The Battle Cry of America — Awake and Arise!
Before there is a battle cry there must be a heart cry. Before we fight, we must repent. Sadly, many Christians are angry but still arrogant, wound-up but not worshippers, haughty but not holy. What’s it going to take to finally break us? More perversion? More violence? More depravity? Wake up church!
A battle cry is used to summon armies to war. A loud, unified shout could intimidate the strongest of enemies. Confidence in battle often tilts the scale toward victory, whereas timidity, fear, and cowardliness will surely lead to defeat.
In these dreadful times, don’t be shamed into silence. Follow Isaiah’s lead and raise your voice like a trumpet — awake and arise! (58:1; 60:1).
Can We Handle the Truth?
America today is a lot like Israel in Isaiah’s time. He painted a very vivid picture of Israel’s depravity: “You sons of the sorceress, you offspring of the adulterer and the harlot!” (57:3).
The love of the occult, magic, and divination has never been greater, nor has sexual perversion. The stench has surely reached the nostrils of God.
Isaiah lamented that they inflamed themselves “with gods under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks” (57:5).
They slaughtered their children on the altar of pleasure. Sound familiar? Did you know that rape or the loss of life of the mother is not the driving force behind abortion? The main driving force is failure to take responsibility for sexual sin.
Blatant Sin Demands a Strong Rebuke
Many today would no doubt chide Isaiah for his apparent lack of grace and love. But God showed tremendous grace, mercy, and love while dealing with Israel. Even today, He is patient and long-suffering with us.
Although many of the prophetic books are not always in chronological order, we find in Isaiah 55 that everyone who thirsts could come to the waters and drink freely, and that those who seek the Lord will find Him. What an incredible promise!
In Isaiah 56, we are encouraged to seek righteousness. He then switches gears and talks about blind watchmen who cannot bark and warn the people. God loved His people so much that he would send prophetic voices to warn them. Are you listening today?
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Cretans Are Always Liars: The Necessity of Divine Oaths in Church Courts
Wherever men acknowledge the Biblical teaching about human depravity; wherever men acknowledge the unique bearing of God’s name on the human conscience; wherever men trust in God’s promise to make truth prevail when His name is invoked, oaths will be required of all witnesses in church courts.
In 2023, the PCA General Assembly considered an overture that would allow those who deny the existence of God and/or a future state of reward and punishment to testify in her courts. This would render it unnecessary for witnesses to swear, or explicitly affirm before God that they will tell the truth. The rationale for amending the Book of Church Order conditions (BCO 35-1, 35-8) for a “competent witness” was straightforward. Would not the Lord and Savior of the Church, whose name is Truth (Jn. 14:6), allow as many true witnesses to testify in His courts as possible? The victim of abuse by a church member would typically be among the most important witnesses to that crime. Yet, the victim may be an atheist. Ultimately, the overture was defeated by a slim margin. That the vote was unsettling to a large portion of the assembly was clear from the many signatories of the minority report in favor of the overture. Some have suggested that a theological test for witness competency is but a manmade tradition, the likes of which Jesus, not to mention the apostles and prophets, condemned (Matt. 15:1-14; Mk. 7:1-13; cf., Isa. 29:13; Col. 2:21-23). If the Lord Jesus would have His church admit atheist testimony, then not only must the BCO undergo amendment, but the Presbyterian Church in America must also repent for an injustice it has allowed to exist for decades.
Sharing my brethren’s longing for truth to prevail in PCA courts, it will come as a surprise to many that I am compelled to oppose recent efforts to remove the oath requirement. The Scriptures are unambiguous that Jesus Christ, the Head of the body has ordained oaths for the preservation of the truth, and for the protection of all parties in a world smitten by depravity and dishonesty. In short, oaths are a divine ordinance, whereby a competent witness (a) acknowledges God as the lone sufficient Reason to tell the truth; and (b) the lone sufficient Helper who can make the truth prevail. Invocation of the Almighty brings a weight of burden to the human conscience altogether different from manmade ethical codes. The same invocation reflects the humble awareness, without which no witness can be competent, that even the most principled people need divine help to overcome the human proclivity to falsehood and error. Most importantly, oaths (even false ones) effectively seize upon the Living God’s providence to vindicate the truth, in a manner that the strongest human resolve cannot. Unfortunately, too many arguments for (and against) atheist testimony betray a lack of regard for the divine function of oaths, not to mention the depths of human depravity which necessitate them.
Human Depravity and Truth Telling
An underlying assumption in most of the GA discussion concerning oaths seems to have been that humanity is divisible into two groups—those who are competent, in themselves, to testify in a court, and those who are not. Does it occur to proponents (and opponents) of the overtured change that the situation is rather more dire? The Scriptures teach us that Epimenides’ evaluation of his countrymen is no less true of humanity: “Cretans are always liars” (Tit. 1:12; cf., Rom. 3:4, 13; Ps. 116:11). On its surface, Epimenides’ statement is something of a paradox. It might seem that it cannot be true, since the poet was himself a Cretan whose own speech, if the statement were true, must always be false! Yet, speaking via the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit adds His infallible witness that Epimenides’ “testimony is true” (Tit. 1:13). The Holy Spirit is neither affirming a flat contradiction, nor encouraging muddled thinking (1 Cor. 14:23). “Always” might be hyperbole, in which case Epimenides’ statement may be true despite the prevalence of Cretan dishonesty. More attractive is the solution that recognizes a subtle but important distinction. Epimenides does not declare that Cretans’ every statement is a lie, but that Cretans are, at all times, liars. It is very much in keeping with the theology of Paul (and the rest of Scripture) to declare that men who make innumerable true statements are always lying in other respects: suppressing their knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18; Jn. 1:9-10); underestimating their sin (Rom. 2:1-8; Lk. 18:11); overestimating their gifts and abilities (Rom. 12:3, 16; 2 Cor. 10:12); deceiving themselves about the extent of their virtues (Gal. 6:3); twisting the Scriptures for selfish gain (2 Pet. 3:14; Matt. 15:5-6); overlooking the most significant details of an enemies’ good character to justify hostility toward him (Jn. 7:24; 12:37-40); indeed, transgressing the Ninth Commandment in all the ways listed in Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 145. Common grace prevents fallen men from lying every time they speak, even though they are always liars. It is exactly because sinners recognize, utilize, and publish true information in medicine, physical sciences, mathematics, ethics, business dealings, etc., that they are culpable for their unrelenting dishonesty about the most important (Christian theistic) implications of every fact.
It is true that personal interests are often sufficient to prevent fallen people from making false statements, especially when they might conflict with well-established truths or admit for simple investigation. Lies of this sort can easily be exposed and met with social or legal repercussions (Matt. 21:25-27; Mk. 11:31-33; Lk. 20:5-8; Rom. 13:1-4; 2 Pet. 2:13-14). Thus, the courts of the Presbyterian Church in America have always accepted police reports, receipts for monetary transactions, public records, etc. as admissible evidence, regardless of whether the person who initially recorded them professes belief in God. Again, the public nature of the information combined with the penalties that accompany inaccurate recording are appropriately counted as a sufficient guarantee of their veracity, until and unless one can cite reasons to doubt them. The situation is quite different when it comes to witness testimony. Witnesses are brought forward in courts to testify (a) about disputed matters, (b) of considerable consequence, (c) to which the public lacks direct means of investigation. From the outset, the veracity of a witness’s testimony is challenged by the accused, if not others as well (1 Kings 3:16-22; Jer. 26:16-18; Acts 24:13). At least one party must be badly mistaken at best or lying at worst. The Scriptures warn us about false accusers and “malicious witnesses” (Ps. 35:11; cf. Gen. 39:13-23; Ex. 23:1; Esth. 3:8; Ps. 27:12; Prov. 19:5; Acts 6:11), of whom Satan is the chief (Job 1:11; Rev. 12:10). Other scoundrels are not their only targets, but often men of considerable integrity (Joseph, David, Job, Stephen, etc.), not to mention the God-man, Jesus Christ (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59) along with His Father and Spirit (Gen. 3:4-5). The Mosaic requirement that false witnesses shall incur the punishment they sought for the accused functioned as a weighty deterrent against that crime (Deut. 19:18-19; cf., 1 Tim. 1:9-11). Lesser penalties for perjury in civil courts still exist today. Noticeably, church courts lack the same deterrent, particularly in the case of non-member and atheist witnesses. To them, PCA courts cannot apply any penalties; nor may atheists experience any social repercussions for dishonesty. Of even greater significance is the fact that not even civil courts regard their penalties to be a sufficient safeguard against false testimony. Instead, the requirement of a divine oath in civil courts reflects the bearing of natural law, imposed on the human conscience by God, and heeded by nearly all cultures.[1]
The very same personal interests that prevent lying in cases where one is likely to be caught may be the source of dishonesty in matters difficult to investigate, or in which one simply has much to gain from deceit (Lk. 16:3-8). These include false suspicion about enemies, which the wayward heart treats as fact (1 Sam. 18:9; 22:8); reports and recollections of events lacking other witness (1 Kings 3:6-22; Jn. 21:23); personal, unrecorded business dealings (Amos 8:5-6; Jas. 5:4); welcome lies, that are sure to go uninvestigated by the relevant communities and courts with whom they are registered (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59); etc. Somewhere between willful deception and error is the human tendency to remember only those truths that we find useful, disregarding inconvenient details. Apart from any conscious effort, fallen men often discern the interests of a community with lightning speed, and proceed to share only the information that the community welcomes (1 Sam. 22:9-10; 2 Tim. 4:3). For example, atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell incorrectly recalls Titus 1:12-13 as a clear instance of Biblical “contradiction.”[2] He cites the passage as if Epimenides reported that Cretans only speak lies when, as we have seen, the poet wrote that they are always lying. If one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 20th century can misrepresent the facts, exactly what is the profile of a competent witness?
Given the inadequacy of self-interests to ensure that men will tell the truth; given that the human “heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9); given that “all [mere] men are liars” (Ps. 116:11), and always lying (Tit. 1:12), it is misguided to ask the question, “how can church courts refuse atheist testimony, which may very well be true?” The quandary is just how any court, civil or ecclesiastical, can rely on human witnesses at all when it comes to matters that are sharply disputed from the outset. If men like Epimenides are the most credible when they testify to their dishonesty (Tit. 1:13); if men are the most deceived when they insist on their own intelligence and integrity (Prov. 3:7; 14:12; 16:21, 25), how can anyone be judged a competent witness to the difficult and disputed matters before courts? To this problem, faced by men in every corner of a fallen world, the Living God ordained oaths and vows as a genuine remedy.
Westminster Confession 22, “On Lawful Oaths and Vows”
In the course of a Lord’s Day sermon, I asked my congregation who would mention “Lawful Oaths and Vows” as one of the major headings under which to summarize the Christian Faith? Not one parishioner raised his hand. I suspect it also strikes many church officers as odd that the Westminster Divines devoted so much attention to that topic.[3] Yet, the Westminster Divines’ careful discussion of the ordinance (WCF 22, WLC 111-114, and WSC 53-56) was equitable to the teaching of Scripture. God ordained personal vows and public oaths as a powerful means to confirm a matter, even safeguarding against human deceit and error. Oaths may be “promissory,” attesting to one’s determination to perform some future action(s), or “assertory,” attesting to one’s resolution to tell the truth about past events (2 Chron. 18:13 Matt. 26:63).[4] Reserved for matters of great consequence (Jer. 4:2), vows or oaths belong to marriage covenants (Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17); binding agreements between individuals (Ex. 22:11; 1 Sam. 18:3; 23:16-18; 2 Sam. 2:12-25), families (Gen. 21:22-34; 26:26-33; 1 Sam. 20:2-17), and nations (Gen. 14:13; 1 Kings 5:12; 15:19; 20:34; 2 Chron. 16:3); covenants between a populace, or a military with its leaders (2 Sam. 5:3; 11:17; 2 Kings 11:4; 1 Chron. 11:3; 2 Chron. 23:1, 3, 16; Jer. 34:8-11); and even covenants between God and men (Gen. 22:16-18; Ex. 24:3; Isa. 45:23; Heb. 6:13-14). The courtroom, civil and ecclesiastical, is a distinct setting where assertory oaths are justly required (Lev. 5:1; Prov. 29:24; 1 Kings 22:16; 2 Chron. 6:22-23; 18:13, 15), Jesus Himself bearing testimony only after He was adjured (Matt. 26:63[5]).
An oath is a safeguard because of its two indispensable, mutually supportive functions. First, an oath calls on God as the lone sufficient power by whom the truth can be made to prevail in one’s testimony, and in the judgment of the court. Second, an oath acknowledges God as the lone sufficient reason why the truth must be told.
WCF 22:1—A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth on God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Power
The first function of an oath, according to Westminster Confession 22:1, flies in the face of the naturalistic materialism to which our age is prone. Although men can tell the truth, they are also accustomed to the opposite. Therefore, to confirm that they will tell the truth, God allows men to invoke His name, calling Him to bear providential witness by directing their testimony to its proper end. In other words, the oath-taker is not merely calling on the Divine Judge to take notice of his testimony. If that were the meaning of, “solemnly calleth on God to witness,” the statement would be superfluous. For, God’s awareness of our oaths is sufficiently presupposed in the clause that follows, where God is invited to “to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.” Instead, the earlier clause indicates that oaths call God to active witness, ensuring that the oath-taker’s words will be accurate, and that his avowed actions will come to fruition. This reading is confirmed beyond all doubt by a consultation of those divines whose writings inspired; whose efforts produced; and whose subsequent writings interpreted WCF 22. They uniformly testify that oaths have two functions, one of which is to “beg his [God’s] help” in confirming the truth of our witness.[6] This concept is even retained in contemporary civil courts, where many witnesses still affirm their intent to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
The proof texts cited in the original (and PCA) Westminster Confession also testify to the active divine witness upon which oaths call. Solomon prays that God will respond to oaths sworn before the bronze altar, at the gate of the temple where trials would occur (cf., Jer. 26:2, 16-19). Specifically, he asks God to cause the honest oath-taker to prevail, and the perjurer to fail within the course of the court’s proceedings (2 Chron. 6:22-23). A typical Old Testament oath formula began, “As the Lord lives” (Isa. 5:2; cf., Ruth. 3:13; Judg. 8:19; 1 Sam. 14:39, 45; 19:6; 20:21; 1 Kings 2:24; 22:14; 2 Kings 2:4; Jer. 4:2; 12:16; 44:26). The one who swore it was calling on the LORD whose life is certain, to make the fulfillment of his oath certain as well (Num. 14:21, 28; Deut. 32:40; Isa. 49:18; Jer. 22:24; 46:18; Ezek. 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 16:48; 17:16; 18:3; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:11, 27; 34:8; 35:6, 11; Zeph. 2:9; Rom. 14:11). When God’s people rebelled against Him, they ceased to swear in His name. They lost confidence that their neglected LORD would actively confirm their oaths (Jer. 44:26-27). Again, when Paul calls on “God as [his] witness” (2 Cor. 1:23; cf., Rom. 1:9; 9:1; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; cf., Jer. 42:5), he is not simply asking God to take note of his words with a view to judging them. Paul pleads for God to authenticate his stated desire to edify the suspicious congregations to whom he wrote, by imparting to credulity to his claims.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Reason
If they were only pleas for divine assistance, it would be beneficial to attach oaths to all our commitments, as expressions of the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer—“…deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13; cf., WLC 195). While the Scriptures require that we “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17; cf., Eph. 6:18), we are never instructed to “oath without ceasing.” Quite the opposite. Christ is clear that with respect to mundane matters men should “make no oath at all” (Matt. 5:34; cf., Jas. 5:12; Prov. 20:25; Eccl. 5:5). This points us to the second function of oaths. They are always self-maledictory, invoking God as a “a Revenger” if we should break them.[7] This follows from the third commandment: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7; Deut. 5:11; cf., Ex. 31:13-16; Lev. 26:2; Deut. 28:58; Zech. 5:3-4).
The Westminster Catechisms call our attention to the “reason” annexed to the Third Commandment (WSC, 56; cf., WLC, 114). God Himself, in His capacity as judge, is the lone sufficient Reason why an oath-taker must devote the most focused efforts to bear honest witness (Deut. 23:21, 23; cf., Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Job 22:27; Eccl. 5:4). Whereas cunning liars may manage to “escape punishment from men, yet the LORD our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment” (WSC, 56). Some oaths are accompanied by specific curses (Num. 5:19-31; Ruth. 1:17; 1 Sam. 20:13-14; 25:22; 2 Sam. 3:9; 1 Kings 2:24; 2 Kings 6:31; Ezek. 16:59; Zech. 5:4). All oaths presuppose God’s threat of punishment, as an omnipotent and omniscient Judge. The Bible supplies ample and frightening testimony to God’s faithfulness in punishing broken oaths (2 Kings 5:17-27; Jer. 34:8-22), even centuries after they were first sworn (Josh. 6:26-27 with 1 Kings 16:34; Josh. 9:26-27 with 2 Sam. 21:1). Alternatively, God promises to bless oath-keepers, especially with deeper fellowship with Himself (Lev. 26:11-12; Ps. 63:11; Isa. 19:18; 45:23; 65:16). In the Old Covenant, the appropriate response to divine deliverance was to vow a sacrificial feast in God’s presence. The votive offering served as a public witness to God’s faithfulness (Lev. 7:16; 22:18-23; Deut. 12:6-7; 50:14; 61:5; 65:1; 116:14, 18; cf., Job 22:27). In the New Covenant, the Lord’s Supper is a taste of that celebratory meal Christ vowed to enjoy after being vindicated by His Father and Spirit in the resurrection (Ps. 22:25; Lk. 22:18).
Oaths Are the Seal of Witness Competency
As the BCO (35-1) makes clear, witness competency is not ultimately defined by a person’s ability to tell the truth. The standard parties deemed incompetent—young children, the mentally ill, the intoxicated—frequently tell the truth. Nor is abnormal intelligence sufficient. A competent witness must also manifest good character,[8] at the heart of which is the humility to recognize that he needs divine help to accurately report the truth concerning disputed matters. Hence, a competent witness must understand the seriousness of the court’s proceedings, and the ramifications for himself and others if he should (a) intentionally, or (b) unintentionally misrepresent the truth. Acknowledgment of God as Judge is the lone sufficient reason why witnesses should not lie intentionally; and reliance on God as Helper is the only ground of hope that a witnesses will not bear false report inadvertently. Hence, the atheist who cannot swear the assertory oath required in BCO 35-8 is necessarily excluded from a court’s proceedings as an incompetent witness.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Tale of Two Fig Trees
When it comes to the comings of Christ, the parables shed much light on why the Son of God came. Contrary to the prevailing evangelical notion, Jesus came for more than to simply save sinners. He came to a specific people, at a specific time, in a specific context, for a specific and dual-functioning purpose. That purpose was to bring judgment upon His enemies and salvation to His people, which can be demonstrated throughout the parables of Christ.
For instance, when Christ comes, He will identify two groups of people in His incarnation. One that will be prepared for judgment. And the other who will be prepared for His blessings. These two themes show up in the vast majority of parables and give us insight into Jesus’ conception of His incarnation.
For instance, in one parable you have the righteous man building his house upon the rock, while the wicked builds in hubris upon the sand (Luke 6:46-49). In that story, the righteous man survives the near-term calamity and experiences ongoing blessings while the wicked man undergoes sudden destruction when the storm appeared.
Truth from parables like these can be applied in spiritual and universal ways since all who build their life on Jesus Christ will be ultimately and eternally spared, whereas building on anything else will warrant eternal calamities forever. But, spiritualized interpretations often miss the poignant reality this would have conveyed to the original audience. Jesus is warning that a first-century storm is coming and only those who were with Him would survive it, which gained terrifying clarity in the events of AD 70.
This kind of dualism between the imminent doom of the wicked and the near blessing of the righteous is too overt to ignore. For instance, the sheep will be brought into blessing, whereas the goats will be set apart for destruction (Matthew 25:31-36). The wheat is to be stored in Christ’s heavenly barns while the tares will be thrown into the flames (Matthew 13:24-30). The branches that bear fruit will be pruned for greater fruitfulness, and all those who are fruitless will be burned for their worthlessness (John 15:1-11). The king will bring new guests into the joy of His wedding while sending his armies to destroy the ones who were found unworthy (Matthew 22:1-14). On and on we may go.
Clarifying Parabolic Time
Some of these parables helpfully add a clarifying element of time, which let us know more will be going on in the first century than a hyper-spiritual application can account for. In the spiritual application, the parables were written for me, my benefit, and concern the things going on in my world. Jesus’ parables, however, clearly address events that apply to His contemporaries and things that will be happening in their world even while we still find comfort and application in them as well.
For instance, Christ the master will go on a long journey. When He returns, He will bless the slave who is found doing what He commanded (Luke 12:35-44). But, to the one who is lazy, wicked, and evil, He will bring violence, death, and destruction (Luke 12:45-48). This happened in AD 70.
The temptation today is to read a multiple thousand-year gap into texts like these, supposing that its contents apply to us or some future generation. Beyond breaking the most basic rules of Biblical hermeneutics, this is not how the story world of a parable works. In the parable, a human master goes on a human journey that seemed especially long to his human servants. When he returned, those same servants were still alive. Some were rewarded for their faithfulness while their master was away. The others were punished and even killed for their wickedness.
Had the master in the story left on a two-thousand-year journey, both he and his slaves would have to be near immortal to survive until he returned, which cannot be Jesus’ point. But, if Jesus was preparing His disciples for the forty-year gap that existed between His ascension and judgment coming on Jerusalem in AD 70, the parable would make great sense. Jesus’ return would bring blessing to the ones who were committed to following Him. But, death and destruction for those who remained in their rebellion, such as the Jews.
One triad of parables makes this blessing / judgment coming of Christ undeniably clear. In Matthew 21-22, Jesus tells three successive parables, one right after the other, where one group will gain tremendous blessings and the other awful judgments. In the first, Jesus interprets the parable of the two sons, telling the Pharisees that the prostitutes and tax collectors will get into heaven ahead of them (Matthew 21:28-32). In the second, He interprets the parable of the landowner, warning the Jews that God’s kingdom will be taken away from them at His coming, and given to a people who will produce His fruit (Matthew 21:33-46). And in the third, Jesus reveals that the Jews were found unworthy to participate in His coming Kingdom so they are thrown out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:1-14).
In each of these parables, the coming of the Son of Man is accomplishing a dualistic purpose. For the elect, Jesus’ coming will usher them into all the salvific blessings and eschatological joys available in God’s newly inaugurated Kingdom, the Church. For those who reject Him, there will be suffering, weeping, gnashing teeth, and imminent destruction. To the Jews, this happened during their lives, when their city was set on fire, their temple was devoted to destruction, and the Old Covenant kingdom of shadows and types came to a sudden cataclysmic end.
The parables Jesus taught prepared the discerning disciple for this apocalyptic outcome.
The Prophets and Dual Purpose Comings
This same theme of salvation and judgment at the Messiah’s coming shows up in the prophetic writings as well. For instance, in Joel 2, God promises to blow a trumpet of war, empowering a Northern army to bring swift and awful judgment against the Jews of the first century (Joel 2:1-11). But, His coming will also provide a way of salvation for the elect who will repent (Joel 2:12-17). In case we doubt the first-century timing of this prophecy, Joel cites Pentecost, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as the sign that will identify when his prophecy will occur. Here again, we see that Messiah’s first-century coming will be good news for some and terrifying for others. -
What Is Spiritual Warfare?
Against Satan’s deceptions, we must stand firm in the revealed truth of God’s Word, the Bible (2 Cor. 10:1–5; Eph. 6:17; Col. 2:6–8. Against Satan’s temptations, we must stand firm in the power of the risen Christ, through whom we can resist the devil and walk worthy of the Lord (Eph. 6:10; Col. 1:9–12). Whatever we learn of our enemy’s efforts in the pages of God’s Word, we must look to Christ to counter them. Knowing we have a spiritual enemy who opposes us should enrich our prayer lives, causing us to seek the sufficiency of our Lord that we desperately need.
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Gal. 1:3–5, NKJV)
With these words, the Apostle Paul celebrates God’s deliverance of His people through the work of His Son on our behalf (Col. 1:13–14). He also reminds us that we live out our days in a fallen world, in which we contend with spiritual opposition in our walk with Christ and work for Him (Eph. 2:1–10).
The Context of Spiritual Warfare
In His High Priestly Prayer, our Lord Jesus prays for us as ones who are in the world (John 17:11) but not of the world (John 17:14). As such, He asks not that the Father would take us out of the world, but that He would keep us from the Evil One (John 17:15). The prayer He taught us to pray as His disciples mobilizes us to seek the kingdom of God into which we have been established and to serve His will, taking into account the opposition of a spiritual enemy (Matt. 6:10, 13).
The redemption God promised in Eden is framed in terms of conflict (Gen. 3:15). That Promised One would come in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4–5) to do battle with him who is identified as “ruler of this world” (John 12:31) and “god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). Christ Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took on true and full humanity so that He might wage war for our deliverance and destroy the works of the devil (Heb. 2:14–18; 1 John 3:8).
Key to our engaging in spiritual warfare is recognition that the victory is Christ’s and is ours in Christ. We do not fight for victory but in victory. The prelude to Jesus sending us out to make disciples is the declaration of His accomplished mission: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18; see Eph. 1:20–23).
Read More
Related Posts: