The Invasion by Millions and the Death of America by Jack Kettler
Illegitimate Joe’s regime is saying that there are already 6 million so-called migrants that have come into the country since the 2020 election theft, which they plan on taking care of regarding health care, food, and housing. President Trump believes there are over 10 million. Whatever the number, no one knows.
In Panama, six daily buses have loaded more migrants heading North to America. Real America’s Voice network sources say the number has risen to 20 buses per day. If this is true, the nation as we know it cannot survive. In addition to possible terrorists coming across the border, this will put tremendous downward pressure on the wages in the labor market at a time when crushing inflation is wiping out many middle and lower-income families.
The invasion is accelerating; over 80 percent of the invaders are high-testosterone, military-age men. Many Chinese nationals and Middle Eastern countries are represented along with an increasing number of so-called migrants from African Muslim nations that are traveling groups, according to witnesses, and many appear to know each other and are well dressed.
A Necessary Digression into the globalist elites and their plans:
Why does the shadow government that controls the West hate Russia, particularly in America? Russian President Vladimir Putin is singled out for special verbal wrath.
According to researcher Dr. John Coleman, of particular interest is that for over 150 years, the West has been controlled by a shadow government called “The Committee Of 300.”
Dr. Coleman’s comments about the “Committee” are interesting:
“I would point out that Vladimir Putin came as a surprise to the 300. A tough-mined nationalist leader, Putin promises to be a thorn in the side of the 300, a man with his own vision for Russia.” – Dr. John Coleman, “The Committee of 300,” 4th Edition, p. 312.
Consider Putin’s view of the New World Order:
“VLADIMIR PUTIN: “THE NEW WORLD ORDER WORSHIPS SATAN” –
https: // ortho christian. com/88285 .html (remove spaces to reconnect the hyperlink).”
How ironic, whatever one thinks of Putin, the Russian borders are secure, and millions of so-called military-age migrants are not invading Russia.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, Congress is fiddling while the country is being invaded and about to collapse financially with 33 trillion in debt and growing exponentially. What can the citizens do when the migrants/invaders become overcome with envy, looking at your homes, or when terrorist cells activate? The FBI just issued today, as reported by The Gateway Pundit, warning of a significant threat of terrorism by members and sympathizers of Hamas.
The nation is descending into a severe recession; tax revenues are plummeting and even discounting potential terrorists. Who is going to feed these people? Mass gang-styled robberies are happening in Democrat cities. Illegals are overrunning Chicago and NYC, putting the larger population at risk. Desperate people do desperate things. In particular, the failed Democratic big-city mayors cannot buy hotels fast enough to house these migrants/invaders.
Action Items:·
Obtain a supply of food, water, and water filtration Obtain barter items like gold and silver coins Obtain self-defense items, guns, and ammunition Security doors Security protection for windows, bars, steel mesh
Safety in numbers, the police will not be there to help; they will be overwhelmed:
Start preparation discussions with neighbors about neighborhood defense, such as cars set up to block access into the neighborhood, and at the appropriate time, have citizens set up positions with firearms to stop motorized gangs of marauders from accessing the neighborhood.
How real is this? Consider how just a small number of terrorists could paralyze almost the entire country:
Dies Irae: Day Of Wrath
Published by Spectrum Literary Agency, Inc.
By William R. Forschen
A review by Jack Kettler
Author’s Bio:
William R. Forstchen has a Ph.D. from Purdue University with specializations in military history and the history of technology. He is a faculty fellow and professor of history at Montreat College. He has authored over forty books. Forstchen coauthored the New York Times bestselling Gettysburg and has written numerous short stories and articles about military history and military technology.
What others are saying:
“Bob Petersen arrives with his daughter at the Middle Grade school in Maine where he teaches, expecting another regular day but worried about what recent ominous news reports might portend. Suddenly his school — along with many others across the United States — is under attack. Gunmen burst in, slaughtering children and adults alike. This novella by New York Times bestselling author William R. Forstchen imagines a horrifying scenario where, in the course of one day, the terrorist group ISIS carries out massacres in schools and on highways across the United States. With a surprisingly small but well-organized and ruthless force, the nightmarish devastation brings America to a state of near-paralysis. Author of One Second After and Pillar to the Sky, this heart-stopping novella brings home just how fragile our defenses and infrastructure really are. It is also a story of heroic efforts to save lives, while sounding a wake-up call to American citizens and their government. From the ISIS leader in Syria, to the murderous rampages throughout the U.S., Day of Wrath reveals with chilling effect how national panic and paralyzing terror at the spiraling violence can bring a mighty country to a near-standstill. Petersen’s fight to save lives and stop the merciless gunmen provides edge-of-the-seat drama. Day of Wrath is a provocative work that should stimulate an intense national debate. One Second After was cited on the floor of Congress as the book everyone should read. “A THRILLING – AND TERRIFYING – TALE OF WHAT COULD BE OUR NEXT 9/11!” – W.E.B. Griffin & William E. Buttersworth IV, #1 Wall Street Journal & New York Times Bestselling Authors”
A Review:
Forschen’s book is a fictional account of an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL) within the United States. The scenario in Forschen’s book is not far-fetched considering the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had proclaimed himself the caliph, the successor to Muhammad, and promised to bring Jihad to America.
William Forstchen’s book “One Second After” was one of his best sellers about an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack. It is a frightening story about what would happen when a nuclear bomb is detonated above the earth’s atmosphere, leading to the frying of modern electronic circuits and an almost certain societal collapse. “One Second After,” has surely, helped fuel the “prepper” movement.
Forstchen’s book “Day Of Wrath” is a truly frightening fictional story of what may lie in store for the United States of America if the current regime that is wedded to politically correct anti-American multiculturalism and the open border policy is not stopped.
The reviewer has imagined several similar scenarios, none of which compared to the persuasive story told in this book. Dr. Forstchen’s book is so realistic that the reader will think they are listening to and viewing live news coverage that is parents’ and patriotic citizens’ worst fears. The book generates many vivid mental images.
The value of this book is that the reader is confronted with the reality of how vulnerable the country is. In this fictional account, a hundred terrorists could bring the country to the brink of a complete breakdown.
Forstchen’s book is an easy one-day read. The scenario is completely real and convinces the reader of the nation’s vulnerability.
Obtain this book!
If the reader is looking for a source to obtain gold and silver, let this blogger know of your interest.
“Elections have consequences and stolen elections have catastrophe consequences.” – Steven K. Bannon
Our leaders have betrayed the nation.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
The Christian argues that scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles; in the Christian case, it is the Bible).
The Bible contains the Christian’s starting principles or presuppositions. God speaks to individuals in the Scriptures (special revelation) with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Consequently, the strength of the Christian worldview is seen by the impossibility of the contrary. The impossibility of the contrary can be asserted because, as of this day, no non-Christian anywhere has shown how their worldview can account for the use of science, logic, and ethics.
It can be said that philosophers of the stature of Plato and Aristotle tried to account for ethics within their worldview. For example, Plato tried to ground truth in the world of ideas. The world of ideas interpreted the temporal world of Plato’s forms. The temporal forms were imperfect replicas of the eternal, perfect ideas. One problem he ran into was perfect dung and filth in the ideas world. Did Plato and Aristotle succeed in developing and justifying an ethical system in their worldview? Has anyone heard of an appeal to a body of Platonic or Aristotelian ethical laws lately? Biblical ethics, on the other hand, has undergirded the Western legal system and is with us today. Has it been heard of the commandments not to murder, steal, bear false witness, and commit adultery and rights of appeal?
Why is the non-Christian unable to articulate a coherent theory of knowledge? Because as said, the non-Christian worldview has no basis or explanation for the use of science, logic, and ethics. The non-Christian uses logic and talks about ethics. The atheist does so without justifying or demonstrating how their worldview can account for these things. In other words, as said, the question is begged, and the non-Christian steals from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of things. Christian apologist, Cornelius Van Til gave the example of a child sitting on the father’s lap and attempting to slap the father as the father explained things to the child. When informing non-Christians of their theft, get ready for emotional responses or ad hominem attacks.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Dies Irae: Day Of Wrath Spectrum Literary Agency, Inc. By William R. Forschen
A review by Jack Kettler
A fictional account of an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL) within the United States. This is not far-fetched at all considering, the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has proclaimed himself the caliph, the successor to Muhammad and promises to bring Jihad to America.
Author’s Bio:
William R. Forstchen has a PhD from Purdue University with specializations in military history and the history of technology. He is a faculty fellow and professor of history at Montreat College. He has authored over forty books. Forstchen coauthored the New York Times bestselling Gettysburg and has written numerous short stories and articles about military history and military technology. His book “One Second After” was one of his best sellers about an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack. It is a frightening story about what would happen when a nuclear bomb is detonated above the earth’s atmosphere leading to the frying of modern electronic circuits and an almost certain societal collapse. “One Second After” most surely, has helped fuel the “prepper” movement.
Bob Petersen arrives with his daughter at the Middle Grade school in Maine where he teaches, expecting another regular day but worried about what recent ominous news reports might portend. Suddenly his school — along with many others across the United States — is under attack. Gunmen burst in, slaughtering children and adults alike. This novella by New York Times bestselling author William R. Forstchen imagines a horrifying scenario where, in the course of one day, the terrorist group ISIS carries out massacres in schools and on highways across the United States. With a surprisingly small but well-organized and ruthless force, the nightmarish devastation brings America to a state of near-paralysis. Author of One Second After and Pillar to the Sky, this heart-stopping novella brings home just how fragile our defenses and infrastructure really are. It is also a story of heroic efforts to save lives, while sounding a wake-up call to American citizens and their government. From the ISIS leader in Syria, to the murderous rampages throughout the U.S., Day of Wrath reveals with chilling effect how national panic and paralyzing terror at the spiraling violence can bring a mighty country to a near-standstill. Petersen’s fight to save lives and stop the merciless gunmen provides edge-of-the-seat drama. Day of Wrath is a provocative work that should stimulate an intense national debate. One Second After was cited on the floor of Congress as the book everyone should read. “A THRILLING – AND TERRIFYING – TALE OF WHAT COULD BE OUR NEXT 9/11!” – W.E.B. Griffin & William E. Buttersworth IV, #1 Wall Street Journal & New York Times Bestselling Authors
His book “Day Of Wrath” is a truly frightening fictional story of what may lay in store the United States of American if the current regime that is wedded to politically correct anti-American multiculturalism is not stopped.
I have imagined a number of similar scenarios, none of which compared to the persuasive story told in this book. Dr. Forstchen’s book is so realistic, the reader will think they are listening to and viewing live news coverage that are parents and patriotic citizens worst fears. The book generates many vivid mental images.
The value in this book is that the reader is confronted with the reality of how vulnerable the country is. In this fictional account, a hundred terrorists could literally bring the country to the brink of a complete break down.
Updated comments: Since illegitimate joe opened the border, 6 to 8 million illegals have enter the U.S. with at least one million got aways, many of who may be terrorists. Theses terrorists are sleeper cells waiting to be activated in what play out like the scenario in Forstchen”s book. Prepare and pray for God’s mercy.
“The early Christians, every one of the reformers, the people of the Reformation, the founding fathers of this country, faced and acted in the realization that if there is no place for disobeying the government, that government has been put in the place of the living God. In such a case, the government has been made a false god. If there is no place for disobeying a human government, that government has been made GOD. … CHRIST MUST BE THE FINAL LORD AND NOT CAESAR AND NOT SOCIETY.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto
Does Romans 13 on submission to government contradict other portions of Scripture?
The limits of subjection to ungodly authorities
Biblical grounds for resistance against evil political leaders
Does Romans 13:1, 3-5 contradict Isaiah 5:20?
When a human government oversteps its authority, where does the Christian draw the line and say no? The most common response is when or if the government forbids Christians to worship, then that edict must be disobeyed. The above answer is correct, however, this example barely scratches the surface of examples where a Christian must say no to government laws.
The above chapters will be followed by six additional chapters dealing with issues that inevitably come up when discussing ungodly governments abusing the citizenry.
Under the guise of submission, are Christian complicit in supporting government tyranny?
The thesis of this present work is that Christians must not obey tyrannical laws that necessitate disobedience to the Law of God.
According to Revelation 1:5, Christ is referred to as the “prince of the kings of the earth.” This title implies that Jesus holds authority over earthly rulers and governments.
The recognition of Jesus as King has implications for civil magistrates. Civil magistrates have an obligation to acknowledge Jesus’ authority and rule in their governance. They are called to govern in accordance with His principles and values, seeking justice, righteousness, and the well-being of their subjects. This includes upholding moral standards, promoting social justice, protecting human rights, and ensuring the welfare of their citizens.
The Magdeburg Confession: 13th of April 1550 AD. The Magdeburg Confession is the first known document in the history of man to formally set forth the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates. The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine teaches that when a superior authority makes unjust laws or decrees, the lesser authority has a God-given right and duty to resist those unjust laws or decrees.
Chapters
Chapter One: Does Romans 13 on submission to government contradict other portions of Scripture?
Chapter Two: The limits of subjection to ungodly authorities
Chapter Three: Biblical grounds for resistance against evil political leaders
Chapter Four: Does Romans 13:1, 3-5 contradict Isaiah 5:20?
Chapter Five: Church, Incorporation Part 1
Chapter Six: Church, Incorporation Part 2
Chapter Seven: Should Christians be involved in politics?
Chapter Eight: The Social Contract Theory of Government
Chapter Nine: Does federal government law prohibit a minister from talking about political issues from the pulpit?
Chapter Ten: Rebuilding Society and the Tax Protest Movement: A Biblical Opinion and Strategy
Appendix One: Biblical reasons for opposing Red Flag Order, an opinion
Appendix Two: Was America founded as a Christian nation?
Appendix Three: The Tactics of and The Theology of Christian Resistance
Other books by the author:
The Religion That Started in a Hat
The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura
1 Corinthians 15:29 Revisited: A Scriptural based interpretation
Christian Apologetics in the marketplace of ideas
Studies in Soteriology: The Doctrines of Grace Magnified
Doctrinal Disputations
What Does the Bible Say? Vol. 1-5
An Addendum to The Religion that Started in a Hat
A Sampling of Heresies and Theological Errors
A Selection of Book and Film Reviews,
Covenant Baptism
Romans 13 and the limits of submission to un-godly rulers
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Our nation is on the brink of a financial collapse. The interest on the national debts per year is nearly 1 trillion dollars and growing fast. Not sustainable! If you have a liquid IRA, now is the time to do a roll over into gold. I did!
For the last two years, central banks around the world have been buying gold. Why? The writing is on the wall, the world is starting to move away from U.S. dollars. The dollar is losing its world reserve currency status.
If need have gold for bartering, consider smaller coins such gold or silver dimes.
Lear Capital advertised on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show for 16 years.
Don’t be a fool on a hill, or just a plain fool.
Contact my friend Alex and let him know that I referred you.
Strong’s Concordance, “courses” means “highway,” “raised way,” “public road,” which implies movement. The Earth’s Sun is a star; is it also on a highway? It would seem so.
In Judges 5:20, the stars fighting is a metaphor for God’s intervention in the battle. Their enemies outnumbered the Israelites, but God intervened and delivered them from their foes. The stars fighting refers to how God sent a storm of divine judgment to defeat the enemy.
Parallel passages:
“The stars fought from heaven, from their paths they fought against Sisera.” (New American Standard Bible) (underlining emphasis mine)
“From their pathways in the sky the stars fought Sisera.” (Contemporary English Version)
“The stars fought from the sky; as they moved across the sky, they fought against Sisera.” (Good News Translation)
“From the sky the stars fought, from their paths in the heavens they fought against Sisera.” (The NET Bible)
“From the heavens they fought: The stars from their highways fought with Sisera.” (Young’s Literal Translation)
“The stars fought from heaven. The stars in their orbits fought against Sisera.” (New Living Translation)
As seen from several parallel passages, מִמְּסִלּוֹתָ֔ם whether it be translated as orbits, paths, pathways, moved across the sky, highways, movement is implied and is inescapable. Thus, far it is seen that stars move across the heavens in their pathways. Furthermore, it can be deduced that Judges 5:20 teaches that the stars move.
In addition, one sees the movement of the Sun in Judges 5:21:
“So, let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.” (Judges 5:21)
The Judges 5:21 verse is an exclamation of praise to God for his victory over the enemy. It is a poetic expression of joy and victory, highlighting God’s power and protection over his people. The “torrent of Kishon” refers to a river in the plain of Jezreel, where the Israelites had defeated the army of Sisera. The verse praises God for the strength and power he provided to the Israelites so that they could overcome the enemy.
For a critic who would say that Judges 5:20-21 should not be used as a proof text since the passages are metaphorical and, therefore, should not be understood to be teaching anything literally.
Can a literal metaphor or a literal paradox be used in the same sentence?
Indeed, a literal metaphor and a literal paradox can be used in the same sentence. For example, “The fire burned hot, yet felt cold.”
Could this be how Judges 5:20 is to be understood? If so, the stars fighting is metaphorical, and the star, in their courses, is literal.
In his “Literal Metaphor, Literal Paradox,” Northrop Frye observes that these “two modes of understanding take place simultaneously in all reading.” *
* A Website Dedicated to Northrop Frye
Consider the following cross-references:
“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So, the Sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:12-13)
In contrast to Judges 5:20-21, which implies the movement of the heavenly bodies, the above passages from Joshua say the “Sun stood still,” which is not normative. Consider the three following that agree with Judge 5:20-21:
“He set the tabernacle for the Sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit [journey, route] unto the ends of it.” Psalm 19:4-6 (NKJV)
“The Sun also rises, and the Sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
“He commands the Sun, and it does not rise…” (Job 9:7)
The above citations from Joshua, Judges, Job, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes show that the Sun moves unless, by a divine act, it stops in its movement.
Does the Earth move?
“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
This verse from Chronicles encourages believers to fear and revere God, to recognize his power and authority over the entire Earth. It is also a reminder that God created and sustained the world, and it is ultimately under his control. He is the one who keeps the world from being “moved.” When believers put their trust and faith in Him, they can have hope and stability.
“The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” (Psalm 93:1)
The above verse from Psalm 93:1 is a declaration of the majesty and power of God. It is a reminder that God is sovereign and that He is clothed in strength and power.
The comments on the above two passages from 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93: do not rule out the literalness of the two texts, also teaching that the Earth does not move.
The following material on the rules for Biblical interpretation is necessary to help understand the above passages accurately.
General abbreviated rules of Biblical interpretation:
· Identify the kind of literature or genera of text.
· Consider the context, historical setting, and grammar of the passage.
· The Reader should look to the text for its plain and understandable meaning.
· The simplest explanation is preferable a more complex one (Occam’s razor).
· The Scriptures are the best interpreter of Scripture.
· The Scriptures should be literally interpreted unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise.
A more in-depth look atHermeneutical Principles by R. C. Sproul:
“Sacra Scriptura sui interpres”
“Scripture is to interpret Scripture. This simply means that no part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. For example, if a given verse is capable of two renditions or variant interpretations and one of those interpretations goes against the rest of Scripture while the other is in harmony with it, then the latter interpretation must be used.”
“Since it is assumed that God would never contradict Himself, it is thought slanderous to the Holy Spirit to choose an alternate interpretation that would unnecessarily bring the Bible in conflict with itself. The analogy of faith keeps the whole Bible in view lest we suffer from the effects of exaggerating one part of Scripture to the exclusion of others.”
“Interpreting the Bible Literally”
“The literal sense offers restraint from letting our imagination run away in fanciful interpretation and invites us to examine closely the literary forms of Scripture. The term literal comes from the Latin litera meaning “letter.” To interpret something literally is to pay attention to the litera or to the letters or words being used. To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret it as literature. That is, the natural meaning of a passage is to be interpreted according to the normal rules of grammar, speech, syntax and context.” (1)
Observations and conclusions:
Using principles of interpretation stated above by Sproul, the idea that the earth moves and the sun and stars do not must be proved from Scripture. No outside interpretive grid should be imposed upon Scripture. Why is this important? To illustrate, using recent newspaper stories to interpret apocalyptic eschatological portions of Scripture has plagued premillennial Dispensationalism since its inception. An error like this has been called newspaper exegesis.
For example, Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” and Chuck Smith’s “End Times: A Report on future survival” provide insight into the future. These two books are classic examples of reading into Scripture sources from outside of the Scriptures. Moreover, both books are case studies in crackpot eschatology. Both Lindsey and Smith made sophomoric historical anachronisms. Indeed, no one today would try to defend Lindsey and Smith’s eschatological errors in these books. Are there safeguards to avoid errors like this?
As the reader moves through the following material, does the historical interpretation of the men of the Reformation, like Luther and Calvin, do justice to the Scriptures? A sampling of citations from the ancient Church Fathers can be marshaled in support of the older classical pre-Copernicus interpretation of the above passages is in order.
Biblical Cosmology and John Calvin:
“[The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds, we must indeed confess that the devil possess them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So, it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so, it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.” (2)
In addition, Calvin said:
“The heavens revolve daily and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion–no disturbance in the harmony of their motion…. How could earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?” (3)
More from John Calvin:
“The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?” (4)
God “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed, forever” (Psalm 104:5). “Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air, and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down there.” (5)
“I beseech you to tell me what the foundation of the earth is. It is founded both upon the water and also upon the air: behold its foundation. We cannot possibly build a house fifteen feet high on firm ground without having to lay a foundation. Behold the whole earth founded only in trembling, indeed poised above such bottomless depths that it might be turned upside down at any minute to become disordered. Hence there must be a wonderful power of God to keep it in the condition in which it is.” (6)
Martin Luther:
“Luther called Copernicus an upstart astronomer and referred to him as a fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
“Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.” (7)
“People gave ear to an upstart astronomer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or ‘man’] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” (8)
Is the Bible without error in all that it teaches? The above verses present the Sun and Stars moving and the Earth being stationary. Is God using human language in such a way to accommodate how humans, in their limited understanding, understood the creation? If so, why would God not correct human misunderstanding and set forth a different view? If the Holy Spirit moved the writers of Scripture when they wrote the Word of God, why would God allow them to write false or misleading information to accommodate human ignorance? God often used the inspired writers to correct ignorance and false doctrine.
The preponderance of the totality of Scripture sets forth a Biblical cosmology that includes the Earth being motionless and the center of God’s creation. Was it an accommodation to science that led to a reinterpretation of the above Scriptures, a different paradigm? The sheer number of passages speaking of the Sun rising and setting makes it difficult to accept that it was nothing more than a figure of speech that did not correspond to reality.
In addition, the Biblical cosmologists would ask, “How deceptive of God to speak in such a manner unless He meant what he said.” Calvin and others got their understanding from the simple reading of Scripture. Are the Scriptures in error? Since Calvin and other church leaders got their understanding of the Sun moving and the Earth stationary from the Bible, was God teaching falsehood? Were Calvin and Luther ignoramuses in the area of Biblical teaching and science?
Was the Church wrong in its interpretation of the passages listed above and others, or was God wrong in what is conveyed in the above Scriptures? From a skeptical perspective, trying to blame the Church for misinterpretations of the Bible relevant to cosmology is a trick that does not work. The trick of hiding behind the Church does not work. Many Protestants like to think this was just a Roman Catholic dispute with Galileo.
This writer, a Protestant, is well aware of the Church succumbing to false doctrine. However, Biblical cosmology is a somewhat unique case. Unlike soteriology, the Biblical view of cosmology had a unified front in the early Church leading up to the 15th Century. Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Gregory Nanzianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian were some of the familiar Church Fathers from both the Eastern and Western Church were unified in their understanding of Biblical cosmology. Moreover, Protestant reformers, the likes of Calvin and Luther, agreed.
The Calvin and Luther quotes were for a purpose. Calvin and Luther were not alone; virtually all of the Reformation leaders agreed on Biblical cosmology. Commentator Matthew Poole, Puritan John Owen, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, John Knox, Heinrich Bullinger, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, and many others can be added to the list. Historically, the Eastern, Western, and Protestant Churches did not permit women to be ordained as elders or priests. Similarly, these same churches agreeing historically on Biblical cosmology cannot be dismissed.
A pertinent quote:
“It is certainly supposed in Scripture that the earth is at rest in the midst of the heavens, and that the heavens revolve about it. The Scripture speaks of the sun’s rising and setting, and of its going forth and its circuit, as things frequently done; and of the stars also, as being ordained for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. I suppose that he who believes the Scripture must necessarily believe, that the earth is in the midst of the heavens, and immutable, and the heavens revolve about it.” (9)
In order to prove that this writer’s interpretation of the Scriptural references mentioned is incorrect, one must rely on evidence directly from the Scriptures themselves. Therefore, the only acceptable standard for disproving this writer’s historic interpretation of the Scriptural references. The Scriptures alone are the final court appeal.
Bonus material, inconvenient observations by scientists in moments of candor:
“Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved.” – Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology
“If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations.” – Paul Davies in Nature, an English physicist
“The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect” – Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Yale University, Arizona State University, Case Western Reserve University
“When you look at CBM map, [cosmic microwave background (CMB)] you also see that the structure is…correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.” – Lawrence Krauss (2006) Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.” – Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis
“Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
“In other words, assuming the cosmological red shift hypothesis, the quasars…are arrange on 57 spherical shells with Earth in the center. This is certainly an extraordinary result. Some of the possibilities that we shall consider to accommodate this result may be disturbing, but we must consider these possibilities dispassionately.
(1) Coincidence in distances could be possible if there were clustering. However, an examination of the coordinates of the various members of individual groups show that in most cases there is no such correlation. Hence, this explanation has to be ruled out.
(2) Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned.
(3) The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” – Henri Poincare, French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer, and philosopher of science
“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” – Henrick Lorentz, Dutch physicist
“No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” – Lincoln Barnett, editor at Life Magazine
“This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort.” “We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.” “Such a favored position is intolerable.” – Edwin Hubble, American astronomer
“The pendulum has swung all the way and started to come back on the Copernican principle.” – Max Tegmark, physicist, cosmologist and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
For more study:
Did the Sun stand still in Joshua 10:13-14? http : // Undergroundnotes. com/ Joshua.html
Geocentricity, is it true and does the Bible teach it? http : //www .undergroundnotes .com/ Geocentricity.html
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, Abridgement is from Chapter 3: Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpretation, (Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP 2009) pp. 41.
2. John Calvin, “Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24”, Calvini Opera Selecta, Corpus Refomatorum, Vol 49, 677, trans. by Robert White in “Calvin and Copernicus: the Problem Reconsidered,” Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980), p233-243, at 236-237.
3. John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms 93:1 Vol. VI, see also Commentary on Joshua 10:12, Vol. IV and Psalm 148:3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979).
4. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries Volume V1, Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), pp. 6-7.
5. John Calvin, pp. 148-149.
6. Ibid. p. 469.
7. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, (Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958), pp. 30, 42, 43.
8. Helmut T. Lehmann and Theodore G. Tappert, Luther’s Works Table Talk, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publ., 1967), pp. 358-359.
9. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), p. 390.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Our nation is on the brink of a financial collapse. The interest on the national debts per year is nearly 1 trillion dollars and growing fast. Not sustainable! If you have a liquid IRA, now is the time to do a roll over into gold. I did!
For the last two years, central banks around the world have been buying gold. Why? The writing is on the wall, the world is starting to move away from U.S. dollars. The dollar is losing its world reserve currency status.
If need have gold for bartering, consider smaller coins such gold or silver dimes.
Lear Capital advertised on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show for 16 years.
Don’t be a fool on a hill, or just a plain fool.
Contact my friend Alex and let him know that I referred you.
Chapter Six – Ezekiel 36 and the Sprinkling of Water
Chapter Seven – Mark 7 How did a Pharisee Baptize Couches and Tables?
Chapter One
What is a Covenant and what covenants are seen in Scripture?
The idea of covenant is the interpretive grid for understanding the Scriptures and the idea of covenant plays a central role in Biblical theology. Said another way, Biblical theology sees the idea of covenant as the model for understanding how God works with man. In short, covenant theology is the knowledge that God enters into a contract or agreement with mankind. Man is therefore, obliged to fulfill the terms of the covenant. In this book on God’s covenants, the reader will look at a number of leading theologians that will prove to be valuable in understanding God’s covenants.
To understand baptism in the New Covenant, one must understand the stipulations and promises attached to the covenant in the Old Testament. The reader will see that conditions and promises are rooted in the Old Testament covenants. Having this understanding as will be seen will minimize or put in context the debate over the translation of certain Greek words, for instance, baptism, “baptizo,” immersion.
For those coming from a dispensational background, this material on the covenants may seem daunting at first. However, diligent study of the covenants will reveal that covenantal theology is Biblical and dispensationalism (a 19th century invention) is inadequate to understand God’s dealing with mankind.
Moreover, the Protestant theologians cited below come Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian/Reformed Churches, so, the theology of the covenants in a general sense is not divided along partisan lines.
The Scripture are unintelligible without an understanding of God’s covenants. God’s covenantal dealings with mankind are so common in Scripture, the importance and significance are impossible to miss. For example, in Sunday children taught about the rainbow and Noah.
The remainder of this chapter will feature citations from some the best theologians on God’s covenant dealings with mankind in Scripture.
To start, what is a covenant by C. H. Spurgeon?
“ALL GOD’S dealings with men have had a covenant character. It hath so pleased Him to arrange it, that he will not deal with us except through a covenant, nor can we deal with Him except in the same manner. Adam in the garden was under a covenant with God and God was in covenant with Him.” (1)
Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was professor of theology at Geneva and an outstanding Reformed theologian:
“A covenant denotes the agreement of God with man by which God promises his goods (and especially eternal life to him), and by man, in turn, duty and worship are engaged…This is called two‐sided and mutual because it consists of a mutual obligation of the contracting parties: a promise on the part of God and stipulation of the condition on the part of man.” (2)
Herman Witsius, was a Dutch theologian, pastor, and a leading professor of the seventeenth century:
“A covenant of God with man, is an agreement between God, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a commination of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished.” (3)
Charles Hodge, (1797-1898), an American Presbyterian theologian’s thoughts on the Covenant from his systematic theology:
“1. The Plan of Salvation is a Covenant”
“The plan of salvation is presented under the form of a covenant. This is evident, —
First, from the constant use of the words בְּרִית and διαθήκη in reference to it. With regard to the former of these words, although it is sometimes used for a law, disposition, or arrangement in general, where the elements of a covenant strictly speaking are absent, yet there can be no doubt that according to its prevailing usage in the Old Testament, it means a mutual contract between two or more parties. It is very often used of compacts between individuals, and especially between kings and rulers. Abraham and Abimelech made a covenant. (Genesis 21:27.) Joshua made a covenant with the people. (Joshua 24:25.) Jonathan and David made a covenant. (1 Samuel 18:3.) Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David. (1 Samuel 20:16.) Ahab made a covenant with Benhadad. (1 Kings 20:34.) So, we find it constantly. There is therefore no room to doubt that the word בְּרִית when used of transactions between man and man means a mutual compact. We have no right to give it any other sense when used of transactions between God and man. Repeated mention is made of the covenant of God with Abraham, as in Genesis 15:18; 17:13, and afterwards with Isaac and Jacob. Then with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. The Old Testament is founded on this idea of a covenant relation between God and the theocratic people.”
“The meaning of the word διαθήκη in the Greek Scriptures is just as certain and uniform. It is derived from the verb διατίθημι, to arrange, and, therefore, in ordinary Greek is used for any arrangement, or disposition. In the Scriptures it is almost uniformly used in the sense of a covenant. In the Septuagint it is the translation of בְּרִית in all the cases above referred to. It is the term always used in the New Testament to designate the covenant with Abraham, with the Israelites, and with believers. The old covenant and the new are presented in contrast. Both were covenants. If the word has this meaning when applied to the transaction with Abraham and with the Hebrews, it must have the same meaning when applied to the plan of salvation revealed in the gospel.”
“Secondly, that the plan of salvation is presented in the Bible under the form of a covenant is proved not only from the signification and usage of the words above mentioned, but also and more decisively from the fact that the elements of a covenant are included in this plan. There are parties, mutual promises or stipulations, and conditions. So that it is in fact a covenant, whatever it may be called. As this is the Scriptural mode of representation, it is of great importance that it should be retained in theology. Our only security for retaining the truths of the Bible, is to adhere to the Scriptures as closely as possible in our mode of presenting the doctrines therein revealed.
[…]”
“3. Parties to the Covenant”
“At first view there appears to be some confusion in the statements of the Scriptures as to the parties to this covenant. Sometimes Christ is presented as one of the parties; at others He is represented not as a party, but as the mediator and surety of the covenant; while the parties are represented to be God and his people. As the old covenant was made between God and the Hebrews, and Moses acted as mediator, so the new covenant is commonly represented in the Bible as formed between God and his people, Christ acting as mediator. He is, therefore, called the mediator of a better covenant founded on better promises.”
“Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so, the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 47-49. Still, it does not remove the incongruity of Christ’s being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant. There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties.”
“This is a matter which concerns only perspicuity of statement. There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of his people, and those who distribute them under two. The Westminster standards seem to adopt sometimes the one and sometimes the other mode of representation. In the Confession of Faith it is said,”
“Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [i.e., by the covenant of works], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.”
“Here the implication is that God and his people are the parties; for in a covenant the promises are made to one of the parties, and here it is said that life and salvation are promised to sinners, and that faith is demanded of them. The same view is presented in the Shorter Catechism, according to the natural interpretation of the answer to the twentieth question. It is there said,”
“God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.”
“In the Larger Catechism, however, the other view is expressly adopted. In the answer to the question,”
“With whom was the covenant of grace made?” it is said, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as his seed.” (4)
Louis Berkhof, (1873 – 1957), was a Reformed theologian who is best known for his Systematic Theology. His comments on the Biblical definition of the Covenant will be of importance:
“1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Hebrew word for covenant is always berith, a word of uncertain derivation. The most general opinion is that it is derived from the Hebrew verb barah, to cut, and therefore contains a reminder of the ceremony mentioned in Gen. 15:17. Some, however, prefer to think that it is derived from the Assyrian word beritu, meaning “to bind.” This would at once point to the covenant as a bond. The question of the derivation is of no great importance for the construction of the doctrine. The word berith may denote a mutual voluntary agreement (dipleuric), but also a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on another (monopleuric). Its exact meaning does not depend on the etymology of the word, nor on the historical development of the concept, but simply on the parties concerned. In the measure in which one of the parties is subordinate and has less to say, the covenant acquires the character of a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on the other. Berith then becomes synonymous with choq (appointed statute or ordinance), Ex. 34:10; Isa. 59:21 ; Jer. 31:36; 33:20; 34:13. Hence we also find that karath berith (to cut a covenant) is construed not only with the prepositions ’am and ben (with), but also with lamedh (to), Jos. 9:6 ; Isa. 55:3 ; 61:8 ; Jer. 32:40. Naturally, when God establishes a covenant with man, this monopleuric character is very much in evidence, for God and man are not equal parties. God is the Sovereign who imposes His ordinances upon His creatures.”
“2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole). The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for covenant is suntheke. Did the translators intend to substitute another idea for the covenant idea? Evidently not, for in Isa. 28:15 they use the two words synonymously, and there diatheke evidently means a pact or an agreement. Hence there is no doubt about it that they ascribe this meaning to diatheke. But the question remains, why did they so generally avoid the use of suntheke and substitute for it a word which denotes a disposition rather than an agreement? In all probability the reason lies in the fact that in the Greek world the covenant idea expressed by suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties, that it could not, without considerable modification, be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant, and that He sovereignly imposes His covenant on man was absent from the usual Greek word. Hence the substitution of the word in which this was very prominent. The word diatheke thus, like many other words, received a new meaning, when it became the vehicle of divine thought. This change is important in connection with the New Testament use of the word. There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting the proper translation of the word. In about half of the passages in which it occurs the Holland and the Authorized Versions render the word “covenant,” while in the other half they render it “testament.” The American Revised Version, however, renders it “covenant” throughout, except in Heb. 9:16,17. It is but natural, therefore, that the question should be raised, what is the New Testament meaning of the word? Some claim that it has its classical meaning of disposition or testament, wherever it is found in the New Testament, while others maintain that it means testament in some places, but that in the great majority of passages the covenant idea is prominently in the foreground. This is undoubtedly the correct view. We would expect a priorily that the New Testament usage would be in general agreement with that of the Septuagint; and a careful study of the relevant passages shows that the American Revised Version is undoubtedly on the right track, when it translates diatheke by “testament” only in Heb. 9:16,17. In all probability there is not a single other passage where this rendering would be correct, not even II Cor. 3:6,14. The fact that several translations of the New Testament substituted “testament” for “covenant” in so many places is probably due to three causes: (a) the desire to emphasize the priority of God in the transaction; (b) the assumption that the word had to be rendered as much as possible in harmony with Heb. 9:16,17; and (c) the influence of the Latin translation, which uniformly rendered diatheke by “testamentum.” (5)
Herman Ridderbos is considered one of the twentieth century’s most influential New Testament Reformed theologians. His views of covenant, will likewise be of importance:
“In the Septuagint διαθηκη is regularly used as the translation of the covenant of God (berith), rather than the apparently more available word συνθηκη. In this there is already an expression of the fact that the covenant of God does not have the character of a contract between two parties, but rather that of a one-sided grant. This corresponds with the covenant-idea in the Old Testament, in which berith, even in human relations, sometimes refers to a one-party guarantee which a more favored person gives a less favored one (cf. Josh. 9:6, 15; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:13). And it is most peculiarly true of the divine covenantal deed that it is a one-party guarantee. It comes not from man at all, but from God alone. This does not rule out the fact, of course, that it involves religious and ethical obligation, namely that of faith and obedience (Gen. 17:9-10), and that thus the reciprocal element is taken up in the covenant. Still, such an obligation is not always named, and there is no room to speak at all of a correlation, in the sense that each determines and holds in balance the terms of the other, between the promise of God and the human appropriation of it. It is not the idea of parity, or even that of reciprocity, but that of validity which determines the essence of the covenant-idea. God’s covenant with Noah, for example, lays down no stipulations, and it has the character of a one-party guarantee. It does of course require the faith of man, but is in its fulfillment in no respect dependent on the faith, an it is validly in force for all coming generations, believing and unbelieving (cf. Gen. 9:9). And in the making of the covenant with Abraham, too, in Gen. 15, the fulfillment of the law is in symbolical form made to depend wholly upon the divine deed. Abraham is deliberately excluded — he is the astonished spectator (cf. Gen. 15:12, 17). True, in the Sinaitic covenant, the stipulations which God lays down for his people sometimes take the form of actual conditions, so that the realization of the promise is conditioned by them (cf. Lev. 26:15 ff. and Deut. 31:20), but this structural change in the covenant-revelation can be explained in connection with the wider promulgation — it is to extend to the whole nation of Israel — of the covenant, by means of which the covenant-relationship takes on a wider and more external meaning. It comprises not merely the unconditional guarantee of God to those who walk in the faith and obedience of their father Abraham: it also lays down a special bond constituted by the offer of salvation, on the one side, and by responsibility, on the other side, for those who will not appear to manifest a oneness with their spiritual ancestor. Meanwhile, of course, the fact remains that in all the different dispensations of the covenant of grace, God’s unconditional promise to Abraham constitutes its heart and kernel. Consequently, when the “new covenant” (Jer. 31:33) is announced, one thing is expressly made clear: namely, that the disposition which is indispensable for the human reception of the covenant-benefits will itself be granted as the gift of God Himself. In other words, that very thing which in the Sinaitic covenant was so plainly set down as a condition, belongs in the new covenant to the benefits promised by God in the covenant itself. The New Testament concept of διαθηκη lies quite in the line of that development, particularly as Paul thinks of it, as is evident in [Galatians 3 and 4], and in such a place as Rom. 9. That New Testament concept points to a salvation whose benefits are guaranteed by God and as a matter of fact are actually given, because in Christ and through Him the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled.” (6)
The Significance of the Abrahamic Covenant seen in Genesis 15:17 from Keil and Delitzsch:
“When the sun had gone down, and thick darkness had come on (היה impersonal), “behold a smoking furnace, and (with) a fiery torch, which passed between those pieces,” – a description of what Abram saw in his deep prophetic sleep, corresponding to the mysterious character of the whole proceeding. תּנּוּר, a stove, is a cylindrical fire-pot, such as is used in the dwelling-houses of the East. The phenomenon, which passed through the pieces as they lay opposite to one another, resembled such a smoking stove, from which a fiery torch, i.e., a brilliant flame, was streaming forth. In this symbol Jehovah manifested Himself to Abram, just as He afterwards did to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire. Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which He made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in fire and smoke, the produce of the consuming fire, – both symbols of the wrath of God (cf. Psalm 18:9, and Hengstenberg in loc.), whose fiery zeal consumes whatever opposes it (vid., Exodus 3:2). – To establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened with destruction, and to execute judgment upon their oppressors (Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:12). In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Genesis 22:16, or by His life in Deuteronomy 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:8 and Jeremiah 51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace.” (7)
The Puritan, John Gill says this on the Abrahamic Covenant:
“God made a covenant with Abram, as appears from Genesis 15:18; and, as a confirmation of it, passed between the pieces in a lamp of fire, showing that he was and would be the light and salvation of his people, Abram’s seed, and an avenger of their enemies; only God passed between the pieces, not Abram, this covenant being as others God makes with men, only on one side; God, in covenanting with men, promises and gives something unto them, but men give nothing to him, but receive from him, as was the case between God and Abram: however, it is very probable, that this lamp of fire consumed the pieces, in like manner as fire from heaven used to fall upon and consume the sacrifices, in token of God’s acceptance of them.” (8)
The following is an excellent overview of Covenant theology and the covenants from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Theological covenants
“The nature of God’s covenantal relationship with his creation is not considered automatic or of necessity. Rather, God voluntarily condescends to establish the connection as a covenant, wherein the terms of the relationship are set down by God alone according to his own will.”
“In particular, covenant theology teaches that God has established one, eternal covenant, under different administrations.[1] Having created man in His image as a free creature with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, God entered into a covenant of works whereby the mandate was “do this and live” (Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12). “Like Adam, they have trespassed the covenant” (Hosea 6:7) is the classic reference to the covenant of works; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24 the reference that explains God’s work of redemption in the Covenant of Grace.” [2]
Covenant of redemption
“The covenant of redemption is the eternal agreement within the Godhead in which the Father appointed the Son Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to redeem his elect people from the guilt and power of sin. God appointed Christ to live a life of perfect obedience to the law and to die a penal, substitutionary, sacrificial death (see penal substitution aspect of the atonement) as the covenantal representative for all who trust in him. Some covenant theologians have denied the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption, or have questioned the notion of the Son’s works leading to the reward of gaining a people for God, or have challenged the covenantal nature of this arrangement. Those who have upheld this covenant point to passages such as Philippians 2:5-11 and Revelation 5:9-10 to support the principle of works leading to reward; and to passages like Psalm 110 in support that this is depicted in Scripture as a covenant.”
Covenant of works
“The covenant of works was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who represented all mankind as a federal head. (Romans 5:12-21) It promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam, and all mankind in Adam, broke the covenant, thus standing condemned. The covenant of works continues to function after the fall as the moral law.”
“Though it is not explicitly called a covenant in the opening chapters of Genesis, the comparison of the representative headship of Christ and Adam, as well as passages like Hosea 6:7 have been interpreted to support the idea. It has also been noted that Jeremiah 33:20-26 (cf. 31:35-36) compares the covenant with David to God’s covenant with the day and the night and the statutes of heaven and earth which God laid down at creation. This has led some to understand all of creation as covenantal: the decree establishing the natural laws governing heaven and earth. The covenant of works might then be seen as the moral law component of the broader creational covenant. Thus, the covenant of works has also been called the covenant of creation, indicating that it is not added but constitutive of the human race; the covenant of nature in recognition of its consonance with the natural law in the human heart; and the covenant of life in regard to the promised reward.”
Covenant of grace
“The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a “seed” of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace.”
“The covenant of grace became the basis for all future covenants that God made with mankind such as with Noah (Genesis 6, 9), with Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17), with Moses (Exodus 19-24), with David (2 Samuel 7), and finally in the New Covenant founded and fulfilled in Christ. These individual covenants are called the biblical covenants because they are explicitly described in the Bible. Under the covenantal overview of the Bible, submission to God’s rule and living in accordance with his moral law (expressed concisely in the Ten Commandments) is a response to grace – never something which can earn God’s acceptance (legalism). Even in his giving of the Ten Commandments, God introduces his law by reminding the Israelites that he is the one who brought them out of slavery in Egypt (grace).”
Adamic covenant
“Covenant theology first sees a covenant of works administered with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Upon Adam’s failure, God established the covenant of grace in the promised seed Genesis 3:15, and shows his redeeming care in clothing Adam and Eve in garments of skin — perhaps picturing the first instance of animal sacrifice. The specific covenants after the fall of Adam are seen as administered under the overarching theological covenant of grace.”
Noahic covenant
“The Noahic covenant is found in Genesis 8:20-9:17. Although redemption motifs are prominent as Noah and his family are delivered from the judgment waters, the narrative of the flood plays on the creation motifs of Genesis 1 as de-creation and re-creation. The formal terms of the covenant itself more reflect a reaffirmation of the universal created order, than a particular redemptive promise.”
Abrahamic covenant
“The Abrahamic covenant is found in Genesis chapters 12, 15, and 17. In contrast with the covenants made with Adam or Noah which were universal in scope, this covenant was with a particular people. Abraham is promised a seed and a land, although he would not see its fruition within his own lifetime. The Book of Hebrews explains that he was looking to a better and heavenly land, a city with foundations, whose builder and architect is God (11:8-16). The Apostle Paul writes that the promised seed refers in particular to Christ (Galatians 3:16).”
The Abrahamic covenant is:
“1. Exclusive: It is only for Abraham and his (spiritual) descendants. Genesis 17:7
2. Everlasting: It is not replaced by any later covenant. Genesis 17:7
3. Accepted by faith, not works: “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” Genesis 15:6
4. The external sign of entering into the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. Genesis 17:10, but it has to be matched by an internal change, the circumcision of the heart. Jeremiah 4:4
5. According to Paul, since the Abrahamic covenant is eternal, the followers of Christ are “children of Abraham” and therefore part of this covenant through faith. “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.” Galatians 3:7
6. Paul makes it clear that baptism is the external sign of faith in Christ “…you were baptized into Christ…”), and that through faith in Christ the believer is part of the Abrahamic covenant (“Abraham’s seed”). This provides the basis for the doctrine that baptism is the New Testament sign of God’s covenant with Abraham.”
“Galatians 3:26 “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Mosaic covenant
“The Mosaic covenant, found in Exodus 19-24 and the book of Deuteronomy, expands on the Abrahamic promise of a people and a land. Repeatedly mentioned is the promise of the Lord, “I will be your God and you will be my people” (cf. Exodus 6:7, Leviticus 26:12), particularly displayed as his glory-presence comes to dwell in the midst of the people. This covenant is the one most in view by the term Old Covenant.”
“Although it is a gracious covenant beginning with God’s redemptive action (cf. Exodus 20:1-2), a layer of law is prominent. Concerning this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant, Charles Hodge makes three points in his Commentary on Second Corinthians: (1) The Law of Moses was in first place a reenactment of the covenant of works; viewed this way, it is the ministration of condemnation and death. (2) It was also a national covenant, giving national blessings based on national obedience; in this way it was purely legal. (3) In the sacrificial system, it points to the Gospel of salvation through a mediator.”
Davidic covenant
“The Davidic covenant is found in 2 Samuel 7. The Lord proclaims that he will build a house and lineage for David, establishing his kingdom and throne forever. This covenant is appealed to as God preserves David’s descendants despite their wickedness (cf. 1 Kings 11:26-39, 15:1-8; 2 Kings 8:19, 19:32-34), although it did not stop judgment from finally arriving (compare 2 Kings 21:7, 23:26-27; Jeremiah 13:12-14). Among the prophets of the exile, there is hope of restoration under a Davidic king who will bring peace and justice (cf. Book of Ezekiel 37:24-28).”
New Covenant
“The New Covenant is anticipated with the hopes of the Davidic messiah, and most explicitly predicted by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 31:34). At the Last Supper, Jesus alludes to this prophecy, as well as to prophecies such as Isaiah 49:8, when he says that the cup of the Passover meal is “the New Covenant in [his] blood.” This use of the Old Testament typology is developed further in the Epistle to the Hebrews (see especially chs. 7-10). Jesus is the last Adam and Israel’s hope and consolation: he is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-18). He is the prophet greater than Jonah (Matt 12:41), and the Son over the house where Moses was a servant (Hebrews 3:5-6), leading his people to the heavenly promised land. He is the high priest greater than Aaron, offering up himself as the perfect sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 26). He is the king greater than Solomon (Matthew 12:42), ruling forever on David’s throne (Luke 1:32). The term “New Testament” comes from the Latin translation of the Greek New Covenant and is most often used for the collection of books in the Bible, can also refer to the New Covenant as a theological concept.”
“Covenantal signs and seals In Reformed theology, a sacrament is usually defined as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.[3] Since covenant theology today is mainly Protestant and Reformed in its outlook, proponents view Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two sacraments in this sense, which are sometimes called “church ordinances.” Along with the preached word, they are identified as an ordinary means of grace for salvation. The benefits of these rites do not occur from participating in the rite itself (ex opere operato), but through the power of the Holy Spirit as they are received by faith.”
M. E. Osterhaven, ‘Covenant Theology” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell, ed. 279-80.
Westminster Confession of Faith Ch. XXVII Sec. 1.
This book is available to purchase at Amazon. God Bless, Jack Kettler
Our nation is on the brink of a financial collapse. The interest on the national debts per year is over 1 trillion dollars and growing fast. Not sustainable! If you have a liquid IRA, now is the time to do a roll over into gold. I did! If need have gold for bartering, consider gold dimes.
Contact my friend Alex and let him know that I referred you.
How is Jesus like a snake in John 3:14? By Jack Kettler
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” (John 3:14)
Superficially looking at this comparison, a novice may think this sounds almost blasphemous, yet Christ made the comparison. Furthermore, the comparison is perplexing because the Devil is referred to as a serpent.
Consider Barnes’ Notes on the Bible to shed light on the text:
“And as Moses – Jesus proceeds in this and the following verses to state the reason why he came into the world and, in order to this, he illustrates His design, and the efficacy of his coming, by a reference to the case of the brass serpent, recorded in Numbers 21:8-9. The people were bitten by flying fiery serpents. There was no cure for the bite. Moses was directed to make an image of the serpent, and place it in sight of the people, that they might look on it and be healed. There is no evidence that this was intended to be a type of the Messiah, but it is used by Jesus as strikingly illustrating his work. Men are sinners. There is no cure by human means for the maladies of the soul; and as the people who were bitten might look on the image of the serpent and be healed, so may sinners look to the Saviour and be cured of the moral maladies of our nature.”
“Lifted up – Erected on a pole. Placed on high, so that it might be seen by the people.”
“The serpent – The image of a serpent made of brass.”
“In the wilderness – Near the land of Edom. In the desert and desolate country to the south of Mount Hor, Numbers 21:4.”
“Even so – In a similar manner and with a similar design. He here refers, doubtless, to his own death. Compare John 12:32; John 8:28. The points of resemblance between his being lifted up and that of the brass serpent seem to be these:”
“1. In each case those who are to be benefited can he aided in no other way. The bite of the serpent was deadly, and could be healed only by looking on the brass serpent; and sin is deadly in its nature, and can be removed only by looking on the cross.”
“2. The mode of their being lifted up. The brass serpent was in the sight of the people. So, Jesus was exalted from the earth raised on a tree or cross.”
“3. The design was similar. The one was to save the life, the other the soul; the one to save from temporal, the other from eternal death.”
“4. The manner of the cure was similar. The people of Israel were to look on the serpent and be healed, and so sinners are to look on the Lord Jesus that they may be saved.”
“Must – It is proper; necessary; indispensable, if men are saved. Compare Luke 24:26; Luke 22:42.”
“The Son of man – The Messiah.” (1)
Regarding the serpent, Barnes says, “There is no evidence that this was intended to be a type of the Messiah.” However, could Jesus be the anti-type of the serpent? Furthermore, other commentators disagree with Barnes and his claim about no evidence regarding the serpent being a type of Christ.
Cross-reference:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.” (Numbers 21:8-9)
The Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament does a remarkable job of explaining the symbolism of the snake in the third paragraph:
“At the command of God, Moses made a brazen serpent, and put it upon a standard.”
“Whoever then of the persons bitten by the poisonous serpents looked at the brazen serpent with faith in the promise of God, lived, i.e., recovered from the serpent’s bite. The serpent was to be made of brass or copper, because the colour of this metal, when the sun was shining upon it, was most like the appearance of the fiery serpents; and thus, the symbol would be more like the thing itself.”
“Even in the book of Wis. (Numbers 16:6-7), the brazen serpent is called “a symbol of salvation; for he that turned himself toward it was not saved by the thing that he saw, but by Thee, that art the Saviour of all.” It was not merely intended, however, as Ewald supposes (Gesch. ii. p. 228), as a “sign that just as this serpent hung suspended in the air, bound and rendered harmless by the command of Jehovah, so everyone who looked at this with faith in the redeeming power of Jehovah, was secured against the evil, – a figurative sign, therefore, like that of St. George and the Dragon among ourselves;” for, according to this, there would be no internal causal link between the fiery serpents and the brazen image of a serpent. It was rather intended as a figurative representation of the poisonous serpents, rendered harmless by the mercy of God. For God did not cause a real serpent to be taken, but the image of a serpent, in which the fiery serpent was stiffened, as it were, into dead brass, as a sign that the deadly poison of the fiery serpents was overcome in this brazen serpent. This is not to be regarded as a symbol of the divine healing power; nor is the selection of such a symbol to be deduced and explained, as it is by Winer, Kurtz, Knobel, and others, from the symbolical view that was common to all the heathen religions of antiquity, that the serpent was a beneficent and health-bringing power, which led to its being exalted into a symbol of the healing power, and a representation of the gods of healing. This heathen view is not only foreign to the Old Testament, and without any foundation in the fact that, in the time of Hezekiah, the people paid a superstitious worship to the brazen serpent erected by Moses (2 Kings 18:4); but it is irreconcilably opposed to the biblical view of the serpent, as the representative of evil, which was founded upon Genesis 3:15, and is only traceable to the magical art of serpent-charming, which the Old Testament abhorred as an idolatrous abomination. To this we may add, that the thought which lies at the foundation of this explanation, viz., that poison is to be cured by poison, has no support in Hosea 13:4, but is altogether foreign to the Scriptures. God punishes sin, it is true, by sin; but He neither cures sin by sin, nor death by death. On the contrary, to conquer sin it was necessary that the Redeemer should be without sin; and to take away its power from death, it was requisite that Christ, the Prince of life, who had life in Himself, should rise again from death and the grave (John 5:26; John 11:25; Acts 3:15; 2 Timothy 1:10).”
“The brazen serpent became a symbol of salvation on the three grounds which Luther pointed out. In the first place, the serpent which Moses was to make by the command of God was to be of brass or copper, that is to say, of a reddish colour, and (although without poison) altogether like the persons who were red and burning with heat because of the bite of the fiery serpents. In the second place, the brazen serpent was to be set up upon a pole for a sign. And in the third place, those who desired to recover from the fiery serpent’s bite and live, were to look at the brazen serpent upon the pole, otherwise they could not recover or live (Luther’s Sermon on John 3:1-15). It was in these three points, as Luther has also clearly shown, that the typical character of this symbol lay, to which Christ referred in His conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:14). The brazen serpent had the form of a real serpent, but was “without poison, and altogether harmless.” So, God sent His Son in the form of sinful flesh, and yet without sin (Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22-24). – 2. In the lifting up of the serpent as a standard. This was a δειγματίζειν ἐν παρρησίᾳ, a ́ (a “showing openly,” or “triumphing”), a triumphal exhibition of the poisonous serpents as put to death in the brazen image, just as the lifting up of Christ upon the cross was a public triumph over the evil principalities and powers below the sky (Colossians 2:14-15). – 3. In the cure effected through looking at the image of the serpent. Just as the Israelites had to turn their eyes to the brazen serpent in believing obedience to the word of the Lord, in order to be cured of the bite of the poisonous serpents, so much we look with faith at the Son of man lifted up upon the cross, if we would be delivered from the bite of the old serpent, from sin, death, the devil, and hell. “Christ is the antitype of the serpent, inasmuch as He took upon Himself the most pernicious of all pernicious potencies, viz., sin, and made a vicarious atonement for it” (Hengstenberg on John 3:14). The brazen image of the serpent was taken by the Israelites to Canaan, and preserved till the time of Hezekiah, who had it broken in pieces, because the idolatrous people had presented incense-offerings to this holy relic (2 Kings 18:4).” (2) (Underlining emphasis mine)
An aside:
It is also perplexing why the medical symbol used today is a snake on a stick.
In ancient times the snake symbolized health and healing because it could shed and regenerate its skin. The snake also produced venoms which killed many parasites in the body. The current American Medical Association logo is the Staff of Aesculapius, a single staff with one snake entwined thereon.
In Biblical symbolism, how can Jesus be both a type of the serpent and an antitype?
In Biblical symbolism, Jesus is both a type of the serpent and an antitype. The serpent symbolizes evil and temptation, while Jesus is a symbol of salvation and atonement. As a type, Jesus can be seen as a symbol of temptation, as seen in the Garden of Eden when he tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. As an antitype, Jesus can also be seen as a symbol of salvation, as He was willing to take the punishment for the sins of humankind. Furthermore, Jesus’ death on the cross was an act of atonement, and His resurrection symbolized a new life in which humankind could be reconciled to God.
In closing:
Not only is Jesus the antitype of the serpent, but the serpent also signified Christ, who was in the likeness of sinful flesh. Thus, the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21 serves as a reminder of God’s faithfulness and grace. Everyone in the human race has the venomous poison of sin that separates us from God. Therefore, Jesus would be lifted up on a pole or cross. Moreover, Jesus referenced this story as a reminder of God’s power to save us from sin (John 3:14-15). By looking at the bronze serpent, the Israelites were able to be rescued from their punishment, and the story serves as a reminder that we can be saved from our sins through Christ.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, John, Vol. 1 p. 1076.
2. Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Numbers, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), p. 140-141.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
Ruth chapter one shows the unfolding of God’s gracious plan of redemption amidst a suffering people. Naomi, a woman of Israel, lives in a foreign land and has lost her husband and two sons during a famine. In her sorrow, Naomi urges her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, to return to their people and find new husbands. Orpah reluctantly complies, but Ruth chooses to stay with Naomi and make a new life in Israel. In doing so, Ruth displays her faith in God and her allegiance to the people of Israel. This loyalty is seen as an act of faith in the Lord, and God rewards Ruth’s faith by providing her with a new husband and a place in the lineage of King David. Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi and her faith in the Lord serve as powerful examples of what it means to trust in God’s grace and mercy. Through Ruth’s story, we see God’s love and faithfulness are available to all, and He will always provide a way of redemption, even while suffering.
Chapter Two:
Ruth 2 begins with the Lord showing his kindness to Ruth by blessing her with a field to glean. Next, Boaz, the field owner, shows Ruth even more kindness by ensuring she is safe and well-provided while she works. Boaz also shows grace to Ruth by allowing her to glean grain from his fields and encouraging his workers to help her. In response to Boaz’s kindness, Ruth blesses him and expresses her gratitude.
The chapter ends with Boaz showing his generosity to Ruth by providing her with a significant amount of barley and offering to become her kinsman-redeemer, a significant gesture of grace and mercy and a reminder that God is always watching over and providing for us. Through Boaz’s kindness and mercy, God shows His love for Ruth and all of us. He is faithful to us, and His grace and mercy are abundant.
Chapter Three:
In Ruth 3, Naomi instructs Ruth to approach Boaz, a close relative of Naomi’s deceased husband, and ask him to fulfill the duties of a kinsman-redeemer, which would involve marrying Ruth and redeeming Naomi’s family property. Ruth follows Naomi’s instructions, and Boaz is pleased with her actions. Boaz promises to fulfill the duties of a kinsman-redeemer, but he must first go through a legal process to ensure he is the closest relative who can redeem the family property.
From a reformed theological perspective, chapter three of Ruth displays God’s sovereignty and faithfulness in providing a redeemer for Naomi and Ruth. God uses Boaz to fulfill the law of the kinsman-redeemer, which ultimately displays God’s faithfulness to His people. As Boaz is willing to fulfill the duties of a kinsman-redeemer, so also God willing to fulfill His promises of redemption and salvation for His children. Furthermore, God’s sovereignty is displayed through the legal process that must be fulfilled for Boaz to redeem the family property. It is only through God’s providence that Boaz is the redeemer.
Chapter Four:
Ruth 4 begins with Boaz approaching the closer relative of Elimelech, asking him to redeem the land of Elimelech and to marry Ruth. The relative refuses, but Boaz can redeem the land and marry Ruth. In doing so, he can restore the name of Elimelech and provide an heir for Naomi, an imperative event in the lineage of Jesus, as Ruth becomes a great-grandmother of King David, an ancestor of Jesus.
This chapter demonstrates God’s sovereignty, faithfulness, and care for His people. Through Boaz, God brings restoration and redemption to Naomi and her family. The redemption provided by Boaz serves as a reminder of God’s commitment to his covenant people, as seen throughout the Old Testament. Finally, it also points to God’s ability to bring beauty from ashes, as He brought restoration and a new family line through Ruth and Boaz. It shows the power of God to work amidst tragedy and to provide hope in the darkest times. Ultimately, this chapter serves as a reminder of God’s faithfulness, providing for His people in seemingly impossible circumstances.
In closing:
The book of Ruth highlights the importance of faithfulness, loyalty, and commitment. Ruth’s decision to leave her homeland and follow her mother-in-law to a new land is a testament to her faith in God and her willingness to trust him even in the face of fear and uncertainty. Ruth’s faithfulness is rewarded when Boaz, a wealthy Israelite, decides to marry and provide for her and her mother-in-law, which exemplifies God’s faithfulness (and love) to those who are faithful to him.
The book of Ruth also serves as a reminder of God’s redemptive power. After suffering the loss of her husband, Ruth finds redemption through Boaz and is ultimately rewarded with a lineage that includes King David. *
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
* This article is an experiment. It was written by ChatGPT and perfected with Grammarly
Who is being spoken of in Job 19:25? by Jack Kettler
“For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God” (Job 19:25-26)
If the reader has ever spent time in a graveyard reading what is on the tombstones, they have almost certainly seen these passages from Job.
As will be seen in the first commentary entry, the idea here of a “redeemer” does not have full Messianic theology explicit in it. Christians in the present, looking back in time, can unquestionably see Christ in Job’s theology.
“25. For I know] Rather, but I know. This is now something higher to which his mind rises. He desires no doubt to be vindicated before men, and would wish that all generations to come should know his claim to rectitude, when he no more lived himself to make it (Job 19:23-24); but what he desires above all things is that he might see God who now hides His face from him, and meet Him, for the meeting could not but be with joy (cf. ch. Job 23:6 seq.). Job’s problem is first of all a problem of religious life, and only in the second place a speculative one. And the speculative elements in it have no further meaning than as they aggravate the practical religious trouble. A solution of his problem, therefore, was possible in only one way, viz. by his seeing God (cf. ch. Job 42:5)—for to see God is to see Him in peace and reconciliation. And it is to grasp the assurance of this that Job’s heart now reaches forth its hand.”
“my Redeemer liveth] “Liveth” means more than is, exists. Job uses the word in opposition to himself—he dies but his redeemer lives after him. The term redeemer (Heb. gô’çl) is frequently used of God as the deliverer of His people out of captivity, e.g. very often in Isaiah 40 seq. (ch. Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 49:26, Isaiah 54:5; Isaiah 54:8), and also as the deliverer of individuals from distress, Genesis 48:16; Psalm 19:14; Psalm 103:4. Among men the Goel was the nearest blood-relation, on whom it lay to perform certain offices in connexion with the deceased whose Goel he was, particularly to avenge his blood, if he had been unjustly slain (Ruth 2:20, &c.; Numbers 35:19). Job here names God his Goel. The passage stands in close relation with ch. Job 16:18-19, where he names God his “witness” and “sponsor” or representative. It is probable, therefore, that there is an allusion to the Goel among men—Job has in God a Goel who liveth. This Goel will vindicate his rights against the wrong both of men and God (Job 19:3; Job 19:7). At the same time this vindication is regarded less as an avenging of him, at least on others (though cf. Job 19:28-29), than as a manifestation of his innocence. This manifestation can only be made by God’s appearing and shewing the true relation in which Job stands to Him, and by Job’s seeing God. For his distress lay in God’s hiding His face from him, and his redemption must come through his again beholding God in peace. Thus, the ideas of Goel and redeemer virtually coincide.” (underlining emphasis mine)
“he shall stand at the latter day] To stand means to arise and appear, to come forward (as a witness, Deuteronomy 19:15; Psalm 37:12), or to interpose (as a judge, Psalm 12:5). The word day has no place here. The expression “the latter” means either last or later. It is used of God as the first and the last (Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12), but also otherwise in a comparative sense, later, to come, following (Psalm 48:13; Psalm 78:4; Ecclesiastes 4:16; Job 18:20). Here the word is an epithet of God and can hardly describe Him as the last, for Job certainly does not contemplate his vindication being put off till the end of all things. The expression is parallel to “my Goel” in the first clause, and literally rendered, means: and he who cometh after (me) shall stand; or, and as one who cometh after (me) he shall stand. The trans., in after time he shall stand, is nearly equivalent. Ewald and other high authorities render, an afterman, i. e. a vindicator.”
“upon the earth] Better, the dust. The word does not mean earth in opposition to heaven; such an antithesis did not need to be expressed; if God came forward or interposed in Job’s behalf He must do so upon the earth. The word “dust” carries rather an allusion to the earth as that wherein Job shall have been laid before God shall appear for him—the same allusion as is carried in the words “Goel” and “he who cometh after me;” cf. ch. Job 7:21, Job 17:16, Job 20:11, Job 21:26, &c.” (1)
The commentator does justice to the text using the grammatical, historical exegetical method. Job was looking to God as his redeemer. It is a danger to commit a historical anachronism when interpreting ancient texts. An anachronism is reading a modern belief into an ancient historical text.
Doe Job 19:25 point toward Christ, our redeemer? The reader will notice that this is a different question than the starting question.
“This is the reason of his great confidence in the goodness of his cause, and his willingness to have the matter depending between him and his friends published and submitted to any trial, because he had a living and powerful Redeemer to plead his cause, and vindicate his person from all their severe censures, and to give sentence for him.”
“I know: I have no knowledge, nor confidence, nor hope of restitution to the prosperities of this life; yet this one thing I know, which is more comfortable and considerable, and therein I rejoice, though I be now a dying man, and in a desperate condition for this life.”
“My redeemer; in whom I have a particular interest, and he hath a particular care of me.”
“Quest. What redeemer and what deliverance doth Job speak of in this and the two following verses?”
“Answ. Some late interpreters understand this place metaphorically, of God’s delivering Job out of his doleful and desperate condition, and restoring him to his former splendour and happiness in the world; it being a very usual thing in Scripture to call eminent dangers or calamities by the name of death, as Psalm 22:15 88:4,5 Eze 37:11,12 2 Corinthians 11:23; and great and glorious deliverances by the name of quickening and resurrection, as Psalm 71:20 Isaiah 26:19 Romans 11:15. But the most interpreters, both ancient and modern, understand it of Christ, and of his resurrection, and of Job’s resurrection to life by his power and favour; which seems most probable for many reasons.”
“1. From that known rule, that a proper and literal interpretation of Scripture is always to be preferred before the metaphorical, where it suits with the text and with other scriptures.”
“2. From the Hebrew word goel, here used; which although sometimes it be used of God absolutely, or essentially considered, yet it most properly agrees to Jesus Christ; for this word, as all Hebricians know, is primarily used of the next kinsman, whose office it was to redeem by a price paid the sold or mortgaged estate of his deceased kinsman, Leviticus 25:25; and to revenge his death, Numbers 35:12; and to maintain his name and honour, by raising up seed to him, Deu 25:5: all which most fitly agrees to Christ, who is our nearest Kinsman and Brother, Hebrews 2:11, as having taken our nature upon him by incarnation; who also hath redeemed that everlasting inheritance which our first parents had utterly lost and sold by the price of his own blood; and hath revenged the death of mankind upon the great contriver of it, the devil, by destroying him and his kingdom; and hath taken a course to preserve our name, and honour, and persons to eternity. And if the places where God is called Goel in the Old Testament be examined, it will be found that either all or most of them may be, and some of them must be, understood of God the Son, or of Christ, as Genesis 48:16 Isaiah 49:20. See also Psalm 74:2 Isaiah 41:14 44:16 49:7 52:3 63:16.”
“3. Because Job was so far from such a firm confidence as he here professeth, that he had not the least degree of hope of any such glorious temporal restoration as his friends promised to him, as we have oft seen and observed in the former discourses, as Job 16:22 17:12,13, &c. And therefore, that hope which every righteous man hath in his death, Proverbs 14:32, and which Job oft professeth that he had, must necessarily be fixed upon his happiness in the future life.”
“4. Because some of the following expressions cannot without wresting and violence be applied to a metaphorical resurrection, as we shall see in the sequel.”
“5. Because this is a more lofty and spiritual strain than any in Job’s former discourses, and quite contrary to them. And as they generally savour of dejection and diffidence, and do either declare or increase his grief; so, this puts him into another and much better temper. And therefore, it is well observed, that after this time and these expressions we meet not with any such impatient or despairing passages as we had before; which shows that they had inspired him with new life and comfort.”
“6. Because this well agrees with other passages in this book; wherein Job declareth, that although he had no hope as to this life, And the comforts thereof, yet he had a hope beyond death, which made him profess, Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him, Job 13:15. Trust in him; for what? Surely for comfort and happiness. Where? Not in this life, for that he supposeth to be lost; therefore, it must be in the next life. And this was one reason why he so vehemently desired death, because he knew it would bring him unto God and unto true felicity. And this his hope and confidence in God, and in his favour to him, Job opposeth to those foul and false aspersions which his friends had cast upon him, as if he had forsaken God, and cast off all fear of him, and hope in him.”
Object
“1. If this place had spoken of the resurrection of the body, some of the Hebrew’ writers or commentators upon this place, who did believe that doctrine, would have understood it so, and have urged it against the Sadducees, which they did not.”
Answ.
“1. All the Jewish writers which are now extant lived and wrote since Christ’s time, when the doctors of that people were very ignorant of many great truths, and of the plain meaning of many scriptures, and very corrupt in their principles as well as in their practices.”
“2. There was a manifest reason why they could not understand this text thus, because they believed that Job in his agonies did deny God’s providence, and consequently the resurrection and the future judgment, which though it was a most uncharitable and false opinion, yet forced them to interpret this text another way.”
Object.
“2. How is it credible that Job, in those ancient times, and in that dark state of the church, should know these great mysteries of Christ’s incarnation, and of the resurrection and life to come?”
Answ.
“1. The mystery of Christ’s incarnation was revealed to Adam by that first and famous promise, that the seed of the woman should break the serpent’s head, Genesis 3:15; which being the only foundation of all his hopes for the recovery and salvation of himself, and of all his posterity, he would doubtless carefully and diligently teach and explain it, as need required, to those that descended from him.”
“2. That the ancient patriarchs and prophets were generally acquainted with these doctrines is undeniably evident from Hebrews 11 1 Peter 1:9-12.”
“3. Particularly Abraham, from whom Job is supposed to have descended, had the promise made to him, that Christ should come out of his loins, Genesis 12:3; and is said to have seen, Christ’s day, and rejoiced to see it, John 8:56, and had his hopes and desires fixed upon a divine and heavenly city and country, Hebrews 11:10,16. And as Abraham knew and believed these things himself, so it is manifest that, he taught them to his children and servants, Genesis 18:19, and to his kindred and others, as he had occasion. And therefore, it cannot seem strange that Job professeth his faith and hope in these things.”
“My redeemer liveth: I am a dying man, and my hopes are dying, but he liveth, and that forever; and therefore though I die, yet he both can and will make me live again in due time, though not in this world, yet in the other, which is much better; and though I am now highly censured and condemned by my friends and others as a great dissembler and a secret sinner, whom God’s hand hath found out; yet there is a day coming wherein my cause shall be pleaded, and my name and honour vindicated from all these reproaches, and my integrity brought to light.”
“He shall stand: I am falling and dying, but he shall stand firm, and unmovable, and victorious, in full power and authority; all which this word stand signifies; and therefore, he is able to make me stand in judgment, and to maintain my cause against all opposers. Or, he shall arise, as this verb most commonly signifies, i.e. either,”
“1. He shall exist, or be born, as this word is oft used; as Numbers 32:14 Deu 29:22 Judges 2:10 1 Kings 3:12 Matthew 11:11. And it notes Christ’s incarnation, that although as he was God he was now and from all eternity in being, yet he should in due time be made man, and be born of a woman. Or,”
“2. He shall arise out of the dust; which had been more probable, if it had been in the text from or out of, as now it is upon, the earth or dust; for Christ’s resurrection from the dead might be fitly mentioned here as the cause of Job’s resurrection, which followeth.”
“At the latter day; either,”
“1. In the days of the Messiah, or of the gospel, which are oft called the latter or last days or times; as Isaiah 2:2 Hosea 3:5 Joel 2:28, compared with Acts 2:17 1 Timothy 4:1 2 Timothy 3:1 Hebrews 1:1. Or rather,”
“2. At the day of the general resurrection and judgment, which, as those holy patriarchs well knew and firmly believed, was to be at the end of the world, and which is called the last day, John 6:39,40,44,51 11:24 12:48 1 Peter 1:5; for this was the time when Job’s resurrection, of which he speaketh here, was to be. Heb. at the last; by which word he plainly intimates that his hope was not of things present, and of worldly felicities, of which his friends had discoursed so much; but of another kind of, and a far greater, blessedness, which should accrue to him in after-times, long after he was dead and rotten. Or, the last; who is both the first and the last, Isaiah 44:6 Revelation 1:11, who shall subdue and survive all his and his people’s enemies, and after others the last enemy, death, 1 Corinthians 15:26, and then shall raise up his people and plead their cause, and vindicate them from all the calumnies and injuries which are put upon them, and conduct them to life and glory.”
“Upon the earth; the place upon which Christ shall appear and stand at the last day. Heb. upon the dust; in which his saints and members lie or sleep, whom he will raise out of it. And therefore he is fitly said to stand upon the dust, or the grave, or death, because then he will put that among other enemies under his feet; as it is expressed, 1 Corinthians 15:25,26. Some render the words thus, and that very agreeably to the Hebrew, the last, or at the last, he shall arise or stand up against (for so this very phrase is used, Genesis 4:8 Judges 9:18 Psalm 44:3) the dust, and fight with it, and rescue the bodies of the saints, which are held in it as prisoners, from its dominion and territories. Some understand this of God, that he should stand last in the field, as Conqueror of all his enemies. But this neither agrees with the words, the Hebrew aphar signifying dust, and being never used of the field or place of battle; nor with Job’s scope, which was to defend himself against his friends’ accusations, and to comfort himself with his hopes and assurance of God’s favour to be exhibited to him in due time; which end the words in that sense would by no means serve, because God might and would be Conqueror of all his enemies, though Job himself had been one of them, and though his cause had been bad, and his friends should with God have triumphed over him.” (2)
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible will help answer this question about Poole’s approach:
Job 19:25-27
“For I know that my Redeemer liveth.”
“Of the resurrection (on Easter Day).”
“This text is a prophecy and prediction of our Saviour Christs glorious resurrection. A sacred truth, requiring not only the assent, but the devotion and adoration of our faith. Here Job foresees and foretells the resurrection of Christ. He tells us that Christ, who by His death redeemed him, hath again obtained an endless life. That after His fall by death, He is recovered and got up again; stands, and shall stand, at last upon the earth. And Job prophesies of his own resurrection, that, though he were now in a dying condition, death had already seized upon him; yet he knew there was hope in his death, that he should be raised from the grave of corruption to an ever-living and blessed state and condition.”
I. Job’s belief concerning Christ. Here is–
“1. The saving object of his faith; that is, Christ, his Redeemer; his Redeemer dead and alive again; and to appear again at the last day to judge the quick and the dead. Here is a personal interest he claims in Christ. My Redeemer.”
“2. Job’s assurance. I know. It fully expresses the nature of faith; it is strongly persuaded of what it believes; it puts it beyond ifs, and ands, and hopeful supposals. Faith is an evidence, not a conjecture; not a supposition, but a subsistence. This knowledge of Job will appear the greater and more admirable, as his belief was beset with three great impediments.”
“(1) There is the resurrection of the dead. That is a matter beyond all reach of reason.”
“(2) Things at a distance are not discernible.”
“(3) Distance hinders sight; but darkness and indisposition of the air, much more. Yet Job, in the thickest mists of contrariety and contradiction, sees clearly and believes assuredly.” (3)
Like Poole, Barns understands the text in Job to be prophetic as noted by the text underlining. Both commentators would see Job 19: 25-26 as a Messianic prophecy.
In closing:
Job 19:25-26 in Job’s mind is that God is his redeemer. Recognizing this in no way takes the prophetic Messianic hope from the text.
Job 19:25-26 teaches us that despite Job’s suffering and belief that God has abandoned him, Job still holds on to his hope in a Redeemer. He expresses his faith that his Redeemer will stand on the earth and bear witness to his innocence and that his life will be restored after his skin has been destroyed. This passage encourages us to have faith in God even in our darkest moments, trusting that He will redeem us and restore us when believers are most vulnerable.
Moreover, Job 19:25-26 presents Job in a deeply reflective moment, recognizing the hope of his faith despite his trials. From a Reformed theological perspective, Job acknowledges that his Redeemer lives and that even in death, he will be vindicated from the injustice he has suffered. Job’s faith is a model of trust in the sovereignty of an all-powerful God and his conviction that God will ultimately deliver him from his suffering. This declaration is a reminder of the power of faith in the midst of the darkest of times and that even in death, the believer can take comfort in the promise of ultimate redemption.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, by A. B. Davidson, Job, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.
2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Job, Vol. 1, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 967-968.
3. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Job, Vol. 4 p. 534-535.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
The Lord’s Prayer, should this prayer be used in public worship? By Jack Kettler
Section One
The first part of this study is a revision of a previous blog post. Although not connected to the title question, this material should answer any additional questions regarding the Lord’s Prayer that may arise.
“After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.” (Matthew 6:9–13)
One Lord’s Day, this writer posted the prayer on a social media site. A response was given with a verse from Matthew as a reply. Unfortunately, the person posting this passage from Matthew thought praying the Lord’s Prayer was a vain repetition.
“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
For many, their thoughts would be, how could someone believe such a thing?
Let the reader consider this dubious injunction against praying the Lord’s Prayer:
“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
Introductory comments:
Who is Jesus talking about in this passage? Jesus tells us by warning about heathen prayers in Matthew 6:8. Jesus then gives us a Biblical prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. It is the height of exegetical nonsense to say that Jesus contradicts himself two verses later when explicitly saying:
“Pray then like this:” in Matthew 6:9.
A commentary exposition will be helpful.
From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, Saying the same things over and over again, as the Heathens do, as the worshippers of Baal, from morning till noon, 1 Kings 18:26. This our Lord observes, to dissuade from such practices, because the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, used them, and the Jews were guilty of the same; had they not, there would not have been any need of such advice:”
“For they think they shall be heard for their much speaking; as did the Jews, who, under pretence of “long prayers,” devoured widows’ houses; and with whom it is an axiom, that “everyone, that multiplies prayer is heard” (h); and whoever prolongs his prayer, his prayer does not return empty; and he that is long in prayer, his days are prolonged (i): and, according to their canons, every day a man ought to pray eighteen prayers. Moreover, their prayer books abound in tautologies, and in expressing the same things in different words, and by a multiplicity of them.” (1)
Gill notes the heathen and their “vain repetitions, saying the same things over and over again,” and “long prayers.” Is the Lord’s Prayer a long prayer? It is 70 words. Also, does this prayer say the same things over and over again? Also, what is vain about the Lord’s Prayer?
Consulting the Dictionary:
Vain: Vain is excessively proud of or concerned about one’s appearance, qualities, achievements, and conceited.
Repetition: repeating something that has already been said or written.
Suppose someone says the Matthew 6:7 passage is a warning about using the Lord’s Prayer as vain repetition. If so, and in that case, the burden of proof is on the individual making such an accusation to prove it exegetically and through word etymology.
From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
“VAIN, IN VAIN, VAINLY”
A. Adjectives.
“1. KENOS, “empty,” with special reference to quality, is translated “vain” (as an adjective) in Acts 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:10, 14 (twice); Eph. 5:6; Col. 2:8; Jas. 2:20; in the following the neuter, kenon, follows the preposition eis, in,” and denotes “in vain,” 2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16 (twice); 1 Thess. 3:5. See EMPTY, B, where the applications are enumerated.’ 2. MATAIOS, “void of result,” is used of (a) idolatrous practices, Acts 14:15, RV, “vain things” (KJV, “vanities”); (b) the thoughts of the wise, 1 Cor. 3:20; (c) faith, if Christ is not risen, 1 Cor. 15:17; (d) questionings, strifes, etc., Titus 3:9; (e) religion, with an unbridled tongue, Jas. 1:26; (f) manner of life, 1 Pet. 1:18. For the contrast between No. 1 and No. 2 see EMPTY. Note: For, Titus 1:10, see TALKERS (VAIN).”
B. Verbs.
“1. MATAIOO, “to make vain, or foolish,” corresponding in meaning to A, No. 2, occurs in Rom. 1:21, “became vain.” 2. KENOO, “to empty,” corresponding to A, No. 1, is translated “should be in vain” in 2 Cor. 9:3, KJV. See EFFECT, EMPTY, VOID.”
C. Adverbs.
“Indicates that all the NT occurrences of the Greek word under consideration are mentioned under the heading or sub-heading. 1. MATEN, properly the accusative case of mate, “a fault, a folly,” signifies “in vain, to no purpose,” Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7. 2. DOREAN, the accusative of dorea, “a gift,” is used adverbially, denoting (a) “freely” (see FREE, D); (b) “uselessly,” “in vain,” Gal. 2:21, AV (RV, “for nought”). See CAUSE, A, under “without a cause.” 3. EIKE, denotes (a) “without cause,” “vainly,” Col. 2:18; (b) “to no purpose,” “in vain,” Rom. 13:4; Gal. 3:4 (twice); 4:11. See CAUSE, A, Note (1), under “without a cause” (2)
Another commentary exposition will be helpful.
From Calvin’s Commentary:
“7. Use not vain repetitions He reproves another fault in prayer, a multiplicity of words. There are two words used, but in the same sense: for battologia is “a superfluous and affected repetition,” and polulogia is “unmeaning talk.” Christ reproves the folly of those who, with the view of persuading and entreating God, pour out a superfluity of words. This doctrine is not inconsistent with the praises everywhere bestowed in Scripture on earnestness in prayer: for, when prayer is offered with earnest feeling, the tongue does not go before the heart. Besides, the grace of God is not obtained by an unmeaning flow of words; but, on the contrary, a devout heart throws out its affections, like arrows, to pierce heaven. At the same time, this condemns the superstition of those who entertain the belief, that they will secure the favor of God by long murmurings. We find Popery to be so deeply imbued with this error, that it believes the efficacy of prayer to lie chiefly in talkativeness. The greater number of words that a man mutters, the more diligently he is supposed to have prayed. Long and tedious chanting also, as if it were to soothe the ears of God, continually resounds in their cathedrals.” (3)
The Reformer John Calvin mentions the heathen and their “long murmurings.” Can the Lord’s Prayer be described as long murmurings?
Additional thoughts and repeated emphasis:
Again, note that Jesus is warning his disciples against praying like the heathen in Matthew 6:7, 8. Considering the warnings in these two passages, is there anything in the Lord’s Prayer that would be mindless, vain, or repetitious in the prayer? Also, there is no similarity between the Lord’s Prayer and monkish chants.
Is praying the Lord’s Prayer a vain repetition? What about reading the Lord’s Prayer? Would that also be vain repetition? What about singing or reading the prayers of David in the Psalms or memorizing and quoting Psalm 23?
For logical emphasis, is Jesus in Matthew 6:7 contradicting himself when he says how to pray in Matthew 6:9-13?
For context in a proper understanding of Matthew 6:7, Jesus goes on and says this: “Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.” (Matthew 6:8)
Again, Jesus is warning, “Be not ye therefore like unto them.” Like who? The heathen! It is evident from the context that Jesus is talking about the heathen.
In introducing the Prayer, Jesus says:
“AFTER THIS MANNER THEREFORE PRAY YE: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” (Matthew 6:9) (capitalization emphasis mine)
Jesus instructs his disciples, “After this manner therefore pray ye.…” It seems preposterous that Jesus would forbid something, like not “use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do,” and two passages later, tell the disciples to pray a vain repetitious prayer that He had just forbidden.
Trying to argue for something like this is an example of etymological and false analogy fallacies. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. The Lord’s prayer is an example of how to pray, not an example of a heathen prayer. To say otherwise is pitting Scripture against Scripture.
Is there another way to look at this prayer rather than literally praying it?
It has been said that the Lord’s Prayer is a model of how to pray, not the way one should pray.
If this is true about the prayer being a model, the burden of proof is on those advocating this approach. An idea like this would need to be exegetically proven since there is nothing in the words of Jesus in Matthew saying the prayer is just a model. The idea that the Lord’s Prayer is only a model is not explicit in the text.
First, Jesus does not tell His disciples that this prayer is a model for private prayers. Instead, He introduces the prayer; “After this manner therefore pray.” The conclusion is that believers are to pray using the exact words that Christ used.
Second, the Lord’s prayer is primarily for corporate use. The prayer starts with “Our Father,” which is corporate, not private like “my father.” In the prayer, the following petitions are corporate: “Give us; forgive us; against us; lead us; deliver us.” These plural corporate expressions are why churches use this prayer in public worship. The regulatory principle* of worship would further stipulate that the prayer be used by repeating the exact words of Christ.
Regarding personnel prayers, it may be helpful to use the Lord’s Prayer as a model for prayers. The various petitions as a model prayer could be expanded upon during private prayers.
Section Two
The Lord’s Prayer and public worship:
In the Didache, one of the earliest doctrinal treatises in the Early Church, one reads:
“You shall not pray like the hypocrites but like the Lord commanded in his gospel; in this manner you shall pray: Our Father, who is in heaven, your name shall be made holy, your kingdom shall come, your will shall come to be as in heaven and upon earth; you shall give to us our bread for our need today, and you shall forgive us our debt as also we are forgiving our debtors, and may you not bring us into a trial, but you shall rescue us from the wicked one, since it is your might and glory into the ages. You shall pray three times of the day in this manner.” Didache 8:2–3)
Today, we live in an age of inexcusable evangelical ignorance of theology. Additionally, this is tragic since theology proper leads to the magnification of God’s glory. Therefore, Christians should strive for good, precise theology that magnifies the glorious grace of God.
John Calvin stresses the importance of the Lord’s Prayer:
“48. The Lord’s prayer as a binding rule.”
“We have everything we ought, or are able to seek of God, set forth in this form and, as it were, rule handed down by our best master, Christ, whom the Father has appointed our teacher and to whom alone he would have us harken, and this prayer is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it is impious and unworthy to be approved by God. For in this summary, he has set forth what is worthy of him, acceptable to him, necessary for us – in effect, what he would willingly grant. For this reason, those who dare go farther and ask anything from God beyond this: first wish to add to God’s wisdom from their own, which cannot happen without insane blasphemy….” (4)
Calvin goes on:
“We know we are requesting nothing absurd, nothing strange or unseemly—in short, nothing unacceptable to him—since we are asking in his own words.” (5)
The Westminster Assembly’s The Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645) recommends the corporate use of this prayer in worship:
“Of Prayer after the Sermon.”
“The Sermon being ended, the Minister is;”
“To give thanks for the great Love of God in sending his Son Jesus Christ unto us; For the communication of his Holy Spirit; For the light and liberty of the glorious Gospel, and the rich and heavenly Blessings revealed therein; as namely, Election, Vocation, Adoption, Justification, Sanctification, and hope of Glory; For the admirable goodness of God in freeing the Land from Antichristian Darkness and Tyranny, and for all other National Deliverances; For the Reformation of Religion; For the Covenant; and for many temporal Blessings.”
“To pray for the continuance of the Gospel, and all Ordinances thereof, in their purity, power, and liberty. To turn the chief and most useful heads of the Sermon into some few Petitions: and to pray that it may abide in the heart, and bring forth fruit.”
“To pray for preparation for Death, and Judgment, and a watching for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. To entreat of God the forgiveness of the iniquities of our holy things, and the acceptation of our spiritual sacrifice, through the merit and mediation of our great High-Priest and Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.”
“And because the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples, is not only a Pattern of Prayer, but itself a most {32} comprehensive Prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the Prayers of the Church.” (Underlining and bolding emphasis mine)
“And whereas, at the Administration of the Sacraments, the holding Public Fasts and days of Thanksgiving, and other special occasions, which may afford matter of special Petitions and Thanksgivings; It is requisite to express somewhat in our Public Prayers (as at this time it is our duty to pray for a blessing upon the Assembly of Divines, the Armies by Sea and Land, for the defence of the King, Parliament, and Kingdom,) Every minister is herein to apply himself, in his Prayer, before or after his Sermon, to those occasions; but for the manner, he is left to his liberty, as God shall direct and enable him, in piety and wisdom to discharge his duty.”
“The prayer ended, let a Psalm be sung, if with conveniency it may be done. After which (unless some other Ordinance of Christ that concerneth the Congregation at that time, be to follow) let the Minister dismiss the Congregation with a solemn Blessing.”
Catechetical support:
“The whole Word of God is of use to direct us in prayer, but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught His disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer” (The Lord’s Prayer, the Westminister Shorter Catechism Q.98-107).
In addition, the Westminster Larger Catechism contains an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is particularly useful, as stated:
“The special rule of direction” that Jesus taught his disciples “to direct us in the duty of prayer” (LC 186).
As noted, the Lord’s Prayer is a corporate prayer, as seen by the use of pronouns such as “us” and “we.”
Moreover, the Lord’s Prayer is a communal or community prayer, meaning that it is meant to be prayed together with others, and it reminds believers that they are part of a larger gathering of believers because of its corporate nature.
If the Lord’s prayer is not used in corporate worship, when would God’s people in His Church have the opportunity to pray this prayer?
The regulative principle of worship in Christian theology teaches that the public worship of God should include elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible. In other words, it is the belief that God institutes in Scripture whatever he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else should be avoided. In light of this principle and the words of Christ himself, “After this manner therefore pray,” a direct command, therefore, “The Lord’s Prayer,” is required for public worship.
“The order of public worship drafted by Protestant Reformers Martin Bucer (1539), John Calvin (1542), Thomas Cranmer (1552), and John Knox (1556) included the Lord’s Prayer as an ordinary part of weekly worship.” – From United Reformed Church website.
In conclusion:
Labeling the Lord’s Prayer as vain repetition is an egregious error of Bible interpretation. Furthermore, the regulative principle of worship requires the public use of the Lord’s Prayer in worship.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Matthew, 9 Volumes, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs, 2011), p. 151.
2. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 1193.
3. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XVI, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 313.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, (Philadelphia, PA, Westminster Press), p. 916.
5. Ibid., (Institutes, 2.20.34).
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 