The discussions of unity in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 2, 4, both mention church officers, but as gifts to his church that is one (1 Corinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11-16). Nothing in these texts suggests that the officers constitute the unity as Rome believes. Rather, officers serve the one church. In 1 Timothy 3:1-13, which gives qualifications for officers, nothing points in a different direction. If anything, it indicates that the church as household of God already exists, and the way to behave in it is to appoint qualified officers (3:14-15). Similar in Titus 1:5-9. Obviously, it would be impossible to express our unity without believers being brought together in institutional structures. But a single, worldwide body is not necessary for such unity. Christians and churches can express much unity across ecclesiastical lines. We can and do participate in each others’ sacraments, etc.

Having considered the marks of the church, we now move on to consider the attributes of the church.  
There are four classical attributes of the church as expressed in the Nicene Creed which are held in common by all major Christian traditions.  These are:  1).  Unity, 2).  Holiness, 3).  Catholicity, and 4).  Apostolicity.  The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformation churches all confess these same attributes, yet understand them in fundamentally different ways.  The Lutherans, for example, add “invisibility” to the four marks expressed above as a polemic against Rome’s claim of the visibility of the true church (Rome claims to be the true church because of its visibility).[1]
James Bannerman, a Scottish Presbyterian, who wrote what many consider to be the definitive volume on Presbyterian polity (The Church of Christ) offers a number of reasons why discussing the marks of the church should be done before considering the attributes of the church.  He lists the four attributes of “Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.”  But then notes that these “belong . . . to the Christian Church, in consequence of the Church holding and professing the true faith of Christ.”[1]  Herman Bavinck also considers the marks before addressing the church’s attributes since, as he contends, it is important to distinguish a true church from a false church since this determination defines how we are to understand the attributes of the church.[2]
As some Reformed theologians point out, the classical attributes are not merely descriptive but also function as exhortations.  According to Heyns, unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity “provide, not only a factual description of the current situation, but also a factual command:  they set the ideals to be realized, the objectives for which the Church must strive.  They are both a gift and a mandate.”  Heyns also adds that these attributes are to be viewed in terms of the already/not yet.[4]  As attributes of the church militant, they point ahead to the church triumphant in which all four attributes will be fully realized.
The seminal biblical text when discussing the attributes of the church is 1 Corinthians 1:1–2.  Paul opens the letter with an important declaration about the nature of the church.
I Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.
First, Paul speaks of unity as an attribute of the church when he identifies the church in Corinth as a “church of God,” composed of those who are called together with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus.  Second, Paul identifies holiness as an attribute.  Paul says the Corinthians are the sanctified but also called to be holy.  This speaks both of the church’s status (holy) but also the importance of reflecting such holiness in the life of the church (aspirational).  Third, Paul speaks of the church’s catholicity.  The apostle declares that the Corinthian Christians are called together with all those who in every place call on the name of Christ.  Finally, Paul speaks of the church’s apostolicity–they are authoritatively addressed by Paul, who was called by the will of God to be an apostle.
The First Attribute in the Creed: Unity
Roman Catholicism understands unity in terms of the church as an external, visible organization united in the Pope.  “Where the Pope is, there is the church” (ubi papa ibi ecclesia).  Also, “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[5]  In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, the second chapter begins with Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) connecting the primacy of Peter with the unity of the church.  That is not accidental.  At the end of the chapter he states: “The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[6]
The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist.  Timothy (Kallistos) Ware (an Anglican convert to Eastern Orthodoxy) writes:
In its teaching upon the visible unity of the Church, Orthodoxy stands far closer to Roman Catholicism than to the Protestant world.  But if we ask how this visible unity is maintained, Rome and the east give somewhat different answers.  For Rome the unifying principle in the Church is the Pope whose jurisdiction extends over the whole body, whereas Orthodox do not believe any bishop to be endowed with universal jurisdiction.  What then holds the Church together? Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments . . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of his flock.  The act of communion therefore forms the criterion for membership of the Church. 
Ware concludes that “Orthodoxy, believing that the Church on earth has remained and must remain visibly one, naturally also believes itself to be that one visible Church. [7]
The Reformed Understanding of the Attribute of Unity
The Reformed understand the attribute of unity in terms of both the invisible and visible church.  Members of the invisible church enjoy common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love (cf. Ephesians 4:5-6).  God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly, in part, but not exclusively, through external organization.  The Belgic Confession, Article 27 (of the Catholic Christian Church), states “We believe and confess One single catholic or universal church—a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.”  Throughout article 27, the Belgic Confession speaks of the church in the singular.  The article concludes by confessing that the church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”
In regard to the invisible church, Bannerman writes that the unity which is characteristic of the church is “a spiritual unity.” 
Read More
Related Posts:

The cross is the divinely appointed means by which God saves sinners.  It is in this message, and no other, where God’s wisdom and saving power is revealed.  But since the cross was such a scandalous and offensive thing, we can see why it would have confounded any and all who heard the philosophers and wise men of the day and found them both entertaining and helpful, when the gospel preached by the unimpressive Paul was anything but.  Paul could not have proclaimed a more offensive message.  Paul will not preach the wisdom of pagans, instead he preached the crucified Christ through which God confounds all human wisdom.

Note: What follows is an excerpt from episode four of season three of the Blessed Hope Podcast which covers Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
In verse 17 of the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul defines his mission as apostle to the Gentiles. “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” 
There are a number of points about the cross of Christ we can draw from his declaration.
First, the great commission includes the command from our Lord to make disciples by baptizing them in the name of the triune God (Matthew 28:18-20).  But as apostle to the Gentiles, Paul understands that his divinely-appointed mission is to preach the gospel and not to become overly involved in the day to day affairs of church life.  The office of apostle was centered in the responsibility of preaching in an evangelistic context (establishing churches), with the day to day responsibility for church life assigned to the successors of the apostles–the ministers of word and sacrament, elders, and deacons.  The calling of the first church officers begins with Jesus’s call of the twelve disciples during Jesus’s Galilean ministry, and moves on to the establishment of the office of deacon (as recounted in Acts 6:1-6), then to those who hold the office of elder identified in the book of Acts, throughout the letters of Paul, and with the qualification and duties of the church offices of elder and deacon defined in 1 Timothy 3:1-13.[1]
Second, Paul’s emphasis upon the centrality of preaching contains loud echoes from Isaiah 40, which speaks of the messianic age as one in which the Messiah would establish the preaching of good news.  Ciampa and Rosner, citing Dickinson, point out that,
Paul’s usage of gospel-terminology [esp. euangelizomai] was heavily influenced by the particular significations contained in the messenger traditions arising from Isa 40:9, 52:7 and 61:1, wherein ‘secular’ messenger language had been transposed to a higher, eschatological level, depicting the end-time herald(s) commissioned by Israel’s God to announce his salvific reign.[2]
What Paul was witnessing was the fulfillment of that age foreseen by Isaiah in which the good news of the gospel was proclaimed throughout the Gentile world.
Third, in light of such echoes taken from Isaiah, Paul does not place his confidence in the power of “eloquent wisdom” as one would expect in a Greco-Roman context, if he were merely attempting to win them over on their terms.  He never uttered challenges like “our God is greater than your philosophers,” but he does make clear that his gospel news (the account of Christ’s doing and dying) confounds his audience because divine wisdom is only so much foolishness to those who are not given ears to ear.
Fourth, Paul is especially concerned that the Corinthians realize that the preaching of the cross does not center in “words of eloquent wisdom” (literally “cleverness in speech”).
Read More
Related Posts:

The Carmen Christi is packed with theological significance, and is beautiful in its form. It was likely sung in the early churches and we ought do the same. It is cited by Paul to remind us of Jesus’ attitude toward others. Jesus counted all his advantages as nothing and made himself a servant. While we cannot imitate the incarnation itself, we can adopt the same attitude toward others as Jesus.

It Isn’t About Me
One of the most famous and well-known passages in all the Bible is the famous hymn to Christ (the Carmen Christi) of verses 6-11 of Philippians 2. Martin Luther writes in his famous essay The Freedom of the Christian, that this passage is a prescribed rule of life which is set forth by the Apostle Paul, who exhorts us to devote our good works to the welfare of our neighbor out of the abundant riches of faith. John Calvin tells us that anyone who reads this passage but fails to see the deity of Jesus and the majesty of God as seen in his saving works, is blind to the things of God.[1] The passage contains a very rich Christology, but is included in this letter not to settle any debate over the person and work of Jesus, but to instruct Christians how to imitate Jesus in a profound and significant way. The Carmen Christi speaks directly to our modern world by reminding us that the self-centered narcissism of contemporary culture is not a virtue, but runs completely contrary to the example set for us to follow by Jesus in his incarnation.
As many of you know, our system of chapters and verses are not in the original biblical text and were first introduced in the 16th century. While they are very helpful in allowing us to find “chapter and verse,” there are times when the chapter breaks disrupt the flow of thought of the original author. We find this in the transition from the opening chapter of Philippians as we move into chapter two. As we go through our passage, we will see that Paul’s exhortation which opens the second chapter is really an expansion of his desire for the Philippians to stand firm (vv. 12-30) and is the basis for his introduction of the Christ hymn (which we will cover momentarily).
Standing Firm in the Face of Persecution
In expressing his candid thoughts to the Philippians, the apostle is reflecting upon the persecution which he himself had faced, particularly in the light of the news which just reached him from Philippi that the Philippians were still facing significant persecution. When Paul was first in the city of Philippi, he was arrested and thrown into jail (Acts 16:12 ff.). Paul was miraculously delivered, the jailer and his household came to faith in Jesus, and as recounted in Acts 17, shortly thereafter, Paul left the city to continue his missionary journey to the Greek cities of Thessalonica and Berea, before finally making his way to Athens.
When Paul writes this letter to the Philippians about ten years later, he is in jail again–this time under house arrest in Rome. Paul knew something about persecution. He knows that the Philippian Christians are facing persecution as well. The Philippians may not be in chains, but they are finding that their fellow Greco-Romans are not accepting nor tolerant of their faith in Jesus. And then there are the Judaizers who have arrived on the scene and are now disrupting church life in Philippi.
After reflecting upon these things, in the concluding verses of chapter 1, (vv 27–30) Paul exhorts the Philippians,

let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

Paul’s Exhortation to the Philippians
The Philippians are to do several things. The first is to live their lives in a manner worthy of the gospel which Paul had preached to them. Their conduct in the face of persecution should grow out of their understanding of the person and work of Jesus. The second thing they are to do is to stand firm in one spirit and in one mind in the face of those persecuting them. The third is not to be frightened by anything their opponents–the Judaizers and Greco-Roman pagans–may throw at them. Jesus is more powerful than all and he will protect his church.
Paul reminds them in verse 29, that the only reason any of them are believers in Jesus is because God has granted them faith (he has given them faith as a gift–cf. Ephesians 2:8) and because he has, the Philippians inevitably will suffer persecution. They will suffer for the sake of Christ just as Paul has suffered because of the world’s hatred of Jesus. Just as he is imprisoned in Rome because of his faith in Christ, it was the case when he had been with them in Philippi previously. If God grants the one (faith) he also grants the other (persecution).
So, here is where the modern chapters and verses break up-Paul’s thought. Verse one of chapter two is the continuation of and expansion upon his discussion in verses 27-30. In fact, as Paul speaks of the inevitability of persecution and the need to stand firm in the face of it, he now points the Philippians to the means by which they might fulfill (do) those things Paul has just exhorted them to do, and to do that the Philippians need to have the same mind about these things that Jesus did (v. 5).
If There Is Any Encouragement in Christ . . .
But before Paul includes the Carmen Christi–reminding them of who it is and what he has done that they are to imitate–Paul makes a very impassioned plea which includes four conditional sentences (which begin with “if’), which if true, and they are, will bring to pass the hoped for result in verse 2, that Paul’s joy may be complete.[2] The opening verse reads, “so” (which connects this to the previous verses in the previous chapter), “if there is any encouragement in Christ, [if there is] any comfort from love, [if there is] any participation in the Spirit, [if there is] any affection and sympathy,” all pointing to things Paul assumes the Philippians currently possess. Yet, the force of the conditional sentence is an indication that these are things which the Philippians might be in danger of losing if they do not stand firm.
We can put it like this: if there is any encouragement still present, if there is any comfort from love still present, if there is any participation in the Holy Spirit (his indwelling and his fruits), and if there is any affection and love among the brothers and sisters, then Paul’s joy will be complete.[3] More importantly, the Philippians will successfully endure the persecution which they were then facing.
How do the Philippians accomplish those things necessary to make Paul’s joy complete? Because encouragement, comfort, participation in the Spirit, and affection and sympathy are present among the Philippians (the implication of the conditions being fulfilled), then the Philippians can indeed accomplish what Paul has just exhorted them to do. “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” If the false teachers haven’t completely taken over (and the implication is that they haven’t–far from it), the Philippians are to resist them by being of one mind, demonstrating love for one another, and being in full accord. This is for their good, but it will also bring the apostle joy, knowing that the Philippian congregation–for which no doubt he feels a bit of responsibility–will survive the efforts of the Judaizers from within to distort the gospel of Jesus, and from the persecutors without, who encourage these saints to deny their faith in Jesus. But the Philippians must stand firm and be of one mind, but in order to do so, they must adopt a particular mind-set which is, as Paul is about to explain, the same mind-set as Jesus.
Bad News for the Self-Centered: Count Others as More Significant
But being of one mind, having the same love, and being in full accord, requires that certain sinful conduct cease. Rather than focus on specific behaviors, in verse 3, Paul focuses upon the mindset that the Philippians ought to have. He tells them “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves”, unlike those plaguing Paul in Rome, who out of envy and jealousy seek to take advantage of the circumstances while Paul is confined. In contrast to those troubling the Philippians, Christians are not to do things from the motive of selfish ambition. In English, selfish ambition means something like seeking to gain advantage over another (“owning them” to use a contemporary expression), or further one’s own cause or circumstances, even if others are negatively impacted. But the root of the word in Greek refers to a hireling or mercenary, and in context here, it means something like “vain glory” or “vanity.” Another nuanced meaning of the term is “pretentiousness.”[4]
Paul’s discussion is like cold water in our faces. In the modern world, Paul’s exhortation to put away “selfish ambition” could be understood as “don’t be so narcissistic.” Strive to stop foolishly thinking that everything in life is about us–that our needs and desires always come first, and are far more important than the needs of others. This is the collective sin of so much of modern America. How many commercials can we recount where we are told that “you deserve” something which we probably do not need or cannot really afford, but which someone wants to sell us. The appeal is made to our base narcissism, “you deserve it.” In our culture, ambition and conceit are virtues, but Paul calls them sins. In American life, everything centers around the self, while Paul’s exhortation is to do the opposite–make sure that everything we do flows out of a due consideration of the needs of others. Paul even says, in humility–that is lowliness, i.e., the mind-set of a slave or servant–consider others more worthy (or more important) than yourselves. These are not easy words for Americans to hear, much less practice.
Look to our Own Interests and that of Others
Paul goes on in verse 4, to flesh out a bit further what he means. “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Of course, it is important to care for our own needs and take care of those for whom we are responsible.
Read More
Related Posts:

The whole point of the discussion of the “marks of the church” is to help ordinary people make judgments about the church–especially which one they ought to attend. Thus there are three things which should be present: 1). The pure preaching of the gospel 2). The pure administration of the sacraments 3). The practice of church discipline.

Reformed Confessional Teaching on the “Marks of the Church”
The discussion of the marks of a true church is important—especially in our day and age—because of the competing claims of various religious bodies and organizations to be “Christ’s church.” There are a myriad of churches who make such a claim–some associated with recognizable church bodies. Other groups who identify themselves as “churches” are more the product of the American entrepreneurial spirit, possess a trendy name, and an undefinable identity. They see themselves as radical and relevant, not stale and stuffy.
Reformed theologians have understood the marks of the church to be an especially important matter since multiple church bodies claim to be the only (or the true) church, yet their various claims are questionable in terms of biblical teaching and doctrine. This raises the question under discussion here: “how do we distinguish valid claims to be a true church from invalid claims?”
Louis Berkhof points out that there was not much of a need to consider the marks of the church when it was clearly one (i.e., during the apostolic church), but after heresies arose it became increasingly necessary to speak in the terms of a true/false, biblical/unbiblical dichotomy of any assembly of people professing to be Christians and followers of Jesus. Responding to heresies requires a response and doctrinal explanation. Oftentimes these explanations lead to further division.[1]
James Bannerman, a minister in the Free Church of Scotland, puts the matter well in his highly regarded book The Church of Christ (1869).

In the case of a number of organized societies, no less widely differing from each other in profession and in practice, in the confession of faith that they own, and the form of order and government they adopt, yet all of them claiming in common to be called Churches of Christ, and not a few of them denying that name to any body but their own, there must be some criterion or test by which to discriminate amid such opposite and conflicting pretensions . . . [2]

In our time, the traditional marks which were thought to identify the “true church” have been eclipsed by pragmatic, and experiential “marks.” Many now understand a church’s size, how they felt and what they experienced, a charismatic, celebrity preacher, and the church’s social media presence, along with a menu of activities as indicators of places where “God is working.” The category of a “true church” is long forgotten or ignored as a sectarian relic of the past.
The Belgic Confession (1561)
The longest statement on the question of the “marks of the church” in the commonly used Reformed standards is The Belgic Confession, Article 29. The article on the marks of the church makes clear the occasion for the questions: “What is the true church?” “How do we find it?” “What do we look for?”
To start with, the Belgic Confession (BC) clarifies that this is not a question about hypocrites within the church, but rather about how to distinguish among Christians assemblies which make competing claims to be “the church.” Then the BC lists three marks that give assurance of recognizing “the true church”
1). The pure preaching of the gospel
2). The pure administration of the sacraments
3). The practice of church discipline
After a brief discussion of the marks of true Christians who belong to this church (something not to be overlooked), the BC moves on to describe “the false church,” which manifests the following three characteristics:
1). The false church assigns more authority to itself than to the Word of God, and does not subject itself to the yoke of Christ
2). The false church does not administer the sacraments as commanded in the Word, but adds to or subtracts from them
3). The false church rebukes those who live holy lives and rebukes the true church
The last statement is striking: these “two churches” are easy to recognize and distinguish. This was true at the time the BC was written (1561), because the author knew only of the Roman Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, and Anabaptist churches, a matter which is far more complicated now.
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) does not address this issue explicitly, but Q&A 83 of the catechism calls preaching the gospel and discipline the keys of the kingdom
Q 83: What are the keys of the kingdom?
A. The preaching of the holy gospel and Christian discipline toward repentance. Both of them open the kingdom of heaven to believers and close it to unbelievers.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) chapter 25 approaches the subject somewhat differently from the BC.
CHAPTER 25 – Of the Church

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Read More
Related Posts:

According to Warfield, the church did not create a new canon alongside the old by determining what ought to be included in it (or not). Rather, the church recognized the books of our present New Testament as they were given, and therefore added them to the existing books of the Old Testament canon. These books came from the apostolic circle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore already possessed full authority as the word of God independently of the church’s recognition of them.

B. B. Warfield’s magisterial essay “The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament” was published in 1892. You can find the essay here. It has also been included in the various editions of Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
Here a few gems from that essay.
Warfield reminds us that the apostolic church did not “invent” the idea of a canon of New Testament books. The church possessed a canon of inspired and authoritative books from the very beginning–the Old Testament. The church was, therefore, never without a “canon.”

In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon” — or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible” — that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the “Canon of the Old Testament.” The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.”

Through the revelation of the gospel preached by the apostles, Warfield notes that the Holy Spirit added to the existing Old Testament canon during the apostolic age. During this period of its development, the church did not possess a “closed canon,” but “an increasing canon.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Theologically, ideas of God as Father (Matthew 23:9– “for you have one Father, who is in heaven,”), Jesus as brother (Romans 8:29, “firstborn among many brothers”), believers as children of God and as co-heirs with Christ (John 11:52– “and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad,”), are all important here–all pointing to the church as a spiritual family, which serves as the community for disciples of Jesus. To speak of our fellow Christians as “brothers and sisters” as is common in the New Testament, presupposes that we belong to the same family and household of God.

In an age of growing uncertainty, increasing angst, and divisive tribalism, a number of strategies (often politically focused) have been proposed to stem the rising tide of unbelief and the social havoc of our times.  But one important area of doctrine which speaks to these issues is often overlooked—ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church.  In the first of this series (Christ’s Spotless Bride) I addressed some of the reasons why the doctrine of the church is not of interest to many, and why I think reflection on the nature and mission of Christ’s church offers important, if overlooked, answers to many of our current woes.  In this and the next piece in this series I will consider a number of the images given us in the New Testament in order to stimulate thinking about how the church offers solutions to these contemporary problems, and then address some of the ways we ought to think about the church.  These images of the church in the New Testament, along with the attributes and marks of the church (which will be taken up later), help us to better understand the nature of the church and the comfort to be found in the new covenant community.
New Testament Images of the Church
There are a number of images used in the New Testament to describe Christ’s church.  Such images are but one way of approaching the doctrine of the church.[1]  To understand the value of these images, an analogy to the doctrine of God (theology proper) might help.  Scripture teaches us about God (who is incomprehensible in himself) not only by ascribing certain attributes to him (e.g., justice, knowledge, power) but also by identifying him as a certain kind of person or having a certain kind of role (e.g., king, shepherd, warrior).
But these attributes of God are analogical and anthropological and cannot be absolutized.  God is like but also unlike human kings, and being a king does not exhaust who God is.  Similarly, the church displays the images given us in certain respects, but none of them describes the church comprehensively.  Louis Berkhof speaks of “figurative designations of the Church, each of which stresses some particular aspect of the Church.”[2]  That is my approach here.  There are certainly a number of these images given us in the New Testament which are well worth consideration.
The Inauguration of the New Covenant Community
In Acts 2:41-47, Luke reports the following events as a consequence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.  And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.  And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common.  And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.  And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
These events were unique to that tumultuous period in redemptive history in which the age to come breaks in upon this present evil age, and the kingdom of God has come in the power of the Holy Spirit.  F. F. Bruce points out that “the conviction of sin that followed Peter’s preaching was no momentary panic, but filled the people with a lasting sense of awe.  God was at work among them; they were witnessing the dawn of the new age.  This impression was intensified by the wonders and signs performed through the apostles.”[3]
The apostolic church was composed of several thousand newly baptized believers, who devoted themselves to four particular activities spelled out in Acts 2:42: 1).  The apostles’ teaching, 2).  The fellowship, 3).  The breaking of bread, and 4).  “The prayers.”  These activities became the foundation of Christian worship and grounded the orientation of the Christian life in the apostolic age which commenced.  Word and sacrament are at the center.  Believers in this transitional period also practiced a sort of communal living, and witnessed the signs and wonders associated with the apostolic office.
Initially, public assembly and worship (the koinonia) took place in the temple precincts, but then moved into local dwellings for the fellowship meals, described by Luke as “the breaking of bread.”  Those who heard the word preached–the authoritative teaching of the apostles–were baptized and celebrated a fellowship meal with other believers.  The “fellowship meal” may be a carryover from a Jewish fellowship meal (the haburah), but given the connection made by Luke to “the fellowship” and “the prayers,” this likely points in the direction of the Lord’s Supper.  This connects the preaching of the word to the administration of the sacraments (the latter derive their efficacy from the preached word) from the earliest days of Christianity. 
Longenecker offers this summation: “what can be said here [in Acts 2] is that Luke shows, both in his emphasis on the early Christians’ meeting in the temple courts and on the favor accorded them by the people, that early Christianity is the fulfillment of all that is truly Jewish and that it is directed in its mission first to the Jewish world.”[4]  The future of Jew and Gentile in God’s redemptive purposes is explained in the subsequent ministry of Paul, especially in Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 2:11-22.
After Pentecost, the church is in many ways the fulfillment of Jesus’s words in John 14:12, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”  These greater works are already coming to pass with the conversion of three thousand souls and the first assemblies of the Christian church to worship the risen and ascended Christ.
The People of God
This image is not merely a generic use of “people” (as in, there are many people in the world), but a kind of social-political use: a community bound together through a shared identity as believers in Jesus, a common faith (as Christ revealed the gospel to the first apostles), and an allegiance to Christ as prophet, priest, and king.  As used in the New Testament, the “people of God” is a specific reference to those particular people whom God elects, calls, justifies, sanctifies, and then incorporates into the “people of God” (Romans 8:28-39).  1 Peter 2:9-10, also comes to mind in this regard.
Read More
Related Posts:

The spectacle of the distress of Mary and her companions enraged Jesus because it brought poignantly home to his consciousness the evil of death, its unnaturalness, its “violent tyranny” as Calvin (on verse 38) phrases it. In Mary’s grief, he “contemplates” — still to adopt Calvin’s words (on verse 33), — “the general misery of the whole human race” and burns with rage against the oppressor of men.

One of B. B. Warfield’s most profound and widely read essays is “On the Emotional Life of Our Lord” first published in 1912. In the essay (originally written for a Princeton Theological Seminary faculty publication and republished many times since), Warfield considers all of those instances in the gospel accounts in which Jesus demonstrates deep and abiding emotions. It is at once a beautiful and moving essay, while at the same time a powerful statement that Christ’s true human nature brings forth true human emotions—ranging from compassion to anger. You can download the essay for free here, but there are new published versions (in booklet form with updated text and with introductions) here and here.
Since we are now in Easter week, I thought it would be a good time to consider Warfield’s discussion of Jesus’s anger upon learning of the death of his dear friend, Lazarus.
Warfield writes,

The same term [for anger] occurs again in John’s narrative of our Lord’s demeanor at the grave of his beloved friend Lazarus (John 11:33, 38). When Jesus saw Mary weeping — or rather “wailing,” for the term is a strong one and implies the vocal expression of the grief — and the Jews which accompanied her also “wailing,” we are told, as our English version puts it, that “he groaned in the spirit and was troubled”; and again, when some of the Jews, remarking on his own manifestation of grief in tears, expressed their wonder that he who had opened the eyes of the blind man could not have preserved Lazarus from death, we are told that Jesus “again groaned in himself.”

But is “groaning,” as in the Authorized Version translation too tame?

The natural suggestion of the word “groan” is, however, that of pain or sorrow, not disapprobation; and this rendering of the term in question is therefore misleading. It is better rendered in the only remaining passage in which it occurs in the New Testament, Mark 14:5, by “murmured,” though this is much too weak a word to reproduce its implications. In that passage it is brought into close connection with a kindred term which determines its meaning. We read: “But there were some that had indignation among themselves . . . and they murmured against her.” Their feeling of irritated displeasure expressed itself in an outburst of temper. The margin of our Revised Version at John 11:33, 38, therefore, very properly proposes that we should for “groaned” in these passages, substitute “moved with indignation,” although that phrase too is scarcely strong enough.

We all know that “Jesus wept” is the shortest verse in the New Testament. But Warfield says “wept” will not do!

What John tells us, in point of fact, is that Jesus approached the grave of Lazarus, in a state, not of uncontrollable grief, but of irrepressible anger.

Read More
Related Posts:

Christ’s kingdom may have a small and inauspicious beginning (twelve disciples) but it becomes far greater than any geopolitical empire (such as Nebuchadnezzar’s), as the gospel spreads to the end of the earth, through word and sacrament, in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:8, “none of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Jesus’s kingdom–which uses the same tree imagery as found in the king’s dream–truly shelters the birds and beasts (symbolic of the great expanse of this kingdom), and provides genuine rest and shelter for the people of God.

The New Situation In Babylon
In Daniel chapter 4 we are given remarkable insight into a man who has played a central role in Daniel’s prophecy–the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. In each of the previous chapters of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar exerted his royal power and authority, demonstrated his hot temper and tyrannical nature, while championing the “gods of Babylon.” We have also seen that his “gods” and his Chaldeans (the wise men and court magicians) repeatedly failed to give the king that which he demanded. The great king was even forced to seek help from one of his young Hebrew servants to interpret a troubling dream–which he will do yet again in chapter 4. YHWH has clearly won the battle with the idols of Babylon. Through all of this, it has become clear that YHWH is sovereign over all things, a fact which Nebuchadnezzar has been forced to admit repeatedly when neither his idols nor his Chaldeans could help him. This was also made clear to him in chapter 3 when Nebuchadnezzar witnessed three Hebrew officials (who were friends of Daniel) survive being thrown into a super-heated fiery furnace with the aid of a mysterious fourth man (the pre-incarnate Christ, or an angel of the Lord).
But in Daniel chapter 4 we find that everything has changed. Much time has passed and Nebuchadnezzar is a different man. Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which Daniel must interpret for him–only this dream comes much later in the king’s career, toward the end his life. In this chapter–filled with remarkable contrasts and ironies–we read of a king whose days as a cruel tyrant seem to be in the past. The king greatly enjoys the creature comforts accrued after a long career as ruler of a great empire. Daniel’s report almost makes us feel sorry for Nebuchadnezzar as the pagan king is forced to wrestle with the fact that YHWH is the sovereign Lord, who rules the affairs of men and nations, and of whom Nebuchadnezzar will affirm, “how great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation.”
Another Dream – A Different Outcome
We also learn in this chapter that Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which must be interpreted by Daniel after we read again of the inability of the king’s court magicians to do so. We also learn (in vv. 28-33) that at some point during this period of his life, the great king experiences what used to be described as a “nervous breakdown.” This complete mental and emotional unraveling causes the king to flee his palace and his capital city to live among wild animals, eating grass, and becoming almost unrecognizable in appearance. Chapter 4 ends with Nebuchadnezzar regaining his sanity and affirming YHWH’s greatness, but not making a credible profession of faith.
On the one hand, this is a fascinating story as we witness such a mighty and cruel man come to the brink of faith, then instead fall into madness, only to be restored unto sanity. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar’s inner-struggles are revealed by Daniel to serve as a powerful reminder to the Jewish exiles then living under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in Babylon (those who are the initial recipients of Daniel’s prophecy), that no human king is truly sovereign over the dealings of men and nations–only YHWH is. Kings rule only as YHWH allows them. YHWH can and will protect his people, even as they suffer under a tyrant’s rule, Daniel and his three friends being the proof.
YHWH Rules Over All – Even Pagan Empires
Daniel’s message to the Jewish exiles living in Babylon is that YHWH chose to give this particular kingdom to this man at this time and place–but YHWH forces Nebuchadnezzar to realize that fact. YHWH can easily give Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to another–as we will see with the fall of Babylon to the Persians, shortly before the end of Daniel’s life. YHWH is Nebuchadnezzar’s Lord. YHWH is the one who ultimately determines the fate of the Jewish exiles. Through his prophets, YHWH has revealed to the exiles in Babylon that one day their exile will come to an end, and YHWH’s people will return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and its temple. Nebuchadnezzar cannot stay YHWH’s hand, and in this chapter we are given a glimpse into why this is the case. The great king is but a mere man, with a great many problems, fears, and weaknesses of his own.
Two Kingdoms in Contrast
As the fourth chapter of Daniel unfolds, we see the sharp contrast between Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom and Christ’s. The Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule is mighty, powerful, and fearsome by human standards, yet is puny, weak, and pitiful when considered in the light of Christ’s kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and kingdom will come to an end as foretold in the vision of the metallic statue in chapter 2. Yet not all the kingdoms of this world combined can defeat the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which, conquers not with the sword, but through the gospel. Jesus Christ’s kingdom is a heavenly kingdom, which explains why earthly kingdoms and worldly power cannot contain it. This is the lesson the king is beginning to learn.
We turn our attention to Daniel 4, which recounts the 4th and final incident in the Book of Daniel from the life of Nebuchadnezzar. As is the case with Daniel 2, this passage is also a single literary unit and best covered in one sitting. But the tyranny of space and the span of attention does not allow us to do this with any degree of depth, so I will devote several posts to go through this chapter, precisely because it is so rich in historical, theological, and psychological insights. To hurry through the entire chapter in one blog post, hitting but the high points, will cause us to miss much. So, we will turn our attention to the setting and background of chapter 4 (toward the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign), then take up Nebuchadnezzar’s ascription of praise to YHWH (vv. 1-3), before turning to the king’s second disturbing dream (vv. 4-18).
The theme of God’s sovereignty over all things has been made clear by Daniel from the opening verses of his prophecy which recount Daniel’s capture and forced indoctrination into the ways of the Babylonian court and its pagan religion. Daniel and his three friends actually thrived while under Babylonian control, even as they subversively resisted all attempts to convert them into pagans. In chapter 2, we saw YHWH give the king a dream which troubled Nebuchadnezzar greatly, yet which neither he nor his court magicians could interpret. Only Daniel could do so, since Daniel had been given the dream as well as its interpretation by YHWH.
Then, in chapter 3, we saw YHWH’s power in preserving Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) who refused to bow and worship the king’s golden statue. In chapter 4, God reveals his power over Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar, also revealing himself to the king, so that the pagan tyrant, now mellowed with age and illness, acknowledges YHWH as “the king of heaven” in the closing verse of the chapter (v. 37). The change in this man is dramatic, but not necessarily the sign of conversion from a pagan polytheist into a worshiper of the true and living God.
Nebuchadnezzar Grows Old
The historical setting for chapter 4 is important because these events occur well after the scene in chapter 3 (which can be dated about December 594-January 593 BC). This material recounts events much closer to the end of the king’s life than previous chapters. Daniel 4 recounts a time when Nebuchadnezzar is at home in his palace, while, as he puts it, was “at ease and prospering” (v. 4). One year later (vv. 26-29), the king is stricken with a loss of sanity for a period of “seven times,” often interpreted as seven years, but which is much more likely referring to a time of completeness (symbolized by the number 7), i.e., the time it takes the king to acknowledge YHWH’s sovereignty over all things and then regain his sanity.[1]
The historical record enables us to follow Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent career after the construction and erection of the gold statue in chapter 3. We know from Babylonian sources that Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year of his rule was 594 BC. He then laid siege to Jerusalem in 589-587, finally sacking the city and destroying the temple in 587. His motivation was likely the king’s realization that the vassal king of Judah (Zedekiah), had made an alliance with other nations against Nebuchadnezzar. So, whatever acknowledgments Nebuchadnezzar made previously regarding YHWH in the first three chapters of Daniel did not prevent him from destroying YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem.[2]
Next, the king laid siege for thirteen years to the coastal city of Tyre (from 586-573), and he engaged in a battle in Egypt in 568/567 so as to crush another revolt by a vassal state subject to the Babylonian empire. We do know that Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC. So, if this chapter depicts a time at least one year prior to the king’s death in 562, one possible time frame for the chapter is somewhere between 573-569, with Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt in 568/67 well enough to lead his troops, being an indication that he had regained his health and sanity.[3]
No official Babylonian records mention the king’s illness (official state records end in 594 BC–about the time the king built his statue), but there are other accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness and recovery which have come down to us in the form of tradition and legend. One Christian writer (Eusebius of Caesarea) recounts a Babylonian tradition that Nebuchadnezzar cried out from the roof of his palace that great misfortune was about to befall his people (a Persian victory). The Jewish historian Josephus cites a similar legend to the effect that the king was felled by a mysterious illness and died in his 43rd year of rule.[4] So, while not ironclad as we would like, there is some external evidence to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar did have some sort of serious mental illness late in his life.
Why does this matter to us? The tyrannical king played a significant role in Israel’s history, equivalent to that of Pharaoh’s role in the mistreatment of the Jews and then in the Passover/Exodus. The king took Daniel and other Hebrew royals into exile, is the same man who destroyed the city of Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple, and who took most of the population of Judah into exile into Babylon in 587. Despite his success in conquest, he proved to be a mere mortal, brought to his knees by YHWH’s mighty hand, his life and his empire now heading toward their inevitable ends. Although the king was repeatedly forced to acknowledge YHWH’s power and rule as superior to his own, he was eventually pushed to despair by this knowledge.
Read More
Related Posts:

Jesus came to set us free, not enslave us to the law. All of the Protestant Reformers agreed upon this point and spoke of its importance. This is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. If Christian liberty is not the defining characteristic of the Christian life, then the doctrine of justification is not properly understood. 

If anything is worth defending it is Christian freedom.  In the face of the threat to such liberty posed by the Judaizers, Paul issues a stern warning to the Galatians– “for freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).  Anyone who seeks to be justified by obedience to the law of Moses, through receiving circumcision, through the keeping of Jewish dietary laws, or in observing the Jewish religious calendar, will fall from grace and come under God’s curse (Galatians 5:4).[1] 
Paul has already pointed out that those who seek to be justified on the basis of works of law (Galatians 2:16), or who place their confidence in what Paul identifies as the basic principles of the world (stoichiea) will find themselves in eternal danger.  In Galatians 5:1-12, Paul contrasts the Judaizing campaign of enslavement to the law with Christian liberty in Christ.  This is yet another important plank in his case against the Judaizers.
In the first four chapters of Galatians, Paul issues several responses to Judaizing legalism.  In chapter 5, we move into what some identify as the “practical section” of Paul’s Galatian letter, when the apostle takes up the practice of Christian liberty and exhorts the Galatians to defend it.[2]  While Paul does change focus a bit from those redemptive historical events which culminate in the death of Jesus and justification through faith, here he describes the Christian life in light of the gospel revealed to him by Jesus Christ.[3]  The apostle continues to set out sharp contrasts between opposing positions.  Readers of Galatians are now well aware that Paul is fond of antithesis (contrast) as a rhetorical critique and he uses it repeatedly. 
Following up his analogy between Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4:21-4:31, when Paul turned the Jewish understanding of redemptive history on its head, in Galatians 5:1-12, he contrasts faith and works yet again, proving that they are diametrically opposed to the other when it comes to the justification of sinners.  To seek to be justified by works of law or through observing of dietary laws, feast days, or circumcision, is to return to slavery to sin and bondage to the basic principles which characterize this present evil age.  This is a very serious misstep since Jesus Christ came for the purpose of setting us free from bondage to sin and the law.  The gravity of this misstep is identified in verse 1 of chapter 5, when Paul challenges the Galatians with the uncompromising declaration, “for freedom Christ has set us free.” 
This is where the Christian life begins for the Galatians and the readers of this epistle–with freedom from the guilt of sin and its enslaving power.  Christian freedom is a central concept in terms of our standing before God, as well as a major theme in the Galatian letter.[4]  The agitators in Antioch and Galatia deplore Paul’s stress on Christian freedom and see it as the chief sign of a low bar of entrance for Gentiles and an affront to the traditions of their fathers.
Read More
Related Posts:

Nebuchadnezzar saw with his own eyes that either the Lord or an angel was present with the faithful servants of YHWH. “But I see four men.” Nebuchadnezzar is right. There is always a fourth man with us. Even if we cannot see his presence.

Nebuchadnezzar Makes Good on His Promise
After Daniel interpreted the king’s frightening dream, Nebuchadnezzar was greatly relieved. In fact, the king was so thankful to Daniel that he acknowledged his young Hebrew servant’s God as “God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries.” The Babylonian king even made good on his promise to reward anyone who could interpret his dream. He “gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Daniel 2:48).
Daniel remained in service to the royal court until his death about 538 BC–living well into his eighties. But while Daniel remained a trusted court advisor to both Babylonian and subsequent Persian officials, his three Hebrew friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were serving elsewhere as high officials in the province of Babylon–a favor which Nebuchadnezzar granted to Daniel on their behalf. Although Nebuchadnezzar offered high praise to YHWH because he revealed the meaning of the dream to his servant Daniel (as recounted in chapter 2), it will become clear that the Babylonian king never gave up his pagan ways. He soon erected a golden statue and demanded that his subjects worship it. This strange demand is a mix of an over-inflated royal ego, ancient near-eastern power politics, combined with pagan religion. Once again, Daniel’s friends’ lives are in danger. This time Daniel will not rescue them but YHWH will, in what amounts to the next round in the on-going conflict between YHWH and the idols of Babylon.
YHWH Against the Idols
As believers in YHWH, Daniel’s three friends refuse to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, believing this to be a violation of the first two commandments in the law given to Israel by YHWH–There are no Gods but YHWH, and YHWH’s people are not to worship idols. Upon learning that three of his own appointed officials refused to worship his statue–especially three men who were serving in this capacity as a favor to Daniel–Nebuchadnezzar erupts in his characteristic rage and fury. The king demands the execution of these rebellious Hebrew officials–just as he had ordered previously with his court magicians. Yet, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego will be spared again, only this by far more dramatic and miraculous means.
This passage (Daniel 3) is one of the most famous of the so-called “Bible stories” (along with “Daniel in the lion’s den”) which Christian children are taught, and which few forget because of the nature of the story, its ability to capture a child’s imagination, and because of the sing-songy names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. But Bible stories often miss the main redemptive-historical point of the original event, which is in this case, the conflict between YHWH and the idols. The conflict is evident in the difficult struggle faced by YHWH’s faithful servants in exile, who are under tremendous pressure from a pagan king who threatens their lives if they refuse to renounce their faith in YHWH. The alternative is death and martyrdom.
As we continue our study of Daniel we come to an episode which reflects the struggle of Hebrew exiles living in Babylon now living under the heavy hand of the tyrannical king Nebuchadnezzar. Commanded by YHWH to live their lives to the fullest during their exile (cf. Jeremiah 29:1-9), this includes serving in the government of the nation which was bringing havoc upon their own people (Israel). But YHWH’s people are to worship and serve him only throughout their time away from the promised land. Nebuchadnezzar, however, now demands that all his subjects worship a newly-erected golden statue–an edict which includes all the exiled Hebrews in Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar’s order also included the rulers throughout his entire kingdom, likely extending to the Jewish vassal king back in Judah (Zedekiah). In any case, the act of bowing before such a statue would have been an extreme violation of a Jew’s conscience, and an act of open disobedience to YHWH’s commands.
The Image of Gold
As we turn to the thirty verses of Daniel 3, the scene is set in the opening verse for all that follows. “Then king Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits. He set it up on the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.” Ironically, the golden statue was quite possibly inspired by the previous vision which YHWH had given him of a giant and terrifying metal statue with a head of gold–which Daniel identified as Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom (as recounted in chapter 2).
There is the very real possibility that the king ordered this statue built as a result, with a date of completion likely around December 594 or January 593 (a number of years after Daniel interpreted the dream). Based upon the dimensions given, the statue was nine feet wide, and some ninety feet high, shaped like an obelisk, with images of Nebuchadnezzar and his “gods” likely depicted on each of the four sides. The statue was about the same height as the highest palms which dominated the fertile landscape. Only the famous Greek statue, the “Colossus of Rhodes,” was taller.[1]
Zedekiah’s Rebellion Backfires
As recounted in Jeremiah 51:59-64, Zedekiah (who was then king of Judah) was forced to go to Babylon, perhaps to pay homage to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, but then subsequently plotted a revolt against Nebuchadnezzar after being humiliated. By comparing the Babylonian Chronicles with the the Book of Jeremiah, it may indeed be the case that Zedekiah’s reaction to this forced pilgrimage and Jeremiah’s prophecy of Babylon’s eventual destruction (Jeremiah 27) motivated Judah and its current king, Zedekiah, to rebel against Babylon by making an alliance with the nations of Edom and several others.[2]
YHWH warned Judah not to do this through the prophet Jeremiah, because YHWH will deal with Babylon is his own time–he did not need Zedekiah’s help. It was this rebellion by Judah (led by Zedekiah), which prompted Nebuchadnezzar to sack Jerusalem and destroy the temple in 587. This is also why Nebuchadnezzar killed Zedekiah’s sons before blinding him, then forcibly removing him to Babylon. The events surrounding the golden statue as recounted in Daniel 3 reflect the larger world of ancient politics and royal power as Nebuchadnezzar was seeking some way to shore-up the loyalty of his vacillating vassal states. Making his subjects bow to a symbol of his power might just do the trick.
Although the building and erecting of such a statue has both religious and political ramifications, the focus of Daniel 3 falls squarely upon the religious. A universal religious confession (acknowledging or even worshiping the “gods” of Nebuchadnezzar) was one way to unify the king’s racially, culturally, and religiously diverse empire as is implied in verses 2-3.
Then King Nebuchadnezzar sent to gather the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces gathered for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. And they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
All of Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects throughout his empire, including all government officials, were summoned to attend the dedication of the statue. As one commentator points out, “a contrasting theme is skillfully woven with the main theme throughout this chapter: the absolute and unthinking acceptance of polytheistic idolatry among most of the participants in the convocation.”[3] The willing acceptance of Babylonian religion by Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects is the backdrop as Shadrack, Meshach, and Abedngo represent the faithful Jewish exiles, refusing to comply with the king’s edict.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Gambit
In constructing such an image, Nebuchadnezzar sought to unite all of subjects under a joint affirmation of the “gods” of Babylon[4]–symbolized by the golden statue. To come to Babylon for the statue’s dedication (no small feat when travel was so difficult) and pay homage to it (by bowing before it) was an act which publicly demonstrated the loyalty of the king’s subjects (the vassals) to the watching king, who was suzerain over the bowee’s land and property.[5] This is power politics at its worst–if you are truly loyal to your suzerain and want his blessings, then you will come to Babylon and bow before my statue. If not, well then, the king knows where you and your people stand. He knows where you live and with whom you trade, and will respond accordingly. Zedekiah, Judah, Jerusalem, and all those taken in exile will pay that price–even though Zedekiah may have been one of those present for this ceremony.
In verses 4-6, Daniel describes the text of Nebuchadnezzar’s order to the assembled crowd.
And the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.
The response from Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects is given in verse 7. “Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.” As an aside, three instruments mentioned are Semitic in origin (horn/a ram’s horn, pipe/a shepherd’s flute, lyre/zither), three are Greek loanwords (trigon/a four-stringed harp of triangular shape, a simple harp, bagpipes/some sort of primitive instrument using a bellows). Furthermore, large charcoal furnaces were common throughout the land for the firing of ceramics and the making of bricks–the mention of these things support an early date (6th century BC) for the Book of Daniel.
However, at least three of the king’s subjects failed to attend the dedication of the statue and were quickly ratted out to Nebuchadnezzar by their coworkers. According to verses 8-12,
At that time certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews. They declared to King Nebuchadnezzar, `O king, live forever! You, O king, have made a decree, that every man who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.
Read More
Related Posts: