The Religion That Started in a Hat

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.

What did Job mean by “redeemer?”

To answer this question, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges will be consulted:

“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.  

With this 2^nd question in mind, Matthew Poole’s Commentary will be consulted:

“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)

What hermeneutical approach does Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Job 19: 25-26 use?

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.

Why is silence condemned in Esther 4:14?                                                   by Jack Kettler

“For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)

It has been noted countless times that God is not mentioned in the book of Esther, yet, it is indisputable that the account of Esther is one of divine providence where God and the forces of evil are invisible actors. God’s mighty providence is seen in His deliverance of His people, and the evil conspiring against them falls upon the conspirators.

It has been repeatedly said that “silence is golden.” “Silence is golden” is a proverbial saying and is often used in situations where it is thought that saying nothing is better than speaking. Without a doubt, many times, this is true and in harmony with the Scriptures.

For example:

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” (Galatians 1:9)

There are additional passages in Scripture about bridling or controlling the tongue. However, in Esther’s situation, remaining silent is something altogether different.  

The sin of silence is the sin of omission or of neglect. An omission is a failure to do something that one has a moral or legal obligation to do. In Esther’s case, she is warned that destruction will come upon her for turning a blind eye to what is about to befall her countrymen.  

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Esther 4:14, one learns:

“From another place; from another hand, and by another means; which God can, and I am fully persuaded will, raise up.”

“Thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed, by the righteous and dreadful judgment of God, punishing thy cowardice and self-seeking, and thy want of love to God, and to his and thy own people.”

“Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? It is probable God hath raised thee to this honour for this very season; and therefore, go on courageously, and doubt not of the success.” (1)

Pool notes correctly that, in this instance, silence is identical to self-seeking and cowardice.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible adds some additional thoughts:

“From another place – i. e. “from some other quarter.” Mordecai probably concluded from the prophetic Scriptures that God would NOT allow His people to be destroyed before His purposes with respect to them were accomplished, and was therefore satisfied that deliverance would arise from one quarter or another.”

“Thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed – i. e. “a divine vengeance will overtake thee and thine, if thou neglectest thy plain duty.” Though the name of God is not contained in the Book of Esther, there is in this verse a distinct, tacit allusion to God’s promises, and to the direction of human events by Divine Providence.” (2) (underlining emphasis mine)

When faced with evil, will Christians speak up or remain silent? Giving into fear can blind or paralyze a person. In Esther’s case, inaction or silence would be met with divine judgment.

The evil Esther faced was political, yet the lesson that can be deduced can also be seen as silence in the face of theological evil. Will a Christian remain silent in the face of heresy? Historically and tragically, men have remained silent to attempt to keep peace in the church misguidedly. 

Notable quotations:  

“If you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust.” – Thomas Aquinas, church theologian.

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer, German Lutheran pastor, theologian, dissident anti-Nazi 1906 – 1945.

“History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” – Martin Luther King, Jr., civil rights leader.

“To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, Schaeffer was an American evangelical theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He co-founded the L’Abri community in Switzerland with his wife, Edith Schaeffer.

The above citations must be understood in the same contextual understanding as in the situation of Esther. See this author’s review of the 2 Volume “The Tactics of and The Theology of Christian Resistance” in the book “A Selection of Book and Film Reviews” Paperback – November 30, 2022.

Historical sayings of Edmund Burke and Benjamin Franklin, both contemporaries:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke, British parliamentarian and statesman.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759).

In closing:

The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines sin as “any lack of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God” (WSC 14). Put simply, a sin of omission is “any want of conformity.”

Q: What is sin?

A: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.1

    1 John 3:4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

    James 4:17. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

    Romans 3:23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

We should not remain silent when facing or witnessing injustice and evil. Instead, the believer must speak God’s truth and act accordingly. Not doing so is a “want of conformity” or the sin of omission.

“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.      Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Esther, Vol. 1, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 913.

2.      Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Esther, p. 651.

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.

Is the condemnation on usury in Nehemiah 5:7 valid for today?                   by Jack Kettler

“Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brothers. And I set a great assembly against them.” (Nehemiah 5:7)

Nehemiah 5:7 and the two following passages seemingly ban usury outright. Do they? Are there exceptions? Does this ban extend into the New Testament?   

Earlier passages of Scripture that forbid usury:

“If you lend money to one of My people among you who is poor, you must not act as a creditor to him; you are not to charge him interest.” (Exodus 22:25)

“Do not charge your brother interest on money, food, or any other type of loan.” (Deuteronomy 23:19)

The following is one of the most comprehensive Biblical analyses  f usury in print and well worth the reader’s time.

Usury, Interest, and Loans: A Brief Summary of Biblical Teaching by Gary North:

“Christians have some vague awareness that the Bible prohibits interest-bearing loans, but they cannot find all of the passages that refer to this, and they have bank accounts and mortgages. They do not feel guilty, but a few may feel uneasy.

I have good news and bad news. It is OK to deposit money in the bank and earn interest. That’s the good news. It is unwise to borrow money to buy anything but investments and to meet emergencies. That is bad news for most Christians.

For well over a thousand years, Christian theologians debated the issue of interest on loans. They have relied too heavily on Aristotle, who prohibited interest, and not enough on the Bible. They have misquoted the Bible. They have misunderstood the Bible. They have also had no influence over loans and finance for well over three centuries.

They have gotten the story wrong. What qualifies me to say this? Because I have done what no one else has ever done. I have written 9,000 pages of verse by verse exegesis of the passages in the Bible that relate in any way to economics.

I began this project in 1973. I have completed the exegesis of everything in the Old Testament except the Psalms and the historical works: Joshua to Second Chronicles. I have completed everything in the New Testament except John, which has only three verses, and Mark, which does not add anything to Matthew and Luke. You can download these commentaries free of charge here:

//www. Garynorth .com/public/department57 .cfm

So, here is a summary of what the Bible teaches on usury, interest, and loans.

Usury

The English word “usury” has nothing specific to do with the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “usury.” This is because, historically, the word has been used in a specific way: “excessive interest.”

There is not one verse — not one hint — in the Bible that taking excessive interest is wrong.

What is prohibited in Deuteronomy 15:1-7 and Deuteronomy 23 is interest on any loan, in any form, that has been extended to a poor brother in the faith. It is perfectly all right to lend at interest to someone not in the faith. Here, I quote from the King James (1611), since its terminology – “usury” — is the familiar source of the debate over usury.

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it (Deuteronomy 23:19-20).

The Hebrew word translated here as “usury” is nawshak, meaning “bite.” Examples:

    Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward (Genesis 49:17)

    And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died (Numbers 21:6).

The word in no way implies “excessive.” It means any extra payment at all.

The prohibition applied only to charitable loans to poor brethren in the faith and to a special category of resident aliens, men who had submitted to the Mosaic law. The texts are quite specific.

    If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury (Exodus 22:25).

    And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase (Leviticus 25:35-37).

The Hebrew word here translated as “stranger” is different from the Hebrew word for “stranger” in Deuteronomy 23:20. Deuteronomy’s stranger was a temporary resident, probably a businessman.

How did a charitable loan differ from a commercial loan? A charitable loan had the following features:

    1. There was no interest payment.

    2. It was morally mandatory.

    3. If the borrower defaulted, he could be sold into slavery.

    4. It had a six-year limit, as did the term of slavery.

    5. The creditor had to supply tools of production to the indentured servant at the end of the period of slavery.

    6. The day of release was on the day of atonement [yom kippur] in the nation’s seventh (sabbatical) year

    7. It was not mandated by the civil government.

This is laid out in Deuteronomy 15:1-7 and Leviticus 25:1-9.

A non-charity loan could be collateralized by a piece of rural land. The borrower could lose his land for up to 49 years if he defaulted. The 49-year limit was established in terms of the sabbatical periods of seven years: seven times seven. This is discussed in Leviticus 25, the chapter on the jubilee year.

A non-charity loan was not under any restriction with respect to interest. A person who defaulted on a commercial loan that had not been collateralized by land could be sold into slavery, but a unique kind. He had to be paid. Also, he did not receive tools of production at the end of his term of service. This term could be up to 49 years.

    And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return (Leviticus 25:39- 41)

I have written two versions of Leviticus: The Reader’s Digest version (750 pages) and the full version (4 volumes), called Boundaries and Dominion.

Jesus Annulled the Jubilee Laws

Jesus annulled the Jubilee laws He announced liberation.

    And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears (Luke 4:16-21).

If He did not annul Leviticus 25, then the Mosaic law of slavery is still in effect. This is the only passage in the Bible that authorizes inter-generational slavery.

    Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour (Leviticus 25:44-46).

See my comments on this passage in my commentaries on Leviticus 25 and Luke 4:16-21. See also Chapter 4 of my book, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus.

He who denies that Jesus annulled the Jubilee laws owes it to his followers to explain why the Mosaic law’s authorization of inter-generational slavery is not still in force. Leviticus 25:44-46 was widely was cited by defenders of the South’s slave system prior to 1865. I think it is wise not to attempt to resurrect it now. Except for Jesus’ words in Luke 4, there is no explicit or implicit annulment of inter-generational slavery in the New Testament.

In short, a Christian who cites the Mosaic laws governing the prohibition against interest has a lot of explaining to do. He had better understand the implications of his position.

The Mosaic laws governing interest-taking on charitable loans were aspects of the national sabbatical year, including the crucial provision, the six-year term of slavery. This all ended when Israel disappeared as a nation in 70 A.D. These laws were not re-established by the New Testament.

Conclusion: the Mosaic laws governing charitable loans are defunct. There is no more national sabbatical year and no more jubilee year.

Jesus Authorized Interest

In the parable of the talents, which dealt with the Final Judgment, Jesus told of three stewards. A rich man puts them in charge of his money. Then he leaves town. On his return, he requires an accounting. One steward had multiplied his five talents by two to one. The second had multiplied his two talents by two to one. The third had buried his coin in the ground, which he returned to the owner. Here was the response of the owner, who is symbolic of God on judgment day.

    Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:27-30).

If charging interest were not legitimate, why would Jesus have used the example of money-lending as a legitimate way to increase capital? Why would He have attributed to God such words of condemnation for not having lent at interest?

Those Christian commentators who say that usury is prohibited, meaning all interest on loans, prefer not to mention the existence of this passage, let alone explain it.

Conclusion

The Mosaic law prohibited interest on a narrow class of loans: charitable loans to fellow Israelites and resident aliens. It did not prohibit interest on all other loans.

Charitable loans were to be annulled in the seventh year, at one time. Loans collateralized by rural land were to end in the seventh year, or jubilee year. The land reverted to the heirs of the conquest generation.

The sabbatical year and the jubilee year system were annulled by Jesus and ended when Israel ceased to exist as a nation.

Jesus authorized interest-bearing loans.” (1)

In closing:

Usury and Cosmic Personalism by R.J. Rushdoony:

“In conclusion, in Scripture interest was legal for loans which were not charity loans. Debt was not to be a normal thing or a way of life. Debt was an emergency, or “need,” matter, not normally a consumption loan, and only a severely conservative production loan.” (2)

As seen from the above article by Gary North, the prohibition against usury in Nehemiah was not total. Instead, the prohibition involved charitable loans.   

“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.       Gary North, Usury, Interest, and Loans: A Brief Summary of Biblical Teaching, https: // www. Garynorth .com/public/4007.cfm

2.      R. J. Rushdoony, Usury and Cosmic Personalism, https: // chalcedon .edu/blog/usury-and-cosmic -personalism

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 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

A Selection of Book and Film Reviews – A Review  Title: An Enlightening Journey through Books and Films: A Review of Jack Kettler’s “A Selection of Book and Film Reviews”  Introduction:  Jack Kettler’s “A Selection of Book and Film Reviews” is a compilation of reviews that offers a thought-provoking and engaging experience, shedding light on numerous works across various genres. Kettler’s writing style and understanding of the subject matter make this book an essential enjoyable and educational read.  Engaging and Comprehensive Reviews: One of the standout qualities of Kettler’s book is his ability to delve into the essence of each work with clarity and insight. His reviews demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the books and films he covers. Moreover, one of the standout features of this collection is the variety of works that Kettler chooses to review.  Listing of Reviews:  Books  1.         fault lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe 2.         The Existence and Attributes of God 3.         Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa 4.         Tactics of and the Theology of Christian Resistance 5.         Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms 6.         Hollywood’s Favorite Religious Cult 7.         The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, and Openness Unhindered 8.         The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark 9.         Revelation and the First Century: Preterist Interpretations of the Apocalypse in Early Christianity 10.       Inmillennialism: Redefining the Last Days 11.       The Intolerance of Tolerance 12.       Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith 13.       The Holy Trinity In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship 14.       Signature in the Cell DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design 15.       Undeniable 16.       Evolution: Still A Theory in Crises 17.       What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an 18.       The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies) 19.       Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism 20.       The History of Jihad 21.       How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough 22.       A Christian Review of Napoleon Hill’s “Think & Grow Rich”  Films  1.         Ekaterina II, Catherine the Great 2.         A review of government tyranny at Waco  Bonus  1.         Bio-Chemical Individuality: towards an understanding of dietary supplements and the categories of essential nutritional needs. A health primer. 2.         A little bit of history. Four years of championship of high school basketball (inspirational)  In closing:  Kettler’s book is highly recommended.  The author’s message to readers: Q. When can a person be called a bibliophile?A. A love of books or a deep knowledge of them makes a person a bibliophile. “The importance of reading on the part of freedom loving people cannot be underestimated. Well-read people are able to think through issues better than non-readers are. Those who are well read will be able to become leaders in society. Non-readers are often doomed to be nothing more than followers. The dumbed-down graduates of the government schools are unable to think through the issues of day let alone even know what the issues are. They fall prey to specious arguments and deceptive manipulative politicians who promise anything to achieve an agenda or to stay in power.” End of the book review. * Order here https://www.amazon.com/Selection-Book-Film-Reviews/dp/B0B14284CD  “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. * Written with the assistance of ChatGPT and perfected with Grammarly

The importance of being enrolled in Israel                                          by Jack Kettler

“And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore, were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.” (Ezra 2:61-62)

Genealogical records were essential to Israel during the Old Testament because the records proved a person’s identity as a Jew and member of the covenant community. If an individual was not a Jew, that person could not participate in all aspects of Jewish life and culture. The same holds true for the non-member of the Church today. They cannot participate in all aspects of Church life, such as voting.

Moreover, the genealogical records helped understand the priestly and royal lines in Israel’s history. At the time of Christ’s birth, there were genealogical records that helped determine Christ’s genealogical lineage and thereby establish his family tree.

In addition, keeping genealogical records was used for registering citizens and used for numerous purposes see (Jeremiah 22:30 documenting childless); (Ezekiel 13:9 documenting the forbidden work of divination), and (Luke 2:1 for taxation). Subsequently, God is represented as having records of men, their works, and God’s dealings with them. This record is called “the book of life or living.”

In the New Testament, genealogies are downplayed and even warned against if misused:

For example:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so, do.” (1 Timothy 1:4)

Instead, passages regarding the book of living or life are emphasized in the New Covenant. The book of living or life has its roots in the Old Testament:

“Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.” (Psalm 69:28)

“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.” (Daniel 12:1)

Going into the New Testament:

“… but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:20).

“I will not erase his name from the book of life.” (Revelation 3:5)

“And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:15)

The Israelites kept a census, equivalent to a membership roll. The purpose of the census, according to Numbers 1:3, was in regard to planning for war. In the New Covenant, a membership roll makes it possible to vote to approve a church budget, the call and election of ruling elders, and teaching elders. Only members are allowed to present their children for covenant baptism and, in some cases, admittance to the Lord’s Supper.

The Belgic Confession on the necessity of covenant membership:

“ARTICLE 28. Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to The True Church”

“We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them.”

“And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God has established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore, all those who separate themselves from the same or do not join themselves to it act contrary to the ordinance of God.”

In closing:

In Ezra, the importance and necessity of being enrolled are seen. Likewise, this principle of enrollment carries on into the New Covenant by taking the form of Church membership. Moreover, the Church’s membership rolls mirror the “book of the living or book of life” Given the fact of wheat and tares; the mirror is not perfectly identical. 

“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 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at: Amazon

Christian Apologetics in the Marketplace of Ideas. – A Review

Title: A Thought-Provoking Journey into Christian Apologetics

Introduction:

In “Christian Apologetics in the Marketplace of Ideas,” author Jack Kettler takes readers on a captivating journey through Christian apologetics. His insightful book’s balanced approach and comprehensive analysis make it a must-read for believers and skeptics alike. Through meticulous research and thoughtful arguments, Kettler masterfully presents the case for Christianity, engaging with the marketplace of ideas in a remarkable manner. Kettler’s apologetic method is known as presuppositionalism. Sometimes this is referred to as worldview apologetics.   

Engaging and Comprehensive Arguments:

One of the standout features of Kettler’s work is his ability to present complex ideas clearly and concisely. He skillfully addresses the most challenging and prevalent objections to Christianity, providing credible and well-researched responses that engage even the most ardent critics. Throughout the book, he balances theological depth with philosophical insights, providing readers with a comprehensive and thought-provoking exploration of apologetics.

Furthermore, Kettler adeptly incorporates a wide range of disciplines into his apologetic arguments. He draws from philosophy, science, history, and theology, skillfully weaving these threads together to construct a compelling case for the truth of Christianity. Kettler addresses the challenges and objections that arise in the marketplace of ideas.  

One of the greatest strengths of Kettler’s work is his ability to navigate complex topics with clarity and precision. He breaks down profound concepts in a way that is accessible to both the seasoned theologian and the curious seeker of truth. By employing a logical and systematic approach, he builds a strong foundational argument for the validity of the Christian faith while responding to contemporary objections.

The author also impressively weaves various disciplines, including philosophy, and biblical studies, to support his assertions. This approach adds depth to his arguments, enhancing the overall credibility of his apologetic framework. Kettler exposes contradictions in the logic of atheism.

One example is:

“There is no God, says the atheist absolutely. The atheists have no basis for claiming absolutes, therefore, he is involved in a self-refuting contradiction. In addition, the atheist’s assertion is a universal negative and impossible to prove in terms of how it is advanced by the atheist. One cannot prove a general broad claim that is a ‘negative’ claim. Since the atheist is finite, he cannot really be sure of his assertion, which requires infinite knowledge.” 

An example of some of the material that one will encounter in the book is by Cornelius Van Til, a Dutch-American reformed philosopher and theologian credited with originating presuppositional apologetics.

The book is replete with valuable like the following from Van Til explaining the psychology of unbelief:

“Agnosticism is, in the first place, psychologically self-contradictory upon its own assumptions. Agnosticism wants to hold that it is reasonable to refrain from thorough epistemological speculations because they cannot lead to anything. But in order to assume this attitude, agnosticism has itself made the most tremendous intellectual assertion that could be made about ultimate things. In the second place, agnosticism is epistemologically self-contradictory on its own assumptions because its claim to make no assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most comprehensive assertion about ultimate reality … the alternative is not between saying something about ultimate reality or not saying anything about it, but that the alternative is rather between saying one thing about it or another. Every human being, as a matter of fact, says something about ultimate reality.”

“It should be noted that those who claim to say nothing about ultimate reality not only do say something about it just as well as everybody else, but they have assumed for themselves the responsibility of saying one definite thing about ultimate reality. They have assumed the responsibility of excluding God. We have seen again that a God who is to come in afterward is no God at all. Agnosticism cannot say that it is open-minded on the question of the nature of ultimate reality. It is absolutely closed-minded on the subject. It has one view that it cannot, unless its own assumption be denied, exchange for another. It has started with the assumption of the non-existence of God and must end with it. Its so-called open-minded attitude is therefore a closed-minded attitude. The agnostic must be open-minded and closed-minded at the same time. And this is not only a psychological self-contradiction, but an epistemological self-contradiction. It amounts to affirmation and denial at the same time. Accordingly, they cancel out one another, if there is cancellation power in them. . .”

“Incidentally, we may point out that, in addition to being psychologically and epistemologically self-contradictory, the agnostic is morally self-contradictory. His contention was that he is very humble, and for that reason unwilling to pretend to know anything about ultimate matters. Yet he has by implication made a universal statement about reality. He therefore not only claims to know as much as the theist knows, but he claims to know much more. More than that, he not only claims to know much more than the theist, but he claims to know more than the theist’s God. He has boldly set bare possibility above the theist’s God and is quite willing to test the consequences of his action. It is thus that the hubris of which the Greeks spoke so much, and upon which they invoked the wrath of the gods, appears in new and seeming innocent garb.” – Van Til.

The book is full of concise arguments that demolish atheism, such as the following:

“When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes.” – Greg Bahnsen.

Moreover, the book is a gold mine of relevant quotations such as:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it? … Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying; it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” – C.S. Lewis.

In conclusion, Jack Kettler’s “Christian Apologetics in the Marketplace of Ideas” is an impressive and insightful work that merits praise. With its extensive research and relevance in today’s cultural climate, it is an essential resource for anyone interested in apologetics. Kettler’s approach, combined with his emphasis on engaging in the marketplace of ideas, challenges and equips Christians to declare and share their faith confidently. This book is highly recommended to believers, skeptics, and seekers alike. It is a valuable contribution to apologetics and a compelling exploration of the Christian worldview. Moreover, the reader will come away after reading the book with a faith-building appreciation of the impenetrable strength of the Christian theistic worldview.

End of the book review. *

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

Order here https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FS31QMG?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860

“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.

* Written with the assistance of ChatGPT and perfected with Grammarly

What is the difference between the prayer of Jabez and the 2^nd Chronicles 7:13 prayer?      By Jack Kettler

What can the reader learn about these two prayers? God responds to both prayers, yet how are they different?

The LORD’s response to Solomon:

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”  (2^nd Chronicles 7:14)

From the Benson Commentary:

“2 Chronicles 7:14. If my people shall humble themselves, and pray, &c. — Thus, national repentance and reformation are required. God expects, that if his people, who are called by his name, have dishonoured his name by their iniquity, they should honour it by accepting the punishment of their iniquity. They must humble themselves under his hand, must pray for the removal of the judgment, must seek his face and favour: and yet all this will not be sufficient, unless they turn from their wicked ways, and return to him from whom they have revolted. National mercy is then promised, then will I hear from heaven, &c. — God will first forgive their sin, which brought the judgment upon them, and then will heal their land, and redress their grievances.” (1)

The prayer of Jabez:

“And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested.” (1^st Chronicles 4:10)

Again, from the Benson Commentary:

“1 Chronicles 4:10. Jabez called on the God of Israel — The living and true God, who alone can hear and answer prayer: and in prayer he had an eye to him as the God of Israel, a God in covenant with his people, the God with whom Jacob wrestled and prevailed, and was thence called Israel. Saying, O that thou wouldest bless me indeed! — He did not say in what respect he desired God to bless him, but leaves that to God, giving him, as it were, a blank paper, that he might write what he pleased. Spiritual blessings are the best blessings, and those are blessed indeed, who are blessed with them. God’s blessings are real things, and produce real effects. We can but wish a blessing: he commands it. And enlarge my coast — Prosper my endeavours for the increase of what has fallen to my lot: drive out these Canaanites, whom thou hast commanded us to root out; and therefore, I justly beg and expect thy blessing in the execution of thy command. That thy hand might be with me — The prayer of Moses for this tribe of Judah was, that his own hands might be sufficient for him; but Jabez expects not that, unless he have God’s hand with him, and the presence of his power. God’s hand with us to lead, protect, strengthen us, and to work all our works in and for us, is indeed a hand sufficient for us, yea, all-sufficient. And keep me from evil — The evil of sin, the evil of trouble; all the evil designs of my enemies, and all disastrous events. That it may not grieve me — That it may not oppress and overcome me. He uses this expression in allusion to his name, which signifies grief: as if he had said, Lord, let me not have that grief which my name implies, and which my sin deserves. God granted him that which he requested — Prospered him remarkably in his undertakings, in his worldly business, in his conflicts with the Canaanites, and his endeavours after knowledge, and holiness, and other spiritual blessings.” (2)

In closing:

There is a significant difference between the 1^st and 2^nd Chronicles’ prayers in how God answers the prayers. In both cases, God answers the prayers. In the 1^st Chronicles prayer, God answers the private prayer of Jabez. However, there is nothing in the prayer that directs God’s people to repeat this prayer of Jabez. In 2^nd Chronicles, God answers Solomon by giving him a corporate prayer that extends beyond Solomon to all of God’s people and is to be prayed when national repentance is needed. One prayer is personal, and one is corporate.    

“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.      Benson, Joseph. Joseph Benson’s Commentary of the Old and New Testaments (p. 2720). Kindle Edition.

2.      Benson, Joseph. Joseph Benson’s Commentary of the Old and New Testaments (p. 12772). Kindle Edition.

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 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura – A Review

Title: The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Masterful Defense of Sola Scriptura

Introduction:

Jack Kettler’s “The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura” is a comprehensive and compelling exploration of the principles underlying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In this thought-provoking work, Kettler articulates the importance of Scripture as the ultimate authority for Christian belief and practice. Unveiling the significance of the Five Points and ably addressing key objections, Kettler presents a powerful argument that underscores the enduring relevance of Sola Scriptura. Kettler thoroughly defends this crucial biblical principle through meticulous research and a lucid writing style.

Content Summary:

Kettler brilliantly structures his book around the Five Points of Scriptural Authority, providing a solid foundation for his defense of Sola Scriptura. Beginning with exploring the necessity of Scripture, he convincingly demonstrates its vital role in defining the Christian faith and establishing its authority. Kettler then delves into the clarity of Scripture, debunking misconceptions and emphasizing the accessibility of God’s Word to all believers. His focus on the sufficiency of Scripture for life and godliness further reinforces the book’s central thesis to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Throughout the book, Kettler demonstrates a thorough understanding of the history, theology, and practical implications of Sola Scriptura. He examines its origins in the Protestant Reformation and relates it to the ongoing debate between Protestant and Catholic perspectives on authority. The author’s extensive research and clear presentation make this book a valuable resource for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the doctrine.

One of the strengths of this book is Kettler’s ability to address potential objections to Sola Scriptura. He anticipates and responds to common arguments, providing thoughtful and well-reasoned answers. He easily navigates through complex theological concepts, making them accessible to readers regardless of their theological background.

Kettler’s approach to the topic is refreshingly balanced. While steadfast in his defense of Sola Scriptura, he acknowledges the importance of tradition and reason in their respective places. He points out that these elements can complement Scripture but should never supersede or contradict it. This balanced approach combats the misconception that Sola Scriptura equals an unyielding rejection of all other sources of authority. Particularly appreciated is how Kettler grounds his arguments in Scripture itself. He provides an in-depth analysis of key passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, demonstrating how they affirm the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Kettler’s thorough examination of these passages is convincing and encourages readers to engage with the text themselves, breathing new life into their study of Scripture.

One of the strengths of Kettler’s book is his ability to address common objections to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. He carefully responds to the charge that Sola Scriptura leads to individualistic interpretation and division within the church. Kettler argues persuasively that the authority of Scripture, when properly understood and guided by the Holy Spirit, actually serves to unify believers. He emphasizes the importance of interpreting Scripture within the context of the historic Christian faith, upholding the creeds and confessions as valuable resources for understanding Scripture’s true meaning.

Furthermore, Kettler tackles the accusation that Sola Scriptura neglects the role of tradition in the church. He acknowledges the valuable insights tradition can provide but deftly distinguishes between authoritative tradition and non-authoritative tradition. By doing so, he upholds the priority of Scripture while acknowledging the significance of historical and theological tradition.

In addition to his rigorous script Jack Kettler’s “The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura” is a compelling and in-depth exploration of the concept of Sola Scriptura. With clarity and depth, Kettler presents a robust defense of the authority of Scripture, making a persuasive case for its central role in Christian theology and practice.

One of the strengths of Kettler’s book is his thorough examination of the historical context surrounding the development of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. He traces its origins to the Protestant Reformation, particularly Martin Luther’s emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in his opposition to the Catholic Church’s reliance on tradition and the authority of the Pope. By doing so, Kettler effectively demonstrates the significance and impact of this doctrine on the Christian faith.

Furthermore, Kettler’s systematic examination of the five points of Scriptural authority provides a comprehensive and logical framework for understanding and defending the concept of Sola Scriptura. He examines each point – divine inspiration, divine inerrancy, divine sufficiency, divine authority, and divine clarity of Scripture – with meticulous attention to detail, drawing on biblical scholarship and theological reasoning to support his arguments. This approach not only strengthens the validity of his claims but also equips readers with a solid foundation for their understanding and defense of Sola Scriptura.

One of the key strengths of Kettler’s book is his clear and concise writing style. He explains complex theological concepts in a way that is accessible to readers from various backgrounds. The book is organized into five main sections, each corresponding to one of the five points of scriptural authority. This structure allows readers to follow along and grasp the main ideas being presented.

Kettler begins by discussing the authority of Scripture itself. He presents a compelling argument for why Scripture should be seen as the ultimate authority for Christian belief and practice. He addresses common objections to Sola Scriptura, such as the role of tradition and the authority of the Church, and provides well-reasoned responses.

One aspect that is particularly appreciated about Kettler’s approach is his reliance on Scripture itself to support his arguments. He skillfully navigates through various passages of the Bible, demonstrating how they affirm the authority of Scripture and the sufficiency of God’s Word for all matters of faith and practice. This reliance on Scripture as the primary source of authority is a key tenet of Sola Scriptura, and Kettler effectively defends this position.

Another strength of Kettler’s book is his engagement with historical and theological perspectives on Sola Scriptura. He deftly navigates through the history of the Protestant Reformation, providing a robust defense of the principle against common criticisms. Kettler clearly explains how Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible stands alone without any interpretative framework but rather that it holds primary authority over all other sources of religious doctrine. He effectively debunks the misconception that sola scriptura results in a subjective, individualistic approach to biblical interpretation. Instead, he presents a compelling case for the importance of sound hermeneutical principles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in properly understanding and applying the Scriptures.

One of the most noteworthy aspects of Kettler’s book is his ability to address the concerns raised by proponents of tradition-based authority within Christianity. He skillfully demonstrates how the early church fathers themselves recognized the supreme authority of Scripture, often appealing to it as the final arbiter on matters of doctrine. Kettler’s clear and concise explanations shed much-needed light on the complex relationship between Scripture and tradition, offering a balanced viewpoint that honors the ancient church’s wisdom while upholding the primacy of the written Word of God.

A summary overview and conclusion:

Jack Kettler’s book, “The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura,” presents a comprehensive defense of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which asserts that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. Kettler highlights five key points that support this doctrine: (1) Scripture’s divine origin and inspiration, (2) its self-attesting authority and clarity, (3) its sufficiency in addressing all matters of theology and Christian living, (4) its necessity as the ultimate standard for testing and correcting all other sources of authority, and (5) its interpretive authority residing in the Christian community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. By thoroughly examining and explaining these points, Kettler successfully argues for the primacy of Scripture as the ultimate authority for Christians. He aptly defends against common objections and establishes a strong case for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, reminding readers of the importance of relying on Scripture alone for guidance in matters of faith.

End of the book review. *

Order here https://www.amazon.com/dp/B099C8S7SV

“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.

* Written with the assistance of ChatGPT and perfected with Grammarly

What is a familiar spirit in 1st Chronicles 10:13?                                      By Jack Kettler

“So, Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it.” (1^st Chronicles 10:13)

Why did Saul seek one with a “familiar spirit,” and what is a familiar spirit?

The following comes from the notes of the King James Bible online:

“Sorcerers or necormancers, who professed to call up the dead to” “answer questions, were said to have a “familiar spirit” (Deuteronomy 18:11; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; Isaiah 8:19; 29:4). Such a person was called by the Hebrews an ‘ob, which” properly means a leathern bottle; for sorcerers were regarded as vessels containing the inspiring demon. This Hebrew word was “equivalent to the pytho of the Greeks, and was used to denote” both the person and the spirit which possessed him (Leviticus 20:27; 1 Samuel 28:8; comp. Acts 16:16). The word “familiar” is from the Latin familiaris, meaning a “household servant,” and was” intended to express the idea that sorcerers had spirits as their servants ready to obey their commands.” (1)

The teachings of Scripture are clear that a familiar spirit is something evil. One sees that a “familiar spirit is condemned expressly in the following passages:

“Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:31)

“And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.” (Leviticus 20:6)

“A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:27)

“Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” (Deuteronomy 18:11)

“Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.” (1 Samuel 28:3)

“Then said Saul unto his servants, seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knoowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?” (1 Samuel 28:7-9)

“And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.” (2^nd Kings 21:6)

“Moreover, the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.” (2^nd Kings 23:24)

“So, Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it.” (1^st Chronicles 10:13)

“And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also, he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.” (2^nd Chronicles 33:6)

“And when they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?” (Isaiah 8:19)

“And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst there-of; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.” (Isaiah 19:3)

“And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.” (Isaiah 29:4)

To supplement an earlier citation:

“Familiar spirit is translated from the Hebrew word, “ob,” which means a necromancer.” (2)

In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on Leviticus 19:31, one reads:

“Regard not them that have familiar spirits – The Hebrew word, rendered “familiar spirit,” signifies the belly, and sometimes a leathern bottle, from its similarity to the belly. It was applied in the sense of this passage to ventriloquists, who pretended to have communication with the invisible world. The Hebrews were strictly forbidden to consult them as the vain but high pretensions of those impostors were derogatory to the honor of God and subversive of their covenant relations with Him as His people. Neither seek after wizards – fortunetellers, who pretended, as the Hebrew word indicates, to prognosticate by palmistry (or an inspection of the lines of the hand) the future fate of those who applied to them.” (3)

In addition, from the Harper’s Bible Dictionary, the reader learns:

“Familiar spirit, the spirit of a dead person, allegedly consulted by mediums who issued prophetic advice of a secular sort. Consultation of mediums was forbidden in the O.T. (Lev. 19:31, 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:11) as apostasy from Yahweh. Medi- ums were punishable by death. King Saul had put “those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land” (1 Sam. 28:3) …Josiah put away familiar spirits, together with many other “abominations” (2 Kings 23:24). Isaiah (8:19, see also Isa. 19:3, 29:4) protested against consultation with those who had familiar spirits, and wizards that peep, and that mutter.” (4)

Moreover, commenting on Leviticus 19:31, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary says:

“True fear of God, however, awakens confidence in the Lord and His guidance, and excludes all superstitious and idolatrous ways and methods of discovering the future. This thought prepares the way for the warning against turning to familiar spirits, or seeking after wizards. בוא denotes a departed spirit, who was called up to make disclosures with regard to the future, hence a familiar spirit, spiritum malum qui certis artibus eliciebatur ut evocaret mortuorum manes, qui praedicarent quae ab eis petebantur (Cler.). This is the meaning in Isaiah 29:4, as well as here and in Leviticus 20:6, as is evident from Leviticus 20:27, “a man or woman in whom is an ob,” and from 1 Samuel 28:7-8, baalath ob, “a woman with such a spirit.” The name was then applied to the necromantist himself, by whom the departed were called up (1 Samuel 28:3; 2 Kings 23:24). The word is connected with ob, a skin. ינעּדי, the knowing, so to speak, “clever man” (Symm. γνώστης, Aq. γνωριστής), is only found in connection with ob, and denotes unquestionably a person acquainted with necromancy, or a conjurer who devoted himself to the invocation of spirits. (For further remarks, see as 1 Samuel 28:7.).” (5)

In closing:

Why did Saul seek one with a “familiar spirit?” Because of the hardness of his heart, he rejected God.   

“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.      Notes of the King James Bible on-line.

2.      Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, (London, Lutterworth Press, 1965), p. 327.

3.      Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977), p. 101.

4.      Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (New York, Harper & Brothers, Publishers), 1988, pg. 185.

5.      Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, The Pentateuch, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), p. 425.

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 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.