhealthy churches out there right now that need correction. I do not assume that this writing will fix anything, but my hope is that believers are being equipped and growing in their faith despite these unhealthy institutions.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

In the continuation of this ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) series, our topics will look as follows:

1. Definition of the Church and the Continuity/Discontinuity Issue

2. Marks of the Church over History

3. Church Governance and the Body

4. The Ordinances over History

5. The Mission of the Church and Cooperation with Each Other

Each week aims to build on the previous ones, with the ultimate goal of helping you understand how your church is structured and where there may be areas to volunteer for its growth. Last week, we looked at the governance of the church and the responsibilities of the elders. This week, we look at our most controversial section that splits the first Reformers into different groups, being the ordinances.

Questions of Ecclesiology

The easiest way to approach ecclesiology is to simply ask questions. Therefore, the questions we will be asking today are:

1. What is an ordinance?

2. What are the ordinances?

3. What do the ordinances mean?

What is an ordinance?

Ordinances Defined

If you were to trace back church history, you may see that the word “ordinance” disappears around 1500. Before that time, it was referred to as a “sacrament,” which comes from the Latin word meaning “mystery.” However, since the time of the Reformation, the term has shifted from sacrament to ordinance. The terminology shifted as the church had defined sacrament as a means of God providing grace or blessing to an individual, while an ordinance is a commanded act. Therefore, the Reformed stated that ordinances are ordained by God for man to do in obedience, but God does not act in further grace or blessing to man to increase their salvation or sanctification in these rituals. It is nuanced, but sacramental theology has devoted much time to identifying the relationship of symbolism and reality that has created dependence on the ritual more than Christ. And it is this deviation from Christ that drove Protestantism to use the term, ordinance.

What are the ordinances?

Seven Sacraments and Two Ordinances

In Part 2, we defined the marks of the church as the proper administration of the ordinances, but we should at least state what the sacraments of the Catholic church are, because it is from these sacraments that tension has been maintained in some denominations. We must remember that the Reformation was a product of the Catholic Church, and the Reformers were mostly Catholic Priests first. Therefore, the seven sacraments of Catholicism are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Confession, Ordination, Marriage, and Last Rites (or anointing of the sick). As the Catholic Church viewed these as means by which God dispenses grace, contributing to one’s salvation or sanctification, the Reformers were more concerned about where these were noted in Scripture, as the Catholic Church claimed.

Seeing none but two, the Reformers identified that there were only two ordinances. Baptism and the Eucharist (also known as the Lord’s Supper or Communion). Even though the Reformers were able to agree on two ordinances, the true mark of the church is the “proper administration of the ordinances.” This mark would end up becoming a point of division as Protestants first debated what it means to be proper. For example, the traditional and normative position of baptism was infant baptism (depending on who you read, you will find that Baptists would be considered outside of the church because of this view). It would not be until the Particular Baptists of the English Reformation that would question this administration, seeing no explicit Scriptural evidence of babies being baptized. Likewise, the English Baptists could not find continuity with the action and a promise of regeneration (they rejected the seal aspect of baptism’s definition).

But the more common debate was the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Each Reformer was fine to deny the Catholic Church and dismiss the view of Transubstantiation (which is that Christ literally becomes the body and blood at mass), but they could not agree on what the Lord’s Supper was. The other viewpoints developed were Consubstantiation (though Lutherans will call it Real Presence), Spiritual Presence, and Memorial (or Symbolic). Each term attempts to explain not only the purpose of the Lord’s Supper in a spiritual or symbolic approach, but also confirms the elements that may be used (so as not to have cookies and soda).

In both baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Protestants (approximately the second generation of Reformers) determined that the mark of the true church is not which representative view one held or the liturgical manner that it was presented, but instead that it was administered at all. Thus, the true church exercised these ordinances on its occasion and frequency. To deny either of these elements would be to go outside of orthodoxy. Also, by this definition, the Anabaptists would find themselves out of orthodoxy for their adherence to rebaptism, while all other denominations hold to “one baptism, one faith.”

What do the ordinances mean?

Practical Application of the Ordinances

If the ordinances are unlike the sacraments, by which God dispenses additional grace for sanctification or salvation, then why do we perform them? Is it simply out of obedience? Yes and no. The church has practical applications for the ordinances in that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper relate to church membership. Not necessarily church membership of a particular church, but membership in either a denomination or a local church.

Baptism is viewed as the initiatory or entrance into membership. Whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Congregational, it is baptism that defines entry into the church body that provides some rights. For the latter, it means that there is a responsibility for the democracy of the church and expectations of the pursuit of purity. For the former two, it is often seen under the umbrella of one’s parents and to be guided by the congregation as a whole in one’s initial discipleship. Either way, there is no expectation of being discipled or grown spiritually unless you have been baptized. Though you may attend the church, you will not be the focus of anyone. I do recognize that some churches do not have a strict means of membership and that anyone who may attend may still reap some benefits, but historically and doctrinally, baptism is the gateway to inclusion into the body.

If baptism is the sign of belonging, then it is the Lord’s Supper that ratifies the covenant of the body of believers. By partaking of communion together, you are regularly committing yourself to a covenant relationship of caring for others and being cared for by the people of the church. It is why 1 Cor 11:17-34 will direct you to self-examine whether you are causing harm to any other in the body before you partake, because in good conscience you cannot be doing harm to your fellow believer within your congregation while also ratifying that you will walk together in faith. To do so would be hypocritical. The Lord’s Supper is the open expression of belonging to a community.

My Final Thoughts

I personally prefer to use the term sacrament as it evokes the New Testament verbiage of “for previously hidden but now revealed truth about God,” yet I don’t have any qualms if the majority of Protestants call them ordinances. But a church that does not hold to its denominational position on the ordinances is questioned as to whether it is a true church. My view, as a credobaptist, is that those who practice infant baptism are in error, but that does not remove my ability to cooperate with them. Controversially, though, I will not take the Lord’s Supper with them because I am not in agreement with their covenantal relationship because of their doctrinal positions. This doesn’t mean I won’t cooperate in gospel missions, but it just means that partaking of the elements together would state that we are in agreement when we are not.

Another position I did not touch on is the nature of open, close, or closed communion. This relates to whether the elders or the church fences in the Lord’s Supper, or who may make a claim of covenant relationship. To be open communion is to allow anyone to take the elements of bread and wine (juice for you temperance people) and not care whether they are in sin, members of a church, or even believers. It is the ultimate position of trust. Close communion is to guard the table by only permitting communion to members of your church and those of like-minded churches (e.g., a Baptist church may permit visiting Baptists of other churches to partake). And closed-communion is a members-only, often remembered by Calvin physically standing between himself and the Libertines with swords drawn against him. In all of these, I just ask whether your church has a defined position and is open about it, or whether they are just carelessly attempting to act like a church. Though they may not lose their mark over this, they would definitely be considered in error or unhealthy.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

In the continuation of this ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) series, our topics will look as follows:

1. Definition of the Church and the Continuity/Discontinuity Issue

2. Marks of the Church over History

3. Church Polity and the Body

4. The Ordinances over History

5. The Mission of the Church and Cooperation with Each Other

Each week hopes to build on the previous ones with the ultimate goal that you will be able to understand how your church is formulated and where there may be areas to volunteer for its growth. Last week, we asked if you are attending a true church as defined by the visible marks. This week, we’ll look at church polity, or how the church is governed.

Questions of Ecclesiology

The easiest way to approach ecclesiology is to simply ask questions. Therefore, the questions we will be asking today are:

1. What are the different models of church polity?

2. What does it mean to be an officer of the church?

3. What does it mean to be a church member?

What are the different models of church polity?

The History and Results of Church Polity

It may be surprising to many, but the history of the church shows that church governance developed out of survival from persecution. Or in other words, as the church was being persecuted, with its leaders being arrested or executed, the church developed a way to ensure proper leaders were identified and established, and the faith would be rightfully passed down generation after generation. Over time, though, we will see these attributes become corroded and abused until God found it fitting to reform His church.

Because of this history, we can understand how the various forms of church government formed and subsequently understand how various interpretations of the words episkopoi (for bishop or overseer) and presbyteroi (for elder) diverged into a two-tiered model of leadership. Effectively, it is the progressive nature of the church that created leaders who are the same but different in broader functions. Over the course of two thousand years, church government can be categorized as either Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Congregational. In each form, Jesus Christ still serves as the head of all the church and thus may be construed as still faithful.

Episcopalian churches are those defined by having a bishop (episkopos) where an elder acts in authority above other elders. Additionally, there may be no limit to the number of bishops, where an archbishop may serve above them, creating a series of hierarchy of leaders. This is most common in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Methodist Church, Anglican/Episcopal Church, and in some Pentecostal churches. Each church is still governed by an elder (with deacons serving as a governing role as their assistants) who then reports to a bishop over an area (often referred to as a local diocese) who then reports to the next level of bishop until we get to a pope, patriarch, or archbishop. Church leaders are selected by those who are above them, ultimately creating a hierarchy where bishops select elders and archbishops select bishops for a chain of succession and continuation. This form of government recognizes some biblical support as well as relies on a heavy dose of tradition that has dominated the majority of Christian history. Yet, there are no clear indications or endorsements of this model.

Presbyterian churches are those defined by having an elder (presbuteroi) governing the church in all matters. What makes them unique is that they identify two types of elders, teaching and ruling. Each church typically consists of a single teaching elder and multiple ruling elders, where the teaching elder is normally seminary-trained and paid, while the ruling elders are qualified laymen. The plurality of elders for the local congregation is known as a session or consistory. From this session, all the teaching elders and one ruling elder from each of the churches in an area will form a presbytery, and the next level up is a synod. This model is most common in Presbyterian and Reformed churches. The influence of the Presbytery and Synod differs based on the denomination, but they are generally responsible for the mission and governance of the local congregations, either directly or by influence. The concern is that it removes the consolation of power in a single bishop by placing it into the hands of several elders, but abuses of power may still be achieved as a plurality, still left unchecked. Church leaders are selected by the Presbytery, whether they are a teaching or ruling elder. The primary biblical support is 1 Tim 5:17 that addresses two types of elders as their model and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

Congregational churches are the final model depicted in that the local congregation has sole authority over the local and autonomous church. There is a freedom to have either a single pastor or a plurality of elders, and each congregation is responsible for its own governance without any authority over another. Elders are chosen by the congregation, and the elders govern through wisdom and advice, but it is the congregation that holds ultimate authority for action. The two essentials for this form of governance are autonomy—where the local church is responsible for calling its own leaders, caring for their own, dealing with their finances, and independent in all matters—and democratic—where the body participates in congregational decisions. This is the most common model in Baptist, Independent, Pentecostal, and Non-Denominational churches. Scripture primarily recognizes this model of governance as Christ and the Apostles address the church in its entirety to act.

What does it mean to be an officer of the church?

Qualifications and Responsibilities of the Elders and Deacons

Regardless of the form of governance, the qualities of the elders are identified in 1 Tim 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5. Each of these is primarily a moral quality or characteristic. These attributes are not ones that are done in perfection, as no man is perfect and free from these flaws, but rather, their lives are characterized in this manner. Church history will find many church leaders as having outbursts that may lead them to acts of repentance through removal (e.g., the best myth is Saint Nicolas punching Arius at the Council of Nicaea, resulting in Nicolas’ temporary removal as bishop until a period of repentance) or result in expulsion from the church. Some church leaders, particularly in recent history, may be reflected as having never been qualified or found to be unqualified and permanently removed from the position.

But assuming one is externally qualified to meet the moral attributes, they must also be internally motivated to take upon the role (1 Tim 3:1). Likewise, those who are internally motivated to take upon the role must also be examined externally. Depending on the form of polity, the selection is either confirmed by the Bishop, the Presbytery, or the local congregation. As abuse of power is the concern, elders of a local congregation are often not permitted to choose their own elders (i.e., plurality of elders determining a replacement elder or acts of nepotism where a son succeeds a father).

Once elders are ordained or appointed to a position, their primary task is to shepherd the congregation or church in a manner to ensure that the mission of the church is being met and that the health of the church is sustained. Their concerns will then be on the purity of the church, order of worship, prayers, physical and spiritual health of each member, the unity of the church, individual concerns, and maintaining the marks of the visible church. Likewise, each elder in the act of shepherding the congregation is to equip the church to fulfill the external mission of the church. The Great Commission is not that the elders are the evangelists, but that they prepare the disciples to make disciples. Because of the large task and burden, this is why the elders must be internally motivated to take on this role, as they have a responsibility that will take up their time and efforts. They are not simply just to hold a position or office.

What does it mean to be a church member?

The responsibilities of church membership

Because of the consumer nature of the church, there is numbness to being a member of a church. Many people are satisfied with just attending and not taking that next step. Why should they look into church membership? It’s primarily for accountability. To be a member is to both be accountable to another and for another to be accountable to you. It is the very way we identify who we are looking out for and caring for. It is not just to call out individual sin, but also to grow and encourage.

A healthy church has a membership role where the shepherds may provide oversight and see progression in the sanctity of that individual. A healthy church has individuals who tackle tough doctrines together and come together in likeness over interpretations and doctrines. A healthy church is one whose members are brothers and sisters and act as a family, where they are the first to sacrifice for each other. Sacrifice to be there to lift burdens and sacrifice to be there to celebrate together. But without church membership, we are trying to be everything and anything to everyone, whether we are truly sure if they are believers or not.

A church membership’s purpose is not just to provide financially for the church or pray for the elders. Likewise, they aren’t just servants of the elders, waiting for commands. Because then the member is only a pawn for the elders and has no voice in theirs or anyone else’s well-being, either spiritual or doctrinal. The act of communion is a celebration of membership and a covenant relationship with each other, not an expression of fidelity and loyalty to the elders. Church membership is both a burden to care for others and a joy to have others care for you. Likewise, the elders are members too, having their own burdens. They, too, must be open to correction and suggestion, lest they be categorized in the abuses of power.

My Final Thoughts

I could go much deeper into each category, including a longer discussion on elders, and then addressing the office of deacons. But to do so would have me assume a governance model that you fit in, as each polity defines it differently. However, I ascribe to Congregationalism and believe that each particular church is autonomous and democratic. It is the clearest description within Scripture, as directions are made for the church, including the discipline of members and elders. Also, I find that if each member is imbued with the same Spirit, then the only difference between Christians is their maturity and giftings. Thus, exercising authority builds maturity, and gifting is what separates the officers from the laity.

The other defining feature of Congregationalism is that it makes an assumption of a regenerate membership. This means that all members of the church are true believers and therefore will act accordingly to guide the church towards Christlikeness. To elect elders who consolidate all power and authority is to potentially be led by wolves or to elevate pride in the leadership, whereby the church neither grows nor exercises any abilities. In contrast, Congregational churches have also been made stagnant through hyper-democracy, where no decisions can be made unless they are made by the congregation, down to the color of the curtains. In both cases, the church is made unhealthy because there is no balance between the wisdom and guidance of the elders (being elder-led) and the consolation of power in a set of individuals (elder-ruled or filibustering of the congregation). Yet, a Congregational church done right is a church full of disciple-makers and future elders.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

In the continuation of this ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) series, our topics will look as follows:

1. Definition of the Church and the Continuity/Discontinuity Issue

2. Marks of the Church over History

3. Church Governance and the Body

4. The Ordinances over History

5. The Mission of the Church and Cooperation with Each Other

Each week will hopefully build on the previous, with the ultimate goal that each of you will be able to recognize how your church is formulated and in what ways there may be growth. Like the previous week, this week is another foundational topic and primarily serves to recognize whether you are even in a church.

Questions of Ecclesiology

The easiest way to approach ecclesiology is to simply ask questions. Therefore, the questions we will be asking today are:

1. Why are there marks?

2. What are the marks of the early church?

3. What are the marks of the Protestant church?

Why are there marks?

Orthodox vs Heterodox

Believe it or not, but this is not a foreign concept today. You may have noticed that there is a conversation occurring about whether Mormons (now formally known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. The short answer is that they aren’t. But this conversation started in the early days of the church (one would say that the Apostle John began the defense of orthodoxy), and there became a need to define what is true belief or doctrines, and what was outside or different beliefs. The most famous decision came from the Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arianism as heresy.

Orthodoxy is simply a compound word for “right truth,” while heterodoxy is “different truth.” As Christians began to delve deeper into meaning, they came up with differing opinions about various ideas. Differing ideas are dangerous, particularly when they are all related to the truth. What ultimately came about was a set of orthodox beliefs, clearly defined, that were fundamentally held to be the primary dogmas of Christianity, as agreed upon by ecumenical councils. Of those that were not considered to be dogmatic, early theologians recognized that some doctrines could fall into differing opinions and that there were some liberties to be had in these interpretations. Later, the Reformers would consider these differing liberties as adiaphora or “things indifferent.”

And while we could ask how Christians determined what were dogmas and what were adiaphora, we would be diving down a different stream and instead, need to pull back and ask how this relates to ecclesiology. Upon the development of orthodox beliefs came the authoring of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed would be instrumental in defining an orthodox church. These would be categorized as the Marks of a True Church, in which a church was declared a church if it were “one,” “holy,” “catholic,” and “apostolic.”

What are the marks of the early church?

From Patriarchs to Reformation

The early church was largely divided in many ways and was spread across the landscape; however, they recognized early on that they must be in cooperation with each other. As the early church was divided into the Five Patriarchs (Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome), they considered themselves to still be one. Each of the major cities or Patriarchs was a representative of their respective region and culturally different from the others. But they considered themselves to still be “one” as they were linked by the same gospel. To be one was to be united, though to be united did not mean they were uniform. To be “one” was a profession of a single faith, especially to the dogmas that were being developed in the ecumenical councils.

To be “holy” was to establish that they were set apart from the world. It is easier to recognize how the early church was set against its pagan background, particularly before the time of toleration and legalization, when the church was actively persecuted by the civil authorities. Yet, even during this time, the direction was that each saint would be pursuing holiness and purity. It was better to be a small church that was pure than a large church that was defiled. We would see that churches were primarily comprised of believers willing to pursue these changes of culture and character.

To be “catholic” meant to be “universal.” Unlike “holy,” which was primarily spiritual, to be “catholic” meant to be non-discriminatory towards ethnicity. The church was not Jewish, nor Gentile. It could not be defined by race, language, class, status, gender, or ethnicity. The mark of the church then meant that the church of Jerusalem did not hold any higher prominence or authority than that of Rome or Constantinople.

And to be “apostolic” was to uphold the teachings of the Apostles. Though many will claim oral traditions that were passed down through a succession of Apostles to their first disciples, many churches regarded this mark to include the written Scriptures and letters that were being passed throughout the lands. As the canon of Scripture had not been formalized at this point, to be “apostolic” also played into the “oneness” of the early church as many had communicated among congregations these teachings and found agreement in various documents (e.g., The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the First Clement would find its way as profitable documents that were not regarded as inspired texts of Scripture).

Therefore, in the early church, being in communion with each other, they would hold to the marks of “one,” “holy,” “catholic,” and “apostolic” to define who was a true church and who held heretical views. Often, to hold to alternate views that challenged orthodox beliefs would find one in violation of “oneness” or “apostolic.” Churches would also be found guilty of unholiness because of their conduct or open acceptance of sin, or their teachings that rebelled against the ecumenical councils. However, as the history of the early church progresses, we may find the use of these marks for political gain that would ultimately result in the Great Schism of 1054. At this point, it became a question of who holds the authority of these marks. Specifically, who determines the “oneness” or holds controlling authority?

What are the marks of the Protestant Church?

The Visible Marks of the Reformation

Not only challenging the authority of who determines the “one true church,” the Reformation needed to understand who was a true church among their definitions. As Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Bucer, Cranmer, etc., agreed on the Five Solas as the principles of the Christian faith, they disagreed on the matters of ecclesiology the most. Therefore, how could they all be faithful Christians who are leading faithful churches if they could not all agree on the “oneness” of the marks of a true church?

I cannot pinpoint the exact author who determined this concept, but what is now universally agreed is that the original marks that were defined by the Nicene Creed are not marks of a true church, but rather, they were the attributes or nature of the invisible church. All Christians, by nature of being united with Christ and living for Christ, would meet the marks, but not in a sense that would be readily visible to our eyes. But, by nature, all Christians are “one,” “holy,” “catholic,” and “apostolic.”

Instead, the Reformers would differ in the number of visible marks of a true church, but there are two that are universally agreed upon. The marks of the true church then are the “pure preaching of the Word,” and the “proper administration of the ordinances.” It would be the latter that would rile up debate of what they meant by “proper administration” that would cause some denominations to view others as “not a church,” but most denominations have defined this phrase that may see others as being faithful churches, yet to be in error or in an unhealthy manner. More of this will be discussed in part 4.

My Final Thoughts

The Nicene Creed holds value today in that it points each believer to a sense of unity that we don’t feel because of the vitriol that we often spew at each other for our respective beliefs. Yet, if we are united to Christ by faith, even those in stark error will find themselves in the new heavens and earth together with the most faithful and correct. Thus, we should pause how strongly we hold to our ecclesiology because we may very well be the ones in error. But this doesn’t mean that we discard our attempts to be faithful in the endeavor that is the visible church among the nations. It just means we should not be so ready to condemn the individual saints, but rather to reason together to hold to the truth.

However, I do hold to the marks of the true church by the Protestant definition because it does not attempt to alter the gospel in its conduct of rites and rituals. Meaning, it is not simple enough to say that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are in error, but rather, they have created a false gospel in their institution through various means of works-righteousness. A works-righteousness that is not by how salvation is achieved, but rather, how it is maintained. Therefore, I have concerns with these institutions, though I recognize there are believers among them.

But the Protestant Reformation has given us two true marks by which we should judge all Protestant churches, denominational and non-denominational. Do they purely preach the Word? The Word being a dual-edged sword that means they preach Christ and rightly Christ as the means of salvation of all souls, and that they handle the revelation of God in accuracy and truth, and not for their own greed or ambition. It is this measure that many cults, Word of Faith movements, New Apostolic Reformation, and affirming social/political churches fail and would be regarded as outside the mark. Using the name of Christ for your own benefit and ideologies is against the Reformation.

And second, if the church does not practice the ordinances in any manner or if they exceed the boundaries of reverence, they would not be a church. This is where the Reformers would defy the Catholic mass, which would bring Christ to the altar daily to be sacrificed over and over again during communion. Or the Catholic mass that withheld the cup from the laity and only gave it to the priests because of the nature of judgment. But we may also attribute it to the “church” that finds it acceptable to replace the bread and wine with any variety of food and drink because they have hyper-symbolized them.

For every church that practices the ordinances regularly and in an orderly manner, as well as preaches with the best intentions, we can say that these are true churches. But a true church is not a healthy church. And it is the next topics within this series that will begin to probe the health of a church. The health of a church is determined by how it is aligned with Scripture and how the shepherds are guiding the congregations.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I know I’m in the middle of a series on Ecclesiology, but social media has me locked this Good Friday. Earlier, I ran across this picture today, and like an idiot, I responded. And I guess the Lord found it fitting that everyone would respond to me and not the many others who commented. And I think it’s a good point to bring up. The question is, “If Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, how was he dead for three days?”

The Jewish Time System

It all begins with how we calculate days. Regardless of culture or belief, humans have recognized that entire days are 24-hours long. I honestly cannot tell you the reason why or how it officially started, but it appears that midnight being the start of the day was due to the Romans, and it just may have been arbitrarily set. And as civilization expanded and grew, the modern system of tracking years, months, days, and hours became more prevalent and established to the Western construct. Therefore, today, in the 21st-century, you know that the day begins at midnight. Likewise, because of Western ideals and science, we have become increasingly concerned with accuracy and precision. So when you say a day, it automatically triggers an idea of 24 hours.

But this isn’t how the Jewish system of time was kept in the 1st-century. The Jewish day begins at sunset and ends at the next sunset. The reason I hear for this comes from the interpretation of Genesis 1:1-5. Either it’s because God’s first creation is light (Gen 1:3) and He separated it from the darkness (1:4), so the absence of light is darkness. Night would naturally be first to begin the day, and the day would end with light. The other interpretation may come from Genesis 1:5b, which orders the days as “and there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.”

In both of these interpretations, the Jewish calendar would begin the day when night fell, or at sunset. And this idea is important to remember because it explains the timing of days. “Day” would be the hours of sunrise to sunset. “Night” would be the hours from sunset to sunrise. A calendar day would be the time from the beginning of one “Night” to the beginning of the next “Night.”

The other important concept is that the Jewish system did not care about the precision that the West does. What I mean by this is that if something occurred at the end of the night (i.e., 5 am before sunrise), they would categorize that as the entire “Night.” And the same would hold true for “Day.” And this will be important for counting our 3 days and 3 nights. They are not counting hours, but categories.

When does the Clock Start?

Now I acknowledge that there are differing opinions on this next part, but I will explain my position. The differing opinions are whether Jesus was crucified on Thursday or Friday. Obviously, we celebrate Good Friday and historically, we celebrate the death of Christ on this day in the Christian faith, but I understand why it is difficult to consider that it was actually on Thursday. But before I continue, let me use a graphic from Wes Huff:

Those who believe that Jesus was crucified on Thursday can look at the above graphic (the sun in the 14th day of Nissan) and see that Jesus gave up His spirit at 3 pm and was taken down from the cross and buried just before nightfall (the moon of the 15th day of Nissan). The clock would start on Thursday Night (I’m 99% sure that is what Wes Huff is showing in this picture, but it corresponds to others’ timelines). With this logic, Jesus would have been dead the entirety of the 15th, 16th, and 17th day and resurrected on what we would consider Sunday morning. I can accept this theory, but I don’t think it aligns with both historical interpretations.

Instead, I believe that Jesus died and was buried before sunset on Day 1 (the sun on the 15th day of Nissan). This is because the Passover is always the 15th Day of Nissan, whereby Jesus partook of the actual Passover meal with His disciples and not just a symbolic or memorial meal the night before. It also aligns that the body needs to be taken down and buried before the Sabbath begins (John 19:31). As I said, they categorize the day, as Jesus was buried before sunset, he would fulfill that “Day.” In the same way, as He rose after sunrise, He would both rise on the third day as well as meet the sign of Jonah on that third day as well.

I hope I haven’t lost you, as it gets a little complex. But if what I am saying holds true, then it still only makes it 3 “Days” and 2 “Nights,” as Jesus was crucified after sunrise. What this means is that the “Crucified” depiction in the graphic above would begin at Jesus’ arrest and trial. This makes a claim that one is dead beginning at the point in which one is declared as such (when the plot of the Jews was executed) and not when the actual death occurred. This is how Church history has interpreted it for the majority of the time until the more recent period of Enlightenment and criticism. This new era of skepticism isn’t wrong, as it challenges our assumptions and builds our rationale, but sometimes we take it too far, where we demand the ancients yield to our interpretations and methods.

Conclusion

Regardless of whether you hold to a Thursday Crucifixion or a Friday one, both require an understanding that the Jewish day began at sunset (beginning with night) and that it was not dependent on counting the hours. In both interpretations, Jesus rose on Sunday morning just after sunrise, and in both, He would not have fulfilled the full 12 hours of “Day,” but instead met the category of being dead during the “Day.”

So if you hold to a Thursday crucifixion, I think that is fine. Many modern scholars do. I personally hold to the traditional view of Friday, where Jesus’ arrest and trial all occur before sunrise and would constitute Him being counted among the dead then. Either way, neither method relies on the Western construct of time except that most celebrate Good Friday on Friday evenings and Resurrection Sunday at almost midday on Sunday. I hope this made sense to you.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

After writing about the Non-Denominational Problem, it felt odd to leave it where it lay. Specifically, just to present a problem and not provide any sort of solution. As ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) is half of Christian living (assuming you go to church), then we should be aware and knowledgeable about this doctrine. However, ecclesiology is a rather large doctrine that can branch into any number of subsets, and many have written hundreds of pages on a single one of these branches. With this in mind, I have decided to provide some basic instructions on ecclesiology over the next several weeks, but I will not attempt to convince you. My goal is to present you with a Crash Course in ecclesiology. Offering you some main points, identifying various interpretations, and then I will unconvincingly provide you with my position. I can’t change your convictions, nor do I desire to disrupt what you already have, but I think you should be fully convinced that you are doing the things you are committed to doing.

The way we’re going to approach this over the weeks is as follows:

1. Definition of the Church and the Continuity/Discontinuity Issue

2. Marks of the Church over History

3. Church Governance and the Body

4. The Ordinances over History

5. The Mission of the Church and Cooperation with Each Other

The attempt is to keep it short, but there may be a need to expand each week into its own Part 1 & 2 if it gets too long.

Questions of Ecclesiology

The easiest way to approach ecclesiology is to simply ask questions and try to answer them. Even though there are a million questions, I will try to limit them to three larger questions. Today’s questions are:

1. What is the church?

2. Who is in the church?

3. How does Israel relate to the church?

What is the church?

The Church: Defined

What is the church? The Greek word we commonly associate with the church is ekklēsia, and it simply means “assembly” or “gathering.” Strictly limiting our definition to ekklēsia and the portions of Scripture that speak of it will both narrow our view of the church and keep it unrestrained. It will narrow our discussion of the church if it does not use the word, such as Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 8:4-13, both of which describe a narrative of inclusion into the church. It will be unrestrained because there are times when the church encompasses all believers, either in this time or in the end times (e.g., Heb 12:18-24).

Therefore, we must be careful to understand the context as to when it is talking about ALL believers, such as Christ as the head of the church (Eph 1:21-23), the death of Christ for the church (Eph 5:25), or even Paul stating how he persecuted the church in general (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6). Likewise, when ekklēsia is mentioned, it could also be talking about the specific local church, as often presented in the opening of the epistles (1 Cor 1:1-2; 2 Cor 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). In either case, many theologians will find it necessary to specify which form of the church they are referring to by calling it the “invisible church” when talking about the universal church of all believers, or the “visible church” when talking about a specific congregation. My preference for the latter is to refer to the visible church as a “particular church” to maintain its status as a church while also revealing its differences.

Regardless of whether we are discussing the visible or invisible church, we must still define who belongs to the church.

Who is the Church?

The Local and the Universal Church

It is easier to discuss who belongs to the local church because it is something that we are able to see. A local church is constructed by its members. The process of membership will be discussed in part 3, but it’s the members who make up the roll or roster of the church. Each particular church defines the requirements for membership and is responsible for validating and upholding those requirements as set within its own bylaws or charters. Additionally, open churches (churches that do not have formal membership) may consider their congregation based on repetition of attendance and do not find the need to formalize membership requirements, yet, this still doesn’t presume that there aren’t any members, as the question of “what church do you go to?” will still have an answer.

It is the definition of the universal or invisible church that becomes difficult to answer. The typical answer is that the church is composed of all believers who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ and have entered into the new covenant with Him. We know that righteousness is accredited to the faithful because of faith in Christ and Christ alone, and from the sacrificial work of Christ on the cross, both Jews and Gentiles were brought into community as the church. Therefore, we may simplify the definition of the universal church as the church of all believers, but it raises the question of “beginning when?” Another way to ask the question is does the faithful of the Old Testament belong to the church, or are they under their own thing? And that’s what leads us into the last question.

How does Israel relate to the Church?

The Church: Continued/Discontinued

There are 4 views of this, and it is easiest to view it on this scale.[1]

The issue of Continuity and Discontinuity really belongs in the discussion of Biblical Theology, but it finds itself within the Systematic Theology category of ecclesiology. It asks, “How much of the Old Testament covenants relate to the New Testament?” Specifically, how many of the laws and commands are bound in the life of a Christian? The more continuity, the more they carry over into the church today. The more discontinuity, the more we can say that the church is an entirely new creation. This foundation may seem purely academic, but it helps us make sense of the church and its role in the modern world. How you view the creation of the church will affect how the church should progress.

The highest continuity is Theonomy, which states that the Mosaic Laws are still binding for the Christian, though their observances clearly differ. In this way, the Christians may observe the ceremonial laws through the atonement of Christ, but they are still bound to pursue the moral and civil laws, with the stronger assertion to adopt the civil laws within the current system of government. The best parallel of this is the modern concept of Sharia Law, which makes a religious law also the law of the land.

Covenant Theology is considered a “moderate continuity" position, where they mostly identify that laws have been fulfilled or transformed through Christ, and the binding laws will mostly be moral in nature. Covenant Theology relates most to ecclesiology in baptism, whereby they view circumcision as a sign and seal of the old covenant that has been transformed into baptism in the new covenant. This will be discussed more in Part 4.

The highest discontinuity is the various forms of dispensationalism, which views a complete separation between the Old Testament and the New Testament. As the old covenant has been made obsolete and replaced by the new covenant (Heb 8:6-13), the stipulations of the OT are null for Christians in the new covenant. This doesn’t mean that the OT is rejected (e.g., the viewpoint of Antinomianism is that the laws don’t apply and we operate under complete free grace), but that the Christians are governed by the laws of Christ (Gal 6:2; 1 Cor 9:21) and Israel’s OT covenantal promises will be fulfilled in an eschatological future.

Lastly, Progressive Covenantalism is the moderate form of this view that states the church is a new creation, having been built on the faith of the righteousness of the OT faithful, but created in newness in Christ. Progressive Covenantalism states that God’s redemptive plan combines the Old and New Testaments, yet the covenants were guides to lead to Christ, ultimately unifying Israel and Gentiles into the church.

Which one of these is correct? Each has champions of the faith who will convince you one way or another, and it is a good idea to listen to each one. Some positions are more modern than others, but all still maintain fairly historic roots in proposed concepts. However, it is also a good idea not to be firm in your selection because of who ascribes to what position. We don’t blindly follow men and their interpretations, but rather we still seek the Spirit to guide us in the revelation of the Word. To take one’s logic and apply it to Scripture. Which one speaks true to you?

My Final Thoughts

In this part, we mostly answered some foundational questions. It is hard to start dictating the conduct of the church if you don’t even have a general view of it. And though this is a discussion of the foundation, the concepts are tied to membership as well, and will be revealed from the pulpit through the hermeneutical lenses of the preachers.

When it comes to the Continuity/Discontinuity discussion, I hold to the view of Progressive Conventantalism, especially for the foundation of the church. Without making a statement against the others, I simply will restate what Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum define as the church,

The church is new not only as a transformed, regenerate people but also as God’s new creation community that remains forever. The church comprises believing Jews and Gentiles, who, in Christ, equally and fully receive all God’s promises. The church is not a parenthesis in God’s plan or merely a present illustration of the spiritual unity that Israel as a nation and the Gentile nations will exhibit in the millennium and consummation of recipients of “distinct” blessings or privileges.[2]

Additionally, from this point on, I will not be discussing the universal church anymore, as it does not apply to the denominational divides we will be tackling. My focus is on the particular church and developing an understanding of why there are so many different sects and denominations, as well as how there can be divisions between congregants in the same church. Regardless of being in a continuous or discontinuous state with Israel, a particular church may be defined by its attributes or marks, which we will explore in the next part, and that is particularly important for identifying true churches, both historically and in current times.

Semper Reformanda

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

[1] Jason S. DeRouchie, Oren R. Martin, and Andrew David Baselli, 40 Questions About Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020), 67.

[2] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd Edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 758.

Let me make it clear before I begin, I have almost exclusively attended non-denominational churches in the past, and I wouldn’t be surprised if my next series of churches fall into this category as well. The other point I want to make is that this is not an all-encompassing statement but one that is more prevalent than not.

So what’s the problem? The problem with non-denominational churches is that they lack a defined ecclesiology. It’s actually my attendance of non-denominational churches that grew my interest in ecclesiology because I found so many of them differing from each other to the point where I could safely say that nobody gave any mind to this doctrine.

What is ecclesiology? In simplistic terms, it is the doctrine of the church. But defining it this way often leads people to explain the church in the broadest sense, focusing more on the universal or “catholic” church (e.g., the invisible church). But then they don’t bring this discussion to the importance of the local church. And this is where the problem becomes for the non-denominational church.

The non-denominational church often does not fit into any status or mold. They exist as non-denominational because of various circumstances (i.e., church split, growth of a bible study, differences in ideals with their home church, etc.). Unlike some Christian “influencers” (e.g., Redeemed Zoomer), I do not believe that non-denominational churches are schismatic, heretical, or in-error. Rather, I believe that they have not placed enough thought into what it means to be a local church.

This is not to say that every detail of ecclesiology must be understood and defined within a church, as we could well discuss how the continuity/discontinuity discussion of Israel and the church may not affect the membership of a congregation. The same is true about the purpose or mission of the church. Each member may think differently, and a local church may have no defined position within these doctrines.

However, what must be addressed and defined are the practical implications. These are regarding the ordinances, the governance, and the membership at a minimum. And this is where non-denominational churches fail. For example, a favorite church of mine has begun baptizing babies lately. Now, what brings into question is what the purpose of the ordinance is. As the church was previously congregational in governance, being led by a plurality of elders, how is membership affected if the member may not be regenerate? This naturally leads to a more elder-rule/presbyterian model. And if there are fewer regenerate in the church, what is the mission of the church? Will it be as evangelical as it was previously?

And this is an example of a favorite church of mine. Many other churches of the non-denominational identification have been riddled with nepotism, CEO-Board structure, charismatic leadership, lack of accountability in their leaders, a congregation of attendees with no membership covenant, no purpose for the congregation, etc. What happens is that these non-denominational churches are picking and choosing from various other church structures that they like—or possibly making choices solely based on what they don’t like—and then the structures don’t match what they are preaching and teaching. For example, John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church is elder-ruled, having been adopted from a Presbyterian structure (it’s the Reformed in Reformed Baptist), but then exhorting the congregation to do things as the church that they don’t have any authority to do without an elder’s approval. In the case of Grace Community, their size may warrant this structure, and they utilize a heavy dependence on volunteers and voluntary support that still uses the church. But the church is not naturally growing to make decisions as a church.

And this is not the only example, but it is one of the churches that has adopted this means, which is being fruitful. The majority of other non-denominational churches are not as fruitful. For example, the family-run church has no intention of bringing in others to assist in the ministry. They definitely aren’t looking to build up leaders either, unless it is leaders they can control.

And lastly, this isn’t solely a non-denominational problem. It exists within the Baptist denomination as well. Baptist distinctives are heavy into the autonomy of the local church, to be governed as a congregational model. But it isn’t taught, because I think many Baptist preachers are being selected before they have either been examined by Biblical models or have lost the urge to study and learn all things of the faith. John Hammett first stated this when he said that many Baptists do not know what it means to be Baptists, and “The tendency among most evangelical Christians is to go straight from Scripture to ministry without taking the necessary intervening steps. [Enrich Understanding with Historical and Global Perspectives, then Formulate Systematic Theology].”[1]

Therefore, this problem is mostly uniquely found in Baptists and Non-Denominational circles. I have never had a discussion with a Presbyterian, Anglican, or Methodist regarding a misunderstanding of their ecclesiology (though their own particular views may be more heavily rooted in tradition or culture). Thus, I think every church member should ask themselves whether their church has a defined ecclesiology. Ask whether they are elder-led or elder-ruled. If elder-led, do they have a purpose for the congregation to make decisions? If they are elder-ruled, who are they accountable to? What is their definition of the ordinances, and what are the practical applications of them? Are they open-communion, close-communion, or closed-communion? If they are the latter two, how do they view Baptism? How does baptism relate to membership? If they were baptized as a baby, are they eligible for membership? Are they in communion with other churches? What distinctives allow them to cooperate? Etc., etc.

We could ask a number of questions, but the ultimate question is what does Scripture say about their position? Can it be defended? I understand the Presbyterian position, and even if I think it is in error, at least they can defend it. Many of the non-denominational churches that I have been in the past could not, and mostly responded with “this is what we know we don’t like.” That is not acceptable, and that is where the church is in an unhealthy error. Are all non-denominational churches this way, in error? Of course not. But I think the majority are. Do you think this is a non-issue, or can you see how this has resulted in the stagnant growth or failure of many churches?

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

[1] John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations For Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019), 16.

When you’re doing a lot of work, research, and writing, it’s a wonderful feeling to be validated for your efforts. And I think it was something that I needed to be reminded of at this moment. Following the feedback comment, here is my paper on the subject for your edification.

Note: I wrote this about 4 years ago, so my tone and style have shifted. Additionally, I was still learning the art of research, so I probably would have stronger sources, but these are still valid.

INTRODUCTION

The sufficiency and accuracy of Scripture are often attacked through current empirical data, such as carbon dating, which is based on speculation or through supposed contradictions within the text of the bible. While we cannot simply refute, proactively, every claim that “scientists” make using loose evidence convincing enough to those who have no desire to study the word of God, we can explore the text and dispel any myth of contradictions between the authors of Scripture itself. Here, a simple contradiction gets brought up to those who only need a cursory view of the text because the gospels’ authors cannot state who the twelve apostles were. If we were to read Matthew 10 and Luke 6, we might be concerned by what we read, especially if we just finished reading John 1. Where almost all the names are the same, discrepancies are noted with the listing of Thaddaeus, Judas (of James), Bartholomew, Nathanael, and the title of Simon. While Matthew and Mark seem to agree, Luke contradicts one of their names and differs in the title of another. To further complicate matters, John does not list all the apostles but focuses on key individuals, including one who may be an initial disciple of Jesus that does not appear on the other three’s list.

In the following paper, I will assess the discrepancies noted above and propose congruency of the synoptic gospels by connecting the traditional view that Thaddaeus, of Matthew and Mark, is the same as Judas, son of James, listed by Luke. I will briefly reflect that in all three synoptic gospels, Simon is the same person and that being a Canaanite and a Zealot is the same title. Finally, I will address the person of Nathanael and present the traditional view that he is the same as Bartholomew, while also allowing an alternate understanding that Nathanael may have been a disciple but not an apostle. In both examinations, I will also identify Nathanael’s theological importance, justifying why he is predominantly in one gospel and not the others. Ultimately, because of the limitations of documentation within the gospels, one’s convictions will have to decide whether he was an apostle.

THADDAEUS OR JUDAS

In the gospel narratives, Jesus calls upon His twelve apostles, and each synoptic author lists the twelve men by name. However, towards the end of each list is two different names, Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18) and Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Further complications arise when reading the King James Version, which adds an additional name of “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.” We can then make a cohesive argument that Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus agree with the same person, but instead, one is the surname that can be construed as what is commonly known as a last name; thus, his name would be Lebbaeus Thaddaeus. Another understanding is to recognize the change in language from the King James Version to now and see that it may be a reference to an additional name, so that he was either known as Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus.[1] But that is not the concern, as neither Lebbaeus nor Thaddaeus is connected with the name of a father as James or Jacob, nor is it a commonly known alternate name of Judas like Jude.

Then how is one to approach finding consensus between the gospels if there is not one readily identifiable? In this, we should recognize our separation by time, language, and region from the original recipients of the gospels. What we may not be able to see may have been common knowledge for them. If you were to survey your residency, you would be hard-pressed to find an individual named Judas these days, especially if you live in a relatively Christian culture, as the name brings up certain connotations. However, in early Israel, Judas was a popular name, meaning “Jehovah leads,” and was most likely Thaddaeus’s given birth name.[2] The notion of this reasoning is that to look at the Aramaic names of Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus, we see the meanings “breast” or “heart,” by which it is presumed to be a name of endearment.[3] The complete understanding of the name would then be “heart-child” or “breast-child,” a statement of his character to be gentle or fully trusting, or one of courage and boldness, or could just be because he is the youngest and would then attribute to him being the “lesser.”[4] The reason for the name is speculative because not much is recorded on the nature of his character within the gospel texts, but it is strongly suggested that this name was a nickname.

At this point, the use of multiple names was not uncommon, especially evident within Scripture. Peter was known as Simon or Cephas. Matthew is known as Levi, the son of Alphaeus. Paul is Saul. Joseph was called Barsabbas and is also known as Justus (Acts 1:23). Extra-biblical references refer to Judas, who is known as Maccabaeus and Caiaphas, also known as Joseph.[5] The reason for Thaddaeus to be given another name can be seen in John 14:22, where John finds a deliberate point to highlight that Judas is not Iscariot. To remove that sense of confusion or possibly to disassociate from Iscariot, Mark and Matthew chose instead to use a different name, one of his attributes that they were probably familiar with. Being detached from the ministry of Jesus, Luke recorded the name directly, using the family identifier when necessary to distinguish the lesser within the group. Thus, Judas would be identified by his birth name, given to him by his father, James.

Ultimately, the use of multiple names was not uncommon, whether because of language, family or tribal names, or nicknames that highlighted a particular characteristic. Because of this, it is widely attested that Thaddaeus may also be known by his birthname of Judas, son of James, though he should not be confused with Iscariot, as John states with intention.

SIMON, CANAANITE OR ZEALOT

One of the more straightforward “discrepancies” to refute is the use of Simon’s title, being either the Zealot or the Canaanite. Yet, it still raises many questions about the validity of one of the views. The proposals of Simon’s titles revolve around his affiliations with the Zealot “philosophy” of Judaism, his home of Cana, or his characteristic of being zealous. The second point is generally not accepted, though it sounds the most reasonable, as manuscripts have revealed that the word is “Cananaean,” derived from the Aramaic word to mean “to be zealous.”[6] Additionally, the source of the Canaanite to mean “from the region of Cana” comes from the misinterpretation of Jerome in his commentary that had been passed along through later authors.[7] This leaves the potential as a character trait or to be aligned with a group existing with the intent to remove Rome from Israel.[8]

Could Simon have aligned with the religious group before being a disciple of Jesus? Proponents of this view tie the origin of this religious group to approximately AD 6, when Judas of Galilee generated a movement to remove any king outside of God and were highly hopeful for the Messiah.[9] This viewpoint maintains plausibility, though many attributes that the Zealots were only formed in AD 66, the nature of “those who have a zeal for the law,” which would also contain the condition of only one king, can be traced back to the Maccabean period.[10] However, the Jewish historian, Josephus, documents the late formation of the Zealot party while making known its non-affiliation with the Sicarii Zealots of AD 66 and its movements from Galilee to Jerusalem when John of Gischala brought survivors with him after Titus captured the last town in Galilee and not one that shows any consistency centuries before the Maccabean.[11] Although a last possibility is that Simon joined the group of Zealots during the last days of Jerusalem[12], however, this hypothesis does not adhere to what we know of the early church and apostles.

Then could Simon have been one who was zealous of the law of Moses and not affiliated with a particular group? Of course, and this is the more likely of understanding. Throughout the New Testament and other writings during this period, various documents narrate the actions of individuals and groups with a highlight of the glory of their zeal.[13] Paul even describes himself as a Pharisee with zeal (Phil 3:4), not being aligned with a party but possessing a trait commonly known throughout the early church.

Regardless of which manner is understood, Luke’s use of the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word to describe Simon as “the Zealot” is the same as Matthew’s or Mark’s use of Canaanite (Cananaean). Maybe to clear up confusion, they should have considered the possibility that a better translation would not be Simon the Zealot but rather Simon the Zealous.[14] Regardless, both terms are still interchangeable as one who is zealous can be known as a zealot. And the purpose was most likely not to draw more attention to who Simon was but rather to distinguish him from his more well-known counterpart, Simon, who was called Peter.

NATHANAEL OR BARTHOLOMEW

The most difficult to find alignment is to link Nathanael to Bartholomew or to express their separation from each other. When reading the gospel of John, Nathanael appears twice. First, in the details of Phillip alerting him to the discovery of the Messiah (John 1:45 – 51), a narrative piece that seems too important for a general believer, and second, at the Sea of Tiberias where Jesus appears to the disciples (John 21:2). Bartholomew, however, is not documented anywhere other than in the list of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). But Bartholomew is not the only one who lacks attention, as Phillip is primarily discussed in John’s gospel and not the others.

The first question that should be answered is, “was Nathanael an apostle?” To answer this, we must recognize that being an apostle is different from being a disciple. There is no doubt that Nathanael was a disciple of Jesus. The nature of John’s gospel to identify him in Chapter 1 and provide a congruent link to his maintaining relationship with the others in Chapter 21 is indicative that Nathanael never strayed away from Jesus. But was he an apostle? John never uses the term “apostle” throughout his writing to distinguish it from his preferred term of “disciple.” But if one was identified as a disciple of Jesus, then weren’t they also an apostle? Matthew 8:21 provides a statement of a disciple of Jesus who desired to bury his father before following Jesus. Luke 6:17, after the appointment of the twelve apostles, Jesus looked upon a large crowd of His disciples. Could Nathanael be a first disciple and not an apostle? It is a possibility, as Jesus traveled with disciples that exceeded the number of His apostles throughout his ministry, and without John to delineate, it remains a possibility.

But tradition states another possibility: Nathanael and Bartholomew are the same. This has been the accepted understanding from the 9^th century, as Bartholomew is most likely an Aramaic patronymic of Bar-Talmai, meaning “Son of Tholami,” resulting in the full name of Nathanael Bar-Tholami.[15] With Nathanael meaning “gift of God,”[16] it would be understandable that Nathanael is his common name, given to him by his parents, while Bartholomew is indicative of his genealogy. Laying particular evidence for this is that Philip, mentioned in the other gospels, is always paired with Bartholomew. In John’s gospel, it is Philip who goes and seeks out his friend Nathanael to share the finding of the Messiah, portraying a deep friendship.[17] As Nathanael is from Cana (John 21:2), then Jesus’ first miracle of the wedding in Cana would lay credence to his being one of Jesus’ disciples and to being among the other first disciples who have been identified as apostles, Andrew, Peter, Philip, and John, the author.

If Nathanael was important to John, why wasn’t he important to the other gospel writers? I propose that John was telling Nathanael’s story for theological purposes: to identify God’s plan for salvation for the world. Jesus identifies Nathanael as a true Israelite who has in him no deceit (John 1:47) and who will see heaven open and angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (John 1:51). Nathanael here is an allusion to Jacob, who was first named Israel (Gen 32:28), known for deceit (Gen 27:35), and had visions of angels ascending and descending a ladder to heaven (Gen 28:12).[18] It is here that John’s purpose in retelling Nathanael’s story is to provide an early theological basis to accept the invitation to be genuine and know God by witnessing the tangible terms of the person, place, and promise.[19]

Nathanael is not one to be considered naïve or unaware of Scripture, as rabbinic tradition cites that under the fig tree is where students would discuss Scripture with their teachers.[20] Without deceit, full of knowledge, and upon seeing, Nathanael declares that Jesus, Rabbi, is the Son of God, King of Israel (John 1:49). Is there then a better representative of a disciple, who is to be representative of true Israelite in contrast to those who hold leadership within the Jewish religion? And further, he is symbolic of all Christians who, through faith and discipleship, see and follow Jesus.[21]

Nathanael was a historical figure whose call to be a disciple provided a narrative of a true Israelite counter to the origin of their name. Could he have been only a disciple? I believe I have made a case for the minimum grounds, but it aligns best to see the coupling of Nathanael and Philip as the same as Philip and Bartholomew.[22] As Nathanael is only found in the gospel of John and Bartholomew is not, the juxtaposition of Philip and Bartholomew on the synoptic lists and the relationship described of the two in John heavily suggests the interchangeability of the names.[23] Nathanael and Bartholomew were the same person, just recorded with different names, such as that of Thaddaeus.

CONCLUSION

The defense of the accuracy and cohesion of the Scripture must be viewed through the lens and understanding of the authors. This is not to state that the authors contained fallibility in writing down God’s words, but that the words were carefully chosen and arranged to convey purpose and ideas to the recipients. That the gospels make theological and Christological arguments through the addition and omission of narratives, parables, stories, and expressions. It emphasizes why John articulates Nathanael and Philip more than the others. It explains why Matthew’s order of stories does not move in a chronological manner with Mark’s. It states why Luke uses names of genealogical records and heritage as the primary identifiers.

While I cannot state without a doubt that my conclusions should be considered doctrine without flaw, historically, it has been reasoned that there have been no contradictions within the listings of the twelve apostles. The commonality of multiple names within the first century Judea has been widely documented inside and outside Scripture. If we are to accept that a man named Simon can be called Cephas or Peter, meaning rock (John 1:42), then our misgivings with the name of Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus may stem from not recognizing the meaning of the name. The gospels’ authors had shown consistency throughout their texts, that Simon is understood to be a Zealot, whether labeled Canaanite or Cananaean. Lastly, John’s Nathanael may very well not be an apostle. Still, the case of his relationship with the other apostles is undeniable in John’s documentation, highlighted for theological purposes. The etymology of Bartholomew as an uncommon first name prior leans toward knowing that the apostle may be known by his full name of Nathanael Bartholomew.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

[1] “SURNAME - Definition from the KJV Dictionary,” AV1611.com, accessed February 10, 2023, https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/surname.html.

[2] “Who Was Thaddeus in the Bible?,” GotQuestions.org, accessed February 10, 2023, https://www.gotquestions.org/Thaddeus-in-the-Bible.html.

[3] Bennie R Crockett Jr, “Thaddeus,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1295.

[4] John MacArthur, “Living Courageously (Thaddaeus) - John MacArthur Daily Devotional (May-25-2022) - Sermons Online,” May 25, 2022, https://sermons-online.org/john-macarthur/devo/living-courageously-thaddaeus.

[5] C E Hill, “The Identity of John’s Nathanael,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20, no. 67 (January 1998): 57.

[6] John MacArthur, One Perfect Life: The Complete Story of the Lord Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), 135.

[7] John T. Lowe, “Simon the Zealot,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[8] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, Second edition. [New American Standard Version]. (La Habra, CA: Thomas Nelson, 2020), 1217.

[9] Kirsopp Lake, “Simon Zelotes,” Harvard Theological Review 10, no. 1 (January 1917): 57.

[10] David Rhoads, “Zealots,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

[11] Lake, “Simon Zelotes,” 60.

[12] Lake, 63.

[13] David Rhoads, “Zealots,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1045.

[14] Lake, “Simon Zelotes,” 63.

[15] Michael J. Wilkins, “Bartholomew (Person),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 615.

[16] Everett Falconer Harrison, “The Son of God among the Sons of Men 4 Jesus and Nathaniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 102, no. 408 (October 1945): 442.

[17] Jeffrey E. Miller, “Bartholomew the Apostle,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D Barry et al. (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2016).

[18] Craig R Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45-51),” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 12, no. 39 (May 1990): 24.

[19] Peter J. (Peter John) Gomes, “John 1:45-51,” Interpretation 43, no. 3 (July 1989): 286.

[20] Raymond F. Collins, “Nathanael (Person),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1030–31.

[21] Collins, 1030–31.

[22] Robert Duncan Culver, The Earthly Career of Jesus, the Christ: A Life in Chronological, Geographical and Social Context (Ross-Shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), 108.

[23] Wilkins, “Bartholomew (Person),” 615.

Reading of the Verses

Luke 2:25–35 “25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the comfort of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, 28 then he took Him into his arms and blessed God, and said, 29 “Now Master, You are releasing Your slave in peace, According to Your word. 30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 Which You prepared in the presence of all peoples, 32 A Light for revelation to the Gentiles, And for the glory of Your people Israel.” 33 And His father and mother were marveling at the things which were being said about Him. 34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed— 35 and a sword will pierce through your own soul as well—that the thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.””

Introduction

Christmas was just two weeks ago. And at this point, we are coming off the Advent season. It’s becoming more of a memory. Even though, since Thanksgiving, we began celebrating, the memory is fading. When we are in the Christmas season, every church, and rightfully so, revolves around the upcoming Christmas day. Churches are decorated for it and we will include a portion of the church service to be dedicated to something related to the season. We talk around the topic of Christmas and we focus on the text that declares that Christ is coming. Likewise, sermons make sure that we mention with the First coming, there will also be a second coming. And we live in anticipation of this. And then Christmas happens. What next? As we get further from the date, the decorations begin to be removed. The season has peaked, the holiday candy is put on sale, and everything is weaned back into routine. And we could preach Good Friday and Easter now, but it is too far away. We are still closer to Christmas.

And I believe that is a perfect description of where our text brings us today. In our context, the Lord, Jesus Christ has been incarnated, descending from heaven and taking on flesh, born to the Virgin Mary. The story continues, Joseph and Mary, with their newborn child, are visited by the young shepherds who confirm that the Messiah has arrived. It is a magnificent story that we discuss and display through nativity plays year after year. There is not a person alive who has not seen a camel, goat, rabbit, or some exotic animal in the presence of a little girl who is playing Mary across the street from an inflatable Santa Claus. The story is firmly embedded in our minds. But I think that’s where we tend to end.

But as we are here today, weeks after, is the magic still there? As the lights are taken down, lawns cleared, trees put away, and the batteries of new toys drained from overuse, we see that the daily routine of life has returned. Christmas introduces the redemption of the world as happening “now,” but in the text, Jesus is just a child. Therefore, redemption is “not yet.” This parallels where we are today. Christ’s first ministry on earth brought justification “now,” by which we may even declare we are saved and right with God, but the “glorification” waits until his return, which is “not yet.” And as we sit between the “now” and “not yet,” Luke reminds us of the routine and ordinary life.

In the text preceding this one, Mary and Joseph had to return to the routine. They continued in their obedience to the ordinary. They circumcised their newborn son at 8 days old and waited for the appropriate time for Mary to be purified. At that time, they would present Jesus at the Temple in accordance with what the Law required. For the Jews, these are special routines within the ordinary expectations. But in the ordinary, Luke interjects another moment of confirmation where we are to be diligent in our hope. We are to endure the routine. And ultimately, we are to live and die in faith.

As I read this text, I cannot help but find a goal in life. A goal to achieve a faith like Simeon. In order to extract this application, I need to first explore who Simeon is. We need to know the man. After we know who he is, we need to grasp what he said. And lastly, we need to know why Luke includes this story in his gospel. The goal of all of this, is to capture a faith like Simeon.

First Point - Who is Simeon?

To begin, who is Simeon?

25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the comfort of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.

There are few facts in this line. And there are no other references to him outside of this text. We know nothing of his family or lineage. We know nothing really of his life. He does not exist anywhere else except in this passage in Luke. So, I ask you to grant me a little leeway or leniency in the Scriptural exposition so that I may use some imagination and illustration to describe the scene.

To begin, Simeon is a man. He is a simple man, and from what we may derive, he is a simple elderly man. He is not a priest, and he holds no significant ties to royalty, nobility, or prominence. He is a layman to say the least, and other than his age, I would say that there is nothing remarkable about the man physically.

But what we know about him is his character. He is described as a righteous and devout man. He is righteous in that to be “righteous” is to say that he has an upright moral character. He rightly divides what is good and what is evil. He takes care and caution in the observance of his religious practices. And this makes sense when Luke describes him as devout.

This word for “Devout” is used only by Luke. In Greek, it’s εὐλαβής evlabes (ev-lah-bees), and Luke uses it four times total. The four times are as follows.

First, he applies it to men who traveled to Jerusalem from around the world for Passover and remained during Pentecost; Second, to the few men who buried Stephen the martyr and lamented over him; Third, to Ananias, who was called by God to lay hands on Paul in Damascus; and Fourth, to Simeon.

εὐλαβής (ev-lah-bees) happens only four times in the Bible, and these four times let us paint a picture of what it means to be devout or, by another related term, “God-fearing.”

First related term, those who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover came from lands far away, such as Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia Minor. The distance is best explained in that these will be future destinations of Paul’s missionary journeys, yet these are the homes for these men. It is a right fear of God that would drive one to make this trip on a command from God and to reject the culture of men that surrounds them.

Second related term, for those who retrieved Stephen’s body and loudly lamented. It is a fear of God over man that drove them to not only bury Stephen, but to make their lament known loudly and publicly. Especially as Paul began his persecution of the church. They did not hide, but they did what was right.

Third related term, it is God-fearing for Ananias, a faithful follower of Christ, to obey the voice of God and go see his enemy, the ravager of the church, in order to lay hands on him and accept him, though his heart may have been both fearful or angry.

Fourth related term, then, is what we rightly say about Simeon. It’s that his greatest quality is that he is God-fearing. And with no other context given, it means that Simeon is God-fearing in his ordinary life. It means that he is obedient to the Law, but his obedience differs from others in that he obeys as an act of worship. He is highly attuned to his actions and ensures that his heart is truly pointed to God. And his heart, in this worship, does not look back at himself. Rather, he simply waits for “the comfort (or consolation) of Israel.” Simeon fears God because he looks at the context of Israel and sees a need for relief. A biblical level of relief. The people are suffering. We should ask where this source of suffering is coming from. The easy answer is the oppression of the Romans, but Luke’s gospel will show that it is also from the heavy hand of the Jewish leaders who have also suppressed the people and have restricted access to God.

Therefore, based on all this development of the character and person of Simeon, I believe we can rightly deduce that Simeon is often seen in the temple. Simeon’s presence in the temple is routine. In fact, as we will see later in this gospel, I would say that his presence within the temple is displayed as a contrasting picture of the righteous layman against the corrupt religious leaders. The obedience of Mary and Joseph and Simeon, and, as we’ll see several verses later, Anna the prophetess would be the confirmation of this thought. All these subjects are devoting themselves to the Lord, while the Pharisees and the Sadducees devote themselves to themselves.

But where we continue in the text, we are told that Simeon is devoted and waiting for the relief of Israel. And in his ordinary life of routine and prayer, the Holy Spirit found it fitting to come upon him and use him.

26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

We could always ask ourselves the question, “When did the Holy Spirit reveal to him that he would not die until he had seen the Messiah?” The text almost reads as if it were only days away, but that would be looking at it from a modern reading of the text, where we imply sooner unless we state otherwise. However, I personally think that this revelation was for a good length of time. When I said earlier that Simeon was an elderly man, this is where we may infer such an idea. Church tradition will state that Simeon was 130 years old at this time, but I think we don’t have to go so far in extremes. To be a man of 90 years old in first-century Judea would be unique enough. His age is a symbol of divine providence. We may also infer from silence that he is physically capable. He is not a limited old man but is alive and moving as if he were divinely ordained to. We do not want to imagine him as borderline immortal, but clearly at the end of life. As the text says that he will not die until he has seen the Messiah informs us that it will happen soon. All he needs is to see the Messiah. All he needs is this final confirmation.

And he is not the only one expecting the Messiah. You could say the expectation was in the air. Many within Judea know that he is coming. It is Scripture that told the Jews when he would arrive. It is why the magi, the wise men of the east, will make their appearance in the gospel of Matthew. This is a fascinating study here.

The magi are experts in astronomy and natural science, which also means they were very good timekeepers. The magi are men from the east, and they are most likely a continuation of a formerly known group of scientists known as the Chaldeans. Yes, the Babylonians. The conquerors of Judea. And when they conquered Judea, they took back a certain man from Jerusalem. A man who would eventually go on to reform Babylon and later Persia. A man who would write down his visions.

I am talking about Daniel. Without detailing the entirety of Daniel 9:24-27, it is recognized that it is a prophetic calendar and this calendar states when the Messiah will be cut off. This date, as scholars have agreed upon, lands around 33 AD, and other Scripture will state it will be indicated by a new star in the sky. I know this is nerdy stuff, but if you want to know the context of the gospels and why there are all these talks about the Messiah, it’s because the Jewish scholars and teachers had studied the text and rightly identified that the Messiah was now. This is why there were false Messiahs and rebellions during the time of Jesus. Simeon knew the time of the Messiah approached.

But knowledge is one thing. To find the Messiah, especially as a child, needed the Spirit. This is the nature of Scripture. It speaks truth, but takes divine work to make clear. Truth is contained in these ancient texts, yet it is also revealed through divine action.

The Spirit’s arrival is the divine action that mirrors the Exodus. Just as Israel was kept in captivity for 400 years in Egypt until God worked to free them, so was Israel kept in captivity to themselves until God worked to free them. After the Old Testament, In this period known as the Intertestamental period or “the 400 years of Silence,” the Holy Spirit returns to the promised land. And suddenly, we have three righteous individuals: Elizabeth, her husband Zechariah, and now Simeon, all filled with the Spirit.

Even if it seems like I’m just giving you information, I want you to know these are cohesive thoughts. There is a purpose.

Luke is describing the work of God. Not as something new, but something that has been continued and that was promised from the beginning. But we’ll get to Luke’s intention later.

Second Point - The Messages of Simeon

Simeon is a righteous and devout old layman who is part of the story of anticipation for the Messiah and the heralding the King on Earth. And knowing who Simeon is, we can now see how Luke will smash two scenes together to deliver a message. In these chapters, the subject or focus is primarily on Mary and Joseph, who are caring for the newborn Jesus. We are 40 days from the birth of Christ, and the family is moving into the temple complex. But for a minute, he moves the focus to introduce Simeon. When these two stories collide, the interaction is unlike anything we could ever expect.

27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, 28 then he took Him into his arms and blessed God,

If you imagine the scene, remember, it is silent. There is no dialogue where Mary offers her birth story. There is no announcement. No words from Mary or Joseph. They didn’t need to announce Jesus to the world. But the world still came to them.

Simeon, guided by the Spirit, came to the temple. He did not go to the temple on this day by his own guidance, but solely by the work of God. Here, he is delivered and presented with this ultimate gift of grace. It is important for us to see that even in this story, it is God who works. It was God who promised Simeon a gift, and it was God who delivered it.

I find it necessary to continue to express this to everyone. God does not need you. But God wants you. Simeon, upon seeing the child, was granted the vision to know and immediately took the Christ child in his arms and then….blessed God. The Westminster says that the purpose of man, the chief end of man is always, to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. Here, Simeon is fulfilling his ultimate purpose in his worship and his enjoyment.

In worship, Simeon then sings or recites a beautiful hymn or poem. The church has titled this poem the Nunc Dimittis (nunk deh-mit-tis). Nunc Dimittis (nunk deh-mit-tis) is Latin for “Now you are permitting me to depart,” and it is the joyful opening of Simeon’s praise that the church use to use to close out her services. The final act of worship.

And this hymn perfectly encapsulates the “now” but “not yet” picture that Luke is consistently weaving through his gospel. In this hymn, we are presented with this anxious period of waiting that resolves simply into peace. A peace that is the comfort of Israel.

Simeon says, verse 29,

29 “Now Master, You are releasing Your slave in peace, According to Your word. 30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,

You can hear the weight that is on Simeon in these words. I think we lose some of the texture when we translate it into English. Simeon is ready to die. But his readiness for death is with much jubilance. With vibrant happiness.

It’s counterintuitive for most of us. It further expresses a tension between “now” and “not yet” in life. The “now” in life, Simeon is devoted to right living and the cost of it. He can envision the number of animal sacrifices he has to make for his iniquities. He has observed the number of sacrifices that are made on behalf of the nation. He is burdened with seeing how easy it is to be overcome by evil. How easy it is for him to transgress against God. And with this weight, he recognized that he could do nothing to redeem his own fallen nature.

The “not yet” in life is death. It is inevitable. When will it happen? What will it look like? How do you know where you are going? These are questions of doubt that we all have pondered once and I’m sure so has Simeon. But in this single moment, Simeon is no longer concerned with this “not yet.” Darrell Bock, a research professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote on this verse.

Furthermore, having seen Jesus and knowing him, Simeon is at peace. Everything else in his life pales in comparison. He has met Jesus, and the details of the rest of his life’s résumé are irrelevant.

Darrell L. Bock

God had given Simeon a promise, and Simeon saw the fulfillment of that simple promise. If God gives you a promise with one thing and fulfills it, it should assure you that he will keep all his promises. In fact, I would say that God has already given us promises everywhere we look. The sun rising and falling each day is a promise from God. It maintains orders. Just as the wind blows, the sea stays confined, the birds chirp, and the deer jump in front of cars. It is the providence of God in the ordinary and routine that shows that He has maintained His first promises to us, so why would he not hold his later promises?

Here, Simeon, looking at this child, this baby, does not see the Messiah, but sees salvation. Period. He does not question the myths, legends, speculations, or rumors of who or what the Messiah will be. Because it’s not about the Messiah but the larger picture. Jesus is the salvation. He is the purpose by which God will redeem everyone.

Pay attention to this. Simeon finds peace in a promise that is actively in motion. He is holding a baby. Christ has not yet begun His ministry. He has not performed miracles. He has not healed the sick or declared sins forgiven. He has not raised the dead, nor has he taken up the cross. He has not been buried nor has he defeated death. He has not ascended to heaven, and He has not taken up His throne. He has not become the propitiation of all sin, living the perfect life, and submitting to the perfect will of the Father by taking up the cross so that He may pay the punishment of sin, which is death, thus granting Him authority to dispense eternal life for all who put faith in Him and Him alone. He has not yet given us the gospel. Has not given us this good news.

No. He was simply born. And yet, Simeon finds peace in this child. This is the level of faith that we should be striving for. Because it is a faith that knows that God is in control. God is working. He was working in the days of David, in the days of Moses, in the days of Abraham, and in the days of Noah. Each of them held a faith that, to me, was extraordinary given their particular circumstances, and therefore, is harder to relate to. But Simeon. Simeon is ordinary. He seems no different than us. He seems attainable.

29 “Now Master, You are releasing Your slave in peace, According to Your word. 30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 Which You prepared in the presence of all peoples, 32 A Light for revelation to the Gentiles, And for the glory of Your people Israel.”

These last verses are significant. Luke, in all of his research, at some point, came across the scroll or book of Isaiah. We know this because his gospel is filled with allusions and references to Isaiah’s writings. More than any other book of the Bible.

There could be a number of reasons why he cites Isaiah the most, but I believe that the primary one is that Isaiah clearly ties the Abrahamic promise of a nation serving as the source of blessings and curses for all the nations, and how it is fulfilled in Jesus. And now, in the Temple, probably in the Court of the Gentiles, among all the God-fearing people, Simeon proclaims the statement of relief. Here, among them, is the source of salvation, “32 A Light for revelation to the Gentiles, And for the glory of Your people Israel.””

In an attempt for clarity, I have harmonized some text from Isaiah. Harmonization is taking multiple lines and putting them together to present a single meaning clearly. Harmonizing Isaiah 9:2, 9:6, 42:6, 49:6, and 60:1-3, we get the following message which sounds like the Lukean verse we read.

Isaiah 9:2

2 The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light;

Isaiah 9:6

6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 42:6

6 “I am Yahweh, I have called You in righteousness; And I will give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations,

Isaiah 49:6

6 To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to cause the preserved ones of Israel to return; I will also give You as a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Isaiah 60:1–3

1 “Arise, shine, for your light has come, And the glory of Yahweh has risen upon you. 3 “Nations will come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising.

The glory of Israel is not the restoration of a global entity or national power. The glory of Israel is that from Israel came Christ, who will return the world to a righteous relation with the Father. Glory and light, here, are tied together, and so glory will always produce light, and light may only exist by the glory of God. How then is God truly glorified? Not by the salvation of Israel alone but by the salvation of the entirety of creation, Jews and Gentiles combined. The church reflects the glory of Christ, which has its roots in Israel, but is only sustained by Jesus Christ.

When given this message, how would you respond? How does Mary and Joseph respond?

33 And His father and mother were marveling at the things which were being said about Him.

Before you analyze. Before you argue. Before you respond. Marvel.

Sit in amazement and reflection. Joseph and Mary were not surprised who their child was, because they already had an encounter with the Angel Gabriel and were confirmed by the shepherds that night. There was no new belief or knowledge. They marvel because a man they never met, who they never spoke to, came from nowhere and confirmed weeks later that this is still the truth. Jesus is the salvation. He will draw nations to His light. Kings will respond to His brightness.

But this good news does not come without a price. Without competition. Without opposition. After his joyful song, Simeon turns to Mary and says,

34 “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed—that the thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.

It is unique in that Simeon directly addresses Mary with these words. I am unsure if this is because Luke knows that Joseph will not live long enough to see the ministry of Christ or if Simeon is acting prophetically without anyone being the wiser. But he addresses Mary and tells her that there will be a fall and rise of many in Israel. While many have used this opportunity to preach on the doctrine of predestination, I need to state that I would take the position of Spurgeon, who said,

“I shall not therefore attempt to enter the sublime mystery which is contained in this text, as to the divine appointment of Christ to be the occasion of the falling and rising of many souls. I believe in that doctrine, however, though I cannot expound it.”

Charles Spurgeon

We are not to concern ourselves of who and how God chooses His people. However, this does not mean we skip the verse. Rather, I think it is prudent instead, that we discuss how this line looks in application instead of the divine thinking. The application is that this is a foreshadow of the gospel message. We can see it in two lights, a positive and negative light.

In the positive light, that through Christ, many will fall AND rise in Israel. Consider the words of Micah 7:8

8 Do not be glad over me, O my enemy. Though I fall I will rise; Though I inhabit the darkness, Yahweh is a light for me.

The gospel message, in this way, is clear that we who are in Christ will die or fall. But will rise again. We rise because it is God who is both Light and Life. For all the disciples from Pentecost to today, it states that there is a suffering that will precede glory. It is something we all know and speak of. It is the consequences of our sins that we have encountered in order that we came to the realization that we needed a savior. And even in a justified state, a forgiven state, we are not immune from suffering. We suffer because we exist in the “now” and have not reached the “not yet” of glorification. This is the positive light.

In the negative light, we see how the gospel message is received. Consider Isaiah again, speaking of God, in Isaiah 8,

14 “Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 “And many will stumble over them; Then they will fall and be broken; They will even be snared and caught.”

Going back to Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers stated it clearly, that there is not a single person whom Jesus did not have influence over. Meaning, everyone who encountered Jesus was influenced either positively or negatively. You do not meet Christ and remain unchanged. You cannot stay the same. He has more weight and influence over the world than to let you remain exactly as you were. He is the knowledge that causes a response.

As the stone or rock in Isaiah, Jesus is the weight that is unmatched in history. You either receive the gospel and you rise, or you receive the gospel, and you fall. This is how you cannot remain the same. This is the rise and fall in Simeon’s statement. When you hear what Christ has done, your heart is exposed. You may fall, like Jonah in the great fish. In your transgressions, can you see where you stand as you die in order to cry out from the pits of Sheol, or death, for God to save you? Or will you continue to rebel against Him and let your heart harden?

With your heart exposed, how will you respond?

In both interpretations, there is a truth. Jesus is the stone that all will encounter. Some will meet this rock and stumble. They will be hurt and descend further away from righteousness. Others will meet this rock and take it as their precious cornerstone. They will not depart from it; rather, they will rest firmly on it as their foundation.

Simeon speaks a truth that in Israel, there will be some who will join the great apostasy, and there will be others who form the faithful remnant. Some will accept Christ and some will not. And what happens in Israel will happen among the nations as well. I cannot perceive how God participates in the doctrine of predestination and I don’t think we need to argue over it. But we must be honest that in this world, not all will accept Jesus. Even if it is the free gift of eternal life.

And this is the opposition. As Christ and His disciples are opposed, there will be suffering felt. And Mary, in my opinion, will be the first to suffer for Christ.

35 and a sword will pierce through your own soul as well.”

This is unavoidable. It had been promised to the serpent in the garden and Mary fulfills the curse of Eve.

Genesis 3:15

15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Between the woman and the devil will be opposition, and in the end, Satan will be crushed, and Christ will only be harmed. And yet, Mary will be the witness. This is not to elevate Mary in any way, but to capture the human emotions tied to the gospel.

Mary will have to contend that her own children will not believe in Jesus before the cross (John 7:5). She will know that her hometown rejects Jesus (Mark 6:3). She will see her Son, the living God, rejected despite performing miracles and signs. If your child gets fired from a job, fails a test, or just makes a major mistake, does it not hurt? Does the rejection not tug on your soul? Well, what about when Jesus is nailed to the cross? Mary witnesses her son die in the most excruciating manner and observes Him buried. This is a pain that will pierce her own soul that I think very few of us could ever comprehend. This piercing of her soul is intense, horrific, painful, and devastating. And it must happen. It must be painful. And we participated in its action. It is our sin that He died for.

Third Point - Why Luke Wrote it

When Luke writes, he does so to include his readers in the text. To include us, he writes this section. Why is this section necessary?

Because this section is the gospel according to Luke summarized. The entire theology of Luke rests on the salvation of the world through Isaiah’s Suffering Servant.

Let me explain it in this way. Luke is a doctor. Yet, for this gospel, he has taken up the pen to be a biographer. As a biographer, you would expect him to write his historical account in the same way that all the ancient Roman biographies are written. But Luke doesn’t do that. Biographies of Roman dignitaries revolve around the character, deeds, and death of their subject. For example, the gospel of Mark begins with Jesus’ ministry, revolves around who Jesus is in practice, and then culminates in Christ’s death. Mark is writing to Romans.

But Luke deviates from this expression first by writing about the birth of Christ and then adding these two references to His childhood. Why? Because Luke wants to convey that salvation, particularly salvation for all the nations, is not dependent on a “not yet” restoration of Israel or on Christ’s Second Coming. Instead, Luke makes it clear, even to the thief on the cross, that salvation is “now” because Christ has obeyed to the point of death.

Simeon is the subject of the text, and he did not need to worry about death because He rested on the words of Scripture, which are the promises of God. Luke’s gospel continues these words of Scripture, and they point to the promise of God that is Jesus. Thus, Luke asks us to participate and to be like Simeon. As Matthew Henry puts it excellently,

“Here is a confession of his faith, that this Child in his arms was the Saviour, the salvation itself, the salvation of God’s appointing. He bids farewell to this world. How poor does this world look to one that has Christ in his arms, and salvation in his view! See here, how comfortable is the death of a good man; he departs in peace with God, peace with his own conscience, in peace with death. Those that have welcomed Christ, may welcome death. “

Matthew Henry

Conclusion

How the Spirit moves in you with the text is how the Spirit is meant to communicate with you. If you are like me, you may see that the application then is that we are ready to die, right? Well, yes and no.

I want to make it clear. We will all face the momentary “sting” of death. We shall all die. But it is my hope that everyone present has many more years to go. In fact, if we could all live to 120 years and be as physically active as Simeon, I don’t think a single one of us would complain, unless our retirement fund runs out. But for those in Christ, life is a simple, temporal blessing. Simeon accepts death because he has the assurance of faith.

And so, we should ask ourselves if we are like Simeon. Have you seen the Lord? Has the Spirit opened up your eyes, guided you to a point, and brought you the very salvation that you need? When you met the rock, did you fall only to rise again? When you saw the light of salvation, did you respond with praise and joy? We do not know how much longer Simeon lived; the text doesn’t say, but we know what the next milestone of his was. It was death. His duty was complete. He was given permission to leave that watchtower. To no longer warn others of their impending doom.

We could only speculate what he did in his final moments. And that is where we are. That’s where Luke and the Holy Spirit have left us. On reflection, every time I preach to you, it’s a message of encouragement of living a life of faith in the ordinary routine of life. It’s to see that God has worked and now you are to take up a simple task. And once again, you have things to do. I use the term “works” loosely, but you have works that the Lord has gifted you to perform.

You are the instrument of redemption in His plans. God is a relational God, and a relationship is developed through active working and communication with each other. And in the end, we live for a hope that is ratified in death, which brings us in direct proximity to Jesus for eternity. That is what Simeon waited on, and that is what we wait on. Death is permissible for those who have seen the Lord. Otherwise, we are to bring others to Him.

As the Christmas season has passed, and the decorations are packed away, placed into the attic or the dark corners of a closet, does the joy, the wonder, the magic of Christmas still rest in you? Can you tell where you exist in the “now” and the “not yet?” Because I don’t want to sound morbid, but I think I understand Simeon. We’re in a grind against the world, waiting for the final comfort. It could be so easy to depart, but that’s not our calling. I think Paul knows what Simeon was thinking and summarizes it best in Philippians.

Philippians 1:21–24

21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know what I will choose. 23 But I am hard-pressed between the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better, 24 yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.

And so I find it necessary to inform those of you who answered those previous questions with a ‘no,’ to reflect on everything that was said today. And to those of you who are unsure of where you stand, it could be doubt, or it could be heart being exposed. If either of these conditions are you, please talk to any of the deacons or leaders of this congregation afterwards. If you feel comfortable enough, speak with me. I will be available. Even if you just want to talk about theology or other matters, I want to have that conversation.

For everyone who is in the position of Simeon, Luke is not saying that we strive to be martyrs. A simple death was the reward of Simeon. Luke is also saying that we don’t need to witness miracles. This book is full of witnesses who confirm God’s actions. We have countless biographies of saints who testify to the workings of God. All of these written accounts reveal the long line of promises accomplished.

What Luke is saying, is that for “now,” we continue the works as slaves of God, but we look forward to the “not yet” glorification of all creation. We strive to live a life of faith like Simeon. The goal, is to be a little more like Simeon, who is pursuing Christ, everyday until the day he meets him.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

“When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples to the other side of the Kidron Valley, where there was a garden, into which He entered with His disciples” (John 18:1, LSB).

Jesus crossing the Kidron Valley must be significant because the other Synoptics state where Jesus goes, which would be the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane. Instead, John doesn’t mention the garden or the Mount, choosing instead to highlight the valley. What is also significant is that there are no other mentions in the New Testament of the Kidron Valley. Not even John brings it up. Though a single reference or use of a term does not simply make something significant, it should make us more careful in its interpretation. When we ponder John’s inclusion of this specific geographical location, we should ask why. Is it to prove that he is familiar with the area, and then should be a trusted witness? Or maybe he is utilizing wordplay (John likes puns)? Or is he expressing a theological point? I lean that he is making a theological point.

Could he be using this as an apologetic piece, proving that he is an eyewitness? Maybe. But listing geographical locations is not strong evidence of reliability. While they are good for archaeological defenses many generations later, for John to say that he is reliable because he knows it’s called the Kidron Valley is like saying that I witnessed the moon landings because I said Apollo 11 landed at Tranquility Base. Instead, what makes John a trustworthy witness is that he names the slave, Malchus (John 18:10), who can attest to these events. Therefore, his naming of Kidron Valley as a relation to be a trusted witness is weak compared to his later declaration.

Could he be using this as wordplay? Kidron, τοῦ Κεδρών, from the manuscripts, could be translated as one of the three: “of the cedars,” “of the cedar,” or “of Kidron.” While it could possibly be the first two options, the valley itself does not possess cedar trees, and the word kedros is not the word used in this passage. Therefore, this reading would be unusual for the original readers, and there appears to be no distinct messaging that John would relate to Jesus and a cedar tree at this moment. Therefore, without any other reference, it is best read that this is “of Kidron” and that John is using a proper noun.^[1] Likewise, the hypothesis that Kidron means “dark” and that this opens up the Passion of Christ is a stretch because the etymology of this word is not Hebrew, but another Semitic language. It most likely derives from Phoenician or Canaanite origins.^[2]

Is John making a theological point? Well, since Kidron is not used in any of the other gospels nor anywhere else in the New Testament, not a natural Greek word, and could easily have been replaced by saying “east” or “Mount of Olives,” it says to me that John is expressing something. John’s original audience, being the early church and the first generation of Christians, was probably not familiar with the Hebrew Old Testament. But they are becoming familiar with the Greek Old Testament or the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, we find 11 references to the Kidron Valley. Instead of highlighting each one, think about this picture.

When Absalom rebelled against his father, King David, it was the Kidron Valley that David passed through barefoot and weeping (2 Sam 15:23-30). Here, the anointed and rightful king is driven away from the city of God by those who are usurping the throne. Later, in the Kidron, is where King Asa will burn the horrid or obscene image of his mother (1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Chr 15:16). It is where all the impure objects of idol-worship that were kept in the temple were later burned during reforms by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:16) and King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:4-6). It is across the Kidron Valley that Ezekiel has his vision of the waters rushing down the valley and becoming a deep river that could not be passed(Ezek 47:5-6). And lastly, Jeremiah will declare the Kidron Valley as the marker of what will be made holy (Jer 31:40).

What is the theological picture, then, of the Kidron Valley? John points to these dark periods of rebellion, false worship, and spiritual barrenness and ties them directly to the beginning of Jesus’ arrest. But in each of these conditions, there is a greater redemption. David would eventually return to Jerusalem and retake his throne; those who betrayed him would be served justice. Though idol-worship was prominent, what follows is the reforms of the land and the king’s heart towards true worship of God. The deep rivers of Ezekiel’s vision point to a split in the land, where one side is completely healed, and the river is the source of life, while the other remains damaged. And Jeremiah’s marker states that not only will all the abuses of religion be overturned, but they will be made holy and stand forever.

Therefore, as I see it, John’s inclusion of the Kidron Valley is a declaration of the king, the Son of David, fulfilling many prophetic visions and retaking the crown. He will reform the hearts of people into true worship, destroying the false idols and false practices, restoring the barren lands with the eternal fountain of life, by which all will be separated into those who may be healed and restored and those who may be counted among the betrayers and be served justice. It is the consistent theme of John. There is a light among the darkness that cannot be snuffed out. Rather, this light is indestructible.

While it is possible that I over-analyzed this, I continue to find it interesting that the two valleys that surround Jerusalem are the Kidron Valley and the Hinnom Valley. The latter, being known as Gehenna and associated with hell, while the former being the path of God (some may conclude that the eschatological return of Christ will be through the east as well). As John frequently dissects the world into two (i.e., light and dark, wide and narrow paths, etc.), this illustration continues to work.

Was this exercise edifying for your future studies? Let me know.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

^[1] Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 214.

^[2] B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882), 90.

Recently, I came across a Christian “Influencer” who gave suggestions about what the first book of the Bible a new believer should read. Naturally, I reflected on their answer, as well as the answer I’ve given to a few in the past, and ended up disagreeing with both. To make it clear, the disagreement is not wholesale or to say they don’t know what they’re talking about, but rather, from their answer, I thought it was not refined enough. Meaning, they gave too many options that the entire answer becomes unhelpful, or they gave the reader a “Bible in 365 days” plan, which is also unhelpful. Additionally, this is a trickier question to answer because there isn’t really a single right answer. But I will answer the question now that I have a lot more experience and opinions than I did previously.

It is also important to state, before I begin answering the question, that I am answering this question based on an adult asking the question. This is from the perspective of an independent and rational person coming to the faith on their own and looking to understand the effects that have just occurred in their life. Second, this is independent of the question of which translation. The idea is that this believer has come to faith and been plugged into a church. In the church, they were gifted a Bible, and this is the text that they will begin their journey with. And finally, third, this person has a limited understanding of Christianity. This will make more sense in the write-up.

1. The Gospel According to Mark.

Why the Gospel of Mark? First, what many of these “Influencers” get correct is that the new believer should read the gospels. What they get incorrect is which gospel. They often write that one should read the Gospels in the order they are in the canon or point them to one of the most difficult Gospels for understanding (explained later in this post). Instead, I believe the correct answer is Mark’s Gospel. As a new believer, they should know what Jesus said and did. They need to know the life of Jesus because it is a life we are to follow, and it is the person and being of Jesus that we must place our faith in. Therefore, reading a gospel is the best first step, and it is Mark that provides this purpose the easiest.

And that’s simply because Mark is unrefined, concise, and straight to the point. His target audience is the Romans, and the ancient Romans are very much like the Westerners of the 21st century. Mark covers the primary events that the other gospels include, but without a lot of what I consider to be the “distracting extra bits.” These are the genealogies, the extensive Old Testament quotations, and the assumption that there is a familiarity with the Jewish context. The Romans have no clue about 1^st-century Judea, and neither do we. Therefore, Mark begins with Jesus’ ministry, presents Jesus’ character, and then focuses on Christ’s death as prophecy. Mark shows Jesus as a strong person and not a weak victim. And he does so without his readers being lost in parables or Jewish traditions. And it’s short. A new believer can finish it in less than an hour.

2. Epistle to the Romans.

If this new believer grew up in a post-Christian environment where they are familiar with the life of Jesus but their limited knowledge is the why of Christ, then I think they can skip the gospel and first read Romans. Yes, I know that many would state that Romans is probably too robust or complex for a new believer to read. But after studying Romans many times over, I think the complexity of Romans comes after you’ve begun to mature in the faith. It’s when you start developing doctrinal convictions and engaging in the larger theological discussions that Romans becomes your primary source of wrestling over meaning and context.

But for everyone else, meaning the first-time readers, Romans is quite simple in what Paul is explaining. Romans addresses the issue of sin, man, and salvation most straightforwardly. Likewise, Romans provides the purpose of Christ and the importance of unity and Christian fellowship. If someone knows the story of Christ, has come to the faith, and is trying to answer or reinforce why Christ is the ONLY way, then Paul’s epistle answers it over and over again without getting into a multitude of tangents. That will come later once they have studied many other books and developed in the faith; then they will see Romans as the behemoth that it is.

The Gospel According to Mark or Romans is my answer. After that, the sky is the limit for where they may go. But I think I should also address some common mistakes in this answer before ending this article. Once again, I answer these in good faith, and these are my opinions, but I feel that I have validity in them.

Common Mistakes:

1. The Gospel According to John.

I think a lot of people are drawn to recommending John first because it has some of the best one-liners or memory verses. It has the popular John 3:16, John 1:1, and John 8:58. It also has some memorable passages, such as the Woman at the Well, the Adulteress Forgive, and the Good Shepherd Discourse. But we would be fooled to say that a new believer could read John with such understanding as just these few verses. John’s verses are repetitive and can often be confusing and complex. He uses a lot of Old Testament analogies and illustrations and places the dialogue in specific contexts related to Feasts or specific events.

From what I’ve learned through my studies, including from my various Seminary professors, is that John is a lot more theologically and linguistically complex than the average reader gives him credit. The thoughts that John puts into a few words exceed what we tend to even consider, and his repetition of phrasing is for particular purposes that sound just like redundant banter. And while I mention Romans above, John doesn’t have the same baseline understanding. If you are exposed to a lot of debates and apologists, you will often see that it is John who is used on both sides of the debate. It shows that John is both often misunderstood and robust in defending almost anything within the orthodox. But the misconceptions are more prevalent among groups that are trying to defraud Christian orthodoxy, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Muslims. They latch onto John because he sounds simple, especially when taken out of context. Remember, John is the author of Revelation, so why would his writing of one being any less complex than his writing of the other?

2. The Old Testament.

Yes, eventually every Christian needs to read the Old Testament unless we want them to fall into the heresy of Marcionism. But as a new believer, reading the OT first will not help them understand Christ or Christianity any more than if they first just trusted the New Testament’s authors’ use of the OT. I, myself, thought that I needed to work from the front cover in order to understand, and all it ended up doing was having me become very familiar with Genesis and then getting dissuaded around Leviticus or Deuteronomy. I stunted my own growth because I didn’t know how to read the OT with Christ in view. After I read Hebrews, only then was I able to see how the Pentateuch applied to the Christian faith. Therefore, remind the new ones to anticipate reading the OT, but that they should get a good idea of the NT first.

3. Revelation of Jesus Christ.

I don’t think anyone recommends that you read Revelation first or really early on. But I think it is important to tell them to read Revelation in two ways. First, read it after they’ve read some of the prophets. Particularly, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. They’ll help with a lot of the imagery. Second, to read Revelation not as a road-map of events, but that its purpose is to show that Christ is ultimately victorious. To read it in any other way is probably develop anxiety over a text that is not meant to cause great distress. Personally, I read Revelation with a Partial-Preterist perspective, so I have very little anxiety over the tribulation period, but even those Church Fathers who studied the text from a Futurist view did not seem overly worried about life either. It’s because their source of faith was in Christ, who is portrayed as the conqueror of death and Satan, and not simply a warrior whose outcome is unsure.

I hope these recommendations help someone in the future. Or maybe it has sparked your own thoughts and ideas. If that is the case, I would like to know. If you were asked by a new believer what they should read first, what book of the Bible would you recommend?

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Something that nobody prepares you for, especially in seminary, is what to do during a medical emergency during a sermon. Just recently, I was given the opportunity to preach at a local, rural church, which I have had the opportunity to do several times now. Normally, at this church, I prepare to assist with technical issues regarding their audio/visual equipment or their streaming capabilities, and this service, we showed up early to help with those. Excessive audio feedback or weird reverb issues are what I have been prepared for. But this week, I had a congregant become unresponsive during the service.

What is funny is that this isn’t my first time being in a service with a medical issue. Normally, the medical issue occurs, and deacons/staff and people respond to the problem and get the individual to care without the preacher ever noticing. However, in our context this time, this church wasn’t large enough to have an issue be invisible from the pulpit. As I was “ramping” up into the meat of the sermon, I started to see people shifting from their seats to respond. When I heard the words, “Is she responding?” I felt that I could not continue.

What do you do from the pulpit? What would you do? In a smaller church, it is impossible to “power” through it. Also, I didn’t want to do that because I was concerned for this individual. At this moment, let me tell you that she is alright. Paramedics came, assessed her vitals, and took her to the hospital for further evaluation. But before the paramedics arrived, and as she looked to be responding better, what do you do as the preacher? We prayed, had some impromptu singing, and prayed some more. But at some point, we could not just simply stand around and wait, particularly as she was becoming more responsive. So I made the decision to continue to preach. To feed the flock.

Whether this was the right action or not, I’m still unsure. Especially as I’m preaching over the sound of paramedics chatting and stretchers being raised and lowered. The congregation shifted their eyes between me and the woman in the back. I would make a powerful point with eyes on me, and then as I used a preposition, the heads would turn towards the louder noises. What I found most humorous were the few people who seemed to be completely locked in to me only. As if they were oblivious to anything happening four seats from them. I partially think this was the case because it was better to listen to me than the woman vomiting in the back. I mean, I definitely preached louder so that I could drown out the noise for myself, as I am a sympathetic puker.

With the amount of activity that was happening in the background, I could definitely feel that I was rattled. The sermon that I had crafted did not come to me as smoothly as I had previously rehearsed, but it seems that the Spirit kept me coherent and on track. Probably about half of my sermon was conducted with EMTs working in the background, and it wasn’t until the concluding remarks that everything in the church became unusually quiet.

At that point, it felt like my sermon felt more real. Here’s something that I didn’t tell you yet. My sermon was titled, “Now You Are Permitting Me to Depart,” based on the text of Luke 2:25-35. These words were plastered on the screens to the side of me, as the medical emergency that was occurring in the back was an elderly woman becoming unresponsive. I was preaching a sermon about being ready to die. Before I could get to the part about not wanting anyone to die now, a congregant felt it necessary to test her readiness to die. And then after she was revived, I continued to preach about being ready to die to the point of even saying that the application of the message is that we’re ready to die.

On reflection, I still don’t know if I did the right thing. It felt needed. To feed the flock. It put closure to the service with intentionality instead of doubt and confusion. At the end of service, I took up the customary position to shake everyone’s hands out the door. I’m not sure if the feedback was just pleasantries because of a difficult event, saying things such as “that was wonderful,” and “very informative.” But I do recall two of the older ladies, one with tears in her eyes that may or may not be related to my message, telling me how “wonderful” and “timely” that message was. It’s a mixed bag of emotions. All of this is humorous, but I feel like I’ve been compassionately traumatized as well.

Would I respond in the same way if it were to happen again? Probably. I hope to never have to experience this again. Looking back at all of this, it was humorous, but at least, let me finish the sermon. You may have realized that I wasn’t delivering you a command, but was saying it more rhetorically. But I am happy to say that she is doing well and that she was surrounded by friends and family at this moment rather than being alone, where who knows what could have happened. In a way, I wouldn’t mind going during a service, but I’ll do my best to do it during the benediction. Lastly, if you’re curious what a rattled preacher looks like (I don’t pace this much), here’s the link:

Facebook Stream - FBC Louise

Time Stamps:

• 26:00 (Start of the sermon).

• 44:22 (You’ll see me look to the left side of the screen often).

• 57:03 (I try to start preaching again with EMT arrival).

• 1:16:00 (EMTs leave and everything goes silent).

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. Preaching and Preachers. 40th Anniversary Edition. Edited by Kevin DeYoung. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.

I must begin with this classic from Martyn Lloyd-Jones. One would assume that it is a book only for Preachers, and rightfully, the majority of it is aimed at them; it is also good for those who want to go just beyond the simple knowledge of the laity. Or in other words, to understand what the Preacher must and should do and how the congregation then is apt to receive. It is almost prophetic in how, looking at what he spoke of in 1969 and published in 1972, is still as prevalent or more so today. If the pastors in the pulpit and the congregation took heed of what was said, I believe, we would have less doubt of the faith as well as fewer baptisms done in error. Because Lloyd-Jones elevates the Spirit to His rightful position and reminds, in practical basis, how the elder is an instrument for the purposes of the congregation.

Leeman, Jonathan. Don’t Fire Your Church Members: The Case for Congregationalism. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016.

Within Baptist Ecclesiology and non-Denominational churches is an established polity of Congregationalism. Congregationalism is varied in form and expression, but it fundamentally has one important feature: the congregation is the governing body. Even in many churches that have moved into an “Elder-ruled” versus “Elder-led” form of government recognizes that the congregation has an imbued authority through Christ and therefore, should be able to practice and exercise this authority. Therefore, Leeman urges congregations to move back into an “Elder-led” form that puts the onus for the Christian activities and ministry to be an expression of the congregation through the guidance of the elders. In an “Elder-ruled” church, the congregation waits for the elder to make a decision and to enact a policy or activity. This limits the church and the giftings of the individuals. In moving back towards a true congregational polity, Leeman makes an outstanding argument for a return to this polity with a recognition that it will look different based on the context of each local church.

Renihan, James M. For the Vindication of the Truth: A Brief Exposition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith. Vol. 1. Baptist Symbolics. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2021.

There is a truth that many Christians have lost their connection to the past. Even within denominations that have a liturgical presence to recite the Ancient Creeds or Confessions, many members still feel a disconnection because the context of these creeds or confessions have not been communicated. This year, I took a personal step to affirm the 1646 First London Baptist Confession of Faith and this book was instrumental in providing the rich history that surrounds it. Renihan reviews the arguments for and against each point and how the drafters proposed and ratified this confession that would soon lead way to the famed 1689 Second London Baptist Confession (which I do not affirm because of some holdovers from the Westminster divines). Because these Baptists would be the influence of the Particular Baptists who ultimately made way for the Southern Baptist Convention (though they would find the theology appalling today) and the beginning of many non-Denominational churches (by proxy).

I have to also include the following, which are not in my Top 3, but are honorable mentions.

Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.

This is an honorable mention because I’m still working through some sections of it. However, Gentry and Wellum are instrumental in not developing a new systematic framework, but rather, formalizing what had been long taught historically. Today, many people would argue that there are three systematic frameworks: Covenantal Theology, Dispensationalism, and no framework. But Wellum and Gentry deliver a fourth, Progressive Covenantalism, which affirms the discontinuity of the covenants while also highlighting their purpose as redemptive. There’s an “essentials” version of this book for the quicker read, but I devoted myself to the specifics.

Brannan, Rick, Ken M. Penner, Michael Aubrey, Israel Loken, and Isaiah Hoogendyk. The Lexham English Septuagint. Second Edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020.

Lastly, as previous articles may have alluded to, I’ve been reading more of the Septuagint. Particularly when I am bridging the New and Old Testaments together. This is not a new book for me, but I recently got it in Hardcover to go along with my digital copy. The Septuagint is not a necessary read for everyone, but all preachers should be familiar with its existence, particularly when the New Testament quotes the Old.

What are some books that I should read (or re-read) in 2026? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

As Christmas is upon us, I wanted to make you aware of the rich history that revolves around the single word, “Incarnation.” When we use this term, I don’t believe we grasp the fullness of it. Or, to further clarify, we theologically hold onto it and proclaim it highly, but we don’t know how counter-cultural it was and how the church created orthodoxy around it. To begin, “incarnation” comes from the Latin word, incarnatio, which means “en-fleshment” or simply, “take on flesh.” Biblically, the word does not exist (because the Bible wasn’t written in Latin), and there is no Greek or Hebrew equivalent. When you examine the text, you find that John 1:14 is the root of this doctrine, “The Word became flesh,” but there are no further embellishments on this writing. This is not to say that there aren’t other texts that affirm this idea (Rom 8:3; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7), but rather, like the Trinity, it had to be doctrinally defined in a systematic way.

And this is one of the main importance of the Councils of Nicaea in 325/381 AD and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. And this importance is the reason that I believe every church should affirm the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition (Creed) alongside their Statement of Faiths, but that’s another topic for another time. For now, we have to ask why it was even necessary to have these councils. Of course, as this is Christmas time, almost everyone knows of the legend (allegedly) of Saint Nicholas punching Arius in the face over his teaching of homoiousios (of like substance) instead of homoousios (same substance). The result is the affirmation of the church to declare Christ as homoousios as the Father, thus defining Christology as completely God. The Council of Chalcedon was necessary to understand how Christ was both divine and human in one body, which we regard as the “hypostatic union.”

And all of these Creeds and Councils hinge on what we know as the “incarnation.” It is a simple term that holds the rich history that states that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human and that these two natures co-exist distinctly and perfectly within Him. But I said that there is something more to this term. And this fullness is counter-cultural. It is something that we don’t see in our modern context and it is something that we have taken for granted because orthodoxy has maintained our understanding of the incarnation on the road outside of the ditches. Because the term “incarnation” had to wrestle with competing and similar terms such as “inspiration,” “indwelling,” and pluralistic or paganistic concepts of an incarnation (i.e., mythological gods taking on human form). But the goal is not to take you through the history, but just to make you aware that the Early Church, Hellenized Jews, and Gentiles were cognizant of all these impressions of how Jesus could be the “Son of God” and what that meant, that ultimately led to the need for the Ecumenical Councils to ensure that what is being taught is Scriptural represented and depicting of who the True Jesus is.

Because today, we can see that many are making a Jesus of their own impression, and they are using these same heresies to define it. Inadequate definitions led to various heresies (i.e., Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, etc.) or complete misunderstandings of the complexity that is Christology. The incarnation, in my opinion, began Systematic Theological studies, which attempted to understand broader subjects based on what the entirety of Scripture said. Today, we are fine with our Bible Studies that go book by book, paralleling what happens on the pulpit, but I would argue that many would not know the weight of such a simple term and why its definition was important. In our simple studies, I wonder if we would also be able to derive the richness of this Theology that challenged the early church and led to the first of many Ecumenical discussions. It defined orthodoxy and created the first “split” or act of purifying the church, which occurred, distancing themselves from the Arians and later the Nestorians. And it will again take part in the defining moment that will split the church from East and West, but that’s another topic, and mostly focused on the Holy Spirit.

But with all that, Merry Christmas, as we celebrate “one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man;^[1] to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.”^[2]

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

^[1] Historic Creeds and Confessions, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997).

^[2] Historic Creeds and Confessions, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997).

Let’s just look at what he says.

1. He presumes that all the church fathers support the Roman Catholic Church and her interpretation of Christianity. Historically, this is flawed in that the earliest Church Fathers are a mixed bag of Latin and Greek, whereby the most prominent for orthodoxy are often attributed to the Greek Fathers, being Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. This is not to say there weren’t Latin Fathers, such as Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine, or that they did contribute greatly to orthodoxy, but not in the way that Rome thinks. Also, particularly regarding the Greek Fathers, they did not give primacy to Rome or her Bishop. Instead, they would often give honor to Rome as “primus inter pares” or “First among equals,” not in authority but in apostolic recognition. This is clear in later historical developments where the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to bestow this title amongst Patriarchs. This could go into a further discussion, but for now, we can simply state that the Fathers did not unanimously agree that the Pope is head or the See of the entire church.

2. This creator makes the implied assumption that all the Church Fathers agreed with each other. “It’s their biblical interpretation vs. yours.” A single example of conflict is found in Tertullian. Specifically, his relations with the Montanists. While it is debated as to whether Tertullian became a Montanist, it is only debated because of the later church’s declaration of honor to him as a “Church Father.” If he were flawed in such a way as to hold heresy or to be schismatic, then he would not have this title. This is why Origen is held to highly favorable but has not received this distinction. What the Montanists were are the precursors of hyper-charismatics or extreme Pentecostals. They sought “New Prophecy” and Revelations and elevated the Spirit over orthodox teaching. Other Fathers, such as Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine, would speak against Montanism and thus present a conflict between the writings of the Fathers.

3. And speaking of writings and interpretations, Tertullian would be rejected by the modern Catholic church for what he believed. He believed that Mary was not sinless but had her imperfections (many Marian doctrines would not develop until later centuries), and he also agreed with Martin Luther in the priesthood of all believers (the development of the clergy and laity will develop in later centuries). Since Tertullian, a Latin Father, precedes many later Catholic doctrines, they often give it a by, but that directly goes against what this influencer is saying.

4. And that’s what this influencer is missing. Proper interpretation is not a solo Scriptura, but rather sola Scriptura, which recognizes the Bible as the ultimate authority while leaning heavily on the interpretation and tradition of the church throughout the millennia. If we are to take him at literal value, it means that the current Pope is fallible compared to the Church Fathers and therefore, the Pope has no authority until he has long passed and then been venerated. Or, if that is too much of a strawman, it means that much of the doctrine of the Catholic Church needs to be reconsidered in light of the interpretations of both the Latin and Greek Fathers.

   ---

That’s what this creator misunderstands. Biblical interpretation has only improved over the years for various reasons. If there are gaps or flaws in the early church’s definitions, then the modern interpretations will seek to rectify them in one way or another. If it cannot be rectified, then it remains. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity has long been defined by the metaphysical definition that the Church Fathers understood and declared ecumenically.

But, of the text of Scripture, we have only gotten better in understanding it through the addition of manuscripts, primarily of the Old Testament. This is something that the Church Fathers lacked. We also have more people who can read Hebrew than the Church Fathers, who either relied heavily on the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew, or prior Latin translations of this Septuagint. We are not native speakers, but by the time of John of Damascus, neither were the Church Fathers.

And lastly, our interpretation of Scripture is important as it is set in our context. A context that is extremely different than the Fathers because our society has been influenced by Christianity (both positive and negative). Our context is not similar to theirs because our context has seen Christianity ebb and flow through government and society. We need to interpret the universality of Scripture through the world in which we live.

I am “reading the Bible 2000 years later,” and my Bible has been challenged and defended in that time. We have developed and refuted doctrines and come out with a stronger and more robust faith. Do we have issues, such as the variety of denominationalism and the mysteries prescribed to the sacraments? Of course, but our language is always moving into precision where we can rightly articulate what our faith demands of us and where Christian liberty may fall. So, between two fallible sources, which are you going to trust? The fallible source or the fallible source that read the former and retained the truth and progressed the teachings?

Read the Fathers. Read Church History (I recommend Nick Needham’s 2000 Years of Christ’s Power). Use both in the light of Scripture.

Semper Reformanda.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I found myself returning to this book recently, and figured I needed to give a little bit more information on the book or a general book review. Though it was not necessarily profound in a theological sense, it was able to convey an exhortation for care and compassion through simple storytelling. Harold L. Senkbeil was a Lutheran pastor for 32 years before becoming a professor at Concordia Theological Seminary. Yet, this book was not written by someone who was relying on their long tenure as a professor, but rather, appealed to their time being a parish minister.

And that is what makes this book particularly powerful. Anyone can write a book on their experiences or publish their extensive research (which is something that I seem only capable of doing), but Senkbeil delivers both. His words have a deep doctrinal conviction while also retelling how his concern was for the spiritual health of those within his parish. Not many books are able to ascribe pastoral care to a flock without coming off as dry or without feeling.

And I think that’s why I returned to the book. I did not necessarily gain any new knowledge, nor did I find new ways to interact with individuals or to help others. I really gained nothing in the headspace. But like the Grinch, my heart grew in a way that I saw that spiritual health and care are expanded beyond just doctrinal truth and focus. Senkbeil’s book really probes you to consider real-life situations and how the routine expectations serve major pastoral expectations.

A particular weakness of the book is based on the context. Not everyone lives in rural Indiana and therefore may not relate to the particular conditions if they have an urban ministry. The principles exist, though it becomes hard to extract when there is little that is in common. The other difficulty is the Lutheran context, in which different doctrines and understandings are also hard to translate across the denominations. This is particularly relevant when we see how Communion is used in response to tragedy and suffering.

But if you can extract the principles, then I recommend this book for you. It is, at the very least, an enjoyable read that alternates between practical wisdom and personal interactions. It is not a “must read,” but a good recommendation for those looking for a book that may challenge how they consider the duty of shepherding should be accomplished. It is primarily focused on those within the ministry, but it may be a useful read for those who have a heart for ministering to others, which is a call for Christians to all do. Or it may be useful for those who have possibly plateaued in their faith, feeling as if they are in a rut. Whatever circumstances compel you to read this book, understand that it does come with a challenge.

Semper Reformanda.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I am often irenic or highly charitable in my thoughts, but I feel strongly about this one. So, it may be more contentious. There’s a growing and concerning trend in the contemporary sphere that I would entitle “instantaneous expertise.” This is not something new, but something that is becoming prevalent within the theological space. What I am talking about is a theological issue that arises that “threatens” some worldview, and a prominent individual either is the one who espouses this threatening view or someone who is prominent feels the need to defend against it. What results is a slew of experts engaging in the discussion without having any prior knowledge or concern for it.

Most recently, Kirk Cameron has stated that he is leaning towards Conditional Immortality (CI), which is a departure from the majority view of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). If these two terms sound new to you, then welcome to the club. The majority of individuals are taught one position or the other and never recognize that they have titles associated with it. Likewise, within a church, you are likely to find proponents of either position, or, more likely, someone who has conflated the two and created a sensible merger of theologies.

And this is because it falls into the realm of something that we don’t know or understand. But both views do point to a reality of suffering and torment, with the primary difference being how the eternal looks for these individuals. The gospel message makes clear that neither position is favorable and that even if CI were true, it is not worth denying Christ for because the suffering experienced will still be likened to more than a lifetime.

But my post here is not to continue the debate between CI and ECT, as there are plenty of experts on the topic already, it seems. Rather, it is a caution to not become one of these instantaneous experts. If the topic interests you, then devote the time to becoming an expert in this field. An instantaneous expert finds the webpage or news article that runs less than 2,000 words and is satisfied with the answer. The true expert recognizes that entire volumes have been poured out onto the subject that looks deeply at the text of Scripture, the historical interpretations, the development through cultures and circumstances, and has ultimately developed a clear expression that is firm in the evidence.

For most people, my first recommendation when something like this happens is to ask yourself whether you need to know this. Does this position that is being expressed change how you view the gospel message that you have already received? Does it change how you may deliver the gospel? Does it change your view and your relationship with God? If the answer is “No,” then move on. Your time is limited, and I would rather you devote more time to the study of Ecclesiology or Pneumatology than this subsection of Eschatology.

However, if you said “yes,” or if you are a pastor with a congregation that is showing concern over this (meaning, more than a few families), then it would warrant that you study. But study is not simply going to your favorite theologian or a quick reference resource. Depending on how deep you dive depends on how many books you open. For me, I have a collection of Systematic Theology books and a few Historical Theology books that I reference for times like these, if I feel the need. It means that I devote at least a day to reading and building an adequate point of view that I can then address the congregation or myself.

Going to Founder’s, G3, Grace to You, Ligonier, GotQuestions (especially Got Questions because this site does not provide authors and can swing hard in credibility on a subject such as this), or Albert Mohler’s podcast is insufficient. These Sites are great resources for getting quick answers to satisfy oneself, but they are not robust enough to defend or refute a position. Especially since you may not hold to the particular worldview of the contributing author (i.e., Ligonier is Presbyterian, Grace to You is Dispensational, Founder’s is Reformed Baptist, G3 is more Particular Baptist, GotQuestions is General Baptist (conjecture), Albert Mohler is a Southern Baptist to a fault).

My recommendation to you is to keep scrolling unless the topic interests you. If it is of interest or concern, do the hard work, not the quick one. If you’re a teacher of the church, do not engage unless you need to engage. Engaging without a prompt may only confuse your congregation because they did not know they were supposed to have learnt or thought through this. But most importantly, study. The Reformation brought the words of Scripture back as the authority, but it also recognized the value of the history and traditions of the church and how they cooperate with Scripture. Not everything is heresy. Not everything is an error. But everything is beyond our understanding unless God reveals it and sparks it in our hearts to know.

Semper Reformanda.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I was watching a sermon review this week by the “Honest Youth Pastor,” aka Michael Moore. I watch them for entertainment purposes and to get a pulse of sermon constructions through various churches (normally larger non-denominational). But there was a statement that he’s said many times before, but I wanted to make sure it was recorded here for posterity. What he said is,

“I’ve said this time and time again, and it just continues to prove itself to be true. How you preach from the pulpit is how people are going to understand how they should read the Bible in their own time. And so, if you dig into the Scriptures when you’re preaching, their assumption is that when they read the Scriptures, they should dig into them. If you use a verse as a springboard into some random thought you have, they’re going to think that that’s how they should do it as well. And so what you’re doing has ripple effects and consequences down the road.”

The context of this is that he states that, whether it is a sermon, a Bible study, or a Sunday School Class, there is limited time available in these sessions. So, if you are intentional about teaching or leading your people, then there isn’t room for “fluff.” “Fluff” does not mean you can’t have a story or a personal statement or quotes, but it should be intentional and helpful to explain the passage. In my opinion, the story of your youth tends to be a weak illustration for Scripture because it’s not universal. All the context, emotions, lessons, and family dynamics are not held by everyone else. Your story will then need to be 15 minutes just to possibly explain a single verse.

Instead, that time can be used to explain the verse within the context. It can dissect the choice of words or how these words and concepts connect to the rest of Scripture or more directly to the work and effects of Christ Jesus. Michael notes that in your preparation for the sermon, you are inevitably teaching your congregation how to study Scripture. If in your study, you spend time searching your past for a story for illustration, as you do often, then your congregation is going to read themselves into the text because they are going to look into their past. If your study is to look at the Greek and Hebrew and to present the weight of these words, then your congregation is going to do Word Studies. If your study is to use the text as proof texts for systematic doctrines, then your congregation is going to read Scripture as prooftexts and not as a coherent document.

What does this mean for a practical basis? First, in your studies, your first intention should be to anchor to the text that you have chosen. Try not to leave it. Yes, Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture, but not every text needs additional interpretation. Rather, it needs to be read in the context and then to draw out the application for modern-day people. If the text warrants a need to look at other passages, do it, but do it in passing. You aren’t leaving the text you’ve chosen; you’re bringing that text to you to help you in your verse. Be anchored in the verse and draw out as much as possible from it.

The second intention is that if you only have a limited time to teach, the people also only have a limited time to read. Teach them how to use that time efficiently and effectively. Your teaching may help them start recognizing patterns, choice of words, doctrines, allusions, or contexts during their normal reading times. They have not added more time to their daily routines, but their use of time may bring more fruit. An analogy is learning an instrument, like a guitar. You can spend countless minutes strumming the guitar, and it would count as practice, but if someone shows you a warmup exercise or a pattern of notes to play, you are doing the same thing as you were doing before—strumming the strings and making noise—but now it is developing specific skills. It’s not about removing waste as much as it is about focusing the effort.

And the final intention is that you are teaching your people to conform their lives to the Bible instead of learning new ways to apply the Bible to their current lives. The phrase is “the Bible is not written to you but written for you.” This means that you don’t understand the Scripture as clearly as you may think because it was not written in your context. You are not living in the ancient world. But it is written for you, in that there are universal principles that God has set from all eternity that He seeks for us to conform to. But too often, we see our worldview and then try to adopt the passages of Scripture to it. The preacher, in his preaching, by pulling out the context and principle, can disrupt that position and guide his congregation in how to think rationally and logically as God has revealed to us. Otherwise, if your sermon is a series of mental gymnastics, you’ll be making a congregation of medalists.

Whether you are a preacher, teacher, study leader, or believer, now is a good time to assess how you read, study, and intend to communicate the text to others. It is an exercise that will contribute toward discipleship and your discipling of others.

Semper Reformanda.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now