Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
At stake is the accurate record of the early proclamation of the saving gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. In terms of the progress of redemption, this speech of Paul at Antioch, delivered at the heart of the trade routes of Asia, represents the fullest record of an early proclamation of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations of the world, which therefore embodies a significant step beyond the record of Peter’s summary of the gospel as preached at Pentecost. 

God’s glory in the Gospel connects directly to the display of his righteousness when he declares righteous a sinful human being, a depraved, wrath-deserving sinner who has repeatedly violated God’s law. That he might be “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus,” God offered his Son “as a propitiatory sacrifice through his blood” (Rom. 3:26, 25). This justification by God of the guilty sinner through the substitutionary death of Jesus, received by faith alone, openly displays the righteousness of God.
Was Paul’s letter to the Romans the first time this “Gospel” was declared that so wondrously displays the righteousness of God in the justification of the sinner through the blood of Christ?
By no means! Before any written Gospel had been published, during the twenty years in which apostolic proclamation alone defined the Christian Gospel, Paul preached the doctrine of the “rising and falling church”—justification by faith alone apart from the works of the law.
When and where did he make this proclamation?
During his first missionary journey into Asia, as he preached in the synagogue of Antioch of Pisidia.
What exactly did he say?
Let it therefore be known to you, men and brothers, that through this man, the forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you. From all the things from which you are not able to be justified by the law of Moses, all who believe in this man are justified (Acts 13:38, 39).
Rather remarkable is the translation of the root δικαιόω as “freed” rather than “justified” twice in this passage, as it appears in the 1952 Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV).
It would be impossible to discover the thinking behind the Revised Standard Version of 1952 in its rendering of “freed” rather than “justified.” The RSV, it should be remembered, was the first major effort to provide a new translation of the Bible into English that would replace the King James Version of 1611, made almost 350 years earlier. The RSV is basically a good rendering of Scripture, representing a more “literal” rather than a “dynamic” translation. It is frequently used as a helpful tool by Bible translation societies. Yet one might re-imagine the climate of the 1950’s in which the RSV originated in cooperation with the National Council of Churches. Significant resistance to the translation arose when the classic prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 read, “Behold, a ‘young woman’ (rather than a ‘virgin’) shall conceive and bear a son…” As a consequence, this version of the Bible was rejected outright by evangelicals of the day.
In the prevailing climate that produced the RSV, it can easily be imagined that its translators could have concluded that the phrasing in Luke’s report of Paul’s speech in Acts 13 was “too Pauline” to be “authentically Pauline” at this early stage in his life and ministry. To read “everyone who believes” is “justified from everything from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” might have appeared to them as simply incorporating “too much Paul” into this early speech in the Israelite synagogue of Antioch. These statements agree so perfectly with Galatians and Romans, Paul’s later writings, that it might have been concluded that they represented a “reading back” into Paul’s earlier speech in Acts the more refined theology of his subsequent formulations of doctrine.
Read More
Related Posts:

DISCLAIMER: The Aquila Report is a news and information resource. We welcome commentary from readers; for more information visit our Letters to the Editor link. All our content, including commentary and opinion, is intended to be information for our readers and does not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Aquila Report or its governing board. In order to provide this website free of charge to our readers,  Aquila Report uses a combination of donations, advertisements and affiliate marketing links to  pay its operating costs.

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
The Word of the new covenant gospel must forever be proclaimed. Through all the ages and even into eternity, the gospel must be verbally declared. Particularly by those select people called and commissioned to the gospel ministry, the Word shall be spoken. It must be articulated for people to hear. But even further, by all the disciples, all the brothers and sisters, all the followers of Jesus as their Lord and Christ, the gospel must be spoken. Nothing can ever replace the speaking out of the good news of the new covenant. “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” Speak it out! Proclaim it to the nations! This spoken Word embodies the true and abiding hope of the world.

Introduction
In the progress of redemptive history, the preaching of the Apostles preceded any writing of new covenant scriptures by at least a generation. The apostolic preaching of the gospel began immediately after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, which would have been about 33 A.D. But the first writings of new covenant scriptures came approximately twenty years later, with Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians in about 50 A.D. For approximately a whole generation the newly forming church of Jesus Christ depended for its inspired directives primarily on the preachings of the Apostles. The God-inspired new covenant canonical writings were not completed for another 40 to 50 years, until about 90 to 100 A.D. The extent to which this original proclamation of the gospel permeates the book of Acts testifies to its significance.[i] The writings of the old covenant scriptures continued to provide direction for the church’s self-definition. But the proper application of these prophetic scriptures in a new covenant context depended heavily on the ongoing analysis of their significance as provided by the preaching of the Apostles.
The question may be appropriately asked, Why did God order that these years must pass before the inspired scriptures of the new covenant could finally be produced for the direction of the church?  Several observations may be offered in response to this question.
(1) Time for “Occasions” (“Situational Circumstances”) To Arise
The new covenant documents, even the four gospels, must be read as occasional documents. That is, each of the writings of the New Testament were composed in response to certain concrete circumstances in the life-experience of God’s new covenant community. Paul’s letter to the Galatians addresses in the most stringent terms one of the first and most persistent heretical challenges to the true Christian gospel. His first letter to the Corinthians deals with numerous problems related to a proper Christian lifestyle, including party spirit which divides the body, sexual immorality, discipline in the church, the use and abuse of spiritual gifts, the freedom of the Christian conscience, order in worship, the nature of the bodily resurrection, and the collection of offerings. His later pastoral epistles address the question of the maintenance of the “faith once delivered to the saints” as well as church traditions that must extend beyond the apostolic age. 
All these challenging circumstances would not present themselves within each of the various churches immediately upon the first re-formation of a people of God under the auspices of the new covenant. Lengths of time would have to elapse before all the “occasional” challenges of the emerging church would present themselves. In its proper time, the apostolic response to differing challenges to the well-being of the church would anticipate many aspects of the subsequent, prolonged history of Christ’s church. In the meantime, the public proclamation of the basic apostolic gospel could and must run to the ends of the earth.
(2) Time to Allow the Old Testament to Establish Its Foundational Role
As the speeches of the Apostles demonstrate so clearly, the faith and life of the new covenant people of God must rest squarely on the revelations found in the old covenant scriptures. With few exceptions, the messages of the Apostles recorded in the book of Acts look back to the prophecies of the Old Testament as the basis for their proclamation. A delay in the formation of the canonical scriptures of the new covenant would keep the way clear for this principle to be firmly established in behalf of future generations living under the new covenant. If the significance of the old covenant scriptures is widely ignored or altogether lost among numerous groups of Christians today despite the clear directives found in the preaching of the Apostles, how much more would their significance be obscured if the new covenant people of God had had access to a completed new covenant canon immediately upon the birth of the church? So it was quite appropriate that the gospel found its first formation through the apostolic preaching of the gospel in clear dependence on the old covenant scriptures apart from a completed canonical scriptures of the new covenant. 
(3) Time for “Chosen Witnesses” to Confirm Their Testimony
So long as eyewitness reports by “chosen witnesses” of the realities of the gospel were still available, the need for an inspired, written record of the new covenant regarding the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Christ was not so pressing (Acts 10:39-41).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Friday, June 14, 2024
You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.

Dipping the bread into the wine as a method of distributing and receiving the elements of the Lord’s supper is a matter that has recently come into discussion among some churches. This procedure, commonly called “intinction,” has significance in the life of the church because it directly affects the manner in which this sacrament, instituted by Christ, should be properly celebrated.
People who favor allowing intinction as one method for the distribution and reception of the elements of the Lord’s supper indicate that they see certain advantages in this procedure, and find nothing in Scripture that would disallow it. Among other considerations, they note the following:
(1) It is perhaps the most convenient way to distribute the elements.
(2) It emphasizes the central fact of the one celebration supper involving two elements.
(3) It falls naturally into the category of various other aspects of the celebration of the Lord’s supper in which a breadth of procedures is acknowledged as appropriate. These various aspects include: the type of bread that is used, whether of a single loaf or multiple pieces; the use of wine or unfermented grape juice, or an option of both; whether the elements are distributed among a seated congregation or the congregation comes forward to receive the elements; whether the people take the elements individually or simultaneously. These various aspects of celebrating the Lord’s supper are all generally regarded as acceptable, and left up to the various congregations. In a similar way, it is proposed that dipping the bread in the wine and taking both elements together in the sop falls into this same category of aspects in the celebration of the supper that may be experienced in equally legitimate but differing ways. Objecting to the procedure of intinction would seem to be making a large issue out of a small matter.
However, certain aspects of the biblical witness must be given full consideration. It is, after all, Scripture that must provide the defining word in all issues before the Lord’s church, whether it be matters clearly addressed or matters requiring more careful consideration. In this regard, several aspects of the biblical testimony deserve the church’s attention.
First, the nature of the sacraments.
In contrast with the verbalization of the truth in the preaching of the Word, the sacrament communicates redemptive truth by the use of symbolic elements and actions. In the case of baptism, the minister applies the one element of water by the one action of sprinkling, pouring or immersing. The one element and the one action provide the method by which a person enters the covenant community, and symbolize the descent of the Spirit on the person as well as the washing away of sins.
In the case of the Lord’s supper, the minister makes two statements regarding the two elements. Regarding symbolic action, the minister takes the bread, breaks the bread, distributes the bread, and the people eat the bread. For the cup, the minister takes the cup, gives the cup and the people drink the cup. But does the congregation receive the bread and the cup with two actions or with one action?
The symbolic actions of the Lord’s supper are particularly significant due to the historic setting of its original institution. The time is specified as “the night in which he was betrayed,” the night before his death (1 Cor. 11:23). These words and actions represent what may be called Jesus’ “last will and testament.” More precisely, they are the words and actions that institute the “new covenant.” More sacred in biblical culture than a “last will and testament” are the words instituting a “covenant.” In his letter to the Galatians, Paul underscores the sacredness of the wording of a covenant: “Even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified” (Gal. 3:15 ESV). The words and actions of Jesus as recorded by the gospels and Paul institute the new covenant, the consummating covenant. If no one dares to modify a single word or phrase of a normal person’s last will and testament, or a human covenant, how much less is it appropriate for a person to modify a divine covenant, or what may be regarded as virtually the last will and testament of our Lord? These are his consummating covenantal words. They must be held in sacred honor. Neither the words nor the actions clearly indicated should be modified in any way. The symbolic significance of the actions as well as the words of Jesus in the institution of the Lord’s supper must be reverently preserved and observed.
Second, the clear establishment of two distinctive elements and two distinctive actions.
The sacrament of baptism clearly has one element and one action: water and the application of the water. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper just as clearly has two elements and two actions: bread broken and eaten; the cup of wine presented and drunk. Two distinct elements and two distinct actions. Underscoring the distinction between the two actions is the clear indicator of a pause that occurred between the partaking of the two different elements. Both Luke’s gospel and Paul’s letter state that they ate the bread and then “after supper” they took the cup (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Unless it be proposed that Luke and Paul improperly added the notation about “after supper” between the taking of the two elements, it is clear that drinking the wine is separated from eating the bread.
Even if no reason at all could be found for the separation in time between eating the bread and drinking the wine, it would be altogether appropriate to follow the clear pattern established by the Lord. He is as it were on his death-bed. These are his precise instructions. These instructions and these procedures should be followed.
Yet good reason for a separation between eating the bread and drinking the wine resides inherently in the two separate elements and the differing manner in which they are received. Consider first the distinctive symbolism inherent in the two physical elements of the sacrament, and the different manner in which these two distinct elements are received. Secondly, remember the redemptive-historical context of the institution of the Lord’s supper. Thirdly, note particularly the symbolism of the cup. Fourthly, consider the procedure followed in the eating and drinking.
1. The distinctive symbolism of the two elements, and the differing manner in which they are received.
The bread. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus. The bread is broken as Jesus’ body was broken. It was broken on the cross. From the crown of his head to the sole of his feet, his body was broken. From the right hand to the left outstretched, his flesh was pierced and his bones were broken by the nails. The spear of the centurion pierced his side. Jesus’ entire body was broken for you.
What do you do with the bread? You smell the bread. You hold the bread. You place the bread in your mouth. You crush the bread with your teeth. You share the guilt for the breaking of his body. By God’s grace it was broken for you. You swallow the bread, personally accepting his body as broken for you. That is the symbolic significance of the breaking and the eating of the bread.
The cup of wine. The cup of wine symbolizes the life-blood of Jesus poured out in sacrifice for you. By these two separate elements of the Lord’s supper, Jesus vividly displays the total character of his sacrifice for sinners. His body broken, his life-blood poured out.
Wine has different physical characteristics than bread. It has the semblance of blood. Wine smells differently than bread. It has a pungent odor. Wine creates different sensations when taken into the mouth. Bread does not sting when eaten. But wine burns as it is being swallowed. As you take the wine and experience the physical sensations it causes, you are vividly reminded that Jesus poured out his life-blood as a sacrifice for you. The burning sensation of the wine can hardly compare with the pain Jesus’ flesh experienced when the thorns pierced his head and the nails pierced his hands and feet. But at least the stinging of the wine serves as a physical reminder that he was wounded for your transgressions, bruised for your iniquities.
His body broken—the bread. His blood poured out—the wine. Take and eat. Drink, all of you, of it. Two symbolic elements, two symbolic actions of receiving.
But the bread made soggy with the wine. You do not experience the crushing of the bread. You do not experience the stinging of the wine. You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.
It has been suggested that the words of institution spoken by the minister adequately communicate the difference of the bread in distinction from the wine. But to substitute the words of institution for the symbolic actions is to lose the point of a sacrament. By having the recipient ingest the two elements physically and separately, the truth pronounced by the differing words finds full reinforcement through the symbolism of the two separated actions.
2. The biblical-theological significance of the two elements and the two actions.
A further consideration emphasizes the significance of the two elements and the two actions, which is the place in redemptive history of the institution of the Lord’s supper. As redemptive history progresses, each subsequent covenant incorporates by substance and symbol God’s previous covenants. The covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Mosaic covenant incorporates the basic elements of the covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Abrahamic covenant, though differing in its mode. Abraham saw in his vision a smoking pot and a flaming torch passing between the shattered pieces of the divided animals. In this way God “cut a covenant” with Abraham (Gen. 15:18). God pledged to absorb into himself the curses of the covenant by symbolically “passing between the pieces.” This symbolic action found its fulfillment in the crucifixion of Christ. Moses at Sinai could hardly have required over three million people to “pass between the pieces” in a covenant-making ceremony.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Wednesday, March 6, 2024
When the ruling elder cares enough to get involved, he will keep the church aware of the real world and the desperate need it has for the good news about Jesus Christ. At the same time, he will exercise a restraint on tendencies to depart from the faith….It is hoped that the trend toward a smaller and smaller percentage of ruling elder participation at the General Assembly will be reversed. The well-being of the church depends on it.

He who rules, let him do it with diligence.Romans 12:8
The ruling elder gave birth to the Presbyterian Church in America. Not the preachers but the ruling elders. When the ministers were too cautious to take decisive action, the ruling elders took the lead. They formed the organizations and called the meetings that eventually led to the formation of the PCA.
Now the ruling elder must devote himself to diligence in maintaining this great church. If the PCA is to realize fully its unique opportunities in the needy world today, ruling elders must show their commitment and concern by consistent involvement at every level of the church’s life. Particularly at the General Assembly, the ruling elder must be present, and he must be heard. He who rules must do so with diligence. The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
When the ruling elder cares enough to get involved, he will keep the church aware of the real world and the desperate need it has for the good news about Jesus Christ. At the same time, he will exercise a restraint on tendencies to depart from the faith. This handbook is designed to encourage the ruling elder to stay involved in the Lord’s church. It is hoped that the trend toward a smaller and smaller percentage of ruling elder participation at the General Assembly will be reversed. The well-being of the church depends on it.
Take the following steps to get involved in the General Assembly of the church:
1. Begin by praying for your church.
Thank God for its commitment to the Scriptures, the great commission, and a mature Biblical faith. Ask the Lord to continue to bless it with peace, purity and zeal for serving Him by reaching out to the world.
2. Make a commitment to be personally involved as a ruling elder in the General Assembly.
Four times it is stated that the “apostles and elders” made the decisions of the first Assembly in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2,4,6,22). Elders must continue to exercise this responsibility. It will cost you time, money, even vacation. It will require a reshuffling of your priorities. But the cause is worth the commitment.
3. Talk about this matter in your Session.
Raise the subject. Commitment to be involved must be a joint decision.
4. Plan who should be your Session’s representative early in the year.
In a larger church, consider relieving this elder of other responsibilities so he can devote himself to the preparation necessary for this important task. Because ruling elder involvement in the General Assembly is serious business, give it your best.
5. Encourage your representative from Session to attend at least two years in succession.
To really become comfortable with the procedures of the Assembly, a person needs to go more than once. If your church is entitled to send more than one delegate, stagger your representatives so that at least one will have had the experience gained from attending the previous year.
6. Once you have been selected as a delegate, keep current with the registration procedures so you will be included in all the mailings.

7. Make yourself available to your presbytery to serve on a “Committee of Commissioners.”
These committees generally meet at the site of the Assembly during the weekend prior to the formal opening of the Assembly. They are critical in their importance, since they set the agenda and formulate the motions to be presented to the Assembly.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Thursday, February 8, 2024
What’s wrong with this perspective on human life? People everywhere in America agree that a bad attitude in life brings bad results. But the biblical perspective strikes deeper into the fallen nature of humanity. Bad attitude embodies sin – sin against God the Creator, and Christ the Redeemer. The movie also communicates the idea that doing good things with a good attitude will bring good results. But no example by a fallen human being has the power to transform even one person to have a purified heart. Nothing short of the miraculous, creative work of God’s Holy Spirit has the capacity to change the nature of a single soul. 

A marathon. All day long, every two and a half hours. The same old movie about Groundhog Day, which is celebrated in the USA every February 2. If the groundhog comes out of his hole and sees his shadow, this greatest of all prognosticators will have predicted six more weeks of winter.
If a major television network can run the same movie for over 12 hours straight, the message of this movie must capture the heartbeat of a major portion the American people. But what is the message? What is it in this movie that defines a heartbeat of American culture today?
The formula is very simple. Have a negative attitude toward all of life, and everything will go bad for you. Change your attitude and your actions to a positive perspective on all of life, and you will be a person filled with happiness and joy. You will live “happily ever after.”
A simple formula. Everyone can understand it immediately. Change your attitude and your accompanying actions, and you can have a happy, happy life.
So how does the formula play out? Despise your work, despise people, despise even God’s little creatures like a groundhog, and you will be miserable. Bill Murray, the lead actor, has been cast perfectly for this role. While looking miserable, he ignores a poor old street beggar. He scorns an old high school friend. He rudely turns down a nice lady’s offer of the best coffee she can produce. He mocks a small-town community’s joyful celebration.
But these bad attitudes foster grosser actions. He deceives an unsuspecting young woman by lying about their previous fictitious high school years together. He lures her into sexual immorality. He schemes and commits a bank robbery. He steals an automobile and leads small town police through a life-threatening high-speed chase.
In terms of openly and convincingly demonstrating that “out of the heart proceed the issues of life,” the movie does an excellent job. Bad attitude invariably leads to immoral conduct. Unintentionally the truth comes out. A bad heart leads to a miserable life. It even gets so bad that the main character makes many efforts to take his own life. He drives an automobile over a cliff, with the car landing upside down and bursting into a consuming ball of fire. He steps directly into the path of a moving truck. He leaps from the top of the highest building in town. He electrocutes himself in the bathtub. But he cannot succeed in destroying his life. Every morning he wakes up again on February 2nd.
Inadvertently the truth comes out once more, though in distorted form. Question 19 from the child’s catechism simply but profoundly asks: “Do you have a soul as well as a body?” Answer: “Yes, I have a soul that can never die.” You cannot kill your soul, no matter how hard you try.
The second half of the movie tells a different tale. What is this tale?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Tuesday, January 2, 2024
Many people find that first thing in the morning is their best time for reading God’s Word.  But that doesn’t work for everyone, or for every season of life.  The more important thing is not when you read but that you read.  Use lunchtime, break time or bedtime depending on what works best for you.  In any case, develop a consistent habit of reading God’s holy, inspired, infallible and inerrant Word, so that it becomes part of the rhythm of your life, for the rest of your life.

5 Days per week Bible Reading Program
Blessed is the man whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. Psalm 1:2
Most Christians would agree that it would be a great blessing and very desirable to read the whole Bible through every year. But saying is easier than doing. How many of us have begun on January 1 full of good intentions, and by January 18 we have given up? There are many reasons why we fail, but we should not forget that we are all involved in high stakes spiritual warfare.  Satan does not want believers to regularly be listening to, and being transformed by, the living word of the living God.  The Bible reading plan that follows is offered to you as an encouragement not to give up, but to try again.

5 days per week

Unlike many Bible-in-a-year reading plans, this one schedules only five days per week rather than seven. So, although each day’s readings are a little longer, it provides a way of catching up for those who fall behind in their readings.  Or if you get ahead, you can take time out for a deeper study of some part of scripture without getting behind.

A Redemptive-historical approach.

Instead of reading the Old Testament from beginning to end in the order in which the books appear in our Bibles, these readings are arranged in such a way that the reader can follow the unfolding story of God’s redemption of his people.

Chronological order

The readings are arranged as much as possible in chronological order. For example, parallel readings in Kings and Chronicles are read alongside one another. The prophets are slotted into the reading of the historical books according to the time in history when the prophet was ministering (as far as we can determine). Some of the chapters in Jeremiah and Daniel are read out of biblical order so that they follow a more chronological order.

One Gospel each quarter

Instead of reading all four gospels one after the other, each quarter includes one of the gospels, in the order they were most likely written: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

New Testament phases of revelation

The New Testament readings are arranged in the following order:
Quarter 1: Mark and early apostolic witnesses: Acts 1-12, James, Hebrews, 1 Peter, Acts 13-28. These books record the actions and writings of the apostles as the early church was first being established, initially with Jewish converts and then increasingly with believers from all the other nations.  In coordination with Acts 1-12, James appears to have been written early in the life of the church, while Hebrews seems to have been written while the temple in Jerusalem was still standing (i.e. before AD 70 when the temple was destroyed).  According to tradition, 1 Peter was written from Rome before his martyrdom in the AD 60s.  Acts 13-28 provides the background for Paul’s early letters.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Thursday, December 14, 2023
Heaven-sent messengers appear to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist; to Mary the mother of Jesus, followed by an appearance to her husband, Joseph; and upon Jesus’ birth an innumerable company of angels to shepherds in Bethlehem’s fields (Luke 1:11–20, 26–38; Matt. 1:20–21; Luke 2:8–14). A special star in the heavens guides the magi to the Messiah, while the Holy Spirit provides special revelation to aged Simeon and Anna (Matt. 2:1–2, 9; Luke 2:25–27, 36–38). These extraordinary phenomena suit well the whole realm of supernatural activity that characterized God’s redemptive revelation from the time of the patriarchs. 

The first thing that strikes the reader of the initial announcements regarding the coming of the Christ is their supernatural character, both in the means by which the message is delivered and in the content of the message itself. These initial annunciations come not by a prophet of the Lord, but by a messenger sent directly from heaven itself. Heaven-sent messengers appear to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist; to Mary the mother of Jesus, followed by an appearance to her husband, Joseph; and upon Jesus’ birth an innumerable company of angels to shepherds in Bethlehem’s fields (Luke 1:11–20, 26–38; Matt. 1:20–21; Luke 2:8–14). A special star in the heavens guides the magi to the Messiah, while the Holy Spirit provides special revelation to aged Simeon and Anna (Matt. 2:1–2, 9; Luke 2:25–27, 36–38). These extraordinary phenomena suit well the whole realm of supernatural activity that characterized God’s redemptive revelation from the time of the patriarchs. They manifest their significance even more dramatically against the stark backdrop of the four hundred years separating the age of the old covenant from the new. Yet a clear point of continuity is established by the fact that the heavenly messenger who first breaks the revelational silence by communicating with Zechariah the father of John the Baptist is none other than Gabriel, the same heavenly messenger who revealed mysteries to Daniel at the end of the old covenant era (Luke 1:19, 26; Dan. 8:16; 9:21). In addition, these supernatural announcements focus on significant supernatural events soon to take place. Elizabeth, well past the age of bearing children, will have a son (Luke 1:13). Her experience follows the pattern of divine interventions related to the bearing of a godly seed by barren women of the old covenant era (Gen. 11:30; 16:1; 18:11; 25:21; 29:31; Judg. 13:2). But even more significantly, Mary the virgin will conceive a son by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26–35). This special One to be born, unique in the history of humanity, is described by the messenger from heaven as “great” and “the Son of the Most High” (v. 32a). God will give him the “throne of his father David,” and he will “reign over the house of Jacob forever” (vv. 32b–33). By this announcement, he is clearly identified as the person destined to fulfill all the promises concerning a coming Messiah descended from David who will rule over the Israel of God.1 His supernatural birth from the virgin dramatically underscores his unique role as the only Son of God who is equal to the Father.
A Supernatural Sign
In recent days, even evangelical scholars have shown a willingness to concede that Isaiah’s prophecy spoke only of conception by a “young woman,” not a virgin. But a proper understanding of Isaiah’s prophecy hinges not only on the precise meaning of the word for “virgin” or “young woman,” but on the context as a whole. The intent of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition according to the prophet Isaiah is not simply to establish military superiority over the kingdom of Judah, but to terminate the Davidic line of royal succession that by now has continued for over 250 years (Isa. 7:6). When Isaiah offers doubting King Ahaz a sign of confirmation, he proposes the outer limits of the miraculous: “in the deepest depths or in the highest heights” (v. 11). The prophetic response to the king’s niggardly refusal must somehow come up to the prophet’s own proposed standards. What is God willing to do that will ensure the unbrokenness of his oath to David?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
As the apostolic age is coming to its close, Paul makes provision for the ongoing governance of the church by the continuing offices of “elder” and “deacon,” but not “apostle” (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9). No longer will the church’s governance be invested in apostolic eyewitnesses of the resurrection who have been specifically called and commissioned by Christ as foundational witnesses for the life of the church. In his later letters to pastors Timothy and Titus, Paul lays out the role of elder and deacon for the ongoing church of the Lord Jesus Christ. He makes no mention whatsoever of an ongoing apostolic office. Neither does he use the term “deacon” when referring to the role of women in the church.

Communities differ in their use of titles. People would not think of applying the title “king” to anyone but the monarch himself in countries where a king reigns, for there can be only one “king.” In other cultures with a more democratic order, the term “president” can be used quite loosely. Only one person may be “the president.” But many people may be addressed with the title “president:” the president of a university, the president of a ladies’ luncheon club, the president of a young boys’ organization. Under certain circumstances titles have restricted use. At other times, titles may be used quite broadly.
Current discussion in the evangelical community buzzes about titles, especially the use of church officer titles for women. Should a woman be called a “minister?” A “pastor?” An “elder?” A “deacon?” In some ecclesiastical circles these questions have little significance. But in other church communities more strongly committed to the Bible as God’s infallible Word, the question of church titles for women can be vigorously debated.
During a recent church meeting, one argument seemed quite persuasive for allowing women to be called deacons, if not pastors and elders. The person framed his statement something like this: 
Paul the apostle, refers to Phoebe the “deacon” (Rom. 16:1). Would Paul be welcome today in a church community if he insisted on addressing women with the title “deacon?” Or would the apostle be told that he must not address women as “deacons” anymore? 
In this case, the issue is not whether a woman should hold the ordained office of deacon. Instead, it’s simply a matter of addressing a woman with the title “deacon,” meaning “servant,” which is nothing more than what Paul does in the case of Phoebe. 
Further analysis of Paul’s example may establish more than a person intends. For only a few verses later in this same chapter of Romans, Paul applies an even higher title to a woman—a very exalted title indeed. Paul warmly greets Andronicus and his wife Junias, for they are “well known among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7). 
Now what are you going to do? If Paul models the use of titles for the church, should you not address faithful, godly women as “apostles” as well as “deacons?”
Paul’s phrase could mean “well known to the apostles.” But the more likely understanding is that Paul actually addresses the woman Junias as an apostle.  John Calvin reaches that conclusion. Junias is “well known among the apostles.”  Then in his discussion, Calvin notes that Paul “does not, however, use this word in its proper and generally accepted sense…” For Paul “restricts the word elsewhere to the principal order which Christ established at the beginning when He chose the twelve disciples” (John Calvin’s commentary on Romans 16:7).
So shall we feel free to apply the title “apostle” to ourselves as well as to women in this lesser sense? Has anyone ever addressed you as “apostle?” I recently received an email that addressed me as “apostle!” 
Why do we restrain from applying this title to ourselves, since Scripture itself gives the title of “apostle” to people other than the original twelve? Barnabas, Andronicus, and his wife Junias are all called apostles (Acts 14:14, Romans 16:7). Why not address women today by the title “apostle” or “deacon?” If Paul does it, why do we not feel free to do the same? 
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Monday, November 6, 2023
In view of the far-reaching consequences of the origin of Eve “out of” the body of Adam, would it be appropriate to conclude that Paul, writing words verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, was following some form of a mythological concept in his report that Eve was made “out of” Adam? Was Paul wrong in his report of Eve’s origin, and consequently did he err by appealing to an improper basis for the headship of the man in relation to the woman? Let us trust that what was reported in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New Testament is truth. Let us bring our thinking and our lives into conformity with the truth as it is found in Scripture.

There is a thinking abroad among some evangelical Christians that questions the historical reality of the biblical record concerning the origin of Adam and Eve. This questioning about the origin of the human race has broad implications.
The biblical record of the origin of Adam is quite straightforward. “The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Gen. 2:7). The first man had his origin from the dust of the ground. The point at which the man became a living creature, he was man in all his glory as man, made in the image of God.
But what about Eve? Where did she come from? Adam must have had a startling awakening after his deep sleep. Where did this lovely companion originate?
One view of her origin might suggest that Adam could have sensed that he had a vague recollection of her. For according to this view, Eve had already existed among the female hominids associating with Adam while he was a male hominid. God had selected him from the multiple hominids that had evolved from more primitive forms of living beings. Then God favored him so that he became the first hominid to have a “soul.” In this new status, he became the first “Man” that was then appropriately called “Adam.”
But God noted that it was not good for the Man to be alone. So he brought all the other living creatures for Adam to categorize by giving them appropriate designations. Presumably in this view, Adam must have titled the creatures who were just like him in their bodily form but without souls with a word equivalent to our current “hominid.” But none of these other creatures living on the earth at that time were suitable as a mate for Adam.
What did God do to solve this problem? From this particular viewpoint, it may be supposed God chose one of the female hominids that had evolved from lower forms of animal life and favored her with a soul so that she became the first “woman.” Adam later named her “Eve,” for she became the mother of all the living (Gen. 3:20).
This view represents a current effort to blend the Bible with modern science to make the origin of Adam and Eve more believable. Instead of treating the biblical report as an authentic historical record of how Eve actually originated, this view attempts to accommodate the biblical testimony to what may appear to be a more plausible view of Eve’s origin.
But what does the Bible say about the origin of Eve, and why should its report be believed? When speaking of the Bible’s testimony about any subject, the witness of both the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures must be considered. Not only the report in Scripture of what actually happened, but the testimony of the significance of that reported event must be brought under consideration. From this perspective, consider the testimony of the origin of Eve as it appears in both the Old and New Testaments. Review the testimony of three major figures in Scripture: Moses, Jesus and Paul. Jesus the Christ is of course absolutely unique as the Son of God and our one and only Savior. But both Moses and Paul stand high among the servants of the Lord in the Old Testament and the New.
I. Moses
Under the direct inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit, Moses wrote two reports of Creation. In Genesis 1, he provided the larger picture of God’s creation of the entire universe in which humanity resides. This great creative work that embraced the starry heavens and the seashore’s sands climaxed with the special counsel of the triune Godhead: “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:26, 27).
In Genesis 2, Moses records the creation of man in greater detail. Already it has been noted that Scripture records a special act in the creation of the first man. Formed from dust, God breathed into his nostrils, and the well-shaped inanimate being first came to life.
But what about Eve? Where did she come from?
The Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and took one of his ribs. “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:22).
How does the man respond to the presentation of this utterly amazing being?
“This is now bone of my bones
  and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘Woman,’
  for she was taken out of ‘Man’”
A bone from the inmost recesses of the man’s body. Almost certainly a bone with sinews and flesh attached, for Adam declares that this is not only “bone of my bones,” but also “flesh of my flesh.” Not a bleached-white skeletal bone, but a bone with living flesh remaining. From that flesh-covered bone the LORD God “built” a woman, and brought her to the man (Gen. 2:22). God “built” the woman—that’s the actual word. Just as a person might “build” a house after much thought and with great care, so the LORD God carefully framed every aspect of the woman.
How does Moses explain the significance of this origin of Eve?
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
  and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
The union of a man and a woman is a “great mystery,” one that can hardly be fathomed because of its depth. Body and soul, flesh and spirit become one in a union that exceeds human imagination. Once wed in the intimacies of marriage, they continue by God’s creative design as one. Even when separated across oceans and continents, they still are one.
Why? Because of the origin of Eve. She was not taken from the dust as Adam, though she too is made of dust. She came “out of” the man, from his bone and from his flesh.
That is the testimony of Moses.
II. Jesus
Jesus Christ is your Lord, the Son of God, the Savior of sinners. He is the Word who made all things. By him and for him all things exist. Jesus obviously knows the origin of Adam and Eve. He knows where they came from.
Does Jesus say anything about the origin of Eve?
Jesus responds to a query that seeks to find a way to justify the dissolution of the union of a man and a woman who have married. “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any reason?” (Matt. 19:3; Mark 10:2). To answer the question, Jesus points to Scripture. As the Son of God, he could have made his own pronouncement on the subject. But instead, he lets the written word of God speak. Always it’s the Bible that provides the final answer to the hard questions. “Have you not read,” he says. Have you not read the very first two chapters of the Bible?
Read More
Related Posts: