Revelation 1: The Lord Jesus meets his aged disciple.

(These verses have over the years been very precious to me. This was intended for our small online group meeting a little while ago. If someone does preach at my funeral I’d like these verses to be the text. By the grace of God I’ll be enjoying the reality of falling on my face at His feet.)

Revelation 1: 17 & 18. The Lord Jesus meets with His aged disciple

Rev 1:17  When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,

Rev 1:18  and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore (‘AMEN’ AV & NKJV), and I have the keys of Death and Hades. ESV

Both reader and hearer are promised a blessing so please read Rev 1:1-20.

The purpose of the book: ‘Persecuted believer, this book of Revelation seeks to impart comfort to you. That is its main purpose: to comfort the militant church in its struggle against the forces of evil.’ More than Conquerors Hendriken P.4.

Our persecution here in the West is of a very different order to that of fellow Christians in parts of Africa and in Islamic countries. Even so it is for us too.

‘These seven churches were experiencing sore persecution. According to Irenaeus, John wrote Revelation “towards the end of Domitian’s reign,” about AD 95. Secular writers of the Roman Empire described Emperor Domitian as a savage monster who conducted a “reign of terror.” He abused distinguished citizens in front of crowds. He hated Christians and despised the church of Christ. He reigned in darkness, loving the pains and lamentations of people he tortured. He was a beast of a man. He commanded everyone in the empire to call him “Lord and God.” When Christians refused to do so, he persecuted and killed them.[1]

But Domitian was not the only one who might fit this description of the “beast” of Revelation 13:11–18. Revelation says there will be many false prophets and antichrists. Many have and will fit this description. But to understand Revelation, you must realize that it first saw the light of day in the reign of Domitian. The persecutions he initiated were some of the “things which must shortly come to pass.” Revelation is not only about future events, but also about what was already happening in Asia Minor and these seven local churches under Domitian’s reign of terror.[2]

Tradition has it than when Domitian died (Murdered in 96 AD) the new Emperor (Nerva) allowed exiles, including John, to go home. John died in his 90’s at Ephesus.

The theme of the book – What’s it about? The victory of Christ and His church over the Dragon (Satan) and his helpers. (Hendriksen p,12. I like this, again from Joel Beeke:

Christ also speaks in Revelation as Prophet and intercedes as High Priest while He reigns as King. The book of Revelation calls us to bow before Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, and then to go out and be prophets, priests, and kings standing under His banner and ministering to a perishing world.[3]

Who is it for? For all the churches, and all believers for all time. It would have made no sense if the book predicts Hitler and other future events and figures. What use would that be for the believers back in John’s day? Hendriksen p.14. Joel Beeke puts it this way:

‘This vision is about Jesus Christ, not the pope, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Saddam Hussein, or any other person in world history. It has much to say about world history and tells us much about the motives and methods of world leaders, but it is primarily focused on Jesus Christ and His further revelation of Himself to His church. Because Revelation is not primarily about world events or world personalities, we must take care not to read them into the book; rather, we are to look at them in the light of the book. We may then understand what goes on in our world according to principles we find in the book of Revelation, as it discloses who Jesus Christ is and what He is doing in the world, and what He will do to bring all things to an end. So the book of Revelation is first of all a book about Christ.[4]

‘….we believe that the entire book of Revelation is addressed to the whole church of Jesus Christ in every age under all circumstances.[5]

The churches then of chapters 2 & 3 were real churches, but at the same time were for all the churches then and throughout the ages. Note the seven churches – the number of completion. Joel Beeke again:

‘There were many churches in Asia Minor, but John draws our attention to just seven. As a number, seven is often used in Scripture to signify completeness. These seven churches represent the entire church of Christ in every age to the end of the world.[6]

Older Christians may feel their usefulness is past. This may be you right now. We might think this, and I’m sure we do for various reasons. However, that’s not the way Christ thinks. So, here is the aged apostle. The Lord was clearly not done with him. He might have been exiled to Patmos (which was a penal colony – breaking stones. Not a holiday camp) but his usefulness even there was not over. Was he in good health? No idea. But quite possibly not great as he was now quite elderly. The other apostles have all been martyred. So here he is, exiled, old, probably not in great health, but he’s in the spirit, on the Lords Day. He wasn’t seeking ‘an experience’ or a new revelation, he hadn’t gone to a meeting to receive the Holy Spirit or to be healed. Then we are told this revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ comes to him. It wasn’t something he sought. It’s almost matter of fact. I was exiled to Patmos. I was in the spirit. It was the Lord’s day.

You might feel that you are in the vestibule of heaven waiting to shuffle of this mortal coil feeling useless and unused. You may well feel like that. That your time is gone and all that’s left is to sit around waiting to die. That is understandable given our culture, and the natural tendency of our hearts. This can be just as true in church life as well when the focus is so often on the young. And especially so when we are old or infirm or both. This is not how the Lord Jesus sees you. He could have appeared in this way to John when he was a younger man and full of youthful vigour. But He didn’t. He came to John in his final years probably in his late 80’s or older. And He can come to you (us) as well.

If the younger ones want to pray for the elderly amongst us, pray that we’ll be useful. Yes even in our infirmity. Pray the Lord will keep us and visit us.

John is exiled on Patmos. Is he beyond the reach of the Lord Christ? Are you beyond His reach? Absolutely not!

Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.
Psalm 139: 7-10

The opening verses are extraordinary in themselves and it’s a shame to have to skip over them. But then John hears ‘a loud voice like a trumpet’ v10.

Then he turns ‘to see the voice that was speaking to me’ he says in v10, and is confronted with this revelation, this Apocalyptic (in Greek) vision, or revealing, of the Lord Christ. He sees ‘seven golden lampstands’ v12. Then he sees, v13 ‘in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man.’ He is in the midst of His church!

Then follows this incredible sight in verses 13 -16. I’m not going to comment but read those verses again and let’s try to put ourselves – if that’s possible – in John’s place.

Rev 1:13  and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest.
Rev 1:14  The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire,
Rev 1:15  his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.
Rev 1:16  In his right hand he held seven stars (Ministers), from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

Sadly, we can’t go through the details of the vision, or what it is we are being told here. Let’s note however this comment from Joel Beeke:

‘Whatever else you do, do not think about Christ’s physical appearance. John wants to tell us who Jesus is, not what He looks like. So this vision is not to be understood literally[7]

John spent 3 years with the Lord Jesus. He saw Him every day and you might think he knew him well enough to not need this. The Lord Jesus knows better. And even if he did, the Lord Jesus reveals Himself to his aged apostle afresh. This may have been as much as the human spirit could bear:

    1. Eternal light! eternal light!
      How pure the soul must be,
      When, placed within Thy searching sight,
      It shrinks not, but with calm delight
      Can live and look on Thee
    1. O how shall I, whose native sphere
      Is dark, whose mind is dim,
      Before the Ineffable appear,
      And on my naked spirit bear
      The uncreated beam?(Thomas Binney 1798 – 1874)

I think it was in Eifion Evans book ‘Revival comes to Wales’ that a man was found wandering on his own in a field. When asked what he was doing there, he said the weight of glory was too much and that he had to get away, saying if he were not already saved, he would have died from being in the presence of God. We know nothing of this.

May the Lord descend to us in our age and give us souls that can bear in some small part the weight of the Uncreated beam!

What then must this have been for John? The friend of Jesus, and the one who rested his head on the Saviour at the last supper. Nothing like that here!

I’m convinced the phrase ‘When I saw Him’ isn’t simply a statement of fact. Or a matter of, O yes, I saw Jesus. It’s difficult to try and express what I think John is trying to say here. It’s as if John had never really seen Him before. Even on the mount of Transfiguration. Yes, the disciples fell at His feet. And Christ deals similarly there with His disciples:

But this is different! This is the resurrected, glorified Lord Jesus. This is who will be coming again! And John sees Him. ‘When I saw Him’.

What does John do?

Rev 1:17  When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,

Rev 1:18  and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, (KJV & MKJV have Amen here) and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

Even when the disciples met the resurrected Christ it wasn’t like this. Think of them when Jesus meets them on the beach. See that scene in your mind. The fire, the fish, the conversations. This is so very different. Then He hadn’t ascended.

John falls ‘at His feet as though dead’.

But then ‘He laid his right hand on me’. The hand of blessing. If someone falls at your feet, to touch them would involve stooping to reach them. Even in His glory the Lord Jesus stoops to comfort His aging disciple. The one whom Jesus loved. His love is so amazing! I’m just stunned every time I read this. No earthly monarch would do this. And if they did it would be rare. But this is v5 ‘Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.’ This is the one who stoops.

    1. That human heart he still retains,
      Though throned in highest bliss;
      And feels each tempted member’s pains;
      For our affliction’s His.(A man there is – Joseph Hart 1712-1768)

A man He is. Yes. But not just a man. This is the God-Man. And it isn’t ‘just’ a human heart. This is the heart of God. The Lord Jesus didn’t act as a ‘Lone Ranger’. He came to redeem a people by the Father’s will, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t this what we long to do – fall at His feet. Without sin!

But then He speaks. What does He say? The first thing, the very first thing He says to John as he lies prostrate before his Saviour is Fear not. Do not be afraid. There’s something very tender about this. He cares for us. His heart is tender towards us – even in our doubts and fears. It’s a very similar scene on the mount of Transfiguration:

Mat 17:6  When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified.
Mat 17:7  But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.”
Mat 17:8  And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.

Then they heard a voice out of the cloud. Just a thought – did John think he’d heard that voice before all those years ago back on the mount. Only this time it is the Lord Jesus he hears. Not a voice from the cloud. ‘When I saw Him.’ Do not be afraid. Why?

v17b I am the first and the last,
Rev 1:18  and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Can I put it like this? Am I reading too much into this?

I AM the first and

I AM the last

I AM the living one

I AM was dead

I AM alive forevermore – AMEN!

I AM have the keys of death and

I AM have the keys of hades

That is Seven I AM’s. If ever there was a declaration of Divinity and Total and complete sovereignty, then it is here.

(Though there are few of us tonight, we gather in His name. We come to the Father through Him.)

We come with our sins. He has dealt with them – whatever they be. He has died. He has risen. He is alive for evermore. We come in our weakness and frailty. He is the first and the last. He has the keys. He is Jehovah Jesus.

This is the one that stoops, even to us, and says Fear not. ‘Do not be afraid.’ This is the one who keeps us, He is the one that enables us to persevere (1:9), this is the one that intercedes, that watches, that comforts, defends, and ultimately, it is this Lord Jesus Christ who will receive us into His Glory. He has done it all.

Soli Deo Gloria!

 

I’m grateful to my dear friend Trevor Thomas for his preaching through the book of Revelation.

I commend it to you:

https://www.youtube.com/@towcesterevangelicalchurch4001/streams

 

 

More than Conquerors by William Hendriksen. Baker

Revelation by Joel Beeke. Reformation Heritage

Revelation by James B. Ramsey. Banner of Truth

[1] Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 21.

[2] Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 21.

[3] Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 15–16.

[4] Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 5.

[5] Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 22.

[6] Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 21.

[7] Joel R. Beeke, Revelation, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 41.

Some (positive) thoughts on Red Letter Bibles.

Just in case you don’t know, a Red Letter Bible is a Bible with the words of Christ in Red. It’s peculiarity, it seems, is for American editions to have the words of Christ in red. I’m sure there’s a reason but English (UK) Bibles don’t have the words in Red. It’s often not a choice. For example if you want an NASB (New American Standard Bible) the words are in Red – full stop. The Bible app on your phone or tablet probably has an option to turn them on or off. Maybe you read a Red Letter Bible because you didn’t have a choice but feel guilty each time you read the words of Christ in red. Maybe you see ‘red’ that such things even exist.

The problem in a nutshell.

The problem with a red letter edition is that it gives the impression that the words in red are the only words of Christ. Or that the words of Christ are more authoritative (than other words) so they are in red to highlight their importance.

I can remember red letter bibles being condemned from the pulpit. The reason is because all of the words in the whole Bible are the words of Christ (God) not just the words that are physically spoken by the Son of God. I’m guessing here, but, the reason for resisting, back then at any rate, was the assaults that came (still do) upon the authority of the Bible. Accepting some words to be more authoritative than other words weakens the authority of the whole. It plays into the hands of thinking how wonderful and loving Jesus is over against a wrathful and vengeful Old Testament God – which is not true. There is no part of the Bible that is more the word of God (or more authoritative) than any other words. The Scriptures are God breathed (2 Tim 3:16). All of them. Every word. Including, of course, the words Jesus physically spoke while on earth.

Apparently there was a Bible with the words of Jesus in the Old Testament recorded in red. That would’ve been better (and interesting) but I assume that didn’t suit the narrative that divides the OT God of wrath from the NT one of love. i couldn’t find a sample of one.

A more nuanced view

I think it’s possible to take an ever so slightly more nuanced view. I take the Bible for what it is – every word is literally God breathed (2 Tim 3:16). That is, I subscribe to the orthodox view of the Scriptures. The Bible, all of it, is the word of God. But I have come to look on the words of Christ in Red in a slightly different way. Remember, the words in red are the words that the Lord Jesus speaks. Perhaps I should say the words that Jesus speaks, or spoke, while on earth. But I recently had some further thoughts on this.

When we read the words of Christ in red we are reading the words the Son of God spoke while on earth. When I read these words, as we all can, I think of Jesus having a real body with real lungs, with a real voice-box and tongue to be able to incarnationally articulate real words that people could hear him speak. In other words, the red letters point to a real incarnation – not a phantom. A phantom does not speak out real words, or breathe them out into the atmosphere.. So when we speak we need to be breathing. We take in air to our lungs and breath out. Our words are breath. This means the very air that Jesus breathed out is still here on earth! I think this is incredible! I doubt this was the original reason for the words in red and was far more to do with Jesus being more loving (and maybe authoritative).

So then, don’t be overly concerned (if you are concerned) about the letters in red. Use them to speak to your soul of a real bodily incarnated God. ‘Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, Hail the incarnate Deity’

More to ponder

I must admit my mind took a turn after this as I considered that the words in Red also record words that were spoken by the Son of God in a resurrection body. I’m not sure if these are angels on a pinhead but these are some of the things I mused on: If the Son of God was sealed in an airtight room would he still be able to breath since his body had the ability to pass through matter. The amazing thing to consider is that those resurrection words (in red) were spoken by a person with a body. A person with a resurrected body! Not only that, some of the recorded words spoken – in red – are uttered in heaven (e.g. Rev 1:17,18)

Also (bear with me), consider the wounds of The Lord Jesus. The wound in his side, had he not already died (by giving up his spirit), would have been fatal. And yet, he appears to the disciples with visible wounds. We know this because Jesus invites Thomas to put his hand into his side (John 20:27). In some way then, the wounds inflicted on the Saviour are visible and yet not fatal. His body is able to exist with what would otherwise be a fatal wound. This also is evidence of the physicality of The Lord Jesus. There’s a man in heaven, seated on a throne with a visibly fatal wound yet He is not (now) injured or harmed.

The words in red then point indirectly to other facts of the incarnation and of the fact that the Son of God even now has a body. Can you get your head round that? I can’t. These are mysteries indeed.

Chronological Red Letter Bible?

If such a Bible were to exist it would make for a fascinating edition. It would begin in heaven, then pre-incarnate speech in the OT. Then moving to incarnational speech from a body and then a resurrected body and finally to a fully glorified body in the NT. The culmination will be speech from a fully vindicated body uttered in heaven, by a man, who will say ‘Enter into the joy of the Lord (Matt 25:23).’ What wonderful words these will be. Words spoken by a real man – the man of heaven, and in heaven. How do we enter that place? Not by our own merit but by the wounds that He bore on the cross for sinners that are still visible. We enter because ‘He bore our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24).’ ‘In His own body.’ A body that was on earth!

Conclusion

There’s another way then for us to ‘read’ the red letters in the Bible. The normal way leads to confusion and error. But the way I’m suggesting we could read them, leads to worship and glory to God.

He appeared in a body
Was seen of angels.
Was preached on in the world
Was vindicated by angels (1 Tim 3:16)

Defining Evangelicalism?

Defining Evangelicalism?
by
Michael J. Iliff
(Any errors below are all mine)

What follows was first written back in 2007 (ish) and I’ve reproduced it here with a few changes in the hope that it makes sense. Some of the references might be a bit dated and some of the links are (sadly) no longer available, but, the point is to show that recent articles (or blog posts) on trying to define Evangelicalism is nothing new.

Evangelical[1] is, or can be, difficult to define, particularly when it has been suggested[2] that the term be dropped.  The word, whilst retaining a much older meaning,[3] has become so broad – it is said – to be of little or of no real value, and as regards any historic definition, become almost meaningless.  Evangelicalism is seen to be in crisis – at least definitionally. Is there any basis to this?  When one considers just a few titles[4] there is the impression of crisis. The evangelical umbrella has continued to widen, with several theologians, or popular figures, such as Clark Pinnock,[5] and Steve Chalke,[6] still[7] broadly viewed as evangelicals. They continue to write for evangelical publications, even though they have moved away from historic[8] orthodox teaching.

In 1992 Michael Horton[9] wrote,

‘Labels are often confusing, especially when the jar’s content changes. Grape juice can become vinegar over the years in the cellar, but the label doesn’t change with the changes in the substance.  The same is true of the term “evangelical.”’[10]

Evangelicals are finding it increasingly difficult to define themselves. Horton writing, again in 1992 said,

‘A number of evangelical leaders met at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near Chicago two years ago for the purpose of defining the term “evangelical”, but many left as confused concerning what that label comprehends as they were when they arrived. It is becoming increasingly difficult to say what an evangelical is and is not.’[11]

John R de Witt[12] lists seven particulars of Reformed evangelicalism, rather than the Quadrilateral David Bebbington[13] suggests describing Evangelicalism as a whole.  de Witt calls this The Reformed Faith, not Reformed Evangelicalism.  Nevertheless, those of the Reformed Faith are Evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are Reformed.  For Reformed Christians the word ‘evangelical’ is packed with historic and Biblical meaning rather than an academic description[14] of a particular religious movement beginning in the 18th Century.  The distinction is between the reality of the evangelical movement, and Evangelicalism as understood by the Reformed Churches.  De Witt’s seven points are:

    1. The doctrine of scripture.
    2. The sovereignty of God.
    3. The grace of God.
    4. The Christian life.
    5. The law and gospel.
    6. The kingdom of God.
    7. Preaching.

Evangelical Times ran a series[15] of articles with the title ‘What is a Reformed Church’.

The Reformed Evangelical position is well summarised by the five Solas of the Reformation.  These are, “Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Soli Christus, Soli Deo Gloria”[16]. I don’t believe Reformed Evangelicalism can be summed up and categorised in quite the way David Bebbington describes Evangelicalism as a whole.  In 1977 Evangelical Times printed an article[17] that tried to answer the very same question that is being asked today in 2022 – What is an Evangelical? It’s been an ongoing problem for Reformed Evangelicals.  Lloyd-Jones addressed this same problem of definition in 1971 at the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students – reprinted as late as 1992.  Under a subheading, ‘Succumbing to the Ecumenical Spirit’, we read the following,

‘…there is the … danger… of being so broad, so wide, and so loose that in the end we have no definitions at all.  As I see things today, this is perhaps the greater danger because we are living in what is called the ecumenical age.’[18]

In 1996 The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) issued ‘The Cambridge Declaration’[19] calling Evangelical churches to repentance and a return to Reformation theology.  The Alliance, although primarily American,[20] through Evangelical Times published[21] the ‘Declaration’ in full, taking up a centre page spread.  Restating the “five Solas” it lamented the current condition within Evangelicalism. The opening statement of the ‘Declaration’[22] describes churches as dominated by the spirit of the age and changes to how evangelical is defined.

Whatever happened to the Reformation[23] urges readers ‘to turn to the theology of the Reformers’,[24] and is described as more ‘hard-hitting and to the point’[25] than other books and ‘as the title indicates, the problem with modern evangelicalism is its complete abandonment of all the Reformation stood for.  It has cut its ties with the Reformation and is like a ship adrift on stormy seas’.[26] With no clear alternative ‘Evangelical’ will continue to be used albeit with a defining hyphenation.

Moving forward to June 2005 in Evangelicals Now, evangelicalism appears to be no further forward.  Jonathan Stephen[27] writes,

‘…there is currently a huge crisis in evangelicalism …the term itself has become virtually meaningless. Virtually every conceivable religious deviation can now shelter under the umbrella of evangelicalism, if it so wishes’.[28]

However, it does appear that Dr Bebbington’s[29] four-point definition[30](Bebbington’s Quadrilateral) has become a commonly used umbrella term, even though many Reformed churches may find it a difficult and unsatisfactory category, as it falls short in addressing the distinctiveness of Reformed churches. Evangelical then, has a much longer history than what is presented to us in the Tele-evangelism found in America. You’ll get no argument from me about continued vigilance over usage and commentary on its abuse, but I see no reason why historic Evangelicals should abandon it. However, we, Evangelicals, should perhaps, be more careful how we use and abuse it ourselves and continue, or switch to, maybe, hyphenating it as ‘Reformed’ – Evangelical.

As a late addition: In 2006 Geoff Thomas gave two lectures in Rugby on Evangelicalism (Especially Part 2). Both well worth a listen. Evangelicalism: What’s in a Name – Part 1 & Part 2. ‘I’m not going to give it up because other people have abused it (Geoff Thomas Part 2).’ In fact you’d be much better off listening to these two lectures by Geoff! The links for these work.

[1] According to Strongs: G2097 εὐαγγελίζω – euaggelizō – yoo-ang-ghel-id’-zo

From G2095 and G32; to announce good news (“evangelize”) especially the gospel: – declare, bring (declare, show) glad (good) tidings, preach (the gospel).  Translated Preach/Preaching & Gospel/Good News

G2098 εὐαγγέλιον – euaggelion – yoo-ang-ghel’-ee-on

From the same as G2097; a good message, that is, the gospel: – gospel.  Translated Gospel.

For a more comprehensive definition see Thayer.  Available on e-sword.

[2] See Hart, D. G.  Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham.  2004.  Baker Academic.  Grand Rapids.  R. C. Sproul has been heard to say the same, but no reference is available at this moment.

[3] Iain Murray writes: ‘Evangelion (that we call the gospel) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh him sing, dance and leap for joy.  So Tyndale wrote in 1525, and at the same period all who so thought became described as ‘gospellers’ or, less commonly, as ‘evangelicals’.  Over two hundred years later it was the latter term that was to pass into more permanent usage at the time of the ‘Evangelical Revival’.  That it did not do so earlier is largely due to the fact that all the churches of the Reformation were ‘of the gospel’ in their creeds and confessions.  By the eighteenth century, however, while the profession of the national churches in England and Scotland remained orthodox there were many pulpits from which no gospel was heard and when the evangel was recovered a term was necessary to distinguish its preachers from others: they were the ‘evangelicals’.  Murray, Iain H.  Evangelicalism Divided.  2000.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh. p. 1.

[4] A small selection of titles: Armstrong, John.  (Ed.)  The Coming Evangelical Crisis.  1996.  Moody Press.  Chicago; Armstrong, John.  (Ed.)  The Compromised Church.  1998.  Crossway Books.  Wheaton; Glover, Peter C.  The Virtual Church and How to Avoid it.  2004.  Xulon Press; Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey; MacArthur Jr, John F.  Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes like the World.  1993.  Crossway Books.  Nottingham; Murray, Iain H.  Evangelicalism Divided.  2000.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh; Phillips, Richard.  Turning Back the Darkness.  2002.  Crossway Books.  Wheaton.

[5] Pinnock holds to and promotes the doctrine of Open Theism.  For a larger treatment of this topic see: Ware, Bruce.  in Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey. P. 95 – 131.

[6] This refers to the recent controversy over penal substitutionary atonement as expressed by Steve Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus.  Reviews of this book are available by searching the ET & EN websites. Also see Evangelicals Now September 2005 for a review of ‘The EA Symposium – Conference on the Cross’ by Mathew Mason.  Mason writes, ‘it is also sad that EA appears willing to permit people who deny a core evangelical belief to continue as members’.  Available: http://www.e-n.org.uk/3129-Conference-on-the-cross.htm

[7] ‘The Evangelical Alliance has so far failed [at the time of my writing] to act with regard to Steve Chalke’.  EN Jonathan Stevens.  There is also no sign of this happening at the Alliance Website. Available: http://www.eauk.org/theology/headline_issues/atonement/atonement-statement.cfm

[8] See a previous footnote.  Three people in three different areas of theology will demonstrate this and why they compromise evangelical theology.  Briefly, the names of three people; John Stott on eternal punishment; Clark Pinnock on Divine Foreknowledge and Steve Chalke on the Atonement.  In addition to this, more recently, ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (e.g. Bishop Tom Wright) has caused concern.

[9] The Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California. He is the main host of The White Horse Inn radio broadcast and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He received his M.A. from Westminster Seminary California, his Ph.D. from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry, and also completed a Research Fellowship at Yale University Divinity School.  Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than fifteen books.  Available: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/about.htm

[10] Horton, Michael S. ‘What is an Evangelical?’ Available: http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415584,00.html.

[11] Horton, Michael S.  ‘Evangelical Arminians: Option or Oxymoron?’  Available: http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mayjun/mr9203oxymoron.html (21/04/03).

[12] de Witt, John R.  What is the Reformed Faith?  1981.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh.

[13] Bebbington, D W.  Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A history from the 1730s to the 1980s.  Routledge.  London and New York.  2000.  The four are: Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages); Crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross; Conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted; and Activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.  Pp. 2 – 17.  Or, as on page 3, Bebbington puts it: ‘Together they form a quadrilateral (the underlining is my Emphasis) of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism’.

[14]  Hart, D. G.  Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham.  2004.  Baker Academic.  Grand Rapids.  Hart argues the popular usage of the word ‘evangelicalism’ is a modern academic construct.

[15] ET. November 1996 – February 1997.

[16] Or, scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, through Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.  We may also add to this the TULIP acrostic.  Also see Appendix 2, The Cambridge Declaration for an elaboration of the Solas of the Reformation.

[17] Evangelical Times. July 1977. p. 15 & 4.  ‘Who are we?  What is an evangelical?  Tell us somebody please!’  This was a report on the NEAC conference of that year.  The report in ET began by saying ‘It comes up here, it comes up there, the issue comes up everywhere.  Some duck it, some face it.  Some dismiss it, some debate it.  It is the burning issue of: ‘what is an evangelical?’’

[18] Lloyd-Jones, D.M.  What is an Evangelical?  1992.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh.  P. 22.

[19] The ‘Cambridge Declaration’ is essentially a restatement of the five Solas of the Reformation.  The full text of this document is available at: http://www.alliancenet.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID581262|CIID,00.html

[20] Now also has UK members on the council.

[21] Evangelical Times, December, 1996, p 12 – 13.

[22] See Appendix 2 for the Declaration in full.

[23] Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey.

[24] From the Alliance bookstall: http://www.reformationalresources.org/merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RR&Product_Code=B-JOHNS-1

[25] Hanko, Herman C.  PRT Journal.  Vol 35, No.2, April 2002.  Book Reviews.  Review of ‘Whatever Happened to the Reformation’  Available: http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2002.html#WhateverHappened

[26] Hanko, Herman C.  PRT Journal.  Vol 35, No.2, April 2002.  Book Reviews.  Review of ‘Whatever Happened to the Reformation’  Available: http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2002.html#WhateverHappened

[27] Jonathan Stephens was for many years the Pastor of Carey Baptist Church, Reading, and combined this with becoming President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.  He also became General Secretary of the BEC, changing to Affinity under his leadership.  He is presently Principal of the Evangelical College of Wales (Bryntirion).

[28] Stephens, Jonathan.  Evangelicals Now, June 2005, ‘The current crisis in evangelicalism’.  Available:  http://www.e-n.org.uk/2005-06/3026-The-current-crisis-in-evangelicalism.htm

[29] http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/08/calvin-am-toplady-and-bebbington-thesis.html

[30] David Bebbington continues to use his four-point definition in his latest book THE DOMINANCE OF EVANGELICALISM: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody.

‘I’m praying for you’ by Nancy Guthrie – A recommendation

‘I’m praying for you’ by Nancy Guthrie, 10 of Those publishing, 2021. £6.99 from 10 of those. This is a new book by Nancy. She’s written several books on helping people in their suffering and this is another one. I like her writing.

‘When someone we care about is going through something difficult, we are quick to say, “I’m praying for you!” But then what? Do we really pray? And if so, what do we pray? How do we know what to pray? p. 11.

It’s not a theoretical book, but is ‘40 Days of Praying the Bible for Someone Who is Suffering.’

The book looks more weighty ‘in the flesh’ than it actually is. In other words each chapter or day is only three pages long. And the text isn’t dense. In fact there are blank pages and plenty of space for notes – it’s a book to be used.

The idea is to help us pray more Biblically for those that are suffering, and to glorify God in our praying and in the lives of those we pray for. Nancy wants to help our prayers to be a bit more than ‘please heal this person’ or ‘please make this trouble go away’ type prayers.

It’s a really simple idea and maybe at £6.99 it’s a bit steep. But then if it really does help us pray more Biblically it’ll be money well spent.

I selected a few days at random to read and I did find them helpful. The aim is that it’s not about us, it’s about helping other people by praying for them. In a church setting maybe if several Christians started following the pattern here it could actually change the flavour of, or maybe ‘improve’ our prayer meetings, as well as our private devotions. It isn’t a substitute for the Psalms, but it is helpful.

I thought the QR code idea at first was a bit gimmicky, but it could actually be helpful as we send texts to those we know are going through a hard time. (You can scan the QR Code using your camera and then send the prayer as a text) It doesn’t have to be about suffering physically or about bereavement but about praying for non believing friends and fellow Christians in the church. And then to send them a brief text about what it is we are praying for them. If you find it difficult to know what to text someone in their suffering then this could help us, and them. Receiving such a text, I think would be encouraging – and that’s what we want to be, encouraging and helpful.

Let’s face it, most of us need help in this area. So all in all it could be a useful tool to us as individuals and as churches as we seek to minister to those in need.

The Morality of Spying, Lying, Deceiving – Interview with a former CIA Intelligence officer.

Last night I sat and watched this fascinating interview on Al Mohler’s ‘Thinking in Public’ channel with a former CIA operative whose wife was also a spy. It was promised to be fascinating. And it was. Here’s the full title of the interview:

Spycraft and Soulcraft on the Front Lines of History: A Conversation with Former CIA Chief of Counterintelligence James Olson

If you’ve ever contemplated the idea of the Nazis knocking on your door and asking if ‘there are any Jews in there?’ then you’ll be interested in this. Or if you’ve ever wondered what it takes to go about your life in relative peace and safety you might like it. Would you lie? I’d like to think I would. No question. Not even a debate for me. I’d rather not lie of course, but for me, it would be the moral thing to do in that situation. The spies of Jericho were quoted to make the case for lying in certain situations (Josh 2:1).

‘Spying has always been based on deception. I look for guidance from the greatest of all sources, the Bible. And we all know the story from the book of Joshua, about how when Joshua was conducting his campaign for the conquest of Canaan, he’s standing before Jericho, and he sends two spies into Jericho to gather intelligence on the defenses. And the spies are sheltered, protected, hidden by the prostitute Rahab. And thanks to Rahab they survive when the king’s men came looking for them, she lied about their whereabouts. They were able to return safely to the Israelite camp. And I think it was because of their intelligence to a large extent that the campaign was successful.’ (Quote is from the transcript)

Just this Sunday we had a sermon about Ehud. Ehud straps on a sword with the intent of killing Eglon. It was just assumed that he did the right thing but he entered with a concealed weapon and used subterfuge and lying to get an audience with the king in order to get him on his own and plunge the sword into his belly; literally spilling his guts before making his escape. He went there with one aim: kill the king. It wasn’t murder, he delivered justice. (Judges 3:19-23) So it isn’t just the spies of Jericho.

‘I often ask my students, “What are your moral absolutes?” And students say, “Well, I would never kill anyone.” I say, “Well, you’re a soldier, our country’s being attacked. You are a parent, your children are being threatened. Could you kill to protect your children or your right?” Yeah, there are exceptions. Would you ever steal? I know I can never steal anything, but how about to feed your family? How about to steal the secrets from an enemy? Would you ever lie? No, but we all tell white lies. And there are occasions, as you mentioned, where lies I believe are the only course of action to protect human life.’ (Quote is from the transcript)

The espionage world in which this man lived and operated, with his wife, and now training other operatives, is a world of lying, deceit, manipulation, subterfuge, torture, and execution (killing). What might surprise some is that he operated with a Christian moral worldview. The prospective spies he trains are expected to have a moral compass. He didn’t say this, but without some sort of objective morality they might just as well employ as many psychopaths as they can. I’m sure Russia aren’t the only ones to have psychopaths on the payroll.

You might find the whole interview intensely annoying and not agree with a single thing he says. And that’s fine. But remember this: while you sleep peacefully in your bed or go about your life each day there are men and women out ‘there’ literally putting their lives on the line for our safety and doing things so we can keep our moral superiority. I recall some years ago a story in the papers of a British Army colonel, I think, who had infiltrated the IRA. I remember thinking about what would happen to that man had he been caught.

‘And it’s really unfair after the fact, I think, for people sitting back in Washington to say, “You went too far, you should not have kidnapped that person. You should not have waterboarded that person.” Because it’s easy to say, and our people were doing this with the best of intentions. Waterboarding is nasty. I hate the fact that we had to do that. But it’s easy to take the moral high ground and say, “We’re not going to do that.” And of course the Obama administration decreed that we would not do it anymore. That’s fine, tell us, we won’t cross the line. But we have to realize that when we refrain from activities like that, and I would contend as my good friend and colleague Jose Rodriguez wrote in his book, Hard Measures, that waterboarding these three people did save lives.’
(Quote is from the transcript)

It’s a messy fallen world, and yes I know, governments aren’t always working for the interest of their own people. I’m putting a best case on this knowing, that other governments are probably operating with more dubious moral standards.

One other thing he said was that if they’d (The US) have had the intelligence at the time they could’ve prevented Pearl Harbour as the German ‘chatter’ about it was being listened to. One of the ‘What If’s of history.

A brilliant TV series, (I think), is ‘The Americans.’ It’s about Russian operatives in America living as Americans, complete with a family, but living double lives. And you get to see the CIA as well. Quite gruesome in places so if you’re squeamish or object strongly to bad language then best not to watch it. But it is quite brilliant. 6 seasons I think.

I’m fascinated by it all so I’d like to hear more on this. He’s written a couple of books so they might be worth checking out.

Note: Because the CIA was like it was in James Olson’s day, it doesn’t mean it’s the same today. Check out for example Andrew Klavan’s show.

Some might (will be) be outraged by this, but then we don’t have to make these decisions – someone else does. There was so much more and it all raises so many many questions, but here’s the video link.

Martin Luther’s Speech at the Imperial Diet in Worms (18 April 1521)

Martin Luther’s Speech at the Imperial Diet in Worms (18 April 1521)

1 Most Serene Emperor, Illustrious Princes, Gracious Lords:

2 I this day appear before you in all humility, according to your command, and I implore your majesty and your august highnesses, by the mercies of God, to listen with favor to the defense of a cause which I am well assured is just and right. I ask pardon, if by reason of my ignorance, I am wanting in the manners that befit a court; for I have not been brought up in king’s palaces, but in the seclusion of a cloister; and I claim no other merit than that of having spoken and written with the simplicity of mind which regards nothing but the glory of God and the pure instruction of the people of Christ.

3 Two questions were yesterday put to me by his imperial majesty; the first, whether I was the author of the books whose titles were read; the second, whether I wished to revoke or defend the doctrine I have taught. I answered the first directly, and I adhere to that answer: that these books are mine and published by me, except so far as they may have been altered or interpolated by the craft or officiousness of opponents. As for the second question, I am now about to reply to it; and I must first entreat your Majesty and your Highnesses to deign to consider that I have composed writings on very different subjects. In some I have discussed Faith and Good Works, in a spirit at once so pure, clear, and Christian, that even my adversaries themselves, far from finding anything to censure, confess that these writings are profitable, and deserve to be perused by devout persons. The pope’s bull, violent as it is, acknowledges this. What, then, should I be doing if I were now to retract these writings? Wretched man! I alone, of all men living, should be abandoning truths approved by the unanimous voice of friends and enemies, and should be opposing doctrines that the whole world glories in confessing!

4 I have composed, secondly, certain works against the papacy, wherein I have attacked such as by false doctrines, irregular lives, and scandalous examples, afflict the Christian world, and ruin the bodies and souls of men. And is not this confirmed by the grief of all who fear God? Is it not manifest that the laws and human doctrines of the popes entangle, vex, and distress the consciences of the faithful, while the crying and endless extortions of Rome engulf the property and wealth of Christendom, and more particularly of this illustrious nation? Yet it is a perpetual statute that the laws and doctrines of the pope be held erroneous and reprobate when they are contrary to the Gospel and the opinions of the church fathers.

5 If I were to revoke what I have written on that subject, what should I do but strengthen this tyranny, and open a wider door to so many and flagrant impieties? Bearing down all resistance with fresh fury, we should behold these proud men swell, foam, and rage more than ever! And not merely would the yoke which now weighs down Christians be made more grinding by my retractation it would thereby become, so to speak, lawful, for, by my retractation, it would receive confirmation from your most serene majesty, and all the States of the Empire. Great God! I should thus be like to an infamous cloak, used to hide and cover over every kind of malice and tyranny.

6 In the third and last place, I have written some books against private individuals, who had undertaken to defend the tyranny of Rome by destroying the faith. I freely confess that I may have attacked such persons with more violence than was consistent with my profession as an ecclesiastic: I do not think of myself as a saint; but neither can I retract these books. Because I should, by so doing, sanction the impieties of my opponents, and they would thence take occasion to crush God’s people with still more cruelty.

Summons for Luther to appear at the Diet of Worms, signed by Charles V. The text on the left was on the reverse side. Published in book authored by Bernhard Rogge.
Elisabeth, Kurfürstin von Brandenburg, nimmt heimlich das heilige Abendmahl in beiderlei Gestalt. Holzstich nach einem Gemälde von Adolph Treidler (1846–1905), erschienen in: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 9 (1874) Summons for Luther to appear at the Diet of Worms, signed by Charles V. The text on the left was on the reverse side. Published in book authored by Bernhard Rogge.

7 Yet, as I am a mere man, and not God, I will defend myself after the example of Jesus Christ, who said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness against me; but if well, why doest thou strike me?” (John xviii:23). How much more should I, who am but dust and ashes, and so prone to error, desire that every one should bring forward what he can against my doctrine. Therefore, most serene emperor, and you illustrious princes, and all, whether high or low, who hear me, I implore you by the mercies of God to prove to me by the writings of the prophets and apostles that I am in error. As soon as I shall be convinced, I will instantly retract all my errors, and will myself be the first to seize my writings, and commit them to the flames.8 What I have just said will, I think, clearly show that I have well considered and weighed, not only the dangers to which I am exposing myself, but also the parties and dissensions excited in the world by means of my doctrine, of which I was yesterday so gravely admonished. But far from being dismayed by them, I rejoice exceedingly to see the Gospel this day, as of old, a cause of disturbance and disagreement; for such is the character and destiny of God’s word. “I came not to send peace unto the earth, but a sword,” said Jesus Christ. “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foees shall be those of his own household.” (Matthew x:34-36)

9 God is wonderful and terrible in His counsels. Let us have a care, lest in our endeavors to arrest discords, we be bound to fight against the holy word of God and bring down upon our heads a frightful deluge of inextricable dangers, present disaster, and everlasting desolations. Let us have a care that the reign of the young and noble prince, the Emperor Charles, on whom, next to God, we build so many hopes, should not only commence, but continue and terminate its course, under the most favorable auspices.

10 I might cite examples drawn from the oracles of God. I might speak of Pharaohs, of kings of Babylon, or of Israel, who were never more contributing to their own ruin than when, by measures in appearances most prudent, they thought to establish their authority! God removeth the mountains and they know not (Job ix:5). In speaking thus, I do not suppose that such noble princes have need of my poor judgment; but I wish to acquit myself of a duty whose fulfillment my native Germany has a right to expect from her children. And so commending myself to your august majesty, and your most serene highnesses, I beseech you in all humility, not to permit the hatred of my enemies to rain upon me an indignation I have not deserved. I have done.

[Having delivered this speech in German, Luther was now asked to repeat it in Latin. After some hesitation, he did so. He was then reminded that he should answer a simple question: whether he would retract or not. Thus he continued:]

11 Since your most serene majesty and your high mightinesses require of me a simple, clear and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise; God help me! Amen.

(Source for the above.)

JUDE: Content Yet Contending by Daniel R. Hyde – Recommendation

This an excellent little commentary on this one chapter New Testament letter by Jude. His letter is perhaps best known for the exhortation in v4 to ‘contend for the faith’ and the Doxology of vs 24-25. This was one of those ‘I must read this sometime’ books on my shelf. I finished a book on the Old Testament so wanted to read a NT commentary. What better than this little book.

It is a little book (A5 size) at only 137 pages, of which there are 126 pages of actual text including the preface. It’s easy to read in that it isn’t complicated and the type is clear with each chapter neatly laid with sub-headings for each chapter. It’s probably too short for an index but it would, I think, have been helpful. There are very helpful footnotes, which I personally much prefer to endnotes. For those wanting to delve a little deeper, there’s also a very good Bibliography. There are eight chapters in all. I paid £8.99 for the book. Although that sounds a bit pricey for such a short book, it’s actually good value because of how much is packed into such a short space. No verbiage here.

I bought it initially because I was struck by the ESV translation of v5. In v5 of Jude the ESV explicitly names Jesus as the destroyer. I wanted an explanation, which is briefly but adequately given and applied on pages 48-51. Jesus is both Saviour to some and Destroyer to others. As Psalm 2:12 ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.’

As a slight aside, there’s a crucial point to be made here. We hear how the God of the Old Testament is an angry wrathful God but the God of the New Testament (Jesus) is friendly and loving. He’s nice. But we don’t like the God of the OT – he’s horrible. It says the same in any translation but it is made clearer in the ESV, and it’s this, it was Jesus in the OT that destroyed those that sinned. This gives the lie to those that try and make separate Gods for OT and NT. It’s complete nonsense. Jesus is the Destroyer and the Saviour. Make sure He is your Saviour and not your Destroyer!

This book by Daniel Hyde, like Jude’s letter, is a challenging read. There’s a lament in Chapter 1 how Jude has been neglected and in the same chapter he sets out the divisions of Jude thus:

‘Jude writes about this heavenly grace in this short yet highly organised and structured letter. Using the categories of classical Graeco-Roman rhetoric, we can see the following outline develop:

The introduction (exordium) seeks to gain the audience’s attention (vv. 1-2);
The narration (narratio) seeks to inform the audience of the main argument (vv. 3-4);
The proofs (probatio) seeks to develop the argument with evidence (vv. 5-16);
The conclusion (peroratio) seeks the reader’s emotional response (vv. 17-23);
The doxology (doxologia) is an added element in Christian literature that gives glory to God (vv. 23-25).’ p.17.

There’s so much packed into this short book. I could’ve given more but you’ll just have to read it for yourself. I heartily recommend it.

 

 

‘Of One Blood’

‘And he made from one man (‘One blood’ in the AV) every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (Acts 17:26).’

In this verse we see ‘racism’ or the idea of different races refuted in the Bible. The Apostle Paul here is clearly referring to the Creation of man (that is: Mankind. Humans) back at the beginning. From Adam the Lord also creates Eve (Mother of the living). So from this couple we all descend (Genesis 1 & 2). ‘One blood’ suggests we all bleed the same. The Bible also speaks of the life being in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). There are differences, but not different races, there is only one humanity. One blood.

‘One blood. That is, of one man’s blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, “of one”; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, “of one man”; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: .’

‘And it is a certain truth that follows upon this, that no man has any reason to vaunt over another, and boast of his blood and family; and as little reason have any to have any dependence upon their being the children of believers, or to distinguish themselves from others, and reject them as the children of unbelievers, when all belong to one family, and are of one man’s blood, whether Adam or Noah: of whom there ‘is only one humanity’ (all nations of men, AV)(John Gill, 23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771. Baptist Bible commentator)

The verse also tells us that not only has God decreed that we (that’s all of us) should live on all the face of the earth (Genesis 9:1) but also how long we should be here. Psalm 90:10 gives a rough estimate of ‘three score years and ten.’ (Or should that be three score years and Then!) It’s at this point the Bible teaching starts to get (more) uncomfortable. This is starting to sound like we aren’t in control. If you are starting to feel the pinch a little, it gets even more specific. He (God) has also ‘determined …. the boundaries of their (me & you) dwelling place.’ The fact is we had no control over where or when we were born. We had no control over our parents either. So even where we are born (or live) falls under the supervision of God.

There are at least three things then we should realise from this verse.

1. We all share a common ancestry. In that sense we are all brothers and sisters.

2. We are all allotted a time to live. There’s nothing fatalistic about this. There’s a plan in place.

3. When and where we were born, and where we live, is no accident.

Once we realise that we have no say where or when we are born and have no say in the day of our death and that it’s not us in control the following verse becomes clear. What is it?

That we should seek God (Acts 17:27).

Again, here’s John Gill:

‘That they should seek the Lord,…. Or “God”, as the Alexandrian copy and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read; their Creator, and kind Benefactor, and who has appointed their time of life, and their habitations for them; and this should engage them to seek to know him, who has done all this for them, and to fear and serve him, and to glorify his name:’

Frankly, I see little seeking after God. But then I cannot see the heart. There is a lot of activity. But is there a seeking after God. Are you seeking God? Or does this describe you:

‘no one understands; no one seeks for God (Rom 3:11).’

But then verse 27 gives an encouragement to seek after God. How come? They might ‘feel their way towards him and find him.’ This is what happened in ancient Nineveh. The prophet Jonah was sent to preach to the people there. He preached a message of coming judgement. The King said Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” (Jonah 3:9).’ And that’s what happened. Here’s more from the book of Jonah:

‘When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it (Jonah 3:10).’

We live in days of upheaval and perhaps this is God’s judgement upon us. In all of what’s happening right now please take notice of what the writer of Ecclesiastes says ‘Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near…. (Ecc 12:1).’ What does it mean to remember? What does it mean to turn from an evil way?

When the Apostle preached to the people in Thessalonica he described their response like this:

‘For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, (1 Thes 1:9). The same word is used as we saw in Jonah. The people turned. God saw that they turned. They turned TO God FROM Idols. That is an about turn. Their lives were going one way, with one end. They turned and went the exact opposite way, with a different end.

What about you? With all the upheaval and uncertainty will you turn to God from your idols?

In all the upheaval then, in all the injustice and sadness in the world, and even in your own life, will you hear the call of The Lord Jesus Christ:

Mat 11:28  Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

‘the heart of the problem’ by Alun Ebenezer

‘the heart of the problem’ Alun Ebenezer, EP Books, 2019. The author is Headmaster at a school in London. The book is primarily an evangelistic book. It isn’t complicated. It isn’t fancy. And it isn’t long at just 58 pages. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to learn. I enjoyed reading it. This book is written in a style that doesn’t mince words. The one aim of the book is to encourage and persuade you to go to the doctor (The Lord Jesus Christ). He is passionate about the task in hand. ‘Don’t mince your words doctor. Tell me the truth.’ This is what Alun does. You are in good hands. Rarely does an evangelistic book come along that I can unreservedly recommend. This is one of them. ‘Knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men‘ says the Apostle Paul. This is written in that spirit.

It’s a good book to give away. It might not suit everyone. But if you want to know what the problem is, and the answer, this book does that. Ten of Those are selling it for £1.99.

There are five chapters:

1. The Problem: In just 2 pages he lays out the problem in no uncertain terms saying ‘…. the one thing we can all agree on is that something is wrong with the world we live in (p.1.).’

2. The Diagnosis: When you have a problem with your health you go to the doctor. Why? You want to know what’s wrong. So what’s wrong:

‘To get a diagnosis, …. we need a reliable understanding of our deepest problem. The Bible provides that level of understanding because it is God’s Word …. the problem is not ‘out there’ but rather in us; …. The fundamental problem is not bad parents, bad schools, bad friends, bad circumstances, corrupt politicians or a broken society. The fundamental problem is we all have a bad heart. (p.3.).’

He then. goes on to demonstrate this under eight brief headings, culminating in a Verdict on page 14:

The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart. The symptoms are around us and the diagnosis is that we are sinners, every one of us (Romans 3:23).

3. The Prognosis: ‘…. where does this condition I have lead? What will happen if it carries on?’ ‘…. the Bible goes on to show us the prognosis, which tells us just how serious things are and why the diagnosis cannot be ignored (p. 15.).’

Just now people are scared they will catch the CoronaVirus because they know it can lead to death. Although some might brush it off thinking it only applies to people with underlying conditions. This isn’t something we can brush off because all of us have the underlying condition (the diagnosis) of a sinful nature. The author goes on to briefly show what that means under three heads: Death, The Judgement, and Hell. He says this:

‘All the things we enjoy on earth will be gone forever. It is impossible to imagine how awful it will be…. The anger of God hanging over you forever. There is no escape, no emergency exit, no prospect of getting out (p. 20).’

4. The Cure: The condition we have can’t be more serious. But ‘…. God doesn’t tell us about hell because he is nasty and horrible and wants to frighten us and spoil our enjoyment; rather, out of love and kindness, he warns us about it so that we don’t end up there (p. 21).’ A serious condition then, needs a serious cure. Not the prospect of a cure. Not a ‘What are my odds Doctor’ kind of cure. But a certain cure. Millions of people through the ages have received this cure. The author goes on to explain what that involves.

Remarkably, the cure doesn’t involve something we have to do. Some cures are quite radical and involve a great deal of effort by the patient. Not this cure. All the effort, all the hard work, is done for us by another. Such is our condition the cure cannot come from within. Neither our effort, nor our resolve will do it. Alun, throughout what is the longest chapter, explains what it is the Lord Jesus Christ has done for sinners.

Trying to grasp what Christ suffered for sinners on the cross is difficult to comprehend. Alun explained the suffering of The Lord Jesus on the cross in a way I’d not heard, or at least not quite appreciated before. He explained it by referring to the way time changed in the Narnia books. So while Christ was on the cross for those three hours he somehow entered another (eternal?) dimension where his suffering was of such a nature that here on earth we only get to see a fraction of what Salvation actually cost.

‘On earth it was hours but as Christ went into the darkness he left time and entered eternity and suffered an eternal hell (p. 34.).’

You might think all this is far-fetched, but seeing the things in the world and maybe your own experience convinces you that something is radically wrong. The Bible explains what’s wrong, and gives an answer. Jesus said to his disciples at one stage, ‘Will you also leave me? They said there’s nowhere else we can go, you alone have the words of eternal life (John 6: 66-69).’

Indeed, there’s nowhere else to go. And so to the final chapter.

5. The Doctor: Not convinced? It’s amazing that people, even with a serious condition, will not go to the doctor. There are a few reasons given why they just will not avail themselves of the cure. We are then given some of these are why they are no reason not to come. He gives five reasons and ends with this final heading: ‘Come to the doctor!.’

‘Just come to the doctor! The way you come to him is in repentance and faith (p. 54).’

In the penultimate paragraph he encapsulates the whole book when he writes:

‘The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart. The symptoms are serious. The diagnosis spot on. The prognosis is terrifying. The cure sublime. And the doctor is ready and willing to see you… Come to him now! (p. 58.).’

Just in case you missed it, the doctor is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. The same Lord Jesus that said ‘Only the sick need a doctor (Mark 2:17).’ Have you seen that you are sick. Not everyone does. Some see it, but do nothing. They don’t come. Don’t be like them. Especially when the Lord Jesus says:

‘All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out (John 6:37).’

 

The Lord Christ sets His Face as Flint.

Luke 9:51 ‘….he (that is, the Lord Jesus) steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem;’
Says John Gill ‘or “strengthened his face”, as the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions; set his face like a flint, as in Isa 1:7 denoting not impudence, as hardening of the face is used in Pro 21:29 but boldness, courage, constancy and firmness of mind: or “he prepared his face”, as the Syriac; or “turned his face”, as the Arabic, he looked that way, and set forward; or as the Persic version renders it, “he made a firm purpose”, he resolved upon it, and was determined to go to Jerusalem, his time being up in Galilee; and though he knew what he was to meet with and endure; that he should bear the sins of his people, the curse of the law, and wrath of God; that he should have many enemies, men and devils to grapple with, and undergo a painful, shameful, and accursed death; yet none of these things moved him, he was resolutely bent on going thither, and accordingly prepared for his journey;’
Source: From the Luke 9:51 verse comments in John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.