Monthly Archives: March 2011

Amazed By Common Grace

Posted on by
4

Common Grace. It is a term used in theology to describe the grace God gives to every living person on planet earth. It is called “common, but because everyone alive gets it.

Grace by definition can never be demanded. God gives grace, not because He has to, but because He decides to. The scripture says that God “makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

How gracious this is of God. God doesn’t discriminate against the non-Christian in sending His rain, but gives it freely to saint and sinner alike. That should amaze us. It should take our breath away in fact. Yet the concept of common grace doesn’t usually do that for us. We’re very much accustomed to it, because it is so common, but we must always remember that God is exceedingly gracious in dispensing this kind of grace on people. The point being, He in no way has to.

Through the use of a short story, I’d like to give you a glimpse into why common grace should amaze us.

The story concerns a young Christian lady of 18 years of age in York, England. Born in Malta, of Irish parents, she was engaged to be married to a bright young man in the British military. The plan was that after the war was over, they would both serve the Lord as missionaries together, wherever He would lead them to go.

Sent over to France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, the young man was thrust into the battle for the city of Caen in Normandy, France. Tragically, just weeks afterward, on July 10, 1944, he was killed by one of the enemies’ bullets.

On hearing the news of her fiance’s death, the young lady was obviously devastated. Grief filled her heart. In attending church services in York, for the next several months she would hear dramatic testimonies of Divine protection, as loved ones returned back home recounting the stories. All of these returning soldiers were protected from imminent danger. Many of these soldiers were extremely conscious of the Lord’s direct intervention in keeping them alive, and yet, the young lady had to live on knowing that the man she loved was not coming home. Continue reading →

Clever Deceptive Speech

Posted on by
4

John Charles Ryle (1816 – 1900) was the first Anglican bishop of Liverpool, in the Church of England. Before his conversion to Christ, he was an athlete who rowed and played Cricket for Oxford.

He became known as an warm hearted and engaging defender of the Christian faith; a writer, pastor and an evangelical preacher. In reading his material, it is amazing how relevant his insights seem to be for our own day.

“J. C. Ryle Quotes” is an online treasure store of quotes from the great man. Here is one regarding the characteristics of false teachers and the clever, deceptive traits of false doctrine. We should always remember that deceived people, deceive people:

Many things combine to make the present inroad of false doctrine peculiarly dangerous.

1. There is an undeniable zeal in some of the teachers of error: their “earnestness” makes many think they must be right.

2. There is a great appearance of learning and theological knowledge: many fancy that such clever and intellectual men must surely be safe guides.

3. There is a general tendency to free thought and free inquiry in these latter days: many like to prove their independence of judgment, by believing novelties.

4. There is a wide-spread desire to appear charitable and liberal-minded: many seem half ashamed of saying that anybody can be in the wrong.

5. There is a quantity of half-truth taught by the modern false teachers: they are incessantly using Scriptural terms and phrases in an unscriptural sense.

6. There is a morbid craving in the public mind for a more sensuous, ceremonial, sensational, showy worship: men are impatient of inward, invisible heart-work.

7. There is a silly readiness in every direction to believe everybody who talks cleverly, lovingly and earnestly, and a determination to forget that Satan often masquerades himself “as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).

8. There is a wide-spread “gullibility” among professing Christians: every heretic who tells his story plausibly is sure to be believed, and everybody who doubts him is called a persecutor and a narrow-minded man.

All these things are peculiar symptoms of our times. I defy any observing person to deny them. They tend to make the assaults of false doctrine in our day peculiarly dangerous. They make it more than ever needful to cry aloud, “Do not be carried away!”

~ J.C. Ryle

Warnings to the Churches, “Divers and Strange Doctrines”, [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1967], 76, 77.

How Do God’s Love and God’s Wrath Relate?

Posted on by
Reply

D.A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL

“One evangelical cliché has it that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

There is a small element of truth in these words: God has nothing but hate for the sin, but this cannot be said with respect to how God sees the sinner.

Nevertheless the cliché is false on the face of it, and should be abandoned. Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone, the psalmists state that God hates the sinner, that His wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible the wrath of God rests on both the sin (Rom. 1:18–23) and the sinner (1:24–32; 2:5; John 3:36).

Our problem in part is that in human experience wrath and love normally abide in mutually exclusive compartments. Love drives wrath out, or wrath drives love out. We come closest to bringing them together, perhaps, in our responses to a wayward act by one of our children, but normally we do not think that a wrathful person is loving.

But this is not the way it is with God. God’s wrath is not an implacable blind rage. However emotional it may be, it is an entirely reasonable and willed response to offenses against His holiness. At the same time His love wells up amidst His perfections and is not generated by the loveliness of the loved. Thus there is nothing intrinsically impossible about wrath and love being directed toward the same individual or people at once. God in His perfections must be wrathful against His rebel image-bearers, for they have offended Him; God in His perfections must be loving toward His rebel image-bearers, for He is that kind of God. . . .

The reality is that the Old Testament displays the grace and love of God in experience and types, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. Similarly, the Old Testament displays the righteous wrath of God in experience and types, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. In other words both God’s love and God’s wrath are ratcheted up in the move from the Old Testament to the New. These themes barrel along through redemptive history, unresolved, until they come to a resounding climax in the Cross.

Do you wish to see God’s love? Look at the Cross.

Do you wish to see God’s wrath? Look at the Cross.”

– D.A. Carson, “God’s Love and God’s Wrath,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 (1999): 388–390.

HT: Tony Reinke

A Thirst For Hermeneutics

Posted on by
4

We would be horrified to hear of a surgeon who had just two weeks of training operating on someone’s brain. As important as brain surgery is, I believe the job of the Gospel preacher is far more important. Eternal souls hang in the balance, healthy and accurate. A teacher of the Bible needs rigorous training in the science of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). But that’s not just true for the preacher; everyone of us needs to know how to gain an accurate knowledge of the Word of God.

Some people think that if God wants you to know something about the Bible, He will just reveal it to you supernaturally. Unfortunately, that’s how a lot of cults get started. 1 Tim 5:17 says, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” Correct interpretation requires work; sometimes, a great deal of hard work.

We are also told to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15). Without diligent study, it is easy to wrongly divide the word; to believe and to teach error. The main way this takes place is because we draw illegitimate inferences from the text – when we read into the text things that are not actually said by the text, and draw out of the text things that are actually not there (known as eisegesis). Sadly, this happens all too frequently.

Though there may be many applications of a text or passage of Scripture, there is only ONE correct interpretation. In other words, it doesn’t mean one thing and the exact opposite thing at the same time. Scripture is consistent. Scripture was written down by men, but in reality, there is only one Author, God Himself. God does not contradict Himself; He is not the author of confusion. Though, at times, we may be confused about what a passage means, God is never confused, and it is precisely because the Bible has a God inspired consistency that we can study it to find out what it means.

Because Scripture has only one correct interpretation, we can learn to be consistent in our interpretation of biblical texts by following some basic rules. These include reading any text in its context, finding out the meaning of the original words and grammar, and following the basic rules of English – verbs always stay as verbs, nouns as nouns, etc,.

Let us dispense with our traditions whenever we encounter them. What matters is not what we have assumed that a text says, but what it actually says. When the plain meaning of the text says something that challenges our traditional assumptions, we have a choice. We can say “it can’t mean that because of” (and we immediately take refuge in our traditional assumptions about what Scripture says), or we can be willing to bow the knee to God and His Word. Obviously, we should do the latter. The Word of God is right, when our traditional assumptions about it are wrong.

The law in this country gives us the right to interpret the Bible anyway we want to, without fear of prosecution. Thank God that we don’t have to go to jail or be burnt at the stake if our interpretation is wrong (as in former eras). Yet we should always remember that God never gives us the right to interpret His word incorrectly.

We must allow the Word of God to sit in judgment on us, rather than for us to sit in judgment on the Word of God. When the Judge comes into the courtroom, don’t be found sitting in his chair!

You are required to believe, to preach, and to teach what the Bible says is true, not what you want the Bible to say is true. – Dr. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 12.

The Song of Solomon (2)

Posted on by
Reply

After reading my brief overview posted someone wrote to me just now with this question:

Interesting… so if Song of Songs is “not a book about Christ” why is it in the Bible? The way I understand the Old Testament and, it seems, the way Christ understood it, is that it is ALL about Christ. The book of Hebrews rather liberally applies the temple, sacrificial system, and priesthood to Christ… why not the Song?

My Response: It is a huge oversimplification to say that ALL the Old Testament is about Christ. Of course, much of it does point to Christ. Jesus was able to reveal much of this to the two who walked with Him on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:44 – “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

“Everything written about me” is not the same thing as saying “everything written is about me.”

There are countless things, people, places, etc, which simply are people, places and things.. and have no typological fulfillment in Christ. e.g. just at random, here’s a passage in Judges 1:33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, so they lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

34 The Amorites pressed the people of Dan back into the hill country, for they did not allow them to come down to the plain. 35 The Amorites persisted in dwelling in Mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim, but the hand of the house of Joseph rested heavily on them, and they became subject to forced labor. 36 And the border of the Amorites ran from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.

Its important to stay within biblical parameters in our hermeneutics (Bible interpretation). The Amorites here are the Amorites… Mount Heres is Mount Heres… Akrabbim is Akkrabim.. etc., etc. It would be grossly incorrect to seek to force the text to make these people and places refer to “Christ” in some way.

The Song of Solomon is in the Bible because it is a wonderful God inspired love story and a reflection of God’s own love for His people. That a whole book of the Bible would be devoted to such a thing is breathtaking, and so far removed from the Greek concept that all fleshly activity of the body is sinful. (Sadly Greek thinking has had a huge influence on the Church through the centuries).

It is also true to say that the fact that an entire book of the Bible is devoted to the theme of romance, eroticism and sexual pleasure between a man and a woman in marriage shows us very clearly that God does not hate these things. He actually rejoices in them, being their Divine Author.

Think about the profound ramifications of this for a moment. He could have said to couples, “just mix substance A with substance B, put it in a pot and leave it overnight and whammo – you will have a child.” That was an option. Instead, God gave the human race sex with all that goes with it. God is certainly no killjoy, though He is quite clear regading the biblical boundaries for sexual enjoyment and pleasure, namely marriage (between a man and a woman).

The Song of Solomon also teaches us that God has a wonderful purpose for marriage in and of itself. This is a wonderful encouragement for precious couples who for some reason are not able to produce children.

The hyper-allegorical school of thought has brought much confusion and harm to the Body of Christ (and society and culture at large) through the centuries – none more so than in the arena of marriage. If properly understood (without all the allegorical trimmings) this book would have been a huge corrective in Church history when many leaders in the Church promoted the idea that all sex was sinful and that marital sex was only ever to be engaged for the purpose of procreation. The Song of Solomon clearly teaches us otherwise.

Why could these gifted leaders of the Church not see what is obvious to us?

That is a question that is actually fairly simple to answer: because they saw the Song of Solomon through the lens of the allegorical method of interpretation and therefore saw it as being ALL about Christ and His Church, rather than what it actually is, a book about romantic love.

The Hebrew people never viewed this book as an allegory of God’s love for Israel. As I pointed out before, that is why boys were not allowed to read it until they were considered adults in society. All understood what the book was truly about.

It is a rich and deep book and worthy of our study.

The Song of Solomon

Posted on by
7

Pastor John, I am trying to make sense of the Song of Solomon. I recently went to a Bible study where the teacher was saying that it is a book about Christ and His Bride (the Church). Is this true?

I am very familiar with this view of the Song of Solomon. The concept stems from what theologians call the “allegorical” method of interpretation, which ignores the historical background and the actual subject matter under discussion in the text, to instead look for a “deeper” or “hidden” meaning, spiritualizing every word and detail to seek to make application to Christ. Though the method has noble motivation, the fact remains that Christ and His Church are never mentioned in the book.

Actually the book is about romance and love, even erotic love between Solomon and his bride. I am told that in Hebrew society, young boys are not permitted to read the book until their “bar mitzvah” when they “come of age” so to speak, and are considered fully adult men by their community. That is because the Jews understood the book to be something of a handbook for marriage.

It might be something of a disappointment to some when they come to understand this, but the facts are clear. In all actually, it is a wonderful book, so amazingly rich in beauty. How women must wish to be cherished in this way – how captivating is the love the husband has for his beautiful lady, and how wonderfully that love is returned to her husband by his bride. Its what every heart dreams of when they enter into marriage – true and deep intimacy and the reckless mutual abandonment of body, soul and spirit to one another.

The book is a romantic love story as Solomon remembers his courtship with the lady of his dreams; the early days of his first marriage, and then the maturing relationship that developed between this royal couple through the ebbs and flows and the ups and downs of their daily marital life.

It is amazing to consider just how widespread the allegorical interpretation is, as we note many ancient hymns which speak of Christ as “the lily of the valley” and the “rose of Sharon” but once again, these words were beautiful and rich words of love and romance, originally spoken between a husband and wife in the context of marriage.

Are there parallels between Solomon and his bride and Christ and his Church? Perhaps there are. Certainly Christ loves His Church with deep affection and we, the people of God, love Christ, the husband. But it must be pointed out that nowhere does Scripture speak of Christ as our Solomon or of the Church as Solomon’s bride.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. John MacArthur when he writes, “The Song has suffered strained interpretations over the centuries by those who use the “allegorical” method of interpretation…. A more satisfying way to approach Solomon’s Song is to take it at face value and interpret it in the normal historical sense, understanding the frequent use of poetic imagery to depict reality… The metaphoric and euphemistic nature of the book is designed by God to veil the private intimacy of marriage. Its beautiful expressions of romantic love are purposefully shrouded in poetic language – intended only to give general insight into the joys of passion, desire and romance. In this way, the Song expresses the wonders of marital love while distancing itself from anything crass or explicitly sensual. Interpreters of this book must be careful to maintain the dignified character of the book, and must not read anything into it that is not actually there.” (The MacArthur Study Bible notes)

Understanding this, I would encourage you to pick up the book again and just start reading. Chapter one starts out as follows:
Continue reading →

Paul, to the Galatians

Posted on by
Reply

When Paul wrote to the Galatian Church to warn of the Judaizing heresy, he did not mention the fact that the Judaizers embraced Christ as Messiah and were probably in all other ways fully orthodox.

I am sure they believed all the Old Testament. Perhaps they would even affirm the true humanity and full deity of Christ. Perhaps even Christ’s substitutionary death for sinners on the cross, and even His resurrection from the grave… on and on we could go.

Yet the Apostle Paul never mentioned any of this in his letter to the Galatians. Why not? For the simple reason that there was no need to do so. That was because in spite of all the many vital doctrines the Judaizers would affirm, they added one thing to the biblical gospel (it happened to be circumcision in this case) and the gospel is not something anyone can mess with. Jesus + circumcision is not the gospel.

Paul’s reaction, and I might say, his Holy Spirit inspired reaction, was to warn of the false doctrine in no uncertain terms calling it for what it was, “a different gospel.”

Galatians 1: 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant (slave) of Christ.

Imagine what the reaction would have been when Paul’s letter to the congregation was read out loud to the people. Certainly, there would have been Judaizers present in the services when the words were heard in the various Christian meeting places in Galatia. Its no real stretch of the imagination to say that we can be sure that Paul would have been hated by many.

The Apostle Paul could not have been more clear. He pronounced the eternal curse of God on anyone preaching another gospel, even if the one preaching it was Paul himself or even a heavenly angel.

I can imagine people saying, “Where is the love Paul? Do you not recognize the wonderful things the Judaizers have brought to our congregation? They can teach us so much about God’s law. They can show us how Christ fulfills all the types and shadows and even the Feasts of Israel. We have been so enriched by all they have taught us. What’s wrong with you for being so short sighted Paul? If you had heard ALL these men have been teaching you would not write in this way….”

But what Paul wrote – every word of it – was inspired by the Holy Spirit, even when he called the perpetrators of the false doctrine “false brothers.” (Gal 2:4)

The same Apostle Paul, speaking to the elders of Ephesus said (in Acts 20:26), “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert….”

Brothers and sisters, heresy is not a victimless crime. There are such things as “damnable heresies” (2 Peter 2:1) – doctrines, which if believed, damn the soul.

If one of God’s leaders witnesses false doctrine in such magnitude and then would remain silent, failing to warn God’s people, it is nothing but an act of cowardice (yes, doing nothing can indeed by an action in and of itself), and cowardice is something which ought to have no place whatsoever amongst the leaders of God’s people. Leadership is not for cowards. His precious sheep need their God appointed shepherds to protect them from the wolves.

Selah. (Stop, pause, meditate)

The Satanic Power of a Question

Posted on by
5

The first attack on the human race did not come from outer space. No alien fleet of space ships. No downloaded virus into a vein to ultimately kill, steal and destroy. It was not even a physical attack; no swords, clubs, guns or bombs. But O, the devastation it caused.

For those who know their Bibles, you will know I am referring to the attack on the first parents of mankind in a Garden called Eden, when the serpent attacked Adam and Eve… with a question. That was all it was. A simple question.

Oh it was a loaded question. The question spoke volumes about how God could not be trusted – how His word was not to be believed. It spoke of how God did not really have their best interests at heart – that He was holding out on them – that if God really did love them, then things would be different. Built into the question was an undermining of God, His word and His love; and more than that, an insinuation that God did not want them to achieve the most beautiful thing possible – the ability to be like God.

Think of it from the devil’s perspective (and I mention the devil because there are passages in Scripture which tells us clearly that it was the devil who entered into the serpent in the garden). If you were the devil, how would you tempt a perfect man and woman who were living in a perfect environment?
Continue reading →