Kim Riddlebarger

“God Gave Daniel Favor and Compassion”: Daniel 1:8-21, Part Two

For Christians, Daniel’s obedience points ahead to Jesus’s perfect obedience.[12] As Daniel resisted Nebuchadnezzar’s food and devotion to Babylonian deities, Christians see in this a small foreshadowing of Jesus resisting the temptation to bow to Satan but one time in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world (cf. Matthew 4:1-11). As God gave Daniel and his companions over to Nebuchadnezzar for as yet unseen redemptive historical purposes, so too God gave his own beloved Son Jesus over to the Romans, who crucified him so that we might be forgiven of our sins. And just as God raised Daniel to a position of respect and honor in the Babylonian and Persian courts, so too God raised Jesus from the dead and then placed him at the position of highest honor.

Perhaps you heard the same sorts of sermons on Daniel I did growing up. As Daniel resisted the temptation to embrace worldly ways, keeping his faith under pressure to conform, so we too should resist “worldliness” and stand strong in our beliefs in the face of those who reject them. The application we were to draw from this was not to smoke, drink, date non-Christians, lie, steal, and so on, when non–Christians tell us these things are okay.
While there is some truth in this, when we read of Daniel being forced to resist the pressure to compromise his faith we are tempted to read Daniel’s struggle in light of our own struggles to live godly lives and progress in our sanctification. But, as I will suggest throughout this series, we should understand Daniel’s situation as much more like that in which a Christian in modern Syria and Iraq endured when their community was overrun by a terrorist regime like ISIS or Hamas, or even in light of what the Chinese Communist Party has sought to do with the Uyghurs—a Muslim population in western China. Daniel faced a constant, coercive, and humiliating pressure to reject his religion and his national citizenship, to embrace foreign gods, serve foreign rulers, and adopt a way of life completely alien to the faith of Israel’s patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Daniel faced intense pressure to conform at a level difficult for us to imagine, especially when we consider that he was still a youth serving in the royal court and therefore in the presence of the very king (Nebuchadnezzar) who was attempting to subjugate Daniel’s people and nation through the most diabolical of means. Throughout his struggle to not compromise his fundamental beliefs, YHWH is with him every step of the way, all the while directing the affairs of kings and nations to their divinely-appointed ends.
As we begin to dig into the Book of Daniel, we will consider two related themes which we find in the opening chapter of Daniel. Last time we covered introductory and background matters, and established the fact that in the prophecy of Daniel two elements unfold simultaneously throughout the book. One element is Daniel’s stress upon God’s sovereign control over all of history, as YHWH brings Israel through a period of judgment (exile) and restoration (a new Exodus) leading up to the coming of the Messiah, and then on to the end of the age. The second element is God’s providential care for Daniel and his three friends while they struggle to remain faithful to YHWH while in Babylon, serving in the royal court of a pagan king. It is this second element of Daniel’s prophecy we will consider in this exposition as two related sub-themes appear–Nebuchadnezzar’s coercive attempts to turn young Hebrew royals into pagan Babylonians, and Daniel’s resistance to this intense pressure to conform to the king’s scheme to weaken, if not destroy, the people of Israel through Babylonian domination.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Manner of Conquest–Cruel Subjugation
The opening verses of Daniel reveal the details of Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts to cripple the nation of Israel, as well as explaining the circumstances which led to Daniel’s captivity and exile in Babylon in 605 BC. We read in verses 1-2, “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god.” We can date this to precisely 605 BC when Nebuchadnezzar (who is still crown prince and not yet king) led the Babylonians to victory over an Egyptian army led by Pharaoh Neco at Carchemish (modern Syria).[1] Pursuing the routed Egyptians, Nebuchadnezzar went south to Jerusalem, laying siege to the city. That is when word came to him that his father had died. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon for coronation as his father’s successor.
With Palestine firmly under Babylonian control, Nebuchadnezzar returned later that year to carry the spoils of his victory back to Babylon–a sign of his power and success as newly crowned king. The evidence from ancient sources (i.e., Josephus, and the Babylonian Chronicle) indicates that Jerusalem was besieged at this time, but not conquered. Daniel tells us that “the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God.” Jehoiakim was taken in shackles to Babylon (he was later released and returned to Judah) along with a number of the vessels (implements) used for the worship of YHWH in the Jerusalem temple. Jehoiakim was now the vassal (subject) of Nebuchanezzar, and paid tribute to his new Babylonian suzerain. Eventually the relationship between the Babylonians and Judah became strained, Judah allying with Egypt, whose armies later defeated Nebuchadnezzar, prompting Nebuchadnezzar to return in 587 BC and destroy both Jerusalem and the temple.
The Desecration of the Temple–A Sign of Nebuchadnezzar’s Dominance
Daniel is clear that YHWH “gave over” Israel’s king (Jehoiakim) to Nebuchadnezzar, along with vessels from the temple. No doubt, the reason was that Israel had become unfaithful to YHWH. His chosen people were embracing the pagan gods of their Canaanite neighbors. The temple vessels may have been a form of tribute which the weak and cowed Jehoiakim offered to his Babylonian suzerains. But let us not miss the symbolism behind this as well as the intentions of the Babylonians. Perhaps the vessels were selected by the Babylonians–“we’ll take these and spare the city.” But it is possible that the temple vessels were freely given up by Jehoiakim as tribute to Nebuchadnezzar. If this is the case, and it may very well be, then his act reveals that saving his own hide was more important to Judah’s humiliated king than YHWH’s honor. We know from Daniel 5:2-4, that these same vessels will be used by King Belshazzer to honor the “gods” of gold, silver, iron, bronze, and wood, an act which prompts YHWH’s judgment.
Regardless of how these vessels ended up in Babylonian hands, Daniel describes them as being taken to “Shinar,” the ancient name for the location of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). The use of the name “Shinar” instead of Babylon is surely intentional on Daniel’s part, because he sees Babylon as a place of sin and rebellion against God just as Babel had been (cf. Zechariah 5:11).[2] The fact that these vessels were placed in the treasury of Nebuchadnezzar’s god [Marduk, perhaps?] tells us that not only were these vessels a valuable spoil of war added to the royal treasury, but that this was an act of a pagan king showing utter contempt for YHWH, the weak “god” of the humiliated Jews.
The very act of taking the vessels used for the worship of YHWH and then placing them in the temple of pagan “gods” demonstrates to the demoralized citizens of Judah and Jerusalem the total dominance of Babylon. Israel’s king is in shackles, and items used for the worship of YHWH are now dedicated to pagan deities. It is not the value of the vessels which matters to Daniel (although they were worth a great deal). What matters is the symbolism of dedicating these vessels to Babylonian gods. Nebuchadnezzar is sending a symbolic message (as we will see throughout the coming chapters) that his kingdom is superior to Judah, that his gods are superior to YHWH, and that he has no intention of allowing Judah and Jerusalem to continue on as anything more than a weakened client state of Babylon. In fact, he will take a number of actions to ensure that Judah and Jerusalem never do return to the power and prestige they possessed in the days of David and Solomon. Jerusalem and its temple can stand for now, but they must serve Nebuchanezzar’s kingdom, not YHWH’s.
Conquest by Birth–Pagan Children
We also see the first act of defiance and resistance from Daniel in this recounting of events, identifying the city of Babylon as “Shinar,” thereby reminding his readers from the opening verses that Babylon and its king are no match for YHWH who brought a quick and final end to Babel and its Ziggarut (tower) built as a symbol of human power and defiance against the true and living God, YHWH. From the opening verses of Daniel’s prophecy, the prophet speaks of a battle shaping up between YHWH and his servants, and Nebuchadnezzar and his empire. As Daniel will make plain, this is a battle Nebuchadnezzar cannot win. If YHWH gave these vessels over to Nebuchadnezzar (as a form of judgment upon Israel), then YHWH will take them back (as judgment upon Babylon) when the Jews bring these vessels back to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple during the Exodus from Babylon to Jerusalem as recounted in Ezra-Nehemiah.[3]
Throughout what follows in verses 3-7, we get a sense of Nebuchadnezzar’s diabolical plan to weaken, if not eliminate, the Jews as a threat to his kingdom. We in the modern world forget the lengths to which the ancients would go to eliminate their enemies from the face of the earth. Unlike us, they thought of long term consequences. DNA testing shows that nearly 8% of all men living in Central Asia today are descendants of Genghis Khan (so are .05% of all men living today). Khan impregnated as many women as possible because any children born to his conquered subjects would be loyal to him, fight in his successor’s armies, and lose all attachments to their original tribal group–the tribal identity of the father determined the child’s identity and loyalties.
For the same reason, Alexander the Great ordered his Greek soldiers to impregnate as many women as possible wherever his army went (not just as the spoils of war) but because he knew these children would be Greek, regardless of their previous national identity. This baby boom would overwhelm defeated enemies for generations to come by replacing their depleted populations with the biological children of the victors. This is one reason why both Ezra and Nehemiah so strongly opposed Israelites intermarrying with Canaanite pagans–the children of such a union were far more likely to be pagans than Hebrews. Islam has learned this lesson, and spreads rapidly in the modern world–not by conversion or conquest–but by live births of children born to Muslim fathers, in many cases, to non-Muslim women.
Read More
Related Posts:

On the Nature and Frequency of the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper

In the absence of frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper, the gap created in the apostolic order of worship becomes rather noticeable. There is a reason why those fundamentalists who stand in the revivalist tradition place the “altar call” or an appeal to make some sort of re-dedication or re-commitment to Christ at the end of the service, after the sermon. When God’s word is proclaimed, we are called to act upon what we’ve just heard. But the absence of the Supper creates what seems to be a rather abrupt ending to worship, and the sense that something is missing gives impetus to those who want to see the preached word culminate in some sort of a call to action, which then takes on a more formal role in closing out the worship service.

This essay is an edited version of the lecture entitled “Frequent Feeding: Communion as Nourishing Worship,” given at the Great Lakes Reformed Conference in October 2023. An audio is version of the lecture is available here: Audio from the Great Lakes Reformed Conference. A YouTube video can be found here: Video from the conference. A downloadable PDF is available here: On the Nature and Frequency of the Lord’s Supper
Introduction
1n 1555, John Calvin asked the following of the Magistrates of the city of Bern regarding the celebration the Lord’s Supper:

Please God, gentlemen, that both you and we may be able to establish a more frequent usage. For it is evident from St. Luke in the Book of Acts that communion was much more frequently celebrated in the primitive Church, until this abomination of the mass was set up by Satan, who so caused it that people received communion only once or twice a year. Wherefore, we must acknowledge that it is a defect in us that we do not follow the example of the Apostles (John Calvin, Letter to the Magistrates of Berne, 1555).

The practical issues surrounding the nature and frequency of the Lord’s Supper have been with us from the earliest days of the Reformed tradition.
The purpose of this essay is to offer a rationale for the frequent (weekly) celebration of the Lord’s Supper. To accomplish this, I will: 1). Address the idea of the Supper as spiritual nourishment by surveying the biblical evidence which speaks to nature of the Supper, then 2). Consider biblical evidence for frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and then 3). I will briefly address common objections to frequent celebrations of the Supper, before 4). I will wrap up with a discussion of the pastoral benefits of frequent communion.
The key take away from this essay is that nature of the Lord’s Supper defines (or at least it should) its frequency. What the supper is–a spiritual feeding–ought to provide the rationale for when and how often we celebrate it.
The Nature of the Lord’s Supper
We begin by surveying the biblical evidence which speaks to the nature of the Lord’s Supper. As we do so, keep in mind that the Lord’s Supper is instituted during the Last Supper.
To fully appreciate the theological richness of the Lord’s Supper, we must put it in its first century context of table fellowship, and the Jewish Passover–the Old Testament thought world of the New Testament authors. The significance of “table fellowship” in the Mediterranean world of the first century should not be underestimated. To eat with someone at table was, in effect, to be identified by a bond with those with whom you ate.
This is especially significant in light of Exodus 24, when Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders of Israel were summoned by YHWH, to go up on Mount Sinai and eat a meal of covenant ratification in his presence. The Exodus 24 account subsequently frames our Lord’s willingness to join in table fellowship with repentant sinners—a scandalous event in the eyes of the Pharisees as evident in Matthew 9:10-13:

And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Another consideration is that the Last Supper is a Passover meal, as the gospels indicate (Mark 14:12 ff). Our Lord’s words and actions indicate that he saw the institution of the Lord’s Supper as a fulfillment of the Passover and connected his actions to its fulfillment. The historical development of the Lord’s Supper within the New Testament itself–from the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the gospels to the practice of the “Lord’s Supper” as seen in 1 Corinthians 11 is significant. Paul’s account of the Corinthian Church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper (mid 50’s) was actually written before the gospel writers wrote in the mid 60’s, giving us the account of our Lord’s institution of the Supper during the Last Supper. This explains the different word order in the accounts of Paul-Luke and Mark-Matthew, and demonstrate that apostolic practice (i.e., in the Corinthian church) very closely followed what our Lord commanded in the upper room on the night in which he was betrayed, a decade or so before the synoptic gospels were written.
The Reformed understanding of the Supper in terms of sign/seal (bread and wine), thing signified (forgiveness through his shed blood, the “blood of the covenant”), and sacramental union (our Lord’s words “this is my body”), arises directly from the biblical data. When Jesus speaks of the bread as his body and the wine as his blood, we take him at his word without resorting to confusing sign with the thing signified (in the case of Rome), or inserting words such as “this represents my body,” where they do not belong (in the case of memorialists). As Paul calls Christ the rock (1 Corinthians 10:4), so too, the bread is Jesus’ body—not because the sign is miraculously changed into the thing signified as Rome argues in transubstantiation, but because Christ can speak of the bread (the sign) as the thing signified (his body) using the language of sacraments. Because a true sacramental union exists between the sign and the thing signified, the bread can indeed be spoken of as Christ’s body (Matthew 26:26 ff).
Following Calvin, the Reformed have tried to keep in mind both the reality of Christ’s bodily ascension—wherein Christ’s true human nature is now in heaven awaiting his return (Acts 1:9-11)—and the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). It is important to note that the Reformed view (following Calvin) is not some kind of half-way house between Luther’s view of the “real presence” as “in, with and under the bread and wine,” and the Zwinglian trajectory of the “real absence,” which focuses upon the memorial aspects of the Supper.
The Reformed view is formulated in light of Calvin’s doctrine of “union with Christ.” Though Christ’s true human nature is in heaven, nevertheless the believer receives all of his saving benefits because the Holy Spirit has united the believer here on earth to Christ in heaven through faith, so too Christ can be in heaven and the believer can receive his true body and blood, because the same Holy Spirit ensures that those already in union with Christ receive his true body and blood when they take bread and wine in faith (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:23-29). The manner of eating is spiritual, not “carnal.” We truly receive Christ through faith and not by mouth.
In the words of institution, the body of Christ is not brought down to us—i.e., localized on an altar as the Lutherans argue, but the believer is able to feed upon Christ in the heavenlies through the power of the Holy Spirit who ensures that we receive what is promised. The means of reception is faith (the mechanics remain a mystery), since it is the soul not the body that receives the reality of what is promised, as the mouth receives only consecrated bread and wine. When we when eat bread and drink wine, through faith, the Holy Spirit ensures that we receive the true body and blood of Christ which is in heaven because we are in union with him.
There is also a covenantal dimension to the Supper, since each time it is celebrated, God re-affirms his covenant oath to save sinners by bearing the curse for them, and reminds participants that Jesus Christ still enjoys table fellowship with sinners as was typologically set forth in Exodus 24. Given these biblical themes, and the biblical language of “real presence,” in addition to the biblical practice of connecting the word and sacrament (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11; Acts 20:7), it is hard to make any kind of a case for a pure memorialism or infrequent communion as is practiced by many Reformed Christians. That Christ is sacramentally present with his people through the Supper as they feed upon him in faith, is at the heart of the biblical teaching and Reformed doctrine regarding the Lord’s Supper. In Article 35, the Belgic Confession confesses that we believe that our Savior Jesus Christ has ordained and instituted the sacrament of the Holy Supper “to nourish and sustain those who are already born again and ingrafted into his family,” his church. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.1, the Supper is likewise said to be “spiritual nourishment.”
The memorialist position (inadvertently) makes the human testimony of worthiness to partake, or of our testimony to faith in the promises of God, central to the Supper. This inevitably depreciates the fact that the essence of the Supper is a spiritual feeding and a covenant meal, in which God re-affirms his covenant oath. It is the Holy Spirit working through the word, and not a priest or minister that makes the sacrament efficacious for believers. God is the active party (not the “rememberer” nor a priest) whenever the supper is celebrated. We speak of the sacraments as the “visible word.” We ought to see the Supper and the elements of bread and wine as gracious gifts from God—manna from heaven as it were—given to us by God to communicate to us the realities of the blessings of the covenant of grace, through the signs instituted by God. The Supper is not incidental to the Christian life and is a vital part of our sanctification and growth in Godliness.
As for the warning about “discerning Christ’s body in the Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:28-30), the sacrament is not to be viewed as though it were somehow poisonous to the non-Christian, who will get sick and dies by receiving the Supper unworthily. Rather, by not receiving the Supper in faith, the non-Christian places themselves in a position where the consequences of their sin and the judgment of God upon them can become a frightful reality. As Zacharias Ursinus put it, “an abuse of the sign is contempt cast upon Christ himself; and is an offense against his injured majesty.” This is why the Reformed “fence” the communion table or practice closed or “close” communion, to protect those who do not discern the body of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. But all repentant sinners, who are baptized and profess faith in Christ, and seek his saving benefits through faith, are welcomed to the table so that we may demonstrate to the watching world that we are indeed one, just as our Lord himself prayed.
The Frequency of the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper
We move on to address the second point mentioned previously–the matter of frequency of celebration. The most important passage in this regard is Acts 2:42. This passage gives us the earliest picture of the Christian church, “rejoicing in the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit.”[1] Luke describes how the first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
In Acts 2, we read that the church in Jerusalem was founded on apostolic preaching. Its members enjoyed the fellowship of others who trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus to save them from the wrath of God, and who recently experienced the events of Pentecost. Calvin, saw this passage as significant for any discussion of the frequency of the Lord’s Supper because Luke establishes “that this was the practice of the apostolic church . . . . It became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving” (Institutes, 4.17.44).
Calvin is probably correct–the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship among believers culminates in the “breaking of the bread and the prayers.” The “breaking of bread” is a reference to the Lord’s Supper, which was a distinct activity within the context of the fellowship meal (“table fellowship”) shared by those present. Had Luke been referring to the “fellowship” meal (the ancient equivalent of the modern “pot-luck”) and not to the Lord’s Supper, it would hardly have been worth mentioning.[2]
Luke’s use of the term “breaking of bread” is likely another way of referring to what Paul calls the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:20). Luke uses an early Palestinian name for the sacramental portion of the fellowship meal, not the larger meal in general.[3] In Judaism, “breaking of bread” refers to the act of tearing of bread which marks the beginning of a celebratory meal, never to the whole meal itself.[4]
The fact that the disciples “devoted themselves” is used in at least one ancient source to refer to synagogue worship, which points to a formal (or intentional) activity as opposed to a more casual occasion. The verb “devoted” appears several times in Acts and often means “to attend worship regularly” (cf. Acts 1:14; 2:26; 6:4).[5]
Read More
Related Posts:

The Basics: Good Works and the Christian Life

Since our sanctification is every bit as much an act of God’s grace as is our justification, all those who have been justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, will (as the Catechism says) live according to all of God’s commandments. Since our efforts at obedience (like our sin) are covered by the blood and righteousness of Christ (making even the worst of our works pleasing to God), our heavenly father delights in our feeble efforts to do good.

Closely related to the doctrines of justification and sanctification is the subject of good works. One of the most common objections raised by critics of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is this: “If we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, what place does that leave for good works?” Even the apostle Paul had heard a similar objection raised among Christians in Rome. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1).”
Questions like this one arise from the concern that if God’s grace is stressed too much, Christians will become lazy and indifferent to the things of God and will not demonstrate a sufficient zeal for good works. After all, what incentive remains to do those works God commands us in his word, if our standing before God depends upon the good works of another–Jesus Christ? More importantly, as the critics contend, if the doctrine of justification is true, and we are justified sinners even after we become Christians, then why do good works at all, since they are still tainted by our sin?
Paul’s answer to these questions in Romans 6 is emphatic. In response to the charge that stress upon grace makes Christians indifferent about how they live, Paul writes, “by no means!” The apostle’s explanation is simple. “How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:2-4).
After arguing that sinners are justified by faith alone, and not by works (Romans 3:21-28; cf. Galatians 2:16), the apostle can make the point that those who are justified through faith have also died to sin. Christians no longer desire to live under sin’s dominion because they have been buried with Christ, and subsequently raised to newness of life.
Read More
Related Posts:

My Take on the Hamas Attack on Israel

UN Resolution 181 (1947) divided Palestine into a Jewish State (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan). Then began a series of wars: Israel’s War for Independence (1948–49), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (the Hamas attack on Israel was carried out 50 years plus one day of the anniversary of the Yom Kippur War), the First Lebanon War of1982, and then the Second Lebanon War of 2006. This is but a partial list of Arab-Israeli conflicts. Why the focus upon history? The Hamas terrorist attack upon Israel reflects a one hundred year history of Arab animosity to the West and sets the context for the seemingly endless conflict over Israeli/Palestinian territory. How quickly we forget.

A number of friends, church folk, and Riddleblog readers have asked about my take on Israel’s 911 (10/7). So, here you go.
It won’t surprise you that my take on the Hamas’s vicious attack on Southern Israel is much different than Greg Laurie’s (“Fasten Your Seat Belts”). A legion of prophecy pundits and “end-times” YouTubers have popped up, many offering wild and bizarre speculation about the tragedy and its role in the end-times. This is what they do. Admittedly, I have not watched or read much of this recent prophecy speculation, but what I have seen (most of which folks have sent to me) is largely a re-hash of prophetic scenarios long-since discredited (by the embarrassing fact that they got it wrong when previously proposed) now re-packed and presented as new material, with the hope that people will forget how wrong the pundits were the last time they made such predictions.
My points for consideration:
1). As for any biblical significance to the horrors inflicted upon Israeli citizens by Hamas terrorists, this clearly falls under the category of signs given us by Jesus regarding wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6-8). Jesus did not predict specific conflicts (such as this one), only what he describes as “birth pains” of the end. What happened in Southern Israel falls into the category of “wars and rumor of wars,” with no specific fulfillment of any biblical prophecy regarding Israel. What Hamas did was very much like what Vladimir Putin did in his barbaric invasion of Ukraine. He ignored all conventional rules of war and inflicted savagery upon innocents—the elderly, women and children, and unarmed civilians. Hamas has done the same in Israel. In this we see the depths of human depravity as divine image-bearers are slaughtered merely to satisfy someone’s rage, anger, and territorial ambitions. Jesus told us to expect as much until he returns.
2). It is important that we keep some historical perspective on what happened on 10/7. This is why I chose the picture of British General Allenby entering Jerusalem in 1917. When a Christian British general entered Jerusalem (a holy city for Jews, Christians, and Muslims) it meant the end of the Ottoman empire’s centuries-long rule over Palestine as well as the end of the Islamic Caliphate’s control of the region. But the heavy-handed British occupation helped to set in motion the series of events which sowed the seeds of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict one hundred years ago and which is still with us today.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the rallying cause of early Zionism. With the end of the Great War came the ill-conceived Treaty of Versailles (1919), in which the victorious entente powers divvied up the Middle East into new states which had never previously existed (e.g., Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Kuwait) and which had no real cultural or ethnic unity (see my review of Andelman’s A Shattered Peace).
Then came the Holocaust, which created the impetus for the United Nations to establish a Jewish state in Palestine to which the displaced Jews of the world could emigrate. UN Resolution 181 (1947) divided Palestine into a Jewish State (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan). Then began a series of wars: Israel’s War for Independence (1948–49), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (the Hamas attack on Israel was carried out 50 years plus one day of the anniversary of the Yom Kippur War), the First Lebanon War of1982, and then the Second Lebanon War of 2006. This is but a partial list of Arab-Israeli conflicts.
Why the focus upon history? The Hamas terrorist attack upon Israel reflects a one hundred year history of Arab animosity to the West and sets the context for the seemingly endless conflict over Israeli/Palestinian territory. How quickly we forget.
3). If you are interested in the details of how Hamas was able to pull this attack off, and why the IDF was caught so unaware, here’s a highly recommended discussion of how and why it happened, and where we go from here: School of War — Episodes 93: Michael Doran on the War in Israel and Ghosts of 1973.
4). Many readers of the Riddleblog, long-time White Horse Inn listeners, church friends, and recent converts to Reformed theology may have given up their dispensationalism.
Read More
Related Posts:

“There Will Be False Teachers Among You” (2 Peter 2:1-10) – Words of Warning and Comfort from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Four)

There will be false teachers among us, seeking to exploit us for their personal pleasure. But all they have are myths, fables, false words and false prophecies, which appeals to human sensuality. We have the prophetic word made sure, a word which contains the authoritative word of Jesus Christ–the very thing false teachers and prophets reject, because in that word we find the gospel, the declaration that Jesus has died for our sins, and by rising again from the dead, has forever broken sin’s power over us. Jesus died to set us free. The false prophets seek to enslave us again to our passions.

Peter Continues to Warn the Churches
It is not a question of if, but a matter of when. False teachers and false prophets have come, they will continue to come, seeking to introduce destructive heresies until the Lord returns. In his 2nd Epistle–which is Peter’s “testament,” i.e., his final words to the churches–Peter warns the churches of his day that false teachers and false prophets were already working their way into the churches and wreaking havoc. Peter tells us that these false teachers will speak false words and utter false prophecies. They blaspheme God and they seek to secretly introduce destructive heresies. They willfully seek to exploit the people of God–looking for any struggling saint weak in faith, or for those who have even the slightest bit of apathy regarding the truth of Christian doctrine. Their doctrinal errors provide justification for indulging the lusts of the flesh, instead of manifesting those Christian virtues which Peter has described in verses 5-7 of the first chapter of this letter. As Peter has told us in verse 19 of chapter one, we have the prophetic word (the Scriptures) which is more sure than any human opinion and which is the light shining in the dark, and the standard by which we discern truth from error.
As we continue to study 2 Peter, we come to Peter’s dire warning (in this chapter and in the next) about false prophets and false teachers who will arise, infiltrate the churches, and seek to lead the people of God astray. There is a very good reason why believers need to be concerned with how they live, and why they should live their lives in eager anticipation of Jesus’ return–so as to contrast themselves with those who have been deceived. The false teachers and false prophets described by Peter were undermining the very foundation of the Christian life–that God has saved us from the wrath to come, and then called us to reflect his glory through our conduct. Even as they encourage professing Christians to live no differently than the pagans around us, the false teachers are denying one of the fundamental doctrines of Christian theology; the bodily return of Jesus Christ at the end of the age to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.
What If Christ Does Not Return?
If it is true, as the false teachers claim, that Jesus is not going to return a second time, then there is no basis for Christian ethics, nor is there any foundation for the Christian life. Not only is Christian preaching false when we proclaim that Christ will come again, but if Christ does not come again then there is no final judgment, no resurrection from the dead, no new heaven and earth, no eternal Sabbath rest for the people of God, and no heavenly inheritance.
The proper motivation for the Christian life, which is that we live our lives in gratitude in light of these things, completely vanishes. If Christ is not returning, then critics of Christianity like Nietzsche, are correct–all we can do is live our lives carpe diem and “seize the day.” The past is irrelevant, the future remains to be written, there are no absolute standards of right and wrong, so all we have are the realities we face and the choices we must make in the present. And if Jesus is not coming back, and there is no judgment, then why not do as we please, indulge the lusts of the flesh, and seek to do what is right in our own eyes? If no one is watching, why worry about anything other than our momentary needs and pleasures?
But as Peter has told us in verse 16 of the previous chapter of this epistle, “we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” Peter was present throughout much of the messianic ministry of Jesus. Since Peter saw and heard Jesus in person, Peter (and the other apostles) do not need to invent myths or fables as do the false teachers and prophets. Since Peter was an eyewitness to the majesty of Jesus, the apostle speaks the truth, while all the false teachers can utter are clever myths which they have devised to suit their own sinful ends. As Peter reminds his readers, he was with Jesus up on the Mount of Transfiguration. “For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, `This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.” Peter was with Jesus. He saw our Lord’s glory. He heard the Father’s voice.
True Prophecy Originates in the Will of God, Not Man
This is why the apostle affirms with great boldness, “And we [i.e., God’s people] have the prophetic word more fully confirmed.” The prophetic word is a reference to the Old Testament (and likely to the soon to be written New Testament), as confirmed by those things accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection, as well as through the glory he revealed to Peter, James, and John, while with them up on the Mount of Transfiguration. Having seen but a glimpse of Jesus’ eternal glory, Peter knows with the certainty of a faith grounded in first-hand experience, that Jesus will return a second time, when the Lord’s glory is revealed not just to three hand-pickled disciples, but universally, to the whole earth.
Because of the authority of the prophetic word (Scripture), Peter reminds those receiving this short epistle, “you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” Scripture (i.e., the prophetic word) does not originate in the human will, for as Peter makes plain, “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” True prophecy comes from God, and is given through the work of the Holy Spirit. True prophecy, therefore, stands above all human opinion. It is Scripture which judges all our thinking about God, as well as the way in which we live our lives. To depart from the certainty of the prophetic word, and to instead speak false words about God, or to utter false prophecies to his people is, as Peter will tell us throughout chapter two, a serious offense against God, and is certain to bring down God’s wrath.
False Teachers Will Arise
In verse 1, of chapter 2, Peter addresses the specifics of the crisis facing the churches to whom this epistle is being sent. The apostle warns his readers/hearers, “but false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” If Christians should heed the teaching of the prophetic word made more certain (Scripture), then Christians should likewise be very leery of those who seek to introduce destructive heresies (false words and prophecies).
In the preceding verses, Peter has already claimed authority for apostolic teaching (vv. 16-18), as well as for the Old Testament (vv. 19-21). Peter singles out two groups who do not have such authority and whose teaching and prophecies are to be rejected. These are the false prophets (2:1a) and false teachers (2:1b-3).[1] There is significant Old Testament background to be considered here, since false prophets have plagued God’s people throughout the course of redemptive history. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, YHWH warns the people of Israel,

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

A similar warning is found in Deuteronomy 18:15–22, where Moses tells the people of Israel in verses 15 and 18, “the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen . . . . I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him,” before going on to warn the people in verses 20-22,

but the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’—when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.’

Such a prophet is only giving his sinful opinion. God will deal with him.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Basics: The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone on Account of Christ Alone

Scripture is clear that faith unites us to Christ, and through faith in him we receive all that he has to give us–namely the forgiveness of sin accomplished by his death, and the gift of righteousness based upon his life of faultless obedience. Through faith in Jesus, our sin is imputed to him so that he pays for these sins on the cross and through that same faith his righteousness (his merits and holy works) becomes ours (via imputation). This is what we mean when we speak of being justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone. This is the gospel! God freely gives us in Christ’s merits what he demands of us under the law.

Reformed Christians affirm without hesitation that the doctrine of justification is the article of faith by which the church stands or falls. Although the oft-cited comment is attributed to Martin Luther, it was actually a Reformed theologian, J. H. Alsted (1588-1638), who first put these words to paper–echoing Martin Luther in doing so.
The reason why the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, is important is because it is so closely tied to the gospel and the saving work of Jesus Christ. If we do not understand how it is that we as sinners are declared to be righteous before a holy God (which is what it means to be “justified”), we may not only misunderstand the gospel–and therefore risk standing before God on the day of judgment expecting that our own righteousness will be sufficient–but we will miss out on the wonderful comfort which this doctrine provides for us.
The good news of the gospel is that through faith, our sin has been reckoned to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness has been reckoned to us (Romans 5:12, 18-19). But now we possess the greatest gift imaginable, a conscience free from fear, terror, and dread (2 Tim. 4:18). The knowledge that our sins are forgiven and that God is as pleased with us every bit as much as he is with his own dear Son (2 Corinthians 5:21), not only quiets our conscience and creates a wonderful sense of joy and well-being, but it also provides powerful motivation to live a life of gratitude before God (2 Corinthians 1:3-7). A proper understanding of this doctrine is the only way we will be able to give all glory and thanks to God, which is the ultimate goal of our justification.
We need to be perfectly clear here–we are justified by good works. Not our good works, mind you, but Jesus Christ’s good works which, just like his sacrificial death, were done for us and in our place. Jesus Christ not only died for our sins, but through his life of perfect obedience to God’s commandments he fulfilled all righteousness (Romans 5:18-19). In Philippians 3:4-11, Paul speaks of this righteousness of Christ which comes from God through faith alone.

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

But how is it that our sins are imputed (reckoned, credited) to Christ and his merits are imputed to us? This occurs only through the means of faith, which is why we cannot be justified on the basis of anything we have done or even could do since all of our works are tainted by sin and always done from sinful motives (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:9-20). Faith is the instrument which links us to Christ so that all his righteousness becomes ours. In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul states “before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.”
It is important to understand that faith is not that one work God expects us to perform. Faith is not something which God sees in our hearts which he then rewards with a status of “justified”–a view widely held throughout American evangelicalism. Rather, as J. I. Packer so helpfully puts it, faith is “an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ.” Paul speaks precisely in these terms in Romans 4:4-5 when he writes, “now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”
Scripture is clear that faith unites us to Christ, and through faith in him we receive all that he has to give us–namely the forgiveness of sin accomplished by his death, and the gift of righteousness based upon his life of faultless obedience. Through faith in Jesus, our sin is imputed to him so that he pays for these sins on the cross and through that same faith his righteousness (his merits and holy works) becomes ours (via imputation). This is what we mean when we speak of being justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone. This is the gospel! God freely gives us in Christ’s merits what he demands of us under the law. In Romans 3:21-26, Paul makes this very point.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

If we are not clear about this great doctrine, we have no assurance of our salvation, no foundation for living the Christian life, and we have no gospel to preach to the unbelieving world around us. Apart from this doctrine, ours is a fallen church. But once we embrace this doctrine, Paul reminds us in Romans 8:31, “what then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” Once Christ’s merits are reckoned (imputed) to us through faith, we are declared righteous before him, and therefore able to approach the holy God without fear or terror, because we are clothed with the righteousness of his own son.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Basics: The Law and the Gospel

The content of the law does not change once we are justified through faith. Rather, it is our relationship to the law which changes. Before we were Christ’s, the law stood in judgment upon us, condemning us because we cannot keep it. The law inflicts its curse upon us. But once we trust in Christ as proclaimed in the gospel, we have died to the law and its curse, and suddenly we come alive to the commandments of God, which now reveal to us the will of God, and what we may do to please him (Psalm 1:1-2). This is why the old theologians were correct when they affirmed that the law is both the teacher of sin, and the rule of gratitude.

Often identified as a Lutheran distinctive, the law-gospel distinction is recognized by the Reformed tradition as well. Reformed theologians such as Zacharius Ursinus (the principle author of the Heidelberg Catechism) and Louis Berkhof (a distinguished Reformed theologian) have spoken of the Bible as containing two parts–the law and the gospel. Although people often assume that this means the Bible has two testaments (the Old Testament being identified with “law” while the New Testament is identified with “gospel”), this is mistaken. In making the law-gospel distinction, we mean that law and gospel are two distinct but intimately connected “words” from God found throughout both testaments.
A definition or two is helpful at this point. The law is that which God demands of us (Genesis 2:17; Exodus 20:1-18), while the gospel is the good news that in Jesus Christ, God freely and graciously gives to us everything which he demands of us under the law (Romans 5:9; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21). The content of the law is that which God revealed first to Adam in Eden, and then published in the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai when the Ten Commandments were written down on two tablets of stone and given to the people of God (Exodus 24).
The gospel is the message of what God has done in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. It is good news which is declared to us from the Word of God. The revelation of this gospel begins in Genesis 3:15 when God promises to rescue Adam from the curse pronounced upon him after he rebelled against his creator and brought our race under condemnation. God promised to crush Satan under the heel of a redeemer, and ensures Adam that one day no longer will there be any curse (Revelation 22:3). The law is what God commands of us. The gospel is what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. The law says “do.” The gospel announces to us what has been “done.”
The importance of this distinction becomes clear when we survey the course of biblical history. When God created Adam and placed him in Eden, Adam was created in a covenant relationship with God (the so-called covenant of works). Adam had the natural ability to obey all of God’s commands, which are written upon the hearts of all of Adam’s descendants because we are divine image bearers (Romans 2:12-16). These commandments are not published until God gives them to Israel at Mount Sinai. In the contents of the Sinaitic covenant, we see that both law and gospel are found together in the Old Testament.
Read More
Related Posts:

A Primer on Reformed Liturgics: Lessons from the Past Applied in the Present (Part One)

The heart of Christian worship is the act of asking for forgiveness of sin because the shed blood of Jesus alone washes it away, and because the spotless righteousness of Christ covers our unrighteousness.  This conviction of sin arises from a reading of God’s law with opportunity given for all those present to confess their sins, before hearing a biblical word of pardon and assurance.  This should tied to the present intercessory work of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of the Father interceding for his people, making a defense for his own before the Father (1 John 1:7-2:2).

For the Reformers, Recovering the Gospel Also Meant Recovery of Proper Worship [1]. 
The Reformers understood that the recovery of the gospel was directly connected to proper Christian worship.  John Calvin, for one, saw his own conversion and subsequent work of reform tied directly to the removal of all forms of Roman idolatry (especially the mass) from Christian worship.  The centrality of the gospel to the life of the church must be made manifest in the pure worship of God.  This meant a Word-centered liturgy in which biblical texts were preached upon, biblical exhortations and commands were made clear, and biblical promises made to the people of God were to be read for their comfort and assurance.  As one writer puts it, “the recovery of the gospel in the Reformation was ultimately a worship war–a war against the idols, a war for the pure worship of God.”[2]  Our worship must reflect our gospel, and our gospel must define our worship.
The Reformers Sought to “Reform” the Church’s Worship
While affirming Sola Scriptura and striving to base all liturgical reform on biblical principles of worship, the Reformers carefully considered the practices of the ancient church and the teaching of the church fathers when revising the liturgies they inherited.  The goal was to reform the church’s ancient liturgies by striping them of all unbiblical additions, not to compose entirely new liturgies from scratch.  “New” and “contemporary” when used in the Reformed tradition in connection to worship, are therefore best understood as “reforming” (i.e., removing all unbiblical accretions, as well as adding those things which are missing), not replacing the ancient liturgies with contemporary fads grounded in popular preferences.
Martin Luther stated that his intention was to not to abolish, but to cleanse the liturgies of “wicked additions” (i.e., Roman inventions) and recover their proper (pious) use.  Calvin too sought to remove Roman additions made to the liturgies of the ancient church, which is why his Genevan liturgy (The Form of Ecclesiastical Prayers) was subtitled “According to the Custom of the Ancient Church.”  Like Luther, he was no innovator, but a “Reformer.”  It was said of Heinrich Bullinger (the Reformed pastor in Zurich and a contemporary of Calvin) that he restored “all things to the first and simplest form of the most ancient, and indeed apostolic tradition.”[3]  It is fair to say that “tradition mattered to the Reformers.  It was the living faith of the dead, not the dead faith of the living.” [4] 
Returning to the ancient ways meant, in part, incorporating the reading of the Ten Commandments (or “law” texts from throughout the Scriptures), using the Lord’s Prayer (either recited or as a model for prayer), reciting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, God’s people thereby confessing the orthodox faith while effectively uniting the church of the present to the people of God of the past—the so-called “cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1.
Reformed Worship Is Catholic but Not Roman
The Reformers took seriously the charge from the church father Cyprian (c. 210-258), “You can no longer have God for your Father, if you do have not the church for your mother.”[5]  Calvin expanded on Cyprian’s comment, explaining,
Let us learn even from the simple title `mother’ how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her.  For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Matthew 22:30).  Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives.  Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah (Isaiah 37:32)  and Joel (2:32) testify.[6] 
For Calvin, one finds the Word of God proclaimed and the sacraments properly administered in the church.  Since word and sacrament are essential to a healthy Christian life, the Christian must seek these things where they can be found.  They cannot be found in false churches (i.e., Rome), nor in our age in entrepreneurial churches which are the institutional facade of their charismatic leader, nor in the various so-called “ministries” which mimic the church’s biblical activities but exist apart from all ties to local churches.  Those who claim to be Christians, but who have no connection to a local church (or who do not see the importance of joining a local church) need to be reminded that the New Testament knows nothing of a professing Christian who is not a member (or seeking to become one) of a faithful congregation where the proper elements of worship can be found.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Basics: The Order of Salvation

According to Paul, all those whom God foreknows, he also predestines.  Predestination refers to the particular end for which his elect are chosen–to be conformed to the image of Christ (as spelled out in the final link in the golden chain, glorification–verse 30).  Those foreknown are predestined, and those predestined are called.  Calling occurs when the gospel is preached, and God’s elect respond to that message with faith.

When Christians speak of the “ordo salutis” we are referring to the “order of salvation.”  While we should qualify any discussion of such an “order” by affirming that an omniscient God does not need to do things in sequential order as we do, nevertheless there is a logical order to the way in which God saves us from sin and its consequences.  Since we are described as “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1-5) and unable to do anything to save ourselves from our dire predicament (John 6:44), God must act upon us while we are still “dead” in order to save us from our sins.  The ordo salutis is simply an attempt to understand what actions God takes to save us, and in what logical order he accomplishes them.
This is not an abstract concept because Scripture itself speaks of our salvation as being accomplished for us according to a divinely-ordained progression.  The first of these passages is the so called “golden chain” of salvation found in Romans 8:28-30.  In that passage Paul writes,
and we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
The passage has been described as the golden chain because Paul not only speaks of an unbreakable order to the plan by which God saves us (the chain), but the apostle is clear that our salvation from beginning to end is the work of a gracious and sovereign God, who having begun the process of our salvation, sees it through to the end (the gold).  There is no sense that some of those chosen by God are eventually rejected, or that there is something good within the sinner which moves God to have pity on them and then act on their behalf.
Although Paul reminds his reader that God has the power to turn all things to good (v. 28), he quickly goes on to qualify that this applies to only those who are called according to God’s purpose.  Therefore, when the gospel is preached to us, God effectually calls his elect to faith in Jesus Christ.  God’s call involves several important elements (i.e., the ordo salutis).
Paul speaks of those foreknown by God as being predestined.  Some have erroneously taken this to mean that God looks down the corridors of time and then chooses to save those whom he knows in advance will believe the gospel when it is preached to them.
Read More
Related Posts:

“The God of All Grace” (1 Peter 5:1-14) – Words from Peter to the Pilgrim Church (Part Twelve)

The very realization that God is in control of all things is the sole reason why we should cease from being anxious! How can you cast all your cares upon a God who stands impotent before human free will? But once we humble ourselves before the mighty hand of God who foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, and who is a loving Father, who has promised to give us everything we need (not necessarily what we want), then it becomes much easier to cast our cares upon him, because we know that he already holds our future in his hands. The more we know about God’s love and power, the easier it is to trust him in hard times. 

What Do You Say to Persecuted Christians?
What do you say to Christians who have been displaced from their homes by a cruel and cynical act of a pagan emperor? How do you comfort a persecuted people who see no relief in sight from their troubles? What do you say to people who are reviled and cursed because they profess their faith in Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer, and Lord, and refuse to worship Caesar or the pantheon of pagan gods? How do you comfort a people who are mocked because they follow the teaching of Jesus, and therefore refuse to indulge every bodily urge simply because those urges exist? If you are the apostle Peter, you tell them the truth.
The reality is that fiery trials come with being a Christian living in a pagan environment. Yet, these trials are also the means through which God strengthens our faith. Just as it was with Jesus–that the cross of Good Friday precedes the empty tomb of Easter–so too it is with Christians. Suffering precedes the glory yet to be revealed. Peter also tells these Christians that despite their troubles, God has not cast them off. Regardless of how they feel, those who believe in Jesus are his elect exiles, his spiritual temple, possessing a heavenly citizenship which guarantees all the blessings of eternal life and a heavenly inheritance. Peter also tells them that Christians must strive to humble themselves before God, and learn to cast all of their cares and worries upon the sovereign God who is also their loving father. As they do so, Christians begin to live in the hope of the eternal glories yet to come.
We now wrap-up our series on 1 Peter. In the previous discussion, we devoted our attention to several of the points raised by Peter in the concluding section of this epistle (vv. 1-14 of chapter 5)–specifically Peter’s reference to the office of elder, which functions as a bulwark against the schemes of the devil, the adversary, who is looking for struggling Christians to devour. This time, we will cover the same ground, but focus upon two different themes in the text–humbling ourselves before God, while at the same time learning to cast all of our cares upon him. This will bring our time in 1 Peter to an end.
The Final Exhortations to Christ’s Flock
Peter wraps up his lengthy series of exhortations (imperatives) to suffering Christians–the elect exiles of the Diaspora of Asia Minor–by directing his audience’s focus away from those external circumstances under which Christians are struggling, to internal and pastoral matters. Before extending greetings to several individuals and concluding his letter, Peter addresses those things the churches and their leaders ought to be doing so as to persevere through difficult times. As we saw last time, Peter begins with an exhortation to the elders of the churches receiving this letter. In verses 1-2, he writes, “so I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you . . .” Jesus is the chief shepherd of his church, and he calls church officers (“elders” and ministers) to shepherd his flock as “under-shepherds.”
The reference to Christ’s church as a “flock,” is a metaphor widely used throughout the Old Testament in reference to those instances where sinful individuals are likened to sheep because of the tendency of sheep to wander away from the flock and place themselves in peril. A sheep which is separated from rest of the flock is completely helpless and likely to become an easy meal for any of the common predators in the area–wolves, jackals, coyotes, or even lions. Apart from a shepherd, who leads and protects them, the sheep are lost, they know not where to go, nor what to do.
Another sense in which the metaphor of sheep and flocks is used throughout the Old Testament is in reference to God’s people, Israel, who are often identified as God’s “flock” which requires his care, nurture, and protection. The metaphor of the sheep and shepherd is well-known enough in Israel that in John 10, when Jesus speaks of himself as the “good shepherd” who lays down his life for his sheep, virtually everyone hearing him knows exactly what he means–YHWH was Israel’s shepherd, therefore Jesus is claiming to be one with YHWH.
Elders as Shepherds and Servants
In reminding the elders of the churches in Asia Minor of this very point, Peter stresses that it falls to the elders of the church to protect Christ’s flock from predators, in this case the chief predator, Satan. In verses 8 and 9 Peter informs his readers that the devil prowls like a mortally wounded animal, seeking to devour any helpless Christian who wanders away from the protection of the shepherds of God’s flock. By speaking of the church as “the flock of God” Peter is also reminding the under-shepherds that the flock is not theirs–it is God’s, having been purchased by the shed blood of Jesus. God calls the elders of the church to protect its members from being devoured by the devil–which, as we discussed last time, is likely a reference to Satan using the power of the pagan state to oppress and persecute the people of God.
According to Peter’s charge in verse 3, elders are to shepherd Christ’s flock, “not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” This is a very important and highly practical point in light of the contrast Peter has set out throughout the earlier chapters of his letter between the way in which the Greco-Roman world understands the use of power (governors, masters, cruel spouses), with the way in which Christian citizens, Christian slaves, and Christian spouses are to respond to those who abuse them–in humility, by submitting to lawful authority in imitation of Jesus who came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Following the example of Jesus and serving under his authority as chief shepherd, elders are to view their office as one of service and of bearing witness to Christ–who is the chief shepherd of his church. Elders are not to use their office for personal benefit or to secure gifts and take advantage of the people of God (acting in a domineering way). Elders, when called, are to serve eagerly, and not lord their authority over the members of Christ’s church. Elders are to set good examples to the congregation, not as men who live above sin, but as men who deal with their sins properly, and who do not bring scandal to Christ’s church. In verse 4 Peter reminds those who serve of the great benefit of doing so–“And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” That God will reward his people when Jesus returns, is one of the characteristic ways the Apostle seeks to give hope to a people in the midst of intense suffering and trials. Elders, too, are to take heart in the knowledge that their difficult duties are not conducted in vain, but are noticed by the chief shepherd, and they will be rewarded by the Lord of the church. Peter’s focus upon eternal life is a point to which we will return momentarily.
God Opposes the Proud, But Gives Grace to the Humble
If elders are to rule Christ’s church as his under-shepherds, then the members of the church are to submit to the elders’ rule. Peter exhorts the younger to submit to the elders in verse 5, when he states “likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders.” This verse can be understood in two ways. The first is taking Peter’s imperative on its face, i.e., that younger people (in age) are to submit to those who are chronologically older–the elders in the church, indicating that church elders were typically older men. Yet, given the way Paul exhorts Timothy not to let people look down on his youth, Peter may be using the older/younger metaphor to mean that those new to the faith (younger) submit to those who have been Christians much longer (elders), and who may not be smarter, but are certainly wiser because of a lifetime of experience with the various issues and trials of life.
At the end of verse 5, Peter reminds this persecuted church that one of the ways in which Christians distinguish themselves from unbelievers is in the fact that Christians are to “clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for `God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’” As he does throughout this letter, Peter cites from the Old Testament, in this case from Proverbs 3:34, which is part of a larger section of chapter 3, vv. 21-35 of Proverbs in which the wise parent encourages his son to seek wisdom and to make sound judgments. The idea is that those who are wise will seek righteousness, while those who are wicked behave foolishly.
In this particular case, the contrast is between those who are Christ’s (who have been sanctified by Christ’s blood and set apart to live holy lives) and those Greco-Roman pagans who tend to see humility as a vice, because humility was thought to be the attitude of a slave, not that of a free man who can exercise authority. Once again, Peter’s exhortation to these persecuted Christians is completely counter-cultural. A Christian’s conduct–following the example Jesus set for us of proper humility before all, even before those who hate us–is what sets believers apart from the pagans. We separate ourselves from the unbelievers around us not through visible or cultural distinctives, like a distinctive diet, or in Christian clothing, or even in withdrawing from the world. We distinguish ourselves from the pagans around us by our honorable conduct–in this case we clothe ourselves with humility toward one another because this is right, and this is the example set for us by Jesus.
Proper Conduct–Humility
Our conduct grows out of the fact that in a profound sense Christians are strangers and aliens in this world, because the elect exiles of Asia Minor hold a heavenly citizenship in addition to their Roman citizenship. As citizens of heaven, Christians wholeheartedly strive to submit to God and obey his will. We accept our place in God’s world since we know that we are totally dependent upon God for our very lives, for all that we are, and all that we have. We are supremely dependent upon God for the gift of eternal life freely given to us through faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ, despite the fact that we are sinful rebels who deserve God’s eternal punishment.
Read More
Related Posts:

Scroll to top