Rom. 2:13, the Covenant of Works, and the eisegetical reasoning of the NPP and FV paradigms

When one jettisons the concept of the Covenant of Works, inevitably some form of unorthodoxy will come up. The denial of the plain reading of Rom. 2 probably serves as the best illustration, with peoples and movements as diverse as John Piper, the FV (Federal Vision) and NPP (New Perspective on Paul) coming up with their strange ideas of what they think Rom. 2 actually teaches. For Piper, it is the idea of "Future Grace", a concept which is self-contradictory at best, and borders on serious error at worst. In the case of the FVers, obedience is a work that does indeed saves — that "truly responding to the Law (the Word) in faith does justify" (Schlissel, 260), as the review in the Trinity Review quotes.

In this blog post, WSC grad Joshua Martin briefly addresses the text of Rom. 2:13 in context and show what is the true teaching of this verse over and against the mangled interpretations offered by others. As Martin states:

Some find in this verse the doctrine of justification by works plus faith, while others – rightly insisting that justification is by faith alone (Rom 3:28, et al.) – understand the Apostle to be speaking of works as the fruit of faith (i.e. justification is by faith alone, but that faith is never alone in the person justified.). Both approaches miss the Apostle Paul’s point entirely.

... Paul is not here discussing the relationship of works and saving faith. He approaches this subject in chapters 6 and 7. His topic is the condemnation of the law and verse 13 does not represent a parenthetical comment on another subject, but it is rather the crux of the matter.

...

At last we arrive at verse 13 where Paul argues that it is the “doers of the law who will be justified.” Paul’s point here is not to safeguard the doctrine of justification by faith from the error of antinomianism. Paul has not even mentioned justification by faith! He does not even begin to address the gospel in general, the atonement of Christ, or justification by faith until the pivotal point in chapter three.

...

(Bold added)

It seems that many people need to be taught how to read the Bible in sequence, and to be reminded that chapter 2 is to be read after chapter 1, and verse 20 after verse 19. The Bible is not a cookbook or life manual or a reference book of doctrinal formula or anything else, but it is written to be read in the way it is written - sequentially chapter by chapter, verse by verse. This is incidentally why expository preaching is the best method for revealing to God's people what God has actually said in His Word, as such is more conducive for bringing out the truths in God's Word and allow the Spirit to speak to us without the interference of men. The preacher is to be God's instrument so that the Spirit can speak to us through the Word preached, not to be philosophers offering their "theological" opinions and lessons in moralism and as such obscure the plain teachings in God's holy, authoritative and perspicuous Word.

[HT: Heidelblog]

Misquoted verses: Compiled article

I have just created and uploaded the compiled article containing all the exegesis of the misquoted verses onto my website. It can be found here.

Misquoted verses: James 2:23-24 (Bonus!)

and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:23-24)

In its larger context:

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:18-26)

Although not on the list of misquoted verses, this common passage of Scripture is often misquoted to support the false notion of salvation by faith and works. Certainly, verses 23-24 by themselves seem to teach that justification is not by "faith alone" but by faith and works done in faith. However, is that really the case?

Context of James 2

James 2 is located in the context of the epistle of James, which historically as a letter from James is supposed to be read in one setting. The practical bent of this epistle is easily seen in the epistle itself, thus showing it as written more for practical Christian living rather than doctrinal instruction. As the introduction to the Epistle of James in the ESV Study Bible states:

Literary Features

...

The most pervasive technique in the book of James is the proverb or aphorism, in the mode of ancient wisdom teachers. Next in frequency is the rhetorical device of direct command, expressed in the imperative mood of the verb (e.g., “be doers of the word, and not hearers only,” 1:22). In fact, there are over 50 imperatives in the book's 108 verses. This abundance of commands is a signal that the writer has a practical bent and is interested in action rather than mere belief as the distinguishing characteristic of Christians.

The most important aspect in biblical interpretation is the context of the verse; it has been said that the three most important things in the interpretation of a text is context, context and context! The context in James therefore shows the entire letter to be of a most practical nature, one more interested in examining the lives of Christians rather than the particular of their beliefs.

Viewed in context, James 2 teaches that true faith will lead to good works. Practically speaking, anyone can profess to have faith, and thus true and false faith is indistinguishable from each other in terms of profession. James in his epistle therefore takes on the concept of how to differentiate between true and false faith, which lies in the area of good works. Just as Jesus says, a "healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit" (Mt. 7: 17), James challenges the person who claims to have faith to show forth his "fruit". In the words of James 2:18

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

It must be noted that even here, James does not inject any form of works righteousness. James challenges the professed believer to show forth his works, but he state he will show forth his faith by his works, not show forth his faith and his works. Works is the method of proving the genuineness of faith, not a separate element which may or may not be present where faith is present.

As the ESV Study Bible remarks on this passage (James 2:14-26):

James 2:14–26 Faith without Works Is Dead. James continues the theme that hearing/faith must lead to doing/works. Although it may seem as if James is contradicting Paul's “by grace you have been saved through faith . . . not a result of works” (Eph. 2:8–9), in reality there is no dichotomy between faith and works, for Paul and James would agree that the basis of salvation is grace alone through faith, with works not the basis but the necessary result thereof (Eph. 2:10).

The issue of the quotation of Gen. 15:6

A RC apologist may counter that the quotation of Gen. 15:6 in James 2:23 proves that legal justification must be in view here in some sense. After all, doesn't Gen. 15:6 teach legal justification, and is quoted as such in passages such as Rom. 4:3 and Gal. 3:6? Since such is the case, shouldn't we interpret James 2 as teaching a legal aspect of justification here?

God = Zeus?

Such a hermeneutical gymnastics leads one to a parallel in Paul's sermon to the Athenians. Consider this excerpt from Paul's sermon:

that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

(Acts 17: 27-28)

The first quote "appears to be from a hymn to Zeus by Epimenides of Crete" (c. 600 BC), while the second quotation is from the poem Phainomena by the Stoic poet Aratus (c. 315–240 b.c.). In both of these cases, the original meanings applied to Zeus, the mythological Greek father of the gods.

Now, since the Apostle Paul utilizes verses from these pagan hymns and poems to describe God, therefore can it be said that God (YHWH) is co-extensive and similar to Zeus in some sense? Of course not! The mere quoting of a phrase does not mean that everything it teaches is necessarily endorsed and taught. Rather, the context determines why any particular text is quoted and to what effect, and then only is the issue of the correspondence of the sentence to the way it is utilized asked.

In the case of James 2:23, the key phrase there are the words "Scripture was fulfilled". Going along with the practical bent of James, James 2:23 quotes Gen. 15:6 as an example of what righteousness really is. In other words, James is saying: "If you want to know what true faith and righteousness is, look at Abraham's life". True faith manifests itself in good works, and the very point of quoting Gen. 15:6 in Jas. 2:23 is not to make James 2 into a passage on legal justification, but of how a person who is truly justified will behave.

Exegetical fallacy: Illegitimate Totality Transfer

The chief fallacy involved in the RC argumentation is the fallacy of an unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field, oherwise known as illegitimate totality transfer or abuse of the field of lexicography, as described in D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies(Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker), p. 60-61. Just because the dikaio- (δικαιω) word group is used in James 2 does not mean that legal justification of any sort is taught and mentioned.

Conclusion

James 2:23-24 teaches that true believers have a living faith, not a mere professed faith which does not work. Against the Romanists among other synergists, James 2 does not teach any legal justification, and neither does Jas. 2:23 through its quotation of Ge. 15:6 teaches that either. Gen. 15:6 was applied in James' argument as stating that Abraham was righteous and this is how righteousness functions, which is to say the nature of righteousness in Christian living rather than the reason(s) for it. Truly, we are not justified by a faith that is alone but by a living faith alone. Amen.

See also

Rutherford: Why Justification in James is not by works

An explanation of Rutherford's argument on James 2

Faith and Works: Illustration from the miracle drug Chlorozoetin

Misquoted verses: Jn. 3:16

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (Jn. 3:16)

Ούτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ό θεος τον κοσμον, ώστε τον υίον τον μονογενη εδωκεν, ίνα πας ό πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωμιον. (Jn. 3:16)

John 3:16 is one of the most misquoted verses in the Bible. From a beautiful text that teaches the love of God in saving sinners, the synergists have made it into a proof-text for the universal love of God towards all and every sinner, even to the unrepentant reprobate.

In this video, Dr. James White shows through exegeting the verse itself that John 3:16 does not teach universal saving love. Rather, from the Greek πας ό πιστευων (pas ho pisteuon), the phrase that is translated "whosoever believes" in many English versions is actually better translated "all the believing ones [who continue believing]" or "all those with saving faith". There is no Greek word for "whosoever", and the term πας which can be translated as "all" is a modifier for the participle ό πιστευων. Therefore, the group of people indicated by πας is restricted by the phrase it is modifying, and not indicative of every single person in this world at all. John 3:16 does not thus teach a form of universal redemption in any sense, as even the context makes it clear:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (Jn. 3:16-18. Bold added)

It is simply illogical to believe that God has a universal saving love for all men, and simultaneously to believe that there are still men who remain condemned, if God is truly omnipotent and unchanging.

John 3:16 can be better translated as follows:

For God loved the world in this way: that He gave his only unique Son, that all the believing ones should not perish but have eternal life.

Article: A Primer on the Topic of Law and Gospel

I had collated the various posts on the latest series on Law and Gospel, and have improved on them at various parts, correcting spelling and grammatical errors as I see them. Also, quite a couple of footnotes and references were added so as both to clarify various terms and teachings mentioned, as well as substantiate various claims with literary sources. Here is the improved article here entitled A Primer on the Topic of Law and Gospel. May God use this for the edification of the Church, Amen.

Misquoted Verses: Rev. 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. (Rev. 3:20)

In context:

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’” (Rev. 3: 14-22)

This verse is the second most misquoted verse according to the poll, and most certainly it must be the most misquoted verse used during evangelism. Typically, it is used in a Gospel invitation near the end of an Evangelistic message or tract to ask people to "invite Christ into your heart". As it is normally presented in a well-known tract which does not need introduction:

Law 4: We need to personally RECEIVE Jesus Christ as our SAVIOR and LORD, then we can KNOW God personally and experience His LOVE.

...

We receive Christ by Personal Invitation

[Christ is speaking] "Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him." - Revelation 3:20

The tract or message then uses this text to call sinners to ask Jesus into your heart. For Jesus is outside knocking on the door of the sinner's heart, and wants to dine with the person, if only the sinner would open his/her heart and allow Christ in, then s/he would experience the fullness of life promised by Jesus to all who believe in him (cf Jn. 10:10). The Gospel invitation is then given and the sinner is asked to respond to the Gospel so proclaimed. It all sounds reasonable, or is it?

First of all, this would NOT be an analysis/critique of the 4SL as commonly presented, but rather an analysis of the use of Rev. 3:20 as a proof-text for the Gospel invitation. Suffice it is to say here that the Apostles and most of Church History knows not this form of presenting the Gospel. [One example of the historical method of Gospel proclamation can be seen in evangelists such as Paul Washer as seen in a previous post here]

The context of Revelations 3:20 is the message of Jesus through the Holy Spirit to the Church of Laodicea. The Church of Laodicea was a a lukewarm church that was neither passionate for the Lord (hot) nor refreshing others (cold), and thus it incurred the wrath and judgment of God on her disgusting lukewarmness (v. 16). She thinks herself rich and prosperous (v. 17), which she most definitely is materially, but in spirituality she is wretched and poor. In a parody of her boasted condition, her Lord call her to get true riches, spiritual riches, as opposed to the outward material riches she has and boasts in.

It is in this context that Rev. 3:20 is situated. Rev. 3:20 therefore is addressed primarily to the Church of Laodicea to repent of her lukewarmness; that she by her lukewarmness has removed Christ her lord from her midst. Yet Christ IS the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:18) and as such He is pleading with the wayward Church of Laodicea to return back to him and allow Him back into their midst, for their disgusting lukewarmness has chased Him away.

It can be seen immediately that there is a problem with applying this verse to the context of salvation and the Gospel call, not the least is which the contexts are different. The biblical context is towards people in the Visible Church as opposed to unbelievers, corporate as opposed to individual, and the call is to return back to their professed faith as opposed to calling unbelievers to repentance and faith. Such a major difference immediately invalidates such an application as committing a case of eisegesis. And pragmatism is no substitute for fidelity to the Word of God. There is no mitigating factor for misquoting the verse even if it somehow works, as if we have the power to convert anyone in the first place.

In fact, dare I say it, but that the application of this verse to evangelism actually demeans Christ. It reduces our sovereign Lord to be the helpless and often rejected beggar always so "meekly" knocking on everyone's doors, and most of them will reject Him anyway. It dethrones God and elevates Man, as if Man is the center of all things. Such an Arminian methodology compromises the person of Christ and the Godhead, and therefore dishonors the Lord we claim to worship.

With regards to the Gospel invitation, why can't we just use the method of the Apostles, of which we have apostolic warrant even? Let us look at Peter's Gospel invitation:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41)

Peter's Gospel invitation does not require him to dethrone God. Instead, the focus of the invitation points to what is known as duty-faith: Man's duty to repent of their sins and therefore turn to Christ. God through the Apostle Peter commands the Jewish sinners present at Pentecost that it is their duty to repent of their sins and thus save themselves from their crooked and perverse generation. As Jonathan Edwards preached, sinners are in the hand of an angry God whose wrath is kindled against them for their many sins. All sinners are obligated to repent of their sins, as fallen creatures owe to their righteous Creator His due. THIS is the biblical basis for the Gospel invitation, and we should proclaim the Creator's right over the sinful creature and of his duty to repent. Of course, this would mean that a more complete Gospel presentation would be needed, but whoever said that the Gospel was just the presentation of a few points based on disjointed verses which do not seem to cohere with each other?

So therefore, let us STOP using this verse out of context, and re-evaluate how we should be presenting the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And may God be pleased to bless us and use us for the furtherance of His Kingdom. Amen.

Poll: Frequently misquoted verses

Well, after a long time, it is time to close this poll. Interesting results, though it has a small sample size of 27. It seems that Mt. 7:1, the one on judging, seems to be thought the most misquoted verse in Scripture. I will be looking at all the verses and their proper interpretation in context. For now, here is an article I have penned nearly 4 years ago which shows the proper interpretation of Mt. 7:1 in context (among other verses). In summary, Mt. 7:1 is talking about hypocritical judgment and judgment of motives which are not expressed, and so therefore those who use this verse as a so-called "proof-text" against all forms of judgment do not know the Scriptures and are wrenching the verse out of context.

Exposition of 2 Peter 3

I have not been feeling very well recently, but anyway I was asked to lead cell bible study yesterday, and here are the exposition notes that I have prepared.

Exposition on 2 Peter 3

Passage

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (2 Peter 3)

---

Verse 1
… stirring up your sincere mind

Peter here shows his concern over the flock; and this is his second letter to them, thus showing forth his concern and love towards them. Both of them is directed towards the mind, hence Christians are to think; the foundation of faith is doctrine which requires thinking. But mere intellectual exercise is not in mind, for it must be sincere too. Thus only a believer who knows AND acts on that knowledge is in mind here. So as with all believers, we are to stir up our sincere mind as we approach God’s Word.

… by way of reminder

We are to be constantly reminded and remember the truth of God’s Word. There is no such thing as a truth of Scripture which we have heard enough of. For we are prone to forget God’s precious truths for us, and we must thus constantly immerse ourselves in them.

Verse 2
…that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets

The specific teaching that Peter wants us to remember is here to be presented. It is something that is predicted by the prophets of God. It is therefore not something random but a future event that is sovereignly ordained by God which will come to pass. This must have been frequently taught by Peter and all the apostles too (cf 2 Thess. 2:1-12) as Peter calls the believers to it “by way of reminder” (v. 1)

… and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

God has already prepared us for the certain future as He gave us commandments for how we should conduct ourselves in these last days. It is the commandment given by God who is our Lord (kurios) and Savior, and this is mediated by the apostles; our apostles who are God’s gifts and messengers to us and FOR us.

NOTE: The Apostles sacrifice themselves for the flock, like Jesus for His flock. Those who want to lead must do likewise. The way up is down. (cf Mt. 20:25-28)

Verse 3
… knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires

In the last days, which we are in, scoffers or mockers will arise to mock Christians and the Christian faith. This is normal; that men (and women) will come out and mock Christians and mock the faith. They follow their sinful desires, thus showing forth that at the root of opposition to Christ is because men love the darkness rather than the light. They detest us because our lives and our Gospel shine a light and expose their wickedness and sinfulness. (cf Jn. 3:19-20)

Verse 4
… They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

These scoffers will mock us, and in this case the mockery will take the form of attacking God’s promises to us; the promise that God will come again for us. The scoffers use the evident uniformity of life against us. Surely, where is God since there is no visible proof of Him or His presence? Things have continued since “the fathers fall asleep” – a reference to great antiquity, up till now; even from creation till now. The world is continuing “by natural law” without God present, or so they say.

Verse 5
… For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God

According to Scripture (Gen. 1:1-2), the earth was formed out of water by God. Peter uses this as a historical fact to refute the scoffers. Creation is here being used as a fact to refute the scoffers to show God’s people that God is faithful to His promise made to us.

Notice here that Peter was not embarrassed of this truth, which in his day and age was contrary to the ideas of Greek philosophy (which taught an ancient form of the “steady state theory” cf Socrates) or of pagan religion with its mystical tall-tales. Yet over and above all this, Peter proudly proclaimed the FACT of Creation as a fact to refute the scoffers, even though the scoffers clearly do not believe in the biblical account of Creation. Peter does not adapt his message and water it down to “find common ground” with the scoffers but instead authoritatively call them to account using the truths of Scripture as factual truths.

In our day and age, the “scientific” theory of Evolution aka Neo-Darwinism functions as the ruling paradigm for the scoffers of our age. Similarly, we do not need to give them an inch and concede anything to them, except to show from Scripture and even the scientific method (or even philosophy of science) that Neo-Darwinism is intellectually and factually bankrupt as a paradigm to live our lives by or to rules our thoughts.

Verse 6
… and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

This is an obvious reference to the Flood of Moses’ time. Like the Creation account, Peter treated this as a historical reality. The catastrophe that was the Flood left behind lots of evidences like the Great Canyon or the Fossil Record, which sinful Man try to suppress (Rom. 1:21) and re-interpret.

Similar to the reality of the Flood, there is simply no way except to take the events as historical and of Peter’s words as literal. Rejecting this means calling the Scripture and thus God a liar, for God can never inspire error.

Verse 7
… But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly

Just as the ancient world was destroyed by water in the Deluge, the world that we live in now will be destroyed by the opposite – fire. The present heaven and earth are awaiting destruction by fire, on the Great Day when Jesus Christ will come again to judge the world. This is a foretaste of eternal judgment as the ungodly will face the wrath of God in judgment for living a life in rebellion against God and His eternal holy Law.

Verse 8
… But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day

The context is talking about the seeming delay in God’s promise to come back again for His Bride, the Church. Yet we are here reminded that in God’s view time is no issue. There is no actual perceptive difference in God between a day and a thousand years, as God exists apart from time.

Verse 9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness

Since there is no perceptive difference in God, God is always on time. And here, Peter explains why the Lord tarries and does not come sooner. Far from it that the Lord is slow in coming as we understand slowness, ...

… but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

God is patient towards us, not wanting us to perish, but that all to reach repentance. Who is the “us” – the object stated here? It is those who will believe in Jesus Christ and be saved through repenting of their sins and believing in Jesus as their Savior and Lord. The reason stated by Peter why God does not come quicker in our scheme of time is because God is still waiting for people to repent and believe in Him. When all that will believe (the “all” stated here) have believed, then the end will come; when the Great Commission has been completed, then the end will arrive and Jesus will come for us the Church.

Verse 10
… But the day of the Lord will come like a thief

It is an utter waste of time trying to predict when Christ will come, since the very nature of His coming is secret and not known to us, just like a thief would not inform you beforehand when they will strike. So we are to be always prepared for our Lord’s coming.

… and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved

As verse 7 states, the second coming of the Lord will be accompanied by flames and the melting of the elements which make the Sun look cool in comparison. The entire Creation would be burned up on that day, including planets and stars.

… and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed

There will be no more secrets on that day, as the Light of Christ will expose all acts, even the darkest and most hidden acts will be brought to the light and seen for what it is.

Verse 11
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, …, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn

In light of the knowledge of the Second Coming which is soon, and the temporal-ness of all things, how should we live? We should be living in lives of holiness and godliness, so as to be like God. We are to grow to be more and more Christ-like each and every day of our lives, and that should be our life’s purpose.

Verse 12
… waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God …

We are to live our lives in watchful anticipation of Christ’s coming again. Not only that, we are told to “hasten” the coming of the day of God. In what way are we to do this? We are to do this through evangelism; in sharing with others about Christ and thus bringing more people to repentance and faith in Him.

This is of course not to say that we can actually control Christ’s coming, but humanly speaking it will seem that way as we do what Christ has commanded us to do, as the reason why Jesus is not coming back yet is because they are still people that have not believed in Him which He died for. Such hastening is thus relative from our viewpoint depending on world evangelism.

Verse 13
But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

This is our blessed hope; the one goal we should be looking towards. Our goal is the new heavens and the new earth, where righteousness dwells. We yearn for perfect justice, and perfect righteousness of which He has called and destined us for.

Verse 14
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish and at peace

As we await the coming of our Lord, let us be diligent (involving effort) to be seen by Christ as being holy. We are to work towards holiness and purity in our lives, being without as much as possible the pollution of sin.

Verse 15
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation

God’s patience in not coming sooner should be considered as salvation, especially for those of God’s people who have yet to believe in Christ. Do not therefore think of our Lord not coming as a bad thing, but of allowing sinners an opportunity to repent of their sins so as to be saved.

Verse 15-16
... just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.…, as they do the other Scriptures

Paul’s writings are here very early, even while the Canon was still in the process of enscripturation, regarded as Scripture. This is an important point for us to note: that the Spirit of God works in the writers of the Scriptures so that what they produce will be the exact inerrant Word of God, and He further leads the Church to endorse them as the Word of God which it indeed is.

There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction … Scripture is sometimes harder to understand; difficult passages are present, yet all of these do not make the Scripture not Scripture. These hard to understand things are then mis-interpreted and twisted by the “ignorant and unstable” for their own destruction. From here, we can see that twisting God’s Word is NOT a trivial issue; it is a serious crime and ultimately leads to the path of destruction for those who persist in it. Note also that it is the ignorant and unstable who are stated as doing such. Ignorance is NOT a virtue ever celebrated in the Scriptures, and neither is unstableness. As we grow in our walk with God, we should grow less and less ignorant, and more and more grounded on God’s Word so that we are not unstable, carried about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14)

Verse 17
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability

We are to take responsibility for our walk with God, and we should grow in Christian maturity, not to be carried away by wicked, lawless people

Verse 18
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen

Instead of carried away by false teachings and wicked people, we are to positively grow in Christ. We are to grow in grace which builds our character and continues to make us godlier. Amen.

Exegesis of Rom. 2:1-5 (Updated)

[topic continuation from here]

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. (Rom. 2:1-5)

This is a powerful passage in the book of Romans. Also, Rom. 2:4 happens to be one of the intended proof texts for the theory of 'common salvific grace' and the 'well-meant offer', of which I am convinced it is neither. It is therefore important that we should exegete the text within its context and see what the passage teaches, and thus what Rom. 2:4 actually teaches. Does it actually teach what the Neo-Amyraldians say it teaches? I contend not.

Rom. 2:1 starts off with the word 'Therefore'. It is thus a continuation from the previous chapter, showing forth that the conclusions in Rom. 1:18-32 specifically logically leads to the concepts that will be mentioned in Rom. 2:1 onwards. Rom. 1:18-32 exposes the depravity of Man in general who, 'although they knew God, did not honor Him as God nor give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened' (Rom. 1:21), and ended stating their depravity to such an extent that they 'not only do them [evil deeds], but give approval to those who practice them' (Rom. 1:32b), a most wicked proposition indeed.

After exposing the depravity of Man in general with an eye towards the Gentiles, Paul uses the fact of their depravity to silence the talk of the Jews, who are denoted in the phrase 'every one of you who judges'. That Paul now turns to the Jews and is talking to them can be seen in the metnion of the Law later in Chapter 2, and also the mention of 'Jew' and 'Greek' in verses 9-10, corresponding to the two group of audiences Paul had in mind in Chapters 1 and 2 respectively., not to mention that verse 17 specifically identifies Paul's audience as the Jews. A little undertstanding of the view Jews had of Gentiles then would show also that the Jews had a judgmental attitude towards the Gentiles, priding themselves on being the chosen people of God while the Gentiles are all going to hell. Paul, in verse 1 therefore, turns the table against the self-righteous Jews who judge everyone but themselves, thinking themselves as being a guide to the blind, light to those in darkness, instructor of the foolish, teacher of children and possesor of the Law (Rom. 2: 19-20). Yet, Paul expose their wickedness in their deeds — doing the same sinful things the Gentiles do, and bring hypocritical. Paul reminds the Jews of their common knowledge in the Law that the judgment of God rightly falls on those people who do such things (v. 2). Paul then applied the Law and rebuked them because they think that they can escape the judgment of God even though they do the same things they themselves condemned as deserving punishment if they are done by the Gentiles (v. 3), thinking that their status as God's people would exempt them from judgment. Of course, Paul will discount such hypocritical self-righteous teaching in verses 6-10, ending off with the statement that God does not show any partiality (v. 11).

In between verses 1-3 and 6-11 are the ones that we are going to focus on. In verse 4, Paul is stating that God shows kindness, forbearance and patience in his dealings with these Jews, and that such is meant to lead them to repentance. However, the hard and impenitant or unrepentant hearts of the Jews would mean that the kindness, forebearance and patience of God would have no effect. Therefore, such would increase the meausre of wrath against these Jews in the Final Judgment, and thus they will be more severly punished by God.

Now, we have already seen that Rom. 2 is talking about the Jews. As such, Rom. 2:4 is most definitely talking about the Jews. The Jews as the Covenant people of the Old Testament thus show that the main focus of the text is to the Covenant people of God. Therefore, this means that the text cannot be used to prove anything regarding the 'common salvific grace' theory or the 'well-meant offer', as this is not primarily directed towards everyone. Now, application can definitely be made to apply it to those who are self-righteous from other religions, but then applications can never be made to use prove doctrine of any kind, especially the scared doctrines regarding the will of God. Even granting that it talks about the world doesn't help their position, for it is one thing to apply it to the collective class of 'world', and another to apply it to individual reprobates within the world.

Nevertheless, aren't there possible reprobates within the Covenant people of God? Most definitely! However, the fact of the matter is that God works primarily through covenants, and therefore whatever is said about the collective may not be applicable to the individual within the group, especially one that will be removed from the group if exposed for what they actually are. For example, in the passage of Rom. 2:4, most definitely the Jews who refused to repent are possibly reprobates, yet they being in the Covenant people would mean that God's kindness, foreberance and patience would be over them to lead them to repentance, yet not as intended towards them in particular as individuals, but to them as part of the collective Covenant people.

Through all this, there is an added dimension to the entire matter. As this was written to the Jews, God's kindness, forebearance and patience was expressed to them mainly in the Old Testament — the Law and Prophets. We thus can see that the Law was intended to lead people to repentance, contra New Covenantal Theology, and thus God's kindness, foreberance and patience obligates them to repentance. However, it was unable to not becuase the Law was weak, but because we are weak (Gal. 3:10). And this is the point that Paul was going to drive home later. After showing forth the hopelessness of both Jew and Gentile of having a righteousness of works, with a summary in Rom. 3:10-18, Paul would then set forth the Gospel of free grace through Christ Jesus later, which was his intention all along.

In conclusion, through this short exegesis, it is hoped that we have a better understanding of Romans. Also, we have seen that Rom. 2:4 cannot be used to prove the theory of 'common salvific grace' or the 'well-meant offer'. What it does prove is that God is always kind, patient and forebearing with His covenant people, and in bringing the elect to faith and repentance also. Reprobates within the Covenant community (the Church) are treated with patience also because they are part of the collective, not because God has intention to save them. At the same time, such kindnes shown to them obligates them (gives them more responsibility) to repent and store up wrath against them for rejecting this undifferentiated kindness of God.

We wil next look into various writings by certain Puritan and Reformed divines, to see whether their writings actually promote the theory of 'Common salvific grace' and the 'well-meant offer', as Tony Byrne claims they do.

[to be continued]

On the concept of Cherem

And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent. (Josh. 6:17)

Recently, a group of us were just doing an overview of the book of Joshua. The study materials we were using was not exactly something I would read or recommand or use, but anyway on that particular week, the topic turned to the idea of cherem or the idea that things were devoted to destruction unto God. The word cherem is the transliteration of the Hebrew word that is translated as the phrase 'devoted to the Lord for destruction' in Josh. 6:17 in the ESV. In the context of the book of Joshua, the first city conquered, Jericho, was defeated supernaturally and everything in it was devoted to God. All life present in it were wiped out; all man, woman and children (yes and babies too) were put to the sword, together with all the livestock. The city and everything in it was burned to the ground and all the metalware (which incidentally are not burnable) were taken and placed into the Lord's treasury. This by far is one of if not the most graphic picture of what it means for people or things to be considered cherem.

Now, the study as we have it attempts to focus on the morality of such supposedly genocidal and babaric actions, but before we even talk about this, I think it is intrumental to see it from a biblical point of view first. Disregarding whatever historical basis of such an action in for example ANE (Ancient Near East - a term Middle East historians like to use for some reason) cultures, the more important thing we should consider is the biblical rationale for it. The Bible is clear that the annihilation visited upon the various inhibitants of Canaan is because of their sin (Gen. 15: 16), and not because of a capricious act of God. As such, they must be eradicated so as to preserve the holy family and the holy seed from which Jesus would descend, from corruption. This is more religious than ethnic, as we can see from the integration of former Gentiles like Ruth and Rahab the prostitute.

The total eradication of all the inhibitants thus is judgment against them and such that there would be no people around to corrupt the pure religion of God among God's chosen people.

The case of Jericho is indeed a special one. As the first city to be conquered, Jericho is the firstfruit of the conquest, and therefore special commands and circumstance present itself to the invading Israelites. Firstly, God was the one who single-handedly destroyed the strong fortifications of Jericho. Jericho thus fell by the hand of God alone rather than the military strategies or prowess of the Israelites. This proved to the Israelites that God is the one who would go before them in battle, and He would give Israel the victory even over enemies far superior than them militarily. As the first city, this showed Israel that God will be with them right from the start in their conquest. They are not to be afraid, but to know the truth that 'if God is for us, who can be against us' (Rom. 8:31).

Secondly, since Jericho was the firstfruits of the conquest, God is teaching Israel that they must be grateful and give Him the firstfruits of whatever they have (Deut. 26). As such, everything in it must be dedicated to the Lord; the perisheable to the flames, and the imperisherable to the Lord's treasury. As such, nobody is allowed to take any of the livestock or goods from the city as loot. Those who do so are subjected to the same treatment given to the inhibitants of Jericho, as Achan found out to his and his family's destruction (Josh. 7:10-26).

The eradication of the Canaanite thus have a solidly biblical rationale behind it. Are there any spiritual leasons we can draw from the concept of cherem?

The first thing we can learn is the passion of God for the purity of His people. God demands that His people be holy, for He is holy (Lev. 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16) and he burns with wrath against all forms of compromise and every defilement that we may bring in. God is not a respector of persons (Rom. 2:11), and He will punish His own people for their disobedience like that of the pagans, nay, worse than that, seemingly worse than them even sometimes (1 Peter 4:17; Heb. 12:7-11). That God would wipe out entire groups of people, who deserved to be killed anyway because of their sins, for Israel's sake shows His passison for the purity of His people. In fact, because of their failure to wipe out all of the former inhabitants (Judges 2:1-5), God judged them by allowing them to be oppressed and be led astray by foreigners. From this, we can learn that sin and compromise must be totally eradicated, otherwise they will come back, metastasize and attempt to eliminate our spiritual life. There is no such thing as 'just a little sin' or 'a little compromise', and that 'God will understand'. Those who do so, unless they repent, will find to their sorrow that they would have slowly but surely turn away from God, with disastrous results.

So now, we turn back to the concept of cherem. I have checked out the word in the Septuagint (the first Greek translation of the OT), and it is translated as anathema and used to that effect. It is thus the same word and the same approach, albeit spiritually, we are to use against those who preach a false 'christ' and a false 'gospel' (Gal. 1:8-9). Such people are to separated from and handed over for to God for the ultimate destruction of their souls in the lake of fire. Unless these false teachers repent, they are to be considered accursed, consecrated unto God in their destruction for the praise of His glorious name. Amen.

With all of these covered, how should we tackle the question of moralty? How can a loving God permits and even orders wholesale genocide?

Now, we have already stated the theological reasons for such an action to be taken. With regards to the moral question, I would turn the tables on such people. Who are you to make such a judgment of God? Will what is moulded say to its molder, '"Why have you made me like this?" (Rom. 9:20b) Without God you don't even have the basis upon which you can make any form of ethical statement coherently. Who dares sits in judgment againt the LORD Almighty, his/her creator? The audacity of created beings counseling and conspiring against their Creator, to impeach Him, is laugheable and will be mocked by the most high (Ps. 2:4-6). Furthermore, since God is the Creator of life, who dares to tell Him what He can and cannot do with His creation? And these people deserved what they would be getting. They spit at God, hold His name in contempt, mock Him, refuse to worship Him, commit all manner of atrocities including incest and homosexuality, and God is at fault in wiping them out? Those who dare bring a charge against God clearly have no sense of their sin and depravity before God. They know not the hot, fiery wrath of God poured out against them for their disobedience, and therefore can never comprehend and grasp the grace offered freely to all sinners who would repent of their sins through the atoning sacrifice in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If anything, they are the ones in the dock, not God who will judge everybody in the final judgment.

In conclusion, it is hoped that we would learn from the concept of cherem primarily and the examples of both the wicked Canaanites and the Israelites. Surely God who is over all desires for us to turn to Him, to cleave onto Him always in purity and oneness of heart, without compromise. Amen.

Review of John Piper's sermon on Rom. 2:6-10

I have finally managed to finish a project I have been working on for nearly two weeks now, albeit intermittenly due to my current employed status. After hearing more than 60 (so far) sermon mp3s of Pastor John Piper's sermons through the first few books of Romans, I can say that I have a rough inkling of how he thinks. But anyway, what I have done and completed is a critical review of John Piper's sermon. More specifically, I have reviewed Piper's sermon on Rom. 2:6-10 which was preached on 6^th December 1998, as I do not agree with Dr. Piper's exposition of this passage.

Before going any further, let me say first of all that I respect Pastor John Piper and his ministry. He is a man that has been used by God for the growth and edification of the Church. This sermon review is therefore not an attack on his person nor even of his orthodoxy, as the points of contention are not foundational doctrines. That said, I do think that the error he has made in this sermon of his is significant and would be very serious if taken to its logical conclusions. Perhaps we should therefore thank God that Piper is not very logical at times (remember his neo-Amyraldism) and therefore he is still mostly orthodox.

The significant error I am certain Pastor Piper is making is with regards to the doctrinal system known as Covenantal Theology, in his undermining or denial of the Covenant of Works. Yes, perhaps some of you may be encountering these terms for the first time, but rest assured it is not too hard, or at least I tried not to make them too complicated.

Without further to do, and if you would like to know more, here is the review of John Piper's sermon preached on the passage of Rom. 2:6-10.

Verse for the week

Though He slay me, I will hope in him; ... (Job 13:15)

With the article on the topic of Refusing on love the truth still fresh on my mind (it is compiled now here), here is a verse we all can meditate on.

Job, as we know from the context, has been afflicted by God with all kinds of sufferings, of which only God and Satan, and the angelic hosts, knew the reason why. As Job struggles with such bitter sufferings, even with the afflictions on his body, he stated this one phrase we all can learn from. Though God may indeed slay Job and destroy him, yet Job is unwavering in his trust and hope in God. Why? Why should that be the case? If God is 'evil' towards you, that he has removed His blessings from you and afflict you, why should you even think about hoping in Him? Humanly speaking, it is already leniant of us to say that we do not 'blame God for this'. Yet to say that we continue to hope in God, isn't that too much to ask? After all, we are very cautious of anyone who betrays us, yet to trust God even though He may bring upon us more calamities?

Perhaps Job is mad, or isn't he? Why should we still hope in God if he disappoints us? Or should we just adopt the attitude of Job's wife, who told her husband to just 'curse God and die' (Job. 2:9). After all, isn't it justifiable for us to do so, since God is the one who broke His promises and annulled the covenant between us, and thus it is His fault, not mine?

Now, of course, such is serious error and is in fact blasphemous. Of course, for us believers who can see the larger view of things, we can say that poor Job wasn't informed that he was going to be used as an experiment to prove his faith in God ad infinitum ad naseum. We can analyze and dissect it to learn the ways whereby God interact with us and the interactions and warfare within the heavenly realms. However, what is it about Job that make him say such a statement?

The reason why Job can make such a statement is because his faith has grown to the extent that he came to treasure God and love God for who He truly is, not for what God can do for Him. In this one statement of his, He disavow all rights and blessings, instead hoping in God because that is where his faith resides. Yes, he did question God, as we can see in his entire complaint against God in most of the book of Job, but he never once doubted God nor charged Him with wrongdoing. And when God questioned him near the end of the book, he immediately repented even of his (legitimate) questioning.

Job's faith in God is one whereby he hopes in God regardless of the circumstances, which is shown in his severe testing by Satan. His faith display the godly quality of truly loving God, which is only available to those who desire God for God's own sake. Such people do not love God because by doing so, they are promised money, longevity, power, or even eternal life. They realize that God is God and He is just in doing to us whatever he pleases.

Therefore, for us modern-day Christians, can we have the same attitude as Job? Are we treasuring Christ because He is worth it and that alone? Or do we, like spoilt brats, whine to God because He never gave us new 'toys' to play with or that He never satisfy our desires? Are we just treasuring Christ because there is benefit to it, even in the gift of eternal life where we treat Christ as our hell insurance policy? O, for God to pour our His Holy Spirit to transform us from our lowly state of being, and make us live for the glory of God alone.

[If a person or people in the movement CANNOT love God and His truth even if there would be no temporal benefit on this earth to it, and no eternal benefit either (ie even if you would still go to hell despite it), but to love God and His truth because He is worthy of it based on the fact that He is God and that alone, then they are 'refusing to love the truth', and thus do not truly love God ...]

Exposition of 1 Tim. 5:17: On the office(s) of elders

Over at my brother-in-Christ Vincent's blog, he has been writing a series of posts on the office of the eldership [here, here and here]. In general, I agree with what he has to say, and I definitely agree with his π-1 (2.14159...) office view. Without duplicating any of the points which he has made as much as possible (though some overlap is inevitable), I would like to weigh in a little on this issue.

In this post, I would like to do a short exposition on 1 Tim. 5:17, the main (in fact only real) proof text for the distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders, which is something seen within most Reformed churches. In general, ruling elders rule the church while teaching elders teach, and their duties do not usually overlap or overlap to a certain degree. My contention is that such a distinction is qualitatively unbiblical and is only there functionally; i.e. some elders tend to rule more while others tend to teach more, but in roles and responsibilities, they are the same.

Without further to do, here is 1 Tim. 5:17:

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Now, for a exegetical take on this verse, check out Pastor Keller's article here, which my friend Vincent directed me to. I will only be looking at the verse mostly in English for this post.

The verse in question can be seperated into two parts. The first part of the verse seems to show there are some elders are rule well, and leave open the possibility of there being elders who don't. However, the fact of the matter is that all elders are to rule the church. It can be seen in Acts 20 that Paul exhorts ALL the elders in the church in Ephesus to rule well (Acts 20:28-31), and Paul in the pastoral epistles require that all elders to manage and care for the church (1 Tim. 3:4-5 — analogy being drawn between managing the home and the church). Therefore, this statement is not saying that there are elders who do not rule, but rather, as Pastor Keller says of this phrase:

Third person imperatives often are translated in English with the words, "Let him/them..." The ... Bible reader may easily become confused, thinking that this phrase indicates the idea of mere permission. For example, "Let them go" would usually be understood to mean that permission has been granted. The ... reader may not immediately understand the idea of command, which is the usual force of the imperative, in the translation, "Let them." ... A commander in the military would say, "I command them to go.^[1]

Therefore, we have established that all elders are to rule in the church. The elders of the church are thus to be considered worthy of double honor; to be highly esteemed due to the work and responsibilities they bear before God.

The second part of the verse seems to show that there is a distinction between two group of elders: those who rule only, and those who rule and teach, by using the word "especially" to link the two statements. However, is this distinction really present?

First of all, it must be seen that elders are to be able to teach (1 Tim. 2:2). Thus, it can be said that all elders have at least the potential to be 'teaching elders'. In Titus, the emphasis of (any of the) elders being able to teach and refute error is more clearly seen (Titue 1:9). In context with verses 10-16, it can be seen that Paul very clearly does not treat this quality as something which is just a hypothetical possibility; that elders are to rule and able to teach but whether they actually teach or not does not exactly matter. All elders are instructed to silence these heretics and false teachers through teaching and rebuke (Titus 1: 11).

Now, of course, it can be objected that perhaps the situation whereby all elders are both 'ruling and teaching elders' is only in situations as dire as that of Titus, whereby there are many heretics and false teachers about. However, if that were so, this only goes to show that all elders are 'ruling elders' and that all 'ruling elders' must have the potential to be 'ruling and teaching elders' when the situation requires it, a position which is definitely less than the 2.5 office position traditionally taken by some Reformed, especially Presbyterian churches. Maybe this could be called the 2.25 office position. Anyway, let us go back to 1 Tim. 5:17.

Let us look at a few other verses in Scripture to note how the word 'especially' is used:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. — 1 Tim. 4:10

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party — Titus 1:10

and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. — 2 Peter 2:10

For the first verse, 1 Tim. 4:10, we can see that the word 'especially' does not give rise to the possibility of there being people who are saved but who do not believe (unless you are a Universalist). We can also see that the word 'especially' used in this manner limits the set of 'all people' to 'those who believe'. In Titus 1:10, the word 'especially' functions in like manner in that the circumcision party specfically shows who the 'insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers' are who are mentioned in the verse. This can be proved in Titus 1:14 where these men are promoting Jewish myths. In 2 Peter 2:10, the word 'especially' function in like manner here, as ALL these ungodly men are previously described in similar manner in 2 Peter 2:1-2.

Now, I am not saying that the word 'especially' is always used in this fashion in the Bible, but that the word can be used in such manner; as a form of specficially narrowing the name or character of the group which is being addressed previously, but not the people involved. However, the fact that the word can be used in such a manner give impetus to the possible rendering of 1 Tim. 5:17 as such:

It is commmanded that all the elders, who are to rule well, be esteemed highly and worthily of double honor, and more so when they fulfil their responsibility diligently in preaching and teaching.

This is especially so given the use of the word 'especially' (3 times) in the epistle of 1 Tim, where in 1 Tim. 5:8, the word could be possibly interpreted that way also (The families at that time tend to live together; few nuclear families), and we have already seen the way the word is used the other two times.

Anyway, to finish off this study, let us look up the Greek a bit to see what we can discover. The Greek word translated 'especially' here in 1 Tim. 5:17 is μαλιστα (malista). If occurs some 12 times in the GNT (Greek New Testament), of which the usage which have been suggested could be applied to all of them. This usage is in fact made even more plausible since other Greek words which have been translated 'especially' could be used instead. For example, the word 'especially' is also used in 1 Cor. 14:1, but the Greek word here is μαλλον (mallon) instead, which is used some 78 times in the GNT and has a much closer meaning and usage to how we use the word 'especially' in normal, daily English.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the Scriptures in general do not differentiate a lot between the 'classes' of 'ruling elders' and 'teaching elders', with elders being commanded by God to BOTH rule and teach. 1 Tim. 5:17 have been shown not to support the idea of seperate classes of elders, and in fact reinforced the notion of elders both having the roles and resonsibilites of ruling and teaching in the church. Therefore, I subscribe to the π-1 position as the position that conforms most to the text of Scripture.

P.S.: Look at the previous posts on Sola Scriptura, Creeds, Confessions and Traditions before commenting. Please argue from Scripture and not from the creeds or whatever documents you can bring up [or worse still: Pragmatism].

P.P.S.: I am NOT picking a fight over this issue. If you hold contrary opinions, you are most welcome to discuss them here, but I do not regard this a serious issue to draw blood over. Therefore, I am willing to acquiesce to contrary opinons as long as you don't insist I must hold on to the same view as you.

---

References:

[1] Brian R. Keller, Exegetical Brief: 1 Timothy 5:17—Did All πρεσβυτεροι Proclaim God's Word? (http://wlsessays.net/authors/K/KellerProclaim/KellerProclaim.pdf)

Interesting verse...

I am presently in the process of trying to memorize the book of Romans, which would take rather long to do. Anyway, I was looking at Rom. 2:12 when I say something very interesting.

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. (Rom. 2:12)

Firstly, we can see here that Paul mentions that people sinned WITHOUT the Law, so therefore the Scriptures affirm here that even without knowledge of the law (or the gospel) for that matter, Man do sin. Sin is sin even when nobody knows it is sin! Sinners like e.g. sodomites can try to whitewash their sins, and even make their sin legal by enacting laws to protect them from so-called 'discrimination', and criminalize the Gospel, but God still calls it sin and they will ultimately be judged based on God's laws, not the laws of Man.

Secondly, those who sin without the Law will also perish without the Law. The main thing that can be seen here is that ALL who sinned apart from the law will also PERISH. This should silence all the universalists and inclusivists everywhere, but of course those heretics do not obey the Scriptures. From the rank liberals to the 'evangelical' liberals like Brain McLaren to the spineless Joel Osteen & Rick Warren, all of them deny this important Gospel truth, the latter when being given the public spotlight.

Thirdly, there is no partiality with God (v. 11). Those who have the law will be judged based on the Law of God which is revealed to them. Those with the Law should have known better, yet they continually violate the Law(Rom. 2:23-24), blaspheming God's name because they claim to follow God. And therefore,

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)

which sets the stage for the proclaimation of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. ...

Bible study notes on James (finished)

Here are parts 5, 6 and 7 of the Bible study notes on the book of James, which I have just uploaded onto my webpage. Note espeically part 6 which deals with a lot of practical applications in the Christian life (covering Jas. 4 - 5:12)

Christmas special: Are you sure you really want to celebrate Christmas?

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. (Lk. 11:47-51) (Bold added)

Before I forget, Merry Christmas to one and all. In this holiday season, I would like to ask ourselves one important question: Are you sure you really want to celebrate Christmas?

Christmas as a festival is meant to celebrate the incarnational birth of Jesus Christ, the God-man; 100% God and 100% Man, who came down to Earth to die as a propitiation for our sins, so that we can have fellowship with God once again. During His ministry, Jesus did various extraordinary things, and in this post, I would like us to concentrate on the above-mentioned passage, specifically the part in bold.

In the context of this passage, Jesus was pronouncing woes on the Pharisees and the scribes, because of their hypocrisy; for neglecting the weightier issues of the Law while focusing on the minor outward aspects of it. In the middle of all these woes, Jesus mentioned the following statement:

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs.

Notice what Jesus said. Jesus said that the Pharisees are on the surface honoring the prophets of old (by building their tombs, and also especially in treating their writings as Scripture — the OT), but that they are actually consenting to the killing of God's prophets. In other words, the Pharisees are accused of consenting to the persecuting and killing of God's prophets (Acts 7:51-52), and after they are dead, to mourn and honor them. Such hypocrisy! For them, the saying holds true: A good prophet is a dead prophet.

What does this have to do with Christmas, you may ask. Well, do we treat Jesus the same way the Pharisees of old treat the prophets? As we celebrate Christmas; to celebrate the incarnational birth of our Savior and Lord 2000+ years ago, do we treat Him like how the Pharisees treated the ancient prophets — to say with our lips that we honor Him, to sing praises to His name, to even witness for Him, but NOT to obey His commands and teachings? Will we embrace Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord as how He has shown Himself in the Bible, including all the so-called 'offensive' parts? Have we 'sanitized' Jesus of all the rough-edges, such that He is so nice and comforting to us — a friend of sinners, instead of the friend of sinners who is the Truth who will call us to holiness in Him and thus more than likely offend us by telling us what parts of our lives are not pleasing to Him? If Jesus were to be among us now, do you think that we would still embrace Him even though He may rebuke us and chatise us for our sinfullness, and definitely offend all our sensibilities, like what he did to the Pharisees? Or are we going to be just like the Pharisees, who pay lip service to the prophets of God who came before them, since these prophets are now dead and thus cannot directly rebuke their waywardness?

Therefore, as we come together this holiday season to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, let us ponder in our hearts whether we really want to celebrate this festival. Duruing His time on this earth, He offended the sensibilites of all the religious people and even some of the common folk, which precipitated His death by the way (No one gets hated and crucified for no good reason). Are we sure we want such a man to rule over us, one who is not politically-correct, one who calls people to holiness and rebuke the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, one who is loving and is in fact Love, yet one who condemns the religious leaders to hell for blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31-32)? Think and meditate on these things, and may we submit ourselves to the Lordship of Christ in every aspects of our lives this Christmas.

Prayer: Lord, even as we celebrate the incarnational birth of our Lord Jesus Christ this Christmas, may you open our eyes to see Your Truth, and to see Your light. May we not try to tame Your Son Jesus Christ and reimagine Him according to our whims and fancy; our likes and dislikes, but to accept and honor Him as He truly is. Let us learn to accept Him as He is portrayed in the Bible, and let us remove all false perceptions of Him that we have ever embraced in our lives, so that He will once again have the preeminent position in our lives.

Bible study notes on James ... & Theories on Justification

I haven't had time to do much recently. However, I have managed to finish both of my essays and therefore am having a breather at the moment. Anyway, here are the Bible study notes that I compiled for my guys in my Discipleship Group (DG) on the book of James. Hope it would be edifying to you all. They are available here (1, 2, 3, 4).

Anyway, the 4^th Bible study was conducted on Tue, 31st Oct 2006, which also happened to be Reformation Day. Coincidentally, the Bible study was on the topic of Faith & Works. I thus take the opportunity to also go through the topic of Salvation and Justification by faith alone. Of course, since it touches on James 2, we discussed the place of works in the process of salvation, which is always a thorny issue to being with , especially with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Oh well.

Anyway, I went through two questions on the nature of salvation and justification in Christians. Here is what I put forward as the correct scheme of the relation between salvation, justification, sanctification and works:

Justification: The act whereby God judicially declares a person as guiltless, on the basis of the atonement in the shed blood of Christ
Sanctification: The act whereby God conforms us more and more into the image of Christ (1 Peter 1:16) through the Holy Spirit.

Salvation = Justification → Sanctification
Justification = Faith → Works

(Btw, the arrow "→ " means "leads to")

With that said, what then do we make of these two views? Are they correct views, semi-correct, or...? What do you all think?

Justification = Faith + Works

Faith = Justification + Works & Salvation is by faith alone

James 1: On trials and widsom

I would just like to share the summary notes of a Bible study with all of you, which I have recently done with my disciples. Here it is:

---

Passage: James 1:1-8

Greetings

James is a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ (v.1)

Trials

We are to be joyful in our trials (v. 2)

• Consider it joy, meaning that naturally we are not joyful when we face these trials
• Trials… of various kinds, meaning in all types of trials, even those we didn’t ask for or cause us much pain, suffering and heartaches

Why should we be joyful?

• Because these trials produce maturity and growth in Christ-likeness (v. 3 & 4); being purified as gold passing through the fire (1 Peter 1:6-7).
• Christians are disciplined by God the Father for our own good (Heb. 12:7-11). If we do anything wrong, God chastises us in love. All of these may involve trials of various kinds. Non-Christians, however, are punished by God in His wrath.
• Since this is so, any trials we face are given to us from the Father’s loving hand to conform us more and more like Jesus Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).
• This is manifested in a growing in steadfastness (endurance and tenacity in following Christ) which will move us towards being perfect (sanctified and holy) and complete (being fully sanctified and holy before God).
• Note: the end result of perfect sanctification is never attainable in this life (Rom. 8:23, 1 Jn. 1:8), but we are to strive towards it. God uses trials for such a purpose.

Wisdom from God

Wisdom ≠ Knowledge

Wisdom = the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting

Wisdom is needed

Wisdom comes from God (v. 5) and thus we are to ask God for it.

• God promises that He will give us wisdom if we ask of it, NOTE: not knowledge

However, we must not doubt God (v. 6) if we want it.

Those who doubt are double-minded.

• They have no faith in God, and without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6)

---

Article: Sola Scriptura

OK, I have just managed to compile all the blog posts on the subject of Sola Scriptura into an .html document, edit it for spelling errors, and then upload it into my website here. This is for those who are irritated by some of the spelling errors that are found on my blog posts, and for those who do not like to look at multiple webpages in order to read a single article.

Genesis 12:2 — A proper biblical exegesis

And I [God] will make of you [Abram] a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.(Gen. 12:2 — ESV)

This verse is used as the theme verse of the mission trip project organized by Singapore Campus Crusade for Christ Student ministry that I am going from the 24^th May to the 18^th June. From this verse, the slogan 'Blessed to be a blesing' is derived, which is used to tell us that we are blessed so that we can bless others through this Gen12ii mission project.

In this missive, I would just like to exegete the verse in its context, and to see how exactly is this verse to be applied in missions, and of course specifically in the mission trip which I am about to embark on.

Let's look at the context of this verse first:

Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:1-3 — ESV)

We can see that the verse Gen. 12:2 is found in the context of the calling of Abraham out of the pagan city of Haran (Gen. 11:32) into the promised land of Canaan. The context is the Abrahamic Covenant where God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (v. 1), and that he would be blessed so that he would be a blessing (v. 2), and that whosoever blesses him would be blessed, and whosoever dishonors him would be cursed (v. 3), and that the world (all families of the earth) shall be blessed through him.

In the immediate context, of course, the Abrahamic Covenant applies to Abraham and his physical descendents, the Jews. It is limited to the descendents of Jacob only, because the Lord restricted it to Isaac (Gen. 17:19, 21), though the Lord seperately promises great blessings to the descendents of Ishmael (Gen. 17:20), and restricted it further to Jacob, through Esau forsooking his birthright (Gen. 25:29-34) and the tricking of Isaac into passing the Covenant blesing to Jacob (Gen. 27). Though Jacob seems to obtained it via deceitfulness, God is in sovereignly in control and it could be seen that God was the one who orchestrated the whole thing, so that His purposes according to election might continue (Rom. 9:11), as He shows that he intended the Covenant to be passed on to Jacob and not Esau by restablishing it with Jacob at Bethel (Gen. 35:9-12).

This Abrahamic Covenant is thus fulfiled in a sense with the establishment of Israel as a country under the Jews during the time of Joshua, the judges and the kings after them.

Under the unveiling of the new dispensation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Abrahamic Covenant is expanded to include Christians who are the spiritual heirs of the promises of God in Christ. Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant includes us Christians, though since we are the spiritual heirs of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:13-25), we thus inherit the spiritual aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant whereas Christian Jews (aka Messianic Jews) would inherit both aspects of the Covenant. By this, I mean that we Christians do not inherit the land promise that is included in the Abrahamic Covenant and thus do not have a special physical promised land nor expect that we are to physically sire kings and nations. This physical aspect of the promise is only given to the Jews, the physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The Abrahamic Covenant is therefore for us Christians a spiritual mandate to be a blessing to others. However, what does this mean and who does it apply to?

First of all, let us go through the passage again and sees how it should be applied for us Christians:

Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:1-3 — ESV)

Thus, for us Christians, being the spiritual heirs of Abraham by faith, we inherit the blessings of Christ which is the Gospel of Christ. We have been blessed by the salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross as a substitutionary atonement for our sins (2 Cor. 5:21), so that by grace alone we are saved by faith alone apart from works (Eph. 2:8-9). Thus, we are to be a blessing in the same manner as we are blessed; we are to bless others with the Gospel of Jesus Christ which leads to this precious salvation, which is a blessing to the entire earth among those who are saved by it.

Now, to the usage of the slogan 'Blessed to be a blessing', as we have seen from the exegete of Gen. 12:2 from its context in the Abrahamic Covenant in the Scriptures, we can see that it can only be legitimately applied for us in the sense of sharing and preaching of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the blessing we are to impart. To use it for any other purposes other than this (i.e. Properity 'gospel' with its materialistic emphasis of blessing by wealth) is wrong exegetically. It cannot even be used in the case of spiritual gifts and talents, at least not while using the verse Gen. 12:2 as a proof-text, though it is true that we are blessed with spiritual gifts and talents to edify the Body of Christ. Therefore, in the context of missions, the slogan and the verse is to be used to emphasize the primary important duty of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is a blessing to those who will believe.

Something which I would like to caution against is our somewhat skewed view on blessings which we may bring to this passage. From what I have seen so far in modern-day pseudo-Evangelicalism, blessing is commonly seen as a positive thing in which people would not suffer hardship and God would not pronounced judgement on infividuals and nations. However, this notion of blessing is flawed and unbiblical. In fact, one just needs to read the prophets in th Old Testament to see what blessings could possibly mean to individuals and nations. Granted, blessing refer to a positive thing for the people of God, but it could also mean severe judgment on the unregenerate sinners and wicked nations. In the upcoming Global Day of Prayer which I have exposed to be compromised in my previous two missives here and here, my friend Chen Wenxian and I have shown how the verses Is. 66:18 and Hab. 2:14 have been misquoted and misapplied. These two verses are classic examples of how blessing and the glory of God is being misunderstood, as they show forth the fact that blessing can also mean the righteous judgment of God on the unbelievers. Even for the people of God, blessing can mean being disciplined by God (Ps. 94:12, Prov. 3:12, Heb. 12:6,10 , Rev. 3:19) for judgment begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). In fact, to demolish the ridiculous, unbiblical idea that blessing means material propsperity, peace and/or good will of others, one just have to look at the Beautitudes in Mt. 5:2-11 to see what blessing possibly entails, as spoken from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ himself.