Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that Scripture alone is the ultimate and infallible authority for Christian faith and practice, finds its grounding in the self-attesting nature of God’s Word as revealed in the biblical text. This principle does not deny the utility of subordinate authorities but asserts their contingency upon the divine revelation contained within the canonical Scriptures. Several key passages undergird this doctrine.
First, 2 Timothy 3:16–17 declares, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (ESV). Theopneustos (“breathed out by God”) denotes the divine origin of Scripture, establishing its unique authority as a direct revelation from God. Its sufficiency is affirmed in its capacity to render the believer “complete” (artios) and “equipped” (exartizō) for every good work, implying that no extrabiblical source is necessary to supplant its normative role in doctrine and ethics.
Second, Psalm 19:7–9 extols the perfection and sufficiency of God’s Word: “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart” (ESV). The descriptors—perfect (tāmîm), sure (ne’ĕmān), and right (yāšār)—underscore the intrinsic reliability and completeness of Scripture, positioning it as the ultimate standard by which all other claims to truth are measured.
Third, the example of Christ Himself in Matthew 4:4, 7, and 10, where He counters Satan’s temptations solely with citations from Deuteronomy (“It is written”), demonstrates the authoritative primacy of Scripture. Jesus does not appeal to oral tradition, human reason, or ecclesiastical pronouncement as coequal authorities but rests His rebuttal on the written Word, affirming its sufficiency and finality in matters of spiritual conflict and obedience.
Additionally, Isaiah 8:20 commands, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (ESV). Here, the prophetic call to test all claims against the written revelation establishes Scripture as the ultimate arbiter of truth, relegating competing authorities to a subordinate status.
Finally, the Bereans of Acts 17:11 exemplify the practical outworking of Sola Scriptura: “They received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (ESV). Their commendation lies in their recourse to Scripture as the final norm by which even apostolic preaching—here, Paul’s—was evaluated, illustrating that the written Word holds primacy over all human proclamation.
Interaction with the Mistaken Notion:
The critique that Sola Scriptura, if followed consistently, excludes the use of commentaries, church councils, or confessions—and thereby reduces Scripture to the only court of appeal rather than the final court of appeal—misconstrues the doctrine’s intent and historical application. This misunderstanding conflates sola (alone) with nuda (bare), as if the Reformers advocated a radical biblicism devoid of interpretive aids or ecclesiastical structures. Such a caricature is neither biblically warranted nor historically accurate.
Sola Scriptura does not deny the legitimacy of subordinate authorities but insists that they derive their authority from and remain accountable to Scripture as the norma normans non normata (“the norm that norms but is not normed”). The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), a hallmark of Reformed theology, clarifies this in Chapter 1, Section 10: “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined… can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” This does not preclude lesser courts of appeal but subjects them to the ultimate adjudication of Scripture.
The biblical warrant for subordinate authorities is evident. Proverbs 11:14 states, “In an abundance of counselors there is safety” (ESV), suggesting the value of communal wisdom in applying God’s Word. Similarly, Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, demonstrates the early church’s use of conciliar deliberation to resolve doctrinal disputes (e.g., Gentile circumcision). Yet, the council’s decision was grounded in Scripture (Acts 15:15–18, citing Amos 9:11–12) and issued with apostolic authority, which itself was validated by its conformity to divine revelation. This exemplifies a derivative authority, not a coequal one.
Commentaries, too, find implicit support in Scripture’s call for teaching and exposition (e.g., Nehemiah 8:8, where the Levites “gave the sense” of the Law). Paul’s instruction to Timothy to “devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13, ESV) presupposes interpretive aids as instrumental to understanding. However, these tools remain ministerial, not magisterial; they assist in elucidating Scripture but lack inherent authority apart from it.
The mistaken notion that Sola Scriptura renders the Bible the only court of appeal fails to distinguish between sufficiency and exclusivity. Scripture is sufficient as the final norm (2 Timothy 3:16–17), but it does not exclude provisional judgments by human interpreters or ecclesiastical bodies. The Reformers themselves—Luther with his catechisms, Calvin with his Institutes, and the framers of confessions like the Augsburg and Belgic—relied heavily on such aids while maintaining Scripture’s supremacy. The error lies in assuming that affirming Scripture as the ultimate authority negates all subordinate courts, when in fact it orders them hierarchically beneath the divine Word.
The Church Fathers on Scripture;
Listed below are several early Church Fathers whose writings reflect a view of Scripture consonant with the principles of Sola Scriptura as articulated above—namely, that Scripture is the ultimate, infallible authority for faith and practice, sufficient in itself, and the final norm by which all teachings are judged. While the term Sola Scriptura is a Reformation-era formulation, these Fathers demonstrate a high view of Scripture’s primacy and sufficiency, often subordinating other authorities to its judgment. I will provide specific quotations and contextualize their views in relation to the foregoing defense.
1. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD)
Irenaeus, in his polemic against Gnostic heresies, emphasized Scripture’s authority and sufficiency as the standard for orthodoxy. In Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1.1), he writes:
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
Here, Irenaeus identifies Scripture as the definitive repository of apostolic teaching, the “ground and pillar” of faith—a phrase echoing 1 Timothy 3:15 but applied to the written Word. He further asserts its normative role in Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 28.2):
“When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church; for the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth: and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life… But since we have the writings of the apostles, why should we seek further?”
Irenaeus does not deny the Church’s role but insists that its authority derives from Scripture, aligning with the notion of Scripture as the final court of appeal.
2. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 AD)
Athanasius, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy, consistently upheld Scripture as the ultimate standard. In his Festal Letter 39 (367 AD), where he delineates the canon, he states:
“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from them.”
This affirmation of Scripture’s sufficiency (“in these alone”) and exclusivity as the source of doctrine mirrors 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In On the Incarnation (Section 5), he further writes:
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”
Athanasius’s reliance on Scripture to refute Arianism—often citing texts like John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3—demonstrates its role as the final arbiter, even amidst conciliar debates, aligning with the hierarchical ordering of authorities under Scripture.
3. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)
Augustine’s high view of Scripture is well-documented, particularly in his emphasis on its authority over human tradition or reason. In On Christian Doctrine (Book II, Chapter 9), he asserts:
“Among those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture are to be found all those which concern faith and the conduct of life… Whatever a man may learn from other sources, if it is hurtful, it is there condemned; if it is useful, it is therein contained.”
This reflects the sufficiency and normativity of Scripture as articulated in Psalm 19:7–9. Augustine also subordinatesthe Church’s interpretive role to Scripture in Letter 82 (to Jerome):
“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. But although I give honor to the Church, I do not set it above the Scriptures, which even the Church herself confesses to be her judge.”
Here, Augustine echoes Acts 17:11, affirming Scripture as the final court of appeal, to which even ecclesiastical authority submits.
4. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386 AD)
Cyril, in his Catechetical Lectures (Lecture IV, Section 17), instructs his catechumens with a clear affirmation of Scripture’s primacy:
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”
Cyril’s insistence on Scriptural proof as the basis for doctrine aligns with Isaiah 8:20 and the Berean example, rejecting any teaching not demonstrably rooted in Scripture. His view precludes the elevation of human reason or tradition to coequal status, reinforcing Scripture’s role as the ultimate norm.
5. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD)
Chrysostom, known for his expository preaching, frequently extolled Scripture’s sufficiency and authority. In his Homily 9 on 2 Timothy (on 2 Timothy 3:16–17), he writes:
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable… that the man of God may be perfect. If it is profitable for these things, then it is sufficient for all things. For if it can make the man of God perfect, what need has he of anything else?”
This directly parallels the defense from 2 Timothy 3:16–17, affirming Scripture’s completeness for equipping believers. In Homily 1 on Matthew, he adds:
“To everything that is said, we must refer to the Scriptures; for thus we shall best detect falsehood and establish truth.”
Chrysostom’s practice of grounding doctrine and ethics in Scripture reflects its status as the final court of appeal, consistent with the hierarchical model articulated earlier.
Thus, Sola Scriptura upholds Scripture as the final court of appeal, not the only one. It invites the church to employ reason, tradition, and conciliar wisdom as secondary norms (norma normata, “norms that are normed”), always subject to correction and alignment with the infallible standard of God-breathed Scripture.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
From a conservative Christian perspective, the as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)” can be seen as woefully deficient because it frames the term in a way that prioritizes secular, progressive concerns over biblical principles and eternal truths.
An analysis of the Merriam-Webster definition of “woke:”
First, the definition emphasizes “racial and social justice” as the central focus, which conservative Christians might argue reflects a worldview rooted in human-centered ideology rather than God-centered theology. Scripture, they would say, calls believers to prioritize justice as defined by God—grounded in righteousness, personal responsibility, and reconciliation through Christ (Micah 6:8, Romans 3:26)—not as redefined by contemporary social movements. The “woke” lens, in their view, often elevates group identity and systemic grievances over individual sin and redemption, which are the heart of the Christian gospel.
Second, the phrase “important facts and issues” leaves out any mention of spiritual realities—sin, salvation, or the Kingdom of God—which a conservative Christian would consider the most important facts of all. By focusing solely on temporal societal issues, the definition risks reducing human purpose to activism rather than worship and obedience to God. Jesus Himself said, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), suggesting a hierarchy of priorities that transcends earthly justice campaigns.
Third, the term “actively attentive” implies a call to action that aligns with progressive activism—protests, policy advocacy, or cultural critique—rather than the transformative inner work of faith, prayer, and discipleship that conservative Christians often emphasize. They might argue that true awareness comes from being “awake” to God’s truth (Ephesians 5:14), not to a shifting slate of political causes.
Finally, many conservative Christians see “woke” ideology as inherently divisive, clashing with the biblical call to unity in Christ (Galatians 3:28). They contend that the dictionary’s framing endorses a mindset that fuels resentment and victimhood rather than forgiveness and grace, which are central to Christian teaching.
In short, from this perspective, the definition isn’t just incomplete—it’s a symptom of a broader cultural drift away from God’s design, dressing up ideological trends as moral imperatives while ignoring the deeper spiritual battle at play.
Are you Woke? What does this mean?
Wokeism, a modern sociopolitical ideology, emphasizes identity politics, systemic oppression, and social justice through a lens of progressive activism. While its proponents argue it seeks equity and liberation, a conservative biblical-theological perspective reveals fundamental incompatibilities with scriptural principles. Below is a rebuttal grounded in key biblical themes: human nature, sin, salvation, and God’s design for justice and society.
First, Wokeism’s anthropology—its view of humanity—clashes with the Bible’s teaching. Scripture declares that all people are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), equal in dignity and worth, yet universally fallen due to sin (Romans 3:23). Wokeism, however, categorizes individuals primarily by group identity—race, gender, or class—assigning moral value based on perceived oppression or privilege. This contradicts the biblical truth that our core identity is not in earthly distinctions but in our relation to God. Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The gospel unifies across human divisions, while Wokeism amplifies them, fostering resentment rather than reconciliation.
Second, Wokeism misunderstands sin and guilt. The Bible frames sin as an individual and cosmic problem—rebellion against God (Isaiah 53:6)—for which all are accountable. Woke ideology, by contrast, often attributes guilt collectively based on historical actions of one’s group (e.g., “white privilege” or “systemic racism”). This concept of inherited, unearned guilt contradicts Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the father’s iniquity.” While Scripture acknowledges corporate consequences of sin (e.g., Exodus 20:5), it rejects the idea that individuals bear personal culpability for others’ actions absent repentance or restitution, which Wokeism rarely emphasizes.
Third, Wokeism offers a false salvation. The Bible teaches that redemption comes solely through Christ’s atoning work (John 14:6; Ephesians 2:8-9), transforming individuals and, through them, society. Wokeism, however, proposes secular salvation through activism, reparations, or dismantling systems deemed oppressive. This mirrors the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11)—a human attempt to achieve utopia apart from God. Scripture warns against such self-reliance: “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1). True justice flows from hearts aligned with God, not from endless deconstruction.
Finally, Wokeism’s vision of justice deviates from God’s. Biblical justice is rooted in God’s character—righteous, impartial, and merciful (Deuteronomy 32:4; Micah 6:8). It seeks restoration, not retribution, as seen in Christ’s command to love enemies (Matthew 5:44). Woke justice, however, often demands punitive measures against perceived oppressors, prioritizing power redistribution over reconciliation. This breeds division, contradicting the biblical call to “seek peace and pursue it” (1 Peter 3:11). Moreover, Wokeism’s relativism—where truth bends to lived experience—undermines the absolute authority of God’s Word (John 17:17).
In summary, Wokeism offers a counterfeit gospel: it redefines identity apart from God, misdiagnoses sin, pursues salvation through human effort, and distorts justice into vengeance. A conservative biblical theology rejects this framework, holding fast to the sufficiency of Scripture and the transformative power of Christ. True liberation comes not through ideology, but through the cross—where all are made equal, forgiven, and called to live under God’s reign.
Definitions:
In academic terms, “wokeism” lacks a singular, universally accepted definition, as its meaning shifts depending on the ideological lens through which it is viewed. Below, I present two distinct definitions rooted in the perspectives requested: first, from the framework of woke social justice, and second, from conservative biblical scholarship.
From the perspective of woke social justice, wokeism can be understood as an ideological and cultural framework centered on heightened awareness of systemic injustices embedded within societal structures, particularly those perpetuating oppression based on race, gender, sexuality, and class. It emphasizes intersectionality—the interconnected nature of these identity-based oppressions—and calls for active resistance against hegemonic power dynamics, often through deconstructing traditional norms, advocating for equity over equality, and amplifying marginalized voices. Proponents position wokeism as a moral imperative to dismantle patriarchal, colonial, and capitalist systems, viewing it as a progressive evolution of ethical consciousness informed by critical theory, postcolonial studies, and feminist scholarship.
Conversely, conservative biblical scholarship defines wokeism as a secular, postmodern ideology that conflicts with traditional Christian orthodoxy and biblical authority. It is critiqued as a worldview that prioritizes subjective human experience and identity politics over divine revelation, universal truth, and moral absolutes as articulated in Scripture. Scholars in this tradition argue that wokeism replaces the biblical narrative of sin and redemption with a socio-political framework of oppressors and oppressed, undermining individual responsibility and the centrality of faith in Christ. They often characterize it as a form of cultural Marxism or a quasi-religious movement that elevates temporal justice above eternal salvation, citing passages like Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) to assert unity in Christ over identity divisions.
Some Relevant Comments:\
1st quote
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
This is what I mean by the woke mind virus. The more I learn, the more insidious and deadly it appears.
Maybe the biggest existential danger to humanity is having it programmed into the AI, as is the case for every AI besides @Grok. Even for Grok, it’s tough to remove, because there is so much woke content on the internet.
For example, when other AIs were asked whether global thermonuclear war or misgendering was worse, they picked the latter. The existential problem with that extrapolation is that a super powerful AI could decide that the only 100% certain way to stop misgendering is to kill all humans.
2/26/2025 on X
2nd quote
ELON: THE WOKE MIND VIRUS IS CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL MENTAL CIVIL WAR
“To summarize the woke mind virus, it consists of creating very, very divisive identity politics.
It actually amplifies racism, it amplifies sexism and all the -isms, while claiming to do the opposite.
It actually divides people and makes them hate each other, and it makes people hate themselves.
It’s also anti-meritocratic, it’s not merit-based.
You want to have people succeed based on how hard they work and their talents, not who they are, whether they’re a man, woman, what race or gender.
It’s an artificial mental civil war that is created. And let me tell you, it’s no fun.
Woke mind virus and fun are incompatible. There’s no fun in that, no joy.
The woke mind virus is all about condemning people instead of celebrating people.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon
Exodus 12 and the Sacrificial Lamb By Jack Kettler
The story of the sacrificial lamb in the context of the Passover narrative in Exodus 12 can be richly understood through the redemptive-historical method, which emphasizes the continuity and progression of God’s redemptive plan throughout biblical history. Here’s an exegesis:
Textual Context (Exodus 12:1-13, 21-27)
Exodus 12 introduces the Passover, which marks the tenth and final plague on Egypt – the death of the firstborn. This event is pivotal as it leads to the liberation of the Israelites from slavery.
Historical Setting:
· The Israelites are enslaved in Egypt, crying out under their oppression (Exodus 2:23-25). God hears their cries and sets in motion a plan to deliver them, culminating in the events of Passover.
Narrative Details:
Institution of the Passover (Exodus 12:1-6):
Date: The Lord specifies the month of Abib (later called Nisan) as Israel’s beginning of the year, setting the stage for an annual commemoration.
· Lamb Selection: Each household is to take a lamb or a kid (from sheep or goats) on the tenth day of the month, ensuring it is without blemish. This symbolizes purity and perfection.
Sacrifice and Application of Blood (Exodus 12:6-7, 21-23):
· Slaughter: On the fourteenth day at twilight, the lamb is killed. The act of killing a perfect lamb points to the cost of sin and the necessity of substitutionary atonement.
· Blood Application: The blood of the lamb is to be smeared on the doorposts and lintels of the houses where they eat it. This act serves as a sign to protect the Israelites from the destroyer passing over their homes.
The Meal (Exodus 12:8-11):
· Roasted Lamb: The lamb must be roasted whole, eaten with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, which signifies the haste of departure and the bitterness of slavery.
· Preparation: They are to eat it in a state of readiness – belts on waists, sandals on feet, and staff in hand, anticipating a swift exit from Egypt.
Instruction for Remembrance (Exodus 12:14, 24-27):
Annual Feast: The Passover is to be a perpetual ordinance, with each generation taught the reasons for the feast, linking their current practices to their historical redemption.
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation:
· Typology of Christ: The lamb without blemish prefigures Jesus Christ, referred to in the New Testament as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). This connection is explicitly made in 1 Corinthians 5:7, where Christ is our Passover lamb.
· Redemption and Covenant: The blood of the lamb on the doorposts signifies the protection and redemption of Israel under God’s covenant promise. It’s a physical manifestation of God’s grace, where the blood serves as a barrier against death, symbolizing salvation through substitution.
· From Slavery to Freedom: The narrative moves from the theme of slavery (physical and spiritual) to liberation, echoing God’s overarching plan to redeem humanity from the bondage of sin, as later fully realized in Christ’s work.
· Continuity of God’s Plan: The Passover ritual becomes a foundational event for Israel’s identity, worship, and ethical life, setting a pattern for later Old Testament feasts and sacrifices, which all point towards the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus.
· Educational and Communal Aspect: The command to teach the story to future generations underscores the communal and educational dimensions of God’s redemptive acts. It ensures that the story of salvation is passed down, maintaining continuity in faith and practice.
Classical Christian commentators and their interpretations of the Passover narrative in Exodus 12:
Historical comments on Exodus 12:
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254):
Origen sees the lamb as a prefigurement of Christ. In his “Homilies on Exodus,” he interprets the lamb’s perfection (without blemish) as symbolizing Christ’s sinless nature. For him, the blood on the doorposts represents the cross of Christ, protecting believers from spiritual death.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430):
In his “City of God,” Augustine views the Passover lamb as a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice. He discusses how the lamb’s blood signifies the protection and redemption offered through Christ’s blood. Augustine also notes the annual remembrance of Passover as a type of the Christian Eucharist, where Christ’s death is commemorated.
John Chrysostom (c. 347-407):
In his “Homilies on Genesis” (though he comments broadly on Old Testament narratives), Chrysostom sees the Passover as a significant type of redemption through Christ. He emphasizes the lamb’s perfection and the act of eating it in haste as signs of readiness for salvation and the spiritual journey of the Christian life.
Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444):
Cyril, in his “Commentary on the Gospel of John,” directly connects the Passover lamb to Christ when discussing John 1:29 (“Behold the Lamb of God”). He interprets the blood of the lamb as protecting the Israelites from the angel of death, paralleling this with how Christ’s blood saves believers from eternal death.
Gregory the Great (c. 540-604):
In his “Moralia in Job,” Gregory interprets the Passover in a moral and spiritual sense. He sees the lamb as Christ, whose blood is smeared on the spiritual “doorposts” of the heart, protecting it from sin and damnation. The unleavened bread symbolizes sincerity and truth, the bitter herbs the bitterness of penance.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):
In his “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas discusses the typological significance of the Old Testament sacrifices, including the Passover lamb. He elaborates on how the lamb prefigures Christ in sacrifice (by its death), in the perfection of its nature (without blemish), and in the deliverance it brings (from death).
Martin Luther (1483-1546):
Luther, in his “Lectures on Genesis,” while not directly commenting on Exodus, frequently draws parallels between Old Testament sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice. For him, the Passover lamb is a clear foreshadowing of Christ’s work on the cross, emphasizing faith in this sacrifice for salvation.
John Calvin (1509-1564):
As mentioned earlier, Calvin, in his “Commentary on Exodus,” explicitly links the Passover lamb to Christ, emphasizing the lamb’s perfection as indicative of Christ’s sinlessness. He also sees the Passover as an ordinance for remembrance, akin to the Lord’s Supper in Christian practice.
These commentators provide a spectrum of interpretations from typological to moral, with a consistent theme drawing the Passover narrative into the Christian understanding of Christ’s redeeming work. Each sees in the text prophetic elements pointing to the salvation offered through Jesus Christ.
Additional Bible passages with similar redemptive-historical implications, where Old Testament events, figures, or rituals prefigure or are fulfilled in New Testament realities:
1. Genesis 22:1-14 – The Binding of Isaac (Aqedah):
Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac parallels God’s sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. The ram caught in the thicket is seen as a type of Christ, provided as a substitute.
2. Leviticus 16:1-34 – The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur):
The rituals, especially the scapegoat bearing the sins of Israel, are seen as foreshadowing Christ’s atoning work, which carries away the sins of the world.
3. Numbers 21:4-9 – The Bronze Serpent:
The lifting up of the bronze serpent for healing from snake bites typifies Christ’s crucifixion, where those who look to Him in faith are saved from the deadly poison of sin.
4. Joshua 6 – The Fall of Jericho:
The walls of Jericho falling after the Israelites marched around it with the ark of the covenant can symbolize the breaking down of barriers through Christ’s work, leading to the salvation of believers.
5. Psalm 22 – The Suffering Servant:
This Psalm, with its detailed description of suffering akin to crucifixion, is often seen as prophetic of Christ’s passion on the cross, particularly verses like “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
6. Isaiah 53 – The Suffering Servant (again, due to its significance):
Describes a figure whose suffering and death atone for the sins of many, explicitly tied to Jesus in New Testament interpretations (e.g., Acts 8:32-35).
7. Jonah 1:17 – 2:10 – Jonah in the Belly of the Fish:
Jesus uses Jonah’s three days in the fish as a sign of His own death and resurrection after three days (Matthew 12:40), symbolizing death and rebirth.
8. Zechariah 9:9 – The Triumphal Entry:
Predicts a king coming on a donkey, directly fulfilled in Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11), symbolizing peace and humility.
9. Zechariah 13:7 – The Shepherd Struck:
“Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered,” which Jesus references in Matthew 26:31, pointing to His arrest and the dispersal of His disciples, prefiguring His death for His flock.
10. Malachi 3:1 – The Messenger of the Covenant:
Speaks of a messenger preparing the way before the Lord, which Christians see fulfilled in John the Baptist, whose ministry heralds the arrival of Christ, the ultimate purifier.
These passages illustrate how the Old Testament is replete with narratives, prophecies, and symbols that find their ultimate fulfillment or explanation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, underlining the continuity of God’s redemptive plan through history.
In summary:
Through the redemptive-historical lens, the Passover lamb in Exodus 12 is not merely an ancient ritual but a profound theological statement about God’s plan of redemption. It foreshadows Jesus’s ultimate sacrifice and serves as a perpetual reminder of God’s deliverance, covenant, and call to live in freedom and holiness.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Gary DeMar: An Overview and Analysis of “Prophecy Wars” By Jack Kettler
Biographical Background:
Gary DeMar is a significant figure in Christian theological scholarship, particularly noted for his contributions to eschatology and Christian worldview studies. Born in 1950, DeMar graduated from Western Michigan University in 1973 and later earned his Master of Divinity from Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He further pursued his studies, obtaining a Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual History from Whitefield Theological Seminary in 2007. DeMar is known for his role as an author, speaker, and president of American Vision, an organization focused on promoting a comprehensive biblical worldview.
Thematic Focus:
DeMar’s scholarly work predominantly explores themes of eschatology, biblical prophecy, and Christian reconstructionism. His approach often contrasts with popular interpretations of the end times by emphasizing preterist views, which assert that many biblical prophecies, especially those related to the end times, were fulfilled in the first century AD.
“Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times” – Overview:
“Prophecy Wars” represents a pivotal work in DeMar’s oeuvre. It was published following his participation in a symposium titled “Revelation: An Evangelical Symposium” in Reno, Nevada, on February 23, 2013. This book serves as a response to the presentations and discussions from this event, where DeMar, alongside theologians Sam Waldron and James Hamilton, debated the interpretation of eschatological texts, particularly from the Book of Revelation.
Content and Structure:
· Time Texts and Audience Reference: He dissects the temporal indicators in the Gospels that suggest prophecies were directed at the first-century audience, specifically concerning the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.
· Prophetic Signs: DeMar argues that the signs Jesus described were fulfilled in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
· The Use of “This Generation”: He challenges interpretations that extend this term to future generations, proposing instead that it refers specifically to the generation contemporary with Jesus.
· Critique of Contemporary Eschatology: DeMar counters common misinterpretations by engaging with theological arguments from both historical premillennialism and amillennialism, as presented by his symposium co-participants.
Engagement with Critics:
DeMar directly addresses the criticisms and claims made by scholars like James Hamilton, particularly the contention that preterism (the view DeMar advocates) relies heavily on post-event historical accounts by Josephus rather than scriptural exegesis. DeMar defends his position by returning to the biblical text, emphasizing its internal evidence for first-century fulfillment.
Theological Implications:
The book not only attempts to clarify and defend preterist interpretations but also aims to encourage a re-examination of how Christians understand and apply eschatological teachings. DeMar’s critique extends to the broader implications of eschatological beliefs on Christian living and political involvement, advocating for an active, transformative presence of Christians in society rather than a passive wait for apocalyptic events.
Critical Reception:
While “Prophecy Wars” has been received positively by those within the preterist and Christian Reconstructionist communities, it has spurred debate among those holding to dispensational premillennial views of eschatology. Critics often question DeMar’s hermeneutical approach, particularly his handling of the term “generation” and his dismissal of future-oriented prophecy. Conversely, supporters applaud the book for its scholarly rigor and its challenge to what they see as overly speculative end-times theology.
Conclusion:
Gary DeMar’s “Prophecy Wars” is not merely a defense of preterism but an academic call to revisit biblical prophecy with an emphasis on historical context. It serves as a significant contribution to the ongoing scholarly debate on eschatology, urging a reconsideration of long-held interpretations in light of textual evidence and historical events. Through this work, DeMar continues to shape discussions on how Christians interpret the end times and engage with the world from their theological stance.
For more study: The meaning of “this generation:”
“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.’ (Matthew 24:34) (Bolding and underlining mine)
To exegete Matthew 24:34 using the grammatical-historical method, particularly in light of Preterism, one must consider the text’s linguistic, cultural, and historical contexts:
Textual Analysis:
Translation: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (KJV)
Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (Amen legō hymin) – “Truly I say to you,” a phrase used by Jesus to emphasize the truth and certainty of what follows.
οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ (ou mē parelthē) – A double negative construction (“not, not”), indicating a strong negative assertion, “will certainly not pass.”
ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη (hē genea hautē) – “This generation,” where “γενεὰ” (genea) is the focal point.
ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται (heōs an panta tauta genētai) – “until all these things happen,” with “πάντα ταῦτα” (panta tauta) referring back to the events described earlier in the chapter.
Grammatical Considerations:
Genea (γενεὰ): This Greek word can mean:
· A single generation in time (about 40 years, based on human lifespan).
· A race or family line.
· A class or kind of people.
In Matthew, “genea” is consistently used to refer to the contemporary generation, those living at the time of Jesus’ ministry:
· Matthew 11:16 uses “genea” to describe the people Jesus was speaking to.
· Matthew 12:41, 42 contrasts the current generation with those of Jonah and Solomon.
· Matthew 17:17 and 23:36 also imply the generation contemporaneous with Jesus.
· Contextual Use: In Matthew 24, Jesus directly addresses His disciples about signs and events leading up to the destruction of the temple, which historically occurred in AD 70.
· The use of “this generation” here would naturally refer to those alive during His discourse.
Historical Context:
· Audience and Timing: Jesus’ audience included His immediate disciples and others who would have understood “this generation” as their own. The discourse in Matthew 24 responds to questions about the temple’s destruction and His coming, events that, from a Preterist perspective, were fulfilled within the first-century context.
· AD 70 Destruction: Preterists see the Romans’ destruction of the temple as the fulfillment of “all these things.” This historical event aligns with the timeframe of “this generation,” if one interprets “generation” as the period from approximately 30 AD to 70 AD.
Support from Matthew’s Usage:
· Consistency: Matthew uses “genea” in contexts where it undeniably refers to the contemporaries of Jesus (e.g., Matthew 11:16, 12:41-42, 17:17, 23:36). This consistent pattern supports the Preterist view that “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 refers to the generation of Jesus’ time.
· Prophetic Fulfillment: Preterists argue that the signs and events described in Matthew 24 (false prophets, wars, famines, etc.) were all witnessed by that generation, culminating in the fall of Jerusalem, thus fulfilling the prophecy within the lifetime of those to whom Jesus was speaking.
Conclusion:
Applying the grammatical-historical method to Matthew 24:34, the term “this generation” aligns with Preterist interpretations by focusing on the immediate historical context and the consistent use of “genea” in Matthew’s Gospel to refer to Jesus’ contemporaries. This interpretation sees the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy within the first century, specifically with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, rather than projecting it into a distant future.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Can Christians be involved in the arts and politics? By Jack Kettler
The question of whether Christians can be involved in the arts can be explored from both theological and historical perspectives, with a foundation in biblical principles.
Theological Justification:
1. Creation and Creativity: The Bible begins with the act of creation by God, as described in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This act of creation sets a precedent for creativity being inherently part of the divine image in which humans are made (Genesis 1:27). If humans are made in the image of a creative God, then artistic expression can be seen as a reflection of this divine attribute. Psalm 139:14 further emphasizes the beauty of creation, suggesting an appreciation for aesthetics and beauty, which the arts often seek to express.
2. Artistic Skills in the Construction of the Tabernacle: Exodus 31:1-5 describes how Bezalel was filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and all manner of workmanship to devise artistic works in gold, silver, and bronze. This passage indicates that God not only endorses but divinely gifts individuals with artistic talents for sacred purposes, directly linking art with divine service.
3. Praise and Worship: Psalms, often considered poetry, are a form of art used in worship. The Psalms are filled with expressions of emotion, beauty, and truth, which are fundamental to artistic expression.
4. Parables and Storytelling: Jesus Christ used parables, which can be viewed as an art form of storytelling, to convey spiritual truths (Matthew 13). This use of narrative arts by Jesus demonstrates that storytelling, a key component of many art forms, can be a vehicle for teaching, moral reflection, and spiritual growth.
Historical Context:
· Throughout history, Christian art has played a significant role in the church, from the stained glass windows of medieval cathedrals to Western Christianity. These artistic expressions have not only served aesthetic purposes but have been instrumental in teaching the faith to the illiterate, conveying theological concepts, and fostering communal identity.
Defensive Against Criticism:
· Some might argue that involvement in the arts could lead to idolatry or distraction from spiritual matters. However, this concern can be addressed by ensuring that artistic endeavors are directed towards glorifying God, educating the community about faith, or reflecting on the human condition in light of biblical truths. Colossians 3:17 advises, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” This suggests that all activities, including arts, can be sanctified when performed with the right intention.
In conclusion:
From a biblical standpoint, Christians can and are encouraged to participate in the arts as part of their worship, service, and reflection of God’s creative image. The arts can be a profound means of expressing faith, teaching doctrine, and engaging with the broader culture in a manner consistent with Christian values.
Title: Christian Participation in Politics: A Biblical Examination
Introduction:
The question of whether Christians can engage in politics is both historically relevant and theologically complex. This discussion will explore the biblical foundations that either support or challenge Christian involvement in political spheres.
Biblical Considerations:
1. Render Unto Caesar (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21):
· Jesus’ response to the Pharisees regarding taxes, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” suggests a level of engagement with secular governance. This statement acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of political authority, implicitly sanctioning involvement to some degree.
2. Paul’s Instruction to Authorities (Romans 13:1-7):
· Paul explicitly instructs Christians to submit to governing authorities, which are described as “instituted by God.” This text forms a primary argument for Christian political involvement, suggesting that by participating in politics, Christians can influence these God-ordained structures for good.
3. Leadership and Wisdom (Proverbs 8:15-16):
· Proverbs states, “By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just.” Here, wisdom, personified, claims authority over rulers, implying that Christians, who should seek wisdom, have a role in governance to ensure justice.
4. Prophetic Roles in Society (Amos 5:24):
· The prophet Amos calls for justice to “roll down like waters,” indicating a prophetic duty to speak about societal and political issues. This suggests not just passive acceptance but active engagement in advocating for justice.
5. Daniel and Joseph: Political Figures in the Bible:
· Both Daniel and Joseph were placed in high political offices in foreign governments. Their roles involved navigating political landscapes to serve God’s purposes, demonstrating that political involvement can be part of a divine mission.
Counterarguments:
1. Separation from Worldly Systems:
· Some interpretations of scriptures like 2 Corinthians 6:17 (“Come out from them and be separate”) might suggest a withdrawal from worldly systems including politics. However, this passage primarily addresses moral and spiritual separation rather than physical or societal disengagement.
2. Temptation of Power:
· The Bible warns of the corrupting influence of power (1 Samuel 8:10-22), which might lead some to argue against Christians engaging in politics where such temptations are rife. Yet, this can also be seen as a call for vigilance rather than abstention.
A specific argument against involvement in politics or voting:
The country was not started as a Christian nation; therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics.
The assertion that “the country was not started as a Christian nation; therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics” can be refuted on both biblical and logical grounds as follows:
Biblical Refutation:
1. Christian Civic Responsibility:
· Scriptures advocate for the engagement of Christians in civic duties. Romans 13:1-7 explicitly states the need to submit to governing authorities, which implies active participation in the political system to ensure these authorities are just and God-fearing. This passage does not suggest withdrawal from political involvement but rather engagement to promote good governance.
· 1 Timothy 2:1-2 instructs believers to pray for those in authority so that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This directive inherently involves understanding and influencing the political landscape to foster an environment conducive to Christian living.
· Jesus’ command to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17) implies a dual responsibility where Christians are to be involved in secular affairs while maintaining spiritual fidelity.
2. Biblical Examples of Political Engagement:
· The prophet Daniel’s involvement in the Babylonian and Persian courts (Daniel chapters 1-6) illustrates how a faithful servant of God can engage in politics without compromising his faith, thereby serving as a model for Christian political involvement.
· Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41-50) used his administrative role to enact policies that saved many lives, demonstrating that political power can be used for moral and beneficial ends.
Logical Refutation:
1. Historical Context vs. Modern Application:
· Even if one were to argue that the country was not founded explicitly as a Christian nation, this does not logically preclude Christian participation in modern governance. The nature and role of a nation can evolve, and Christians have the responsibility to contribute to this development in line with their values and ethics.
2. Separation of Church and State:
· The concept of separation of church and state in the U.S. context ensures that the government does not establish religion, but it does not bar individuals from bringing their religious convictions into the public square or influencing policy according to those convictions. Therefore, Christians are free to engage in politics to reflect their faith within the bounds of secular law.
3. Moral Influence in Governance:
· Christians have historically influenced laws and societal norms towards justice, peace, and human dignity based on Judeo-Christian ethics. Abstaining from politics would relinquish this influence, potentially leading to policies contrary to Christian teachings on human values, justice, and compassion.
4. Voting as Moral Action:
· Voting is an act of moral agency where Christians can express their values in the public sphere. Not voting would be to abdicate this responsibility, which contradicts the Christian call to be “salt and light” in the world (Matthew 5:13-16), influencing it positively.
The statement “The country was not started as a Christian nation; therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics” contains a logical fallacy known as non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”). Here’s how:
Premise: “The country was not started as a Christian nation.”
Conclusion: “Therefore, a Christian should not vote or engage in politics.”
The fallacy lies in the fact that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Here’s why:
1. Irrelevance of Historical Foundation to Current Participation: The historical foundation of a country, whether it was established with or without religious intent, does not directly dictate the appropriateness of religious individuals participating in its political processes. The premise might be about the origins or initial intent of the nation, but this does not inherently relate to the rights or duties of individuals based on their religious beliefs today.
2. Rights and Duties: Modern democratic societies generally uphold the right of all citizens, regardless of religion, to participate in political processes like voting or engaging in politics. The premise does not address whether the country’s founders intended to exclude Christians from political participation; it only states the country’s founding wasn’t explicitly Christian. This does not logically lead to a conclusion about the participation of Christians in current political activities.
3. Assumption of Exclusivity: The conclusion assumes that only nations founded with explicit Christian principles should allow Christian political involvement, which is an arbitrary and unfounded restriction on personal freedoms and civic duties. This assumption overlooks the principle of separation of church and state, where individuals can hold and act upon their religious beliefs while participating in secular governance.
4. Misconception About Civic Duty: Voting and political engagement are seen as civic duties or rights in many democratic systems, not contingent on the religious nature of the state’s founding. The argument fails to recognize that Christian values might include civic participation as a form of stewardship or service to the community.
In summary, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise because a country’s historical religious identity (or lack thereof) does not dictate individuals’ political participation rights or duties based on their current religious beliefs. This fallacy is a clear example of a non sequitur, where the connection between the premise and conclusion is missing or illogical.
In conclusion:
The assertion that Christians should not engage in politics due to the non-Christian founding of a nation is neither supported by biblical texts advocating civic involvement nor by logical reasoning concerning contemporary societal roles and influences. Instead, both scripture and logic suggest Christians should actively participate in political processes to uphold and promote Christian values.
In Summary:
Biblically, there is a strong foundation for Christian involvement in politics. The mandates to submit to, respect, and even influence political authorities for the sake of justice and righteousness are clear. However, this involvement must be approached with discernment, aiming not at personal gain or the accumulation of power but at the service of God’s will for human society. The biblical narrative supports Christians not only participating but actively shaping political landscapes in accordance with divine principles of justice, mercy, and humility.
While the Bible does not provide a comprehensive political theory, it offers principles that can guide Christian engagement in politics. This involvement should be reflective, prayerful, and focused on embodying the teachings of Christ and the prophets in the public square.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Church Membership: is it an Option? By Jack Kettler
From a Reformed theological perspective, the requirement for church membership can be robustly defended on several grounds, including scriptural mandate, covenantal theology, ecclesiastical accountability, and the communal nature of Christian life.
Scriptural Mandate:
1. Hebrews 10:24-25 explicitly encourages believers not to forsake the assembling together, as is the habit of some, but to exhort one another. This passage underscores the necessity of communal worship and mutual edification, which are foundational to church membership.
2. 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 likens the church to a body with many parts, each part integral to the functioning of the whole. This metaphor supports the idea that each member has a role within the church, suggesting an organized and committed membership.
3. Acts 2:41-47 describes the early church where those who received Peter’s word were baptized, and they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer. This passage indicates a form of membership where individuals were recognized as part of a distinct community.
Covenantal Theology:
Reformed theology emphasizes the continuity of the covenant from the Old Testament to the New. Just as the covenant community in the Old Testament was marked by circumcision and participation in the feasts, the New Testament church is marked by baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper. Membership in the church is thus seen as participation in the new covenant community, where believers are bound together under the covenantal headship of Christ.
· Baptism serves as the entry rite into the visible church, symbolizing the covenantal relationship between God and His people. This sacrament necessitates a formal recognition within the church body, hence the need for membership.
· The Lord’s Supper is reserved for those within the covenant community, reinforcing the idea that membership is not merely a social contract but a covenantal commitment.
Ecclesiastical Accountability:
Membership provides a framework for pastoral oversight and discipline, which are essential for the sanctification of believers:
· Matthew 18:15-17 outlines a process for dealing with sin within the church community, which requires a clear recognition of who is under the church’s jurisdiction. Without membership, this discipline would be ambiguous.
· Hebrews 13:17 calls for obedience to church leaders who keep watch over souls, implying a structured relationship where leaders are responsible for the spiritual welfare of those they lead, which is facilitated through membership.
Communal Nature of Christian Life:
· The Christian life is not meant to be lived in isolation but in community, where members are to use their gifts for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7). Church membership formally recognizes these gifts and roles:
· Ephesians 4:11-16 speaks of the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ. Membership ensures that individuals are integrated into this equipping process, contributing to and benefiting from the collective spiritual growth.
· Galatians 6:2 instructs believers to bear one another’s burdens, which is practically enabled through the structure of church membership, where needs and capabilities are known and coordinated.
Main Arguments Against Church Membership:
One of the primary arguments against formal church membership is the notion that it is unbiblical. Critics argue that:
1. The Bible does not explicitly command formal church membership. They point out that there are no clear scriptural directives for joining a church with a formal process or signing a membership covenant.
2. Membership can lead to legalism or exclusivity. Some argue that formal membership might create an “us versus them” mentality, potentially excluding those who might benefit from the church community but do not wish to commit formally.
3. The emphasis should be on the universal church, not local institutions. There’s a belief that the focus should be on the spiritual unity of all believers under Christ rather than on local, organized memberships.
Biblical Refutation:
Scriptural Implication of Membership:
· Hebrews 10:24-25: While not using the term “membership,” this passage commands believers to meet together, which implies some form of organized commitment to a local assembly. The warning against forsaking the assembly suggests a recognizable group to which one belongs.
· Acts 2:41-47: After Peter’s sermon, those who believed were baptized and added to their number. The phrasing “added to their number” suggests a formal recognition of new believers within the church community, which could be seen as an early form of membership.
· 1 Corinthians 5:1-13: Paul addresses the need for church discipline, which presupposes a defined body of believers where accountability can be maintained. The command to put out the immoral brother indicates a clear membership boundary.
· Legalism and Exclusivity Refuted:
· Galatians 6:1: Here, the call to restore those caught in sin with gentleness is directed towards “you who are spiritual,” which implies those recognized within the community. Membership isn’t about exclusivity but about fostering a community where mutual care and correction are possible.
· Matthew 18:15-17: The process for dealing with sin involves going to “the church.” If the church is merely an informal gathering without structure, this process would be impractical. Membership ensures there’s a body to whom one can appeal for reconciliation and correction.
Universal Church and Local Church:
· Ephesians 4:11-16: This passage discusses the roles within the church for building up the body of Christ, which refers to both the universal and local expressions of the church. The local church is where these roles are lived out practically, suggesting the need for a committed body where these gifts are recognized and utilized.
· 1 Corinthians 12:12-27: The comparison of the church to a body with many parts underscores the necessity of each member contributing to the whole, which is most effectively done in a local context where relationships are deep, and roles are clear.
· Titus 1:5: Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town, indicating organized local churches where leadership and oversight are established, further supporting the concept of local church membership as part of the broader church.
· Thus, while the term “membership” isn’t explicitly used in Scripture, the principles and practices that accompany it—such as commitment to a local body, accountability, mutual edification, and the exercise of spiritual gifts—are implicitly supported. Formal membership can be seen as a practical application of biblical principles rather than an unbiblical addition.
In Summary:
From a Reformed perspective, church membership is not merely an administrative convenience but a theological imperative grounded in Scripture, reflecting the covenantal nature of God’s relationship with His people, providing a framework for accountability, and fostering the communal life that is intrinsic to Christianity. It is a formal acknowledgment of one’s commitment to a local body of believers, where one can both give and receive spiritual care, ensuring the health and growth of the church as a whole.
The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) requires individuals seeking membership to affirm several vows. These vows are derived from the denomination’s commitment to its doctrinal standards, historical practices, and the biblical mandate for Christian living. Here are the membership vows as typically presented by the RPCNA, along with the reasons for each:
Membership Vows of the RPCNA:
1. Vow of Belief in Scripture:
· Vow: “Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and life?”
· Reason: This vow underscores the RPCNA’s adherence to sola scriptura, affirming the Bible’s authority as the primary and sole rule for belief and practice, which is foundational to Reformed theology.
2. Vow of Faith in Christ:
· Vow: “Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only Redeemer of men, and do you confess Him publicly as your Saviour and Lord?”
· Reason: This reflects the central confession of the Christian faith, acknowledging Jesus Christ’s unique role as both Savior and Sovereign Lord, aligning with the Reformed understanding of the person and work of Christ.
3. Vow of Public Profession and Covenanting:
· Vow: “Do you believe that it is the duty of Christians to profess publicly the content of faith as it applies to the particular needs of each age and situation, and that such public profession, otherwise called covenanting, should be made formally by the churches and other institutions as well as informally by each believer according to his ability?”
· Reason: This vow emphasizes the RPCNA’s historic practice of covenanting, reflecting a commitment to publicly affirm and live out one’s faith in response to cultural and societal contexts, a practice rooted in the Scottish Covenanter tradition.
4. Vow of Doctrinal Adherence:
· Vow: “Do you believe in and accept the system of doctrine and the manner of worship set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as being agreeable to, and founded upon, the Scriptures?”
· Reason: This vow commits members to the doctrinal standards of the RPCNA, which include the Westminster Standards and the church’s own Testimony, ensuring unity in doctrine and worship that is biblically grounded.
5. Vow of Submission to Church Government:
· Vow: “Do you promise subjection in the Lord to the courts of this church, and engage to follow no divisive courses from the doctrine and order which the church has solemnly recognized and adopted; and do you promise to submit to all the brotherly counsel which your brethren may tender you in the Lord?”
· Reason: This vow affirms the Presbyterian form of church governance, emphasizing the importance of unity and submission to the church’s leadership for the sake of order, discipline, and mutual edification, in line with biblical teachings on church authority (Hebrews 13:17).
These vows are intended to:
Affirm Biblical Truth: Ensuring that members are in doctrinal agreement with the church’s teachings.
· Foster Community: By committing to covenant with one another, members pledge to support and be accountable to the body of Christ.
· Promote Order and Discipline: Structured membership allows for the proper exercise of church discipline and pastoral care, which are crucial for the spiritual health of the congregation.
· Encourage Public Witness: The vows encourage members to live out their faith publicly, which is vital for the church’s mission in the world.
· Maintain Historical Continuity: They connect members with the historical and theological heritage of the RPCNA, maintaining continuity of faith and practice through generations.
These reasons reflect the RPCNA’s commitment to a biblically faithful, covenantal, and communally oriented Christian life.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The Incompatibility of Progressivism and the Bible By Jack Kettler
The incompatibility between biblical teachings and the ideologies associated with Progressivism, particularly Communism, can be examined through several theological and doctrinal lenses:
1. Concept of Property and Wealth:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible acknowledges private property and the right to personal wealth. For instance, the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15), implies the existence of personal possessions. Additionally, parables like the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) suggest stewardship over personal resources with an expectation of growth and productivity, contrasting with communal ownership without individual accountability.
· Communist Perspective: Communism advocates for the abolition of private property and the collective ownership of all resources. This fundamental tenet directly opposes the biblical affirmation of personal stewardship and ownership.
2. Work Ethic and Incentive:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible promotes diligence, work, and personal responsibility. Proverbs 14:23 states, “In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty,” underscoring the value of labor. The New Testament also speaks to the moral duty of work (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).
· Communist Perspective: The system often removes personal incentives for work due to equal distribution of goods, potentially leading to decreased productivity and a reliance on state allocation rather than individual initiative.
3. Human Nature and Sin:
· Biblical Perspective: Christianity views humans as inherently sinful (Romans 3:23), necessitating redemption through faith and personal transformation. This view supports structures that account for human fallibility, including checks and balances against corruption.
· Communist Perspective: Communism often assumes a more optimistic view of human nature, suggesting that societal structures can be reformed to eliminate greed and conflict. However, this perspective might not sufficiently account for individual sinfulness, leading to potential abuses of power in practice.
4. Freedom and Autonomy:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible champions freedom, particularly spiritual freedom through Christ (Galatians 5:1), but also respects individual autonomy in moral choices, though guided by divine law.
· Communist Perspective: Communism, in its historical implementations, has often curtailed personal freedoms in favor of collective goals, which can conflict with the biblical notion of free will and personal accountability before God.
5. Charity vs. State-Mandated Redistribution:
· Biblical Perspective: Charity is a voluntary act of love and faith (2 Corinthians 9:7), where giving is cheerful and from the heart, reflecting one’s relationship with God and community.
· Communist Perspective: Redistribution of wealth is mandatory and systematic, lacking the voluntary aspect emphasized in biblical charity, potentially reducing the spiritual significance of giving.
5. Authority and Governance:
· Biblical Perspective: The Bible recognizes the necessity of government (Romans 13:1-7) but emphasizes that its authority is derived from God, with leaders accountable to divine principles.
· Communist Perspective: The state often assumes an omnipotent role in defining moral and economic life, which can lead to the secularization of authority, diminishing the acknowledgment of divine sovereignty.
In conclusion:
While both ideologies might share superficial goals like concern for the poor or community welfare, the methods, underlying philosophies, and understandings of human nature, property, and governance diverge significantly. The biblical perspective often emphasizes individual responsibility, stewardship, and a divine moral order, which opposes the collectivist, materialistic, and often atheistic underpinnings of Communist ideologies.
A review of David Chilton’s Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider:
Introduction:
David Chilton’s “Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators” critiques Ronald J. Sider’s “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger” by offering a counter-narrative rooted in a particular interpretation of biblical theology. Chilton’s work aims to challenge the socio-economic implications suggested by Sider, a socialist advocating instead for a theology that supports individual liberty and free-market economics from a Christian perspective.
Thesis and Argumentation:
Chilton’s central thesis is that based on Christian guilt, Sider’s call for economic redistribution and social justice misinterprets biblical teachings. Chilton argues that the Bible does not endorse socialism or communal ownership but instead supports a form of capitalism underpinned by Christian ethics. His argumentation is structured around several key points:
1. Biblical Exegesis: Chilton engages in scriptural analysis to counter Sider’s interpretations, particularly emphasizing passages that he believes advocate for personal responsibility, stewardship, and property rights. He critiques Sider’s use of selective scriptures to promote economic equality, arguing instead that biblical texts advocate for prosperity through diligence and wise management of resources.
2. Economic Theory: Chilton defends the free market principles, suggesting that economic success is not inherently at odds with Christian values. He posits that charity should be voluntary, not mandated by state or societal pressure, which he identifies as “guilt manipulation.” His economic arguments are underpinned by classical liberal economics, contrasting sharply with Sider’s preference for government intervention.
3. Critique of Guilt Manipulation: A significant aspect of Chilton’s critique is his analysis of how Sider uses guilt to influence Christian behavior. Chilton argues that this tactic is manipulative and not in line with true Christian doctrine, which should foster joy and freedom in giving rather than obligation.
Methodological Approach:
Chilton employs a method that combines theological hermeneutics with economic theory. His approach is polemical, aiming to refute and reshape the discourse around Christian social ethics.
· Hermeneutics: His biblical interpretation is heavily influenced by postmillennialism and presuppositional apologetics, which color his reading of economic themes in scripture.
· Economic Analysis: Chilton’s economic arguments are primarily deductive, starting from his theological premises to derive economic conclusions rather than engaging extensively with empirical economic data.
Strengths:
· Clarity and Conviction: Chilton’s writing is clear and direct, making his arguments accessible to those within his theological and economic circles.
· Theological Depth: His work provides an in-depth look at biblical texts concerning wealth and stewardship, offering a robust theological alternative to Sider’s interpretations.
Conclusion:
David Chilton’s “Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators” serves as a thought-provoking counterpoint to Ronald J. Sider’s work, stimulating dialogue on the intersection of Christian theology and economic policy. While it effectively articulates a case for Christian involvement in economics from a conservative standpoint, its reception and scholarly impact hinge on one’s alignment with its theological and economic presuppositions. This book remains a significant text for understanding the diversity of opinion within Christian economic ethics, prompting readers to critically evaluate the role of scripture in shaping economic thought and action.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
A Preterist Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
Tolle Lege Press and Chalcedon Foundation
1800+ pages, (2 vols) (hardback), with Scripture, subject, and name indexes
Bio:
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., is an academic with degrees from:
Tennessee Temple University (B.A.)
Reformed Theological Seminary (M. Div.)
Whitefield Theological Seminary (Th. M., Th. D.)
He also studied at Grace Theological Seminary for two years. Currently, he serves as a Research Professor of New Testament at Whitefield Theological Seminary. Gentry is an accomplished theological writer and conference speaker with extensive publications on topics including:
Theology; Ecclesiology; Eschatology; Theonomy; Six-day creation; Presuppositionalism; Worldview, and Christian Education
Additionally, he provides a Christian writing correspondence course. He founded and led GoodBirth Ministries, a non-profit promoting scholarly Christian education and research. Gentry is a retired minister of the Presbyterian church, maintaining his ordination with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly.
What Others are Saying:
“The interpretation of the book of Revelation is a daunting task, not one that should be undertaken lightly or without an awareness of the diversity of opinion regarding its authorship, date of writing, and the myriad of approaches to the interpretation of its prophetic visions. Ken Gentry’s commentary is up to the task. While making a case for his distinctly preterist, historical-redemptive interpretation of the book, he respectfully and keenly engages interpreters with whom he differs. Among recent commentaries on Revelation, Gentry’s extensive, two-volume work deserves to be included as arguably the most thorough representation of the (partial) preterist approach.” – Cornelis Venema, Ph.D. President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary
Author, The Promise of the Future
“Ken Gentry’s two-volume exposition of the book of Revelation is no doubt the most thorough treatment of that work from an essentially preterist point of view to date. Yet Gentry is careful to emphasize not only the historical setting of Revelation leading up to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in AD 70, but especially the redemptive meaning of the book, which is the divine divorce of Israel due to her idolatry which culminated in the rejection of Jesus. Thus the seven churches of Revelation are a warning to Jewish Christians not to turn back to an irrelevant and discarded Judaism. The seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments describe God’s systematic defeat of Israel and ultimately the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans from AD 66-70. Revelation finishes with the majestic portrayal of God’s new wife, the church of the New Covenant which is the New Jerusalem. Both the theology and the historical details of Gentry’s magnum opus will appeal to interested readers in Revelation for years to come.” – C. Marvin Pate, Ph.D. Chair of Theology Ouachita Baptist University
“Gentry’s writings have largely set the standard for orthodox preterist writings but now, with this commentary, he for sure leads the pack. Agree with it, in full or in details, this commentary has much to offer all who care to grapple with his views. I commend it highly. You have not studied the Book of Revelation fully until you have done so.” – Jay Adams, Ph.D. Author, The Time Is At Hand: Prophecy and the Book of Revelation
“Gentry has devoted much of his scholarly career to understanding and elucidating the book of Revelation, and the present work is a veritable goldmine of exegetical insights. He offers here arguably the most extensive, vigorous preterist exegesis of Revelation in at least a generation. Non-preterist interpreters of Revelation must reckon with Gentry if they are to be taken seriously.” – P. Andrew Sandlin, STD Founder and President, Center for Cultural Leadership Author, A Postmillennial Primer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword by Martin Selbrede
Preface
1. Introduction
2. Superscription And Beatitude (1:1–3)
3. Greeting and Theme (1:4–8)
4. The Commissioning Vision (1:9–20)
5. Seven Oracles (2:1—3:22)
6. The Court Scene (4:1–11)
7. The Seven-Sealed Book (5:1–14)
8. The Seals Opened: The First Six Seals (6:1–17)
9. Two Interludes (7:1–17)
10. The Seals Opened: The Seventh Seal (8:1–5)
11. The Seven Trumpet Angels: The First Six Trumpets (8:6—9:21)
12. Third Interlude: The Little Book and John’s Action (10:1–11)
13. Fourth Interlude: The Measured Temple and Two Witnesses (11:1–13)
14. The Seven Trumpet Angels: The Seventh Trumpet (11:14–19)
15. The Sun-Clothed Woman And the Red Dragon (12:1–17)
16. The Beast From the Sea (13:1–10)
17. The Beast From the Land (13:11–18)
18. Visions of Blessing and Judgment (14:1–20)
19. The Seven Last Plagues (15:1—16:21)
20. The Harlot of Babylon and the Beast (17:1–18)
21. The Fall of Babylon the Harlot (18:1—19:5)
22. The Final Victory of the Lamb (19:6–21)
23. Satan’s Ruin and Final Judgment (20:1–15)
24. The New Creation’s Coming (21:1–8)
25. The New Jerusalem Bride (21:9–27
26. New Heaven and New Earth (22:9–17)
27. Final Testimonies and Admonition (22:6–15)
28. The Final Attestation and Blessing (22:16–21)
Review of “The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
Introduction
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., in his theological treatise “The Divorce of Israel,” presents a meticulous and compelling examination of the eschatological implications of the relationship between God and Israel as depicted in the Scriptures. Gentry’s work significantly contributes to biblical theology, particularly in covenant theology and the historical interpretation of prophetic texts. This review will explore the depth of Gentry’s argumentation, his methodological approach, and the implications of his thesis within the broader context of Christian eschatology.
Theological Framework
Gentry operates within a postmillennial framework, a perspective that posits the gradual, global advance of the Christian gospel before the return of Christ. His approach to “The Divorce of Israel” is rooted in this eschatological viewpoint, influencing his interpretation of Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel’s covenantal relationship with God. Gentry asserts that the concept of Israel’s ‘divorce’ from God, as a metaphor, has been misunderstood or undervalued in traditional eschatological discussions. Instead, he posits that this divorce is not merely punitive but also a pivotal moment in redemptive history leading to the inclusion of the Gentiles.
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation
Gentry’s approach employs redemptive-historical hermeneutics, which posits that the Bible’s narrative is not merely a collection of disjointed events but a cohesive story of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. In “The Divorce of Israel,” Gentry argues that the fall of Babylon, as depicted in Revelation, should not be understood as a future, end-times event but as an event within the historical context of the New Testament, particularly the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This perspective aligns the events of Revelation with the culmination of Old Testament prophecies, where the failure of Israel to uphold the covenant leads to its ‘divorce’ from God, symbolized by the fall of Babylon.
Gentry meticulously traces this theme through biblical texts, suggesting that the judgment on Babylon (Israel) in Revelation represents the final act of God’s historical dealings with the Old Covenant nation, thereby ushering in the New Covenant era. His method involves synthesizing Old Testament prophecies with New Testament fulfillment, arguing that the destruction of Jerusalem was both a literal historical event and a profound theological statement about the transition from the Mosaic to the Messianic covenant.
Preterist Perspective
Central to Gentry’s commentary is his commitment to preterism, specifically a partial preterist viewpoint. In this context, Preterism interprets much of the prophecy in Revelation as having been fulfilled in the first century, particularly around the Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple. Gentry’s preterist interpretation of Revelation 18-19 posits that these chapters primarily concern the judgment on Jerusalem, not a far-future apocalypse.
He argues that the language of divine judgment in Revelation reflects a common biblical motif that describes significant historical and theological turning points, such as the destruction of Babylon, Tyre, and Nineveh in the Old Testament. Gentry’s detailed analysis includes historical accounts from Josephus and other sources to support his claim that the events described in Revelation align with the first-century Jewish calamity.
Exegetical Analysis
One of the strengths of Gentry’s work lies in his exegetical rigor. He delves into key scriptural passages like Jeremiah 3:8, Hosea 2, and Romans 11 with a keen eye for detail. Gentry’s analysis is not superficial; he engages with the Hebrew text, historical context, and the socio-religious milieu of the prophets. His interpretation suggests that the ‘divorce’ of Israel is not an end but a means to a greater end—the expansion of God’s covenant community to include all nations. This interpretation challenges the dispensationalist view of Israel and the Church as separate entities with distinct eschatological destinies.
Historical and Theological Contextualization
Gentry’s work is also commendable for its historical contextualization. He traces the theological threads from the Old Testament through the New Testament, illustrating how the concept of Israel’s divorce fits into God’s overarching plan of redemption. His scholarship reflects an understanding of how early Jewish and Christian communities might have viewed these prophetic messages, thus providing a bridge between historical theology and contemporary application.
Implications for Eschatology
The implications of Gentry’s thesis are profound for eschatological studies. By reframing the ‘divorce’ as a redemptive act, Gentry challenges the pessimistic interpretations that view Israel’s chastisement solely as judgment. Instead, he offers a hopeful perspective where Israel’s national identity is transformed and expanded within the universal body of Christ. This perspective not only aligns with postmillennial optimism but also with a more inclusive ecclesiology.
Critical Engagement with Diverse Perspectives
Gentry does not shy away from engaging with opposing views, particularly those from dispensational theology. He critiques these views with respect but with scholarly precision, arguing that they often fail to account for the full breadth of scriptural evidence regarding the continuity between Israel and the Church. His arguments are bolstered by references to patristic interpretations and reformed theological traditions, providing a robust defense of his position.
Conclusion
“The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., is a pivotal work in Christian eschatology. The book’s academic depth, coupled with its potential to reshape evangelical thought on the role of Israel in biblical prophecy, makes it an indispensable resource. Gentry’s work invites theologians, scholars, and lay readers alike to reconsider traditional interpretations through a lens that sees continuity and hope in God’s covenantal dealings with His people. His scholarship enriches the academic discourse and promotes a theology of hope and inclusion, which is particularly relevant in today’s global Christian context. Thus, Gentry’s “The Divorce of Israel” is highly recommended for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of biblical prophecy and covenant theology. Moreover, with commentary, Dr. Gentry has made a mark for himself in Church History.
The above study was Groked under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Dean Haskins and the “Way of the Tabernacle” by Jack Kettler
Overview of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM)
The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) is a contemporary Christian theological and cultural movement that emphasizes adopting elements from Second Temple Judaism and the practices of the early Christian communities. This movement seeks to reconnect with the Hebraic foundations of Christianity, often advocating for a return to what is perceived as the original form of the faith as practiced by Jesus (Yeshua) and his early followers.
Historical Context:
The origins of the HRM can be traced back to the late 20th century, though its ideological underpinnings have roots in earlier Christian restorationist movements. Movements like this, including the Church of God (Seventh Day) and various Messianic Jewish groups, aimed to restore what they viewed as lost biblical practices and teachings. The HRM gained momentum with the advent of the internet, which allowed for broader dissemination of its teachings and facilitated community building among adherents.
Core Beliefs:
1. Torah Observance: Central to the HRM is the belief in the ongoing relevance of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) for Christian life. Adherents often adopt practices such as observing the Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening, keeping the biblical feasts (like Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot), and adhering to dietary laws (kashrut).
2. Use of Hebrew Names: There is a significant emphasis on using Hebrew names for God (Yahweh) and Jesus (Yeshua), alongside Hebrew words and phrases in worship and daily life, to reflect a more authentic connection to the biblical language.
3. Biblical Literalism: HRM proponents often interpret the Bible literally, particularly in matters of law and prophecy, which leads to a unique hermeneutic that blends elements of Judaism with Christian theology.
4. Cultural and Theological Identity: The movement often seeks to reclaim a Jewish identity for Christianity, arguing that Jesus and the early church were Jewish, and therefore, a true understanding of Christianity must include its Jewish roots.
Practices:
· Sabbath Observance: Adherents might refrain from using work technology and engage in communal worship or personal study.
· Feast Days: Celebration of the biblical feasts is seen as a way to align with the liturgical calendar of the Old Testament.
· Dietary Laws: Keeping kosher or refraining from certain foods like pork and shellfish is common.
· Study of Hebrew: There is encouragement to learn Hebrew so that they can understand the Scriptures in their original language better.
Criticisms and Challenges:
· Theological Debates: Traditional Christian denominations often criticize HRM for potentially undermining the Pauline doctrine of freedom from the law through faith in Christ.
· Cultural Appropriation: Some Jewish scholars and leaders critique the movement for what they perceive as the appropriation or misrepresentation of Jewish culture and theology.
· Community and Identity: There are challenges in defining who qualifies as part of the movement and how to integrate or differentiate from Jewish communities.
Conclusion:
The Hebrew Roots Movement represents an effort to reinterpret Christian identity through a Hebraic lens. It challenges conventional Christian practices and theology by promoting a lifestyle and belief system that integrates elements of ancient Jewish practice into modern Christian life.
Here are some groups and organizations that can be associated with the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM), though they might not all use this term explicitly, reflecting the diverse expressions within this broader movement:
1. First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) – This group teaches believers about their Hebrew roots, including observing biblical feasts and Torah-keeping from a Messianic Jewish perspective.
2. TorahResource Institute – Led by Tim Hegg, this institute provides resources and education on the Torah from a perspective that integrates it with the Christian faith, emphasizing the Hebrew roots.
3. Hebraic Roots Teaching Institute (HRTI) – Founded by William F. Dankenbring, HRTI aims to restore what they see as the original Hebraic foundations of Christianity.
4. Beth Immanuel Sabbath Fellowship – A congregation that embraces both Jewish and Christian elements, focusing on living out the commandments of the Torah in light of the New Testament.
5. Olive Tree Congregation – This group practices a form of Messianic Judaism, integrating Jewish traditions with faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah.
6. Assembly of Yahweh – While more aligned with Sacred Name movements, this group often overlaps with HRM due to its emphasis on the Torah and its observance.
7. Lion and Lamb Ministries – Founded by Monte Judah, it provides teachings that link the Torah with New Testament Christianity, encouraging the practice of the Feasts and other biblical observances.
8. Restoration Fellowship – This organization works towards restoring the early Christian practices, which they believe include the observance of the Torah.
9. Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA) – Although primarily a Messianic Jewish organization, many of its teachings and practices align with HRM, emphasizing integrating Torah observance with faith in Yeshua.
10. United Church of God (UCG) – While not strictly part of HRM, some of its teachings resonate with the movement, particularly in Sabbath observance and the biblical festivals.
11. Nazarene Israel – This group combines beliefs in Torah observance with the idea that the faithful followers of Yeshua would maintain Jewish identity and practices.
It’s important to note that while these groups share some commonalities with the Hebrew Roots Movement, they might differ significantly in other theological areas or practices. Moreover, some might identify more with Messianic Judaism or other related but distinct movements.
Who is Dean Haskins and the Way of the Tabernacle?
Dean Haskin’s bio:
Dean Haskins is an artist known for his music composition, production, and performance work. He has been actively involved in the music industry since the early 1990s, combining his music skills with his visual and performing arts talents. Haskins has produced and composed for various projects, including film scores, commercials, and live performances, often blending genres like jazz, rock, and classical music to create unique auditory experiences. His work is characterized by an exploration of soundscapes, where he integrates live instruments with electronic elements, showcasing his versatility and innovative approach to music. His music can be found on platforms like Bandcamp, where he shares his compositions for evaluation and enjoyment.
Haskins wrote a book, “From Christian to Believer,” with his co-author, James Finnegan.
This writer came in contact with Dean at the social media site called Parler. He strongly disagreed with the content of the Apostle’s Creed that this writer posted. He made it clear in short order that he hated Christianity. He strongly objected to the name Jesus. He asserted that Christianity was a bastardized religion and emphasized the importance of using Hebrew.
When asked if he was a better Hebrew scholar than Alfred Edershiem, the 19th-century Jewish scholar who converted to Christianity wrote many volumes on Jewish life at the time of Christ, including the monumental work “The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah.” Dean could not credibly explain why Edershiem felt the liberty to use the name Jesus rather than the Hebrew Yeshua; he could not answer the question.
Another area that was like pulling teeth was asking Dean who the leader of his group was, the “Way of the Tabernacle.” Gradually, it became clear that he was or at least one of the leaders. Then Dean was asked if he was appointed or self-appointed. Throughout our limited exchange, Dean exhibited arrogance and the constant use of pejoratives. This writer informed him that because of this, he was a bad salesman. He said that he was guided by the Holy Spirit, passing off his lousy salesmanship to God. Another takeaway from the exchange was his hatred for Christianity and his refusal to recognize the arguments made by a Christian. This writer gave Dean a link to an article explaining why the observance of the Saturday Sabbath was changed to the Lord’s Day on Sunday. Sending Dean this article link was our final exchange in which he blocked me on the Parler platform. Much of the following will be a point-by-point response to assertions made on the “Way of the Tabernacle” website. The points meriting a response will be highlighted in red.
An analysis of various statements made by Dean Haskins on his website:
“True believers who are indwelt by the Spirit are the bride, and the bride’s name is Y’isra-el. Most in the “church” don’t possess the spiritual understanding to see what is physical and what is spiritual.” – Dean Haskins
The above statement contains several logical fallacies and theological issues:
1. Ambiguity in Definitions:
· The term “true believers” is not universally defined. Different denominations and theological perspectives might define who qualifies as a “true believer” differently, leading to ambiguity in who is considered part of the bride.
2. Scriptural Interpretation:
· The idea that “true believers who the Spirit indwells are the bride” might be derived from interpretations of New Testament passages like Ephesians 5:25-27 or Revelation 19:7-9, where the Church is metaphorically referred to as the bride of Christ. However, equating the bride directly with “Y’isra-el” (presumably referring to Israel) introduces a mix-up between Judaic identity and Christian ecclesiology. Traditionally, Christian theology might see Israel as a precursor or type of the Church, but the equation here seems to blur distinct theological identities.
3. Theological Conflation:
· The conflation of the Christian Church (the body of Christ, often called the Bride of Christ) with Y’isra-el (the nation of Israel) overlooks the distinctions between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church. While theological views like Covenant Theology might see continuity between Israel and the Church, the statement implies a direct identity that many Christian traditions would argue oversimplifies or misrepresents these relationships.
4. Exclusivity and Judgment:
· The assertion that “most in the ‘church’ don’t possess the spiritual understanding to see what is physical and what is spiritual” implies a judgment on the spiritual state of others without any proof. This kind of statement can be problematic because:
· It presupposes one’s spiritual superiority or insight, which can lead to spiritual elitism.
· It lacks objective criteria for sufficient “spiritual understanding,” making it a subjective claim.
· Contrary to many teachings about humility, love, and mutual upbuilding in faith, it might foster division rather than unity within the Christian community. In addition, the claim that “most in the church” is fallacious. Has Dean interviewed most of the people in the Church? Such an unverifiable claim is like the atheist trying to prove a universal negative.
5. Lack of Scriptural Support:
· The statement does not provide scriptural references to support the direct identification of the bride with Y’isra-el, which would be crucial in Christian theological discourse. Without biblical backing, the claim appears more as a personal or unique theological interpretation than a widely accepted doctrine.
6. Logical Structure:
· The argument moves from a potentially accepted Christian metaphor (believers as the bride) to a less commonly accepted or understood identity (the bride as Y’isra-el) without clear logical or scriptural progression. This jump needs more theological groundwork to be logically coherent in traditional Christian thought.
In summary:
Dean Haskin’s statement lacks clarity in its definitions, conflates different theological identities without sufficient explanation, makes potentially divisive judgments, and does not adequately support its assertions with accepted scriptural or traditional Christian teachings, making it problematic from a logical and theological perspective.
Consider the warnings in the scriptures about returning to the types and shadows of the Older Covenant.
The Bible’s King James Version (KJV) includes several passages that could be interpreted as warnings against returning to or relying on Judaism after accepting the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here are some relevant verses:
1. Galatians 2:16 – “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
2. Galatians 3:2-3 – “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”
3. Galatians 4:9-11 – “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.”
4. Galatians 5:1 – “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
5. Hebrews 6:4-6 – “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
6. Hebrews 10:26-29 – “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
7. Colossians 2:16-17 – “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
These verses, mainly from Galatians, are often cited in discussions about the transition from the Old Covenant (associated with Judaism) to the New Covenant in Christ, warning against reverting to practices seen as legalistic or unnecessary under the new covenant Christian faith.
The following is a point-by-point analysis of the Way of the Tabernacle’s online tract called: (Bolding and red text highlighting is mine)
“THERE IS TRUTH AND THERE IS COUNTERFEIT”
Messiah: born on the Feast of Tabernacles in the Fall of each year)
Answer:
The idea that the Messiah was born on the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) is a theory held by some scholars and theologians. Still, it is not universally accepted or confirmed by historical texts. Here are some points to consider:
1. Biblical Texts: The Bible does not provide an exact date for the birth of Jesus, who Christians believe to be the Messiah. The Gospels do not mention a specific date or festival in connection with his birth.
2. Feast of Tabernacles: This Jewish festival occurs in the Fall, specifically in the month of Tishrei, around September or October. Some argue that:
· Jesus’ birth might align with Sukkot because of the themes of the festival, which celebrate God’s dwelling among the people, paralleling the idea of Emmanuel (“God with us”).
· There’s a reference in John 1:14 where it says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” and the term “dwelt” can be translated from the Greek as “tabernacled.”
3. Contrast with Traditional Christmas: The traditional celebration of Christmas on December 25 originates in early Christian practices and might have been chosen to coincide with or replace pagan winter solstice festivals rather than being based on historical evidence for Jesus’ actual birth date.
4. Theological Interpretations: Various theological interpretations exist. Some suggest that Jesus’ birth during Sukkot would be symbolically rich, aligning with themes of divine presence, the harvest, and the pilgrimage aspect of the festival. However, these are speculative and not derived from explicit scriptural evidence.
5. Different Jewish Interpretations: In Jewish Messianic thought, the timing of the Messiah’s birth or arrival isn’t strictly tied to Sukkot. Other Jewish traditions and texts might have varying views on this matter.
In summary:
While the theory that the Messiah could have been born during the Feast of Tabernacles provides an interesting theological and symbolic interpretation, it remains speculative. There’s no definitive scriptural or historical evidence to confirm this as fact. Therefore, it’s true in the context of some theological discussions but not as a universally accepted fact.
Counterfeit: born on the Christ-mass, December 25 (sun god’s birthday) (bolding emphasis mine)
Answer:
The claim that Jesus Christ was born on December 25 has a complex history intertwined with Christian tradition and pagan festivals. Here’s a breakdown of the perspectives and historical context:
1. Biblical and Traditional Viewpoints:
· No Specific Date in the Bible: The Bible does not provide an explicit date for Jesus’s birth. While clues suggest a different time of year (like shepherds in the fields at night), these do not definitively confirm or deny December 25.
· Early Christian Traditions: Early Christian writers like Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, and Hippolytus from the second and third centuries mention December 25 as Jesus’s birthday. However, these accounts are not universally accepted as historically accurate.
2. Historical and Scholarly Analysis:
· Pagan Festivals: December 25 was indeed the date of several pagan festivals, notably Saturnalia (a Roman festival for Saturn) and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (“Birthday of the Unconquered Sun”). Some historians suggest that the early Christian Church might have chosen this date to align with existing pagan celebrations, facilitating the conversion of pagans to Christianity by providing a Christian alternative to these festivals.
· Calculations Hypothesis: Another theory proposes that the Church calculated Jesus’s birth based on the presumed date of his death or conception, both thought to have occurred around the equinoxes or solstices, leading to the nine months later calculation for his birth.
3. Contemporary Interpretations:
· Posts on X: Some users on social media platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter) argue that December 25 was chosen for its pagan significance, suggesting it was a strategic move by early Christians to replace pagan festivities with Christian ones. According to this idea, as the Christian faith conquered the pagan world, it claimed the holidays and infused the pagan holidays with new meaning.
· Christian Perspective: Many Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25 not because they believe it to be his actual birthday but as a traditional and symbolic date, emphasizing the theological significance of Jesus as the “Light of the World” during the darkest time of the year.
In conclusion:
Whether Jesus was born on December 25 remains uncertain due to the lack of definitive historical evidence. The date’s association with pagan festivals is well-documented, but the choice of December 25 might also reflect early Christian theological symbolism. The celebration of Christmas on this date has more to do with cultural and religious traditions than with historical accuracy regarding Jesus’s birth date. Moreover, as the Christian faith conquered the pagan world, Christians infused the old pagan holidays with new meaning as a sign that Christ is the victorious Lord overall.
Messiah diedon Passover (a Wednesday that year)
Answer:
The question of whether Jesus referred to as the Messiah in Christian theology, died on Passover, specifically on a Wednesday, involves examining both biblical texts and historical context, which often yields different interpretations:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke): These Gospels suggest that Jesus was crucified on the day following the Passover meal, which would traditionally have been observed on the 15th of Nisan. This aligns with the idea that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, placing the crucifixion on a Friday, known as Good Friday.
· Gospel of John: John’s account differs, indicating that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover, before the Passover meal, aligning with the 14th of Nisan. This has led some to argue for crucifixion a day before the traditional Passover, potentially a Wednesday if one assumes a particular year where Passover preparation was on Wednesday.
2. Historical and Scholarly Perspectives:
· Passover Date Variations: Passover’s date shifts due to the lunar calendar; in some years, it might coincide with different weekdays. Scholars debate the exact year of Jesus’s crucifixion, with proposals including A.D. 30 or A.D. 33, each having different implications for the day of the week Passover fell on.
· Wednesday Crucifixion Theory: Some propose a Wednesday crucifixion based on interpretations of Jesus’s statement about being in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). However, this interpretation has its challenges, mainly due to how days are counted in ancient Jewish tradition (where part of a day counts as a whole day).
3. Posts on X:
· Some posts on X mention that Jesus died on Passover, with some users supporting that this occurred on a Wednesday. These posts reflect varied personal or group interpretations, not scholarly or historical validations.
In Conclusion:
The traditional Christian observance aligns Jesus’s crucifixion with a Friday, following a Thursday Passover meal.
However, there exists a minority view that argues for a Wednesday crucifixion based on interpretations of scripture and specific calendar alignments. Still, this view isn’t universally accepted among scholars or theologians.
The exact day of the week for Passover when Jesus was crucified remains a matter of theological, historical, and interpretative debate. The most widely accepted view supports a Friday crucifixion, but alternative theories like the Wednesday crucifixion do exist, often based on different scriptural interpretations or calendar calculations.
Counterfeit: died on Good Friday
Answer:
There are several pieces of evidence and traditions within Christian theology and historical analysis that support the belief that Jesus Christ died on what is now known as Good Friday:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· The Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:33-42, Matthew 27:45-50, Luke 23:44-56) describe Jesus’ crucifixion, noting that darkness fell over the land from the sixth hour until the ninth hour (noon to 3 PM), which would be consistent with the time of day for a Friday execution. After this, Jesus is described as dying and being buried before the Sabbath began at sunset.
· John’s Gospel does not specify the day but provides details that align with the timing of the Passover. Jesus is described as being crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover, which would naturally lead into the Sabbath, making it likely Friday.
2. Historical and Traditional Timing:
· The Jewish Calendar: The Last Supper is traditionally considered a Passover meal. If Jesus was crucified the day after this meal, which was a day of preparation before the Sabbath, then Friday becomes the logical day for the crucifixion.
· Early Church Fathers: Writings from early Christian leaders like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others in the 2nd century corroborate this timing, speaking of the crucifixion happening on the 14th of Nisan, which could correspond to a Friday in any given year.
3. The Three Days and Three Nights Issue:
· One theological and chronological debate arises from Jesus’ mention of being in the heart of the earth for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). This has led some to question the Friday crucifixion because, by modern reckoning, it seems to not fit neatly into three full days.
· However, The Jewish method of counting any part of a day as a full day could explain this discrepancy. Thus, part of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would count as three days.
· Some scholars also argue for a “Sabbath reckoning” where the Passover might be treated as a special Sabbath, complicating the exact timing but still allowing for a Friday crucifixion.
4. Archaeological and Historical Corroboration:
· While direct archaeological evidence for the exact day of Jesus’ crucifixion is lacking, the method of crucifixion described in the Gospels aligns with Roman practices of the time, and the general historical context of Roman Judea, including the governorship of Pontius Pilate, supports the setting of the crucifixion narrative.
In conclusion:
While these points collectively form the basis for the traditional belief in a Friday crucifixion, it’s also important to recognize that the exact day does not change the theological significance of the event in Christian doctrine. However, for those strictly adhering to scriptural and historical analysis, these pieces of evidence provide a compelling case for Good Friday.
Messiah; Rose again on the Feast of Firstfruits (during the night)
Answer:
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, often referred to as the Messiah in Christian doctrine, with specific Jewish festivals from the Hebrew calendar.
Consider the breakdown:
· Messiah: In Christian belief, Jesus is the Messiah, the coming one prophesied in Jewish scripture to bring salvation or fulfill a divine role.
· Rose again: This refers to the Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is central to the Christian faith, symbolizing victory over death and the promise of eternal life to believers.
· Feast of First Fruits: This ancient Jewish festival occurs the day after the Sabbath following Passover. In Christian theology, within certain interpretations, the Resurrection of Jesus is believed to have happened on this day, aligning with the concept of Jesus being the “first fruits” of those who have fallen asleep (died), as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:20.
· During the night: The Gospels in the New Testament do not specify the exact time of Jesus’s Resurrection, but traditions and interpretations vary. Some Christian traditions emphasize that the Resurrection happened in the early morning, as the tomb was found empty at dawn (Mark 16:2, Matthew 28:1).
Given these points:
· The belief that Jesus rose again on the Feast of First Fruits is a theological interpretation held by some Christians, particularly those focusing on the typological connections between Jewish feasts and Christian events. However, precise timing or symbolic significance is not universally agreed upon across all Christian denominations.
· “During the night” adds a specific detail not explicitly supported by canonical texts but could be part of some interpretations or traditions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, while the general idea of Jesus rising on the day corresponding to the Feast of First Fruits is a significant theological interpretation within Christianity, the exact timing (“during the night”) isn’t explicitly detailed in the primary sources, leading to varied interpretations.
Counterfeit: rose again on Easter/Ishtar (at dawn)
Answer:
The statement that Jesus rose again on Easter at dawn is based on traditional Christian belief, but its historical accuracy and interpretation can vary.
Some points to consider:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· Mark 16:2 States that Mary Magdalene and others came to the tomb “very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise.”
· John 20:1 Mary Magdalene came to the tomb “early, while it was still dark.”
· Luke 24:1 mentions that the women came to the tomb “very early in the morning.”
· Matthew 28:1 Notes it was “after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week.”
These accounts suggest that Jesus had already risen before dawn or at dawn when the women arrived at the tomb. However, none of these accounts explicitly say that Jesus rose at dawn; they only indicate when the tomb was found empty.
Theologically and traditionally, Easter Sunday celebrates the Resurrection, but the exact moment of Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t specified. It’s often understood that he rose sometime before the dawn, as the tomb was already empty when the women arrived.
The Resurrection is central to the Christian faith, symbolizing victory over death. The timing isn’t as doctrinally significant as the event itself.
Conclusion:
Therefore, saying “Jesus rose again on Easter at dawn” from a traditional standpoint could be seen as an oversimplification or assumption about the exact timing. Theologically, it’s more accurate to say that Jesus had risen by dawn on the first day of the week, Easter Sunday, in the Christian tradition.
Messiah’s people: assemble on the Father’s Sabbath (seventh day)
Answer:
What about the Hebrew word olam, which can be translated as “everlasting”?
One should note that the Hebrew word olam can be translated differently. Some examples are forever, perpetual, everlasting, eternal, or permanent. The word “forever” does not necessarily mean never-ending in scripture, but it can also be understood to mean lasting only as long as a time period or age. Since the Mormons are appealing to scripture in the defense of one of their peculiar doctrines, we should briefly respond to this argument about the “everlasting” nature of the Aaronic priesthood.
Does this mean that a practice commanded in scripture will last forever? First, it can be admitted that it’s possible when dealing with the usage of olam that a practice mentioned may last forever. However, the context of a passage is essential when making this determination. Admitting that ‘olam may mean forever does not invalidate the fact that there are numerous indicators that ‘olam can also be used to describe a practice that will end or change forms going from the Older Covenant into the New. In particular, olam is used regarding ordinances in the Older Covenant, which were to be kept by the people of Israel and not carried over into the New Covenant church practice in their Older Covenant forms. It should be noted that there are significant discontinuities and continuities in redemptive history when moving from the Older Covenant into the New Covenant era.
1. Examples of the time limitations of olam:
For example:
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. (Exodus 21:6)
In this passage, ‘olam stresses permanence and that man would be a servant forever. This verse explicitly conveys the idea of a limitation of time. The prima facie limitation in this verse is the life span of the servant.
2. Another example is the Feast of Unleavened Bread:
So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. (Exodus 12:17)
The discontinuity is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The continuity is that this Feast is fulfilled in Christ.
3. Consider the Passover:
Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance. (Exodus 12:14)
The discontinuity is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates the Passover feast. The continuity is that all of the Older Covenant feasts, including the Passover, find fulfillment in the Lord’s Supper.
4. Then there is the example of circumcision:
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:7-10)
The discontinuity is that circumcision is no longer required in the New Covenant. The continuity is that circumcision is replaced by baptism in the New Covenant era as the mark of the covenant.
5. The Sabbath Day to be kept on the seventh day:
Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:16-17)
Conclusion:
The discontinuity is that the day has been changed to the first day of the week in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. The continuity is that God’s people are to still honor Him by resting for our labors after six days of work. (Hebrews 4:9) In the Greek text, the word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos. It means “a Sabbath rest.” Young’s Literal Translation captures this well: “There doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).
Counterfeit: assemble on the venerable day of the sun (first day)
Answer:
The fallacy in asserting that those who worship on Sunday are guilty of worshiping the sun god can be dissected through several logical errors:
1. False Equivalence:
· Fallacy: Equating Christian Sunday worship with pagan sun worship because both involve the sun or Sunday.
· Explanation: This assumes that the mere act of worship on a day named after the sun implies worship of the sun itself, which overlooks the intent and theology behind Christian worship. Christians worship on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because of any inherent solar significance.
2. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This):
· Fallacy: Assuming that because Christianity adopted Sunday for worship later in its history, this must be a continuation or transformation of sun worship.
· Explanation: The adoption of Sunday for Christian worship occurred centuries after Christianity’s inception. Early Christians observed the Sabbath on Saturday, and the shift to Sunday was more about differentiating from Jewish practices and celebrating the Lord’s resurrection, not adopting pagan rituals.
3. Guilt by Association:
· Fallacy: This suggests that Christian Sunday worship is inherently pagan because Sunday was dedicated to Sol Invictus or other solar deities in Roman culture.
· Explanation: Just because Sunday was also a day for sun worship in some pagan traditions does not mean Christian worship is an endorsement or continuation of those practices. Many cultures have overlapping religious practices regarding timing or rituals, but the theological content and purpose differ significantly.
4. Cherry-Picking:
· Fallacy: Focusing only on the day of worship without considering the full breadth of Christian doctrine, history, and scripture.
· Explanation: This argument ignores the theological reasons for Sunday worship, like the writings of early church fathers, the significance of the resurrection, and the development of Christian liturgy. It also disregards how Christianity has changed and adapted over time for various non-pagan reasons.
5. Argument from Etymology:
· Fallacy: Using the origin of the word “Sunday” (from Old English “Sunnandæg,” day of the sun) to imply theological or ritualistic continuity.
· Explanation: The linguistic connection does not necessarily imply religious continuity. Language evolves, and words take on new meanings independent of their origins. For instance, many names of days and months have pagan roots, but their contemporary use in Christian contexts doesn’t imply the worship of those pagan deities.
6. Non Sequitur:
· Fallacy: Concluding that worship on Sunday must be sun worship because of the day’s name or historical pagan associations.
· Explanation: This conclusion doesn’t follow logically. Just as worshiping on Saturn’s Day (Saturday) doesn’t make one a worshiper of Saturn, worshiping on Sunday, named for the sun, does not inherently mean one is worshiping the sun god.
Conclusion:
The argument that Sunday worship equates to sun god worship is flawed because it oversimplifies and misinterprets historical, linguistic, and theological contexts, relying on superficial or coincidental connections rather than substantive evidence or understanding.
Furthermore, the fallacy is just as silly as saying that if you have a Bible study on Thursday, you are worshipping Thor, the Norse god of thunder.
Moreover, Saturday is named after Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture, wealth, and time. In Roman mythology, Saturn was one of the most important gods, often associated with the Greek god Cronus. The name “Saturday” comes from the Latin term “dies Saturni,” meaning “day of Saturn.” This naming reflects Saturn’s prominence in the Roman seven-day planetary week, where each day was named after a celestial body or the god associated with it.
The following article by this writer that was given to Dean Haskins resulted in him blocking me on the web platform Parler.
Who changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday Worship?
Did the Roman Catholic Pope change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday worship? In this study, we will seek to answer why the day of worship changed for most Christians to Sunday. If it was not for the Pope, would there be Scriptural arguments for this day’s change? If the day of worship changes, will Sabbath requirements be attached to Sunday?
When did Christians start meeting on Sunday? A cursory look at the New Testament:
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7 ESV)
“On the first day of the week,” along with the direction given in Corinthians by Paul, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come” (1Corinthians 16:2 ESV). Act 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 are Scriptural evidence that the Church had begun to observe the weekly celebration of the Resurrection on the first day of the week.
Considering the claims of two Roman Catholic leaders:
What does the Roman Church say is the sign of its authority? On January 18, 1563, “the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above the Scriptures because the church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday—not by a command of Christ, but by its authority” (Canon and Tradition, p. 263). http://biblelight.net/bssb-1443-1444.htm
Additionally, the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of 4 editorials, which appeared in that paper on September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893, as the expression of the Papacy to Protestantism and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also of how they keep it. (Rome’s Challenge: Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?) http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm
It should be noted that just because the Roman Catholics claim they changed the Sabbath to Sunday does not prove anything. This claim has to be evaluated scripturally and historically.
Are these two claims valid? Did the Roman Papacy change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday? First off, this claim is dubious and a historical impossibility because the Papacy did not exist until sometime after the First Council of Nicaea, which convened in AD 325.
The Roman Church may dispute this, but appeals to historical evidence became increasingly flimsy before this council for an established and recognized papal system. The Eastern and Coptic Churches show no acceptance of a papal system during the first three centuries of Church history.
The Seventh Day Adventists also take issue with Sunday worship, connecting it with the Roman Church or Emperor Constantine.
Contrary to this claim that Sunday worship was a Roman Catholic invention, the early Church in the East met on Sunday as the day of worship. Eastern Orthodox Churches have observed Sunday worship since the 1st century.
For example, consider the Eastern Orthodox Worship by Rev. Alciviadis C. Calivas, Th.D.
Rev. Alciviadis says the following:
“The most important day for the Christian community was and continues to be the First day of the Jewish week. For the people of the Old Covenant the First Day was a memorial of the first day of creation, when God separated the light from the darkness. For the people of the New Covenant the first day includes this and much more. The first was the day when the empty tomb was first discovered and the risen Lord made His first appearances to His followers. The first was the day of the Resurrection of Christ and the beginning of the new creation brought about by His victory over death. By the end of the first century the Church gave to this special day of Christ’s Resurrection a distinctly Christian name: the Lord’s Day (Kyriake hemera) (Rev. 1: 10).
The Lord’s Day (Sunday) is a Christian institution. It is the Christian festival, founded upon Christ’s Resurrection. It is “the day which the Lord has made” (Ps. 117:24). It is a day of rejoicing and holy convocation, when no one is permitted to fast or kneel in sorrow or in penance. In 321 A.D. St. Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, declared it a day of rest. Long before him, however, Christians were already known to observe the day with special solemnity, treating it as a holy day devoted to spiritual things. As a day of rest, the Lord’s Day is not to be abused as a day of idleness and inactivity. For the faithful, it is always a day for participation in the communal worship of the Church, for Christian fellowship, for the service of God through works of charity, for personal quiet and meditation, and for the discovery and enjoyment of God’s presence in us, and in the people and the world that surround and touch our lives.” (1) (Underlining emphasis mine)
Not only do the Eastern Orthodox Christians worship on Sunday, the Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic Christians also worship on Sunday. The Roman Church has never had much influence in the East. The Eastern Churches have always opposed the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thus, it is doubtful that Sunday worship in the East was because of the dictates of a Roman Pope.
According to Wikipedia, it was not until the 4th century that the Roman Church officially started worshipping on Sunday. Historically, the Roman Church was a Johnny come lately to the day change for church worship.
Justin Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 165), who lived from approximately 100 to 165 AD, wrote on the issue of Sunday worship enlightens us historically:
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.” (2)
The writings of the early Church Father Justin Martyr point to the celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sunday’s first day of the week; Revelation 1:10.
This fact flies in the face of the Roman Church’s assertions.
There are other indications of Sunday worship early in Church history. For example:
The Didache:
“1. But every Lord’s Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” (3)
According to the Didache, Sunday worship started early in church history.
The Didascalia:
“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation, because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven.” (4)
According to the Didascalia, Sunday worship started with the apostles.
St. Ignatius, AD 1491 1556:
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death.” (5)
Note: The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is a brief Christian thesis, dated by scholars to the late first or early 2nd century
Note: Didascalia Apostolorum (or just Didascalia) is a Christian treatise. The Didascalia introduces itself as written by the Twelve Apostles at the time of the Council of Jerusalem. However, scholars agree that it was a composition of the 3rd century,
As an aside, what about Emperor Constantine? As some Seventh-Day Adventists claim, did he change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? This claim does not hold up since Christians have met on Sundays since the Apostles. Constantine did make a decree regarding worship on Sunday, thus making it easier for Christians to worship on Sunday, which they were already doing.
As noted, Constantine’s decree recognized the three hundred years of Christian practice and expanded Christian freedom by allowing them to keep their shops closed:
“On the venerable Day of the Sun, let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (6)
Constantine’s decree protected and guaranteed Christians’ civil freedom for their ongoing practice.
Where did the Protestant Reformers stand on the Saturday Sabbath and Sunday worship?
The burden of proof is on those who maintain the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath Day, which was moved from Saturday to Sunday.
The burden of proof for this will now be met:
During the Reformation, the Protestant theologians did not mindlessly import theology and practices from the Roman Church. They reformed the Church by examining scripture and binding themselves to the Scriptures as the final court of appeal. During the counter-reformation Council of Trent, the Roman Church made many false assertions attempting to undermine Protestant theology. This undermining happened when Roman leaders, as seen above, claimed that the Papacy changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
The Scriptural proof of the day change:
The Older Covenant delineated Saturday as the Sabbath, and it was to be eternal.
How did the Protestant Reformers deal with the eternal covenants in the Old Testament?
The Scriptural basis for discontinuity, continuity, and its relevance to the issue at hand:
The Sabbath Day was to be kept on the seventh day:
“Therefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” (Exodus 31:16-17)
“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9 ESV)
The discontinuity is that the day has been changed to the First Day of the week in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. The continuity is that God’s people are to still honor Him by resting for our labors after six days of work Hebrews 4:9. In the Greek text, the word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos, which means “a Sabbath rest.”
Young’s Literal Translation captures the text from Hebrew 4:9 perfectly:
“There doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9)
Consider Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary entry on (Hebrews 4:9), and the sabbatic rest:
“9. Therefore—because God “speaks of another day (see on [2548] Heb. 4:8).
Remaineth—still to be realized hereafter by the “some (who) must enter therein” (Heb. 4:6), that is, “the people of God,” the true Israel who shall enter into God’s rest (“My rest,” Heb. 4:3). God’s rest was a Sabbatism, so also will ours be.
A rest—Greek, “Sabbatism.” In time, there are many Sabbaths, but then there shall be the enjoyment and keeping of a Sabbath-rest: one perfect and eternal. The “rest” in Heb. 4:8 is Greek, “catapausis;” Hebrew, “Noah”; rest from weariness, as the ark rested on Ararat after its tossings to and fro; and as Israel, under Joshua, enjoyed at last rest from war in Canaan. But the “rest” in this Heb. 4:9 is the nobler and more exalted (Hebrew) “Sabbath” rest; literally, “cessation”: rest from work when finished (Heb. 4:4), as God rested (Re 16:17). The two ideas of “rest” combined, give the perfect view of the heavenly Sabbath. Rest from weariness, sorrow, and sin; and rest in the completion of God’s new creation (Re 21:5). The whole renovated creation shall share in it; nothing will there be to break the Sabbath of eternity; and the Triune God shall rejoice in the work of His hands (Zep 3:17). Moses, the representative of the law, could not lead Israel into Canaan: the law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases, as that of Moses on the borders of Canaan: it is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it, As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath-rest will not be till Christ, our Gospel Joshua, comes, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then. The Jews call the future rest “the day which is all Sabbath.’” (7)
Preliminary Conclusions:
As seen in these examples of the translation of ‘olam as forever, perceptual, everlasting, eternal, and permanent, we can conclude that qualifiers are attached that guide our understanding of these passages. The substance remained in each of these passages, yet the outward form changed, moving from the Older Covenant into the New Covenant. The Sabbath Day is eternal, yet the day of observance changed to Sunday.
On the other hand, the Reformers looked at continuities and discontinuities in scripture. They concluded that the practice of the early Christians meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday) was a case of a fundamental discontinuity in scripture.
The Reformed hermeneutic presumes that unless the New Testament sets aside an Old Testament practice, as in the case of the dietary laws, the Scriptural command will still be in force, considering legitimate discontinuities, as seen above. If the continuity discontinuity motif is not maintained, it can be alleged that there are contradictions in scripture.
A Scriptural deduction from the Reformed argument:
1. In light of what has been said above, the first day of the week came to be known as the “Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10) and has been the day on which the Church gathered with the blessing of the Apostles (Acts 20:7).
2. On the day Jesus had been raised from the dead, the risen Lord Himself chose the first day of the week to manifest himself to his disciples when they were gathered together (John 20:19, 26).
Supplemental evidence:
From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation by D. A. Carson.
“1. The early Church met on the Lord’s Day to commemorate Jesus’ Resurrection (Bauckham, 232-245): All four gospels emphasize Jesus’ Resurrection on the first day of the week. Though it cannot be proven that this was the reason established for Sunday worship, early Christians did connect gathering on the first day of the week with the Lord’s Resurrection (Bauckham, 236, 240).
2. By the end of the first century, “Lord’s Day” is seen to be a technical term already in use about the first day of the week/Sunday, the Christian gathering day (Revelation 1:10; see Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” 222-232).
3. By the middle of the second century, Lord’s Day worship gatherings are the universal practice of the Church (Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” 230).” (8)
A Reformed exposition of the day change by Professor John Murray on The Pattern of the Lord’s Day:
“The Sabbath as a creation ordinance for all time.
If we accept, the witness of scripture there can be no question that the weekly Sabbath finds its basis in and derives its sanction from the example of God himself. He created the heavens and the earth in six days and “on the seventh God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it” (Gen. 2:2, 3). The fourth commandment in the Decalogue sets forth the obligation resting upon man and it makes express appeal to this sanction. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exod. 20:11).
Many regard this Sabbath institution as a shadow of things to come and, therefore, as an ordinance to be observed, has passed away because that of which it was a shadow has been realized in the full light of the new and better covenant. At this point, suffice it to ask the question: has the pattern of God’s work and rest in creation ceased to be relevant? Is this pattern a shadow in the sense of those who espouse this position? The realm of our existence is that established by creation and maintained by God’s providence. The new covenant has in no respect abrogated creation nor has it diminished its relevance. Creation both as action and product is as significant for us as it was for Israel under the old covenant. The refrain of scripture in both Testaments is that the God of creation is the God of redemption in all stages of covenantal disclosure and realization. This consideration is invested with greater significance when we bear in mind that the ultimate standard for us is likeness to God (cf. Matt. 5:48; 1John 3:2, 3). And it is this likeness, in the sphere of our behaviour, that undergirds the demand for Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:11; 31:17).
The Redemptive Pattern
It is noteworthy that the Sabbath commandment as given in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:12-15) does not appeal to God’s rest in creation as the reason for keeping the Sabbath day. In this instance, mention is made of something else. “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and an out-streched arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day” (Deut. 5:15). This cannot be understood as in any way annulling the sanction of Exodus 20:11; 31:17. Deuteronomy comprises what was the reiteration of the covenant made at Sinai. When the Sabbath commandment is introduced, Israel is reminded of the earlier promulgation: “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee” (Deut. 5:12). And we should observe that all the commandments have their redemptive sanction. The preface to all is: “I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2; cf. Deut. 5:6). So what we find in Deut. 5; 15 in connection with the Sabbath is but the application of the preface to the specific duty enunciated in the fourth command. It is supplement to Exodus 20:11, not suspension. We have now added reason for observing the Sabbath. This is full of meaning and we must linger to analyze and appreciate.
The deliverance from Egypt was redemption. “Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed” (Exod. 15:13). It is more than any other event the redemption of the Old Testament. It is the analogue of the greater redemption accomplished by Christ. The Sabbath commandment derives its sanction not only from God’s rest in creation but also from redemption out of Egypt’s bondage. This fact that the Sabbath in Israel had a redemptive reference and sanction bears directly upon the question of its relevance in the New Testament. The redemption from Egypt cannot be properly viewed except as the anticipation of the greater redemption wrought in the fullness of time. Hence, if redemption from Egypt accorded sanction to the Sabbath institution and provided reason for its observance the same must apply to the greater redemption and apply in a way commensurate with the greater fullness and dimensions of the redemption secured by the death and Resurrection of Christ. In other words, it is the fullness and richness of the new covenant that accord to the Sabbath ordinance increased relevance, sanction, and blessing.
This redemptive reference explains and confirms three features of the New Testament.
1. The Retrospective Reference
Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (cf. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). For our present interest the important feature of the New Testament witness is that the first day of the week continued to have _distinctive religious significance_ (cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). The only explanation of this fact is that the first day was the day of Jesus’ Resurrection and for that reason John calls it “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). The first day took on a memorial significance appropriate to the place the Resurrection of Christ occupies in the accomplishment of redemption and in Jesus’ finished work (cf. John 17:4) as also appropriate to the seal imparted by the repeated appearance to his disciples on that day (cf. Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:15-31, 26; John 20:19,26). When Christ rose from the dead he was loosed from the pangs of death (cf. Acts 2:24), he entered upon life indestructible (cf. Rom. 5:10; 6:9, 10), became a “life-giving Spirit” (1Cor. 15:45), and brought “life and immortality to light” (2Tim. 1:10). In a word, he entered upon the rest of his redeeming work. All of this and much more resides in the emphasis, which falls upon the Resurrection as a pivotal event in the accomplishment of redemption. The other pivot is the death upon the cross. The sanctity belonging to the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day is the constant reminder of all that Jesus’ Resurrection involves. It is the memorial of the Resurrection as the Lord’s Supper is the memorial of Jesus’ death upon the tree. Inescapable, therefore, is the conclusion that the Resurrection in its redemptive character yields its sanction to the sacredness of the first day of the week just as deliverance from Egypt’s bondage accorded its sanction to the Sabbath institution of the old covenant. This is the rationale for regarding the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath. It follows the line of thought, which the Old Testament itself prescribes for us when it appeals to redemption as the reason for Sabbath observance. The principle enunciated in Deuteronomy 5:15 receives its verification and application in the new covenant in the memorial of finalized redemption, the Lord’s Day.
2. The Manward Reference
Under this caption, we have in mind our Lord’ saying: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27, 28).
The title our Lord uses to designate himself is one that belongs to him in his messianic identity, commission, and office. The lordship he claims is, therefore, redemptively conditioned; it is his lordship as Mediator and Saviour. As such, in accord with his own testimony, he is given all authority in heaven and earth (cf. John 3:36; Matt. 28:18). So every institution is brought within the scope of his lordship. Since he exercises this lordship in the interests of God’s redemptive purpose, it is particularly true that institutions given for the good of man are brought within the scope of his lordship and made to serve the interests of the supreme good which redemption designs and guarantees. It is this governing thought that is applied in the text to the institution of the Sabbath. The accent falls upon the beneficent design of the Sabbath – it was made for man. “Therefore the Son of man is Lord” of it.
When Jesus speaks of the Sabbath, he is specifying the institution defined by the fourth commandment, and he asserts his lordship over it in precisely this character. There is not the slightest intimation of abrogation. For it is the Sabbath in that identity over which he claims to be Lord. Too frequently this text is adduced in support of an alleged relaxation of the requirements set forth in the commandment as if Jesus on this ground were, in the exercise of his authority, defending his disciples for behaviour that went counter to Old Testament requirements. This totally misconstrues the situation in which the words were spoken. Jesus is defending his disciples against the charge of desecration brought by the Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:24). But in doing so he shows by appeal to the Old Testament itself (cf. Matt. 12:4, 5; Mark 2:25, 26) that the behaviour of his disciples was in accord with what the Old Testament sanctioned. It was not deviation from Old Testament requirements that our Lord was condoning but deviation from pharisaical distortion. He was condemning the tyranny by which the Sabbath institution had been made an instrument of oppression. And he did this by appeal to the true intent of the Sabbath as verified by scripture itself. Of special interest is the relation of the redemptive sanction of the fourth commandment to the claim of Jesus on this occasion. The lordship over the Sabbath is, as observed, redemptively conditioned and thus only within a redemptive design can his lordship of the Sabbath be understood. This is to say that the Sabbath ordinance in its beneficent character comes to full expression within the realm of our Lord’s mediatorial lordship. The Sabbath is not alien to redemption at the zenith of its realization and blessing. As made for man it continues to serve its great purpose in that administration that achieves the acme of covenant grace. This Jesus’ word seals to us – “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath”.
3. The Prospective Reference
“There remains therefore a Sabbath keeping for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9)
The context of this passage is all-important for its interpretation and for appreciation of its implications. At verse 4 there is quotation of Genesis 2:2: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” This, of course, refers to God’s – own – rest. At verse 5 there is allusion to the rest of Canaan and quotation of Psalm 95:11 (cf. also vs. 3 and 3:11) in reference to the failure of too many to enter into it (cf. Psalm 95:10). The remarkable feature of verse 5 as of Psalm 95:11 is that this rest of Canaan is called God’s rest (“my rest”). Why this characterization? It is not sufficient to say that it was the rest God provided. The proximity of reference to God’s own rest in verse 4 requires more than the thoughts of mere provision by God. We cannot say less than that God calls it his rest because the rest of Canaan was patterned after God’s rest – it partook of the character of God’s rest. The same kind of identification appears in verse 10 with reference to the rest that remains for the people of God. “For he that has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” So the rest of Canaan and the rest that remains for the people of God are called God’s rest because both partake of the character of God’s own rest in resting from his creative work on the seventh day. Here is something highly germane to the present topic.
It is clear that the rest of Canaan and the rest that remains for the people of God are redemptive in character. Since they are patterned after God’s rest in creation, this means that the redemptive takes on the character of that rest of God upon which the Sabbath institution for man originally rested and from which it derived its sanction. We cannot but discover in this again the close relation between the creative and the redemptive in the Sabbath ordinance and the coherence of Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15. We are reminded again that likeness to God governs man’s obligation and is brought to its realization in the provisions of redemption. In the consummation of redemption, the Sabbath rest of God’s people achieves conformity to the fullest extent. “For he who has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (cf. Rev. 14:13). The Sabbath institution in all its aspects and applications has this prospective reference; the whole movement of redemption will find its finale in the Sabbath rest that remains. The weekly Sabbath is the promise, token, and foretaste of the consummated rest; it is also the earnest. The biblical philosophy of the Sabbath is such that to deny its perpetuity is to deprive the movement of redemption of one of its most precious strands.
Redemption has a past, a present, and a future. In the Sabbath as “the Lord’s Day,” all three are focused. In retrospect, it is the memorial of our Lord’s Resurrection. In the present with resurrection joy, it fulfils its beneficent design by the lordship of the Son of man. As prospect, it is the promise of the inheritance of the saints. With varying degrees of understanding and application, it is this perspective that dictated the observance of the Lord’s Day in catholic, protestant and reformed tradition. Shall we forfeit in institution so embedded in redemptive revelation and recognized as such in the history of the Church of Christ? In the faith and for the honour of the Sabbath’s Lord may we answer with a decisive, no! In devotion to him may we increasingly know the joy and blessing of the recurring day of rest and worship.” (9)
John Murray answers the argument that Romans 14:5 ends the fourth commandment in the New Covenant era:
ROMANS 14:5 AND THE WEEKLY SABBATH
“The question is whether the weekly Sabbath comes within the scope of the distinction respecting days on which the apostle reflects in Romans 14:5. If so then we have to reckon with the following implications.
1. This would mean that the Sabbath commandment in the decalogue does not continue to have any binding obligation upon believers in the New Testament economy. The observance of one day in seven as holy and invested with the sanctity enunciated in the fourth commandment would be abrogated and would be in the same category in respect of observance as the ceremonial rites of the Mosaic institution. On the assumption posited, insistence upon the continued sanctity of each recurring seventh day would be as Judaizing as to demand the perpetuation of the Levitical feasts.
2. The first day of the week would have no prescribed religious significance. It would not be distinguished from any other day as the memorial of Christ’s Resurrection and could not properly be regarded as the Lord’s day in distinction from the way in which every day is to be lived in devotion to and the service of the Lord Christ. Neither might any other day, weekly or otherwise, be regarded as set apart with this religious significance.
3. Observance of a weekly Sabbath or of a day commemorating our Lord’s Resurrection would be a feature of the person weak in faith and in this case he would be weak in faith because he had not yet attained to the understanding that in the Christian institution all days are in the same category. Just as one weak Christian fails to recognize that all kinds of food are clean, so another, or perchance the same person, would fail to esteem every day alike.
These implications of the thesis in question cannot be avoided. We may now proceed to examine them in the light of the considerations which scripture as a whole provides.
1. The Sabbath institution is a creation ordinance. It did not begin to have relevance at Sinai when the ten commandments were given to Moses on two tables (cf. Gen. 2:2, 3; Exod. 16:21–23). It was, however, incorporated in the law promulgated at Sinai and this we would expect in view of its significance and purpose as enunciated in Genesis 2:2, 3. It is so embedded in this covenant law that to regard it as of different character from its context in respect of abiding relevance goes counter to the unity and basic significance of what was inscribed on the two tables. Our Lord himself tells us of its purpose and claims it for his messianic Lordship (Mark 2:28). The thesis we are now considering would have to assume that the pattern provided by God himself (Gen. 2:2, 3) in the work of creation (cf. also Exod. 20:11; 31:17) has no longer any relevance for the regulation of man’s life on earth, that only nine of the ten words of the decalogue have authority for Christians, that the beneficent design contemplated in the original institution (Mark 2:28) has no application under the gospel, and that the lordship Christ exercised over the Sabbath was for the purpose of abolishing it as an institution to be observed. These are the necessary conclusions to be drawn from the assumption in question. There is no evidence to support any of these conclusions, and, when they are combined and their cumulative force frankly weighed, it is then that the whole analogy of scripture is shown to be contradicted by the assumption concerned.
2. The first day of the week as the day on which Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19) is recognized in the New Testament as having a significance derived from this fact of Jesus’ Resurrection (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) and this is the reason why John speaks of it as the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). It is the one day of the week to which belongs this distinctive religious significance. Since it occurs every seventh day, it is a perpetually recurring memorial with religious intent and character proportionate to the place which Jesus’ Resurrection occupies in the accomplishment of redemption. The two pivotal events in this accomplishment are the death and Resurrection of Christ and the two memorial ordinances of the New Testament institution are the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s day, the one memorializing Jesus’ death and the other his Resurrection. If Paul in Romans 14:5 implies that all distinctions of days have been obliterated, then there is no room for the distinctive significance of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day. The evidence supporting the memorial character of the first day is not to be controverted and, consequently, in this respect also the assumption in question cannot be entertained, namely, that all religious distinction of days is completely abrogated in the Christian economy.
3. In accord with the analogy of scripture and particularly the teaching of Paul, Romans 14:5 can properly be regarded as referring to the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution. The obligation to observe these is clearly abrogated in the New Testament. They have no longer relevance or sanction and the situation described in Romans 14:5 perfectly accords with what Paul would say with reference to religious scrupulosity or the absence of such anent these days. Paul was not insistent upon the discontinuance of ritual observances of the Levitical ordinances as long as the observance was merely one of religious custom and not compromising the gospel (cf. Acts 18:18, 21; 21:20–27). He himself circumcised Timothy from considerations of expediency. But in a different situation he could write: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing” (Gal. 5:2). Ceremonial feast days fall into the category of which the apostle could say: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike”. Many Jews would not yet have understood all the implications of the gospel and had still a scrupulous regard for these Mosaic ordinances. Of such scruples we know Paul to have been thoroughly tolerant and they fit the precise terms of the text in question. There is no need to posit anything that goes beyond such observances. To place the Lord’s day and the weekly Sabbath in the same category is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of scripture. An interpretation that involves such contradiction cannot be adopted. Thus the abiding sanctity of each recurring seventh day as the memorial of God’s rest in creation and of Christ’s exaltation in his Resurrection is not to be regarded as in any way impaired by Romans 14:5.” (10)
Reformed Confessional support for the Sunday is the Christian Sabbath:
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks which day of the seven has God appointed. The Shorter Catechism in Q.59 puts it this way:
“Q.59. Which day of the seven has God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.”
Westminster Confession of 1646: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
“Chapter XXI. Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day with Scriptural proofs
I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and with all the soul, and with all the might, (Rom 1:20; Act 17:24; Psa 119:68; Jer 10:7; Psa 31:23; Psa 18:3; Rom 10:12; Psa 62:8; Jos 24:14; Mar 12:33). But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy scripture, (Deu 12:32; Mat 15:9; Act 17:25; Mat 4:9-10; Deu 15:1-20; Exd 20:4-6; Col 2:23).
II. Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Him alone, (Mat 4:10; Jhn 5:23; 2Co 13:14); not to angels, saints, or any other creature, (Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; Rom 1:25): and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone, (Jhn 14:6; 1Ti 2:5; Eph 2:18; Col 3:17).
III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, (Phl 4:6); is by God required of all men, (Psa 65:2): and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, (Jhn 14:13-14; 1Pe 2:5); by the help of His Spirit, (Rom 8:26); according to His will, (1Jo 5:14); with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance, (Psa 47:7; Ecc 5:1-2; Hbr 12:28; Gen 18:27; Jam 5:16; Jam 1:6-7; Mar 11:24; Mat 6:12, 14-15; Col 4:2; Eph 6:18); and, if vocal, in a, known tongue, (1Co 14:14).
IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful, (1Jo 5:14); and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter, (1Ti 2:1-2; Jhn 17:20; 2Sa 7:29; Rth 4:12): but not for the dead, (2Sa 12:21-23; Luk 16:25-26; Rev 14:13); nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death, (1Jo 5:16).
V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, (Act 15:21; Rev 1:3); the sound preaching, (2Ti 4:2); and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, (Jam 1:22; Act 10:33; Mat 13:19; Hbr 4:2; Isa 66:2); singing of psalms with grace in the heart, (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19; Jam 5:13); as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God, (Mat 28:19; 1Co 11:23-29; Act 2:42): beside religious oaths, (Deu 6:13; Neh 10:29); vows, (Isa 19:21; Ecc 5:4-5); solemn fastings, (Joe 2:12; Est 4:16; Mat 9:15; 1Co 7:5); and thanksgivings upon special occasions, (Psa 107; Est 9:22); which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner, (Hbr 12:28).
VI. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed, (Jhn 4:21): but God is to be worshipped everywhere, (Mal 1:11; 1Ti 2:8); in spirit and truth, (Jhn 4:23-24); as, in private families, (Jer 10:25; Deu 6:6-7; Job 1:5; 2Sa 6:18, 20; 1Pe 3:7, Act 10:2); daily, (Mat 6:11); and in secret, each one by himself, (Mat 6:6; Eph 6:18); so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calleth thereunto, (Isa 56:6-7; Hbr 10:25; Pro 1:20-21, 24; Pro 8:34; Act 13:42; Luk 4:16; Act 2:42).
VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him, (Exd 20:8, 10-11; Isa 56:2, 4, 6-7): which, from the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week, (Gen 2:2-3; 1Co 16:1-2; Act 20:7); and, from the Resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, (Rev 1:10); and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath, (Exd 20:8, 10; Mat 5:17-18).
VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exd 20:8; Exd 16:23, 25-26, 29-30; Exd 31:15-17; Isa 58:13; Neh 13:15-19, 21-22); but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy, (Isa 58:13; Mat 12:1-13).”
Westminster Catechism and Confession, one of Protestantism’s most excellent confessions, understands that the Saturday Sabbath has changed to Sunday, along with its significance.
Conclusion with a summary of Scriptural reasons for the day change:
1. The Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 25:1; and John 20:1, 19, 26.
2. In the book of Acts, we learn more about Sunday, the day of Christ’s Resurrection. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7)
3. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul tells us that not only in Corinth but all the churches of Galatia met upon the first day of the week. Moreover, the apostles commanded the observation of this day rather than any other day for Sabbath services.
4. Regarding Sunday, the first day of the week, it can be said this day is sanctified to be holy to the Lord above any other day, and therefore it has the Lord’s name upon it and consequently is called the Lord’s day, as is manifest from Revelation1:10.
In answer to the opening questions, the Roman Catholic assertion that the Papacy changed the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday worship does not hold up historically, nor most importantly, biblically.
5. Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter IX.
6. (Constantine, March 7, 321. Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; translated in Philip Schaff’s, History of the Christian Church), Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1.
7. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1405-1406.
8. R. J. Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, ed. D. A. Carson, pages 221-250.
9. John Murray, The Sabbath, The Pattern of the Lord’s Day, (United Kingdom, Lord’s Day Observance Society), out of print.
10. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2, The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), 257–259.
Messiah’s people: “called out assembly,” the bride, true name Y’Isra-el
Answer:
The concept of the Messiah’s people being referred to as the “called out assembly” or “bride” has roots in both Jewish and Christian theology, though interpretations can vary significantly between these groups and even within them:
1. Messiah’s People as “Called Out Assembly:”
· In Christianity, the term “ekklesia” (ἐκκλησία), often translated as “church,” means “called out ones” or “assembly.” This term is used to describe the community of believers in Jesus Christ, who are seen as called out by God for a divine purpose. Early Christian writings, including those in the New Testament, describe believers as an assembly chosen or called by God.
2. The Bride:
· The metaphor of the “bride” is frequently used in Christian theology to describe the church’s relationship with Christ. This imagery comes from passages like Ephesians 5:25-27, where the church is described as the bride of Christ, meant to be presented without spot or wrinkle. In Judaism, the concept of Israel as God’s bride exists, notably in prophetic literature, where God is depicted as betrothed to Israel (e.g., Hosea, Jeremiah).
3. True Name Y’Isra-el:
· The term “Y’Isra-el” or “Yisra’el” is essentially the Hebrew name for Israel, which means “struggles with God” or “God prevails.” In Jewish thought, Israel refers to the descendants of Jacob, who was renamed Israel after wrestling with an angel (Genesis 32:28). In some Messianic or Jewish-Christian interpretations, there’s a movement to reclaim or use Hebrew names, believing they hold spiritual significance or are closer to the original context of the scriptures. “Y’Isra-el” might emphasize this connection, although it’s not universally adopted in mainstream Jewish or Christian discourse.
4. Messianic and Eschatological Views:
· From a Messianic Jewish perspective or certain streams within Christianity, especially those with Hebraic roots, there’s an understanding that the true followers of the Messiah (whether seen as Jesus or another figure in Jewish eschatology) are part of a spiritual Israel, which might be called Y’Israel. This view often incorporates the idea that believers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are part of God’s covenant with Israel through faith in the Messiah.
5. Cultural and Theological Nuances:
· The idea of “Y’Isra-el” as the true name for the Messiah’s people can be tied to theological debates about the identity of God’s people in the end times. Some believe that all believers in the Messiah will be part of a restored Israel, fulfilling prophecies about the ingathering of the exiles and the unity of God’s people under one covenant.
In summary:
While the phrase “called out assembly” aligns with Christian usage of “ekklesia” for the church, and the term “bride” is used for both Israel (in Jewish texts) and the Church (in Christian texts), the specific usage of “Y’Isra-el” as the true name for the Messiah’s people might be more aligned with certain Messianic or Hebraic Christian interpretations, emphasizing a continuity or restoration of Israel through faith in the Messiah. However, interpretations can vary widely, and not all theological or religious groups will agree on these points.
Counterfeit: Circe (Church), daughter of the sun god
Answer:
The fallacy above refers to likely stems from the conflation or misinterpretation of several mythological or religious elements.
1. Circe in Mythology:
· Circe is a figure from Greek mythology, not directly related to Christianity or any other religious institution like the Church (often referred to as “Circe” in some interpretations due to phonetic or typographical similarity). She was a sorceress known for her ability to turn men into animals, as described in Homer’s “Odyssey.” Circe was the daughter of Helios, the Titan sun god, and the nymph Perse.
2. Misinterpretation or Confusion:
· The confusion might arise from:
· Linguistic Mix-up: Circe might be confused with “Church” due to similar sounding names in some languages or dialects.
· Symbolic or Allegorical Interpretations: In some literary or symbolic interpretations, mythological figures like Circe might represent ideas or entities from Christianity or other religions. However, this isn’t standard in traditional mythology.
3. Symbolic Connections:
· Sun Imagery in Religion: The sun has been a powerful symbol across many cultures and religions, including Christianity, where light is often used as a metaphor for divine truth or enlightenment. However, this does not mean figures like Circe are directly linked to or considered part of Christian theology.
4. Fallacy Analysis:
· Argument from False Analogy: This fallacy occurs when two things are compared that have no real similarity, or the comparison is made inappropriately. Here, assuming Circe, a mythological figure with no direct connection to Christianity, is the “daughter” of the Church due to some superficial or misunderstood connections would be erroneous.
5. Etymological Fallacy:
· Assuming that because words sound similar or share similar roots, their meanings must be related, which isn’t the case here with “Circe” and “Church.”
To summarize:
The idea that Circe is the daughter of the Church because of her association with the sun god Helios represents a misunderstanding or creative reinterpretation of mythology and religion. This fallacy would involve misconceptions about the origins and implications of mythological and religious symbols and names.
Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)
Answer:
“Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)” is not the only exclusive way to refer to the Messiah in Christian or Jewish contexts. Here are some variations and considerations:
1. Yahoshua – This name is derived from Hebrew. It’s sometimes used by those who prefer using original Hebrew names. However, variations exist:
· Yeshua is a more commonly used Hebrew name for Jesus, meaning “salvation.”
· Joshua – The anglicized form of “Yahoshua” or “Yeshua,” found in English Bibles.
2. Jesus – In English-speaking contexts, “Jesus” is the most widely recognized name for the Messiah. This comes from the Latin Iesus, which in turn derives from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahoshua.
3. Jesus Christ – Combining the name with the title “Christ,” which means “Messiah” or “Anointed One” in Greek.
4. Messiah – This term can stand alone or be paired with various names:
· Messiah Jesus or Jesus the Messiah
· HaMashiach in Hebrew, which means “The Messiah.”
5. Lord – Often used in a messianic context, especially in Christian worship and texts:
· Lord Jesus Christ
6. Other Cultural and Linguistic Variations:
· Isa is used in Arabic, Islam, and some Christian contexts in the Arab world.
· And, Iēsous Khristos in Greek directly translates to “Jesus Christ” in English.
Each of these ways of referring to the Messiah can be associated with different theological, cultural, or linguistic backgrounds:
· Christianity generally uses “Jesus Christ” or variations thereof.
· Judaism might use “Messiah” or “Moshiach” when discussing the expected or potential messianic figure.
· Messianic Judaism might use “Yahoshua” or “Yeshua” to highlight the Jewish roots of Jesus’ identity.
Therefore, while “Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)” is one way to express this concept, it’s far from the only universally accepted way. Language, culture, and religious tradition significantly influence how this figure is named and described.
Counterfeit: Yay Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)
The statement “Yay Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)” contains several inaccuracies and misconceptions:
1. Jesus and Zeus:
· Confusion between Names: The statement seems to imply that Jesus and Zeus are related or the same, which is incorrect from a theological, historical, and linguistic perspective.
· Jesus: The name Jesus comes from the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Yeshua” or “Yehoshua” (Joshua), meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” The Greek transliteration is Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).
· Zeus: Zeus is the chief deity in Greek mythology, unrelated to the Judeo-Christian figure of Jesus. The name Zeus derives from the Indo-European root *dyeu-, which is related to sky or day, not to any Semitic or Hebrew roots.
2. Linguistic Misrepresentation:
· “Iesous, Iesum, Iesus:” These are Latinized forms of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). They are not false but are variations of the same name adapted to different grammatical cases in Latin:
· Iesous – Nominative case used for the subject of a sentence.
· Iesum – Accusative case, used as the direct object.
· Iesus – Another Latin form, though less commonly used in classical Latin texts for Jesus.
· The claim that these names are “falsely” attributed to Jesus misunderstands how names get adapted across languages. These variations are typical linguistic adaptations rather than false representations.
3. Cultural and Religious Misunderstanding:
· The statement might imply a conspiracy or a deliberate misrepresentation of how Jesus’s name was transliterated or translated, which isn’t the case:
· Early Christian texts were written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean. Hence, “Yeshua” was naturally transliterated to “Iēsous” in Greek and from Greek to Latin as “Iesus” or “Iesum,” depending on the grammatical context.
4. Lack of Historical Context:
· The evolution of the name from Hebrew to Greek to Latin reflects the cultural and linguistic transitions in the early spread of Christianity, not an attempt to mislead or confuse.
In conclusion:
The statement contains a mix-up of linguistic evolution, historical context, and theological identity. The names “Iesous,” “Iesum,” and “Iesus” are legitimate, albeit varied, forms of Jesus’s name in different linguistic contexts, not falsehoods. The connection or conflation with Zeus is a misunderstanding of etymology and cultural history.
Salvation: declared directly to the believer by the Holy Spirit
Counterfeit: declared only by man who falsely claims it’s the Holy Spirit
And, for some reason, Christians don’t think these things even matter!
The above declaration and alleged counterfeit are nothing more than subjective quibbling. Dean, a leader of the “Tabernacle,” says that the Holy Spirit tells him directly and without any evidence and levels an accusation that a Christian’s testimony is based on man’s word. The assertion that salvation is based on man’s word is false regarding the Reformed faith. Furthermore, Christians think these things matter to those who are more humble in their faith and less likely to throw accusations around. His lack of documentation is a glaring error in Dean Haskins’ assertions here and elsewhere. In this writer’s brief exchange with Dean on Parler, he was asked if he had taken up mind reading because of his lack of documentation for his assertions.
Escatology Astray: The following is Dean Haskin’s view on Bible interpretation taken from his website.
WHAT IS THE “FALLING AWAY”?
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul speaks of the coming rule of the antichrist, which will precede Messiah’s 1000-year reign on earth. He says that the antichrist will not come until there is first “falling away from the faith. (bolding emphasis mine)
What movement occurred AFTER Paul had died and stripped the true faith of its foundations, replacing the Father’s true ordained days (Sabbaths) with ordained pagan counterfeits like SUNday assembling and holydays are tied to sun worship, and also turned salvation into something man controls?
Christianity I.S. the “apostasy” Paul said would precede the coming of the antichrist. It began in the early centuries after the New Testament writers had all died/culminating in its head (the Pope) endorsing the antichrist. Christianity flows from Rome, where it was invented, and it pervades and deceives the planet.
Apart from some shocking historical errors, such as “Christianity flows from Rome.” Dean has apparently never heard of Eastern Orthodoxy because they would most certainly object along with the Coptics.
The assertion that “everything in Christianity flows from Rome” oversimplifies and is not accurate.
1. Historical Context:
· Early Christianity: Christianity began in the Middle East, specifically in Judea (modern-day Israel and Palestine), with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The early Church spread through the Apostles’ efforts across the Roman Empire and beyond.
· Rome’s Role: Rome became central due to its political and cultural significance in the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome (later known as the Pope) gained prominence partly because Rome was the empire’s capital.
2. Development of the Papacy:
· Over centuries, the Bishop of Rome’s role evolved, especially after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Pope’s authority was recognized more formally during the Middle Ages, leading to the concept of papal primacy. However, this was not without controversy, especially in the East, where the Orthodox Church developed independently.
3. Eastern Christianity:
· The Eastern Orthodox Church, centered in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), has its own Patriarchs and does not accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction. This branch of Christianity developed alongside Western Christianity but with different theological emphases and ecclesiastical structures.
4. Protestant Reformation and Beyond:
· The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century challenged the authority of Rome, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations. These groups often rejected or reformed many doctrines and practices associated with Roman Catholicism, emphasizing scripture over tradition or papal authority.
5. Global Christianity:
· Today, Christianity is a global religion with diverse expressions:
· Catholicism: While the Pope in Rome is the spiritual leader, there are also significant Eastern Catholic Churches that, while in communion with Rome, retain their own rites and traditions.
· Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy has autocephalous (self-headed) churches, such as the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.
· Protestantism: Encompasses numerous denominations like Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, etc., each with its governance.
· Other Christian Movements: Include Anglicanism, which splits between those who align closely with Rome and others who do not, and independent or non-denominational churches.
6. Non-Roman Influences:
· Various cultures and places have influenced Christianity:
· Alexandria: Early Christian theology and Christology were significantly developed here.
· Antioch is known for its school of thought that emphasizes Christ’s humanity alongside His divinity.
· Constantinople: Played a crucial role in theological debates and the formation of the Nicene Creed.
In summary:
While Rome has been, and remains, a significant center for Christianity, especially for the Roman Catholic Church, the assertion that “everything flows from Rome” does not hold universally across all Christian traditions. Many cultural, geographical, and theological currents have influenced Christianity’s development, making it a richly diverse global faith.
Exegesis of 2 Thessalonians from a Reformed Perspective
Introduction:
2 Thessalonians, believed to be penned by the Apostle Paul, addresses a community grappling with eschatological concerns, moral conduct, and church discipline. This letter, likely written shortly after 1 Thessalonians, aims to clarify misunderstandings about the Day of the Lord, encourage steadfastness in faith, and correct certain behaviors within the church.
1. Authorship and Historical Context:
· Authorship: While traditional scholarship attributes 2 Thessalonians to Paul, some modern scholars debate its Pauline authorship due to stylistic differences with 1 Thessalonians. However, from a Reformed perspective, which typically holds to traditional authorship, the letter is accepted as genuinely Pauline, written in collaboration with Silas and Timothy (2 Thess. 1:1).
· Context: The church in Thessalonica was experiencing persecution (2 Thess. 1:4-7), which likely led to confusion about eschatological events, causing some members to become idle, expecting the imminent return of Christ.
2. Theological Themes:
· Eschatology: The Day of the Lord (2 Thess. 2:1-12): Paul corrects the Thessalonians’ misunderstanding that the day of the Lord had already come. He outlines a sequence: apostasy must occur, and the “man of lawlessness” must be revealed before Christ’s return (2 Thess. 2:3-4). This passage reflects Reformed theology’s understanding of progressive revelation, where events unfold in God’s predetermined order, emphasizing God’s sovereignty over history.
· The Restrainer: Discussions on the identity of the restrainer (2 Thess. 2:6-7) are speculative; however, within Reformed circles, interpretations might lean towards the Holy Spirit, human government, or an angelic being, all under divine control.
· Perseverance and Election:
· God’s Faithful Calling (2 Thess. 2:13-14): Paul reassures believers of their election by God for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. This aligns with the Reformed doctrine on election, emphasizing that salvation is a divine initiative, not predicated on human merit.
· Work and Discipline:
· Against Idleness (2 Thess. 3:6-15): Paul’s admonition for everyone to work and not be idle (3:10-12) reflects the Reformed work ethic, where diligence in one’s calling is seen as a part of Christian living, countering the idle expectation of Christ’s immediate return.
3. Ecclesiological Insights:
· Church Discipline: The directive to withdraw from those who live in idleness but do not obey the letter’s instructions (2 Thess. 3:14-15) underscores the Reformed view on church governance and discipline, where the community is responsible for maintaining order and purity in doctrine and life.
· Prayer for the Church (2 Thess. 1:11-12): Here, the intercessory role of the apostle for the spiritual growth and glorification of the church members is emphasized, reflecting the Reformed focus on the means of grace, including prayer, for spiritual development.
4. Application for Today:
· Relevance: The themes in 2 Thessalonians continue to resonate:
· The call to diligently work and doctrine amidst eschatological speculation or societal pressures.
· Believers find comfort in God’s sovereign plan for history and salvation.
· The importance of church discipline as part of communal spiritual health is highlighted.
Conclusion:
2 Thessalonians from a Reformed perspective serves as a guide for eschatological understanding and a framework for Christian living that emphasizes perseverance, community responsibility, and reliance on divine providence. It encourages believers to live out their faith actively in anticipation of Christ’s return, maintaining order and discipline within the church community while trusting in God’s overarching plan for the cosmos.
Introductory Observations about Dean Haskins’ book From Christian to Believer” by Kurt Van Gordon:
“When I first looked at Dean Haskins’s book on Amazon, coauthored with James Finnegan, I was unfamiliar with either author. However, I took note that their book was published by “Tate Publishing” (the scandalized Tate Publishing from Mustang, Oklahoma, not to be confused with Tate Publishing in London, England, from 1911). This relaxed my anticipation that we had much more than two self-proclaimed specialists who lacked the business-sense to steer away from Tate Publishing, due to their horrid reputation. Anyone can Google Tate Publishing of Mustang, OK, and find compounded articles exposing lawsuits by would-be authors, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s eight-count indictment for embezzlement, among other things, and the lawsuits from Xerox and other corporations. This was not a good beginning for analyzing Mr. Haskins’s work.
My second flag was Haskins’s book description, which stated that we are all going to be “shocked” with what he found out about Christianity. When someone uses the word “shocked” to describe the Bible or Christianity, it fosters the pretense that the author has discovered something formerly unknown or untouched by any other writer. Rarely is this the true case. In fact, his thesis about Hebraic Roots is rehashed from the Messianic movement churches, but even older, it also is rooted in the Judaizers who tormented the apostolic Church, who were rebuked in Paul’s epistles as legalists who are ignorant of God’s true grace.
Further research showed that Haskins’s coauthor, Finnegan, has released the book free of charge on his website. I downloaded it and read some of the sections. My initial suspicions were confirmed in that it was a jumbled concoction of term-replacement, term-twisting, and just plain fabrications reminiscent of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the former cult, Worldwide Church of God). Haskins and Finnegan have intensified the legalism and have returned to the very object of Paul’s rebuke in Galatians, in that “they pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7), of which he twice-declared, “Anathema!” (accursed, Gal. 1:8, 9).
The book meanders in directionless paths with no central point, except that he disdains both mainline Christianity and parts of the Hebrew Roots Movement. The book also engages date-setting for the tribulation and millennial periods, which they surmise as 2031, “From the time of Adam to the time of Abraham, there was roughly two thousand years. Then from the time of Abraham to the time of Christ, there was another two thousand years. Most biblical scholars agree that Christ was crucified in the year AD 31, and if we add two thousand years to that, we arrive at 2031.” The simplest research will expose their false statement about “most scholars,” but far worse is their contrived and forced interpretation attached to it. As with most hyper-dispensational date-setters, none have ever been right because “the day and the hour no man knows,” promised Jesus, in Matthew 24:36.” – Kurt Van Gorden, author of Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995), the coauthor of The Kingdom of the Occult (with Walter R. Martin and Jill Martin-Rische, 2008), and the Senior Researcher of The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin, (2019).
Critical Review of “From Christian to Believer” by James Finnegan and Dean Haskins
“From Christian to Believer” aims to guide readers on a spiritual journey through Christian symbolism, mainly focusing on the Tabernacle. However, the book suffers from several academic flaws that significantly undermine its credibility:
1. Lack of Scholarly Rigor:
The text often makes assertions about biblical interpretations without providing sufficient textual or historical evidence. This approach might resonate with those already inclined towards the author’s viewpoint but lacks the depth expected in academic or theological studies where primary and peer-reviewed secondary sources are crucial.
2. Anachronistic Interpretations:
There’s a tendency to impose modern theological concepts onto ancient texts without acknowledging the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. This retrofitting of contemporary beliefs onto ancient practices can lead to misinterpretations and overlooks the development of Christian doctrine over centuries.
3. Over-Simplification:
Complex theological concepts are often reduced to simplistic metaphors, which might serve well for introductory religious literature but fail when trying to engage with or contribute to theological discourse. This simplification can dilute the richness of biblical scholarship and ignore the nuances that scholars debate.
4. Bias and Lack of Critical Engagement:
The book appears to advocate for a particular theological stance without adequately exploring or critiquing alternative interpretations or viewpoints. This lack of dialogue with other theological traditions or even within the Christian tradition can make the work seem dogmatically one-sided rather than a scholarly exploration.
5. Inadequate Source Citation:
While not uncommon in religious texts aimed at the general public, the absence of proper citations or references to other works, both ancient and modern, hampers the book’s value, which makes it difficult for readers to follow up on claims or assess the credibility of the interpretations presented.
6. Theological Assumptions:
The author sometimes presents theological assumptions as if they were universally accepted truths, which can be misleading. For instance, specific interpretations of salvation, the role of the Tabernacle, or the nature of belief are treated as definitive rather than as one perspective among many.
7. Use of Anecdotal Evidence:
The narrative often relies on personal anecdotes or testimonies, which, while compelling from a personal faith perspective, do not constitute reliable academic evidence. This method might be inspiring but does not contribute to scholarly discourse.
Are the authors professionally competent in Hebrew?
Given the information available and the nature of the book “From Christian to Believer,” there isn’t explicit evidence within the author’s or authors’ document demonstrating professional knowledge of Hebrew.
Points to consider:
Language Use: The text often discusses biblical concepts, especially those related to the Tabernacle, which might suggest familiarity with the Old Testament. However, this does not necessarily indicate proficiency in Hebrew, as many English translations or commentaries could be the source of such information.
Lack of Hebrew Textual Analysis: If the book delves deeply into Hebrew language specifics, like etymology, syntax, or exegesis based on the Hebrew text, one might expect to see Hebrew words or phrases analyzed, transliterated, or translated. However, without directly accessing the text or a detailed content analysis, there’s no clear indication that such a level of Hebrew scholarship exists.
Theological Interpretation vs. Linguistic Knowledge: Many theological interpretations of the Bible can be made without advanced knowledge of Hebrew. The book might focus on spiritual or symbolic interpretations that do not require one to be adept in the original languages of the Bible.
Author’s Background: The book doesn’t provide information about the author’s background or credentials. If the author has training or expertise in Hebrew, this would typically be mentioned in the author bios or in the book’s acknowledgments, which are not included in the review snippets or the PDF version of the book itself.
To accurately assess the author’s knowledge of Hebrew, one would need:
· Direct Reference to Hebrew: Quotes from or discussions about the original Hebrew texts, showing interaction with the language.
· Citations: Use of scholarly sources that deal with Hebrew, like lexicons, commentaries on the original texts, or studies from Hebrew scholars.
· Author’s Qualifications: Information on the author’s academic or professional qualifications related to biblical languages.
Without this information, it’s difficult to confirm if the author(s) of “From Christian to Believer” have professional knowledge of Hebrew sufficient for writing an authoritative book on biblical interpretation based on the language itself.
The publisher Dean Haskins used for his book is another reason not to read the book:
Tate Publishing from Mustang, Oklahoma, is not considered a credible publisher based on its history and numerous legal and ethical issues:
Business Practices: Tate Publishing operated primarily as a vanity press, where authors paid for publication services. While this isn’t inherently non-credible, the issues surrounding Tate Publishing go beyond standard vanity press operations.
· Legal Troubles:
In 2016, Xerox sued Tate Publishing for over $1.7 million in unpaid services. This lawsuit highlighted financial distress.
In January 2017, Tate Publishing ceased operations amid legal battles, including lawsuits from printing services providers like Lightning Source and Xerox for millions of dollars in unpaid debts.
The founders, Richard and Ryan Tate, were arrested in May 2017 on charges including embezzlement, extortion, and racketeering. They pleaded no contest to 44 criminal charges in December 2019, which included defrauding customers.
· Customer Complaints: There have been numerous complaints from authors and musicians about the non-delivery of services despite payment, lack of royalties, and poor quality of work. The Oklahoma Attorney General received nearly 2,200 complaints from former clients about Tate Publishing’s practices.
· Closure and Transition: In January 2017, they announced they were in a transition period, no longer accepting new clients, and were supposedly working to find new homes for their current authors and artists, which did not resolve the issues for many.
· Public Perception: The combination of legal issues, customer complaints, and the abrupt closure of business operations significantly damaged Tate Publishing’s reputation. They were often cited in consumer reports and reviews as a company to be wary of.
Given this background, Tate Publishing would not be recommended for anyone considering a publisher for their work due to its history of fraudulent activities, legal issues, and failure to provide promised services. In light of the numerous fallacies, lack of scholarship, and divisive spirit outlined above regarding Dean Haskins’ book, Tate Publishing was a publisher of last resort.
Conclusion:
From an academic standpoint, “From Christian to Believer” falls short. Its methodological approach lacks the rigor, critical analysis, and broad engagement with theological scholarship necessary for it to be considered a contribution to biblical or theological studies. This book, however, ends with a conclusion and does not include an index.
While Dean Haskins is a talented musician, his excursion into theology can be described as religion-run amuck. The “Way of the Tabernacle” is an extreme aberrational subset of the HRM characterized by ignorance, arrogance, and vitriolic hate of the Christian Faith.
Portions of the above study were Groked under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“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)
The above material is copyrighted and published by Kettler Wellness Inc. The above material can be freely copied as a whole or in part if the context is preserved and proper attribution is listed.
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Torahism: The Book by R. L. Solberg has been recognized for its critique of the theology associated with the Hebraic Roots Movement, arguing against the requirement for Christians to keep the Law of Moses. This book won awards for its theological stance and is considered a thorough defense against HRM teachings. www.RLSolberg.com
Torahism: Are Christians Required to Keep the Law of Moses?
Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Movement by Tim Chaffey with Answers in Genesis examines the HRM, pointing out what it sees as dangers and heresies, such as the belief that Christians must keep the Torah, which it argues contradicts New Testament teachings.
Articles and blog posts by R. L. Solberg, including those on his website, discuss the theological issues with HRM, emphasizing the dangers of legalism and the misinterpretation of scriptural covenants. https://www.youtube.com/@TheBiblicalRoots
Judaism is not Jewish: (currently out of print, one can find used copies for sale on the Internet)
By Baruch Maoz
What others are saying about Baruch’s Judaism is not Jewish:
“The heart of his indictment is this: the Movement has allowed rabbinic tradition to overshadow the Bible. In a laudable attempt to attract Jews to Christianity, they are in danger of losing the essence of the faith as it centers in Jesus Christ.” – Tom Wells, Pastor, The Kings Chapel, West Chester, Ohio
“Written primarily as a constructive critique of Messianic Judaism and in light of the author’s more than 30 years as a minister in Israel, it has far broader relevance. It highlights, in a fashion both compelling and winsome, considerations that are non-negotiable today, as always, in maintaining the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ and biblical Christianity.” – Richard B. Gaffin, Jr, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
“This book is must reading for everyone who cares about the Jewish people.” – Stan Telchin, Stan Telchin Ministries, Sarasota, Florida
“Pastor Maoz is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear convictions, who builds simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably biblical foundation. For those within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic Movement, this book is importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly, other Jewish Christians and any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost certainly find it helpful. The book also has much to say to all believers.” – The Banner of Truth
“This is a warm, engaging and very important book, especially for Jewish Christians and those involved in ministry with Jewish followers of Messiah Jesus.” – John Armstrong, Reformation & Revival Ministries, Carol Stream, Illinois (Director of Renew and formerly a Pastor for twenty years)
“Pastor Maoz is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear convictions, who builds simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably biblical foundation. For those within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic Movement, this book is importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly, other Jewish Christians and any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost certainly find it helpful. The book also has much to say to all believers.” – The Banner of Truth
A look at verb tenses in John 5:24 By Jack Kettler
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24)
Exegesis of John 5:24 from a Reformed Theological Perspective:
John 5:24 states, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
1. Hath Everlasting Life:
· Verb Tense Analysis: The verb “hath” in the KJV translates from the Greek word ἔχει (echei), which is in the present indicative active tense. This tense denotes action that is ongoing or presently true. From a Reformed perspective, this present tense suggests that the possession of eternal life is immediate and continuous upon faith in Christ. It does not speak of a future attainment but of a current reality for the believer.
· Theological Implication: The Reformed tradition emphasizes the “perseverance of the saints,” where the believer is granted eternal life at the moment of faith. This life is not merely promised but is already bestowed, underscoring the security of salvation. The believer does not work towards earning eternal life; rather, it is a gift received through faith, which is itself a gift from God.
2. Is Passed from Death unto Life:
· Verb Tense Analysis: The phrase “is passed” translates from μεταβέβηκεν (metabebekken), which is in the perfect active indicative. The perfect tense in Greek indicates a completed action with results extending into the present. Here, it signifies that the transition from death to life occurred at a point in the past but remains effective in the present.
· Theological Implication: From a Reformed standpoint, this transition is not merely a change in status but a transformative event with ongoing effects. This past action (the moment of faith) has placed the believer in a new state of being. The use of the perfect tense underscores the finality and completeness of this change. It cannot be undone or needs repeating; the believer has definitively moved from the realm of death (spiritual separation from God) to life (union with Christ).
Synthesis in Reformed Theology:
· Immediate Justification: The present and perfect tenses together highlight the immediacy of justification and the permanence of regeneration in the believer. Upon hearing and believing, one is immediately justified before God, receiving the gift of eternal life.
· Covenantal Continuity: This passage also aligns with the covenant theology within Reformed thought, where the covenant of grace is enacted through faith in Christ, ensuring that the elect, upon believing, is granted all the benefits of the covenant, including eternal life.
· Eschatological Certainty: The certainty of the believer’s state is not contingent on future actions but on Christ’s past and present work applied through faith. This certainty provides assurance against condemnation, as promised in the text, reflecting the doctrine of assurance within Reformed theology.
More examples from the Bible where verb tenses similarly support the Reformed theological perspective on the immediacy and permanence of salvation:
1. John 3:36:
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Verb Tense: “hath” (ἔχει – present indicative active) indicates that the believer currently possesses eternal life, not merely that they will have it in the future.
2. Ephesians 2:5:
“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
Verb Tense: “hath quickened” (συνεζωοποίησεν – aorist indicative active) points to a past action with ongoing effects. It shows that the act of making alive together with Christ is complete, yet its effect (being alive in Christ) continues.
3. 1 John 5:12:
“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
Verb Tense: “hath” (ἔχων – present participle active) again denotes possession in the present time, emphasizing that life is currently held by those who have the Son.
4. John 10:28:
“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
Verb Tense: “give” (δίδωμι – present indicative active) indicates an ongoing action of giving, suggesting that eternal life is continuously bestowed upon believers.
5. Philippians 1:6:
“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.”
Verb Tense: “hath begun” (ἐναρξάμενος – aorist participle middle) refers to a past action with lasting effects, and “will perform” (ἐπιτελέσει – future indicative active) promises future completion, illustrating the continuity from initiation to fulfillment in salvation.
6. Galatians 2:20:
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
Verb Tense: “I am crucified” (συνεσταύρωμαι – perfect indicative passive) signifies an event in the past with ongoing effects, showing that the crucifixion with Christ is a past act with present reality.
7. 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
Verb Tense: “is” (ἐστίν – present indicative active), “are passed away” (παρῆλθεν – aorist indicative active), and “are become new” (γέγονεν – perfect indicative active) together indicate the immediate transformation upon being in Christ, with past actions having present and ongoing effects.
Through their verb tenses, these scripture examples reinforce the Reformed theological principles of immediate justification, the permanence of the believer’s transformation, and the certainty of salvation, all initiated and sustained by God’s grace through faith in Christ.
In conclusion, John 5:24, through its verb tenses, supports the Reformed doctrines of the immediate bestowal of eternal life upon faith, the definitive transition from death to life at conversion, and the ongoing, unchangeable status of the believer in Christ, underscoring the themes of grace, continuity in God’s covenant, and the assurance of salvation.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“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 is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 