Q U E S T I O N S A N D A N S W E R S
“What exactly is godliness? Can you please explain in a few words?”
Godliness in the Bible is almost synonymous with holiness, but there is a subtle difference as holiness in the believer is an (imputed) inner quality, which provides for an externally seen and active godliness in life.
A short definition of godliness is the practice of actively and joyously obeying God, and thus being more attuned to, and thus like him, and hence ever more godly. Many professing believers and also many professing churches make much of the names of God and Christ whilst working out their own programmes for church growth and more attractive services and worship and so on, yet do so without consulting God’s will in the Bible, and seriously considering what he requires. Such may achieve apparent outward success- numbers added, people enjoying what they take part in, but if it is not all according to God’s stated will, if what pleases man is not done specifically and deliberately in accord with God’s will (even against our own preferences) then it lacks godliness, and is ungodly after all.
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1. Timothy 6:6). This was spoken to the church, to genuine born-again believers. Their salvation is assured, but yet on earth there is something to be gained- indeed great gain. This is received and enjoyed as a fruit of obedience– by placing all in accord with God’s word, and never in accord with man’s opinions, preferences, plans or choices. Here lies the difference between the nominal and the godly disciple, between nominal and the godly church.
Godliness comes not only from obeying God, but by doing so with an eager desire to please God by submitting to and confidently obeying him. Regulating all in the church by God’s word is well-pleasing to him. It assimilates both the individual believer, and the church corporately, ever more into God’s image and likeness. This advances sanctification.
This is godliness.
“Most evangelism today is done by Arminians, notably in the mass crusades. It cannot be denied that people are actually saved under Arminian preaching and crusade appeals. How does this truth square with the Reformed faith you advocate?”
Easily. Whoever preaches, and however flawed the message may be, God has his elect, and all evangelism is simply the channel of bringing in the elect. For all others the message falls on deaf, dead, ears. Vitally it is not the man or the message that works the change, but the invisible working of the Holy Spirit. When this truth is understood salvation always is, and ever must be, all of God, and nothing of man. That is the Reformed faith, that of sovereign grace. Arminianism teaches that man was the ability, the will, to choose salvation, if persuaded to opt for it. The Bible teaches that fallen man is dead in trespasses and sins, and has no such ability. Yet, as you rightly say, the fact is people are saved under Arminian outreach. Biblically, Arminianism itself could never bring this about. It has been said that: ‘if fallen man had been left to the exercise of his own powers alone there never could have been a church of God upon earth, and there never could have been a single saved human being in heaven.’
Elect ones are saved, not truth false, erroneous, distorted teaching and preaching, but by the invisible working of God the Holy Spirit. It is to be hoped that such converts will also be led, over time, to be fuller and better understanding of theology- and of the actual means and process of their own salvation.
All of this does not relieve the Reformed churches and Reformed people from actively engaging in true, God honouring, God centred evangelism.
“I have long felt a call to serve the Lord and believe that he has given me talents to do so, and I have spent a lot of time and effort in prayer and hard study and in gaining qualifications. Now I am eager to employ these in God’s service, but I cannot find any suitable openings. I am beginning to feel depressed and to think at God doesn’t want me after all. What do you recommend?”
To learn as much as we can about the Lord, and to prepare ourselves to serve him with all the talents that he gives is the duty of all believers. Some are granted more because they are to be called to more public service, but how and when that occurs is in God’s sovereign control. There may be local situations in which the Lord has his trained servants, but withholds their employment in judgment because the people are too hardened and are under chastisement. We just cannot see the whole picture from where we are. It may be required to widen the scope and consider ‘calls’ from a further geographical area.
It is, humanly speaking, frustrating and potentially depressing to feel ready for service, but having to wait on the Lord. One resource, in the meantime, lies in activity. That is, spiritual activity. Even when time seems most taken up it can be important, even at some sacrifice, to make time. Look to what you are doing in the kingdom now. It may be activity in the local church, or outreach, or writing- whatever is at hand. Cannot these be improved, deepened, added to? Look for all the extra you can do for the Lord from just where you currently are, and also keep praying and looking for future leading.
Activity in the church is a sovereign remedy for doubts and depressions!
“John Wesley said: ‘If there is an election, then is all preaching vain. It is needless to them who are elected for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved, for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be condemned’. How would answer this, in a few words?”
It is tempting to paraphrase John Bunyan and say that “even a babe in Christ could answer a thousand such questions as this!”
In the church God operates not by miracles but by means. Before conversion no-one knows who are elect and who are reprobate. Preaching to all, rather than being vain is in fact essential. It is the God-ordained means of separating the elect from the reprobate. Preaching is exactly and specifically the way God has decreed that this should be done. The gospel preacher, not being miraculously informed of who the elect are, must make an unlimited proclamation of a limited atonement. It also exposes and hardens the reprobate, and leaves them without excuse.
“Baptist writers often claim with confidence that there is no text in the Bible that clearly teaches infant baptism. Can you cite such texts?”
Yes. As with many other matters of doctrinal interpretation this depends on where you look- and that often is not in the most obvious and likely seeming places.
Please follow this reasoning:
1. God established an everlasting covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17) but God emphatically did not establish it just with Abraham, but with Abraham’s seed (children, offspring) also. This factor is so central to the covenant that it is repeated for absolute emphasis: I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you, and to your seed after you. And I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham: You shall keep my covenant, you and your seed after you in their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep between me and you, and your seed after you, every male child among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:7-10).
2. The seed that is brought into covenant are children, in fact infants: He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised (v.12).
3. The covenant is specifically laid down as everlasting (v. 7), and the visible token of the covenant- circumcision.
4. Christians do not circumcise their male children (or adult converts). If, therefore, there is now NO sign or token on the covenant, then the covenant is broken, and cannot be everlasting, and God’s promise has failed!
5. To keep within the everlasting covenant we have to do something that replaces circumcision, but that something (to be the same thing in a different external form) must be done to children and babies (eight days old).
6. Colossians 2:11-12 says: In whom you are also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in outing off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ when united into his burial through baptism. Accordingly nothing else has ever been suggested in any branch of the church as the replacement of circumcision, except baptism. If it is not baptism, then there is no everlasting covenant sign, and thus no everlasting covenant, and God’s word is untrue.
But the sign of the everlasting covenant (which now can be nothing but baptism) is mandated to be placed on our covenant seed- children- babes a few days old.
If this is not a clear and unbreakable divine command to baptise our infants, then the Bible ceases to have any authority, and is meaningless. Conversely, to read these things and yet deny them, have no covenant sign for believers’ seed in the line of covenant generations, is plain rebellion and apostasy. God preserve his elect from such heinous sin!
How do you reply to the Baptist’s point that there is no specific, unambiguous, mention of infant baptism in the New Testament?
The answer must be; “how specific do you want it?” Very many truths that Bible-believing Christians believe are not stated in simple, plain, unambiguous language (that is, the Holy Spirit does not always treat us as if we were children), but are clear enough when read in context and in association with other related Scriptures. That, after all, is basic Biblical hermeneutics. There are texts on this subject that are perfectly clear to eyes that will see. For example Acts 2:38-39 could hardly be any clearer: Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise to unto you, and to your children (King James Version.)
If these verses are looked at without the blinkers of prejudice it is clear that God the Holy Spirit states that baptism was, a) into a promise, and that promise was the remission of sins, b) that this same promise was made both to themselves AND their children, c) that obtaining the promise required baptism, d) therefore the children must be baptised.
What could be plainer? In unambiguous language the Holy Spirit requires-mandates- the baptism of believers’ children. It is therefore sin to fail or refuse to obey this requisite. This alone, without the very many other evidences, should be enough to settle the objection once and for all.
“The website seems to be advocating a return to apostolic purity for the church, but you also use the term ‘Presbyterian’. Is that not a modern denominational title?”
We employ the term Presbyterian simply because it is necessary to have a convenient one to describe that church organisation laid out in the Bible. To the degree that the professing church understands, applies, and adheres to that Bible pattern it may claim, truly, a divine right (Jus Divinum) for its polity. Seen in that light all sincere churches should endeavour to find and conform to the Bible pattern, and all that wilfully do not do so incur sin. This requires constant vigilance, and constant checking or practices, teaching, and rules, to keep to, and improve that conformity to the Bible. The Reformers knew this, and so their watchword was Semper Reformanda: the Reformed Church must be ever reforming. Here we acknowledge that Reformed and Presbyterian churches have themselves erred over time. They have permitted their rules and procedures to become over-elaborate and too complicated, to the degree that legislative rules and procedures can frustrate the truth.
We must stress that for church polity to be Biblical it must be fundamentally simple and free from legal devices and complications. Bible church polity is in truth simple. It is the model of a body, organically united, operating though all of its parts with one unifying mind and one soul. It is not a plethora of separate parts, independent of each other (Congregationalism, Independency), nor is it a hierarchy with layers of superior officers like the world’s armies (Episcopacy). It is the Scriptural middle road between these extremes that for convenience is labelled Presbyterianism.
Within the organic body that is the church there must necessarily be easy procedures for discussion consent, and even dissent on non-essential matters. Consciences cannot be forced. God in Christ rules in the church by the Holy Spirit. There must be rules of discipline, and channels of appeal to wider sections of the church, within a simple Bible framework, demonstrating that all parts of the body are united, and have need of each other. This is the polity that this website seeks to set out and explain and offer as a model for sincere believers and their churches.
And that title Presbyterian: the plain fact is that the Bible describes a church polity in which the people are represented by an eldership (teaching and ruling elders.) The Greek term for elders gives us our Presbyters and Presbyterian. It thus simply identifies a Biblical polity. It is in no sense a denominational title (as Methodist, Congregationalist, Anglican, Baptist or any of the many others). It is not part of our church’s titles. It describes a polity that identifies it from others, by referring directly to the Bible. This it is a convenience. Members are members of Reformation Christian Churches, and Reformation Christian Churches are Presbyterian in polity, because that describes what they find set out in the Bible.
“Can you say, in a short summary, why you believe that Presbyterianism is the true Biblical church polity?”
Yes. All agree that the elect church militant is spiritually one, but all know that all living believers cannot physically meet in one place on earth: there must be local churches across the lands of the globe. The question thus arises: what is the relationship of each of these local assemblies to all the others, locally, nationally, internationally? Given all the perplexing multitude of Denominations, names, and titles, it is important to understand that, so far as church polity is concerned, all fall into one of three catagories. They must necessarily be either Episcopal,Independent, or Presbyterian.Episcopal churches are structured with a rigid hierarchy with ascending ranks of clergy (in Roman Catholic system leading up to the Pope himself.) Many of these ranks have no mention in Scripture, and the entire system really owes its origin to the Roman Emperor Constantine (died 337 A.D.) who arranged the church (in order to control it centrally) along lines modelled for the Roman Civil Service and Roman Army- all headed by the Emperor. This rigid system of ranks (often flattering to human ambition and pride) has no sanction in the Bible.1
Independent (Congregational) churches are, structurally, nearer to the Scripture pattern. Without a rigid hierarchy the go to the opposite extreme of holding that each individual local Church or Assembly is a complete self-sufficient unit in its own right. This clearly contravenes the Bible teaching that the church (as a whole) is one organic body2 (spiritually, and so should be so also physically, so far as is possible) and should seek to demonstrate and express that unity visibly. By placing the emphasis solely on the local church Independency necessarily elevates the role of men (either the pastor, who may become a little pope in his own church, or one or two leading men in the congregation, who may hold the purse strings). This also is not the Bible pattern and has scant defence against doctrinal deviation, as church history clearly shows.
This leaves just a Scriptural middle way, a straight and narrow way between these two ditches, on the right and on the left. For convenience we call this middle way Presbyterianism. It must be realised at once that this is not a denominational label (such as Methodist or Baptist Congregationalist or Episcopalian etc.), although the term may be included in denominational titles. It is simply a Bible term, a New Testament Greek word taken over into English, stating the Scriptural principle of rule by Elders (in Greek Presbyters) in both a local, and a wider, representative system. It also reflects the fact that the Church is a continuation of the Jewish Synagogue, of which it is the fulfilled New Testament phase.
In practice, as shown by church history, Independency, by majoring on the local congregation and its people alone, slides inevitably towards humanism. At the same time Episcopacy slides inevitably towards Papalism. In each overall system the best of men have been recorded battling against these tendencies, with varying success.
Only keeping within the bounds of the Biblical middle ground polity, the Synagogue Church, broadly and for convenience denominated Presbyterian, can the church be healthy, and avoid these dangers.
1. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant, whoever exalts himself shall be abased. (Matthew 23:11).
2. The body is one, and yet has many members, and as all the members of that one body, though many, are one body, so is Christ also. (1. Corinthians 12:12).
If they were all one member, where would the body be? Now they are many members, but still one body, so the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you, nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. (1. Corinthians 12: 20-21).
“Would you say that the Covenant Christian Churches effort is a revival, or perhaps better a continuation, of the English Puritan movement?
Directly, no. Indirectly, yes. It must be understood that the English Puritan movement, along with its contemporary and allied movements in Scotland (Covananters) and in Holland (Nadere Reformatie) and also the spin-off in New England, was a Holy Spirit given and directed surge towards a more thoroughly Bible based, Scripture regulated, more truly Christ-centred church. It was a healthy reaction to ritualistic and man-centred Romanism, and all half-way Reformations from it. The Puritan vision was thus a drive for exactly what Bible-Christianity is and should be: to complete the Reformation of the church according to God’s Holy Word.
Sadly in history the Puritan movement passed away without accomplishing this goal, leaving the Reformation still uncompleted. This was due (humanly speaking) to unremitting and crushing opposition by the State, along with the passing away of the great Puritan preachers and leaders. With the coming of toleration in the Williamite Settlement (1688-89) the remaining Puritans slid in comfortable dissent and the vision for national church Reformation and purification passed away. Later modern ‘evangelicalism’ often appreciates the Spiritual insights and practical teaching of the Puritans, but from that time onwards has increasing taken a different path: it seeks converts at all costs (not of course a bad thing, of they are truly elect ones awakened and gathered in) but sees this as the main, if not the sole, purpose of the church. To the Puritan the convert must be added to a sound church and there nurtured, for the conversion is not and end in itself, but the convert is a spiritual stone added to the structure of the church, and only there can he or she truly reflect Christ’s glory in their salvation. Puritanism was (correctly) church centred, and hence the need to have thoroughly Biblical churches. Evangelicalism is convert centred, with the emphasis on ‘get converted, and go and convert others’, with scant concern for what happens (or what the Bible says about) post-conversion status and development. It goes without saying that such thinking slides inevitably towards Arminianism, whilst ‘church’ becomes an ever more amorphous and unimportant entity.
The Puritan vision, however, remains the same today, for it is simply God’s mandate and blueprint for the Church on earth. In that sense Reformation Christian Churches hold up the banner of semper reformanda, always checking and constantly reforming in accordance with God’s revealed word, in order to be as well-pleasing to God in Christ as is possible. In this the true Christian’s desire should reflect the desire of our Saviour himself: Christ loved the church and gave himself for it…so that he might present it to himself a glorious church, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5: 25-27).
This is our calling, and this is our vision.
“How would you answer a believer who thinks that strict Sabbath-keeping is legalism?”
I would reply in this way: Look at the Bible passage that establishes Sabbath-keeping, that is Exodus 20:8, and then read carefully verses 1-17. The law for Sabbath-keeping is thus embedded within the Ten Commandments. Who would claim that forbidding murder, or stealing, or committing adultery was legalism? We simply cannot separate what God was joined together- his commandments stand or fall as one. The Commandments are the foundation of all law, all proper and acceptable conduct. The foundation cannot be mere unthinking legalism! Beyond this we should remember that the Sabbath did not originate at Sinai: it is a creation ordinance, one of two essential things (along with one man and one woman marriage) instituted by God before the fall of man. Sabbath-keeping is thus no more legalism or a burden than is marriage! It is foundational, and: If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3).
Believers are mandated to keep both marriage and the Sabbath strictly. Nothing else is acceptable or pleasing in God’s sight.
“Is it a sin, and if so to what degree is it a sin, to use public transport to attend Sunday services?”
A much respected and very faithful denomination in the United Kingdom makes this stance: “To our knowledge no other branch of the Christian Church has excluded from Church privileges, such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, all who unlawfully use conveyances run in systematic disregard of the Lord’s Day, even to attend Church, but our own. Faithful adherence to this rule has meant, over the years, that many have sought and obtained these privileges elsewhere.”*
Although we give place to none in defending and honouring the Lord’s Day, a careful consideration on the situation, in the light of Scripture indicates that this is an over-extreme view, in which the exercise of discipline (to the exclusion from the Lord’s Supper, making this literally an excommunication sin) is not justifiable in all cases, and so the stigma placed on some people, and the loss of membership to our (probably in many areas less doctrinally sound) is a mistake and a tragedy. The facts of the case are these:
1. Public transport that operates for profit with paid staff on the Lord’s Day is a violation of the Sabbath.
2. Believers must not be neglecting assembling ourselves together as some have done. (Hebrews 10:25).
In the modern world these can be the two sides of an equation, posing a genuine dilemma in some cases- sin lies on the right hand (Sabbath breaking by using public transport), and sin lies on the left hand (forsaking the meeting together.) What can the believer, the Christian, do, if caught in such a dilemma? We must assume that this will only apply when there is absolutely no other means of attending a true church for services: that walking or bicycling, for example, are not an option. Also we must assume that the church at large is unable to solve the problem, by providing a lift for the isolated one (which, of course, it would be the churches responsibility to provide it at all possible.) Believers in this life cannot live in sin-free perfection. There are these occasions when sin lies on every hand. In that case the rule must be to choose the lessor, to hold sin down to a minimum and plead for forgiveness for what cannot be helped. The Westminster Confession acknowledges that some things might be done on the Lord’s Day that we might prefer not to do on that day, if they are cases of ‘necessity or mercy.’ The Bible is clear that being part of a visible church is a necessity, something to be valued most highly, very important for salvation. Moreover in the church the believer is fed spiritually and taught and nurtured. These things are (where at all available) necessities for spiritual health and life. To be kept from them, for no fault of our own, is unmerciful. In light of the impossibility of attending services by any other means (if that is genuinely and certainly so) the onus, and thus the responsibility for any sin incurred, lies primarily with the local church. The church must make every effort to bring the member(s) to meetings and return them home afterwards. Only if this also is impossible should public transport be resorted to as a ‘last resort’, but in that extreme case the level of sin involved must be over-ruled by the necessity of attending and the mercy to the spiritual well-being of the attendees, and the fault (if any in such a situation) is in fact shared by the traveller and the church. Thus unavoidable sin is minimised, and unavoidable sin can surely be forgiven.
This is the Bible, Christian, gracious and loving answer to the question.
Sadly, although most professing churches now pay scant regard to Sabbath keeping, our dear brethren in the denomination quoted err on the side of spiritual cruelty. They should have looked carefully at the congregations in which this occurred, in terms of providing transport, and if this was seen to be impractical then permit the situation (and seek to remedy it as soon as possible), rather than offend and then lose faithful people to other less sound denominations.
* The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. C.f. ‘One Hundred Years of Witness’, 1993, p. 128.
“What is your view of Revelation 1:9? Is it saying that the word of God is different to the testimony of Jesus?”
Revelation 1:9: I, John, who is also your brother and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
I believe that what we have here is: a) The word of God is the message delivered to John. b) The testimony of Jesus is John’s proclaiming that word or message on to others (preaching and writing the Revelation). Two sides of the same things: one side received by a selected servant and understood, the other that servant spreading the message to others. In a way this is exactly what all Bible writers did, and from their inspired writings, what all faithful preachers do.
“How can a believer answer the modern taunt: God is dead”?
Simply look at that (foolish) statement. There are three short and simple words. We have ‘is’ between two concepts, that of ‘God’ and that of ‘dead’. At once we see an oxymoron, a perversion of language that insults the intelligence. Define ‘God’ and the concept necessarily describes unlimited supernatural powers, including omnipotence and timeless eternity. Such a concept therefore simply cannot be subject to death. Conversely anything capable of death absolutely cannot fit the designation God. The statement, on its very face, is as meaningless and nonsensical as freezing heat or brilliant darkness. It offered seriously it is a plain insult to the hearer’s intelligence.
Why, then do people make such statements? It is because they, personally, desire that the very thought, the very concept, of God was never mentioned. He or she professes not to believe in God, but wishes never to be reminded of the very possibility that they are wrong. It is an attempt to silence their own conscience.
God himself answers them: The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, none does good (Psalm 14:1).
“As the Bible was penned by human writers whose individual characters and styles are preserved in the Books, is it true to say that that there are both human and divine elements in Scripture?”
No. God sovereignly planned and brought about the birth, education, calling, and equipping of each Bible writer, and in time God the Holy Spirit inspired them to write down God’s words. God produced the individual characters, each adapted to its unique role in penning the portion of Scripture assigned to that writer. Thus the character and style differences are God ordained, are part of the process of divine inspiration, and the authorship of the Bible is all of God.
“As your website and ministry advocates a Presbyterian polity and Calvinist doctrine, why do you have a new ‘doctrinal basis’? Would not the time-honoured Westminster Standards have been better, as well as showing unity with those still holding to those standards?”
We hold the Westminster Standards in very high regard. They represent the very high-water mark of Presbyterian Biblical theological thinking. We also hold the King James Bible in very high regard. It is the benchmark by which all other translations are to be measured. But we must also see that both of these magisterial productions were based on earlier and less perfect attempts, and that similarly there has been sanctified and God ordained scholarship since they were written, as well as before they were. Just as such blessed scholarship is included in those works, there has been nearly four hundred years of believing study since, but it has had no such outlet. Both are capable of improvement, along the right and God-fearing obedient lines. If this were not so, our understanding of the faith would have been stalled for centuries during which God granted no advance at all. Profane and wicked hands have certainly attempted to defile and spoil these great deposits, but does that mean that holy hands should not improve them and bring them up to date for our greatly changed world? We have a vibrant and living, not an antiquarian, faith.
Most continuing Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have baulked at this task, and indeed strict submission to the historic creeds (and often the King James Bible as the only true Bible) is typically the hallmark of continuing Calvinistic orthodoxy. This is an understandable reaction, but it is an error.
As the question concerns the Westminster Standards specifically we need to calmly consider the history and origin of the documents, and where later sanctified and believing scholarship can make a good thing better for our day. The Westminster Assembly contained various elements and parties with differing theological emphases: witness the controversies and debates that are recorded. What emerged was, necessarily, a compromise in some areas. For one example: the Westminster Standards are weak on the active obedience of Christ being part of his atoning work, and being imputed to the believer as such. The original Proculator (Moderator, Chairman) William Twisse, along with Thomas Gataker and Richard Vines, all denied that Christ’s active obedience has any part in the believer’s salvation. The Confession in Chapter IX speaks of; imputing the obedience and sacrifice of Christ unto them it carefully avoids linking the active and passive obedience as factors within this. In debate even the suggested term whole obedience was rejected. It is notable that the later Savoy Confession, although based very closely on Westminster, is more detailed here, specifying; Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness. This certainly is an improvement, and a copy of the Westminster Confession amended in that way would be better than the non-amended one, so we see that the Standards are capable of improvement by later sanctified scholarship.
Several influential Westminster Delegates were strongly pre-millenial (Twisse, Marshall, Palmer and others), leading to the Standards having a somewhat ambivalent eschatology. The Independents certainly argued and fought for their ecclesiology. These factors certainly mean that the Westminster Standards, excellent as they are, are capable of refining and improving. Also we must face the fact that new heresies and distortions have arisen within the Reformed constituency since the seventeenth-century. As these could not have been anticipated at that time they are not dealt with in the Standards- leaving a wide door open for various teaching by those who can also claim full allegiance to the Standards as they are.
God has given sanctified scholarship and insights to men since the days of Westminster. Their contribution cannot be ignored. God gave it- the best must be incorporated. It would be an error to freeze our theology in seventeenth-century mode and ignore God’s working down to our own day. This succession of doctrine is what the Covenant Doctrinal basis (standing foursquare on the great Classic Reformed Confessions) attempts to do. The attempt had to be made. How far it succeeds is in the Lord’s sovereign will.
“Tattoos are rapidly becoming a popular fashion accessory in the West. Are they acceptable for a Christian? What if a person who has tattoos is converted?”
Tattoos were a sign of paganism, and would have been shunned in the early church as such. Their origin lies in ancestor worship and fear of the dead. Cutting and scarring the body was a primitive version of this, especially the practice of cutting around the upper arm to indicate severe mourning: the bloody circle and subsequent scar are the pagan origin of wearing black armbands in mourning today. The Bible deals specifically with this pagan and superstitious practice. In Leviticus 19:28 God says: You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks on you. This could also be rendered as: nor have any tattoo marks on you.
Tattoos are thus a symbol of allegiance to paganism, and are not an option for the believer.
If a person is converted after having tattoos, their faith will naturally lead them to seek the safe removal of the pagan illustrations.
“Matthew 28:19-20, sometimes called the great commission, was originally addressed to the apostles. Many teach that this means that the mandate to evangelise is restricted to pastors and teachers, and to the preached word. Are laypeople not also to be involved?”
1. Matthew 28:19-20 does not refer to preaching, and therefore is not restricted to the Eldership.
2. Only pastors or teaching elders should preach the gospel.
The key word here is teach/teaching. It is literally disciple and discipling. Any believer can witness, lead, set and example, and thus make disciples. This is how the word is spread, and how the church has expanded in all ages. When discipled new people come under the preaching of the word for conviction and conversion and church membership, but that is stage two.
The first is the role (when providentially led to it) of all members.
The second is the specific role of the Elder.
“Can Biblical prophecy ever have a double fulfilment? What is your opinion?”
The word prophecy as used in the Bible actually includes a wider scope than it does in common modern use. Broadly speaking prophecy is a miraculous increase in knowledge concerning events that mostly are future (to the prophet) but may also be contemporary, or even revealing insights into events past, for example Moses recording the creation itself.
n However, the question clearly concerns what may be called predictive prophecy, that is prophecy of events that were in the future from the prophet’s standpoint.
In may circles there is an outcry against, and condemnation of, the suggestion of a double fulfilment in prophecy. A prophecy, it is said, must be complete, and not in any way open-ended. The concern is that prophecy might thus be adapted to a variety of fulfilments and applications, to serve doctrinal and party purposes. However few have ever taught multiple fulfilments, but double fulfilments have often been urged. There is a reason for this, for the Bible frequently employs prophecy in just that way, with a two-fold application. The first prophecy of all was that of the forthcoming seed of the woman in the Garden after the fall of man (Genesis 3:15). Adam and Eve looked for the fulfilment in their immediate seed Cain, and Abel, and in a sense correctly so, but we know that the seed was actually Christ, to be incarnated and bruise Satan’s head many centuries later. Nathan the prophet was inspired to promise king David a son to sit on his throne. This prophecy was fulfilled in Solomon, but the New Testament also unhesitatingly applies its fulfilment to Christ. Concerning the famous Oliver Discourse commentators have struggled to separate prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 A.D. and prophecy of the day of judgement of all men (still future) because both elements seem intertwined in one prophetic discourse, are one prophecy, yet have fulfilments many centuries apart. Many other examples might be given, for this is a common feature in the Bible prophecy, where a time-factor can seem to be foreshortened or even eliminated. Are these cases then double fulfilments of prophecy?
The answer, actually is, NO. In fact there is nothing truly double about any of them. A writer might talk, for example of a double-barrelled shotgun. This is one gun, not two, but it has two barrels. So far so good, but this also is NOT what the Bible means with these two-fold applications, because the two barrels, though conjoined in one gun, are nevertheless two separate barrels, independent, that can operate (fire) independently. Rather what we have in Scripture is a rather difficult concept for the modern, Western, mind to grasp, but which makes much clear, once appreciated. It is this: Biblical prophecy always has but one fulfilment, but that fulfilment frequently comes to pass in two parts or phases. What is more, and is important to appreciate, is that phases are, a) a physical, tangible, visible, first phase, followed at a specific later date by, b) a spiritual and often invisible to the eye final phase. The first is completed in the second, making one indivisible whole. The ordained fulfilment begins at one level, and finishes at another. That is all. This brings into view another essential element that must be vectored in (and not treated as a separate or detached subject), that of TYPE and ANTITYPE. In each the visible and tangible subject of the fulfilment begun (Adam’s son, David’s Son, the siege of Jerusalem and much else) is a TYPE of the spiritual level fulfilment completed (Christ, Judgment day, and so on), which is the ANTITYPE. All moves smoothly on from the more physical to the more spiritual plane, but in all cases it is fulfilment of the same prophecy, partially fulfilled in type, partially fulfilled in antitype, begun and completed.
In a broad sense this takes us to the very genius of the two Testaments. What is largely seen and physical in the Older Testament is not abrogated but continues on a spiritual plane in the New Testament (I came not to destroy but to fulfil Matthew 5:17). By this there are revealed depths and truths in the Older Testament that even the inspired penmen could not have imagined were incorporated in their writings, but were there all along, flowing out of them in the light of the Newer Testament, although the visible events of history seemed satisfactory to the contemporary prophet as the outcome of his prophecy.
Without grasping these intertwined factors (two waves of fulfilment, more physical and more spiritual, in a type-antitype relationship, with truths from the first opened up in the second, as one complete sequence of prophecy and fulfilment) interpretation of Biblical prophecy will inevitably go astray, prophecy will seem obscure or contradictory, and wrong conclusions about the Bible and its interpretation will be arrived at. On the contrary, with this plain Biblical ‘key’ all becomes a clear unified and harmonious whole, over long reaches of time, of a kind that mere human writers could not possibly have devised.
So no double fulfilment, but a two-fold historical application suitable to the two Testaments.
“Do you see a link between the use of uninspired hymns in the church and the inroads of doctrinal heresy?”
Certainly. What hymn singers need to face up to is the fact that human hymns have always been the medium of bringing heresy into the church.
The early church grew out of the Synagogue, and the early leaders were, of course Jewish. They had no idea of any other worship but the inspired Psalms. The first recorded hymn promoter was the Gnostic Bardesanes who was denounced by Ephem Syrus (c.306-370 A.D.) for writing songs to promote the Gnostic heresy and thus greatly disturbing the churches in Syria. As late as 563 A.D the Council of Braga. forbade ‘poetry other than the Psalms of the church, that is the songs of canonical Scripture.
These were clearly measures intended to safeguard the church from inroads of heresy promoted by the use of popular uninspired songs.
At the Reformation Psalmody was recovered to protect true doctrine. Later Isaac Watts attacked Psalmody and introduced hymns- and he was far from being and orthodox Trinitarian. With the Great Awakening the Wesleys deliberately wrote and promoted their hymns to teach Arminianism. With the rise of the mass-meeting Crusade movement we had Ira Sankey singing the gospel and offering hugely popular sing-along hymns: all Arminian as far as they had any doctrine. Thus onward to the Billy Graham and other crusades with their drawing hymns (‘Just as I am’ and so on) directly aimed at the PEOPLE and their emotions, not praise to God. Arminianism swept the board in these ways, on the back of its hymns. Pentecostalism thrives on the latest rock band music.
Uninspired hymns have ALWAYS been a destructive medium and the promoters of heresy in the churches.
Only inspired Psalms safeguard the church’s worship- and then its doctrine, from man-centred error. The lesson must be learned. The orthodox, true and faithful church, gladly and thankfully sings God-given Psalms, and rejects all man-made substitutes.
“Can you sum up, briefly, the connection between the law and the Gospel (with the apparent difference between James and Paul on works and grace?”
I presume by your wording, specifically as you highlight the different emphasis of Paul and James on works and justification, that that you are thinking of the role of the law in relation to salvation, and that we are agreed that the Law remains are a guide Christian life, although never having been a way to life.
If so an easy way of understanding this relationship and interface might be something as follows:
MOSES IS THE LAW. Moses conducted the people through all the toils and hazards of the wilderness, and brought them to the very brink of the Jordan. Then he passed out of view.
JOSHUA IS THE GOSPEL. (The very name of Joshua is the same as Jesus). Joshua conducted the people over the Jordan and into Canaan.
Jordan is the SHED BLOOD OF CHRIST, in redemption.
So the Law leads us to the very verge of salvation (exposing out sin and our failings and our need of atonement), points us to Jordan (salvation) and leaves us safely there. At that point the gospel ‘takes over’ and conducts us safely over and leads us safely home.
They are two parts of one process. Neither exists without the other. They are, in fact, preparation and fulfilment of the same gracious redemption.
“Do we pray to Christ or to the Father through the Son? Do we offer our sacrifice of praise to Christ or to the Father through the Son?”
Prayer and praise cannot be separated. That is the unique (because inspired) nature of the Psalms: they are totally praise and totally prayer at the same time. We neither pray to, or praise any one of the Persons of the Trinity ALONE (that would be tri-theism). Every prayer is addressed to the Trinity in Unity, and all prayer is given to the Trinity in unity. However we may begin a prayer, e.g. “Our Father” and however we end one “we ask it in Christ’s name” we are praying to all the Persons (knowing that God the Holy Spirit, who is rarely named, in actively aiding our prayers). So praise in Psalms may only name one Person, but will frequently include the titles and attributes of the others. The Psalms often invoke the name Jehovah and we know that this is the Holy Name of ALL the three Persons, so all three are praised in the Psalms. (Human poetry simply cannot and does not do that!)
“A Jewish Christian writer of 1856 commented that; “The necessary obligation to give up the observation of the Jewish Sabbath on profession of the Christian faith is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to Jews, in presenting Christianity to them.” Do you agree?”
Yes, of course it is! It is so because just here lies the crux, the acid test of conversion to Bible Christianity from Judaism. It lies in recognition of the fact that Christ’s post-resurrection appearances did not abrogate the abrogate the Sabbath and its required sanctification, but that it did transform it, by fulfilling the typology and moving it onto a more spiritual plane, as the prophetic and forward-looking preparatory last day of the week Sabbath was fulfilled in the permanent anti-typical first-day of the week Sabbath.
Jews who profess conversion, but who demur at the change refuse obedience to Christ, and instead adhere to a fictional Judaised Messiah, rather than the genuine Christ, who is Lord over the Sabbath.
Today only Christians actually honour the Sabbath, for only those who recognise the entire Bible, with its types and antitypes, its prophecies and fulfilments, and the move forward from the carnal and visible to the spiritual and invisible, proven by the change of the day, can be pleasing to God in remembering the Sabbath to keep it holy.
This is indeed a Rubicon that Jews must cross to be true followers of Christ the Messiah. There can be no compromise on that.
“Why is the New Jerusalem described as being a cube- the length, breadth, and height of it being equal? Surely no actual city can be as high as it is wide and long!”
Certainly, and that at once alters us to the fact that there is symbolism here, and we are not to be tempted to try to take it literally. Described as a city with rivers and streets and palaces, the New Jerusalem is not paradise itself, but a part of it, that is it is symbolical of the restored and perfected world, as a sort or antechamber to the perfect realms beyond where the Godhead dwells. Thus it is a sort of ‘porch’ to the realms of glory. Seen in that way it is notable that the porch of Solomon’s Temple was of just this format: a cube as high as it was broad and wide, 20 cubits in each direction (2. Chronicles 3:4). Thus, symbolically, the New Jerusalem is the porch or entrance into the inner Temple- God’s paradise. Solomon’s porch had an inner covering of gold- echoed in the golden streets of the symbolic New Jerusalem. As priests the saved elect can enter the porch, the New Jerusalem of the re-constructed and perfected earth, and also pass beyond it at will into the Temple itself, the realms of glory beyond. This seems to be the symbolism suggested by the significant dimensions given in Revelation 21:16.
“How do you interpret ‘The Parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke Chapter 16? Does not this seems to commend unrighteous doing? Please explain”.
The parable of the unjust steward has been a problem to many, over the years, because, as you say, it appears to commend unrighteous practice. As in any such difficulty we must look carefully at the Greek original, and consider whether difficulties of translation might have produced the difficulty, or, at least failed to bring out the true intention.
Here is the parable, in the King James Version:
There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? For my master taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. And said he unto another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light (Luke 16:1-8).
The point of the parable is not to commend unrighteous doing (as the King James Version seems to suggest), but to prove the worth and faithfulness in higher spiritual things by showing worth and faithfulness in lower, worldly things. The implication of the whole passage is that the unjust steward, by false accounting, had inflated debts owed to his master. Thus the master might be recompensed in full- and there would be a spurious addition that the steward could cream off for his own dishonest benefit. In other words the steward was exploiting the debtors, without his master knowing it. However this was detected. The steward then tried to cover his tracks by having the debtors reduce their bills, but actually to the true extent of their real indebtedness. From the deceived debtor’s point of view this would appear to be a kindness (rather than mere justice) and so they would be artificially grateful to the very man who had attempted to fleece them. From the master’s point of view he saw the steward repenting and attempting to ‘put things right’, in fear of the just punishment threatened for this dishonesty.
The parable then is that if we can repent and seek forgiveness for worldly sins, and strive to amend our lives, we can and should repent and seek forgiveness and sanctification in spiritual and eternal matters. But, sadly, few do so. The sons of earth are wiser in their generation than the godly, in many ways. They take care to ensure the best possible situation in this world, but the godly often fail in striving to make the best possible situation in the world to come. However, given the nature of the Greek and English languages, it is hard to bring theses nuances out, without resorting to paraphrase. This may be one of those matters that is left to the preacher and teacher to elucidate.
“When Rahab hid the spies we are told that this was an act of faith- but to do so she told a deliberate lie. How can you explain or reconcile this, please?”
We are comparing here two texts:
1. Joshua the son of Nun sent out two men from Shittim to spy, saying: Go secretly and view the land, even to Jericho. And they went and entered into the lodging house of a disreputable woman named Rahab, and rested there. And it was reported to the king of Jericho saying: Man of Israel came in here tonight to search out the country. And the king of Jericho sent to Rahab saying: Bring out the men who came to you, who entered your house, for they have come to spy out all the country. But the woman took the two men and hid them, and said: The men came to me, but I did not know where they were from, and it came to pass when it was dark that, about the time of the shutting of the gate, the men left. Where the men went I do not know. Persue after them quickly and you shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hidden them under stalks of flax, which she had lain in order on the roof. (Joshua 2: 1-6).
Here are two deliberate untruths. One, she said that she was unaware of who the men were and where they were from, yet in conversation with the men she could acknowledge that: I know that the LORD has given you the land. (v. 8). Two, she said that the men had left and that she did not know where they then were, yet she had hidden them under flax on the flat roof of the house. Two deliberate lies indeed.
2. By faith the harlot Rahab escaped perishing with those who did not believe, when she hid the spies in safety. (Hebrews 11:31).
Your question is, then, can such lies be an act of faith?
We must bear in mind that there is faith (even belief in God) and then there is saving faith. With this important distinction in mind let us look again at the real, historical, incident as it unfolded. Rahab expressed faith, that is belief that the God of Israel was the true God, based on the evidence of the reports of miracles that has attended the Exodus and entry into Canaan. She was aware of the prophecies that the land would be given to the Hebrews. She also expressed faith in belief that only reconciliation to God, via his earthly representatives, could save her from destruction. So she hid the spies by faith. But in doing so she was still acting as a pagan Canaanite, and one of a previous bad reputation at that. Her motives were correct, but her actions were wrong, for lies were still probably natural to her. Why then would she later be enrolled in that list of heroes of the faith in Hebrews? Well, of course, as we know by experience, each one who is converted begins as a babe in Christ, and has much to learn. Sanctification is an on-going process. What we do know is that Rahab joined the people of Israel: Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had, and she dwells safely in Israel even to this day. (Joshua 6:25). The reference in Hebrews, centuries later, is itself evidence that Rahab found true saving faith among God’ people. All that we see is normal progressive sanctification, from early conception of faith, to its maturity. What is more, on the basis of Matthew 1:5 Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab, so, assuming this is the same Rahab, she was honoured in being a lineal ancestor of Christ himself. Given the facts of the case, and her spiritual progress, there is really a vivid and instructive history, and no difficulty at all.
“Is it true to say that there is a permissive will in God?”
From the human viewpoint it seems clear that God permits things, even things that may be wrong in themselves. This point is most usually made concerning that most fundamental of situations, the fall of mankind in the Garden. However, we must understand that this is the local, myopic, limited and restricted human perspective- it is all that we can see- the externals of the situation. It is essential to understand that what God permits he controls. He controls absolutely, and he controls all in accord with his sovereign will, to work out his eternal and perfect purposes. All is therefore controlled to bring about the ultimate good.
Seen in this correct way the theological distinctions of God’s decretive will and God’s permissive will actually refer to aspects of one and the same thing, and so are unnecessary over-refined and redundant terminology.
“J. Gresham, Machen is rightly regarded as having been a first-class Reformed theologian and a valiant defender of the faith, but I was surprised and puzzled to read this statement by him: ‘The Christian is saved from the law, first because Christ has paid the law’s penalty for him, and, second, because the Spirit enables him to do all that the law commands.*’ This last bit does not seem right. Can you comment, please.”
It is difficult to understand just what Machen had in mind when he penned these words, but surely he cannot have given that final statement due consideration but rather let slip an unconsidered remark. However, as it stands, with no qualifying explanation the words are not just incorrect doctrinally, but verge on heresy. Apparently the giant nodded over this one!
If the believer is in any way enabled to do all that the law commands, even by the aid of the Holy Spirit, then he or she personally fulfils the law to perfection, and then that law keeping assures their justification- and we have at once a synergism in salvation, partly by sovereign grace earned on Calvary’s cross, and partly by (aided) works righteousness!
Surely that cannot be what Machen was really saying and teaching! What is more, if the human believer can, in any way (aided or not) do all that the law commands there is no room for, indeed no need for Christ’s active obedience on their behalf! This is a very serious error.
On earth the very best Christian falls far short or perfection. The law is the touchstone and guide of sanctification, but is necessarily impossible to keep perfectly and absolutely. Therein lies the vital necessity for Christ’s active obedience. The Holy Spirit’s role is never to usurp any facet of Christ’s atoning work, or to produce any (impossible) perfect law-keeping beyond the only possible perfect law keeping, the active obedience of Jesus Christ.
Christ’s passive obedience on the cross worked and earned salvation for all of his people, but his active obedience in keeping the law provided the medium by which that atonement could be applied to them. Thus they are justified- actually and truly free from the accusations of the law- because they have kept it perfectly because Christ kept it perfectly for them, and imputed it to them, and that because Christ’s passive atoning obedience made salvation possible, whilst active obedience applies it. The believer never is enabled to do all that the law commands, but Christ did ‘all that the law commands’ on their behalf, and he imputes that perfect law-keeping to their account. The Holy Spirit does not enable humans to do Christ’s work, but he does apply the benefit of Christ’s work to them.
This must be clearly understood. Salvation is entirely of undeserved sovereign grace. Nothing else would ever suffice.
* Machen, New Testament Introduction, p. 98. Without attributing it to Machen there is a tendency in some Reformed circles to minimise or ignore the active obedience (law-keeping) of Christ as an essential element of salvation. One high Calvinist dogmatic theology textbook makes no mention of it at all. Logically (and paradoxically in that case) this leads to synergism, and a denial of the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. It should be noted, in this context, that, although useful, the distinction between Christ’s active and passive obedience is not an accurate one. Christ dis not just suffer passively on the cross, but actively fulfiled the just claims of the law against sin for his people, and when this was competed he actively dismissed his Spirit: I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. (John 10:17-18). He laid back his head and delivered up (or, breathed out) his Spirit (John 19:30).
“Does the church have any responsibility to speak out on current social issues?”
No. It does not have any such responsibility, and should not have it, as a church. Certainly there are a plethora of social issues clamouring for attention in all nations today, many of which naturally are of particular concern to Bible-believing Christians, from climate change to abortion, mass immigration, repression of women in some nations, lack of democracy and freedom of speech, failure to properly punish crime, the aggressive ‘gay’ agenda and many others. However, the church, as the church (corporate, institute) can address none of these IN ITS CHURCH CAPACITY. The church is a spiritual institute and its remit consists entirely of spiritual, theological, and pastoral activities. The church is not a charity or a pressure-group or a lobbying group. The church can know nothing or earthly politics.
Church members may be active in social issues, as individuals according to conscience, but not as representatives of the church. They may even band together for such purposes (and do much secular good) in their available spare time, but as such are, and must remain, quite distinct from their church membership. Although all may be concerned and make efforts to alleviate, so far as we may, the evils of society, it is vital that the Church itself mains a totally spiritual, and not a worldly entity. This safeguard is most important, in light of the fact that many professing churches in the modern period have gone astray from their heavenly calling at this very point.
“I am a Bible-believing Christian, and I want to believe in a literal six-day creation in the recent past but I keep meeting an objection that disturbs me. This is an argument based on the light arriving from the stars. It is basically that as light travels at a known velocity,186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometres per second, the light from the nearest star Alpha Centauri, would take 4.2 years to reach earth, and so no stars would have been visible from 4.2 years after the creation, and other stars and galaxies would only have appeared in the night sky as their light finally arrived over much greater distances. It is said that, for example, light from the Andromeda galaxy would take 2,300,000 years to reach earth, and as we can see it, this proves that the earth must be more than two million years old, and as we discover ever more remote galaxies by their light, the age of the earth is proven to be even longer. All this is said to make a recent (several thousand year timescale) creation quite impossible. I am worried that if the Bible is not accurate on these matters, how can we rely on it for other things? Can you comment or explain, please?”
This is, as you say, a much promoted and boasted of disproof of a recent creation, and thus of the Biblical timescale, calculated to disturb educated and thinking people. This should not surprise us: it is part of the constant warfare we face. In fact what is actually most sad in this case is that highly educated and well-meaning Christians within the scientific community have gone to great lengths to refute it on a scientific, rather than strictly Biblical basis. There have been published extremely detailed and complicated theses extrapolated on an Einsteinian relativity basis, with hugely involved mathematical formulae, dealing with theoretical issues concerning space-time, some of which hypothesise that time itself is relative and varies, rather than being a constant given, and thus what would have appeared to be, from a view-point where the earth is, a literal 6, 24 hour day creation, could also and simultaneously be a period of many millions of years out in deep space. I do not presume to follow the reasoning or unravel the formulae that these things are based on- simply because, however well-intentioned and supremely clever they may be, they are all totally unnecessary.
I am quite sure that some of these high-flying Christian scientists and mathematicians would be quite dismissive of a stance of; ‘it was that way because the Bible says so’, probably regarding this as mystic and not at all scientific, but in fact it is so, as a simple and fundamental consideration proves.
Let us consider the factual, historical, record of Creation given to us in Genesis. God created plants and trees. What God did not create was plant or tree seeds, which then had to grow and mature over time (as has been the on-going case ever since.) The plants and the trees were created instantly, fully grown. To an observer (say, our modern scientist) they would have all the hallmarks of maturity, of having grown and developed over time, yet were just fresh from the Creator’s hand. Consider the first human pair, Adam and Eve. Adam was not created as a helpless new-born baby, nor was Eve produced from Adam’s side as a tiny baby. They had the appearance of a fully grown mature man and woman. This is the essential nature of creation ex-nihilo: all initially appears in complete maturity, and from then begins the familiar sequence of on-going reproduction, the sequence of life as we know and observe it. In this creation was absolutely unique.
Now let us return to the question of the stars and their observable light. If the light emitted by the stars and galaxies only began its journey towards us from deep space at the creation then the objection would be valid, but it is not, because it ignores the very unique factor of divine creation that we have just considered. The objection simply assumes that, in creation terms, the stars and galaxies were created in an immature state (like the seed needing time to grow, of the baby to develop). This is simply not the nature of divine creation. The stars and galaxies must have been created at first, like all other things, with the appearance of full maturity. Complete maturity for stars and galaxies necessarily includes the light between them and the earth, that renders them visible- however remote they are from us. So the stars and galaxies were created including the initial intervening light from them, which primeval light has since been constantly renewed over time, by natural processes, just as the plants, trees, animals and humans have, once the sequence was started, been constantly replaced and renewed. The light from the nearest star, and the light from the most remote, was thus created instantly, and so the stars and galaxies would have been visible from day one to an observer on earth. In fact it is inconceivable that God would have created the universe, and omitted to create the light it emits.
Given the unique and miraculous, one-off, unrepeatable, FACT of divine creation, the stated objection is no problem at all. There is nothing un-scientific in the account, nor any need in invoke Einsteinian formulae or speculations about the nature of space-time. The entire objection is a straw-man, quite contrary to the matter-of-fact narration in Genesis.
If the objection does anything it draws us to consider afresh the scope, the magnificence, the awesome wonder of creation, with nothing left to chance and no room for speculation. It is all a subject for praise and adoration, and not at all a worry, for the Bible Christian.
“Was the Jezebel in Revelation Chapter 2 actually a female false teacher within the church at Thyatira?”
This is what is commonly understood, and taught in sermons and commentaries, sometimes quite strongly. For example one commentator states that: ‘apparently the church had a female teacher’, and (more specifically): ‘From our Lord’s own testimony we find that she was a teacher within the assembly.’
This is a dogmatic statement, but I must ask: where is this testimony attributed directly to the Lord, that this Jezebel was a teacher within the church? I cannot see the Bible saying so, and, in context, both theologically and historically, it is most unlikely.
For one thing: if Jezebel was a female teacher within the church, then within the church she was permitted to teach/ preach that people to commit fornication, and to eat food that had been dedicated to pagan idols. Such teaching, if permitted, surely would mean that the church was no longer a church at all! Could God tolerate such heinous blasphemy? And yet the Lord rather says that he has (only) a few things against the church.
Where does the confusion come from? It flows entirely from the reference to Jezebel calling herself a prophetess. Modern readers are so sure that they understand the terms prophet and prophetess that they can only see these in context of the church. What is lacking is any awareness of the real, historical, living, cultural background of the first-century Greco-Roman world, and of the then-current and much wider cultural use of the term, and that in that age and society it was employed currently with no reference to the Christian church at all. A major feature of the Roman age, especially in the Greek East, was the cult of ‘oracles’, and massive belief in, and trust in them. The oracle at Delphi is famous, as were others, for example at Dodona. In fact most Greek cities had a revered local oracle, which were usually females/ priestesses, who would go into a trance and give oracular prophesies.
With no regard for, or even awareness of, the small Christian churches, Greco-Roman culture would refer to these oracles in the term that is here translated as prophetess. Note that John is operating within the first-century Roman world, and to contemporaries within that culture not 21st century Christians to whom ancient everyday terms have hardened into theological givens.
So what was actually happening? Within a thriving, vibrant, living Greco-Roman city there was a church, attempting to be ‘separate from the world’, and across town there was a priestess oracle (as in so many other contemporary cities.) Clearly the converts from this pagan culture were tempted to ‘consult the oracle’ (how man Christian today will take a sneak look at horoscopes in Newspapers?), but as a pagan entity (which we would believe was empowered by Satan) any contact led to satanic false teaching encouraging fornication and pagan sacrifices. This clearly made the oracle a Jezebel in Old Testament terms.
What we are reading is a matter, not of fatal teaching that would have destroyed the church completely, but failure of church discipline. The leaders should have been alert to the spiritual dangers that surrounded the people in the local culture, and that even the most casual dealings with them opened the door to spiritual defection and thus sinful compromise. Such contacts should not have been permitted or allowed. We cannot permit our modern theologically-loaded understanding of ancient terms be read back into an ancient context, without fully understanding that historical context. Failure to do this has been a fruitful source of much error.
“When Jesus walked on the sea we are told that the boat was in the midst of a great storm. Thus meant that that waves were high and troughs were deep: how then could Christ walk ON the water? Did he walk up and down the peaks and troughs of the surging waves? Or is the account simplistic, not recording the reality of such a situation?”
This query puzzled me also some time ago. I was raised on the sea-coast and was fully aware of stormy sea conditions and high waves. At one time I considered that it might be best to translate and interpret this as Christ’s walking over the sea, that is moving steadily over and above the peaks of the waves, and that Peter was also upheld in the same way until his faith faltered and he began to descend as if to fall into the tumultuous sea.The difficulty with this lies in the original Greek, which definitely says that Christ walked on the water. This is a case, like many others, in which the Bible states things faithfully, just as they were, without any attempt to prevent possible difficulties. This is a mark of absolute genuineness. We simply have to accept: a) That the sea was boisterous and the waves high, and, b) the Christ walked upon the water.
However, in context, we can assume, what these facts suggest, which is that Christ walked calmly and steadily across the Lake, constantly surrounded by a localised calm patch, his feet in contact with smooth water beneath him, with the boisterous seas all around him beyond this moving zone. In this case Christ’s subsequent command to the storm Peace, be still! (Mark 4:39) is simply an extension of this accompanying calm to the entire sea.
We cannot be dogmatic here, but the whole context suggests that this is what actually happened, and so another seeming difficulty in the Bible contains its own solution.
“If the principle that women are to remain silent in church is to be strictly observed today, why do women sing aloud in the worship services?” Please explain.
The mandate for women to remain silent in the church is, in context, part of a God-given division or roles, by which the female part of the church are not to teach (or preach) or usurp authority over the men: I never permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over men, but rather to remain in silence (1. Timothy 2;12). By this rule the argument could only be extended to cover sung worship if praising could, in any way, be construed as teaching. Singing God’s truth in God’s words certainly feeds the worshipper spiritually and is a mutual encouragement between the people as well as being the due worship of God, but participation is quite distinct from teaching or from any ruling authority.
What, then, is the essence of sung worship? It is a sacrifice: the sacrifice of praise: They shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD. (Jeremiah 33:11). All other sacrifices have long since ceased, being typological foreshadows of, and now fulfilled in, the one great sacrifice of Christ Jesus in Calvary’s cross to atone for all the sins of all of his people, but God (who lacks nothing) has been pleased to accept the on-going sacrifice of praise from the lips of his people. From the Old Testament it is plain that women could dedicate items for sacrifice to God, and could vow holy vows to God. Some Psalms have Hebrew musical directions (i.e. Alamoth, Psalms 46 and 49) that mandate the employment of higher, female, voices. This pattern must surely be continued in the anti-typical New Testament era.
Hence there is now no question of women not fully participating in the sung praise worship of the church, in a sacrifice of loving praise that is well-acceptable to God. Indeed this is a most valuable (even vital) element in true Biblical worship. The Lord loves the sung worship of all of his covenant people, his redeemed ones, male and female, young and old.
“On what day did Christ and his apostles take the last Passover meal, and Christ institute the Lord’s Supper?’
This is not an easy question, as there has been much dispute over the timing and events surrounding the Last Supper. Clearly this was a Passover meal, but also it seems clear that Christ was crucified on the Passover Day, and that the priests did not want the crucified bodies to remain on their crosses into the Passover period. How could all this take place on the same day, when the Passover meal was statedly an evening meal, and Christ was crucified in the morning? Some have suggested and argued that Christ and his apostles celebrated a regular Jewish Passover meal in due form, but did so deliberately one day early, in view of the forthcoming crucifixion. Others have taken this concept further. In all the enthusiasm that followed from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the identification of the Qumran community with the Essenes all things Essene became popular and it was hypothesised that the Essenes followed a different calendar by which the Passover fell one day earlier than that of the orthodox Jews, and that there were close (but unrecorded) relations between Christ and his followers and the Essenes, and so the Last Supper began with an Esssene Passover. These things, however, are speculations only.
There is, however, one simpler and obvious factor that may go a long way to resolving the difficulty. It is well understood that the Jews counted their days from sunset to sunset, and not from midnight on, as we do. Thus anything occurring after sunset was regarded as happening on the (to us) following day.
Thus the Passover lamb could be slain on Thursday (A.M.), but by the time all the arrangements had been made, the lamb roasted, and the people assembled, (and as the Passover was an evening meal) the sun would have set and, by Jewish reckoning the new day (Friday) would have begun. After the meal (and institution of the Lord’s Supper) there would be a night’s sleep, and then the activities from early morning onwards until the expiring of Christ on the cross- all still on Friday. This explains how the evening Passover, and the morning crucifixion could occur on the same day: that is, because the day began with the evening first, and proceeded to the next (solar) morning afterwards.
Another interesting point, often misunderstood, the concern of the Jews that the crucified men’s bodies must not remain on their crosses until after sunset on Friday, because from sunset onwards was the next new day- Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. (And in this case a Passover Sabbath as well). This was not any concern that crucified dead bodies on crosses in any way profaned their Sabbath. Why then request that the men’s legs be broken to hasten and ensure their deaths, and in the same way that Christ’s side was pierced to make sure he had died? That dead bodies hung on crosses was not at all the worry of the Jews. It was rather that the crucified men might linger on in their agony, and so not yet be dead, but might die on the Passover Sabbath. Jewish tradition specified that no criminal could be put to death during the Passover. This is why the priests could not arrange for a judicial trial and condemnation of Christ, followed by a stoning. He was delivered to them at just the wrong time. They could have held Christ in custody until after the Passover, but it is clearly recorded that they ‘feared the people’ who, when this intention was known, might have intervened and rescued Jesus. Hence their need 1) to pass the trial and execution over to the pagan Romans, and, 2) also ensure that the execution did not linger on into the Sabbath.
With these factors in place much becomes clear.
“I was reading the first four Chapters of 1. Corinthians, where I noted the passage where it says: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the WISDOM of God. (1. Corinthians 1:23-24), and also; We speak the WISDOM of God in a mystery… for had they know it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1. Corinthians 2:7-8). This immediately reminded me of many passages in the Old Testament dealing with Wisdom. It seems that wisdom is a reference to, and a title of, God the Son Jesus Christ, but then what of Proverbs 8:24-25, which speaks of wisdom as being brought forth…before the hills I was brought forth. If Wisdom is Christ he is co-eternal with the Father, and so could not be brought forth in time. Do you have any thoughts on this, please?”
I agree with what you say about Wisdom often indicating Christ, but would add a caution: Wisdom in the Bible is a title (and attribute) of God the Son, our Saviour, but it is not ONLY his, but is a title and attribute of the Tri-Une Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only WISE GOD, be honour and glory for ever and ever. (1. Timothy 1:17).
To the only WISE God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. (Jude 25).
That is wisdom is an attribute of God, along with omnipotence, omniscience, eternity, and all the other divine attributes. Now all of these existed in the three Persons eternally, as part of His essential being, but divine attributes can only be manifested (brought forth/ displayed) when there is an audience to display and manifest them to. In no way does this mean that these attributes, including wisdom, only began when they were made know to the creation.
Naturally, in the economy of salvation, it is Christ that is central to his elect, and so the attribute of wisdom is mainly encountered in relation to Him as Saviour, and hence we can say that Christ Jesus is our wisdom, just as we say He is our Saviour (without denying the saving part played by God the Father in electing, and God the Holy Spirit in convicting and converting the elect.) It is just that we encounter these attributes more directly in Christ.
Certainly all of this is foreshadowed and taught in the Old Testament, again demonstrating the covenant unity and oneness of the whole Bible.
Surely to acknowledge sin, to repent of it sincerely, and to plead for salvation in Christ is the greatest wisdom possible for any human being: and that is only possible because Christ (as God) is himself the fountainhead of all wisdom.
“If the covenantal paedobaptist faith you advocate is truly so Biblical, can you explain why great saints such as Charles H. Spurgeon failed to see that, and taught adults-only immersion as baptism?”
Certainly great men of God such and Spurgeon and others accepted and promoted the Baptist view of the sacrament, and clearly this gave them a significantly different theology (within broadly reformed parameters) from that which we advocate and believe to be the only true one. In fact such examples provide very instructive case studies, which in turn should offer a warning to the covenantally Reformed. Let us first take the case of one of the greatest ever preachers in Wales, Christmas Evans (1766-1838). Indeed of Christmas Evans Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones could say that he was: “The greatest preacher the Baptists have ever had in Britain”, thus ranking Evans before C.H. Spurgeon. Evans became convicted of sin and of his need for salvation as a youth, although born into a godless family. In time, still untutored and spiritually naïve, he sought fellowship in the nearest evangelical church to his home at a place called Llwynrhydowin. Unfortunately this Welsh-speaking church was one many that had originally been a Presbyterian one (Westminster Standards), but over the years had lapsed into Unitarianism. It had then a gifted and popular preacher, David Davies. After some time under this influence Evans became providentially aware (by study of his Welsh Bible and other Welsh Reformed books) of the errors of Unitarianism/ Arianism, and he sought more orthodox fellowship. Still very much theologically a babe in Christ he found vigorous Trinitarianism first in a nearby Baptist chapel, at Aberduar. He joined them, eagerly drank in all their teaching, and of course speedily accepted their interpretation of the New Testament, and practice of the sacraments. Once thus committed Evans became, naturally a stout defender of adults only, immersion as baptism.
It is clear that had his first association been sound on the Trinity, and still solidly Presbyterian in polity and practice, his conversion to the Baptists would not have taken place, and the Reformed covenantal church would have kept, and later hugely benefitted from, a great preacher, who could have stood alongside famed Welsh Calvinist leaders such as John Elias. Evans followed as he was taught: he did not study the issues Biblically and prayerfully. The fault lay, without doubt, in the apostasy of the ex-Presbyterian chapel. By leaving an orthodox Confession of Faith, the church lost a valuable asset. This is a lesson to be learned by those who minimise the value of Confessions of Faith.
In fact a rather similar case is that of Charles H. Spurgeon.
“The Reformed make much of plenary inspiration of the Bible, saying that every word of it was inspired by God, but portions of the Old Testament such as the genealogical lists were copied from the Jewish public records and there are also extracts from totally pagan records incorporated into the Bible. As these were written by secular scribes how may they be called inspired writings? Does not their inclusion prove that some portions of the Bible are actually not inspired, and therefore that the ENTIRE Bible cannot claim to be inspired? Please explain.”
This may appear to be a valid point, but it is mistakenly so, because it fails to understand, and really downgrades, the true nature of divine inspiration of Scripture. The Jews of old certainly kept meticulous genealogical records as part of their civil service records, and there are statements, decrees, and records copied from outside pagan sources, and some of these actually figure in the Bible.
As to the exhaustive family records held by the Jews we need to consider that the impulse to do some came from God, and it came for a specific purpose. That purpose was the necessity to prove the line of descent that terminated in Christ the Messiah. To the eye or the ancient Jewish archivist or Civil Servant all the mass of records were alike, but from God’s point of view only one record was needed. All the others only existed to allow for the hidden but essential one that was, unknown to the scribes, the sole reason for their existence. Once transcribed into the Holy Scriptures there really was little point in the preservation of the rest.
As to the pagan records, we have, for example, the long testimony of King Nebuchadnezzar beginning; Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples and nations, given in Daniel 4:1-18, the statement about King Ahasuerus recorded in Esther 1-3, statedly taken from the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, Cyrus’s proclamation starting: thus says Cyrus king of Persia, (Ezra 1:2-6) and others. These records were a tiny footnote within the massive written archives of those nations- but where are the mass of those archives now? All but a tiny portion have long been destroyed of mouldered into dust. These Bible quotations alone concerned the on-going work of God in salvation- and they have survived by being transcribed into the Bible. Beyond a certain mere antiquarian or archaeological interest, all the rest were pointless.
This brings us to a vital point about divine inspiration: inspiration is the guidance of God the Holy Spirit, and did not only include new statements and revelations, but included divinely directed selection and transfer of relevant materials. By transcribing these records at the inspiring direction of the Holy Spirit, and embedding them into the Bible they became part and parcel of the inspired Scriptures.
Thus they, as well as all other parts of the Bible, are indeed God’s holy and inspired Word.
“I have long been puzzled over Christ’s cursing and destruction of the fig tree outside Jerusalem. It seems strange that Christ, who is God, did not know all along that the tree had no fruit, and his cursing and killing it because of that seems out of character. Am I missing something here, please?”
The incident is recorded for us in this way:
In the morning as he was returning to the city he became hungry. When he saw a lone fig in the way he came to it but found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it: Let no fruit grow on you now and forever. The fig tree quickly withered away. When the disciples this they marvelled, saying: How did the fig tree wither away so quickly? (Matthew 21: 18-20).
On the morning, as they returned from Bethany, he was hungry and seeing a lone fig tree far off having many leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find anything on it, but when he came to it he found nothing but foliage, for it had bloomed too early to produce figs. ) Then Jesus said to it: No one eat fruit from you hereafter, for ever. And his disciples heard it. When evening had come he went out of the city and on the next morning as they passed by they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. (21) Peter calling to remembrance said to him: Master, the fig tree which you cursed has withered away. (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21.)
Christ found out that the tree had no fruit by observation, certainly. The texts are clear on this. What we are seeing here is another example of the wonderful truth of Christ’s dual nature, the fact that he was, and is fully man and at the same time fully God. In that way we know that Christ’s human nature had limitations, but his divine nature did not. The hard thing to grasp is that Christ could, and did, keep these natures separate at will. Thus Christ’s human nature had limited knowledge, whilst his divine nature knew all things.
Limited knowledge of Christ’s human nature:
The child continued to grow and become stronger is the Spirit, filled with wisdom. (Luke 2:40).
Of that day and that hour no one knows, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son, (human nature) but the Father. I and the Father are one (divine nature). (Matthew 24:36. with John 10:30).
Unlimited knowledge as God:
Jesus, knowing their thoughts (Matthew 9:4, also Matthew 12:35, Luke 5:22, Luke 6:8).
He had no need for anyone to testify about mankind, for he knew what was in man. (John 2:25).
He who comes from heaven is above all and he testifies to what he has seen and heard. (John 3:31-32).
This, I think, deals with your first point.
Your second point concerns the cursing and drying up of the fig tree. God, of course, is sovereign over all of his creation, and disposes of it at his own good will, but surely we have here something more than that, something deliberately symbolic, a vivid teaching medium. What then does the barren fig tree and its fate symbolise?
Firstly it was a symbol and type of the Jewish nation in Christ’s day, the nation that, after its long privileged history, was about to reject and crucify its long predicted Messiah. There stood the Temple, there was the priesthood, there were the stated feasts and rituals, the entire external apparatus of Jehovah worship, but- just like the green and leafy fig tree, all was external. There was no fruit. All had become barren, largely detached from the living God, an end in itself. It had a name to live, but spiritually was dead. Like the tree it was ripe for judgment. In 70 A.D. the Temple and the whole Jewish polity was swept away by the Romans. Thus quickly, once its doom was pronounced, it withered away.
At another level, and over the centuries since, the symbol of the barren tree and its cursing has another application, for it applies to all those professing Christian denominations and churches that have arisen and that exist today that rely on ritual, robes, and priestcraft, those that major on trusting a priest or pastor plus good works for salvation, and who turn solemn worship into human level entertainment, that are recognised by, and happily co-operate with, the secular world. All may be sound and fury- but the Spirit has long departed, They are dried up from the roots, because they are barren. They have a name to live, but God says that they are dead. They are cursed because they lack the fruits of the Spirit.
A further level still may be that of the individual professing believer. Many say, Lord, Lord, who never personally know Christ, many claim works and wonders that he never asked at their hands. Many are seen to be highly religious, are pillars of the community, are ultra respectable- but spiritually they are all green foliage and no fruit. They cannot show the evidence of saving faith and a new life, the fruits that James speaks of, as evidence of the experienced salvation into life that Paul speaks of. They are doomed to wither away, if not before at the Lord’s return.
Thus the symbolic message of the cursing and withering of the fig tree is clear: by their fruits you shall know them. There are no barren fruitless trees in paradise, and there are none in the true church on earth.
“You will agree that Christ was not born on December 25th and that Christmas is a made-up Roman festival, but does the Bible give any indication as to what time of year Christ was actually born in- and is it of any importance to know?”
For the first part of the question, yes, Christmas as we know it in the West is an event that is far away from Biblical Christianity, and is a Roman religious festival, originated in a false desire to Christianise the pagan roman mid-winter festival of the Saturnalia. Given that, there have been offered various theories as to when Christ was really born into this world, some quite fanciful, as the Holy Spirit clearly does not offer in the Bible the same sort of dating indicators that are given for Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension. This is probably simply a reflection on the fact that Christ’s birth was redemption begun, whilst his atoning death marked redemption completed.
Nevertheless, there are clear indicators in the Bible which, if our understanding of them is correct, can offer some important facts that wonderfully explain and lay out the exact nature and timing of the plan of redemption.
The most important is constantly read and heard (especially at Christmas) but rarely thought, considered, and understood. It is this: ‘There were is the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night’ (Luke 2:8). So often this statement washes over people, who never pause to ask “WHY were they abiding in the fields over night?” Judaea was a comparatively sparsely populated country, in which predatory wild beasts abounded. In the Bible there are frequent references to shepherds and their flocks, but for security we find the flocks typically gathered into a safe, walled, sheep fold at night (for example, John 1:10: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up in some other way…). What, then is different here? Any farmer of shepherd will know at once- this must have been at Spring lambing time. Sheep prefer to give birth outdoors (in mild climates) each choosing her own birthing space in the pasture. As the shepherds need to be at hand in case of difficulties this is their busiest time of the year. Similarly in England owners of large flocks until recent times equipped their shepherds with small wheeled shelters that could be moved around the pasture lands, and afford some shelter and a temporary sleeping place, whilst the shepherds at lambing time kept watch over the flocks by night. This situation is enough to place the time of Christ’s birth at Spring, at lambing time.
That accepted a wonderful divine truth emerges. Christ was born just as the lambs were being born, in a sense right there amongst them, just as the most perfect amongst the lambs, those without blemish, were being selected for the Passover sacrifice. Christ was THE LAMB OF GOD, and the TRUE SACRIFICE, that all of the Passover lambs merely pointed to, the great antitype of which they were only prefiguring teaching types. Seen in this way the divine timing could not have been more perfect- or the message clearer! What the Passover lambs pointed to was then being FULFILLED in the true, divine LAMB OF GOD.
If this is so then another factor in the divine timescale falls into place. We know that Christ suffered and died on the cross at the time of the Passover- probably thirty-three years after his birth. God’s timescales are always precise, never random or arbitrary. Is there not an amazing truth concealed here, if we but understand it? If Christ was born immediately before the Passover, and died also just before it, may we not conclude that Christ was born at Bethlehem, and died on Jerusalem’s Calvary, on the very same day of the year, his birthday, just thirty-three years later? So exact is God’s timing!
This might bring us to a final fascinating conclusion. If divine timescales are indeed so precise (to the day), then we might confidently assume to same for Christ’s return. At Christ’s ascension the disciples (and thus we also) were told that: This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven (Acts 1:11). It is thus reasonable to assume that Christ’s return will be, a) on the precise anniversary of his ascension, and, b) on a round number of years after that event.
“Do you think that Mary and Joseph had children, after the birth of Christ, or where his brethren more distant relations?”
Here we are confronted, once again, with Romanist superstitious dogma, lingering on in Protestant circles despite profession of taking everything directly and only from the Bible. Rome, of course, has elevated the humble handmaid Miriam (Mary) to the blasphemous statues of a pagan godess, hearer and answerer of prayer, and even co-redemptrix with Christ, naming her ‘The Queen of Heaven’. At the same time Rome produced the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, deeming her too holy for a normal marital relationship or subsequent child bearing. For certain, nothing of all this comes from the Bible, which in fact presents a very different picture.
When Miriam (Mary) was engaged to be married to Joseph we can be sure that both parties looked forward to a normal married life, and the production of a family. Mary being chosen to bear the Messiah miraculously, and Mary and Joseph’s subsequent blessed role in raising and nurturing the Messiah, surely in no way destroyed these natural expectations. And so we read in the Bible off-hand (taken for granted) comments such as: Is not this the carpenter’s son? And his brethren, James and Joses, Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? (Matthew 13:55-56). Attempts have been made to explain this statement away, on the basis that brethren might mean more distant relations (say cousins, or even children by an assumed previous marriage of Joseph’s) but the final reference to his sisters rules this out, and this can mean nothing but his female siblings, and thus the same must apply to the brethren.
Understanding this in the most natural and obvious sense, that some time after the miraculous birth of Christ Joseph and Mary had at least six children together (four sons and a plural of unnamed daughters) light is thrown on other parts of Scripture that are unclear without it. A good example is that of the young Jesus attending the yearly Passover at Jerusalem, and when he was twelve years of age lingering behind, when his absence was not noted by Joseph and Mary until a whole day had elapsed. (Luke 2: 41-44). Attending the festival with a twelve year old child, and leaving for home without checking that he was with them? Who has not felt at least a bit of censure of Mary and her husband over that? And, of course, if Jesus was the only child their whole attention would have been on him. But when we see that they had a gaggle of younger children to look after, and as Jesus at twelve could be expected to behave responsibly, and be among relatives and friends in the returning party, their delay in discovering his absence is explained, and is perfectly natural. As in so many cases, when taken at face value, almost off-hand Bible statements confirm and throw light on each other. The immediate family relationship would be as below:
ELI
Father of:
MIRIAM (Mary)_________two daughters (no sons named) ______________ SALOME
Espoused to Joseph: JESUS (MESSIAH)
Married to Joseph: JAMES* JOSES SIMEON JUDAS
(plus at least two unnamed daughters.)
Married to Zebedee JAMES AND JOHN*
(Only these children named)
* James the writer of the Epistle. * Apostles, leaders of the Jerusalem church.