The Image of God in Man: What the heck is it?

The Image of God in man, found primarily in Genesis 1:26-27, is a passage which demands the attention of bible readers for a number of reasons.  Firstly, the bible mentions it, so a careful reader of scripture should put their minds to understanding the Lord’s reason for giving this information.  Secondly, as worshipers of God, Christians need to be knowledgeable on who they are as created beings as well as born again beings, thus rightly knowing themselves to rightly know and worship the creator. And thirdly, no where else in the Genesis account of creation does Moses say that God made any other creature, or any other thing for that matter, in His own Image, thus showing the particular importance this phrase has early on in scripture.

The first requirement, and really the only direction this blog post will go, is to take a look at the immediate context of the passage and see what the bible can say concerning this issue of the Image of God.  We must begin with scripture because that is where this idea really comes from in the first place. If God didn’t reveal this to us, would we even be discussing such an issue? Probably not. Also, it’s foolish to attempt to look at ourselves and then conclude that that is what God must look like, imposing the image of God on us from that perspective is defunct and not good methodology. The revelation of God Himself must be our source alone; sola scriptura!

When reading the actual account of God’s creating the heavens and the earth, and all that lives and is on the earth, one should notice that when Moses gets to the creation of man, that is both man and woman, that God has done something special and has changed His language while creating.  Instead of Him saying “Let the earth bring forth living creatures,” or “Let the waters,” or “Let there be lights,” He declares something more personal and says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”  This is important because it is denoting a real sense of importance to the reader that man is separate, is different, is unique in all of creation in that He is made in the image of God and he alone has this privilege over and against all other creation.  The attention of the reader should be perked to what this image is. Why does God do this now?  The account does not seem to be silent on why.  [i]

After God declares that He will make man in His image He immediately says that man should “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” This is still verse 26 and seems to be a direct result of God making man in His image.  Let it quickly be noted that God says, “Let them have dominion,” which Calvin seems to rightly distinguish as being ascribed to all the posterity of Adam, all mankind, which, though he did not place the primary seat of the image in man’s dominion, would still be in sync with his view that the fall just marred the image of God in man rather than completely lost it[ii].  None the less, God ascribes an inherent facet to man by declaring they will have “dominion” over all the earth.  This facet is substantiated with an actual command in vs. 28, where as, after God had created man, noted in the poetic chiasm of verse 27, He then commands Him to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion.”  This repetitive account of God first saying He will create them, man, with the inherent quality to have dominion over all the earth and then the actual verbal command to go and subdue and be in dominion over the rest of creation can not go unnoticed by the reader.  This is a clear example of a purposely placed parallelism with the intention of grabbing the attention of the Hebrew reader and making him aware that man’s being created is not separate from man’s having dominion, but in fact is intimately related.

As the reader moves on into chapter two of Genesis and get’s a more detailed account of the sixth day we see that, again, God makes man and the first thing He does is to put him in a garden.  The purpose, it seems, for man to be in the garden is given in verse 15 where it is said that “God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”  Every account the reader has of man so far has been within the context of him working, keeping, ruling, or subduing nature.  Biblically, this is very strong support for understanding God’s image in man as man being a ruler of God’s creation.

If allowed to ponder this thought for a moment, one should find an interesting relationship between God and man.  God in six days creates the heavens and the earth in a wonderful and powerful way and at the end of His creating, He ends with the creation of man, a being who holds His image and who rules over His creation.  The act of man ruling over His creation, of working in the garden, seems to denote a close tie between the creator-ruler God and that of His sole image bearer, man.  Gen. 2:19-20 shows this relationship in God creating all the animals but then bringing them to Adam to see what he would name them.[iii] Adam is given a unique task to creatively name and title every living creature God makes.  Just as God names parts of His creation (Gen.1:5) so God allows man to creatively express dominion in naming parts of His creation. (2:19-20) Later in Genesis, and let it be noted that this is after the fall, God continues to express this dominion idea when God blesses Noah and his sons[iv] and repeats the familiar phrase found in Genesis 1:28, that man should be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and then He tells Noah that every living creature, on earth, sky, and sea, shall be delivered “into your hand.”  Man’s dominion is still an important factor to God and His will and purpose for mankind.  Looking Biblically at what God seems to be doing with man at the beginning of creation and reaffirming throughout[v] the narrative of divine scripture it comes as no surprise that Jesus’ revelation to John gives hope to those who are found in Christ that in the final state man will be restored to his rightful place before the fall, not just having a inherent quality of authority but having the intended functionality and ability to practice the authority in dominion, as it says “reigning forever and eve.” (Rev. 22:5)

This biblical line of thought, though not as clear as other doctrines in scripture, does seem to be apparent enough to conclude that the Image of God in man his God given nature to rule over the earth.

End Notes

---

[i] I think that there is something to be noted here in the fact that in the creation account, and through the rest of scripture, God seems to engage in a rational, emotional, and moral relationship with only two of His creatures, that being the angels and mankind.  And that, again, the scriptures say only that man was created in His image giving priority to mankind for bearing His image alone.  It is Adam that walked with God in the Garden, and more over the whole narrative of salvation is directed towards mankind alone, that is, that God did not become flesh to die for and save any other creature but man. I bring this up because I think there is some credence to the relational theory of the Image of God, especially Brunner’s “I – Thou” interpretation.  I don’t think he is fully correct in his interpretation because he seems to make it more of a philosophical treatise on the image of God rather than a strictly biblical one, but none the less, there are valid points he makes.  Erickson does not want to acquiesce to Brunner because a) his theory is based on existential philosophy and b) it seems to fall into a functional view of the image in his inability to clarify between the “formal” or “structural” and the “material” sense of the Imago Dei. But these criticisms of Brunner are not entirely fair in my view.  Firstly, just because someone is existential, this is hardly grounds to deny his view, and it seems that Erickson doesn’t want to accept the view because existentialism carries with it a bad name. He makes the statement that “Reality is more than an entity that is simply there and that one accepts; rather it is something one creates.”(Erickson, Christian Theology, 527)  This categorical statement seems somewhat unfounded and needs to be defended more before he uses it to dismiss Brunner’s thought.  He uses this statement to say that Brunner has misunderstood the Image of God as not being an “entity” because it is based on the relationship between God and man rather than inherent to man alone.  But if this is true wouldn’t his statement then produce problems for him in understanding sin and the fall?  Why can’t a reality be the effect of a certain relationship?  Secondly, if the Image of God is based on the existential relationship one has with God, bestowed by God, it would seem that according to Brunner, man is in and of himself a sole holder of this image because God always is.  That is, the image is of God, and as such, man’s purpose is to bare this image, somewhat like a mirror.  As long as God exists (and God referring to Himself as “I Am” could probably be important here.) than man will reflect the image of God, whether man is, according to Brunner, in a “right, harmonious relationship” or a “wrong” one.  The focal point then for what man is, is not found in man himself per se, but in God.  It is God who holds the Image, we just reflect it.  “The Imago Dei in the New Testament, in the “material” sense of the word, is identical with “being-in-the-Word” of God.  Thus it is not a fact which can be discovered in humanity, something which can be found through introspection.  It is not the “Thou” of Idealistic philosophy, but it is the “I” derived from the “Thou.”  Hence it can not be understood by looking at humanity, but only by looking at God, or, more exactly, by looking at the Word of God…..Humanity is only truly human when it is in God.  Then, and then only, is humanity truly itself.” (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949, 346-351.)  This though is not a problem which the functional view of the Image tends to fall into, because as long as God is, and as long as the doctrine of God is upheld, namely that God is eternal, than man is always, in and of himself, an image bearer of God.  There will always be a relationship between the “I” and the “Thou” of every human being and graciously that relationship is upheld by God just being.

[ii] Of course Genesis 9:6, where God states that “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image,” is clear evidence that man, even after the fall, has not lost his inherent characteristic of being an image bearer.  Moreover, James 3:9 gives this evidence as well when James writes that with the tongue we “bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.”  The on going nature of the image of God in man is a distinguishable characteristic of protestant, namely reformed, theology which separates it from the Lutheran and Catholic understanding.

[iii] It is important to note, that the fall came about through Adam not adhering to his God given decree to rule over creation.  The reader does not know that the serpent is Satan but should be aware that at this point in the narrative, chapter 3, man is a ruler over creation.  His inability to cast out the serpent and then follow the instructions of the serpent to disobey God is a complete reversal of God’s intended plan, yet it is in keeping with this idea that God has placed man as ruler over the animals.  In Adam’s disobedience, because of sin, he becomes marred as an image bearer, no longer following as God had intended.  Moreover, when God curses Adam, there seems to be a point of connection when God states that “cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.  By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19) The Reformation Study Bible points out on page 14 that the whole relationship between man and the ground, creation, is reversed.  It no longer submits to man but fights back with thorns and thistles, eventually swallowing him up.  Romans 8:20-22 gives evidence that all of creation then longs for a final restoration.

[iv] There is still here the idea that Dominion as the Image of God in man is never lost but carried on through the posterity of man in God blessing both Noah and His sons.

[v] Psalm 8 really is an important note in this discussion because David affirms the role of man by alluding to, really word for word, the Genesis 1:28 account.  It seems here that David is making mans dominion over God’s earth the make up of what is described as their crown of glory and honor.

I’ve been reading through the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

I’ve been reading through the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin the past two weeks and greatly surprised at the lack of “deadness” so many profess to see in Calvin. (of course I hear this from a lot of anti-theology type people and those who “don’t want to be boxed into a certain demographic”, whatever that means.) Reading through Calvin is like listening to Max Roach, it’s alive, it’s full of color and vibrant and is clearly coming from his heart and bent on penetrating yours.  It is good stuff.  And what’s even more surprising is how much Calvin has to say on enjoying God, enjoying His love and being in love with such a God. I guess I just wanted to clear some things up.

“For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that He is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him – they will never yield him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him.”

Her Name is εκκλησια & She is Christs Bride – What Does She Look Like?

Local Church Government

As many churches today proudly express their allegiance to scripture alone as the sole authority for their Christian lives, it can not go unobserved that there is a seemingly blatant disregard for the authority of scripture concerning manners of church governance in many local congregations around America today. Among younger Christians especially, the concept of how to do church is championed as being recovered from the dry and monotonous church models adopted by their parents and hence put in place are a variety of different styles. Ranging from the consumer mega church, the all-doors-open emergent church, the non leadership house church, to even the weekly bible study held at a local Starbucks. In each case there may be a commitment to the orthodox teachings of Christian salvation and the understanding of God, but what seems to be missing is an allegiance to scripture on what it is a local church looks like. “The church is biblically mandated, the campus fellowship isn’t. The Lord may want you to be involved in a fellowship, but Jesus nowhere promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against my Campus Fellowship. But there is His promise about the church.”[i] In seeing the church as Christ sees it, how then are believers to practice the institution of church in a way honoring and glorifying to the Bridegroom? This paper will attempt to answer the question of what a biblical model of a local church government looks like.

There are three points that seem to be crucial in the biblical example of a local church. These are 1) a responsible, believing, local congregation that has an autonomous authority as a whole, 2) a group of divinely selected leaders, or elders, within the congregation that guide, teach, and protect the congregation as a whole, and 3) a commitment between both the elders and the rest of the congregation to be united and of one accord in serving God and each other to His glory.

It should not be surprising that the N.T. church, from which we should derive our example, is seen as an assembly of believing men and women gathered together in different cities and regions, meeting in local houses and other spaces. What should be taken from this though is the degree in which this collected group of believers, this assembly of called out ones, or church acted and dealt with life as group committed to reflecting Gods glory. What is clearly seen is that in times of needed discipline or in some other major decisions, the burden of action falls on the church as a whole and not a group of outside individuals or panel. In Matt 18:15-17 it can be observed that the final burden of discipline falls on the whole “assembly” so that if “he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” In Acts 6, where a notable dispute between Jewish and Gentile widows had emerged, the Apostles were said to have called all the disciples and bade them to choose seven who would serve fairly among the widows. The decision was given to all the disciples in that immediate context. Again, in Acts 11:22 it says that they, the church, sent Barnabas to go to Antioch. In 1 Cor. 5 charges that the church assemble to discipline their brother who was supposedly boasting in a perverse sin. It was the church who was to administer the discipline. 1 Cor. 16 describes instruction from Paul on matters of collections and what they are to do. The instruction is given to the church as a whole and then Paul asks that the church approve a messenger to take the offering. Paul does not command a separate committee or counsel but that the church makes the decision.[ii]

These scriptures and more, coupled with the fact that the majority of the N.T. letters are written to congregations as a whole and that the charges, mandates, and commands with in them also apply to churches a whole give good evidence that congregations were committed to the life of a church, the decisions it made, the money it used, its own doctrinal integrity,(1 Cor.11:17-34,Gal 1:8-9, Thess. 5:21) even its manner of worship(1 Cor.14:39-40, Phil 4:1-3). As one searches scripture in hopes of being taught by Gods Word, it becomes evident that the congregation as a whole is responsible for its own response to scripture, that is, if any local church were to skirt the commands of scripture necessary for a healthy church the burden of responsibility falls on the church as a whole. The local church is really the first and clearest picture one sees of Christ’s body united in a body of individual believers. “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.” (1Cor. 12:12)

The second evident and still just as crucial point is that throughout the N.T. there is a clear imperative to have a leader over the local congregation to act as a shepherd or to be an elder that guides and teaches. In fact, it should be argued that the precedence the bible and N.T. church gives us is that of a plurality of equally important [iii]elders acting as leaders and teachers to the congregation. What this does is now add a check and a balance to the above picture of a democratic congregational rule in that there are now key gifted individuals whom God has placed to guide and instruct their own local assembly in a manner that is glorifying to God and compatible to scripture. But why more than one elder? Because scripture teaches this.

.

The O.T. and Palestinian practice with in Jesus’ day showed that a plurality of elders was usually the case. (Deut. 19:12; 21:1-9, 18-21)

“The other four New Testament authors who refer to Christian elders are James, Peter, Paul, and Luke, and each of them appears to assume a number of elders will be present in every congregation. James instructs his readers to “call the elders [plural] of the church [singular] to pray over” a sick person (James 5:14). Peter writes as an elder to the “elders [plural] among you” (1Pet. 5:1). If 1 Peter 5:5 should be translated “elders” instead of “older men,” it would again appear Peter assumes a plurality of elders in a single congregation—or at least this assumption could not be ruled out. Paul greets the bishops (plural) in the church (singular) at Philippi in his letter to the Philippians (Phil. 1:1). And he exhorts the elders of the church at Ephesus to be “bishops” (plural) to the “flock” (singular) that God had given them (Acts 20:28)…So certainly the churches established by Titus in Crete were at least supposed to have a plurality of elders in each local congregation.” [iv]

What is even more clear are the in depth qualifications given by Paul in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 as to what and who an elder should be. These qualifications by no means are much different from whom any Christian should be but the list does make a distinction in credentials thereby disallowing a number of individuals from becoming and elder. What can not be denied tough is that the office of elder is established and that the clear markings of a church is one that is led and taught by these divinely selected elders. (Heb13:17) Does the final authority then lie with the Congregation or with the Elders? This question seems to be unfair in that the elders are apart of and represent the congregation. What seems to take place is a very open conversation between the elders of a congregation and the rest of the believing body thus securing as best can be a unified and cohesive decision based upon the authority of the congregation as whole, but delegated and confirmed with the elders. This leads then to the third and final point.

That there is a difference between an elder and the rest of the congregation is clear and what relationship they should have to each other should be just as clear. Hebrews 13:17 admonishes the congregation to obey they leaders and submit to their authority. The elders are described as men who watch over the church as men accountable to God. Then the writer tells them to obey them in order that their work will be a joy and not a burden. This seems to promote an environment of humble servitude as well as cautious leadership. A healthy relationship between both parties in which open dialogue must constantly be obtained and practiced. The role then of the teacher is to teach the truths of Gods’ revealed truth, constantly pointing the church to a hope in Christ. The role of a church leader is then to lead as a representative of who the church is; this is no doubt influenced by the teaching capacity of the elder. A cyclical effect is almost seen here; clear and authoritative (more so even expository preaching) teaching guiding the congregation as a whole wherefore the congregation as a whole can make clear and wise decisions on local church matters wherefore, finally, the elders represent its own congregation in giving credence to its congregation and giving final judgment to any matter.

In conclusion, a biblical picture of what the local church government looks like is an multi-elder led church in which the congregation takes no passive role but is constantly aware and active in the discussion of how the church as a whole, fairly represented by the elders, will act and look.

---

[i] Mark Dever speaking at the 2007 New Attitude Conference

[ii] Each scripture reference was derived from Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Daniel Akins essay on the single elder led church, pgs 27-32.

[iii] Perspectives on Church Government. Pg 280

[iv] Mark Dever, By Whose Authority, Elders in Baptist Life. 2006, 9Marks. Pg8-9

Also, “The Anglican scholar and pioneer missiologist Roland Allen came to this same conclusion: “… it seems to be an irresistible conclusion that the elders appointed by St. Paul were definitely appointed with power to add to their number and thus to secure to new Churches a proper order and certainty of sacramental grace. Finally, St. Paul was not content with ordaining one elder for each Church. In every place he ordained several. This ensured that all authority should not be concentrated in the hands of one man.” Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours (London: Robert Scott, 1912), 138-139”. (Mark Dever, By Whose Authority, Elders in Baptist Life. 2006, 9Marks.)

A Prayer to the Sovereign Lord

This prayer I found on the reformation21 blogsite written by John Leonard of Cresheim Valley Church. I could not resist in sharing this with you and share the blessing it had on me. What a wonderful prayer to read aloud and to make your own. Enjoy to and for His glory.

John Leonard Professor of Practical Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary and Pastor of Cresheim Valley Church, Philadelphia, PA (a daughter church of Tenth Presbyterian)

Our great God and Heavenly Father,

Forgive me, because my prayers are too often only selfish attempts to get what I want from you. I come, list in hand and little else. I justify this kind of prayer because you tell us in your word to ask, seek and knock.

My misconception of your true character robs you of your Sovereign Majesty and glory, an idolatry that is most evident in the way I pray. How dare I treat you, the Lord of the Universe, as if you were my delivery-boy: unconscious of you most of the time, summoning you when I need something, and dispatching you without so much as a “thank you.” Forgive me, Jesus, for treating you with less respect than the guards who mocked you, struck you, spit in your face, and then crucified you.

Forgive me for not praying in faith but rather out of a heart that is filled with superstition. For in truth, I believe prayer’s power lies in me or in another or even in prayer itself.

I have often gone to pastor, priest or saint, because they are “special”; they most certainly are able to get your ear, for you wouldn’t hear me. But it is my ears that are deaf to your voice calling me to come. And do not I betray you by believing that I need another mediator than the one you provide? What man could be more righteous than you Christ, and whose prayers would accomplish more? Is there any other who is continually interceding for me? I am faithless for not believing in your promises to come boldly into your presence because the way is made possible by the blood of your Son. What could you value more Father, than the blood of your Son?

I have ignored your instructions when I pray because I sound like a pagan, endless babbling and rants, trusting in my many words or getting the form right. My prayers have been long, elegant and emotional all to impress, to get your attention and win your approval; if not from you then at least from others. Sometimes I shout hoping that you will hear and answer me. If nothing else I hope that I am convincing myself and I call it faith.

Teach me again to pray as you taught your disciples to pray – so differently than I pray. For your prayer O Lord, is short, only eloquent in its simplicity, and straightforward.

Forgive me, for my prayers question your goodness and love by denying the very words my lips are confessing when I call you “My Heavenly Father.” How my prayers must break your heart because I don’t know you nor do I trust your word. Why do I not rest on your promises that guarantee with the giving up of your own Son that you will with him freely give me all things? Why do I call the bread you give me a stone and the fish a snake? If I being evil know how to give good gifts, how much more should I have confidence in you, Father.

But Lord, some days I feel like I can really pray and you hear me because I have been good or done something for you. Doesn’t that place you in my debt? Forgive me for making Christ’s death meaningless by valuing my pitiful acts as more significant than Jesus’ life and death. Why do I, Lord, desire to cover the perfect righteousness of Christ with my own filthy rags?

Father, dare I say, your sovereign rule offends me! How can you? How can you force your will on all creation, especially your children? What offends me is not the power, but that it is yours and not mine. Of course I never would admit that this is the reason I question your sovereignty. I prefer to look thoughtful and reflective, to be philosophical but if the truth were known, you hold all power, glory and all authority- and I want it. Have mercy on me Lord, for I still long for what my first parents coveted. For not being satisfied with bearing your image, I long to take your place. But this is not something you have denied me. In Christ you call me to join you, to reign with him. But Lord, Christ has chosen another direction than the one my heart is telling me; He in his glory steps down, to serve and to suffer but I want neither! Teach me Father to be like Christ and to desire a cross, that humiliation comes before exaltation, and that the glory of the resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering cannot be separated.

If I cannot have your place, then at least I can blame you for the deadness in my soul that is evident in the absence of prayer. After all Father, why should I pray if you already know and have already decided? Forgive me Lord, again like my first parents, I have believed Lucifer’s lie, the one he planted in our souls to doubt your goodness and love. Teach me to see you rightly Lord, that in all your attributes you are sovereign and your sovereignty fills all your qualities of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Knowing you this way allows me to pray joyfully, “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Don’t let me hide my lack of love for others and my disobedient heart behind theological speculation that would leave you responsible for my sin. Show me how your plan and my actions fit together, how your will and my freedom merge so that they are one. Help me understand that your election does not exempt me from praying for the lost, sharing the gospel and pleading with people to be reconciled to you, but because of your sovereign plan I can be outrageously bold, confident, and at the same time patient when calling others to Christ.

Instruct me Father in what the older saints knew, that your sovereignty was the reason to pray, and to pray prayers filled with blessing, thanksgiving and praise. Make me understand you the way the Psalmist did, who being convinced of your sovereignty, argued and plead his case before you using your own promises as his evidence. Or to say with Job, “behold he will slay me, I have no hope, even so, I will plead my case before him.”

Reveal your majesty to me like you did to Isaiah, that in seeing you, I will see the true folly of my sin and being cleansed by a baptism of fire can then, from a cleansed heart offer myself in service to you.

Move my heart like you moved the apostle Paul’s, that as he laid out your plan of redemption for the church in Ephesus he was caught up in blessing and glorifying you, so much so that he could not take a breath for almost an entire chapter.

Let me rest in the mystery of your election, knowing that I am but clay in your hands, that you harden the heart of whom you please, love whom you please, pass over some, cut off nations and graft in others. Behold, your kindness and severity. Until like your apostle I can pray,

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Make me to know the promises I look to and hope in, “that nothing can ever separate me from the love of God in Christ, that I am more than a conquerer,” can only comfort me if these promises are grounded in your sovereignty, “that you work out all things for the good of those who love you.” And resting in your plan, keep me Lord, from murmuring against you, manipulating and scheming to get my way.

Help me to see life like Joseph, who when he had a chance to take revenge on his brothers for their betrayal, saw himself not as the victim of their evil act but understood that his life fit into your much greater plan. And when I do not get my way or what I want, help to me see that it is not others who are obstacles, but you My Shepherd are leading me in the paths of righteous.

In the face of disaster, teach me to pray prayers that trust in your plan and Providence, wherever you lead me in life and whatever circumstances I might face. Because of your dominion, may I greet all things as gracious gifts from my Father in whom there are no shadows. Your sovereign mercy enables me to give thanks in all things so that your peace that passes all understanding will guard my heart and mind. Even in the most difficult events help me to pray a prayer of rejoicing and hope like Habakkuk prayed:

Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation. GOD, the Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet like the deer’s; he makes me tread on my high places.

And when overwhelmed, Spirit, search my heart and mind giving expression to the cries of my heart with groanings too deep for words, bearing witness with my spirit that I am still your child and these cries are acts of faith that long for your kingdom to come.

Don’t let me be like Jabez Lord, who prayed for you to bless him and you graciously answered his prayer, but we are not told of any good Jabez did for you.

Most of all Lord, teach me to trust in your sovereign mercy the way Christ did. For trusting in your sovereign plan he could pray both, “Take this cup from me but not my will be done but Thine, Oh Lord.” Then give me the grace to like my Savior, who when persecuted for righteousness sake was able to say, “Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.”

For it is only then Lord, that I will have learned to pray in faith, realizing that you have taken the list from my hands, and in my prayers you have mingled my desires with your will so that I have received something far greater than I could have hoped, thought or imagined. You will have given me what my heart truly desires and all that I need. You, Father.

For in trying to get what I want out of you by my prayers, you have gotten what you want out of me. For I have taken my eyes off my list and see only you and in that moment, I know why the Psalmist asked for just one thing, and sought just one thing, and that I like him pray, “may I dwell in your house Lord all the days of my life, to behold your beauty, and to meditate on you in your temple.”

Questions for Further Thought or Discussion:

1. Why pray if God is sovereign?
2. Examine how you pray, what do your words show about your understanding of the nature of God?
3. How would understanding the sovereignty of God affect both our prayers content and purpose?

---

John Leonard can be reached via email at jleonart@wts.edu. Check out his church’s website at www.cresheimvalleychurch.org

Exclusivity in Salvation as a Comfort in Remembrance

Communion to me is an amazing gift from God to his church and to be able to have a reminder in a such a way that draws collectively the sheep to the cross in humble recognition and a remembrance of what was accomplished is something always to be sought after.

Recently there has been some talk between some friends and myself on the exclusivity of Communion and its correlation to the exclusivity of the Christian Faith. Understanding that communion is only for those trusting in Christ alone for salvation. One of the reasons we feel so strongly about this is rooted in the Passover meal, from which this meal stems. In the Exodus account of the Passover there is a section of instruction from the Lord to Moses and Aaron describing the institution of Passover. It reads as such, “The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it. A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it. It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this. But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.”

While these verses do highlight Gods grace as extended to gentiles as well as Jews it also does something important that I think a congregation can take comfort in. The Lord gives clear instruction on the exclusivity of this new ordinance in which they were to practice. The demands were so great for outsiders who wished to partake that not just conversion through speech was needed, but actual circumcision, a sign of their obedience and worship to the true God Jehovah and His law. Why? Why go to such great lengths to keep the practice exclusive?

I think one reason is that Passover was symbolic to Jews alone, that is, it represented salvation only to those who were saved. It was only the Jews that the Lord had called out and brought out of slavery into freedom, only the Jews can rightly understand in an experiential tribute the salvation wrought by God. For this reason it is clear why only Jews may partake in Passover, it just doesn’t apply or make real sense to anybody else, for no other group of people experienced Gods salvation. This leads to the second reason.

The extreme exclusivity preserves the sanctity and sacredness of the practice. It was only to those who were saved by the blood of the lamb and were passed over by the Lords wrath that exodus from Egypt was possible. And the Lord knows that while in the wilderness and especially in the Promised Land there would be a tendency of the Jewish nation to forget how God brought salvation and in time make a mockery of the very institution of Passover in which they were called to remember Gods salvatory work in their lives and forefathers lives. If outsiders were allowed to wantonly partake in Passover, this would certainly make a travesty of the whole practice in that Gods mighty work done in Egypt did not apply to these people.

This is a point that we as Christians should not loose sight of and I believe is helpful to us in meditating on Christ. While we are charged with remembrance of our salvation by taking the bread and the cup, know that we can come humbly yet with confidence in that our very own salvation through Christ the perfect Lamb, is forever secure, protecting us who have faith from the wrath of God. That our salvation is not of our own heritage or of our attendance to a healthy church, but is a gift of the Father, the very death and resurrection of His own Son to those who believe. Even more specifically, our celebration and remembrance of Christ work on the Cross, our Passover meal of communion, strictly applies only to Christians. We are a people set apart for God and the same exclusivity applies to us as it did to the Jews thousands of years before. For faith in Christ is much more than conversion by speech but it is a circumcision of the heart, that is the renewing or rebirth of our hearts and lives, realizing the state of slavery and death we once lived in and the freedom we have now been given, chosen by the Father, purchased by the blood of Christ, and made effective by the work of the Holy Spirit. We take the bread and the cup in loving and grateful remembrance of ALL that was accomplished for us. That our salvation was and is a work of God, directed to his church. We take these elements as a remembrance to the most sacred and wonderful experience of our lives, our salvation in Christ. Is your heart circumcised? Do you feel the weight of His Holiness? If not, then to take the bread and the cup is to make trivial what Christians hold to be most dear to their lives, safety in the blood of Christ. John beautifully expresses this when he says of Christ that “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already.” Our belief in Christ is a belief in the resurrection of our once spiritually dead souls and a continuous salvation in our lives until we are finally brought home to heaven, made pure and blameless through the blood of the Lamb.

Oh Father, I believe, I believe, I believe. I and the church trust in your word and in your promise of salvation to those who believe, and with our hearts laid open to you we confess our sin and look forward to our glorification. Let us as a universal Church of believers remember you rightly in your work on the cross for the salvation of us who believe. Let us take seriously your supper and recognize your grace in our lives and the narrowness but completeness of your salvation. Father we thank you that the exclusiveness of your grace highlights the securing work of Christ’s death in our lives and that you will complete what you have started in us. We pray in Jesus name, Amen.

Charles Ryrie: The Holy Spirit

It may go with out saying that the third person of the Trinity is the least understood and least studied person with in the God head leaving many Christians uninformed and ill prepared to discuss His work, ministry, and even proper identification. Charles Ryrie has done an invaluable service to the church then by writing a work that addresses such a dilemma and succinctly organizes into a solid teaching a study into and on the Holy Spirit. Aptly titled The Holy Spirit, Ryrie packs a lot into the 206 pages of his revised and expanded edition. The back cover description boasts that the book “avoids confusion and trendiness, sticking uncompromisingly to the revealed Word of God.” This, for the most part, seems to be the case where as Ryrie’s main purpose is to show the person of the Holy Spirit as He is portrayed through Holy Scripture.

The book is split up into 22 chapters and though the book doesn’t make these distinctions outright, Ryrie may agree with me in that the outline of the book can be separated or organized into four main parts. Chapters one through four can serve as scriptural identification, definition, and description of who the Holy Spirit is. Chapters five through ten describe the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit in His different functions through out scripture. Chapters eleven through fifteen deal with the specific work of the Spirit in salvation, both leading up to faith and continuing through to glorification, and then finally chapters sixteen through twenty one deal with the work of the Spirit as ministering to the church and church age believers. Chapter 22 just gives a brief overview of the history of the doctrine as well as a helpful bibliography on the subject of the Spirit.

Of the four different sections the ones I enjoyed reading most were the chapters that dealt with who the Holy Spirit was (one through four) and the chapters that discussed the Spirit’s work in salvation. (Eleven through fifteen)

Ryrie does an excellent job at defining who the Spirit is as a personality in his chapter titled He or It? He walks the reader through a number of different texts that show the distinct personhood of the Spirit, thus putting to rest the often made mistake of calling the Spirit an ‘it.’ For instance, in Ephesians 4:30 we see a clear situation in which the Spirit can be grieved, commanding the reader to “grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption.” An inanimate force or energy can not be grieved, only someone who demonstrates personhood can experience the emotion of grief. Again, in Acts 5:3 we see the Spirit being lied to when Peter asks Ananias “why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” Surely one can not lie to a force or non person like a computer or TV, the absence of personhood marks the absence of moral responsibility; the Holy Spirit must then be a person. The most interesting of Ryrie’s arguments was his use of grammar to show the Spirit’s personality. He writes,

“The greek word for spirit is pneuma and is a neuter gender word. According to every normal rule of grammar, any pronoun that would be substituted for this neuter noun would itself have to be neuter. However, in several places the biblical writers did not follow this normal rule of grammar, and instead of using a neuter pronoun when referring to the neuter noun pneuma, they deliberately contradicted the grammatical rule and used masculine pronouns. Indeed, they used two different kinds of pronouns, all in the masculine gender. This shows that they considered the Spirit to be a person and not merely a thing.” (pg 17)

This truth of course has major ramifications for any student of the scriptures or God, most notably dealing with ones perception of the Trinity. And this is exactly where Ryrie takes the reader, showing that the person of the Holy Spirit is an important doctrine to believe simply because it bears so strongly a witness to His relationship with the other persons of the Trinity, thus begging His deity. The crucial text found in Matt. 28:19 where we are commanded to “baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” would not make much grammatical sense if the first two figures are presented as persons where as the last is only a force. The use of the word ‘name’ in vs. 19 Ryrie argues indicates His personhood just as the Father and Son are represented as such.

In chapter nine, Ryrie addresses the often misunderstood teaching of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit and uses Matt.12:22-33 to show contextually what the bible means by this feared unforgivable sin and even though I may agree with his outcome I still feel like he left some questions unanswered. He says that because the Pharisees’ sin of ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to that of Satan was made all the worse by the actual presence of Christ and that it was their wickedness in light of Christ’s present holiness that caused the unique circumstances for this sin to take place, it could therefore never happen today. But I still ask why. If I ascribe a miraculous work, say tongues or prophecy, to the work of Satan in a present day person how am I different than the Pharisees of Christ’s time. I feel this could have been dealt with a little more by giving more arguments for why this sin is restricted to the past.

Ryrie does, I think an excellent job in discussing General or Common grace and touching on the fact that the cross of Christ, though given to save a few, had universal effects reaching all people. “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4)

Chapters eleven and twelve I thought were the most engaging and displayed a brilliant overview of the Spirit’s work in bringing sinful, unregenerate people to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. He deals first with the doctrine of Efficacious Grace, though he sadly prefers the title Special Grace, and rightly connects the doctrine with that of sin, or mans total depravity. The calling of the Spirit in man, leading him to salvation, therefore becomes a work entirely of God because sinful man is unable to bring himself to life. It is then mans inability that shows by contrast the power of the Spirit in His effectiveness to bring life and willingness where there was once death and heavenly disdain. Chapter twelve explains the doctrine of Regeneration or being born again of the Spirit and though Ryrie hits the mark in describing this theology to first time readers I think he definitely misses the mark in unfolding the process regeneration takes in salvation or the ordu salutis. “Although this may be seen as a logical order, (Regeneration before faith) it is undebatably not a chronological one. Regeneration does not precede faith chronologically.”(pg 90) Firstly, it is misleading or confusing to use the word ‘undebatably’ because Ryrie must be aware that there is debate concerning the order of regeneration to faith both logically and chronologically[i]. Secondly, no where in his argument of regeneration being simultaneous with faith does he use scripture to back up his conclusion, he simply just tells the reader what he thinks proclaiming that any conclusion differing from his is “a monstrous idea [being] completely unbiblical.” This, I argue, is an unfair appraisal of the issue, where as elsewhere he is sure to look at scripture for support, here I think he strays and misses an opportunity to look at such verses like Jn 1:12, Jn 3:3-5, 1 Jn 3:9, and definitely Rm 8:30.

Overall the book has been delightful to read and incredibly encouraging. Each chapter gives a brief application for what comes out of each doctrine pushing the reader to really look at the Spirit; not as a set of facts, but as a part of the Godhead who has graciously and most lovingly entered into a relationship with those whom God has chosen to pour out His special love to. Also as you read each chapter you notice how Ryrie makes a point to continually show how each work or ministry or promise points again and again to the Spirits deity. Reading this book has been a treat and has certainly added depth to my personal walk and prayer life. I echo Charles Ryrie’s prayer in response to D.W. Whittle’s hymn:

“’As Lives the flow’r within the seed

As in the cone the tree,

So, praise the God of truth and grace,

His Spirit liveth in me.’

How we do praise God that He – the Father, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit live in me.”

---

[i] See Part II of John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied for a full critique of the place regeneration plays in the ordu salutis. He biblically and logically shows regeneration preceding faith.

Finding the Promised Rest in Hebrews 3 & 4

The book of Hebrews brings into question a particular topic not always dealt with but is very important to discuss if viewed correctly within the context of the book. The author begins to speak about the idea of rest to his readers by first quoting Psalm 95:7-11 which says “as I swore in my wrath, ’they shall not enter my rest.'” What is this rest that is spoken of in Hebrews 3 and 4? The use of the word rest differs each time the author uses it but it should become clear that there is an argument within the context of chapters 3 and 4 that the rest which God spoke of in the Old Testament parallels a rest that is now offered to everyone, first the Jew and then the Gentile, but a rest that is ultimately found in the Messiah[i].

In the Old Testament many rests are spoken of. There is God resting on the seventh day from His creation, which He deemed very good. There is the rest that God commanded for Israel to take at the end of each work week which both honored Gods creative plan as well as looked forward to another type of rest. And then there is the rest that God promised to His chosen people in the land of Canaan in which God would drive out the inhabitants and offer a place of rest from the wilderness and opposing nations. The author of Hebrews will in essence mark all these examples in chapter 4:1-13 to make the case that what God has ultimately planned is a rest eternal offered through grace by belief in Him.

He starts out by introducing Christ in verses 1-6 as the creator and perfection of our faith arguing that it is Christ whom believers must perpetually hold on to if their faith is to be of a lasting effect. This he shows by the Psalm 95 quote demonstrating that it was unbelief which restricted the Jews, the proposed receivers of the promised rest, from entering into Canaan and that what they did incur instead was God’s wrath. This was due to an unbelieving heart. The context of this whole section then should be understood as God’s promised rest coming only through a right believing heart. In verse 15 he quotes Psalm 95:8 specifically saying “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,” showing that even though these Israelites experienced and partook in God’s miracle of the exodus being set free from Egypt, their hardness of hearts prevented them from partaking in the promised rest[ii].

Hebrews 4:1 continues from chapter 3 but makes the point that the rest God offers “still stands.” “How can this be,” would be the expected question of the Jewish reader. So the author makes his case. He maintains that through each example of rest offered to His people, whether it is God’s rest honored shown through the Mosaic Law in the Sabbath, or their rest in the Promised Land, it is only contingent upon their faith. “But the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3For we who have believed enter that rest.” (Heb.4:2-3) Notice vs. 3 which clearly was written for the present readers that we who have believed enter that rest. His argument then shows in vs. 6-8 that this present rest was spoken about through David, that since David spoke of a future rest, even though God had already not allowed those he gave the promise to to not enter, then there must be a rest for today still offered. “So what is it,” the Hebrew reader would ask. The answer has really already been given in the context that it is Jesus Christ. The author shows immediately in verse 9 and 10 that just as God rested on the seventh from His six days of creation, showing that what He had done was good and perfect, so the believer, the people of God, rests in Christ, the One who has perfectly obeyed the Law, causing the believer to rest or cease from works righteousness[iii].

The rest of the chapter is an imperative continued from the beginning of chapter 3 to strive after righteousness, but the righteousness that is found in Christ, our great High Priest who is continually at work on our behalf before the Father drawing on His perfect work while here on earth. Therefore, the rest in chapter 3 and 4 of Hebrews is describing the rest that Christ provides to those who believe. This is the message to the Hebrews, to not return to the old covenant of works through unbelief, but to receive the new covenant of rest found in Christ and His coming Kingdom.

---

[i] John MacArthur in a sermon titled Entering God’s Rest makes the case based on verse 1 of chapter four that this section is dealing with specifically Jews. “Verse 1 says, “A promise being left for us.” The “us” is a reference to the Jewish people. What the writer of Hebrews wants to make clear is that when Israel fell because of unbelief, that didn’t mean the end of God’s rest for them. When Israel failed in the wilderness, God didn’t forsake them and start over with another people. The phrase “any of you should seem to come short of it” at the end of Hebrews 4:1 could be more accurately translated “lest you think you have come too late to enter into the rest of God.” The author is telling his Jewish audience not to think it’s too late to enter God’s rest. The phrase “any of you should seem to come short of it” at the end of Hebrews 4:1 could be more accurately translated “lest you think you have come too late to enter into the rest of God.” The author is telling his Jewish audience not to think it’s too late to enter God’s rest.”

 

[ii] John Piper in a sermon entitled Do Not Harden Your Heart in the Day of Trouble says this concerning this passage. “And here at the end of the twentieth century in America it is even more important that we hear it and understand it, because we are confronted by voices in books and radio and sermons and songs that use the term ‘unconditional’ carelessly—as in the terms, ‘unconditional love’ and ‘unconditional acceptance,’ for instance. And very often when it is used, there is no effort to make sound biblical distinctions between what is unconditional—like God’s electing love—and what is not unconditional—like God’s justifying and glorifying love.”

 

[iii] Jesus speaks of this rest in Matthew 11:28-30

Christ found in Isaiah 7:14

In Isaiah seven we have a direct word form the Lord to Ahaz, then king of Judah, also descendant of the line of David. It is his Ahaz’s unbelief that strikes the tone for the context in his refusal to trust God and look to as well as fear Assyria. Therefore the Lord declares that He will give a sign in order to clearly show that God reigns and is not slack in caring for His chosen people, even in their unbelief. The question regarding Isaiah 7:14 is whether it is a prophecy referring strictly to Ahaz’s time, or it is a prophecy referring solely to Christ. Or, is it a combination in that the prophecy was partially fulfilled in Ahaz’s time and finally, or fully, fulfilled with Christ. These options will each be briefly considered and then shown why fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 was strictly a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Immanuel, God with us.

We can quickly conclude, simply relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon New Testament writers that this prophecy is not strictly contained to Ahaz’s time. Matt. 1:22 clearly states that all this took place to fulfill what was spoken about in Isa. 7:14. The scriptures being inerrant and inspired by God (2 Peter 3:16), it is therefore logical to conclude that Isa. 7 was in fact a prophecy from God spoken through the prophet Isaiah finding fulfillment in Christ. To deny fulfillment in Christ would be to deny the authority of the New Testament as scripture.

So then the question now becomes one of perspective. When Isaiah was proclaiming this prophecy, was it intended for fulfillment solely in Christ or was is partially fulfilled with Ahaz’s immediate lineage, Hezekiah, and later fulfilled with Christ? Many commentators contend that Isaiah was predicting the birth of a boy named Immanuel in Ahaz’s time citing both the Hebrew ‘almah’ and the Greek in Matt 1, pleroo[i]. Discussion on the word almah hinges on whether it strictly means virgin or can it be interpreted as young woman. If it means young woman and not virgin then the implication could be that vs. 14 is partially confined to Ahaz’s situation making Isaiah not fully aware of the fulfillment Christ would give to his prophecy but causing Isaiah’s eyes to be veiled in a sense to the final fulfillment of vs. 14[ii]. Thus allowing the prophet only to perceive the immediate time frame of God’s words and cast his eyes to the young woman Abijah bath-Zechariah[iii].

The view then that vs. 14 finds its fulfillment in only Christ I think best fits the context of this section in Isaiah. The word almah may refer to a virgin and most likely does in this context supposing that Immanuel is really God Himself, or so the name implies. If this is true, then the birth of El, that is God, must be of a miraculous nature in keeping with Isaiah’s promise of a sign[iv]. But what then of vs. 15 and 16 if Christ is the restricted means of fulfillment? Christ as God is not restricted to temporal limitations but is very capable of transcending time through His eternality and therefore being apart of, in a real way, a time period before He has come to Earth as a physical person[v]. The fulfillment of vs. 14-16 can still be attributed to Christ in that His eternal presence in Israel’s history, though veiled, satisfies the need for an immediate fulfillment. This also lends to reading Matt 1:22 as a natural and comfortable understanding of what the Spirit through both Isaiah and Matthew was pointing to, Jesus Christ.

The hope that a Messiah, God Himself, would be given as promise of hope, even in light of the total destruction and annihilation of Israel due to her unbelief, and that those who through faith submitted to this future hope would be saved, this may be reason enough for the prophecy to be given such a long time before it ever became fulfilled. Regardless of Ahaz and his poor accountability before the Lord, God was still giving hope for a Messiah that could save and redeem.

---

[i] Beyer, Brian. Encountering the Book of Isaiah. Pg 74. The Greek word Pleroo is described here as having both the understanding of fulfillment but also the understanding of a secondary fulfillment, or “a filling full fulfillment.” If this is the case than Matt 1:22 is evidence that Isa. 7:14 should be understood as being fulfilled both then and in Christ.

 

[ii] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 142-145.

 

[iii] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 141. Keil and Delitzsch point out that this conjecture is very probable in that historically, the majority of believing Israel put their hopes in Hezekiah as the Messiah, but in light of chapter 9 of Isaiah, proclaiming that Immanuel will be “God in corporeal self-manifestation, and therefore a ‘wonder’ as being a superhuman person,(pg 143 of Keil)” coupled with the actual account of Hezekiah still awaiting the day of the Messiah, than it is safe to conclude that Isa 7:14 is not looking immediately in time for fulfillment but ultimately in Christ, the real God-Man.

 

[iv] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 143.

 

[v] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 147. “When Isaiah speaks of Immanuel as eating thickened milk and honey, like all who survived the Assyrian troubles in the Holy Land; he evidently looks upon and sees the childhood of Immanuel as connected with the time of the Assyrian calamities. And it was in such a perspective combination of events lying far apart, that the complex character of prophecy consisted. For the things which the prophet saw in combination were essentially connected, even though chronologically separated. When he spoke of the son of the virgin as growing up in the midst of the Assyrian oppressions; this also was true, that Jesus was really born at a time when the Holy Land, deprived of its previous abundance, was under the dominion of the imperial power, and in a condition whose primary cause was to be traced to the unbelief of Ahaz. Moreover, He who became flesh in the fullness of time did really lead an ideal life in the Old Testament History. He was in the midst of it in a pre-existent presence, moving on towards the covenant goal. The fact that the house and nation of David did not perish in the Assyrian calamities, was actually to be attributed, as chapter 8 presupposes, to His real though not His bodily presence. In this way the apparent discrepancy between the prophecy and the history of the fulfillment may be solved.”

Hebrews. A Letter of Undefined Boundaries

What an intimidating book to begin to study, but I know there is so much there that I have to wrap my heart around that it is essential to dive in.  As I look at the layout of the book there seem to be certain themes that show the core message of what’s really going on and I borrow from Dr. Powers in saying that this message shows that the superiority of the Person and work of Christ to things of Judaism demands persevering obedience in faith to the heavenly call despite suffering in order to experience the full blessings of the rest available in Christ as well as to avoid the judgment of God’s discipline. Whew, thats a mouthful, but none the less seems to be accurate.

When one looks at the outline of Hebrews in light of its message there arises an application that truly can’t be missed and is what I think the author of the letter wanted to portray, namely that the Christian life is is a life lived properly only when the believer is focused on and satisfied in Christ.  Let me show you from the book itself to make my point clear.

The book is written to believers and as such the author breaks up his letter into a series of teachings and then immediate warnings derived from the teachings.  If you see chapter 1:1-14 is teaching, namely that the Son is superior to angles and then immediately in 2:1-4 you have the warning to not drift away.  In Heb 2:5-18 the author teaches about the Son’s identification with man and his provision for them, and then he quickly gives his warning in chapter 3:7-4:13.  This pattern continues through out the book with about 5 serious warnings overall.  Each warning the author gives is so extreme that you can not help but ask, is he really talking to believers here?  Well he is, but there is a very unique factor with each of his warnings.  They are not defined.

With each warning the author gives, he says beware, don’t drift away(Heb 2:1-4), don’t fail to enter God’s rest(3:7-4:13), don’t fall away(5:11-6:20), don’t continue in willful sin(10:19-39), don’t fall short or refuse him (12:14-19).  But he does not  give a specific set of rules or a clear boundary line as to when each warning becomes a warning to late, where there is a clear line that the believer should not pass.  Instead the author continually points to Christ.

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” Hebrews 12:1-3

Why does he do this? Remember that the point of the whole letter is to show the superiority of Christ to that of a legalistic Judaism (the reason the author wants to do this is because his audience is believed to be 2nd or 3rd generation Jewish Christians who in the face of persecution may be tempted to return to Judaism in order to escape suffering.) and the superiority comes in the power and grace of Christ.  He never gives a clear boundary line or rules that say don’t do this or else you will fall away because he knows that is contrary to the heart of faith.  Faith looks to Christ, as he so elegantly shows us in chapter 11, and does not look to rules saying,” look at me God, look how close I am to the edge…but I haven’t crossed it yet! I’m still following your rules, Lord!”  That was the heart of Judaism which lead to a hard heart, a cold walk, and a non existent relationship with the Father.  Rather Christ, and the author of Hebrews, calls us to look to and rest in Him, continually focusing our attention and satisfaction in the One who is the giver of life, the sustainer and the redeemer.  It was not rules that saved, it was not boundary lines, but Christ and Christ alone.  Keep then focused on Him and worry not about setting up a fence around your life.

There was a study done on children’s playgrounds, and what the study showed was that those playgrounds that were built with a fence surrounding the property, the children would be scattered throughout the play area and a large number of kids would actually be concentrated near or on the fence.  But when those playgrounds without a fence were observed, studies showed that all the kids clumped together in the center of the play area and around the play set, that they found their safety and comfort close together and around a familiar object.  This is so true of human nature, that so often we see just how far we can go with out hitting a fence or just how close we can get to the edge, morally, with out falling off ….we all fall off sooner or later.

Our unknown author has kept his boundaries and warnings undefined with rules knowing that once they’re put in place they become a snare for man, they become his burden and curse and lead not to life but to condemnation.  These undefined boundaries are meant to point us to Him who did not fall, who did not stumble in any way, but was the perfect spotless Lamb, able to give life through His death and become a propitiation(Heb 2:17) on our behalf. “let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.”

Amazing Grace: The Classic Hymn

 This song is so beautiful to sing and I admit every morning I belt this out as loud as I can while taking a shower.  (I wonder if I’m still allowed to do that once I’m married?)  Any way, I thought I’d simply just post the lyrics to this classic song so readers could read and meditate on the beautiful and God exalting message that John Newton lays out.  He really displays nothing but the Gospel in this song and I feel that every time it is sung in church and any nonbeliever is present, that they are getting the gospel in its entirety by simply following along with the song.  It brings tears to my eyes and I praise the Lord for John Newton and his heart to exclaim the grace of God through out the world.  He has done so in creating this hymn, Amazing Grace, and it has literally become the song that represents Christianity, specifically evangelical Protestant Christianity.

“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me….
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

T’was Grace that taught…
my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear…
the hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares…
we have already come.
T’was Grace that brought us safe thus far…
and Grace will lead us home.

The Lord has promised good to me…
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be…
as long as life endures.

When we’ve been here ten thousand years…
bright shining as the sun.
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise…
then when we’ve first begun.

“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me….
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.”