Counterfeit Communion

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Jeffrey Johnson (source – https://founders.org/2020/04/07/counterfeit-communion/)

Some Christians believe the sacraments function like magic wands that automatically bring about (ex opere operato) the things that they signify. For these Christians, salvation is bestowed and maintained by the sacraments. Others practically believe that the sacraments are meaningless rituals. If these Christians happen to miss the church’s yearly business meeting and the Lord’s Supper that follows, no problem. They will hopefully be at the next year’s business meeting to receive the Lord’s Supper.

Not Ex Opere Operato

Moses and Paul made it clear that circumcision of the Old Covenant did not bring about that which it signified by the act performed (ex opere operato). Moses made a distinction between those who were only circumcised in the flesh and those circumcised in the heart by the Spirit (see Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16, 30:6). The prophet Jeremiah likewise made this distinction (see Jer. 4:4). The apostle Paul explained it this way: “A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God.” (Rom. 2:28-29).

Circumcision represented inward purification and union with God’s holy people. But, just because someone was circumcised in the flesh did not mean they were circumcised in their hearts. Just because the physical children of Abraham received the outward rite does not mean they enjoyed the inward reality. Physical circumcision did not produce spiritual circumcision. Heart circumcision only takes place by the operation of the Holy Spirit: “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). In the same way, being baptized and observing the Lord’s Supper do not automatically bestow saving grace on unbelievers. Many professing Christians will find out on the Day of Judgment that they never were a part of God’s people even though they regularly partook of the ordinances of the church (Matt. 7:23).

Moreover, the power of salvation is the gospel (Rom. 1:16). It is the Word of God that is sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). It is the Word of God that brings conviction, regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23) and sanctification (John 17:17; 2 Thess. 2:13). Without the truth of God’s Word, there is no salvation. Without the truth, there is no saving grace. Yet, no one believes that the truth automatically saves everyone who hears it (2 Cor. 4:3). The word of God is only effectual unto salvation when the Holy Spirit chooses to use it to illuminate one’s mind and heart (John 1:12). For flesh and blood cannot open anyone’s eyes to the truth (Matt. 16:17). It doesn’t take a good salesman, but the Holy Spirit to impart saving faith. And if the Bible (which is the power of God unto salvation) does not impart saving faith automatically, why would we expect the sacraments to do so?

Not Merely a Sign

This doesn’t mean, however, that the Spirit doesn’t utilize means. The Spirit operates in, by, and through the Word of God. The Spirit never functions independently of the Word of God. The Spirit inspired the written Word of God, and the Spirit illuminates the written Word of God. For faith does not come through osmosis but through hearing of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Because no aspect of the Christian life operates without faith, no aspect of the Christian life operates without the spiritual illumination of the Word of God.

And since the Spirit does not directly communicate the written Word to His people, earthy (earthly?) means are needed to communicate the Word of God. The invisible Spirit has chosen to use visible means as instruments to carry out His work. The Spirit used holy men to pen the Word; and the Spirit continues to use ambassadors to preach the Word. He has chosen earthen and broken vessels to reveal the glory of God (2 Cor. 4:7). Rather than directly coming to people through some ineffable and mystical experience, the Spirit has chosen to use the foolishness of preaching to save and sanctify His people (1 Cor. 1:21).

Yet preaching is not the only means that God uses to communicate the Word of God. According to the Spirit-inspired Scripture, there are five ordinary means of grace that God has given to the church to transmit the truth of Scripture: (1.) preaching/teaching, (2.) congregational singing, (3.) public reading of the Word, (4.)  spiritual fellowship, and (5.) the sacraments. These five ordinary things function as channels of grace because they are God’s prescribed method of communicating the written Word of God to people. We preach the Word; we sing the Word; we read the Word; we fellowship around the Word; and, we see the Word in the ordinances. These are the means of grace because they are the prescribed method God has given the church to proclaim His Word.

Because no aspect of the Christian life operates without faith, no aspect of the Christian life operates without the spiritual illumination of the Word of God.

With this in mind, the sacraments, as physical signs of spiritual realities, are more than empty signs. They are means of grace that communicate divine truth. Though they don’t function ex opere operato, they are part of God’s ordained method in which faith and grace come. By seeing truth illustrated in the ordinances, the saints are inwardly encouraged and strengthen by divine grace. And though they don’t operate ex opere operato, they are designed to physically carryout the spiritually realities which they signify. For instance, though water baptism does not save, water baptism does function as one’s official profession of faith. And though the Lord’s Supper does not (in-and-of-itself) create fellowship with Christ and the saints, there is real spiritual fellowship with Christ and the saints when the church observes the Lord’s Supper together. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t just represent communion, it displays and facilitates communion. In this way, the sacraments are not empty or bare signs.

The Efficacy of the Sacraments Is Tied to Their Meaning  

The sacraments, unlike the other ordinary means of graces, uniquely function as visible illustrations. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, but only if the meaning of the picture is understood by those who see it. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pointless if their significance and meaning are unclear. Without truth, symbols are meaningless and empty. Yet, when symbolscommunicate truth, they become effective. In the same way, when the symbols/elements of the sacraments are understood, they became effective means of divine communication and grace. Consequently, the truths signified in the sacraments are paramount to their efficacy. Because there is no grace without truth, the sacraments are only as effective as they properly illustrate the truth.

A Physical Sign that Communicates More Than Just Spiritual Realities

It is easy to see how the sacraments communicate spiritual realities. The Lord’s supper, for instance, communicates the Lord’s death, the Lord’s return, and the saint’s collective communion with Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 11:17-26). These are spiritual blessings are only received and enjoyed by faith. For this reason, the signs are not the same thing as that which are signified by the signs.

Yet, spiritual realities were never meant to be divorced from physical realities. For instance, Christ physically died. Christ will physically return. We will physically eat food and have face-to-face communion with Christ in heaven at the great wedding supper (what a day that will be!). One day, our physical bodies will be resurrected and glorified; and one day the earth will be made new (2 Pet. 3:13). Then, when the heavens and the earth are made one, the physical and spiritual realities will be perfectly united (Eph. 1:10).

And because the resurrected Christ has redeemed both our souls and our bodies, the ordinances of the church are designed to speak of both physical and spiritual realities obtained by Christ. These physical signs (baptism and the Lord’s supper), along with their physical elements (water, wine, and bread), signify that our salvation is more than just something spiritual. The sacraments (with their physical elements) communicate not only our spiritual inheritance (such as regeneration and spiritual fellowship), they communicate our physical inheritance (such as the future resurrection of our bodies and our local fellowship with the saints). Thus, we don’t need to overly emphasize the spiritual realities of the Lord’s Supper to the point that we overshadow the physical realities of the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper speaks of our present (physical and spiritual) blessings and our future (physical and spiritual) blessings (the already, but not yet) that we have inherited in death of Jesus Christ.

The Lord’s Supper Represents Spiritual and Physical Communion

Consequently, the Lord’s supper, in particular, represents both our spiritual communion in Christ Jesus and our physical communion with the local church. It is hard for me to grasp Martin Luther’s insistence that the bread of the Lord’s super is the physical body of Jesus Christ (hoc est corpus meum). Not only does that cause the humanity and the material body of Christ to take on divine attributes (which is wrong), it implies that physical union with Christ is the cause of our spiritual union with Christ (which is also wrong). We are not united to the invisible Christ through joining a local church. We are not united to the invisible Christ by eating and drinking the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is not through flesh and blood that we enter into the kingdom of God. Rather, it is by faith alone that we are united to Christ. This union with Christ, moreover, is spiritual and invisible. Therefore, it’s not necessary that the elements of the Lord’s Supper be the actual blood and body of Christ. We don’t have to see or touch or taste the physical body of Christ to have spiritual union Christ in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6).

Yet, our spiritual union with Christ in heaven does produce a physical union with the body of Christ on earth. In that, our spiritual union with Christ is not separated from our physical union with the church. The evidence of being united to Christ is our eager desire to be united to a local church through water baptism (Acts. 2:41-42). This is why, local churches are the visible manifestation on earth of the invisible and universal church in heaven.

The Lord’s supper represents both our spiritual communion in Christ Jesus and our physical communion with the local church.

And thus, the ordinances of the church that depict spiritual truth rightly include physical and tangible elements that can be discerned with the empirical senses. These physical elements (water, bread, and wine) symbolize not only the physical and visible nature of the eternal state of glory, but also the physical and visible nature of the local church. The local church is not a mystical gathering. Its fellowship is not merely spiritual. The local church gathers together in a physical location and has personal and face-to-face communion together. A common meal eaten together by the church signifies not only the church’s spiritual communion with Christ, it signifies its physical communion with one another.

The Lord’s Supper Is Meaningless Outside the Gathered Assembly

Because the Lord’s Supper is a physical sign that includes physical elements (bread and wine) that represents spiritual and physical realities, it matters how the ordinances are physically observed by the church. That is, the church is not free to change the meaning of the Lord’s supper. The church is not free to say the bread and wine represents something else than the body and blood of Christ. The church is not free to do away with the bread and wine. And the church is not free to observe the Lord’s Supper outside of their assembled gatherings—and this for three reasons:

  1. The Lord’s Supper Was Given to the Church to Carry Out in Their Gathered Assemblies

The Lord’s Supper is not a personal or private ordinance. It doesn’t signify a Christian’s personal communion with God. Communion ceases to have meaning when it’s done in isolation. Christians partaking of the ordinance by themselves (or a family partaking of communion at home) is a gross misrepresentation of its meaning. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t just symbolize Christ’s death and anticipates His return, it symbolizes the church’s communion together in Christ. It was for this reason that Paul instructed the church of Corinth to wait until the whole assembly is gathered together before they observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). Eating the Lord’s Supper as a common meal together as a church body was Paul’s instruction. Paul explains the importance of observing the Lord’s Supper as a common meal: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). The importance of the Lord’s Supper being a common meal is the symbolism behind it. Just as the bread represents Christ’s body and the wine represents Christ’s blood, the common meal (one bread and one cup) represents the oneness and mutual fellowship of the body of Christ. Individuals and families partaking of the Lord’s Supper at home, therefore, are misrepresenting the meaning of the Lord’s supper.

  1. Unassembled Partaking of the Lord’s Supper Is Not Discerning the Lord’s Body

The Lord’s Supper is holy. It is a serious thing to mishandle it. Many of the Corinthians had fallen ill and died because of their misuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:29-30). Why were their actions worthy of death? They simply observed the Lord’s Supper without discerning the Lord’s body? That is, they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper in small groups while being unconcerned with the rest of the assembly. They were fragmenting the assembly by gathering into small clusters. They were eating and drinking while other church members were doing without (1 Cor. 11:18-22). They failed to see that the Lord’s Supper was a common meal for everyone in the church. The Lord’s Supper is designed to symbolize and facilitate communion among the saints. Yet, the Corinthians were misrepresenting its significance by eating private meals in fragmented groups. And this was worthy of death because it turned the Lord’s Supper into a lie.

If we want to eat a meal together as a family or to invite a few Christians over for dinner that’s fine. But don’t call such a dinner the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:22). Paul says we have homes to enjoy dinner parties, but the Lord’s Supper is reserved for “when we come together as a church” (1 Cor. 1:18). “So then,” as Paul says, “my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33-34). We are to wait until the whole church is assembled before partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In other words, we are to discern the Lord’s body. By discerning the Lord’s body, we are to examine ourselves. We are to not only make sure our hearts are right with God; we are to make sure our hearts are right with the saints. If a husband can’t pray without being right with his wife (1 Pet. 3:7), and if believers can’t worship God without being in good standing his neighbor (Matt. 5:24), then individual church members cannot worship and properly partake of the Lord’s Supper without being in good fellowship with the saints. And like the Corinthians, if we partake of the Lord’s Supper without being in good standing with Christ and His church, we turn the truth of the ordinance into a falsehood. And when the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper as a unified body it demonstrates its collective unity in Christ Jesus.

In short, discerning the Lord’s body means that we are not free to partake of the Lord’s Supper outside of physical fellowship and communion of our local church. The church breaking into smaller groups and partaking of the Lord’s supper, or families taking the Lord’s Supper at home, is a misrepresentation of the meaning of the Lord’s supper.

  1. Without the Gathered Assembly, the Lord’s Supper Becomes a Meaningless Sign

Again, the sacraments represent both spiritual and physical realities. The Lord’s supper, for instance, doesn’t just signify the physical feast that God’s people will one day enjoy together with Christ in heaven, it also signifies (and facilities) the present communion that church members already enjoy with one another in Christ Jesus. And if this is a vital part of the significance, purpose, and efficacy of the Lord’s supper, then the church is not free to alter its meaning and purpose by observing it outside of its gather assemblies. Lies, for instance, are never (directly) used by the Spirit to bestow faith and grace. Lies and error are the instruments of Satan. If the Lord’s Supper is going to function as a means of grace, its symbolism must be demonstrated by the manner its carried out. The truths that the Lord’s Supper is designed to display must be communicated in both the elements and mode of its administration. What does the body represent? What does the wine represent? What does the one bread and one cup represent? It is only when we know the answers to these questions will the Lord’s Supper be an effectual means of grace. And if we add additional elements to the Lord’s Supper other than bread and wine, then we are adding to the Word of God. And if we alter how we observed the Lord’s supper, we are altering its meaning. And, consequently, if we alter its meaning, we are undermining its efficacy. For example, as a Baptist, I don’t see how sprinkling infants properly signifies a believer’s death and resurrection in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:3-4). How does sprinkling communicate being buried (immersed) into Christ? And likewise, I don’t see how the Lord’s Supper can properly signify the church’s spiritual and physical communion together if it is observed outside of the assembly of the saints. In short, once we alter the elements or mode of the Lord’s supper, we are altering its meaning and efficacy.

When the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper as a unified body it demonstrates its collective unity in Christ Jesus.

Conclusion

The Lord’s Supper is not designed to be a virtual meal that assimilates actual communion and fellowship with the body of Christ. Fellowship and communion with the saints requires the local church assembling together. Anything less than a common meal partaken together in the spiritual presence of Christ and the physical presence of the saints is not the real thing. Being away from our gathered assemblies and away from Lord’s Supper should be difficult. During this time, we should grow in our appreciation of our gathered worship services and long to observe the Lord’s Supper with the assembled church. Let’s not seek to minimize our exile from one another by creating a cheap and meaningless and ineffectual substitute.

God’s Purpose in the Cross

Posted on by
Reply

This excerpt is taken from R.C. Sproul’s commentary on John.

The doctrine of limited atonement (also known as “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”) says that the atonement of Christ was limited (in its scope and aim) to the elect; Jesus did not atone for the sins of everybody in the world. In my denomination, we examine young men going into the ministry, and invariably somebody will ask a student, “Do you believe in limited atonement?” The student will respond by saying, “Yes, I believe that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all and efficient for some,” meaning the value of Christ’s death on the cross was great enough to cover all of the sins of every person that ever lived, but that it applies only to those who put their faith in Christ. However, that statement doesn’t get at the real heart of the controversy, which has to do with God’s purpose in the cross.

There are basically two ways in which to understand God’s eternal plan. One understanding is that, from all eternity, God had a desire to save as many people as possible out of the fallen human race, so He conceived a plan of redemption by which He would send His Son into the world as the sin-bearer for fallen people. Jesus would go to the cross and die for all who would at some point put their trust in him. So the plan was provisional—God provided atonement for all who take advantage of it, for all who believe. The idea is that Jesus died potentially for everybody, but that it is theoretically possible that the whole thing was in vain because every last person in the world might reject the work of Jesus and choose to remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Thus, God’s plan could be frustrated because nobody might take advantage of it. This is the prevailing view in the church today—that Jesus died for everybody provisionally. In the final analysis, whether salvation happens depends on each individual person.

The Reformed view understands God’s plan differently. It says that God, from all eternity, devised a plan that was not provisional. It was a plan “A” with no plan “B” to follow if it didn’t work. Under this plan, God decreed that He would save a certain number of people out of fallen humanity, people whom the Bible calls the elect. In order for that plan of election to work out in history, He sent His Son into the world with the specific aim and design to accomplish redemption for the elect. This was accomplished perfectly, without a drop of the blood of Christ being wasted. Everyone whom the Father chose for salvation will be saved through the atonement.

The implication of the non-Reformed view is that God doesn’t know in advance who is going to be saved. For this reason, there are theologians today saying, “God saves as many people as He possibly can.” How many people can God save? How many people does He have the power to save? If He is really God, He has the power to save all of them. How many people does He have the authority to save? Cannot God intervene in anyone’s life, just as He did in Moses’ life, Abraham’s life, or the apostle Paul’s life, to bring them into a saving relationship with Him? He certainly has the right to do that.

We cannot deny that the Bible speaks about Jesus dying for “the world.” John 3:16 is the premier example of a verse that uses this language. But there is a counterbalancing perspective in the New Testament, including John’s Gospel, that tells us Jesus laid down His life not for everyone but for His sheep. Here in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks about His sheep as those whom the Father has given Him.

In John 6, we see that Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (v. 44a), and the word translated as “draws” properly means “compels.” Jesus also said in that chapter, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (v. 37a). His point was that everyone whom the Father designed to come to His Son would come, and no one else. Thus, your salvation, from start to finish, rests on the sovereign decree of God, who decided, in His grace, to have mercy on you, not because of anything He saw in you that demanded it, but for the love of the Son. The only reason I can give under heaven why I’m a Christian is because I’m a gift of the Father to the Son, not because of anything I’ve ever done or could do.

A Future Temple?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Gary DeMar “Does the Bible Teach that the Temple Will be Rebuilt?” (source – https://americanvision.org/22629/does-the-bible-teach-that-the-temple-will-be-rebuilt/)

As usual, I found myself dealing with a prophecy expert who assured me that I am wrong because I am not reading the Bible properly. That may be true, but I must be shown from the Bible where I have missed the mark. He assured me that the temple will be rebuilt and many other standard end-time events. Here’s what he wrote:

There is [sic] tons in scripture concerning these things. It may not fit our preferred theological construct, but they are there, nonetheless.

I wrote back and said that I’m not looking for “tons … I’ll settle for an ounce from Scripture.”

I have yet to find one person who can quote one verse from the New Testament that unequivocally states that a physical temple will be/should be built again in Jerusalem.

Some modern-day Jews are preparing for the reinstitution of animal sacrifices and rebuilding the temple:

The Passover sacrifice can only be offered in one place; on the Temple Mount. The sacrifice does not require an actual Temple structure but it does require an altar that is built to adhere to the Biblical requirements. Such an altar was constructed last year and stands ready…. “The Third oath is the Third Temple whose construction will be initiated by the nations, after which the Jews will join in.”  (Breaking Israel News)

If you want to get an idea what the abomination of desolation was (Matt. 24:15), this is it. The religious establishment continued with the sacrificial system in the rebuilt temple, completed around AD 64 and destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, in the place of the true Lamb of God. Those sacrifices were an affront to the redemptive work of Jesus, and in God’s eyes were like the following:

But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol.
As they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delights in their abominations (Isa. 66:3).

There is no need for a temple or animal sacrifice. Those days are long gone. Jesus was that final sacrifice, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. There is no need for an altar or a temple or the Aaronic priesthood. Jesus fulfills all of these.

Unfortunately, dispensationalists continually insist that for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled, the temple must be rebuilt, the altar constructed, and animal sacrifices reinstitution as part of some unfulfilled prophetic history.

Even dispensationalists admit the NT does not say the temple will be rebuilt. For the dispensational system to work, however, a temple must be built. A doctrine so central to a system must have at lest one verse supporting that system. The temple is mentioned numerous times in the NT, sometimes symbolically (John 2; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:4–9) and sometimes physically (e.g., Matt. 21:12; 24:1–2; 26:65; 2 Thess. 2), but nothing is said about it being rebuilt only destroyed.

Dispensational premillennialists need a future “tribulation temple” so their idea of antichrist can take his seat (2 Thess. 2:4), place a statue for people to worship (Rev. 13:14–15), and proclaim himself to be god (2 Thess. 2:4). But what the dispensationalists really need is a verse that states that there will be another rebuilt temple since there had already been one. Rebuilt-temple advocates Thomas Ice and Randall Price admit that “There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple.’” [1] Having made this revealing concession, they go on to claim, “there will be a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem at least by the midpoint of the seven-year tribulation period.” [2]

Don Stewart and Chuck Missler insist, “The crucial issue boils down to how we interpret prophecy. There are two basic ways to interpret Bible prophecy. Either you understand it literally or you do not. If a person rejects the literal interpretation then they [sic] are left to their own imagination as to what the Scripture means…. We believe it makes sense to understand the Scriptures as literally requiring the eventual construction and desecration of a Third Temple.” [3] The authors are careful only to say that another rebuilt temple is required. A third temple is required only if you’re a dispensationalist. To repeat, the NT does not mention anything about a rebuilt temple.

Jesus’ completed redemptive work makes the need for a rebuilt temple unnecessary. His ministry begins with the declaration that He is our tabernacle (John 1:14), “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29), “the temple” (John 2:19–21), and the “chief cornerstone” (Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20). By extension, believers are “as living stones, … being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). Those “in Christ” are the true temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Rev. 21:22).

Jesus and the people of God are the focus of the only temple that has any redemptive significance. To be “in Christ” is to be in the temple and all it stood for, “the renewed centre and focus for the people of God” [4] (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 1:2, 30; Gal. 3:14, 28; 5:6). The NT references to the temple of stone only refer to its destruction (Matt. 24:1–2), never its reconstruction. It is highly significant that “Jesus never gives any hint that there will be a physical replacement for this Temple. There is no suggestion, either in the Apocalyptic Discourse or elsewhere, that this destruction will be but a preliminary stage in some glorious ‘restoration’ of the Temple.” [5]

The writer of Hebrews declares that Jesus entered “through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation” (9:11). Since Jesus completed His redemptive work, any new temple “made with hands” is not much different from a pagan temple that has no inherent life or redemptive value (cf. Acts 17:24; 19:26; 2 Cor. 5:1). “[T]he description of the Jerusalem Temple as ‘made with hands’ … is a strong means of playing down its significance. This had been a way of belittling the pagan idols (e.g. Ps. 115:4; cf. Isa. 46:6); to describe the Temple in such a fashion was potentially incendiary.” [6] This is because “the author of Hebrews believed the Jerusalem Temple was but a ‘shadow’ of the reality now found in Christ (8:5).” [7]

The “new covenant” had made the “old covenant” obsolete that was ready (near) to pass away (8:13).

Stewart and Missler have made it very simple for us to determine whether the Bible addresses the issue of a rebuilt temple. If the Bible is interpreted literally, the need for a third temple should be explicitly stated. What biblical evidence do they offer to support their claim that “the Bible, in both testaments, speaks of a Temple that has yet to appear”? [8] From the OT they use Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 for support. Ice and Price can only find only one verse for support—Daniel 9:27.

Since Daniel was written after Solomon’s temple had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC (2 Kings 25:8–9; Dan. 1:1–2) and before the second temple had been built by the returning exiles (Ezra 6:13–15), it stands to reason that the “sanctuary” whose “end will come with a flood” (Dan. 9:26) must refer to the second temple that had not been built at the time the prophecy was given. It was this post-exile rebuilt temple that was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes around 170 BC but not destroyed. After a period of misuse and disuse, Herod the Great restored and enlarged this second temple, a project that started around 20 BC and was completed just a few years before it was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans, just as Jesus had predicted (Matt. 24:1–34).

It was this same temple that Zacharias served in (Luke 1:9), that Jesus was taken to as an infant (2:27) and later taught in (2:41–52), that had been under construction for forty-six years when Jesus prophesied that He would be its permanent replacement (John 2:20), that Jesus cleansed of the money changers (Matt. 21:12), that He predicted would be left desolate (Matt. 23:38; 24:2), whose veil was “torn in two from top to bottom” (Matt. 27:51), and that was finally destroyed by Titus in AD 70.

Daniel 9:27 is the only verse from the OT that Ice and Price contend supports the need for a third temple. But there is a problem with their reasoning. They argue that “the city and sanctuary” in Daniel 9:26 refers to Herod’s temple that was destroyed in AD 70 (Luke 21:6): “Jesus, seeing Himself as the Messiah, therefore saw the Romans as the people … who will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Knowing that He would soon be cut off (crucified), He likewise knew that the Temple’s destruction would soon occur.” [9]

In the span of two verses, these authors find two temples, one in Daniel 9:26 and another in 9:27, separated by 2000 years. As a careful reader will note, the “sanctuary” (temple) that appears in Daniel 9:26 does not appear in 9:27. This means that Daniel 9:27 is describing events related to the already mentioned sanctuary of 9:26 that Ice and Price say refers to the temple that was standing in Jesus’ day.

For Ice and Price to find another rebuilt temple, Daniel 9:27 would have to say something like this: “After an unspecified period of time, he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering in the sanctuary after the sanctuary is rebuilt a second time; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction of the sanctuary after the next sanctuary, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.” Of course, not one word of this is found in Daniel 9:27. [10]

  1. Thomas Ice and Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild: The Imminent Plan to Rebuild the Last Days Temple (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 197–198.[↩]
  2. Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 198.[↩]
  3. Don Stewart and Chuck Missler, The Coming Temple: Center Stage for the Final Countdown (Orange, CA: Dart Press, 1991), 193.[↩]
  4. Timothy J. Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1989). Quoted in Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 9.[↩]
  5. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 8.[↩]
  6. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 10.[↩]
  7. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 208.[↩]
  8. Stewart and Missler, The Coming Temple, 194.[↩]
  9. Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 68.[↩]
  10. For an exposition of Daniel 9:24–27, see Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), chap. 25.[↩]

Family Worship

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Family Worship 101 by William Boekestein (original source: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/family-worship-101/)

“Why did you steal my gods?” With these words, Laban ended a passionate speech against his son-in-law Jacob (Gen. 31:30). In fact, Laban’s daughter Rachel had stolen his idols, doubtless to keep alive the memory of her family after moving away with her husband, Jacob. Rachel literally took her family religion with her.

Every family has a god. Every day, young adults leave home with the gods of self-fulfillment, money, leisure, work, or even ministry. Some leave with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To a large extent, the difference is determined by how our families worship in the home.

Understanding Family Worship

Family worship is the regular use of Scripture, song, and prayer by a family unit, guided by the head of the household.

Family Worship Is Worship
Family worship is not merely a religious discipline; it is a meeting with the triune God in a spirit of adoration by means of three key ingredients.

First, families worship through Scripture. When we read the Bible, God preaches about Himself and the indescribable gift of His dear Son to a needy world. This message is not just for information, but also for exaltation.

Second, families worship through singing. It is inescapable: God’s people sing! The 150 psalms reference singing around 150 times. The New Testament call to admonish one another through song applies well in the context of the home (Col. 3:16).

Third, families worship through prayer. Since prayer is the chief way in which we show thankfulness to God (see the Heidelberg Catechism, question 116), our prayers must be worshipful, not merely formal. Family prayers should reflect the pastoral ethos and pathos of our High Priest (John 17).

Family Worship Is Regular
As illustrated by the practice of the early church, weekly congregational worship is insufficient for families that have been touched by God’s grace (Acts 2:47; 5:42). Scripture exhorts us to worship God daily, giving glory to Him in all things (Ps. 92:2; 1 Cor. 10:31).

Family Worship Is Covenantal
Before God established worship in the tabernacle, his people worshiped in family tents. “The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tents of the righteous…” (Ps. 118:15). Job’s piety shines in his prayers for his children (Job. 1:5). The faith of young Timothy blossomed in the fertile soil of family worship (2 Tim. 1:5). Christians must spend time alone with God in their prayer closets (Matt. 6:6). But they should also worship together with their families through the use of Scripture, song, and prayer.

Defending Family Worship

Scripture Requires Family Worship
Specifically, God requires heads of households, like good shepherds, to lead their families into green pastures (Josh. 24:15). God expected Abraham to “command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD” (Gen. 18:19). Consider also the example of Cornelius, “a devout man…who feared God with all his household” (Acts. 10:1). It is no surprise that when Peter came to Caesarea to preach the gospel, Cornelius rallied his household to attendance. “We are all present before God,” he said, “to hear all the things commanded you by God” (v. 33).

Family Worship Yields Spiritual Growth
Family worship is an indispensable instrument for instilling both old and young with a consciousness of the Lord, His Word, and our call to worship. In his research for one of his books, George Barna demonstrates that parents who pass along to their children the baton of spiritual maturity and vitality have one thing in common: they “take God’s words on life and family at face value, and apply those words faithfully and consistently.” Missionary John Paton relates the indelible impact family worship left on his life: “When, on his knees and all of us kneeling around him in Family Worship, [our father] poured out his whole soul with tears…for every…need, we all felt as if in the presence of the living Saviour, and learned to know and love Him as our Divine Friend.”

Children notice when worship is only a once-a-week activity. God often works powerfully in young lives whose souls are warmed by the incubator of daily family worship.

Improving Family Worship

Many families are convinced by the need for family worship, but struggle in implementation. In such cases, what can be done?

Study Family Worship as a Family
Some time ago, our family spent a month carefully reading and discussing Joel Beeke’s booklet Family Worship. Partly due to the dynamic of learning together, this study made a lasting impression on us.

Stick to a Plan
Haphazard Scripture reading rarely edifies over the long haul. Families should include variety in their plans and adjust them over time. But following a regular Scripture reading plan helps us read the Bible the way it was meant to be read: as a cohesive history of God’s redemptive work.

Select a Time that Works
Unless worship is codified in a family’s schedule it will likely be supplanted by life’s busyness. Some families will flourish with morning worship; others will better meet in the evening. Families that can find no time in their week for worship need to adjust their schedule.

Sing!
For some Christians—particularly those who were not raised in the church or in singing homes—the thought of introducing song into family worship seems utterly unrealistic. But, as with all things, in order to establish a fresh tradition of family singing, begin with what you know. Start with familiar songs and progress to less-familiar songs with the help of tools (e.g. www.hymnary.org).

Strive for Regularity, Not Perfection
Most of us have become frustrated when our family worship ideals eclipsed reality. Family worship is like a great friendship. It has its bumps, but it is forged through regular, meaningful interaction. William Gouge observed that “a nail that at one blow barely enters, with many blows is knocked all the way in.” So it is with repetition in family worship.

Through the gospel, Jesus enters our lives and our families. Where He has entered, He is to be worshiped. Where He is worshiped, we trust He will stay and live and work and bless.

Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? (Updated)

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Dan Wallace is the Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) and Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a consultant for several Bible translations, and the author of numerous journal articles and books including Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

Dr. Wallace explains the copying of the New Testament books and shows the reliability of the scribal processes. Video from the Sacred Words History of the Bible Conference, February 21–22, 2020. Hosted by the Text & Canon Institute. This video is followed by a Q&A with the plenary speakers, the directors, and pastor Josh Vincent.

The Church in the Old Testament

Posted on by
Reply

Article: “The Church is All Over the Old Testament” by Gary DeMar (source: https://americanvision.org/22591/the-church-is-all-over-the-old-testament/)

Dispensationalists continue to spread the false claim that the Church is something new in the New Testament. As a result, dispensationalists make a distinction between Israel and this supposed new entity called the “church.” The argument goes something like this: When Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God stopped dealing with Israel and started with something that was unknown in the Old Testament—the church.

First, Israel did not reject Jesus as the promised Messiah. Some Jews did and some Jews didn’t. It’s the remnant principle (Rom. 9:27–29). The gospel was first preached to Jews in Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). The first converts were Jews. Peter’s message was directed at “the men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem” (2:14) and the “men of Israel” (2:22). When the people heard Peter’s message “they were pierced to the heart” and asked what they should do (2:37). They were told to “repent and be baptized” (an Old Covenant symbol) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (2:38).

Peter tells them that what was happening was a promise to Israel, those Israelites living in Jerusalem and Judea and those living in the diaspora (the dispersion, James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The result was that “there were added that day about three thousand souls” (2:41). Not long after, “those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (4:4).

These believing Jews, part of the remnant, were the ekklēsia—the “church”—the assembly of God’s people (5:11, 13).

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature notes that “the term ἐκκλεσία apparently became popular among Christians in Greek-speaking areas for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp. in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group.”

Why did Paul persecute the “the church [ekklēsia] in Jerusalem” (8:1)? Because the Jews identified themselves as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament promises about their future redemption. Paul understood what was going on. No Jew ever asked, “What’s the church?”

This short analysis should be enough to convince anyone that the church isn’t anything new, but, alas, it doesn’t seem to be enough for some people. So, we continue.

The ekklēsia is all over the Old Testament. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, the Hebrew qahal was in most cases translated as ekklēsia.

It is . . . probable that the rendering ἐκκλεσία was used purely for its general surface meaning of “assembly” and corresponded simply to an understanding of qahal as “assembly”; and that the derivation from καλέω “call” or any associations with ἔκκλητος “called out” or κλῆσις “calling” (in the theological sense) had no importance. [1]

The Hebrew translation of the Greek NT translates qahal  as ekklēsia. Ekklēsia is not a new word or idea in the NT.

It’s unfortunate that King James insisted that ekklēsia be translated as “church” rather than “congregation” or “assembly” as William Tyndale did in his translation of the New Testament. His insistence cost him his life.

Here is how Tyndale’s translation handled the first two appearances of ekklēsia in the New Testament (spelling modernized):

  • “And upon this rock I will build my congregation: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). [2]
  • “If he hear not them, tell it unto the congregation: if he hear not the congregation, take him as an heathen man, and as a publican” (Matt. 18:17). [3]

Catholic Church officials protested Tyndale’s use of “congregation” as the proper translation of ekklēsia since at that time “church” signified an “organized body of the clergy” and a place to worship [4] and resulted in a clear distinction between the clergy and laity.

In 1529, Sir Thomas More (1478–1535) published Dialogue Concerning Heresies, a frontal assault on Tyndale’s New Testament translation. “At bottom, More asserts that Tyndale’s offence has been to give the people Paul in English, and to translate key words in their Greek meanings as ‘senior’ [presbuteros], [5] ‘congregation’ [ekklēsia], ‘love’ [agape] and ‘repent’ [metanoia], instead of the Church’s ‘priest’, ‘church’, ‘charity’, and ‘do penance.’” [6]

More wanted to ensure that the hierarchy of the church was protected and the division of the clergy and laity maintained. It’s no wonder that More attacked Tyndale on the translation of specific words that would have called into question the hierarchical division. The common reader could have seen, in addition to how ekklēsia was translated, that the English word “priest” [7] referred either to Jewish or pagan priests and not elders in the Church. “As a result, many New Testament references that could have been taken as endorsing the institution of the Church were now to be understood as referring to local congregations of believers.” [8] More believed that Tyndale’s translation undermined “the authority of Tradition,” [9] that is, the ecclesiastical traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

Like Wycliffe, Luther, and others, Tyndale believed that the invisible Church of the faithful was the only true Church, and that, as C.S. Lewis observed, “the mighty theocracy with its cardinals, abbeys, pardons, inquisition, and treasury of grace” connoted by the word “Church” was “in its very essence not only distinct from. But antagonistic to, the thing that St. Paul had in mind whenever he used the Greek word ekklesia. More, on the other hand, believed with equal sincerity that the ‘Church’ of his own day was in essence the very same mystical body which St. Paul addressed.” [10]

For his efforts, Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 for defying church authority, opposing the Church by promoting doctrines such as sola Scriptura, justification by faith alone, the denial of purgatory, questioning the number of sacraments, and translating particular words that could lead the laity to believe that the Church’s authority was limited. Tyndale’s most pernicious “attack” on the Church was his insistence that ekklesia should be translated “congregation” rather than “church”:

In his major defense of his translation, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, Tyndale begins with ekklesia in its relation to the English word church. He announces that “This word church hath divers [many] significations” (PS 3.11). [11] He then sets out . . . three senses of the English word: first, a building; second, the clergy; and third, “a congregation; a multitude or a company gathered together in one, of all degrees of people” (PS 3.12). [12] He rejects church as a translation of ekklesia, because the first two senses do not appear in the New Testament, and the last is “little known among the common people” (PS 3.12). [13] They would thus be misled into thinking that “church” referred to the bishops, monks, and priests, rather than to themselves as a collectivity. He therefore prefers congregation, which carries the third sense clearly, and the first and second not at all. [14]

As William Stafford writes, it was understood by the laity and church officials that “it was the clergy who were the ecclesia, the church.” [15] But as Tyndale saw it, “the church was not the clergy, nor was it the hierarchical, legal, and ceremonial edifice sustaining the clergy, but rather the congregation of all who responded to the word of God.” [16] This hierarchical understanding of ekklēsia did not stop with protests against Tyndale’s more accurate translation of the word. One of the Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the [King James] Bible required the following: “The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.” [17] It seems that church officials, this time “the Anglican establishment,” [18] wanted to impose on ekklēsia a contemporary “ecclesiastical” understanding of the word rather than its biblically contextual definition. Because of Rule 3, the hands of the translators were tied since they were in the employ of the king.

[Bishop Richard] Bancroft was determined to ensure that the translation process was judiciously guided, and limit the freedom of the translators. The translators were instructed to follow strict “rules of translation,” drawn up by Bancroft and approved by [King] James, designed to minimize the risk of producing a Bible that might give added credibility to Puritanism, Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism. [19]

Whether translated “church” or “congregation,” neither Tyndale nor the ecclesiastical powers of his day had any notion of the modern-day dispensational understanding of ‘church.’ Even so, it’s unfortunate that some of these early English translations—the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611)—translated ekklēsia as “church” since the word obscured its biblical definition of “assembly.” In a similar way, because dispensationalists did not make a formal study of the translation issue, they developed a foreign understanding of ekklēsia that had more to do with the state of the church in the 18th century then with the actual meaning of the word.

That’s why Stephen could mention the “ekklēsia in the wilderness” and the writer to the Hebrews could quote Psalm 22:22: “I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the ekklēsia” (Heb. 2:12). The ekklēsia doesn’t replace Israel. The nations were grafted into the ekklēsia that was made up almost exclusively of Jews.

  1. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961), 121.[↩]
  2. “And I saye also vnto the yt thou arte Peter: and apon this rocke I wyll bylde my congregacion. And the gates of hell shall not prevayle ageynst it.”[↩]
  3. “If he heare not them tell it vnto the congregacion. If he heare not ye congregacion take him as an hethen man and as a publican.”[↩]
  4. Benson Bobrick, Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 114.[↩]
  5. In a later edition, Tyndale translated presbuteros as the more accurate “elder.”[↩]
  6. David Daniell, The Bible in English: It’s History and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 149.[↩]
  7. The Greek word hiereus, not presbuteros, is translated accurately as “priest.”[↩]
  8. Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 75.[↩]
  9. Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, 115.[↩]
  10. Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, 115–116.[↩]
  11. William Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue (Cambridge: The University Press, [1536] 1850), 11.[↩]
  12. Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, 12.[↩]
  13. Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, 12.[↩]
  14. Matthew Decoursey, “The Semiotics of Narrative in The Obedience of a Christian Man,” Word, Church, and State: Tyndale Quincentenary Essays, eds. John T. Day, Eric Lund, and Anne M. O’Donnell  (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of American Press, 1998), 77.[↩]
  15. William S. Stafford, “Tyndale’s Voice to the Laity” in Word, Church, and State: Tyndale Quincentenary Essays, 105.[↩]
  16. Stafford, “Tyndale’s Voice to the Laity,” 106.[↩]
  17. Quoted in Daniell, The Bible in English, 439.[↩]
  18. McGrath, The Story of the King James Bible, 172.[↩]
  19. McGrath, The Story of the King James Bible, 173.[↩]