Outreach Ideas for 2008

What are your churches doing to get the Gospel out into your communities in 2008?

Christmas Books

First, make sure you read the previous post on the Deacon discussion that's been going on.

Second, Justin C posted what books he received for Christmas over at his blog. Here's what I got:

• The Message of the OT by Dever
• The Message of the NT by Dever
• The Gospel and Personal Evangelism by Dever
• Spreading the Gospel in Colonial Virginia by Bond
• The Blessing of God: Previously unpublished sermons of Jonathan Edwards
• The Glory and Honor of God: volume 2 of unpublished Edwards
• The Discipline of Grace by Bridges
• Believers' Baptism by Schreiner

What did everyone else get? Or what did you give someone else?

1 Tim. 3:11

Since our deacon discussion is not garnering much participation, I will throw out a final post on the subject.

In 1 Tim. 3, Paul sets forth the qualifcations for elders and deacons. In the midst of the deacon qualifications, Paul makes a reference to women (1 Tim. 3:11). Most of our english translations make an interpretation and make this a reference to "their wives" (the deacon's wives). However, there are a few hurdles that must be jumped in order to settle with this translation. So, here are a few of them:

1. If Paul was concerned that the deacons have godly wives, why was he not also concerned that the elders have godly wives? Are deacons' wives more important than elders' wives?
2. "Their" is not in the text. It literally reads, "Likewise, women must be...." If Paul would have wanted to refer to the deacons' wives, he could have easily included "their" in the text.
3. "Likewise" is used by Paul to introduce a new group in verse 8. This seems to be Paul's way of introducing a new office (this is just consistent exegesis).

At the end of the day, I don't know if Paul was referring to women deacons or if he was referring to deacons' wives. If someone proved to me that Paul was referring to the wives of male deacons, it would not make much of a difference. It would not mandate that only men can be deacons just as it would not mandate that deacons must be married (and have kids).

However, here is the crucial point I want to make: At the end of the day, my "male deacons only" friends must also admit something: Paul MAY have been referring to women deacons in this text. He MAY have intended 1 Tim. 3:11 to give some qualifications for those women who serve well as deacons. Now, they are probably saying (because of their understanding of other texts), "No, that would contradict other texts." However, if it could be proved that Paul was indeed referring to "women" instead of "their wives" in 1 Tim. 3:11, would you be willing to alter your interpretation of the other texts?

I (along with Piper, Dever, Mahaney, Kostenberger, MacArthur, Schreiner, Bruce Ware, and others) don't think any Biblical text says that only men can be deacons.

Again, this is not an important issue in the grand scheme of things. I led my church to only have male deacons. This is simply one of those issues that I enjoy discussing. Regardless of our position, we must be committed to complementarianism.

-Justin C.

A Homeschool Family

Check this out!

Merry Christmas!

"Seven Men"

Let's turn our focus to a few "secondary" issues related to the women deacon issue. Of course, the goal is simply to sharpen our thinking, not to get into a pointless argument. And, I would love to hear from all of you.

Many of those who advocate only male deacons point to the historical narrative in Acts 6. They say the disciples chose seven men so therefore only men can be deacons. I have never heard a good answer to this question: If the Acts 6 narrative mandates only men as deacons, why does it not also mandate the number of deacons (seven)?

It seems to me that either the argument must be made from some other text or, to be consistent, a church should have seven male deacons (not six and certainly not eight).

Help me see where I am missing the difference between "seven" and "men" in Acts 6.

-Justin C.

What does it mean to "exercise authority"?

In the comments on the last post, I referred to Wayne Grudem's Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. I would highly recommend this book to all pastors. It is a gold mine!

Also, you can read the entire book online here.

If you are following the discussion of what Paul meant by "exercise authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12, go to page 84 and begin reading Grudem's lists. Keep reading until you get to the part where he actually draws a line as to where he would stand on what a women can do and what a women cannot do in the church. Also, read his discussion of this word later in the book.

justin c.

On Women Deacons - 3

Here are some initial thoughts on Justin N.'s post: Women Deacons - 2.

Good thoughts Justin N.!

1. Yes, Amen!

2. Absolutely!

3. Many people who advocate only male deacons use Acts 6:3 as their most powerful argument ("See, it says only MEN"). I find this a very weak argument. First, this is historical narrative. This is what the early apostles did in this particular situation. The point of this passage is to show how God was at work in this blossoming church; not to prescribe how every church should function. If this way of interpreting Acts were consistently applied, we would need to adjust some of our beliefs and practices (beginning with selling all our possessions). Second, notice that those who point to this passage want to prescribe the gender of deacons ("MEN") but not the number of deacons ("SEVEN"). Since the apostles set a precedent for choosing seven deacons, should we not also have seven deacons? I advocate that we interpret "men" and "seven" in the same way. I have yet to hear of a church that limits the number of deacons to seven.

4. Yes. This is the main implication from this historical narrative.

5. I'm not sure we want to say that deacons must be good managers (in general). 1 Tim. 3 says they must manage their own household well. I think this qualification has much more to do with how they love their family and discipline their kids, than it does with how well they organize things. The point of the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 is that these people are examples of godliness. Let me try to give an example: What if a particular godly man lacks basic administration skills? He is bad at keeping a schedule, balancing his checkbook, and filing important documents. However, he is an exemplary husband and father. He loves his wife, disciplines his kids, and leads his family to pursue Christ. If I understand Justin N's understanding of the qualifications, this guy would not qualify as a deacon.
This is a question of how we view the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3. Is this list of qualifications meant to hint at the job description of a deacon? Or, is it primarily meant to prescribe the character and heart of a deacon? I think that this list is far more concerned with the character (example) of a deacon than what a deacon does. Notice that I didn't say this list has nothing to say about job description. It does. Verse 13 says deacons are to "serve well".

I think Hammett is right when he says, “Perhaps one reason why, in the providence of God, we are not given an explicit job description for deacons is to allow them the flexibility to serve in a variety of roles that allow the elders to focus on those things that most utilize their gifts and match their calling.”

6. Some of the same issues as #5 here. I don't disagree that the deacons had some responsibility for funds. However, the text says nothing about them being given authority over funds.

7. No problems here. This is a matter of preference. I like Capitol Hill's approach. It frees the deacons from the "board" mentality and pushes them into actually serving. Both approaches can be done well.

Bonus Thoughts:
1. I still think the disagreement surrounds what Paul meant by "authority" in 1 Tim. 2.
2. Nowhere does Scripture tell us that only men can be deacons.
3. 1 Tim. 3:11 may say that women can be deacons.

Wanting to be faithful to God's Word,
Justin C.

The Role of Deacons

[This is the manuscript of a message I preached a few months ago at our church]

The Role of Deacons
Acts 6:1-6

The Office of Deacon
Turn with me to Philippians 1:1. Here, in his letter to the church in Philippi, Paul begins by naming himself and Timothy – the senders of the letter – and by naming its recipients. He says, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, along with the overseers and deacons.”

Overseers we know. We’ve been learning about them for the past two weeks. We’ve seen that sometimes they are called “overseers”, other times “elders”, and once “pastors”. We’ve learned that every church is to be led by a plurality of overseers, and that they have been given the responsibility to feed God’s people, lead God’s people, and protect God’s people.

But who are these people called “deacons”? And what is their function in the local church?

Before we answer that question, let us stop for a moment and take note of something, namely, that pastors and deacons are the only two church offices taught in the Bible. We’ve learned about pastors, and we’re going to spend this morning and this evening learning about deacons, but after that there are no other offices taught in Scripture. Now, certainly there are often good, practical reasons for churches to have treasurers, secretaries, clerks, etc. But only two offices are required for Christ’s churches by Christ Himself: the eldership and the diaconate (the pastors and the deacons).

But what did these deacons do? To answer that question we must go to the book of Acts and look at the very first New Testament church. Let’s begin in Acts 2. This chapter begins with the incredible account of that moment when Christ poured out His Holy Spirit in a unique and overwhelming way on His followers, empowering them with faith and boldness to spread the Gospel. Following this we have Peter’s message to the crowd of thousands, articulating the gospel and the truth about the person of Jesus Christ. We are told that on that day alone three thousand souls were added to Christ’s followers. And here began the Jerusalem church.

At this early point in its history, the Jerusalem church had only one office – that of pastor – and oh what pastors these babes in Christ were privileged to have! The Apostles themselves, those who had walked and talked with Jesus, were the shepherds of this local church. And this church was healthy. Look at how it was described in Acts 2:42-47:

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many signs and wonders were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”

Here we have a vibrant church, a church hungry for the Word, a benevolent and caring church, a church of real fellowship, and a growing church. This is the kind of church we should all long for! But, alas, the church did not continue constantly like this. Like every other church, the first church had problems arise. Turn with me to Acts 6:1-6.

Acts 6:1-6
Here, in response to a crisis, we find the office of deacon instituted. There was a legitimate need: the Greek-speaking widows needed food to live. God cares for the needy and desires especially for those among His own people to be cared for. At the same time, it would have been inappropriate for the apostles – the pastors of this church – to seek to handle this issue themselves. Their responsibility was to give themselves to prayer and to the Word – for this is what the people needed most of all. So, to ensure that the physical needs of these church members were met, and to relieve the pastors of this necessary duty, the first deacons seem here to have been appointed.

It is true that the word deacon (diakonos) is not actually used in the passage. But its verb form is. In verse 2, the apostles say that it is not right for them to give up the preaching of God’s Word in order to “deacon” (diakoneo) tables. The word deacon (diakonos) literally means “servant”, and was used to describe someone who waited tables.

In Scripture, every Christian is called to be a deacon in the sense that every Christian is called to be a diakonos, a servant the body of Christ. But only some are called to fill the office of deacon. And the way that we know that these men were being appointed to an office is that verse 6 says that the apostles laid their hands on them, which was the way that men were appointed to serve in an office in the church. (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6)

But what were these men set apart to do? First, we see that they were appointed to help care for the needy in their church. Particularly, these men were called upon to help ensure that none in the church with real needs were being overlooked. It is a powerful testimony to the Gospel when a church takes great strides to care for its own; it is a terrible – even blasphemous – testimony that is given when a church fails to care for the needy in its own midst. I thank God that in His distribution of salvation I was not overlooked! Let us overlook no one in our distribution of mercy.

Churches ought to put on display God’s compassion towards the needy. We read of this compassion in passages like Psalm 72:12-14

“For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor, and him who has no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight.”

If He has pity on the weak and the needy, ought not we? Have we not been recipients of His mercy ourselves?

Moreover, the Bible makes clear that God’s favor is on those who care for the needy. Psalm 41:1-3 says:

“Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the LORD delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The LORD sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health.”

All Christians are called to give themselves in care for the poor, but it is the deacons in particular who are to set the example of this, and who are to lead the way in the ministry of benevolence within the church.

(I need to press this further: Is there anyone in our church that is being overlooked? Are there people in our church with real, practical needs of any kind that we are failing to meet? Let us keep our eyes and ears open for the needs of each other, seeking ways that we can bless one another. Benevolence in a church should not only be done through the church budget – rather, we should be living lives of cheerful sacrifice towards one another. Let us be willing to confront one another often with this question: “Is there some way that I can help you?” Particularly, let us look to the needs of those who are widows, those who are feeble, and those who are under uniquely difficult circumstances. Let’s learn to love one another not only in talk, but in deed!
Allow me to ask: do we need to repent of having a blind eye and a hard heart towards the needs of others? Do we need to repent of perhaps always seeing ourselves as the ones in need rather than being content and seeking to help out others? Do we need to resolve anew this morning to imitate the compassion of Christ towards one another?)

Deacons are to lead us as examples in this endeavor.

Second, we see that deacons were appointed to handle tasks that would distract the pastors from their spiritual duties. Note verse 4: “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” Remember, the word “ministry” literally means “service”. So its not that deacons serve the church and pastors don’t. Rather, its two different kinds of service. Pastors serve the church through the service “of the Word”, deacons serve by taking on those tasks delegated to them that free up the pastors for prayer and ministry. Deacons themselves do not have any inherent authority in the church. Rather, they are delegated authority by the pastors to handle important needs of the church so that the pastors can devote themselves to the most important need: the need for God’s Word.

There ought to be a very close relationship between the pastors and the deacons. The deacons serve the pastors the way Aaron and Hur assisted Moses, when they helped him keep his arms raised so that Joshua and the Israelites would win the battle against the Amalekites. Deacons strengthen the pastors of a church by being there for them as helpers, ready and willing to handle whatever matters are delegated to them by the pastors.

Getting the Big Picture
In order for us to get the big picture, it is important for us to take a few moments to review all that we’ve learned so far about church polity. As I go through the following seven points, be sure to fill in the blanks in your sermon outline.

1. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18)
2. Christ rules His Church through His Word. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, John 17:17)
3. Christ calls and gifts pastors to oversee His churches. (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-3)
4. All churches are to be led by a plurality of pastors. (Philippians 1:1, Acts 14:23)
5. Pastors are to feed, lead, and protect God’s people. (Acts 20:17-38)
6. Pastors must be qualified men. (1st Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9)
7. Christ calls and gifts deacons to serve His churches. (Acts 6:1-6)
8. Deacons are to assist the pastors by handling those practical matters delegated to them. (Acts 6:1-6)
9. Deacons are to be particularly involved in caring for the needy within the church. (Acts 6:1-6)

Appointing Deacons
One question we need to consider is this: how should deacons be appointed within the local church?

To begin with, let us remember that the church belongs to Christ and that it is He who calls and gifts people for different forms of ministry. Every Christian is called and gifted in some way to serve the church, and it is Christ who particularly gifts certain men to serve in the office of deacon. It is the responsibility of the church, therefore, under the leadership of the pastors, to seek to recognize those in the church who are fit for the office and to install them into it.

What should we look for? Well, first of all we should look for those with a servant’s heart. We should look for those who are already acting like deacons – serving sacrificially out of love for Christ – and seek to place them into office. Second, we should particularly for those among us who not only love to serve but also have a special concern for the needy in our midst. These should be men whose hearts are easily moved to compassion, men who desire to show generosity to those in need. And finally, we should look for those who are good stewards, since deacons in particular are entrusted with the finances of the church. When the apostles entrusted the seven with caring for the widows, they were putting the resources of the church under their charge. Likewise, deacons are typically entrusted by the pastors and by the church with helping work on church budgets and developing a meaningful benevolence ministry. Therefore, they should be men who know how to manage resources well and with integrity.

Once these men are identified, the next step is to examine them according to the qualifications laid down in Scripture. These qualifications are laid down both here in Acts 6 and in 1st Timothy 3, and we will spend time looking at these tonight. No man should serve as pastor or deacon unless he has been properly examined and deemed qualified for the office.

And finally, each deacon is to be approved by the church and installed by the laying on of hands. This is what we see here in Acts 6, and we’ve already learned that this is how pastors are to be installed as well. By the way, I don’t think pastors should present a list of six qualified men and ask the church to choose three. In doing this, choosing deacons often can become more of a popularity contest. Rather, pastors should bring before the church one candidate at a time that they are convinced will do well in the office, and allow the church to express their opinion with a yes or no vote. Popularity contests should have no place in the local church.

The Number of Deacons
What about the number of deacons a church should have? The Bible never gives us an answer to this question, and it probably should differ from church to church. However, we shouldn’t miss that in Acts 6 there are only seven deacons chosen for a church that by this time had at least seven thousand members. If seven deacons were enough for seven thousand people, many Baptist churches may have a lot more deacons than they need.

John Hammett, professor of systematic theology up the road at Southeastern, has written on this subject. He says “the wisest course is to specify no number or ratio the church must maintain, but to be guided by two factors: the needs of the church and the number of qualified candidates, with the second being the more important of the two. A church can do well with a small number of deacons, but to have unqualified deacons invites problems. Moreover, there is no need for annual elections of deacons. Rather, new deacons should be selected as needs arise and as existing deacons need to withdraw from active service.”

Close
Like pastors, we should esteem our deacons very highly and be thankful for the work they do. They are here to serve us, and to set an example for us all to follow. Everyone of us has been called to serve. And of course, our greatest example is the Lord Jesus Christ, who came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. Do you desire to be Christ-like? Then find your joy in “deaconing” – serving others sacrificially, giving of yourself in order to bless others. A church full of people all eagerly seeking to serve one another is a church that will flourish in grace and that will be used by God for the salvation of many. Amen.

Fantasy Update

My fantasy football team has made it to the playoffs! I'm favored to win this weekend, but I'm playing a tough team that's been hot of late. If I win this game I play in the Championship Game next weekend. My team finished the season 11-3. Here's my team at the end of the season:

Starters

QB Tony Romo

RB Joseph Addai

RB Aaron Stecker

WR Randy Moss

WR Greg Jennings

WR Marques Colston

TE Jason Witten

K Robbie Gould

DEF Seahawks

Reserves

QB S Rosenfels

RB Justin Fargas

RB Keith Kenton

WR Calvin Johnson

DEF Cowboys

On another note, I'm looking forward to taking my family to the Cowboys / Panthers game a week from Saturday. Those of you with NFL Network, look for us in the stands!

Women Deacons - 2

Some thoughts:

1. The responsibility to care for God's people belongs to those men whom He has called and gifted to serve as shepherds. These men are called "elders" or "pastors".

2. Pastors are called to feed God's people, lead God's people, and protect God's people.

3. In the church in Jerusalem, an issue arose that had serious spiritual consequences for the church. The apostles (the elders of the Jerusalem church) decided that the remedy for this situation was to to be sure that both the Hebrew and Hellenistic widows were receiving food in the daily distribution. They then set a precedent for deacons by delegating the responsibility for managing this process to seven men from within the congregation. These men were managers (scholars tells us that there were probably over a thousand widows in the Jerusalem church). Many men and women from within the church would have taken part in distributing the food, but these seven men were given the authority to manage the process and to oversee the distribution of church resources.

4. Deacons are called to handle those responsibilities delegated to them by the elders in order to free the elders for prayer and the ministry of the Word.

5. Since many of these responsibilities will include organizing and giving instructions to both men and women in the church, deacons need to be good managers (hence 1st Timothy 3). They should also be men (since other men will be under their charge).

6. Acts 6 sets a precedent for Deacons being given authority by the elders to oversee the distribution of church funds. This is why deacons must not be greedy for dishonest gain (1st Tim. 3).

7. If a plurality of men working together is important for eldership, I would suggest that it is also important for the diaconate. I think it was the wisdom of God that the apostles told the congregation to choose for themselves "seven men". These seven men were not given separate duties and called to go their own way, but rather they were to work together. So also, I believe deacons have an important office - one worthy of honor and respect - and the responsibilities entrusted to them by the elders need to be handled within the plurality. I am not in favor of deacons as "independent ministry managers" - so that one deacon is over the nursery, another over sound engineering, another over lawn maintenance, and they never meet together or hold each other accountable. In other words, I like the idea of "deacons' meetings", just as I like the idea of "elders' meetings".

R and R Fellowship Update

As promised, here is the update for our meetings next year. We will meet the second Wednesday of the month at 7:00 AM at Southside Baptist Church. Breakfast will be provided. Here is a look at the first three months:

January: "Does Regeneration Precede Faith and Does it Matter?" - Jim Upchurch

February: "The Theological Systems Compared" - Justin Nale

March: "Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?" - Justin Childers

I also want to encourage you to look here and weigh in on your understandings of Scripture.

On Women Deacons - 1

This is a very practical issue for our churches, so lets dialouge about it.
Just to let you know where I am on the issue: When I came to Christ Baptist I assumed that we would have women deacons. I am convinced that Scripture allows for women functioning as deacons and that it could be an extremely valuable role for the health of the church. However, in discussing our constitution, we quickly realized that our members were very uncomfortable with the idea. So, we launched into an extensive study of Manhood/Womanhood and the role of deacons. At the conclusion of the study, I was even more convinced that women deacons would be good for Christ Baptist. However, there was one factor and one factor only that kept us from having women deacons in our constitution: the area in which we live. If we had women deacons many people would immediately label us as a liberal church (this is tied to the unBiblical practice of "deacon boards."). So, we decided it best for the unity of the church to proceed with only male deacons. However, it seems that we will have women functioning as deacons, just not called deaconesses.

I imagine this debate will surround the role of deacon. I don't think the role of deacon violates the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:12. If you think it does, you cannot have women deacons.

Let's begin with a source outside of our group to focus the debate. Here is Dr. Kostenberger's article on the subject (which I agree with). So, where do you disagree with Kostenberger?

-Justin Childers

Since We are Labeling Ourselves...

I agree with Sam Storms on everything but 7.f.

Admittedly, I have done no study on the issue of the age of the earth. For some reason I just want to side with the "new earthers."
Anyone want to make a BRIEF case for the age of the earth?

-Justin Childers

The R&R Fellowship in 2008

At our last meeting, several important things took place. We realized that our group was growing too large to be useful for personal accountability, and so we are encouraging all of us to have those men to whom we are accountable, but we are not looking at the R&R as such a group. Rather, the R&R exists to promote revival and reformation in the local churches of our region of North Carolina. Here is how we have decided to try and do this in 2008:

1. We are intending to hold a monthly theology breakfast at Sister's Restaurant on the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 7am. This breakfast is open to any interested pastors and laymen who want to hear and consider a presentation on an important theological subject. At each breakfast a R&R Member (or a guest with similar convictions) will bring a 30-35 minute talk on the subject and then will take questions. By 7:45 the presentation will be over and people will be free to discuss the subject with others at their table and to leave as they need to. This is the kind of breakfast they we hope many pastors will be interested in attending, and perhaps many laymen as well.

Here is the topic schedule:

January: “Does Regeneration Precede Faith and Does it Matter?”
February: “The Theological Systems Compared”
March: “Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?”
April: “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the Home and Church”
May: “The Necessity of Sanctification for Salvation”
June: “The Importance of Regenerate Church Membership”
July: “Genuine Evangelism: Considering Some Dos and Don’ts”
August: “Who Chooses Whom: The Doctrine of Election Considered”
September: “The Power of the Cross: Understanding Substitutionary Atonement”
October: “Church Government – What Does the Bible Teach?”
November: “The Various Eschatological Views Simply Explained”

2. We are hoping to find more opportunities for us to work together to put on conferences where men who share our theological convictions can come and share on important subjects. The Sam Storms conference on the Holy Spirit is hopefully just the first of many to come.

On another note, we elected four officers to lead our group. Randy A. is our President, meaning that it is his job to obtain speakers for each of the the theology breakfasts. His only criterion is that the speaker be a member of our fellowship or a guest who is in substantial agreement with the 1689 Confession. I have become the Vice President, meaning I jump in if Randy gets hit by a truck or a falling meteorite and dies. Jim is our treasurer, just in case we need someone to hold money in the midst of putting together conferences. Jason is our Moderator, meaning he gets to welcome everyone and moderate during the Q&A at the breakfasts.

As of right now, the R&R Fellowship is

Randy Alston

Justin Childers

Mike Edwards

Jason Gault

Justin Nale

Chad Tucker

Jim Upchurch

Allen Williams

The fellowship is open to any who hold a pastoral position in a Baptist church in our local area who is in substantial agreement with the 1689 Confession.

If anyone has any questions or issues that need to be addressed, you can email them to President Alston. Also, if you see a topic that you would particularly like to speak on, let him know.

We'll get fliers for the breakfasts made up and ready to distribute by the beginning of the new year.

Which Comes First?

Last night Justin N. and I touched on this briefly, but I was wondering how others would look at this. Which comes first, reformation or revival? This is just for fun to see how we look at this. My answer was for the church (assuming regeneration) reformation comes prior to revival. That is, as the church is reformed back to the Scriptures, revival will follow. I could be alone so I would like to hear from others.

Holiday Delay

Sorry that we haven't been posting here lately. There will be one more post coming (talking about some exciting plans for the R&R Fellowship next year), and then I will be taking a hiatus until January. Keep your eye out for that next post - I really like that we've decided to do for next year.

JN

An Excellent Article on Adoption

This is a very good article by Justin Taylor.

Related Resources:

"Adopted into God's Family"
"Adopted By God"
"Adoption: The Heart of the Gospel"

A Good Word For Us Calvinists

(Courtesy of Charles Spurgeon)

"There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven."

Is the Divorce Horse Dead Yet?

If not, I'll beat it just once more. But this will probably be my last post on divorce and remarriage for a while.

I wanted give some dialog about the points raised in Justin's sermon on divorce and remarriage. In it he acknowledges the objection:

In the Gospel of Matthew, doesn’t Jesus say that if one spouse commits adultery, the marital bond is broken, and the faithful spouse is now free to divorce and remarry?

Then, he lists 10 reasons why he disagrees with the one who answers 'yes' to this question. Here are the 10 reasons and my responses.

1. If the word “porneia” (sexual immorality) means “adultery” in these verses, then our marriages will not reflect Christ’s union with His Church. If our marriages are to reflect His bond with us, should we not also remain faithfully committed to our spouses even when they are not committed to us?

I don't take the word to mean "adultery." It is a general term indicating "sexual immorality." There seems to be good support for this in Kittel. In the OT and intertestamental period the use of "porneia" is a general term which may include adultery. Also, the Post-Apostolic Fathers distinguished "porneia" from "moicheia," but "moicheia" was a form of "porneia." Also, taking the word as "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in the context of Mt. 19 seems like the better option. We should also note that "fornication," even in English, is a general term that sometimes includes adultery.

Nonetheless, the objection remains. Our marriages should reflect Christ's union with his Church, yes. But the marriage bond is between two imperfect people. Christ always treats his Church graciously and he is never injured by our unfaithfulness. The analogy of Christ and the Church, and man and wife eventually breaks down. Ex: Christ is the head of the Church as man is head of the wife, but the man is not perfect and he shouldn't be obeyed as Christ is obeyed. We should remain committed to our spouses even when they are not committed to us. Separation is permitted and not commanded.

2. An understanding of Jewish marriage practices in the first century provide an adequate explanation for what Jesus meant when He said, "except for sexual immorality."

I would agree that Jesus' teaching certainly includes premarital sex (being found with some indecency during the betrothal or at the consummation) as a reason for divorce, but in the context, it doesn't seem to be what Jesus and the Pharisees are talking about. Rather, they are discussing marriage in general. If they were talking exclusively about premarital sex and divorce during the betrothal period, we should expect there to be more evidence of this. The straight-forward reading of the text reveals that marriage in general and sexual immorality in general is the issue at hand.

3. Jesus could have used the word for adultery (“moichea”) if that is what He intended to say, but he chose not to. Also include points 4, 5, and 6, here, as they are all related to the use of "porneia."

No complaints here. The use of the word "sexual immorality" can include immorality before the marriage (without prior knowledge), during the betrothal period, and after consummation. If he would have used the word "moichea," it would not include unknown sexual immorality before the marriage.

7. The betrothal view makes sense because it would specifically apply to Matthew’s Jewish audience and not to Mark or Luke’s Gentile audience, which explains the omission of the exception clause there.

There is no contradiction in these verses according to the majority view. Scripture interprets Scripture. Therefore, when something doesn't seem to jibe or make sense, you go to the fuller teaching and let that interpret the other verses. In this case, the Matthew text is fuller, so we should use that to inform our readings of Mark and Luke. Similarly, Luke informs a proper reading of Mark on the divorce issue, applying it to the woman also. Mark and Luke lay out the general rule. Matthew gives the general rule and provides an exception to it.

Examples:

General Rule: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).
Exception: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

General Rule: Teacher: If anyone leaves this classroom before the test is over, he will receive a failing grade
Exception: Teacher: If anyone leaves this classroom before the test is over (except for an emergency), he will receive a failing grade.

Those two statements are not contradictory. Both have the general rule, but one explains that there is an exception in case of an emergency. If these two statements were read or heard in a classroom, we would not see a problem with it. We would allow the fuller statement to inform the general that appears absolute.

8. For those who would argue that betrothal is not in view in Matthew 5 or 19, I should point out that they are exactly right. Indeed, that seems to me to be the whole point. Jesus is saying that “porneia” - sexual immorality before a husband and wife come together in marriage – is not what He’s talking about.” That is the whole point of the exception clause.

I guess this is where some speculation comes into play. We're trying to figure out what the hearers would hear... or what the readers would read. How would the Jewish readers take this teaching? And I just don't see it the same way you do. "Porneia," as mentioned previously, was used as a broad term denoting sexual immorality. It doesn't seem like that the "hearers/readers" would automatically think "betrothal period" when Jesus uses the word "porneia." It seems more likely to me that they would think of general sexual immorality.

Let me say also that this would not open the floodgates for divorce. Jesus has already said that the original intention for marriage is one man and one woman in a lifetime of marriage. He has also said that divorce was permitted because of "hardness of heart." That's the context for this exception. The general rule is "no divorce." The exception is sexual immorality.

9. Just before Jesus teaches on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19, He speaks on the issue of forgiveness, calling us to forgive others not seven times, but seventy times seven. How would the view that adultery is grounds for divorce square with this?

We should forgive one another, no doubt. In marriage, husband and wife should live sacrificially for one another, seeking the fulfill the needs of the other. But it also seems divorce (reserved for extreme circumstances) may be the most loving thing in some circumstances. It is not God's original intention, but he permits it because of the hardness of hearts.

Also, forgiveness doesn't mean that there are no consequences for certain actions. In the Old Testament, the consequence for sexual immorality would be death. That's not very forgiving. Further, unconditional love and forgiveness is not only required of married couples, but of everyone who follows Jesus. Forgiveness doesn't negate consequences.

10. If your spouse commits adultery, which would better display the character of God? Choosing to divorce your spouse and marry someone else, or choosing to be faithful and forgiving towards your spouse no matter how unfaithful he or she may have been to you?

Forgiveness would better display the character of God. That should always be the default reaction to unfaithfulness. But, can't you see how divorce might be the loving thing for extreme cases (severe abuse, child molestation, serial and continual adultery)? And if we allow it for one of these extreme cases, our discussion changes. Then it becomes about what is and isn't permissible divorce, and avoids the argument that divorce is never permissible (Also see Doug Wilson's article, Time to Walk.).

But isn't this already the case from 1 Cor. 7:15? In your sermon, you say:

If the unbelieving spouse wishes to separate, let it be so... Note, saying that the husband and wife can separate - even if this is taken to mean divorce - does not mean that their spiritual bond is broken. It is God who creates the bond, and it is only God who can destroy it. In order that there may be peace and that Christ's union to the Church not be blasphemed, the couple is allowed to separate.

Doesn't that contradict what you'd said earlier in the sermon?

Therefore, just as we believe that Christ would never break nor defile His union with His church, nor should any person seek to break or defile the marital union with his or her spouse. To seek a divorce is to try (unsuccessfully) to break the union which God created; to remarry is to defile that union. I think Scripture and love for Christ prohibits both.

I'll add that one's view of "covenant" will determine his/her view of the marriage covenant. Can some covenants be broken/annulled? If you say 'yes' then you are more likely to say that divorce is sometimes, regrettably, allowed. If you say 'no' then you're more likely to say divorce, being a covenant, is never allowed. It seems, though, that those who hold to a "divorce never allowed" view, impose that view onto their view of "covenant."

John Newton on Marriage

This letter from John Newton to a newly married woman is filled with pastoral insight into the purpose and value of marriage.

April 13, 1776.

Dear Madam,

I am rather of the latest to present my congratulation to you and Mr. **** on your marriage, but I have not been unmindful of you. My heart has repeatedly wished you all that my pen can express,, that the new relation in which the providence of God has placed you may be blessed to you in every respect, may afford you much temporal comfort, promote your spiritual progress, and enlarge your sphere of usefulness in the world and in the church.

By this time I suppose visits and ceremonies are pretty well over, and you are beginning to be settled in your new situation. What an important period is a wedding-day! What an entire change of circumstances does it produce! What an influence it has upon every day of future life I How many cares, inquietudes, and trials, does it expose us to, which we might otherwise have avoided! But they who love the Lord, and are guided by his word and providence, have nothing to fear; for in every state, relation, and circumstance in life, he will be with them, and will surely do them good. His grace, which is needful in a single, is sufficient for a married, life.

I sincerely wish Mr. **** and you much happiness together; that you may be mutually helps meet, and assist each other in walking as fellow-heirs of the hope of eternal life. Your cares and trials I know must be increased; may your comforts be increased proportionally! They will be so, if you are enabled heartily and simply to entreat the Lord to keep your heart fixed near to himself.

All the temporal blessings and accommodations he provides to sweeten life, and make our passage through this wilderness more agreeable, will fail and disappoint us, and produce us more thorns than roses, unless we can keep sight of his hand in bestowing them, and hold and use the gifts in some due subserviency to what we owe to the Giver. But, alas! we are poor creatures. prone to wander, prone to admire our gourds, cleave to our cisterns, and think of building tabernacles, and taking our rest in this polluted world. Hence the Lord often sees it necessary, in mercy to his children, to embitter their sweets, to break their cisterns, send a worm to their gourds, and draw a dark cloud over their pleasing prospects. His word tells us, that all here is vanity, compared with the light of his countenance; and if we cannot or will not believe it upon the authority of his word, we must learn it by experience. May he enable you to settle it in your hearts, that creature-comforts are precarious, insufficient, and ensnaring; that all good comes from his hand, and that nothing can do us good, but so far as he is pleased to make it the instrument of communicating, as a stream, that goodness which is in him as a fountain. Even the bread which we eat, without the influence of his promise and blessing, would no more support us than a stone; but his blessing makes every thing good, gives a tenfold value to our comforts, and greatly diminishes the weight of every cross.

The ring upon your finger is of some value as gold; but this is not much: what makes it chiefly valuable to you is, that you consider it as a pledge and token of the relation you bear to him who gave it you. I know no fitter emblem of the light in which we should consider all those good things which the Lord gives us richly to enjoy. When every thing we receive from him is received and prized as a fruit and pledge of his covenant-love, then his bounties, instead of being set up as rivals, and idols to draw our hearts from him, awaken us to fresh exercises of gratitude, and furnish us with fresh motives of cheerful obedience every hour.

Time is short, and we live in a dark and cloudy day. When iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes cold; and we have reason to fear the Lord's hand is lifted up in displeasure at our provocations. May he help us to set loose all below, and to be found watching unto prayer for grace to keep our garments undefiled, and to be faithful witnesses for him in our places! O! It is my desire for myself and for all my dear friends, that whilst too many seem content with half profession, a name to live, an outward attachment to ordinances and sentiments and parties, we may be ambitious to experience what the glorious Gospel is capable of effecting, both as to sanctification and consolation, in this state of infirmity; that we may have our loins girded up, our lamps burning, and, by our simplicity and spirituality, constrain those who know us to acknowledge that we have been with Jesus, have sat at his feet, and drank of his spirit.

I am, &c.

For More Info On The Betrothal View

1. For an Academic Perspective, Listen to David Jones' Message on the Subject Here.

2. For a Church's Perspective, Read This Statement from 10th Presbyterian in Philly.

3. For a Pastoral Perspective, Read John Piper's Position Paper Here. (Or pick up his book What Jesus Demands From The World).

For a different take on "porneia" in Matthew, consider the relevant portion of this essay. (I am not in agreement with this essay, but want to point out another example of a minority interpretation that harmonizes Matthew with Mark and Luke.)

The Best J. I. Packer Book Ever!

Knowing God was good. Rediscovering Holiness was better (though apparently out of print). But no Packer book beats A Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. This book is a must read - I've read its various chapters on numerous occasions. It is full of great quotes and illustrations, and though its academic, it cuts straight to the heart.






The book has six sections, each containing three chapters:
1. The Puritans in Profile
2. The Puritans and the Bible
3. The Puritans and the Gospel
4. The Puritans and the Holy Spirit
5. The Puritan Christian Life
6. The Puritans in Ministry

I have told many people before that I consider this one of the top 5 books I've ever read. If you haven't read it, do so soon.

The Nature of Faith

"It is the nature of faith to believe God upon His bare word.... It will not be, saith sense; it cannot be, saith reason; it both can and will be, saith faith, for I have a promise."

- John Trapp

The Great Divorce Debate

Okay, so not really a debate as much as a few views articulated about Jesus' teaching on divorce. Here's the rundown:

1. David Instone-Brewer wrote the article, What God Has Joined, explaining what seems to be a very permissive view.
2. John Piper (who holds to the "betrothal view") writes a response, Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce.
3. Andreas Kostenberger clears things up agreeing with both Instone-Brewer and Piper at points, and briefly outlining what he views as the option that is exegetically most defensible and pastorally most sensible, in Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce.
   

Update: Kostenberger posts reader questions and his responses.

Here's one of the more interesting Q&A:

Q: How do you account for the lack of exception clause in Mark and Luke? Does that not lend support to the “betrothal view”?

A: Ultimately, I don’t know why the exception clause is not in Mark and Luke. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you he does (he’s lying). I believe we’re left here with reasonable inferences. In God, Marriage & Family, on p. 242, I quote Instone-Brewer at length, who notes that there are times when it is reasonable to infer from scriptural silence on an issue that people commonly agreed on this issue. If this is true in the present case, Mark and Luke may have felt they did not need to state an exception that was commonly agreed upon, namely, that adultery constituted a legitimate ground for divorce, and Matthew included this only as a side comment, as it were. Having said that, I believe that even having the exception clause—not once, but twice in Matthew—only in one Gospel requires us to obey what it says, and we should be careful not to try to explain it away or “harmonize” it with Mark and Luke just because these Gospels do not include it.

The Sovereignty of God

"The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this expression? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psa. 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator's original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Psa. 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is Sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe which He has made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i. e., that He may mold that clay into whatsoever form He chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. We affirm that He is under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no obligation to give an account of His matters to any."

- A. W. Pink (this was written and preached in the 1920's).

What are you guys preaching in the next few weeks?

Thought I would get a little discussion going that will lead to some specific prayer for each other.

I'm in Gal. 6:1-5 this Sunday.

-Justin C.

Coming Soon...

100 Daily Meditations on Colossians from Sam Storms.

posted by Justin C.

Meet Tremper Longman III

(This is the second of a series of posts on professors / pastors / theologians that I respect and thank God for. Bios come from the home institution websites, and then are followed by my comments)

"Tremper Longman is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies. He came to Westmont in the 1998-99 school year after teaching for eighteen years at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. His teaching responsibilities at Westmont include Life and Literature of the Old Testament (a GE requirement) as well as various upper division classes. Representative of the latter is the course in Biblical Interpretation, Old Testament Psalms and Wisdom, the Pentateuch, and the Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Dr. Longman has degrees from Ohio Wesleyan University (B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div.), and Yale University (M.Phil.; Ph.D.). He has written a number of articles and books...At present, he is engaged in research on the history of Israel, the biblical genres in the light of ancient Near Eastern literature, as well as commentaries on Proverbs and Jeremiah. He has also been active in the area of Bible translation, in particular he serves on the central committee that produced and now monitors the New Living Translation. Tremper and his wife Alice have three sons. In his spare time, he watches movies and plays squash."

Longman, like Waltke, is a scholar with a pastors' heart. Though he is concerned with historical and literary questions, he is most concerned with the message of the text (and the God that we meet through the message). He has written excellent commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Daniel. Most helpful to me, however, has been the book he co-wrote with Raymond Dillard: An Introduction to the Old Testament. (Carson and Moo wrote the volume on the New Testament). Considering that my OT profs in college had only one goal (to show that the OT is full of errors and historical inaccuracies), this book has helped me tremendously. More recently, I've been blessed by his book "Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel's Worship". I intend to use this one and Allen Ross' "Holiness to the Lord" next year when our church spends some time in Leviticus. Finally, last year I picked up the book Longman did with Provan and Long, "A Biblical History of Israel". This book was so helpful! It gives an overview of Israel's history built on the supposition that the Bible is true, but also addresses critical questions from archaeology and other historical disciplines (did I mention that the first 100 pages are on historical methodology? I know it sounds boring, but it really was a fascinating read. It was particularly helpful considering my OT classes in college - or did I mention that already?) To see more helpful comments, check out what others thought about the book on the amazon page. (But of course, buy from wtsbooks.)

Meet Bruce Waltke

(Reflecting on the previous post, and since my time has been kind of constrained lately, I thought it might be good for me to do a few posts about some of the professors / pastors / teachers I admire most. The bios will come from the webpages of their various institutions, and then I will add a few comments of my own. Feel free to contribute to this series if you'd like.)

"Dr. Bruce Waltke is a preeminent Old Testament scholar, holding doctorates from Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.D.) and Harvard University (Ph.D.). His teaching appointments at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College, and Westminster Theological Seminary won for him a reputation as a master teacher with a pastoral heart. He has written prolifically and his publications include, Intermediate Hebrew Grammar, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Understanding the Will of God, and a commentary on Micah. He served as Old Testament editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and co-editor for the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Dr. Waltke recently completed a commentary on Proverbs and is writing a commentary on Genesis. He was also a member of the translation committee for the New International Version. He served a term as president of the Evangelical Theological Society. "

I first encountered Dr. Waltke through the New Geneva Study Bible (the NKJV of the Reformation Study Bible) where he provided the notes on Genesis. Particularly helpful to me has been his book on Genesis, which includes his notes from the Study Bible alongside helpful discussions of the theology in each passage (as opposed to many commentaries, which get lost in textual or historical questions). Since then, I have discovered his work on Micah and his more recent work on Proverbs in the NICOT series. All are not only scholarly, but exceptionally helpful in getting at the message of the text. Since this is the most important goal of a commentary (imho), I think Waltke sets a good example for other scholars to follow. (Waltke is also highly respected by his peers. J. I. Packer and Sven Soderland edited a book called "The Way of Wisdom" which is a collection of essays written in his honor by the likes of John Sailhamer, Ian Provan, Peter Enns, Gordon Fee, and Roger Nicole.)

Buy This Book!

Even if you have to sell something on Ebay to get the money. Even if it means not going out for that steak dinner. Even if you really need some new shoes. THIS BOOK IS WORTH THE SACRIFICE.

I'm talking, of course, about Bruce Waltke's new book: "An Old Testament Theology". This is the kind of 1000 page book that few are truly qualified to write, and perhaps none more so than Waltke. (Perhaps I'm a bit over excited, but I have yet to find an Old Testament scholar that I respect more, and this book is the product of decades of Waltke's reading, thinking, praying, preaching, and teaching.) Every pastor (and every Christian) needs to have a good understanding of the O.T. in order to really grasp the N.T. So I'm buying this book, and I would encourage you to do so as well.

Are You Laboring For Their Joy?

Christ's Power Rests on the Weak

Listen to this quote by C.S. Lewis and try to figure out what he’s talking about: “There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people… ever imagine that they are guilty themselves. I have heard people admit that they are bad-tempered, or that they cannot keep their heads about girls or drink, or even that they are cowards. I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice. And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone… who showed the slightest mercy to it in others. There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.”

The sin of pride plagues us all. We all want to be seen as strong, independent people. If we’re insulted, we try to insult back. When we’re persecuted, we try to fight back. When someone goes through a difficult time, some may say that he needs to pull himself up by his bootstraps. We like others to know how strong we are. It makes us feel good about ourselves. It makes us feel important, like we're somebody. Think about it... really think about it for yourself. What is it that you like to boast about? What do you like for other people to know about you because it makes you feel important?

This morning we're going to look at a passage of Scripture that talks about strength and boasting. In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Paul says that he will boast about himself. But, he says something that should strike us as odd. He says that he will gladly boast in his weaknesses. When is the last time you boasted to someone about your weaknesses? We like to brag about our strengths, not our hardships or troubles.

But Paul said he would boast in his weaknesses. Why would he do that? What's so important about boasting in your weaknesses? Why should we do this when our culture says that you should boast in your strengths and disguise your weaknesses? Let's look at our text together.

Look with me at 2 Corinthians 12:1-10.

Paul wrote 2 Corinthians to the believers in Corinth in order to call them to be unified with him and his ministry. In his previous letter he wrote to them to be united together in love. But now, there were some who were trying to undermine Paul's authority and leadership. They were saying that his great sufferings and trials proved that he wasn't a true apostle of Jesus. Paul responds by saying that that is what proves that he is a true disciple. The fact that he has endured such persecutions and sufferings shows his own weakness and his dependence on Jesus Christ for strength.

Paul's Humbling Thorn (2 Cor. 12:7-8)
First, I want us to notice what Paul calls his thorn in verse 7. He says that if anyone has reason to boast it would be him. He thinks he wouldn't be wrong to boast about some of his strengths because he would be telling the truth. Specifically, he's talking about the revelations that God had given to him. Look again at verses 2-4: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows - and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter."

Paul had seen some great and wonderful things. God had revealed heaven to him. Paul had heard and seen things that he could not tell others about. Because of this, there may have been a temptation to be proud and conceited. Have you ever known a secret that others didn't know and it made you feel proud? That's the temptation that Paul probably felt. He knew the great secrets of heaven and paradise. He couldn't tell anyone, but just knowing it could have easily made him feel more important than others.

So, in order to keep Paul from being to exalted or proud, he was given a "thorn in the flesh." He calls it a "messenger of Satan" which harasses him. It is interesting that he says this thorn was given to him... as if it was a sort of gift from God. There has been much speculation about what this thorn was. The word Paul used refers to a pointed piece of wood or a sharp stake. It was probably some sort of physical affliction that was painful and humiliating. Also, Paul says that he was harassed. It is like he was being punched in the face over and over again.

Paul probably felt as if he couldn't bear it any more. It hurt. He didn't like it. So, he asked God to take it from him. Then he asked again... and again.

Maybe you've felt that way. Maybe something continues to bother you day after day, year after year. Maybe it is a physical pain... maybe emotional or spiritual. It feels like you just keep getting punched in the face. It hurts and you want it to stop. You've asked the Lord to take it from you over and over again. But it doesn't seem to help. It doesn't go away. This was what Paul was going through. He had experienced great revelations from God, yet he was given a "thorn" in the flesh to harass him that he might not become proud.

As gently as I can, let me just say that this may be your answer. As hard as it may be to accept, could it be that God is wanting to use this pain in your life to keep you humble or to grow your faith? I don’t want to make light of your situation. I know it is very hard for some of you... some of the things you've gone through or are currently going through. Remember what James says in James 1:2-4, "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

When you're tested... when you go through trials, God wants to use those circumstances to produce endurance in your faith, so that you might be a mature and complete follower of Christ. Our trials are meant for our good. That's the only reason we can rejoice in them. If nothing good came from them, what would be the good in rejoicing in them? But God is using them to make us better... to bring us into conformity with his image.

So, we left off with Paul asking the Lord three times to remove the thorn from him. Let's look now at the answer he received.

Christ's Power Rests on the Weak (2 Cor. 12:9)
The first word in verse 9 tips us off that it's not the answer Paul was hoping for. It's the word but. Paul had asked the Lord to remove it from him, but the Lord said... Sometimes God doesn't answer our prayers in the way we would like, does he? The example of Paul here shows us that God isn't always concerned with our comfort. Some things are more important than our comfort. People getting saved! Feeding the hungry is more important! Sharing the gospel is more important! Do you ever notice how our prayers seem to always focus on our comfort? But sometimes God is more concerned with who he is making us into than with whether or not we're comfortable.

The Lord answered Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

"I see the pain you're in. I see that you're hurting. I see that you want it to just go away. But my grace is sufficient for you. My grace is enough to hold you up and bring you through this. My grace is enough for you to be satisfied in this difficult circumstance." Then someone might say, "But you don't know what I'm going through Jesus. You don't know how much it hurts."

But let me remind you of what Jesus Christ went through while he was here on earth. During his ministry, he was always having to escape the capture of the Pharisees. They wanted to kill him. And they finally got their wish. Though he had done nothing wrong, Jesus was beaten until he was unrecognizable. He had not just a thorn in his side, but a crown of thorns shoved onto his head. As if that wasn't enough, he was nailed through his hands and feet to a wooden cross where he was left to die. And that's just the physical pain. Remember that on the cross he bore the full wrath of God for sinners. He was forsaken by the Father because he was carrying our sin. I can't imagine the emotional and spiritual pain Jesus went through in order that we might be saved. He's been there. He knows what you're going through. He has encountered every type of temptation that we have... only he never sinned. When Jesus says, "My grace is sufficient," he is speaking as one who knows. He's the one who bought you with his blood.

Now look at the reason why the Lord's grace was sufficient for Paul. The Lord said, "for my power is made perfect in weakness." The reason why the Lord's grace is sufficient is because his power is made perfect in weakness.

Picture it this way: Imagine a man who has everything. He's rich. He's popular. He's healthy. He never goes through pain. Can God get glory from that? Yes. I think so. God can get glory from that type of man if he trusts in Christ and gives honor to God. But then there's also the possibility that you make a mistake. You may say, "That man has worked hard for all he has... he really is a powerful and great guy!" You may misplace where the power actually is. The power rests with God, not with man. But in this case you may mistakenly say that the man has power.

But in a weak person, there's no doubt where the power comes from. We are weak. We are unable to bring about results. We're sick and feeble. But Christ is strong. He is powerful. He is able to bring about results. He does whatever he wishes. He accomplishes all that he intends. He is God! So, if he brings about endurance in us... if he accomplishes something in us, it is evident to all that it is done by God, because we didn't have the power to do it ourselves.

Imagine an empty cup being filled to the brim with water. We are the cup. The water is the power of God. His power is made perfect in our weaknesses. His power is put on display for all to see. In our weaknesses, Christ’s power is more clearly seen. Listen to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

It is the same way with preaching the gospel. Just a few verses further down in 1 Corinthians... chapter 2:1-5: "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

God's grace is sufficient. His power is made perfect in our weaknesses. And to this great fact, we should respond in the same way that Paul did. He said, "I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." And here is something that probably shocks us, living in America. This goes against the way we were raised to think. Strength comes through weakness. The power of God rests on those who are weak. The power of God rests on those who know they are weak in and of themselves.

People may wonder why the power of God is not on them... not on their churches... not in their homes. It is because we are not weak. We have made ourselves out to be strong, independent people. We don't need anyone's help. We can do it for ourselves. But the power of Christ rests on the weak. The power of Christ makes its home in those who are weak and depend on God. If you want the power of God, then boast in your weaknesses... and boast in the God who is able to overcome them. Paul did it and so should we.

When I Am Weak, Then I Am Strong (2 Cor. 12:10)
Paul then in verse 10 gives a sort of summary statement for what he's been saying. "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong."

Notice that he does this for the sake of Christ. He is content in order that Jesus Christ might be glorified. For the sake of Christ, Paul is content in any and every situation, especially those that involve weakness. It is similar to what Paul says in Philippians 4:11-13, "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me."

The secret of being content in all circumstances is to depend on Christ's strength and not your own. His power rests on the weak... not on those who act strong. In fact, it is only in acknowledging our weaknesses that we become strong. Paul says, "when I am weak, then I am strong." When I am weak and dependent on Christ... when I know that I can't get through the pain... when I know I can't produce results on my own... he fills me with his power... he displays his power in me, and then I am strong.

Closing
The desire to hide our weaknesses doesn't come from the Lord. It comes from the world. It comes from the idea that we must present ourselves as strong if we're going to be respected. If we want ourselves to look good, then we'll hide our weaknesses. But if we want to show the greatness and power of God, then we won't hide our weaknesses... we'll boast in them... we'll brag about them!

Many people have been turned off by the church because people hide their weaknesses. We act like everything is always OK. We hide our weaknesses behind our smiles. I'm guilty of this too. Think about this though: How different would it look if we were honest about our struggles and difficulties and we boasted in them? What would happen if we let other people know about our weaknesses? What if we said, "You know, I'm really hurting here... I'm really struggling with this and I can't endure it on my own. But Christ's grace is sufficient for me! May his power be displayed in this weakness of mine! Get glory from this, God!?" What an opportunity to show others that we have some of the same pains and hardships. What a chance to show God’s grace and power.

If you're not a follower of Jesus Christ this morning, then your first step is also the hardest one. That's admitting that you are weak in and of yourself. The first step in submitting yourself to Christ is to humble yourself... confess that you're a sinner deserving of punishment for your crimes against God. Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinners like you. And if you'll humble yourself and trust him for salvation, you'll be saved from God's wrath. Humble yourself before him today.

If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then your invitation is similar, but different. During our invitation, reflect on your life and talk to the Lord. What weaknesses, struggles, or hardships have you been hiding from others? You tried to act strong... you've put on a good front... but Christ is not receiving glory from that. Confess your weakness to God and ask him that he might put his power and might on display in that weakness. Humble yourself before him now. Christ's power is made perfect in weakness. Christ's power rests on those who are weak. Are you weak this morning?

9Marks Regional Workshop

Have you guys seen this? What are your thoughts? I think something like this could be great for our area. I saw this on our friend Ben Wright's blog. I also just saw that Dever is supposed to be at Southeastern Seminary for chapel on February 26, 2008.

What Is A Healthy Church?

Brothers, I just got Dever's new book, "What is a Healthy Church?" It looks like an invaluable resource for our people to understand the right questions to ask about church. I would recommend getting a copy, reading through it, and then figuring out a way to get a copy in the hands of all your members (easy for me to say, I only have 23 members). At first, I thought this was going to be a summary of 9 Marks of a Healthy Church. While he certainly restates those 9 marks, he also just discusses the nature, purpose, and goal of a healthy church..

9 Marks Ministries sells this book for $5 each on their website (retail: $10.99)!

So, let's say you have 125 members. Let's say half of those members are in a family (husband, wife, children). So, if you give one book per family, you would need about 63 books. I cannot think of a better way to spend $315 than putting a copy of this book in the hands of every member of your church. Surely you can find an extra $315 in your budget somewhere. If not, make plans to add it next year. That $315 will do more to encourage unity, vision, and direction for the future than just about anything I can think of.

Consider it a challenge (or a dare if you are old school).

Desperately Desiring Healthy Churches in this Area,
Justin Childers

A Title for Our Conference

Dr. Sam Storms was kind enough to email me some suggested titles for the conference that MHMBC, Southside, and Christ Baptist are hosting on the topic of the Holy Spirit. What do you think of this one?:

Life in the Spirit: Overcoming our Fears and Deepening our Trust

JN

Football

I'm not sure why I enjoy NFL football so much. The truth is, after preaching on Sundays, I love being able to come home, relax, and watch the games. Especially Sunday Night Football.

Anyway, my fantasy league just finished their draft, and even though I didn't get everybody I wanted, I'm satisfied with my team:

QB - Tony Romo (Dallas)
RB - Joseph Addai (Indy)
RB - Laurence Maroney (New England)
WR - Marques Colston (New Orleans)
WR - Calvin Johnson (Detroit)
WR - Randy Moss (New England)
TE - Jason Witten (Dallas)
K - Robbie Gould (Chicago)
Defense: Cowboys

Reserve QB - Rex Grossman (Chicago)
Reserve RB - Chester Taylor (Minnesota)
Reserve WR - Deverey Henderson (New Orleans)
Reserve TE - David Martin (Miami)
Reserve Defense: Seahawks

So I need Peyton Manning to throw less to Marvin Harrison and instead give the ball more to Addai. I need Romo to be excellent, especially using Witten at Tight End (as he did in preseason). And I need the Cowboys defense to make big plays. I also need New England to have an excellent year offensively.


On another note, I finished reading Tony Dungy's book last night. What a great testimony for Christ! It's rare to find a man with such worldly success who still cares more about spiritual things. The book is a great read - I highly recommend it.


Anyone else care about football?

Give Us Likeness to Jesus

"It is not great talents God blesses so much as likeness to Jesus. A holy minister is an awful weapon in the hand of God."
-Robert Murray M'Cheyne

posted by JC

Intro to Revelation

As promised, here are the teaching notes from our first SS class on Revelation.

The Purpose of This Class
It seems that Christians tend to hold one of two extreme positions concerning the book of Revelation: they either obsess about it, or disregard it. On the one hand, I’ve met some Christians who love the book of Revelation. They view the book as a complex puzzle to be solved, and spend great time and energy in striving to make sense of its most intricate details. They love to talk about “the signs of the time”, and often find themselves in passionate debate with others about the identity of the Beast, the meaning of the number 666, the coming of the Anti-Christ, the timing of the Rapture, etc. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who find themselves intimidated by the book. They find its contents strange and somewhat repelling, and may believe that they do not have what it takes to make sense of such a difficult book. The consequence is that they tend to avoid it altogether.

The purpose of this class is to offer a guide to Revelation that will help shed light on its meaning and message, hopefully drawing a path between the middle of these two positions. My prayer is that those who are apprehensive about the book will find that its message is not nearly as difficult to grasp as they may think, and to equip and encourage them to read the book with benefit regularly both privately and with others. For those in the other camp, I hope to help them approach the book not as a puzzle to be solved and debated, but as Scripture to be believed and obeyed. The ultimate aim of this class is one that can only be accomplished by God, namely, that He would glorify Himself by using this book to save and sanctify His people.

Author
Revelation 1:1 explains how the book came into existence:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John…”

Let’s consider this verse one phrase at a time. First, we have the identification of the book: it is “the revelation of Jesus Christ”. This means that the chief subject of this book (like every other part of the Bible) is the person and work of Jesus. It is the revelation concerning Jesus Christ. Second, we are told that this revelation was given from God to His Son. This means that God is the ultimate author of the book. Third, we have the purpose of the book: to show the followers of Jesus “the things that must soon take place.” This emphasizes the prophetic nature of the book. Fourth, we learn that Jesus gave the revelation to “his servant John”, but not directly. Rather, “he made it known by sending his angel.”

So we can point to four distinct persons involved in the creation of this book: God the Father (its ultimate Author), Christ the Son, the angel who delivered it, and the Apostle John who wrote it down. We could also add to this list the Holy Spirit, the very breath of God who inspires all of Scripture (cf. 2Tim. 3:16; 2Pet. 1:21).

Some people question whether the John who wrote Revelation is the same as the Apostle who walked with Christ and wrote the fourth Gospel. They point out that “John” was a very popular name in the first century (as it is today), and that the writer of Revelation could easily be another follower of Jesus by that name. However, there are two chief reasons to doubt that this is the case:

1. It seems unlikely that anyone but the Apostle John could have used his name without qualification and expected to be recognized. Any church receiving this letter would have immediately assumed from that it was from the apostle since there was no other John in early Christendom that shared his status, nor any other that shared his apostolic authority over the churches.

2. The early literature of the Christian church is unanimous in ascribing this book to the Apostle. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian seem all in agreement on this. Considering their closer chronological proximity to the writing of Revelation, it would be foolish for us to disregard their assessments unless their was a great deal of evidence to justify doing so.[1]

Date:
Revelation was probably written around 95 A.D. We arrive at this date by noting that Revelation (a) seems to assume that emperor worship is a current phenomenon, (b) recognizes a current persecution of Christians and anticipates its worsening, (c) speaks to conditions within the churches of Asia Minor that seem to point to a date later in the first century, (d) uses “Babylon” as a symbolic title for Rome (a not uncommon feature of Jewish Apocalyptic literature beginning in the last quarter of the first century), and (e) is dated during the reign of Emperor Domitian by the early church fathers (Irenaeus, Victorinus of Pettau, Eusebius, and others). There are some who argue for an earlier date (usually 65 A.D, during the reign of Nero), but the evidence above points best towards a later date.

Genre:
One of the first keys to understanding the book of Revelation is to recognize its genre. We would not read a poem the same way we would read a newspaper, nor would we read an essay in the same we way we would read the back of a cereal box. Once we understand what kind of book Revelation is, we will find that many of the difficulties in interpreting it begin to dissipate.

In considering the genre, we should first note that the book is a book of prophecy (cf. 1:3). In the Old Testament, prophecies were messages from God spoken through a prophet promising future blessings or curses for present obedience / disobedience. Prophecies also often remind people of God’s past acts of redemption or judgment. In Revelation, we encounter this past-present-future nature of prophecy in a unique way. It is as if the invisible world of spiritual warfare is unveiled to us through symbolism. We learn about the history of this warfare, the nature of this warfare during our age, and the future outcome. As in the Old Testament prophecies, Revelation does speak of future blessings and curses as well: future blessing for those who belong to Christ, and future judgment for the wicked (including particularly wicked powers, be they political or demonic.)

Second we should note that Revelation has many things in common with apocalyptic literature. In fact, the word translated “revelation” (1:1) is actually the Greek word “apocalypse”, which is why you may have heard this book referred to as “The Book of the Apocalypse”. Apocalyptic literature was a unique genre that flourished during the first and second centuries. This kind of literature often used symbolic pictures and visions to reveal divine truths hidden to the majority of mankind. When Revelation is considered alongside other apocalyptic works from the same time period, we find that there are a number of similarities, but also a large number of differences. This recognition leads scholar Vern Poythress to say

“We must not expect too much from comparisons of Revelation with extrabiblical apocalyptic literature. We learn mainly one thing: the use of complex symbolism was ‘in the air’ at the time when John was writing. It would not have seemed as strange then as it does now.”

Poythress then applies the point:

“Some people today come to Revelation with the recipe, ‘Interpret everything literally, if possible.’ That recipe misunderstands what kind of book Revelation is. Of course, John literally saw what he says he saw. But what he saw was a vision. It was filled with symbols, like the Beast of 13:1-8 and the seven blazing lamps in 4:5. It never intended to be a direct, nonsymbolical description of the future. People living in John’s own time understood this matter instinctively, because they recognized that John was writing in an ‘apocalyptic’ manner, a manner already as familiar to them as a political cartoon is to us today.”

Third and finally, we should recognize that Revelation also fits into the genre of the epistle. The Revelation was not given to John solely for his own enlightenment and edification. Within the book are letters to seven different churches in Asia Minor, and the first verse makes clear that Jesus wanted its message to be heard and understood by all His servants. Thus, Revelation is a letter from Christ to all His followers – those alive when the book was written, and the millions who have come after them.

Interpretation:
Throughout Christian history, there have been four different approaches to interpreting Revelation:

1. The Preterist Approach. Preterists emphasize that the message of Revelation was a message intended to serve churches in the first century, and that the book reveals “things that must soon take place” (1:1) to those that lived during that time. Therefore, the Preterist argues that much of Revelation describes events that were in the future for the early church but are now in our distant past. These climactic events include that fall of Jerusalem and/or the fall of the Roman Empire (i.e., the Beast). Preterists acknowledge that Revelation has much to teach us today, but emphasize that the events pictured are past, not future events.

2. The Futurist Approach. Futurists take the opposite approach from Preterists. They argue that the events described in Revelation are almost entirely future events that will take place at the very end of the present age. While most scholars lean towards a Preterist approach, most popular authors (i.e., Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsey, etc.) teach a Futurist understanding. They rightly point out that many events pictured in Revelation do not appear to have already taken place (i.e., the second coming, the marriage supper of the Lamb, the creation of a New Earth, etc.)

3. The Historicist Approach. Though popular in past centuries, this approach has proven to be unworkable, and therefore has few proponents today. Historicists taught that Revelation describes in chronological order the main events of history from the first century to the end of all things. They try and find in Revelation pictures that can describe the medieval period, the Renaissance, the establishment of the U.N., etc. Some historicists, for example, argue that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that the locusts in Revelation are a picture of the rise of the Islamic empire.

4. The Idealist Approach. Unlike the three previous approaches, the Idealist approach argues that the visions of Revelation do not necessarily find fulfillment in one event (past or future), but apply to every generation of Christians. So, for example, the Beast in Revelation refers not only to the Roman Empire, but to every government throughout the church age that seeks to harm God’s people.

So which approach is best? Having previously considered the three primary genres of Revelation, (prophecy, apocalypse, and epistle) I think we can say with confidence that a combination of these approaches is appropriate. Consider:

Since Revelation is an epistle intended for real churches in the first century, it makes sense that we should approach the book asking what the visions in this book were intended to teach them. And since Jesus says that Revelation reveals things “that must soon take place” (1:1), we should expect at least a partial fulfillment of John’s visions during that time.

Since Revelation is a book of prophecy intended for all Christians at all times, we should expect that a future fulfillment of many of these prophecies is a legitimate expectation. When we look to the Old Testament book of Isaiah, for example, we see that many of the prophecies in that book had more than one fulfillment. Many of the prophecies that spoke about the coming of Christ actually spoke more immediately about the rise of Cyrus of Persia. The Biblical pattern is that prophecies have more than one fulfillment, and so we should approach Revelation with a similar expectation.

Finally, since Revelation is an apocalyptic book, there is real validity to the Idealist approach. It is highly unlikely that John wanted us to interpret many of the visions in this book literally. Rather, they are intended to teach real truths and speak of real events in a symbolic way.

But what about the historical approach? Of all the possible approaches, this one is the weakest. It is correct in noting that the visions in Revelation cover the period between the first and second comings of Christ, but it is incorrect in seeking to read the book as a chronological picture of history. Approaching the book this way leads to all sorts of fanciful speculation. In Revelation, consecutive visions often describe the same events, though from different perspectives. The historical approach fails to take this into account.

When we approach the book with these things in mind, we will see that the message of Revelation is that Jesus is coming again, evil will be defeated, and Christ and His people will reign victorious. The purpose of the book is to call Christians to endure till the end, holding fast to Christ and His commands even through periods of difficult persecution. I trust that this message and exhortation will be heard time and time again as we study Revelation.

Encouragement to Read
Before we end this lesson, I’d like to draw our attention to two points from the first three verses that should encourage us to take up and read Revelation. First, note that in 1:1 this book is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ”. In this title we see that this book is intended to reveal truth, not hide it. So be encouraged – Revelation has not been written as a puzzle to be figured out, but as a message to be understood. Despite what some have said, when we accept the book on its own terms, understanding the message of Revelation is easier than you may think.

Second, note that Revelation is the only book in Scripture that begins with a blessing on those who read it. “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it…” [2] Those who consider what this book says and take it to heart will be blessed by God. So let’s ask God for His help, and read with an expectation to understand and to benefit.

[1] Some would argue that the difference in style between the Greek of Revelation the Greek of John’s Gospel and Epistles is so vast that this alone constitutes reason to second-guess the assessments of these early church fathers. Dionysius (an Egyptian bishop of the third century) was the earliest figure known to have made this argument. The point is that the Greek of the Gospel / Epistles is very polished, whereas the Greek of Revelation seems rough and unusual. However, there are several satisfying arguments that have been made to explain the difference in style, certainly enough to say that the stylistic differences are not convincing enough to reject the Apostle as the writer of Revelation. For a summary of these arguments, see Morris, 29-32.

[2] The practice of reading a book silently did not exist in the first century. Rather, this letter would have been read aloud at gatherings of the seven churches it was sent to (and perhaps others), and the people would have listened intently.

Comments / Questions / Criticisms appreciated.