The Doctrine of Salvation

Posted on by
Reply

…. from Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ book Great Doctrines of the Bible

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will’ (Ephesians 1:4-5).

Before we continue with our study of biblical doctrines it would be good, perhaps, for us to remind ourselves of the exact point at which we have arrived. We started with the general proposition that we find it difficult to understand both the world and ourselves. We have within us a sense of God, and yet that in itself is not enough to bring us to a knowledge of Him, and we came to the conclusion that if we really are to know anything truly about God or ourselves or our world, we must of necessity come to the Bible, this book which we say is the Word of God, inspired by Him, and infallible. And therefore we submit ourselves to it, realising that there are many things that we cannot understand, but that we have come with minds made receptive by the operation of the Holy Spirit upon us.

     The first thing we find as we do this is that God has been graciously pleased to reveal Himself, and we have considered that, revelation. Then we went on to think about what God has done, the creation of the heavens and earth and the various orders of beings that He has brought into existence. But we concentrated upon man, and saw that God created man and woman perfect; He made them `in our [God’s] image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26). We tried to consider what the Bible tells us about this and there we saw man and woman in Paradise, without sin, perfect, and enjoying a life of communion with God.

     Then from that, we looked at men and women as they are today; we looked at ourselves, as we know ourselves to be, and the great question is: Why are we as we are now, if Adam and Eve were like that? So that led us to a consideration of the doctrine of the fall and that is the point at which we have arrived. We saw that all men and women are as they are because of the fall. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and that led to their fall (Genesis. 3); and in working out the doctrine of original sin, as it is called, we saw that men and women, as the result of this, are in a fallen condition. They are guilty before God, their very nature is polluted and perverted, and they are quite helpless—helpless especially in the matter of returning to God and of arriving at a knowledge of God (Romans 5:12). You remember we summed it up by putting it like this: that you look at a man or woman today and you say, with that Puritan John Howe—`God once dwelt here.’ Man is a ruin, a ruin of his former self. And there we looked at him, driven out of Paradise, out of the Garden of God, and eating his bread by the sweat of his brow; and we saw all that is so true of him now, and of human nature as the result of sin.

     But we were glad to end on a note of hope. We found that in the third chapter of Genesis, in which we are given the account of the fall, of its immediate consequences and of some of the remote consequences also, there is, after all, a hope: before God thrust Adam and Eve out of the Garden He gave them a promise. It looked at that moment as if everything was irretrievably lost. Adam and Eve, having listened to the devil in the form of the serpent, had made themselves the slaves of the devil, under his power, unable to resist him and helpless in his hands. It looked as if man’s future was altogether lost and hopeless, but, even there, God flashed into the gloom and darkness a ray of light. He addressed the serpent and pronounced a curse upon him, telling him that there would be warfare between him and `the seed of the woman’; that he would pierce, as it were, the heel of the woman’s seed, but that his own head would be crushed; and there lay the one gleam of hope.

     So now we proceed to consider what exactly is meant by that hope. Having faced the history of men and women from their original perfection to their degradation and pollution, in a state of sin and guilt, we asked: Is there no hope for them? And the answer is: Yes, there is. In other words, we are beginning to consider the biblical doctrine of redemption or of salvation. In many ways it can be said, of course, that this is the central theme of the whole Bible, and yet all that we have considered hitherto has been absolutely essential. It is because so many frequently fail to consider that mighty background that their conception of the doctrine of salvation is often incomplete, and even fallacious at certain points. It is only as we truly understand something of the nature and character of God and the condition of men and women in sin, that we can understand this grand doctrine of redemption. Therefore it is but right that we should have spent all that time in considering these great doctrines that lead on to it.

     However, here we are now, face to face with this great central doctrine. Obviously it is very comprehensive, and we shall have to divide it up under various headings. But we will not do that now. I am anxious, rather, that we should take a general look at it. Here, again, is procedure which I advocate very strongly. It is a very wise thing, very biblical thing, to take a general view like this of the doctrine of redemption before coming to its particular aspects; and as we do so we shall find that certain things stand out very prominently and gloriously, and we must grasp them and take a firm hold on them.

     Let me give you a number of headings. First: redemption is entirely of God. What we have in the Bible is the record of God’s activity in the redemption of man. Now that, of course, is something that you find at once, away back there in the third chapter of Genesis. The moment man had fallen and had found himself in this pitiable condition, and when he seemed to be absolutely without hope, the hope was given by God. It was God who spoke. And it was God who gave an outline of what He was proposing to do.

     Now this can never be emphasised too strongly. The Bible, after all, is an account of what God has done about the redemption of man. It is not an account of man seeking for God. That has been, perhaps, the greatest of the heresies that have characterised so much of the Church and her teaching during the past hundred years. The so-called `higher critics’ were never tired of telling us, influenced as they were by the theory of evolution which they applied to the Scriptures, that the Old Testament was nothing but a record of man searching for God. But it is the exact opposite. It is the record of God’s activity, what He has done, and what He is going to do.

     We can put that very clearly like this. We saw that when God had made man in His own image and likeness, and had placed Him in the Garden, He made a covenant with him, which has generally been called, very rightly, the `covenant of works’. God said to Adam, in effect: `If you keep my commandment, if you do what I tell you and refrain from eating of that particular tree, if you refrain from doing what I have prohibited, you will go on growing and increasing in your perfection.’ And so God made certain promises. Man’s future was then contingent upon his own action; it was a covenant of works.

     But then, you remember, man failed to keep the covenant; he rebelled against God. And the result was that he landed himself in that condition which we describe as one of total inability. So clearly God could no longer make a covenant of works with man. Man when he was perfect had failed to keep that covenant, so God obviously did not make another. In the light of what we have already seen, it was impossible. But, we thank God, it was not left at that and the biblical doctrine of redemption is an account of what God has done about man.

     Or, to put it another way, it is not a question of what man can do to placate God. The Bible does not tell us that. There are some people who seem to think that the message of the Bible is one which tells us what we have to do in order to please this God whom we have offended. That again is quite wrong. The Bible tells us about what God has done in order to reconcile us to Himself. I want to put that very strongly. Not only is God not unwilling to receive us, it is He who goes out of His way to seek us. So if we want to grasp the biblical doctrine of redemption we must once and for ever get rid of that notion which has been instilled into the human mind and heart by the devil, who is God’s adversary and our adversary, and who tries to make us believe that God is against us. But the Bible’s message is that `God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son . . .’ (John 3:16).

     Indeed, let me go even further and put it in this extreme form: the Bible does not even tell us that the Lord Jesus Christ needs to placate God for us or has done that for us. You still find people who hold that view. They say that there is God in His justice and in His absolute righteousness, and then they depict the Lord Jesus Christ as pleading with God on our behalf, and beseeching Him to forgive us. You will find it in certain hymns and choruses. But it is quite false to the Biblical teaching, which can be summed up in what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:19: `God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.’ The biblical case is not that Christ, as it were, has to appeal to God to change His mind. It was God who sent Christ; it was God Himself who took the initiative. So we can never emphasise too frequently or too strongly this first proposition, which is that redemption and salvation are entirely of God, and that the Bible is nothing but a record of what God has done, is doing, and will do about us men and women and our salvation.

     The second principle is this: salvation is all of grace. It was all done in spite of man’s rebellion, in spite of man’s arrogance, in spite of his folly and sin. You go back to that account in Genesis 3 and that is what you will find. Adam and Eve foolishly disobeyed and rebelled, and there they were, frightened and alarmed when they heard the voice of God, and they hid themselves; their instinct was to get away from God. But it was God who called after them, who called them to come back.

     Now that is the whole case of the Bible: this gracious action on the part of God, who does not turn His back upon us and upon the world because of sin and disobedience and the fall, but who, in spite of the fact that we are so undeserving of His love and His mercy and His compassion, looks upon us with a pitying eye, and speaks to us in terms of grace and of love. You remember that when we were considering the character of God we emphasised this character of grace. Grace means `undeserved favour’, and that is the essence of the biblical message. The hymn writer says,

Great God of wonders! all Thy ways 

Are matchless, godlike, and divine.

               Samuel Davies

     There is nothing comparable to the grace of God, to the way in which He looks upon us and upon the world, in spite of what we have done, and gives us these promises. We have no claim upon the love of God. We have forfeited it. Salvation is all of grace.

     The third point that the Bible makes very clear about this doctrine of redemption is that it was all planned before the foundation of the world. Now this is most important. Read what Paul says about it in the first chapter of his letter to the Ephesians. Redemption is not an afterthought. It was not something that God thought of after man fell and because man fell. To say that is to contradict the Scripture. The Bible all along keeps on referring to this as something that was conceived before the world was made. Before man was ever created, this plan of redemption was clearly in the mind of God.

     Here again we are confronted by a great mystery. There is a sense in which it is impossible for us to grasp it. We are so bound by time, we are so accustomed to seeing everything in a kind of time sequence! We think chronologically and it is quite inevitable that we should do so. But God is outside time. God sees the end from the beginning and all things are always in His presence. It is a staggering thought, and yet here it is, very plainly taught everywhere in the Scriptures: `According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world …’ (Ephesians 1:4). Now you will find that certain people give the impression that God is continually having to modify His plan and His purposes because of things that are done by man, but this is something you can never substantiate from the Scripture. Before anything was made, the plan, the idea of redemption, was already present in the mind of God.

     The fourth thing we go on to is something that we should consider with adoration, praise and worship, and it is this: the three Persons of the blessed Trinity took part in this plan and purpose of redemption. There can be no question at all but that the Scriptures teach that before the foundation of the world a council with respect to man took place between the three Persons of the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And there in that eternal council they seem very clearly to have divided up the work of redemption, so that we can describe the Father as the originator, the Son as the executor and the Holy Spirit as the One who applies what the Son has achieved.

     But it is also very clear that in particular an agreement, even a covenant, was made between God the eternal Father and God the eternal Son. It is quite clear, according to Scripture, that the Son has been made the `heir of all things’ (Hebrew 1:2), which means that everything in this world was given to Him, that it was, as it were, made over to Him. And everything that happens in this world and on this earth belongs, therefore, to His domain. In His high priestly prayer in John 17, our Lord reminds His Father, `As thou hast given him [Christ] power over all flesh . . .’ (v. 2). That is the same idea. God the Father hands the world as it is to the Son, and He gives Him power over all. The eighth psalm not only refers to man, it refers in a very special way to the Son of God Himself:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

                              Verses 4-8

     But beyond that, we see clearly in the Scriptures that for the purpose of redemption God the Father has made the Son the head and the representative of a new humanity. Take, for instance, what we are told in Romans 5, where we are given the contrast—‘As in Adam … so in Christ.’ The apostle works this out and his teaching is that Adam, as we have seen, was the head and the representative of mankind, but now, for the purposes of redemption, God has appointed a new head and a new representative, and that is His own Son. He could not appoint a man, obviously, because all men had fallen in Adam, and God cannot appoint fallen man as a representative. If man in a state of perfection had failed, how much more so must man in Adam, and in a state of imperfection, fail.

     So now you see why the incarnation was an absolute necessity. There was no one on earth with whom God could make His covenant, there was no one whom he could pick out and make a head and representative. So He took His own Son, whom He was going to send into the world in the likeness of sinful flesh, and appointed Him as the head and the representative of this new humanity. You find that in Romans 5 and, equally definitely, in 1 Corinthians 15:22: `For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’ It is the same contrast between Adam and our Lord. And, of course, you find the same teaching in Psalm 2: ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee’ (v. 7), with the other things that follow from that.

     The next step in this compact, or covenant, between the Father and the Son was that God the Father gave God the Son this people whom He would raise at the last day. Read, for instance, John 6, and you will find that our Lord constantly refers to that and He says He must not lose anything that God has given Him. It is very clear, again, in John 17, in that high priestly prayer. Our Lord constantly repeats that He is doing all this for the sake of those whom the Father has given Him. ‘Father, the hour is come,’ he says, ‘glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him’ (John 17:1-2). And He goes on repeating the phrase: `I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world’ (v. 6). And then He reminds His Father, `While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled’ (v. 12). So that is another part of the compact.

     Then you have another reference to it in Hebrews 2:13 where the Son says, `Behold I and the children which God hath given me.’ So clearly there was an arrangement concerning the people who had been given to Him. He is the head of this people, this new humanity, the redeemed.

     But further, we see that God not only gave Him the people, He also gave Him a certain work to do with respect to them. Again in John 17 we read, `I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do’ (v. 4). So the Father, in eternity, gave the Son a certain work to do and then, having given it, He sent Him to do it. `God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son’ (John 3:16). `God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law’ (Galatians 4:4), and there are many other similar statements. And, indeed, in a most marvellous way we are actually told that the Father even prepared a body for Him. There is a reference to that in Psalm 40, and you will find it quoted in Hebrews 10:5: `. . . a body hast thou prepared me.‘ So that is the essential teaching; it was the Father who sent forth the Son.

     The next, the fifth general heading, I would suggest is that this plan and scheme of redemption is a definite plan. There is nothing incidental or contingent about it. It is a perfect plan, and it was all perfect before the very foundation of the world. God had mapped it out in eternity, and then had put into operation in this world of time. You cannot read the Bible without noticing in a very particular way the time element. Everything that has happened up till this moment has happened according to God’s plan and programme.

     There are some most astonishing examples of this, and it is most fascinating and encouraging to consider some of these instances and to work them out in detail. For instance, God actually told Abraham of the four hundred years which his descendants would spend in the captivity of Egypt (Genesis 15:13-16). Then the time of the flood was known to God. When He first gave His commandment to Noah to start building that ark, when the world began to scoff and say: Where is the promise of this judgment that you are speaking about?; God knew, and, at the prescribed moment, it happened (Genesis 6-7). And the same is true of the time when He chose a man called Abraham and founded a nation in him (Genesis 12:1). We will be considering this again in detail but all these things happened at precisely the time which God had appointed for them. And so as you go along with all the history of the Judges and the Kings and the Prophets, you find that it is all according to this perfect plan and it is all perfectly timed.

     And this brings us especially, of course, to that great statement which we have already quoted in part: `But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law …’ People have often asked, `If God gave that promise away back there in Eden, why did He wait so long before He sent His Son?’ It is an idle question to ask. But God has His great purpose in it all. It is very easy to suggest many reasons why God did not send His Son until the exact moment when He did send Him. It seems to me to be more and more clear that He did this in order that He might first show men and women their utter helplessness. The law had to be given in order that they might see that they could not keep it. An opportunity had to be given to Greek philosophy to do everything that it could do; an opportunity had to be given to Roman law and Roman ideas of justice and of government. Everything that men and women could think of for redeeming themselves and their world had already been tried and had failed before God sent His Son.

     God knew that from the beginning. If we are told that `he that believeth shall not make haste’ (Isaiah 28:16), how infinitely more true is that of God, who sees the end from the beginning. So I emphasise that it is a perfect and definite plan, complete and entire. The apostle Paul in Romans 11 does not hesitate to speak about a time when the ‘fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved’ (vv. 25-6). Now God had known all this from the foundation of the world. The plan was entire and He gave these revelations of it to His servants so that they could write about it and we can read about it. God knows the number of the fulness of the Gentiles; He knows the number of Israel; He knows the number of this new humanity that is in Christ Jesus. The plan of redemption is an entire plan: a perfect, definite plan, down to the smallest detail.

     The next thing I want to emphasise about it, the sixth principle, is the absolute certainty of the consummation of this plan of redemption. This is one of the most glorious and encouraging things that we can ever consider together. I thank God that that is made very clear even in Genesis 3. When God pronounced His curse there upon the serpent and announced the warfare between the seed of the woman and the serpent, He made it plain that this enemy who had brought man, who was perfect, down to the dust and to shame and degradation, was going to be utterly defeated and destroyed.

     And the Bible keeps on reminding us of this. In its last book it gives us a picture of the consummation of it all, when even the devil himself shall be cast into the lake burning with fire and shall be destroyed to all eternity. Whatever the appearances may be, however much they may suggest the contrary at different times and in different epochs, God’s plan is certain. Nothing can frustrate it, nothing can prevent it from being worked out to the smallest detail. That is, of course, the major theme of the Bible. We are given an account of the end as well as the beginning. The whole thing is there; we can rest assured that no power of man nor of earth nor of hell can ever prevent what God purposed in this eternal council before the foundation of the world.

     Then the next heading, the seventh principle—and again it is something that is emphasised in Ephesians 1—is that this purpose of God in redemption applies not only to man but to all things. It applies to the world itself, and, as we have just seen, it includes what God has purposed even with regard to His enemies. Paul says, `Having made known unto us the mystery of his will’—it was there in His purpose but it was a hidden mystery and we would not have known it if He had not been pleased graciously to make it known to us—`according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself’—it is all of grace, it is all His love. Why? —`That in the dispensation of the fulness of times’ – there it is again—`he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him’ (Ephesians 1:9-10).

     Now that is the plan. I am afraid that many of us are often tempted to think of salvation only in terms of ourselves or only in terms of a number of individuals. We must never do that. This great purpose of God includes the heavens and the earth. All things, everywhere, come within His purpose, even to the extent of determining beforehand the final state and destiny of Satan and evil and all that belongs to his territory. There will be a final destruction, and there will be `new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness’ (2 Peter 3:13), which will be the grand result of the work of redemption of the Son of God.

     And that brings me to my eighth point, which is that this great plan of redemption always centres in the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul tells us that God’s purpose is to `gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth’—and he repeats himself—‘even in him’ (Ephesians 1:10). I shall have occasion again to go on emphasising and repeating that. I put it here as a principle, because I am afraid that certain people very definitely teach that some form of redemption is possible apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. You will find in certain `Notes on the Scriptures’, a teaching which says that a time is coming when the dispensation of grace will have finished and a new dispensation of law will come in, and people will be saved by keeping the law and will not be saved if they do not keep it.

     Now I do not hesitate to assert that that is a completely erroneous conception, and a contradiction of the Bible. There is no mention of any salvation anywhere in the Bible except in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. There is only one gospel; there is only one way of salvation. The saints of the Old Testament are saved in Christ as much as you and I are, and all who will ever live must be saved in Christ or not at all. It is in Him that God is going to reconcile everything, and there is no other way of reconciliation. We cannot emphasise that too often or too strongly.

     To put it another way, we call this book the Bible, and we divide it into two portions, the Old Testament and the New Testament. What does this mean? It means that the Old Testament and the New are both concerned about the same person, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is the preparation, the promise, the prophecy of His coming. There, back in Genesis 3, you have it; the whole thing is put so plainly. Who is the seed of the woman that is going to crush and bruise the serpent’s head? It is none other than the Son of God, and He did it upon the cross on Calvary’s hill. The Old Testament from beginning to end points to Him.

     Then what is the New Testament but the glorious fulfilment of every type and shadow? He is the substance of all the shadows. He is the great antitype of all the types. He is the fulfilment of everything that God had indicated He was going to be. So there is the Bible—Old Testament, New Testament—but it is all in Christ. The plan, the purpose, the way of redemption are always in Him.

     And that brings me to my last heading, which is that this purpose of God in redemption has been revealed to mankind in various covenants. Now I do not enter into that now; I hope to go on to consider this question of the covenants in our next study. But God, in His great condescension, in His infinite grace and kindness, has not only determined upon this plan of redemption, He has done something else which in a way is still more extraordinary and marvellous: He has made agreements with men. The almighty and eternal God, the sovereign Lord, turns to men and women who have sinned and rebelled against Him and begins to tell them what He is going to do. And, as we shall see, when He did that with Abraham, He not only told him what He was going to do, He confirmed it with an oath in order that man might have a certain and sure hope (Hebrew 6:17-20).

     So then, we have taken a kind of synoptic view of the biblical doctrine of redemption. We have looked at it in general. We have surveyed the whole landscape, as it were. We have looked at it from beginning to end, and have seen that God in His kindness and love and mercy and compassion, and in His infinite grace, looked upon men and women when they deserved nothing but hell and destruction, and gave them the promise of their wonderful redemption that would finally be consummated in His own eternal Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Therefore to Him, and to Him alone, must of necessity be all the praise and all the honour and all the glory!

Amidst the Chaos

Posted on by
Reply

Campbell Markham has been a pastor in the Australian Presbyterian Church for over twenty-two years and lives in Perth, Western Australia. He blogs at Campbell Markham: Thoughts and Letters. His article “God Can Handle Chaos—Including Yours” is below (original source – https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/god-can-handle-chaos-including-yours)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. — Genesis 1:1-2

If we are going to get anything out of Genesis, then we must prepare ourselves. 

Basil of Caesarea (330-79) said at the beginning of his Hexaemeron, a series of sermons on Genesis 1,

How earnestly the soul should prepare itself to receive such high lessons! How pure it should be from carnal affections, how unclouded by worldly disquietudes, how active and ardent in its researches, how eager to find in its surroundings an idea of God which may be worthy of Him!

And John Calvin (1509-64) said in his commentary on Genesis, “The world is a mirror in which we ought to behold God.” “If my readers sincerely wish to profit with me in meditating on the works of God, they must bring with them a sober, docile mild, and humble spirit.”

So remember that the author of these words, Moses, saw an appearance of God at the burning bush, and God spoke with him “face to face, as a man speaks with his friend” (Exod. 33:11; cf. Num. 12:6-8). And don’t forget the power of these words, “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).

The Hebrew word for “beginning” is ראשׁית (rēshīt), which may also mean “starting point” or “first,” and is closely related to ראשׁ (rōsh), which means “head.” The word God translates אלהים, Elōhīm, which may be the plural for אל (el), the generic word for god. The plural does not in itself teach the doctrine of the Trinity, that there is one God and three persons in the godhead, but is more likely a “plural of majesty.” God is not just god, he is GOD. Elōhīm. GOD! The very sound of this word, naming as it does the Creator of the universe, should fill us with awe, dread, and love. 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Before there was an earth and atoms, life and light, time and tide, there was God. He is eternal, which does not mean that he is very old, but that he had no beginning. He always was, is, and will be. Many have mockingly asked, “What was God doing before he created the world?” In his Commentaries on Genesis, Calvin relates a humorous answer he had read to this question:

When a certain impure dog was in this manner pouring ridicule upon God, a pious man retorted that God had been at that time by no means inactive, because he had been preparing hell for the captious.

We cannot speak reasonably of what God was doing “before creation,” because before creation there was no time as we know it—there was no “before.” Certainly there was nothing that brought God himself into existence.  

The Hebrew verb for create is ברא (bārā); it is only ever used with God as the subject. What did God create? The “heavens and the earth.” Heaven, שׁמים (shamayīm), also means sky. Earth, ארץ (erets), also means land and ground. These words do not have a special meaning in Genesis 1:1; but when put together like this, “heaven and earth,” that is, “sky and ground,” “everything that’s up and everything that’s down,” they emphasize that God made everything. Only God himself is not made.  

There are no time indications in these first two verses. The earth (erets) was formless and empty. There is some lovely alliteration here in the original, the earth was תהו ובהו, tōhu va bōhu. These words are neither “good” nor “bad” but are exceedingly and perhaps unpleasantly bland. Tōhu can refer to a barren wasteland, “a barren and howling waste” (Deut. 32:10; also Job 6:18). It can refer to futility (1 Sam. 12:21) and meaninglessness (Isa. 29:21). Bōhu appears only three times in the Old Testament. Isaiah 34:11 describes how “God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of desolation,” and Jeremiah uses just the same phrase as Genesis 1:2: “I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty (tōhu va bōhu); and at the heavens, and their light was gone” (Jer. 4:23). We will return to Jeremiah’s hugely significant phrase in a moment.

Darkness was over the surface over the deep.

Creation at this point was empty and black. The same word describes the penultimate plague over Egypt: “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand toward the sky so that darkness will spread over Egypt—darkness that can be felt.’ So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered all Egypt for three days. No one could see anyone else or leave his place for three days” (Exod. 10:21-23).   

This blackness was over the surface of “the deep.” תהום, tehōm, refers only to “deep waters.” The Septuagint reads ἀβυσσος (abyssos, “abyss”). The Old Testament talks about God leading Israel through “the depths of the sea” (Isa. 63:13, Ps. 106:9) and Pharaoh’s army being drowned in the “depths” (Exod.15:5). In Deuteronomy 8:7, it refers to subterranean water.

So here is our first look at God’s creation: formless, empty, black, and watery. Light was yet to be created. The water was yet to be put into its place. Solid ground for living and walking on had yet to be exposed. The celestial mirrors of God’s light had yet to be fashioned. God’s life had yet to break out on the earth. Humanity was yet to be fashioned and enlivened in the delightfully different forms of male and female.

Calvin calls creation at this moment “the seed of the whole world,” and Basil “the foundation of a house, the keel of a vessel.” These are pleasing and correct analogies, for it is neither beautiful or ugly, pleasant or unpleasant. It is full of potential.

The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The Hebrew word for Spirit in verse two, רוח (ruach), is a wonderfully rich Old Testament word that can refer to wind, breath, or a personal spirit. Exactly the same range of meaning applies to the NT πνευμα (pneuma, from which we get such words as pneumatic and pneumonia). Ruach (elohīm, Spirit of God) always refers in the Old Testament to a person, God the Holy Spirit.  So the Spirit was near to his creation, but not just near. He was hovering—fluttering is probably a closer translation—like a mother bird flutters over her young. Basil describes the early Syrian Christians’ delightful interpretation of this: “The Spirit cherished the nature of the waters as one sees a bird cover the eggs with her body and imparts to them vital force from her own warmth.” And in his epic poem Paradise Lost (1667) John Milton sang:  

Darkness profound
Covered the abyss; but on the watery calm
His brooding wings the Spirit of God outstretched,
And vital virtue infused, and vital warmth,
throughout the fluid mass.

“Hovered” is used by Moses again almost at the end of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) to describe God’s intense care of Israel his people:

In a desert land he found him, in a barren and howling waste. He shielded him and cared for him; he guarded him as the apple of his eye, like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions. (Deut. 32:10-11)

Whatever we might think about God’s formless, empty, lifeless, black, and watery creation, the Spirit of God loved it and sustained and upheld it (John 3:16); for as Psalm 104:29-30 says: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath (ruach), they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit (ruach), they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.”

Why didn’t God complete creation instantaneously?

The burning question is this: “God is omnipotent and omniscient, so why would he not bring about a fully developed and complete creation instantaneously?” If the universe’s greatest good is that God glorify himself, then we can know that it was more glorifying for him to develop his creation over six days, to allow his great power and wisdom to unfold over this time. Moreover, by creating the world in this way, God taught the world that he can rescue us from darkness, lifelessness, and chaos, and that when he rescues us, he does it not instantaneously, but in a way that unfolds his omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence step-by-wonderful-step.  

For although I have said that Moses’ description of initial creation in itself is neither beautiful nor ugly, similar words were used in different contexts to describe God’s people in distressing circumstances. As I mentioned above, Jeremiah uses this kind of language in the sixth century BC to describe Judah in a state of godless apostasy, who were about to face the fierce judgment of God by the hands of the brutal Babylonian army:

My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good. I looked at the earth, and it was formless (tōhu) and empty (bōhu); and at the heavens, and their light was gone. I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying. I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away. I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger. (Jer. 4:22-26; cf. Isa. 34:11)

Moreover, the very first readers of Genesis, the Israelites who had just emerged from centuries of brutal slavery and death in Egypt—slavery to Pharaoh’s building projects and slavery to the false gods of Egypt—would also have seen their situation mirrored in what was “formless and void,” black, and chaotically watery. Indeed, as we’ve already seen, God would rescue them from the “deep” (Ps. 106:9).

Perhaps these adjectives describe your own situation.

Confused. Empty. Lifeless. Dark. Chaotic. You are not yet a Christian, and you don’t know why you are on this planet and what is the meaning and purpose of your life. There is spiritual blackness and obscurity, and everything is immersed in chaos. Or you are a Christian, and the chaotic trials of life are pressing on you, and even the darkness of despair. You feel the “waves and breakers” crashing over you (Jon. 2:3).

Whoever you are, and whatever the depths and agony of your trials, God is hovering over you: he loves you, he is near to you, and he can rescue you. We see a living picture of his rescue unfold in the subsequent six days of creation.  

God does not stand aloof from the world in all its chaotic agony. His caring, brooding presence is very near, and he is at work.

On the Binding of Satan

Posted on by
Reply

Article: “The Binding of Satan” by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (original source – https://www.kimriddlebarger.com/the-riddleblog/the-binding-of-satan)

The Binding of Satan — Background and Introduction to the Controversy

In Revelation 20:1-3, John is given a remarkable vision:

“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.” In verse 7, John adds, “and when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison.”

The binding of Satan as depicted in this passage raises several obvious questions, especially in light of the on-going debate between amillennarians and premillennarians about the timing and character of the millennial age. This is the only biblical text which specifically mentions a thousand year period of time in which Satan’s power and activity are curtailed (the millennial age). The two most obvious questions raised by John’s vision are, “what does it mean for Satan to be bound in such a manner?” and “are the thousand years a present or a future period of time?” Amillennarians and premillennarians take quite different approaches to this passage and offer conflicting answers to these questions.

Amillennarians believe that the binding of Satan is but another way of speaking of Jesus’ victory over the devil during our Lord’s messianic mission. The thousand years are not a literal period of time, but refer to the entire age between Christ’s first and second coming (the inter-advental period). If true, the binding of Satan begins with our Lord’s death and resurrection, continues throughout the present age, and ends with the release of Satan from the abyss (abussos) shortly before Jesus returns at the end of the age when Antichrist is revealed during a time of final apostasy (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12). This brief apostasy is followed by the final consummation which includes: the general resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11; 1 Corinthians 15:50-57), the final judgment (Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:4-6, 11-15), and the ushering in of a new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3:4).

Premillennarians, however, contend that the thousand years are a literal period of time commencing with Christ’s second advent, who then establishs his physical rule over the earth in a millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1-7). During this time, Satan is bound. The thousand years ends with Satan’s release from his imprisonment so as to lead the nations in a final revolt against Jesus’ rule, immediately before the final judgment at the end of the millennial age (Revelation 20:7-10). I address the serious problems with this understanding of redemptive history here: Evil in the Millennial Age? A Huge Problem for Premillennarians.

To summarize, amillennarians understand the binding of Satan to be a present reality, while premillennarians see this scene as an entirely future event. In this essay, I will consider and evaluate the biblical background to John’s vision and then respond to the premillennial challenge, “when and how is Satan is bound?” And “why is there so much evil in the world if he is?” These are two important questions which merit response.

The Redemptive Historical Background to John’s Vision

There is significant biblical background which provides context to help us understand what John sees, and which ought to be considered before we turn to the details of the vision given John as recorded in Revelation 20:1-3, 7. The scene depicted in Revelation 20 occurs in heaven (where the thrones are) and actually makes much sense in light of Old Testament imagery and events, especially when these are interpreted in light of the dawn of the messianic age in which Jesus triumphs over the devil and his legions. Since the context behind John’s vision is important and often overlooked in this debate, I will endeavor to trace out these images and events to aid us in our interpretation of the binding of Satan in Revelation 20. There are three categories of biblical events which give us considerable aid in understanding and interpreting John’s vision.

First, we consider Satan’s influence upon the nations. We start with the obvious fact that Satan was instrumental in the fall of our race during a time of probation in Eden (Genesis 3:1-24). A fierce adversary is introduced into the biblical narrative from the very beginning, although it is foretold that this adversary ultimately will be defeated by the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15). According to the subsequent chapters of Genesis, Satan managed to deceive much of the world soon after Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden, although an elect line did remain—the line of Seth, as recounted in Genesis 4:26. The first city was built by Cain in the land of Nod, and named for his first born son, Enoch. The Cain-Enoch genealogy in Genesis 4:17 ff. implies that the city became a center of unbelief and opposition to the purposes of God. Then we read of the Nephilim (Genesis 6), followed by YHWH’s judgment upon “the world that was” in the form of the flood (Genesis 6:9-9:29). No sooner did Noah and his family leave the safety of the ark, we read of the rise of two more cities hostile to God’s purposes and his people, Nineveh (Genesis 10:11-12) and Babel (Genesis 11). The early course of redemptive history is characterized as a period of increasing human wickedness, manifest in city-states hostile to God due to the spiritual darkness of satanic deception (Genesis 6:5).

As the course of redemptive history continues to unfold throughout the balance of the Old Testament, we read of repeated instances of various nations and empires arising and persecuting the people of God. The list is long, but includes the Egyptians and its Pharaoh, followed by the various Canaanite tribes, most notably the Moabites, then the Assyrians and the fall of the northern kingdom (Israel), before Nebuchadnezzar conquers Judah and destroys the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Although Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the people of God now find themselves as tenants in their own land, living under the rule of a series of pagan Gentile empires. These are nations who fell under Satan’s sway, did his business, and marshaled their resources against the people of God. This extensive evidence from the biblical narrative points in the direction that Satan’s influence upon the nations during their opposition to God’s purposes is very likely in the background of John’s vision when he refers to nations being freed from satanic manipulation.

A second factor to be considered is Satan’s power of deception, which often takes the form of idolatry and the worship of pagan deities is expressed in continual apostasy among the Israelites, seen initially in the wilderness of the Sinai, and then more openly once the Israelites have conquered the promised land of Canaan. The Canaan narratives inform us that like Adam, Israel never fulfilled the commission given them in Isaiah 49:6, “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.” Because of Israel’s rank unbelief seen in the nation and the idolatry of successive kings evident in their persistent disobedience to YHWH’s covenant, Israel comes under the covenant curses and repeatedly ends up as subjects of godless Gentile nations and their foreign gods. Israel’s witness to the Gentile nations regarding YHWH’s gracious promise of future restoration, coupled with the hope of a final redemption from sin, was largely absent. In the absence of such a witness which chases away satanic error, Satan continues to deceive the nations and is able to keep them walking in darkness.

Third, we fast forward to the New Testament era, where much more information is given us about the devil, his intentions, and the extent of his power. He is called Satan, which comes from the Hebrew for “accuser.” He is also called the devil, (diabolos—the Greek translation of the Hebrew satan). We learn of two names given to Satan, Belial and Beelzebul. He is variously identified as the Adversary, the Dragon, the Enemy, the Serpent, the Tester, and the Wicked One.[1] Satan is said to rule a host of fallen angels (Matthew 25:41), and he has been given control of the world (i.e., Luke 4:6), which indicates that Satan’s actions are limited by God’s providence, a point well captured by Martin Luther’s famous dictum, “the devil is God’s devil.”

Satan dominates non-Christians (John 8:44; Colossians 1:13), he is destructive of life and property (Luke 8:33), and he must be resisted (1 Corinthians 7:5). He is said to be exceedingly cunning (2 Corinthians 2:11), he tempts people to sin (Ephesians 6:11), and he opposes those who preach the gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:18). Especially important for our discussion, recall that Jesus responds to a hostile crowd by declaring, “you are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). Satan is, therefore, the progenitor of lies and deception, and will do anything in his power to oppose the proclamation of the gospel. We see his opposition to the gospel at work when Jesus tells Peter, who implores our Lord not to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die, “get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you [Peter] are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matthew 16:23).

An important theme running throughout the New Testament is the repeated references to Jesus’ triumph over Satan and the curtailing of his deceptive powers through our Lord’s death and resurrection. Jesus appeared in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4-5), but his public ministry did not commence until after he had resisted Satan’s temptations in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). In an unexpected turn of events, Jesus’ messianic mission appeared to come to an end with his death by crucifixion on Good Friday. But by Easter Sunday, it was abundantly clear that Satan’s victory over the promised Messiah was actually a complete and total defeat. By orchestrating the death of Jesus, ironically Satan ensured his own demise.

Our Lord completes the redemptive mission which Adam and then Israel failed to accomplish, when he fulfills all righteousness through his own personal obedience to God’s commandments, thereby providing a justifying righteousness for his people, while bearing the guilt of our sin in his own flesh. The accuser can no longer accuse if the guilt and power of sin is removed from those whom he would otherwise incriminate. Paul encourages struggling Christians in Colossae by reminding them of Satan’s complete and total defeat. “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him” ( (Colossians 2:13-15). Satan is a thoroughly defeated foe whose end is certain, which echoes what Paul had previously told the Romans. “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Romans 16:20).

Of great significance for our discussion is that in foretelling of his coming death and resurrection, Jesus speaks of “binding” the Devil and destroying his works (cf. Matthew 12:27-29, Mark 3:22-27, Luke 11:14-23). Our Lord’s victory over Satan sets the stage for the command for God’s people to make disciples of “all nations” (Matthew 28:19). After Jesus tells his disciples that the gospel must be preached as a witness to those same nations before he returns (Matthew 24:14), he promises to be with his people until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). Jesus also informs his disciples that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church (Matthew 16:18), words which are an obvious reference to limits to be placed on Satan’s power. Initially, Jesus sends out the twelve to preach the gospel, but they are followed by the commissioning of seventy-two disciples to do the same (Luke 10:1 ff.). Upon their return, when they report to Jesus that demons are subject to them, Jesus tells the returning preachers that through their preaching he saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven. Satan has been “cast down” to earth (Luke 10:18), a point also made in John 12:31, when Jesus speaks directly to the matter of the binding of Satan. “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.” As we will see momentarily, the same thing is also affirmed in Revelation 12:7-17.

This, then, is the redemptive historical context through which we must attempt to understand John’s vision of the “binding of Satan” in Revelation 20:1-3, 7. Satan being bound and cast into the abyss is not an isolated event yet to occur and still off in the distant future. Jesus is the light to the nations and protector of his people. The truth of his gospel overcomes the darkness and deception of the devil’s lies. The biblical evidence reveals to us that the devil is currently bound as the direct result of Jesus’ messianic mission, his cross, and the empty tomb. Satan is bound, says our Lord, through the preaching of the gospel. When we survey the biblical data regarding Satan’s binding before giving careful consideration to John’s vision in chapter 20:1-3, 7, it becomes apparent that the binding (or “casting down”) of Satan is a reference to the success of the gospel now that Satan’s power to deceive the nations has been broken.

What Does John Mean When He Speaks of Satan Being Bound in Revelation 20:1-3, 7?

John’s visions in Revelation are given in the language of apocalyptic symbolism. John does not intend for us to understand these things literally, but rather to read them in light of the Old Testament, where these symbols and images appear previously. The symbolic nature of the vision is obvious. How can an angel bind an immaterial spiritual being (Satan) with a real chain? How can a spiritual being be locked away in a pit? This is apocalyptic symbolism plain and simple.

First up is the matter of the proper identification of this particular angel and then determining the meaning of the symbolism of the key to the abyss and the chain. The answer to the angel’s identity is tied to the use of “keys,” which are mentioned throughout the Book of Revelation. In Revelation 1:18, Christ holds the keys of Death and Hades in his hand. In chapter 3:7, the Holy One has the key of David which opens and shuts. In Revelation 9:1-2 we read that “the fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.”

Given the symbolism of the keys prior to this vision, we already possess the “key” (pun intended) to interpret correctly the symbols mentioned by John in Revelation 20:1-3, 7, with some degree of certainty. The abyss is a reference to Death and Hades–the realm with which Satan is most closely associated in the Book of Revelation. Having been cast of out heaven (according to Revelation 12:7-9), John sees an angel (who is either Jesus, or an angel exercising the Lord’s authority) confining Satan to the abode of the dead. Satan has been cast from heaven where he had been making accusations against the saints (i.e., Job 1:6-12; Zechariah 3:1-10). According to verses 2-3 of Revelation 20, which are repeated here, the angel “seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.”

John’s vision should be interpreted in light of the background we have previously established. But we must also give due consideration to what John specifically says of this “binding.” Satan is bound to the abyss–the realm of Death and Hades–for a specified time (a thousand years). He is bound for a specific purpose—he is prevented from “deceiving the nations” until the thousand years are over. The imagery of the devil being bound restates in apocalyptic symbolism the biblical data considered previously. Satan has been “cast down” and “bound.” After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Satan is prevented from deceiving the nations en masse. This is unlike the prior period of redemptive history (considered above) when the devil was able to mobilize pagan Gentile powers to oppose and assault the people of God until his defeat on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. John is describing the age of the gospel, in which that gospel is to be proclaimed to all the nations. Therefore, the correct reading of Revelation 20:1-3 is that Satan is currently bound by the preaching of the gospel. His lies are exposed and his powers of deception are greatly diminished in the new covenant era. It is the proclamation of Christ crucified and risen which “binds” the devil.

But to be clear and avoid misconception as much as possible, the binding of Satan does not in any sense mean that all of his evil activities cease during the thousand years. In fact, John has already warned us in Revelation 12:12 that after Satan is cast out of heaven, “woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” Like a sick or wounded animal sure to die, Satan is more dangerous now than he was when he had free access to heaven–even while confined to the abyss. Satan has been defeated by Christ’s death and resurrection. His doom is assured. One little word shall fell him. The truth of the gospel exposes his lies for what they are. But with the time he has left, Satan rages against the people of God trying to muster his increasingly feeble power. The gospel of Christ crucified is to Satan what kryptonite is to Superman.

Nevertheless, John reports in his prior visions that since Satan has nothing to lose, he wages war on the saints and at times, appears to overcome them. This is why Peter speaks of Satan as our enemy who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (I Peter 5:8). This is why Paul can speak of Satan as “the god of this age, who blinds the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4). You can put a vicious dog on a chain, but you sure don’t want to get within the radius of the chain, or you’ll still get mauled!

At no point does John say or imply that Satan ceases all activity during the thousand years. In fact, Scripture warns us that the devil’s rage increases because he knows the end is coming. But John does say that Satan is prevented from deceiving the nations so as to organize them against the people of God (Christ’s church) as he once did during the Old Testament era. Is this not what John has been reporting from the very beginning of his Apocalypse? The beast was already manifest in John’s day in the form of the Roman empire (the fourth empire of Daniel’s vision—cf. Daniel 7). But Christ has defeated the Roman Caesar, evident in the fact that we can go to Rome today and walk among the ruins of a once great persecuting empire.

Rome’s Antichrist emperors have come and gone, relegated to the annals of history. Indeed, beasts in many forms have come and gone throughout the age, persecuting the church for a time, only to be overcome by the testimony of the saints and the blood of the Lamb. Hitler’s thousand year Reich lasted less than fifteen years. Stalin’s great socialist utopia collapsed before our eyes. Even though nations who persecute the church come and go, they are prevented from organizing against the church as a whole and destroying it as the Assyrians and Babylonians did to the divided kingdoms of Israel. Inevitably these empires all come to an end–often times a bloody end brought about by the providential intervention of God.

That said, in verse 7 John reveals that one day Satan will be released from the abyss at the time of the end. No longer bound, Satan will again organize the nations against Jesus Christ and his church, only to be crushed by Jesus on the day of his second advent when our Lord delivers his people once and for all, when we are raised from the dead, final judgment is meted out, and the new heavens and earth appear, the home of everlasting righteousness.

How Then Ought We Understand Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4?

Some interpreters connect the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 to Jude 6 (cf. 2 Peter 2:4), in which fallen angels are said to be kept in everlasting chains in darkness awaiting the final judgment. Does this have any relevance for interpreting Revelation 20. Likely not. The reference in 2 Peter 2:4-6 to angels being kept in chains in Tartarus (ESV, “hell”) until the judgment has a time reference, “when they sinned.” This would place the binding of such angels at the time of Satan’s fall, or else as Peter indicates in verse 5, at the time of Noah and the flood, which is “the destruction of the world that then existed” (2 Peter 3:6). Jude likewise speaks of these angels being bound until the day of judgment, which is possibly the subject of Isaiah 24:21-22, where we read: “On that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven, in heaven, and the kings of the earth, on the earth. They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished.” Other than this scant mention, there are no others texts which speak to this. So, at the time of Satan’s fall, or at the time of Noah and the flood, a number of fallen angels were bound and are presently awaiting the time of final judgment.

Does this binding of fallen angels relate to Revelation 20 and to John’s reference to the binding of Satan? Probably not directly, although the reference to fallen angels also might be in the background of John’s vision. Whether or not Jesus is the angel who is said to bind Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, it is our Lord’s resurrection which gives him the keys (authority) over Death and Hades, which is the abode of the Dragon (Satan), as well as the key to the chains of Tartarus.[2]

A Response to Objections to the Present Binding of Satan

The most compelling and common argument against the amillennial interpretation of the binding of Satan is the painfully obvious fact that evil and unbelief flourish throughout the present age. The reality of such evil supposedly proves that Satan is not yet bound, therefore John’s vision must refer to a future event which occurs after Christ’s second advent. This is the standard premillennial objection to the amillennial interpretation and is, at first glance, quite compelling.

But this objection mistakenly assumes that the binding of Satan requires the complete elimination of evil, which is not the case. Furthermore, this observation, while true, overlooks the extensive biblical context for John’s vision as set forth above. It should be pointed out that this objection is merely an observation about the present age, and not an effort to interpret the vision in light of the biblical context which tells us what John actually means. When we place the vision in its biblical context, it is clear, if not obvious, that John is referring to the inevitable success of the missionary enterprise, not the elimination of all satanic activity. As previously noted, satanic resistance actually increases during the “thousand years,” yet is now too impotent to stop the progress of the gospel.

It is also probably worth noting that given the effects of the fall upon the human race, it is not as though there would be no sin and evil apart from satanic activity and temptation. Our hearts our filled with deceit (Jeremiah 17:9), our thoughts are continuously evil (Genesis 6:5), we are darkened in our understanding (Ephesians 4:18-19), and we are prone to all sorts of evil desires (James 3:9). I could go on, but the point is made. There would be great evil in the world even if there were no devil.

But the nagging question lingers. How can deception of the nations persist if Satan is “bound?” The answer is that Satan is presently bound in the sense described above (through the preaching of the gospel). Jesus and the authors of the New Testament are clear that the devil is already defeated and cannot organize empires and nations to stop the missionary activities of the church during the present age, as he was able to do with Adam and Israel, before his ultimate defeat at Calvary and the Garden Tomb. No doubt, Satan will certainly attempt to thwart the progress of the gospel and the kingdom of God, but ultimately he will fail. Being bound does not prevent Satan from trying to deceive. But is does prevent him from succeeding.

Our contemporary world is rife with examples of nations which openly oppress God’s people and seek to silence them (i.e., The People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran). Yet, reports abound that many people become Christians in these nations despite the efforts of these governments to stamp out Christianity and prevent its spread. The kingdom of Jesus Christ will grow and thrive all the while persecution and political conditions appear to be getting worse (cf. Revelation 11 and the account of the two witnesses). The spread of Christ’s kingdom is a consequence of the proclamation of the gospel and tied to the effectual call of God’s elect–which John describes as a multitude so vast they cannot be counted (Revelation 7:9). But the relentless advance of Christ’s kingdom does not necessarily translate into corresponding economic, cultural, and religious progress as our postmillennial friends insist. In some cases, there is a corresponding positive effect upon the culture. But in many cases there is not. Preaching the gospel often results in persecution, hardship, and even martyrdom. Jesus says world conditions will be the same until his return, as they were in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37). Yet, the gospel still accomplishes God’s purpose in the face of persecution, bringing his elect to faith and establishing congregations of believers.

According to John’s vision, Satan will be released for a short time before the end (Christ’s second advent), when the devil will be allowed to deceive the nations for one final outbreak of an organized political, economic, and military attack against Christ’s church (Revelation 20:7-10). Meanwhile, the gospel will go to the ends of the earth, even as Satan rages like a wounded animal. He is enraged precisely because he knows his time is short and his end is already determined (compare 1 Peter 5:8 with Revelation 12:12).

Summing Up

In Revelation 20:1-3, 7, John sees a vision of Satan as bound during this present age so that he cannot deceive the nations as he was able to do prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection, the basis of Satan’s defeat. The answer to the question, “how can Satan be bound even as evil continues?” is found by considering the context of the vision and then looking to John’s explanation as to what he means when he says that Satan is bound and cast into the abyss. Once confined, Satan can no longer “deceive the nations” until the thousand years are over. John even warns us that as a defeated foe, Satan’s rage is at its greatest before the Lord returns. But the devil’s power to deceive is broken through the proclamation of the gospel. Satan cannot stop the spread of the gospel, try as he will.

Therefore, when viewed against the backdrop of redemptive history (culminating in Christ’s saving work), the binding of Satan is directly tied to the success of the missionary enterprise. Satan was bound when his power of deception over nations and empires was broken by Jesus’s death and resurrection. John is not referring to the absence of all evil and unbelief as premillennarians contend. The amillennial interpretation is the correct one.

______________________________________

[1] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988) s.v. “Satan.”

[2] I refer you to the discussion of this in G. K. Beale, Revelation, New International Greek Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 984-991.

Weekly Communion

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Observing the Lord’s Supper Weekly Makes It Routine—And That’s a Good Thing” by Scott Aniol.

Scott Aniol, PhD, is Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of G3 Ministries. He lectures around the world in churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries, and he has authored several books.

Original source: https://g3min.org/observing-the-lords-supper-weekly-makes-it-routine-and-thats-a-good-thing/

I’ve long been an advocate for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is the God-ordained picture of the climax of our worship of God the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, by faith—Communion with God.1 One thing I’ve noticed since I’ve been a part of churches that celebrated the Supper more frequently, and now weekly, is that observing the Lord’s Supper weekly makes it routine.

This reality is often raised as an objection to weekly Lord’s Supper observance. If we celebrate weekly, the objection goes, then it will become routine; it won’t be as special as when we celebrate monthly or quarterly.

Well, yes, weekly observance does make the Supper seem routine. I’ve come to expect it every week. The same passage of Scripture is read every week. Some of the same words are spoken every week. I hold the same cup and bread in my hands every week. We sing the same Doxology after eating every week. The Lord’s Supper has become routine.

And that’s a good thing.

Routines Reveal Our Priorities

When we establish routines for ourselves, our families, or our churches, we reveal what is important to us. They become routine because we have prioritized them so that they become so regular we simply don’t have to decide to do them anymore—they become a regular part of our lives.

Brushing your teeth every day is clear evidence that clean teeth is a priority to you. You don’t even have to think about it anymore—you wake up groggy, stumble into the bathroom, and grab your toothbrush. It’s habit. The fact that brushing your teeth has become a routine does not mean you don’t think clean teeth is important, rather the opposite.

The same is true for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Table—it reveals how important we believe the Table to be. Our children notice when we do something regularly. Without even telling them, they can see that it’s something important. A visitor who has attended a couple of times will recognize that this observance is something we prioritize.

And perhaps most importantly, routine celebration of the Table ingrains the importance of what we are doing on our own hearts. This fact leads to the next two reasons routine celebration of the Table is a good thing.

We Miss Routines When They Are Absent

When we establish something as a routine, we miss it when we don’t do it. We may hardly think consciously about the routine as we do it regularly, but if it’s gone, the absence is striking.

Dinner in your home is routine; no one in your family wonders if you’re going to eat dinner. When I ask my wife, “What’s for dinner tonight,” she doesn’t reply, “You’re assuming we’re having dinner?” No, it’s routine. But try skipping dinner one evening. Everyone would notice.

This was one of the biggest reasons I objected to trying to observe the Table “virtually” (an impossibility) during Covid lockdowns. It’s why I even objected to even trying to replicate a Sunday morning service through the internet at all. If we are unable to meet in person, we should feel the weight of that. If we can’t meet as we normally do for whatever reason, we should miss it. If we’re out sick or even traveling on vacation, we notice when we’re unable to do what has become routine to us.

This is a great benefit of routines. If celebrating the Lord’s Supper becomes routine, we come to expect it, and in some ways we don’t even think about it anymore. But if I were to walk into the sanctuary one week and the Table is not set, I would wonder why. It may take me a moment—something is different; something is missing, but I would feel its absence. If I’m away on a trip and unable to eat with my family, I miss it.

This is also the important connection between the Lord’s Supper and church discipline. When a church member is living in unrepentant sin, they are not barred from coming to church services. We want them there under the preached Word, experiencing the convicting work of the Holy Spirit through the regular means of grace he has prescribed for the church.

But an unrepentant church member is barred from the Table. We warn them not to eat in an unworthy manner. Don’t partake. And that is a means of grace for them, too. If your church only celebrates the Table quarterly or monthly, barring an unrepentant member from the Table wouldn’t seem like that big a deal. They might not even attend the day the Table is scheduled. But if you celebrate every week, then they will feel the weight of missing the privilege of eating with their church family at Christ’s Table, and that will be a means to bring them back to Christ.

Routines Form Us

When we really want to learn to do something, whether it be playing a musical instrument or excelling at a sport, we practice. Developing a good golf swing or learning to play the piano requires rehearsing the necessary skills over and over again. Skill development requires doing; it requires the cultivation of habits that become second nature.

The same is true for cultivating a life of communion with God that impacts every aspect of how we live—it takes practice. Holiness, according to Hebrews 12:14, is something a Christian must “strive for.” Paul told Timothy to train himself for godliness (1 Tim 4:7).

This is one of the most powerful, God-ordained purposes of the routines we develop in corporate worship—they form godliness within us. They are means of grace by which the Spirit of God progressively works his Word into our souls so that Communion with God, love for God, and living a life that is pleasing to him becomes, well, routine. We don’t have to think about it anymore. This is why Christians have traditionally called the elements of our worship, including the Lord’s Supper, “ordinary means of grace“—these are the primary means we should expect the Holy Spirit to ordinarily work his grace into our lives. That’s why they are ordinary; that’s why they are routine. Charles Spurgeon’s catechism reads,

The outward and ordinary means whereby the Holy Spirit communicates to us the benefits of Christ’s redemption are the Word, by which souls are begotten to spiritual life; baptism, the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and meditation, all by which believers are further edified in their most holy faith.

The routine, disciplined use of Word-prescribed means of grace, like the Lord’s Supper, progressively forms us into the image of Christ. They are the means by which we “work our [our] salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12–13). When we routinely celebrate the Lord’s Supper, communion with God through Christ becomes habit, and that forms us to live in light of that reality.

When faced with temptation, we resist, because pleasing God has become our habit. When we sin and break fellowship with God, we’re struck with an emptiness because communion with God has become routine. We miss it, and that compels us to repent and return to Christ.

Celebrating the Lord’s Table weekly reminds us every week what Christ did on our behalf to restore broken fellowship between God and his people, and we are progressively formed by that reminder. Eating and drinking gives us a God-appointed tactile experience of Christ’s broken body and shed blood for us, and that sanctifies us. This sanctification is not mindless, it is not an ex opera operato (“from the work worked”) sort of magical infusion of grace. We must indeed “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:22). But it is Word-ordained routines that God uses as ordinary means of grace to form us into his image “from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18).

Celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly will indeed become routine. But that is a good thing, because it is one of the most significant means by which we engrain the importance of the cross upon our hearts, keep us committed to fellowship with the body of Christ, and pursue Christlikeness in every aspect of our lives.


Read Josh Buice’s article on the matter for some more good reasons.

About Muhammad

Posted on by
Reply

9 Things You Should Know About Muhammad

Original source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-about-muhammad/

A. S. Ibrahim serves as professor of Islamic studies and senior fellow for the Jenkins Center for the Christian Understanding of Islam at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of A Concise Guide to the Quran: Answering Thirty Critical Questions and A Concise Guide to the Life of Muhammad.

As a Christian growing up in Egypt, many of my neighbors and classmates were named “Muhammad.” From an early age, I learned the significance of that name—the name of their prophet—to the Muslims around me. Muslims cherish, love, and respect Muhammad. They also believe the use of his name brings blessing to their lives.

Now I live in America. And as more Muslims come to this country, I believe American Christians need to know more of what Muslims understand about their prophet. Here are nine things you should know about Muhammad.

1. Muhammad was probably a historical figure.

Muhammad was allegedly born in Mecca in AD 570 and died in Medina in AD 632. Many are skeptical of the information about his life because the Muslim accounts of it were documented about two centuries after his death. We have no eyewitness accounts. This is problematic, as we cannot fully trust the records about him. However, we have reason to believe Muhammad was a historical figure. Some Christians in the seventh century wrote about a preacher who appeared among the Arabs—but they identified him as a false prophet because he came with swords and chariots.

2. He was likely influenced by Christians.

Muslims believe Muhammad received his revelation directly from Allah through the angel Gabriel and became a prophet at the age of 40. They insist there was no human intervention in the process.

However, the Muslim narrative itself reveals that when Muhammad was between 9 and 12, he met with a Christian monk in Syria. The monk told him Christian tales. Additionally, when Muhammad allegedly received his first divine revelation, he went to his wife’s cousin who was also a Christian and an expert in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, while Muslims insist Muhammad had no influence whatsoever from Christians, their history reveals differently.

3. Muslims view Muhammad as perfect.

For Muslims, Muhammad is Allah’s final prophet, the last and best in a chain of thousands of prophets (which include prophets from the Bible). Muslims view him as the only perfect man who ever lived. While historical accounts may shed doubt on this idealistic picture—as one can identify questionable deeds and problematic teachings—Muslims still revere Muhammad and believe he was infallible.

4. He lived in Mecca and Medina.

Muhammad lived in Mecca for 53 years, then in Medina for 10. After allegedly becoming a prophet in Mecca, he lived there for about 13 years, trying to preach his religious message. But it failed to gain traction. People mocked and persecuted him and his handful of followers. After years of failure and intense pressure, he took his few followers and emigrated to Medina where he lived the last decade of his life. At Medina, he was able to consolidate his power and accumulate resources. There, he became a commander and statesman.

5. He launched raids against many non-Muslims.

After being weak and vulnerable in Mecca, Muhammad became a strong military leader in Medina. Muslim sources reveal that he launched dozens of military raids against various groups, including polytheists, Jews, and Christians. Through these raids, Muhammad became so powerful as an Arab tribal leader that many tribes submitted to him and thus declared their conversion to Islam. The word islam itself means “submission” and “surrender.”

6. He didn’t perform miracles. (Or did he?)

The Qur’an insists that Muhammad’s only miracle is the Qur’an itself. Allah sent Muhammad merely to warn. Since people in past generations didn’t believe through miracles, says Allah, then the only miracle given to Muhammad was the Qur’an, and it was sufficient.

However, later generations of Muslims, after their interactions with Jews and Christians, felt the need to generate stories about Muhammad’s miracles. If Moses and Jesus both performed miracles, the logic goes, then Muhammad, too, must have done the same—even though this contradicts Islam’s scripture.

7. He had multiple wives and concubines.

Muhammad married many wives. The exact number is disputed, but he had somewhere between 9 and 12. He also had many concubines and female slaves. Muslims say he married these women to take care of them after they lost their husbands. Others believe these marriages were for economic and political reasons. Among the wives, a few are notable: Khadija was the wealthiest. Sawda was the oldest. Aisha was the youngest—he married her when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. Zaynab was his adopted son’s wife, but Allah later revoked that adoption, allowing Muhammad to marry her. Safiyya was a Jewish woman who married Muhammad after he raided her tribe and killed her husband.

8. He died of poisoning.

Muslim sources reveal that Muhammad did not die naturally; he was poisoned. Sunni Muslims accuse a Jewish woman of poisoning Muhammad. Meanwhile, some Shiites argue that two of Muhammad’s wives conspired to kill him and prepare the way for their fathers to succeed him in ruling over the Arabs. Since the story of poisoning a prophet sheds doubts on divine protection, many Muslims claim the stories in the Muslim sources are forgeries and that Muhammad died of natural causes.

9. His grave is in Medina.

Muslim sources also reveal that Muhammad died in his home in Medina and was buried. Up to the present day, Muslims believe that his tomb is what blesses Medina. They seek to visit the city to be blessed. The name “Medina” means “The City” (i.e., the blessed city of Muhammad).

Of course, there’s much more to say about Muhammad’s life and teachings. But Christians should be aware of these basic facts as they interact with Muslim friends, neighbors, and coworkers. For those who would like to know more, I’ve written A Concise Guide to the Life of Muhammad. By learning about the prophet of Islam, Christians will be better able to speak of our hope in Christ to Muslims around us.

How Ancient Creeds Can Benefit the Contemporary Church

Posted on by
Reply

Christopher Poshin David is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in India – Reformed. He is a church planter in Chennai. He is also the author of the book, Engaging Hinduism: Rethinking Christian Apologetics in India.

Creeds are tools of truth, they help us learn our faith, teach our faith and defend our faith.

Original source: https://in.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-benefit-of-ancient-creeds-for-the-contemporary-church/

I recall standing with an outstretched arm in the morning assembly at school reciting the Indian national pledge on Republic Day and Independence Day. The national pledge is an oath of allegiance. It also reminds us of our identity as part of a national community bigger than our individual selves. 

The church of Jesus Christ similarly has pledges that remind us of our corporate identity as the people of God. These pledges are called the creeds of the church.

The word creed comes from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe.” A creed is a truthfully and carefully crafted, time-tested summary statement of the Christian faith. They help us learn fundamental Christian truths. And, in our constant reaffirmation of them, creeds help us remember these truths and live by them.

Creeds have served the church well for centuries. They are useful as a tool of communication to teach the faith, as a tool of apologetics to defend the faith, and as a tool of ecumenicalism to foster fellowship between churches.

Why Should We Use Creeds?

The Shema (Deut. 6:4) was a creedal statement for ancient Israel that reminded the people of their allegiance to a monotheistic faith against the surrounding polytheistic religions of the Canaanite nations. This creed was repeated morning and night and was the central pillar of the Jewish faith. Even in the New Testament, we see the Shema quoted by Jesus (Mark 12:29) and early church leaders (Gal. 3:20; James 2:19).

In the New Testament church, the earliest creed to develop was the statement, “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). The doubting disciple Thomas, when he encountered the risen Jesus cried out a variation of this creed and pledged his life to Jesus saying, “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

This simple creed that “Jesus is Lord” (Kyrios Iesous) was a countercultural creed to the imperial cult of the Roman Emperor who demanded all confess that “Ceasar is Lord” (Kyrios Kaisar). This is another way creeds help deepen and defend our faith—by resisting cultural norms with the truths of our faith.

Other creeds in the Bible include Saint Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16; Cf. Acts 8:36-37), the “trustworthy sayings” mentioned by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11), the confession of the “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16) and the confession of the unity of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:4-6). These biblical instances establish that creeds were used extensively in the life of the church through the ages.

What Could Go Wrong?

Risks of both misuse and disuse are common in the way churches use creeds. The creeds of the church, even the most ancient ones, do not have divine authority on their own. Their authority upon the church and the believer’s conscience is only to the extent they are in accord with the Bible.

Creeds are not inspired documents and are always to be submitted to the authority of the word of God. One grave error is to  misuse creeds by giving them undue authority.

On the other hand, some churches dismiss creeds as human inventions which have no place in the church. Thus, we have the often-touted phrases “no creed but Christ” or the similar “no creed but the Bible.” Ironically, these very anti-creedal statements themselves are also, in fact, creedal themselves.

To disuse creeds entirely leaves the church poorer—without a distinctive doctrinal identity and susceptible to every new idea. This is the other possible error.

How Are Creeds Useful?

The early church creeds were developed to uphold fundamental truths in the light of erroneous and heretical teachings. Thus, the creeds of the early church became a yardstick or measure of faith.

Creeds stood guard against subtle or overt errors; heresies of the orthodox scriptural understanding of the Christian faith. They were vital for the proclamation and the preservation of the Christian faith. They also promoted unity within the churches of Christ based upon a common core confession of faith.

Creeds are best used in teaching the faith. They are great catechetical tools to teach the essential doctrines of the church. The Apostles’ Creed mainly is beneficial to teach those who are joining as members of the church. It is also helpful to teach children to understand even at a young age what they believe.

It is also beneficial to publicly confess creeds together as the corporate body of Christ. There is a particular beauty when the members of the church confess and affirm the faith they rest their lives upon. One way to inculcate this practise is to add the confession of creeds in the liturgy of the worship service.

Creeds also unite the contemporary church to its historical roots. Christians who confess and subscribe to the creeds are provided with an orthodox identity and share a common unity with saints around the world and throughout the ages.

What Are Some Creeds We Should Know About?

Here is a quick primer of a few well-known ecumenical creeds that are affirmed by all the major church denominations.

The Apostles’ Creed

The history of the Apostles’ Creed is shrouded in mystery. Its authorship is unknown. The earliest form of the creed comes from the fourth century—centuries after the lives of the apostles. But there is evidence the creed was already in use in the church as early as the second century.

This has become perhaps the most well-known creed of Christendom due to its concise summary of the apostolic teaching. The Apostles’ Creed continues to be widely used to instruct new believers in the faith and prepare candidates to be received into the church as members.

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed came out of the first great ecumenical council held at Nicaea in AD 325. The first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine convened this council to combat Arianism—a heresy which claimed Christ Jesus was not the eternally begotten Son of God but rather begotten in time and subordinate to the Father. The council condemned Arianism giving rise to the Nicene Creed.

In the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) a few lines were added to the creed giving rise to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Finally, the Western Church in AD 581 added the statement that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). This is the current form of the creed that the Western Church confesses. The Eastern Church confesses the creed but without the addition of the Filioque.

The Chalcedonian Creed

The Chalcedonian Creed originated from the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. The Emperor called the council to combat the heresies of Eutychianism (the belief that the human and divine natures of Christ are united as one nature) and Nestorianism (the belief that Christ exists as two distinct persons—human and divine).

The Council affirmed the Nicene Creed and set forth the Chalcedonian definition that Christ is one person with two distinct natures (hypostatic union). This definition has become the hallmark of the orthodox expression of the person of Jesus Christ.

The Athanasian Creed

The Athanasian Creed is recognised as the classic Christian exposition of the catholic (universal) faith. The creed depicts with clarity the doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. The authorship of the creed is unknown though modern scholarship attributes it to the fifth-century Gallic monk, Vincent of Lérins.

It was named after Athanasius, the stalwart defender of Nicene orthodoxy in the early church. This creed is unique in that the final part includes an anathema (condemnation) of anyone who fails to believe the contents of the creed as one without salvation.

Creeds are a beautiful part of church history because they have helped Christians understand, remember, proclaim, defend, and enjoy what we believe. Any church that uses them well will be richer in its faith for it.

Questions About The Lord’s Supper

Posted on by
Reply

original source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/4-questions-about-the-lords-supper/

Aubrey M. Sequeira (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as the senior pastor of Evangelical Community Church of Abu Dhabi. He has served in ministry in India, North America, and now the Middle East. He is the author of the 9marks book Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important?.

Q: What does the Lord’s Supper mean? How can I ensure that my participation in the Lord’s Supper is meaningful?

A: The Lord’s Supper is a beautiful act of worship ordained by the Lord Jesus for the spiritual good of his people. We miss out on its blessings, however, if we thoughtlessly “go through the motions” without understanding, or worse, while misunderstanding what’s taking place. The Lord’s Supper is the new covenant meal ordained by Jesus to be celebrated by the local church. At the Lord’s Supper, believers partake of bread and wine, symbolizing Jesus’s body and blood. Through their participation in this meal, believers together remember our Lord’s sacrificial death, enjoy communion with Christ and with one another, are strengthened and nourished by Christ’s sustaining grace, and proclaim Jesus’s death until he returns (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26). Believers are exhorted to careful self-examination before participation (1 Cor. 11:27–32).

To participate meaningfully, think of “looking” in five directions as we come to the Lord’s Supper:

  • We look backward: we remember Christ’s body and blood given for us at the cross; we remember that his death has brought us forgiveness of sins and eternal life
  • We look outward: we celebrate the family bond we share with brothers and sisters in Christ in the local church
  • We look upward: we realize that we’re lifted up to be seated with our heavenly host, Jesus, to whom we bring our hungry hearts for nourishment with the grace of the new covenant
  • We look inward: we examine our hearts to ensure that we’re walking in faith and repentance, and living with love for our brothers and sisters in Christ
  • We look forward: we wait in hope for the glorious day when we will celebrate the fulfillment of all God’s promises at his heavenly banquet1

Q: Who can take the Lord’s Supper?

A: Since the Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal of the church, it has clear boundaries for who can participate. The Lord’s Supper is a meal for baptized believers who are members in good standing of a local church. First, the Lord’s Supper is for Christian believers: those who have repented of their sins and trusted in Jesus for eternal life. Non-Christians cannot participate in this meal because they haven’t trusted in Jesus’s death for their forgiveness. They can’t commune with Jesus and his family because they haven’t trusted in Jesus as their Savior, and they’re not a part of his family. They can’t remember Jesus’s death because they haven’t trusted its significance for their lives.

Second, the Lord’s Supper is for those who have been baptized. Not only should someone have trusted in Christ, they should have publicly identified with him and his family. Baptism is how someone makes this public identification. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both signs of the new covenant. Baptism is the initial sign of the covenant, and the Lord’s Supper is its ongoing sign. Baptism is where one receives the family name, which is necessary before one sits down at the family table in the Lord’s Supper.

Third, the Lord’s Supper is for members in “good standing” of a local church. Membership in a local church is not optional for the Christian life; it’s essential. The local church is the context in which we live out our commitment to Jesus and his people. Belonging to a local church is basic obedience for disciples of Jesus. So, before sitting at the family dinner table, you should make sure you’ve committed yourself to be a part of the family—a commitment that’s made through membership. To be in “good standing” means that one is not under the discipline of the church and therefore still recognized as a part of the body of Christ (Matt. 18:15–20; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

Q: Why must we be at a church gathering to take the Lord’s Supper? Why can’t I take the Lord’s Supper at home or somewhere else?

A: Underlying this question are certain assumptions about the role of the church in the Christian life. Many evangelical Christians mistakenly think that the Christian life is something that’s just “between me and Jesus”—a private relationship with God with no one else involved. People view the church as having nothing or little to do with their faith. The church is viewed as something optional that may aid one’s faith, but is not essential to one’s faith. With this kind of mindset, the Lord’s Supper becomes like a private dinner date with Jesus.

Biblically, however, a person’s faith in Christ is inseparable from one’s participation in the family of Christ. The local church is the context where the Christian life is lived out. Jesus didn’t just die to save individuals, he died to save a people in order to make them his family (Eph. 2:19–20; Heb. 2:11–13).

When we understand that the church is a family, we more clearly perceive the biblical emphasis on the Lord’s Supper as a family meal, to be celebrated by the church as Jesus’s family. That’s why the Lord’s Supper must only be taken when a church is gathered together in Jesus’s name.

In his corrective instructions on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul repeatedly underscores the gathering of the church as the context in which the Lord’s Supper must be taken:

  • “when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (1 Cor. 11:17b).
  • “when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor. 11:18b).
  • “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (1 Cor. 11:20–22).
  • “So then, 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).

You’ll notice that throughout this passage Paul makes it clear that the Lord’s Supper was to be shared together when “assembled as a church.” Paul differentiates between eating in your own home and the special meal “when you come together.” Just like a family shares a special family meal in the context of the family being together, the Lord’s Supper is reserved for when the church family is together. It’s the church’s meal.

Our day is marked by widespread confusion concerning whether a dispersed group of individuals connecting online actually constitutes a “church gathering.” The increased difficulty of embodied fellowship over the past two years of the global pandemic and the alluring convenience of Zoom has duped Christians into feeling more “connected,” while in fact we are growing apart. The fellowship we share becomes an illusion as we relate to one another as disembodied talking heads on a screen. The development of the “metaverse” only further exacerbates this mirage, as the safety of virtual (un)reality provides an easy excuse from the command to offer our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1–2). The Bible, however, refreshingly reminds us that we are embodied persons who need one another’s physical presence for our spiritual good—and a pandemic doesn’t change that. The Lord’s Supper is a time for the church to come together and to strengthen our bonds of faith as we enjoy communion with Jesus and with one another.

Q: Why should I not participate in the Lord’s Supper in a Roman Catholic Mass?

A: Bible-believing Christians who hold in faith to the biblical gospel of Christ ought not to participate in the Mass, particularly in the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic church. This is because the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper denies that Jesus’s one-time sacrificial offering on the cross was sufficient to take away our sins. Instead, they believe Christ’s sacrifice must be continually perpetuated in the Lord’s Supper: “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”2

The Roman Catholic Church erroneously teaches that the bread and wine, when consecrated in the Mass, miraculously transforms into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, now offered on the altar. They assert that this repeated presentation of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist actually ensures our redemption. Furthermore, they believe this saving work of the Eucharist takes place ex opere operato, i.e., by mere participation in the ritual, apart from faith in the worshipers. This teaching denies the heart of the gospel and is the reason why gospel-affirming Christians should refrain from participation in the Eucharist at Roman Catholic Mass. By participating in the Eucharist at Catholic Mass, we would be giving our approval to a false understanding of the gospel. This is why many Protestant Reformers were willing to be martyred rather than take the Mass and affirm the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper.

Notes:

  1. Aubrey M. Sequeira, ​​Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 48.
  2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1367.

In An Unmarked Grave

Posted on by
Reply

By Ryan Griffith (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) – pastor at Cities Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and a Senior Fellow at the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/hero-in-an-unmarked-grave

On May 27, 1564, just after eight o’clock in the evening, a nurse urgently summoned Theodore Beza (1519–1605) to Calvin’s bedside. “We found he had already died,” Calvin’s friend and fellow pastor later wrote. “On that day, then, at the same time with the setting sun, this splendid luminary was withdrawn from us.”1 Calvin was 54 years old.

Calvin’s death sent a shock wave throughout Geneva and beyond. Beza writes, “That night and the following day there was a general lamentation throughout the city . . . all lamenting the loss of one who was, under God, a common parent and comfort.” He records that two days later “the entire city” gathered at the St. Pierre Cathedral to honor their beloved pastor. Despite Calvin’s prominence, the funeral was unusually simple, “with no extraordinary pomp.”2 But Calvin’s burial was particularly unusual.

Unmarked Grave

Eighteen years earlier, on February 18, 1546, fellow Reformer Martin Luther died at the age of 63. As was common practice for ministers, Luther’s remains were interred inside the church where he had faithfully served. His casket lies in Wittenberg’s Castle Church, near the pulpit, seven feet below the floor of the nave. Luther’s successor and fellow Reformer, Philip Melanchthon (1490–1560), is buried beside him.

So also William Farel (1489–1565), who first called Calvin to Geneva in 1536, is buried in the cathedral of Neuchâtel, where he spent the final years of his ministry. When Calvin’s friend and successor Theodore Beza died in 1605, he was buried next to the pulpit of St. Pierre, the Genevan church in which he and Calvin ministered together.

But Calvin’s remains lie elsewhere.

Rather than being interred in St. Pierre, Calvin’s body was carried outside the city wall to a marshy burial ground for commoners called Plainpalais. With close friends in attendance, Calvin’s body was wrapped in a simple shroud, enclosed in a rough casket, and lowered into the earth. Beza writes that Calvin’s plot was unlisted and, “as he [had] commanded, without any gravestone.”3

Why did Calvin command that he be buried, contrary to common practice, in an unmarked grave? Some speculate that he wanted to discourage religious pilgrims from visiting his resting place or to prevent accusations from the Roman church that he desired veneration as a saint.4 But the answer lies somewhere deeper — in Calvin’s understanding of Christian modesty.

Forgotten Meaning of Modesty

When we speak of modesty today, we most often mean dressing or behaving in such a way as to avoid impropriety or indecency. But modesty more generally refers to the quality of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of oneself. For centuries, the church understood the connection. Immodest dress was not simply ostentatious or sexually suggestive; it reflected an overemphasis on appearance. As Jesus warned, outward appearance can mask impiety (Matthew 6:16) or pride (Luke 18:12).

This is why both Gentile women converts in Ephesus and the Jewish Christians addressed in Hebrews are urged to consider how their outward appearance relates to the disposition of the heart. Excessive adornment could be evidence of self-importance (1 Timothy 2:9). Acceptable worship requires a posture of reverence, not pretension (Hebrews 12:28). Thus, a modest person represents himself neither too highly nor too meanly because he understands both the dignity and the humility of being transformed by the grace of God.

Modesty, then, is simply the outward reflection of true Christian humility. It obliterates pride by embracing the reality that a Christian is both creaturely and beloved. In this light, self-importance becomes absurd. Grandiosity becomes laughable. Celebrity becomes monstrous.

We Are Not Our Own

For Calvin, the gospel radically reshapes our view of self. As those created in God’s image, provisioned by his goodness, redeemed by his mercy, transformed by his grace, and called to his mission, those who belong to Christ no longer live for themselves. “Now the great thing is this,” Calvin writes, “we are consecrated and dedicated to God in order that we may thereafter think, speak, meditate, and do, nothing except to his glory.” Calvin continues,

If we, then, are not our own but the Lord’s, it is clear what error we must flee and whither we must direct all the acts of our life. We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us not therefore see it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours.

Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal. Oh how much has that man profited who, having been taught that he is not his own, has taken away dominion and rule from his own reason that he may yield it to God! For, as consulting our self-interest is the pestilence that most effectively leads to our destruction, so the sole haven of salvation is to be wise in nothing through ourselves but to follow the leading of the Lord alone.5

Modesty and humility flow from a heart transformed by the Spirit of Christ. “As soon as we are convinced that God cares for us,” Calvin writes, “our minds are easily led to patience and humility.”6 The Spirit shapes us with a kind of moderation that “gives the preference to others” and that guards us from being “easily thrown into agitation.”7 Modesty blossoms when we experience the freedom from having to prove ourselves to God or one another.
‘Modesty, His Constant Friend’
Calvin’s life reflected this reality. Despite the doors that were opened to him through his writing and network of connections, he was committed to “studiously avoiding celebrity.”8 When the Institutes was published in 1536, he was so successful in his object to “not acquire fame” that no one in Basel knew that he was its author. For the rest of his life, wherever he went, he took care to “conceal that I was the author of that performance.”9 Calvin even sought to avoid a wider ministry in Geneva, having “resolved to continue in the same privacy and obscurity.” He was drawn into the limelight only when William Farel warned him “with a dreadful imprecation” that turning down the post would be refusing God’s call to service.10 In brief autobiographical comments he wrote the year that he died, we see a glimmer of his own surprise over God’s sovereign hand through his life.
God so led me about through different turnings and changes that he never permitted me to rest in any place, until, in spite of my natural disposition, he brought me forth to public notice. . . . I was carried, I know not how, as it were by force to the Imperial assemblies, where, willing or unwilling, I was under the necessity of appearing before the eyes of many.11
It is no surprise, then, that a few days before his death, Calvin exhorted his friends to not be those who “ostentatiously display themselves and, from overweening confidence, insist that all their opinions should be approved by others.” Instead, he pleaded with them to “conduct themselves with modesty, keeping far aloof from all haughtiness of mind.”12 For Beza, Calvin’s modesty — forged by his vision of God’s glory, Christ’s redeeming love, and the Spirit’s animating power — was his defining characteristic. After Calvin’s burial, Beza captured it in verse:
Why in this humble and unnoticed tomb
Is Calvin laid — the dread of falling Rome;
Mourn’d by the good, and by the wicked fear’d
By all who knew his excellence revered?
From whom ev’n virtue’s self might virtue learn,
And young and old its value may discern?
’Twas modesty, his constant friend on earth,
That laid this stone, unsculptured with a name;
Oh! happy ground, enrich’d with Calvin’s worth,
More lasting far than marble is thy fame!13
Free to Be Forgotten
In old Geneva, on the grounds of the college Calvin founded, stands an immense stone memorial to four leaders of the Protestant Reformation. At its center are towering reliefs of Calvin, Beza, Farel, and John Knox (1513–1572). Calvin would surely detest it. But the monument is a metaphor. We live in a culture that fears obscurity and irrelevance. We measure ourselves against others and build our own platforms in the hope that we will not be forgotten. We attempt to distinguish ourselves at the expense of the humility and modesty that honors Christ. Calvin would have us be free from such striving.
For however anyone may be distinguished by illustrious endowments, he ought to consider with himself that they have not been conferred upon him that he might be self-complacent, that he might exalt himself, or even that he might hold himself in esteem. Let him, instead of this, employ himself in correcting and detecting his faults, and he will have abundant occasion for humility. In others, on the other hand, he will regard with honor whatever there is of excellences and will, by means of love, bury their faults. The man who will observe this rule, will feel no difficulty in preferring others before himself. And this, too, Paul meant when he added, that they ought not to have everyone a regard to themselves, but to their neighbors, or that they ought not to be devoted to themselves. Hence it is quite possible that a pious man, even though he should be aware that he is superior, may nevertheless hold others in greater esteem.14
We may rightly regard Calvin as a hero of the faith, but he didn’t ultimately see himself that way. Humility had taught him to walk modestly before God and others — and, in the end, the freedom to lie down in a forgotten grave.

Theodore Beza, “The Life of John Calvin” in Tracts Related to the Reformation (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), 1:xcv. ↩
Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. ↩
Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. ↩
Eighteenth-century guidebooks indeed list the disused Plainpalais cemetery as an important stop for tourists, though they warn that pilgrims will search for Calvin’s resting place in vain. By the nineteenth century, keepers of the burial ground staked out a “likely-enough” site for Calvin’s grave (complete with a rudimentary marker) simply to avoid the irritation of being so frequently asked. ↩
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 3.7.1 (emphasis mine). ↩
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen (Edinburgh: T. Constable,1855), 149. ↩
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: T. Constable, 1851) 52–53. ↩
John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Edinburgh: Edinburg Printing Company, 1845), 1:xli, xlii. ↩
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xlii. ↩
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xlii. ↩
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xli, xliii. ↩
Beza, Tracts, 1:xci. ↩
Beza was widely known for his literary works. As a humanist, he became famous for his collection of Latin poems in Juvenilia, published just before his conversion in 1548. He continued to write poetry, satires, and dramas until the end of his life. Francis Sisbon’s nineteenth-century translation attempts to capture the sense of the Latin in a more familiar poetic form (Theodore Beza, The Life of John Calvin, trans. Francis Sibson, [Philadelphia: J. Whetham, 1836], 94). For the original text, see Calvin and Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. ↩
Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul, 53. ↩