6-Part Harmony

by Frank Turk

This ia a "best of" which I composed about 4 years ago for the Christmas day service at our church -- a harmony of the texts which directly speak to the birth of Christ. I think it's useful to get a more-robust picture of what we're talking about at Christmas, which is not just a historical event but the purpose of all of history: God's working out His plan to save sinners.

It still needs some work; there's more that could be said from Scripture. But this is what we are going to celebrate -- those of us who are Christians.

I have a post for Christmas day, too, but I didn't even edit that. And it was written by a Methodist. You're welcome, and good tidings of great joy to you as you prepare to make straight the way of the Lord.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

"You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

"Let all God's angels worship him."

Of the angels he says,

"He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire."

But of the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to her. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" But Mary was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God. … For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.

A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

And at the end of eight days, when [the child] was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him."

(they said this because the prophet Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, and he did not go, as at other times, to look for omens, but set his face toward the wilderness. And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel camping tribe by tribe. And the Spirit of God came upon him, and he took up his discourse and said,

I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;")

After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... His mother, Mary?

by Dan Phillips

"You know what you lot's problem is? You just don't think enough about My mother."

---

Another Reason I Am Confident Salvation Is Secure

by Phil Johnson



"I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

his is one of the most basic truths of Christianity: Salvation is not a work the sinner does for God; it is a work God does for the sinner. Ephesians 2:10: "We are his workmanship."

Even the good works we do as Christians are the result of God's work in us. Those good works are not accomplished by our own willpower or initiative. Ephesians 2:10 continues thussly: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

If God foreordained even the good works we do, and since He is the one who empowers us both to will and to do them (Philippians 2:13), then salvation is truly all God's work.

And He always finishes what He starts. That's the point of the verse at the top of this post.

---

The Foundation of God stands Sure

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Great House and the Vessels in It," a sermon preached Sunday Morning 8 April 1877, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

NE of the most serious calamities which can befall a church is to have her own ministers teaching heresy: yet this is no new thing, it has happened from the beginning.

Paul and Peter and James and John in their epistles had to speak of seducers in the churches, even in those primitive days, and ever since then there have arisen in the very midst of the house of God those who have subverted the faith of many, and led them away from the fundamental truths into errors of their own inventing.

The apostle compares this to a gangrene, which is one of the most dangerous and deadly mischiefs which can occur to the body. It is within the body; it eats into the flesh deeper and deeper, festering and putrefying, and if it be not stopped it will continue its ravages till life is extinguished by "black mortification." False doctrine and an unchristian spirit in the midst of the church itself must be regarded as such a gangrene, a silent wolf ravenously gnawing at the heart, the vulture of Prometheus devouring the vitals: no external opposition is one-half so much to he dreaded.

Yet here is our comfort when distressed at the evils of the present age, among which this is one of the chief, that the truth abides for ever the same, "The foundation of God standeth sure." There is no moving that. Whether ten thousand oppose it or promulgate it, the truth is still the same in every jot and tittle; even as the sun shineth evermore, as well when clouds conceal its brightness as when from a clear sky it pours abroad a flood of glory.

The lovers of profane and vain babblings have not taken away from us, nor can they take from us, the eternal verities: the Lord liveth, though they have said, "There is no God." The precious blood of Jesus has not lost its efficacy, though divines have beclouded the atonement; the Spirit of God is not less mighty to quicken and to console though men have denied his personality; the resurrection is as sure as if Hymeneus and Philetus had never said that it is passed already; and the eternal covenant of grace abides for ever unbroken though Pharisees and Sadducees unite to revile it.

The foundation of God standeth sure, and moreover the foundation of the church remains sure also, for, blessed be God, "the Lord knoweth them that are his." All that God has built upon the foundation which he himself has laid keeps its place, not one living stone that he ever laid upon the foundation has been lifted from its resting place. Earthquakes of error may test the stability of the building and cause great searching of heart, but sooner shall the mountains which are round about Jerusalem start from their seats than the work or word of the Lord be frustrated. The things which cannot be shaken remain unaltered in the very worst times.

---

The Perseverance of the Saints

by Phil Johnson

I am absolutely confident no true believer in Jesus Christ will ever lose his or her salvation. Authentic believers can never do anything to forfeit the eternal life that is ours in Christ. Otherwise, by definition, it could not be said that we have everlasting life and will not come into judgment, but have passed from death to life (John 5:24).

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:3-5).

'm not fond of the expression "eternal security" because of the way the doctrine is abused by antinomians and people who think it's possible to own Jesus as Savior without bowing to Him as Lord. I prefer to speak of the perseverance of the saints, because that expression better captures the gist of what the doctrine entails.

The idea is not that if we once "accept Christ" we are guaranteed heaven regardless of whether we continue in the faith or not, but that those who are truly regenerate will not depart from Christ. The supposed Christian who does depart demonstrates that he was never a true Christian in the first place: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).

On the other hand, I'm convinced that the saints will persevere not because I have any confidence in the saints' own strength or their own faithfulness. My own security not does not rest in my devotion to Christ, but in His devotion to me. I am "kept by the power of God." His power is what energizes my faith and keeps me in the process of salvation, ready to be revealed at the last time.

That's an echo of the truth of 2 Thessalonians 3:3: "The Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one." And 2 Timothy 2:13: "If we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself." Also, Jude 24: God "is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy."

So on the authority of Scripture I believe absolutely in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But it's not because I have any confidence in the saints themselves. It is God who secures their perseverance.

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... truth and love?

by Dan Phillips

"Doctrine doesn't matter. All that matters is that you love, love, love."

---

In that sign

by Frank Turk

OK -- before I get to Christmas, and what you should be thinking about about it based on what the Angels said, I'm going to shamelessly plug my newest blogging adventure. After 18 months of suffering over what to do with the domain I acquired, and really killing a lot of time trying to create the right visual tone (which is still under advisement), I'm proud to introduce you to the NEW Calvinist Gadfly. The original Gadfly went to the big apologetics bug trap in the sky after entering seminary, and he encouraged me to pick up the domain name when his registration expired. Now it's a blog which will not be strictly apologetics but broadly about applying the full-throated confession of "Calvinism" to, well, everything -- include most notably, those who claim to be "Calvinists".

I'm going to enjoy it, and I hope you do, too.

That said, last time I pointed out that the Angels, in speaking to the farm boys in the field on the night Christ was born, pointed them to a sign that it was true that unto them was born a Savior who was Christ, the Lord. And the sign was not a double-rainbow in 3D made of fire and lollipops; it wasn't that their seed money was returned 1000-fold; it wasn't that somehow someone was speaking in the tongues of angels (since plainly: angels were speaking in the tongues of men).

The sign was that there was a baby laid in a manger, wrapped in "swaddling clothes".

I want to linger there a second, because the Greek word there rendered by Luke is "σπαργανόω", which comes from the word "σπαράσσω". It's rightly translated "swaddling clothes", but it means to wrap up in rags -- to wrap up in torn fabric as in to "swaddle" a baby.

You never looked that word up in a dictionary, I am sure, so here's what the dictionary says about it:

swad·dle   [swod-l]
verb, -dled, -dling, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.to bind (an infant, esp. a newborn infant) with long, narrow strips of cloth to prevent free movement; wrap tightly with clothes.

2.to wrap (anything) round with bandages.

–noun
3.a long, narrow strip of cloth used for swaddling or bandaging.

So the sign the Angels point to is this baby placed in a feeding trough wrapped up in rags -- rags which might be for babies, or for the wounded. Maybe for the dead.

So that's the sign at Christmas -- the sign at the birth of Christ: there's a baby born not in a temple or a castle or some lofty estate, but born so low as to be born with the poorest of the poor, in a stable among animals. And his garments are not fine cloth or soft linens: they're rags that are only good enough for a baby's back-end business or to wrap the sick and dying in.

So what to think of this? Here are three things to think about as you get on with your Christmas:

1. In that sign, it is clear that God is with us.

Look: that's the ultimate promise YHVH makes to Israel -- when the savior is born, he will be "Emmanuel - God with us." And the Angels point out that the sign to the Shepherds is that this child is born of no account at all -- above no one in the world. This wouldn't be so true if Jesus had been born in Solomon's courts -- because as the Prince of the nation, he would be above so many and unreachable by them.

But here is the child in the manger -- who the writer of Hebrews says is our high priest who is like us in every way, and still did not sin. He's not just "for us" in some divine way: he is like us and is with us is a way which someone who is pandered to could never be.

2. In that sign, it is clear that God loves us.

I was talking to my son about this because I was thinking he didn't get it, and I asked him: "Dude, when Papa and Grandma come over to stay, what do you do?"

"I let them sleep in my room," he said.

"And why is that?" I asked.

"Well, they need someplace to stay, and that's the best place for them to stay," he sort of shrugged.

"So it's just because it seems to make sense?" I asked.

"Well, no," he squirmed, "I give it up because I love them and I'm glad to be with them."

"Aha," I ahead. "So you give up your place in our home so that they can be with us. That's awesome. Now think about this: Jesus didn't just give up his bedroom to be with us. Jesus gave up heaven to be with us -- and he was willing to give up everything he deserved in Heaven to come and be born in a stable so that he could be with us."

You know: Jesus gave up Heaven for a stable so that, as he said to Peter and the boys, he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. For us.

That's actually how we know what love is: the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

3. In that sign, God clears up everything He has been saying for the past 2 or 3 millennia.

As I said last week, and the writer of Hebrews has said to you a jillion times, In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son -- the one who is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

You know: God said a lot of things in the Old Testament. I know you know that because you probably haven't read them all because it's so much. It's more than War and Peace. It's more than The Stand. And you'd think after saying all that God would be like, "Geez -- what more can I say than to you I have said?" But no: God instead makes everything He said come true in the birth of a child in a barn because there was no room at the Inn.

All the ideas of blessing: rolled up in swaddling clothes.

All the ideas about being chosen by God: laying in a manger.

All those judgments and warnings: now in the hands of a mother who admitted she didn't understand these things, but submitted to them and considered them in her heart.

All the promises: in poverty, to the least of these, with the least of these.

All the power: not considering equality with God something to be used to his own advantage, but rather, made nothing by taking the very nature of a servant.

Here in the manger is the very clarification of all God meant -- because he is here in this world as it is created.

You might have more than that which you considered -- and good on you. This only scratches the surface. You could probably consider the sign of the baby in the manger every day this year and come up with something new to rejoice over, but we only have 10 days until Christmas. All I'm saying is that the Angels didn't think that their appearance was as spectacular as that sign. Maybe we should consider it more deeply this season.

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... God's desire for us in this life?

by Dan Phillips

"God wants you to have your best life right now."

---

A Thought Prompted by John 10:8-13

by Phil Johnson



oo many Christians think the biggest threat to the spiritual well-being of Christ's true flock today are outspoken atheists; people who lobby against prayer and other expressions of faith in public venues; overtly anti-Christian celebrities; or non-Christian religions like Islam, Buddhism, Sikkhism, and whatever it is that Deepak Chopra teaches.

Those aren't the most immediate threat to the true flock of God. The greater threat is posed by false teachers who infiltrate the fold by illegitimate means. Some of the most thoroughly wicked people in the universe seem nice (they often are nice, by human standards). They look good. They sound religious. But under that impressive-looking sheepskin they are false prophets, or thieves, robbers, and wolves.

False teachers may range from devious false messiahs to naive but self-commissioned teachers. They might be as overtly, obviously wicked as Fred Phelps or as benign-sounding and likable as Norman Vincent Peale. Either way, they represent a serious threat to the sheep. They climb over the walls into the sheepfold, acting as if they belong there. Once inside, they steal, kill, and destroy virtually unchallenged.

The evangelical community today is full of spiritual thieves, robbers, and wolves in sheep's clothing. Stay vigilant.

---

How the law kills self-righteousness

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson





The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Secret Sins," a sermon delivered on Sunday morning, February 8, 1857, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.



ELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS arises partly from pride, but mainly from ignorance of God's law. It is because men know little or nothing concerning the terrible character of the divine law, that they foolishly imagine themselves to be righteous. They are not aware of the deep spirituality, and the stern severity of the law, or they would have other and wiser notions. Once let them know how strictly the law deals with the thoughts, how it brings itself to bear upon every emotion of the inner man, and there is not one creature beneath, God's heaven who would dare to think him, self righteous in God's sight in virtue of his own deeds and thoughts. Only let the law be revealed to a man; let him know how strict the law is, and how infinitely just, and his self-righteousness will shrivel into nothing—it will become a filthy rag in his sight, whereas before he thought it to be a goodly garment.

---

The Gospel in Micah 5:2

by Phil Johnson



ne of the most famous and important Old Testament messianic prophecies is also a Christmas text. It foretold that Christ would be born in Bethlehem: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days" (Micah 5:2).

That promise loomed large in the minds of expectant first-century Jewish leaders—so much so that many of them were prepared to reject Him because they did not know His birthplace and assumed, naturally, that he had been born in the region of his parents' home: "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee" (John 7:52).

But I think the most amazing thing about Micah's prophecy is the way the deity of Christ is expressed in the verse's final phrase. Israel's Messiah would be One "whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."

The clear implication of that expression is that the birth of Christ in Bethlehem was not the beginning of Christ as God's Son and our Sovereign. He is eternal. He "came forth" from Bethlehem, but He did not come from there in the first place. His "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting"—to use the familiar phrasing from the King James Version.

Notice also that the words of this prophecy are spoken directly by God the Father. Some clear threads of Trinitarian doctrine are woven into the fabric of the text. God the Father is speaking, and in speaking about the One who would come forth out of Bethlehem, He says this: "from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel."

Don't miss the importance of those two words "for Me." God the father is sending this eternal Person to be born and to rule and to redeem His people, and to make righteousness reign over all the earth.

The language is of course reminiscent of John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son"—and a host of other similar New Testament expressions. John 10:36: "The Father consecrated [His Son] and sent [Him] into the world." Galatians 4:4: "when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law." First John 4:9-10: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." And just a few verses later, 1 John 4:14: "We have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

That is the gospel, and it's imbedded in our text by implication. Christ—God the Son—came to this earth at the behest of God the Father, on a mission of mercy and redemption. He calls us to repent of our sins and believe in Him—and He does all the work of redemption Himself. It's not up to us to atone for our own sin—we simply lay hold of His grace by faith.

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... how to live?

by Dan Phillips

"Just follow your heart. It will never steer you wrong."

---

A Sign for You

by Frank Turk

the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."

If you don't celebrate Christmas, just go on doing whatever it is you do this time of year and come back after the New Year starts. The rest of us have some serious theological self-improvement to consider.

You know: God spent millennia teaching Israel about himself and His plan for all things, and it's worth debating whether they got any of it or not. And during those millennia, God used all kinds of amazing stuff to spell it out for them -- like parting the sea for dry land for them to walk on, and free bread in the morning every morning until they were ready to enter the Promised Land, and fire burning up the priests to Baal. God's not one to spare the special effects when He has a purpose for them.

But here we are at the moment that the world was made for -- the moment when Christ the Lord would be born -- and angels appear to tell some shepherds that this is happening. And when they appear, they don't say, "This is pretty cool, huh? This is the sign for you, cowboys: a host of angels singing God's praises -- because you saw this sign, you can know that God is in it."

See: the angels were not the sign, were they? They were just the messengers. Seriously: they were just the guys with the telegram for the field hands who smelled like sheep. The sign, they said, was the baby in a feeding trough -- a baby in a manger. It wasn't a sign that ministers like a flame of fire had something to say: it was that there was a baby born in the city of David in a lowly place.

You see: at many times and in many ways, God spoke to the fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.

Think about that, and I'll be back next week to tell you what you should have thought.

---

Book review — The Messianic Hope, by Michael Rydelnik

by Dan Phillips

The Messianic Hope, by Michael Rydelnik

(Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2010; 206 pages)

Messianic... to whom? I always admired the scholarship of F. F. Bruce; so I was hoping his Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free would be the rich culmination of a life of scholarship, full of wisdom and insight. I was very disappointed, on many levels. One that stands out was how Bruce handled the NT use of Messianic OT prophecy. Again and again I read about what the NT church community believed about those passages, what they saw in those passages, what use they made of those passages, and so forth. The implication that came through to me was clear: none of these passages actually, objectively and historically predicted Jesus Christ. The NT church simply adopted, adapted, and employed them to that end.

So what of it? Does the OT actually, specifically, objectively, and in so many words predict the person and work of Jesus Christ? Or do the verses become little Transformers© in the hands of the NT writers, ripped out of context and changed into something totally different?

Enter Michael Rydelnik. The son of Orthodox Jewish parents (more on that shortly), Rydelnik earned a diploma in Jewish Studies from Moody Bible Institute,  a B.A. degree from Azusa Pacific University, a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, a D. Miss. from Trinity International University. He has taught at Moody, Dallas, Criswell, and Talbot. Rydelnik is the author of a number of journal articles and chapters in books, as well as working in the translation of the HCSB and notes in the HCSB Study Bible.

The book's burden. Michael Rydelnik makes the case that the Old Testament not only contains many direct Messianic prophecies, but itself is an eschatological, Messianic book, wholly pointing forward to Jesus the Messiah. In Rydelnik's words,

This book argues that reading the Old Testament according to its compositional strategies and canonical shape will yield a clear messianic intent, with far more direct messianic prediction than is commonly held (33)

...literal prediction and direct fulfillment are common and to be expected in the Old and New Testaments (99)

Here is my point...in the whole book: beginning with Jesus, moving to the apostolic period, and continuing until today, the message of Messiah has been proclaimed by using messianic prophecy. It is a foundational element for identifying Jesus as the true Messiah. ...the views of the modern academy have made their way into evangelical scholarship, leading t0 a minimization or even a denial of messianic prediction. Evangelical scholarship must rethink this trend.... (190)

How does Rydelnik pursue his goal and build his argument?

Shape of contents.  In the first chapter, Rydelnik makes the case as to why messianic prophecy is important.  Jesus Himself asserted that the entire OT pointed forward to Him (Luke 24:440, but too many evangelicals have come either to minimize or even eliminate the presence of directly-predictive Messianic prophecy (as opposed to "promise") in the OT (1ff.). After discussion the use and meaning of "Messiah" and other terms (2-3), Rydelnik begins to document the movement away from messianic interpretation (3ff.). He quotes Longman's (outrageous) assertion that "It is impossible to establish that any passage in its original literary and historical context must or even should be understood as portending a future messianic figure" (4). Passages such as Genesis 3:15, Psalm 110, and Isaiah 9:6-7 are dismissed as not directly predicting Christ by evangelical voices (4-7). Then Rydelnik announces his intent to show that the OT is a messianic document (7-9), and outlines the chapters to come (9-11).

It is not a merely academic issue to Rydelnik. He relates that his parents were Holocaust survivors and Orthodox Jews, until his mother was converted to believe that Jesus was indeed the predicted Messiah (10f.). This led to Rydelnik's father divorcing her, and ultimately to his own study, which led to his conversion. So to Rydelnik, the question of the actual message of the OT is a vital matter, not simply a question of how he'll be treated at academic tea-parties or in academic journals.

In Chapter 2, Rydelnik surveys the history of scholarship's view of OT prophecy, discussing major figures and their varying approaches up to modern times (13-33). Then Rydelnik provides a useful summary of the main positions, using charts for simplification (27-33). The gamut ranges from "Historical Fulfillment" (OT prophecies fulfilled around the time of their issuance) to "Direct Fulfillment," which sees Messianic prophecies as created with Messianic intent and referring directly to Messiah. It is this latter approach that Rydelnik develops and defends.

In Chapter 3, Rydelnik reminds us all that the traditional Masoretic Text (MT) of the Hebrew Bible doesn't have God's initials on it, and argues that anti-Christian Judaism reshaped the text at critical points such as Numbers 24:7, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalm 72:5, Isaiah 9:6 and others. Often citing the work of professor John Sailhamer and others, Rydelnik contends that the MT has been crafted to point to contemporary fulfillment rather than predictive or end-time meanings. This argument is developed in Chapter 4 by means of detailed studies of texts from Genesis 49, Numbers 24, and Deuteronomy 18, showing that the prophecies of Shiloh, the Star and scepter, and the Prophet all point to Jesus. Then Chapter 5 shows how the shape of the canon in part and whole points to Messiah.

Then in Chapters 6 and 7, Rydelnik turns to Jesus' and the apostles' handling of OT prophecy, and asks the question of what their interpretive approach is, and whether or not we can and should try to imitate it today. He argues convincingly that it is the dominical and apostolic position that the OT itself is Messianic; they are not reading Messianic meanings into the OT text — and we both can and should adopt their method of reading the Old Testament. Their approach is complex, but it is neither hopelessly tangled nor subjective nor mystical, and we should read the OT as they did.

Then in Chapter 8 Rydelnik discusses rabbinic interpretation, particularly that of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzkhaki, better known as Rashi (1040-1105). Rydelnik shows that Rashi was concerned to come up with alternative explanations for OT predictions of Jesus, to the extent that he created new views of verses long held as Messianic by Jewish interpreters. It is Rydelnik's contention that, through Roman Catholic students, Rashi's views came to color some Christian interpreters, and they continue to do so today.

Then in chapters 9-11 (pages 129-184), Rydelnik focuses on the Messianic interpretation of passages from the Law (Genesis 3:15), the Prophets (Isaiah 7:14), and the Writings (Psalm 110). In each, he sets forth major interpretive positions, then goes at the text both as to its wording, its book-context, and its Canon-context, arguing powerfully that each text is a direct prophecy of Jesus.

The final chapter relates the tale of Rydelnik himself as a high school student, finding himself thrust forward against a Hebrew Club guest speaker who was winsomely and persuasively arguing against the Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament. At first over-confident, Rydelnik felt he did a miserably poor job against this well-prepared, persuasive speaker — only to learn 32 years later that the Lord had used His Word to cause the conversion of one of then-unsaved Jewish fellow-students, who was there that day. From this, Rydelnik issues a call to return to the proclamation of the OT as a book about Jesus.


Evaluation. This is a terrific book, and I recommend it enthusiastically. I received my review copy as soon as it was published, and dug in immediately. I only wish it had come out a half-year ago, so that I could have highlighted it early enough to inform and buttress Christmas preaching.

I love the tone Rydelnik strikes, on many levels. He announces his serious intent to "disagree without being disagreeable" (xv), then succeeds throughout, forcefully rejecting a number of scholars' positions while never impugning the scholars themselves. Rydelnik's source-material ranges from academic journals and volumes to Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis (which he solidly refutes) to the anecdotal. He does not strive for the scholarly pretense of detachment which I've denounced once and again and again, but writes with keen awareness of the issues at stake.

Rydelnik's argumentation is very solid; a lot of valuable notes are going into my BibleWorks. More often than not, the case he builds is very persuasive, even convincing. However, I'm not certain that I'm persuaded that both Seed and Serpent are wounded fatally (Genesis 3:15; 141), or that two children are in view in Isaiah 7:14-15 and 7:16-17 (157f.). I'll ponder further. But I find his argument that both are directly about Christ to be solid and convincing, as are his expositions of Numbers 24, Deuteronomy 18:15f., and other passages.

As to Rydelnik's emendations of the MT, I am enough of a novice at textual criticism that it makes me nervous to think of rejecting the MT as Rydelnik does at various points, where no major translation as of yet follows. However, mos of the changes he discusses are very minor: a different vowel-point in 2 Samuel 23:1 (39), a change of accentuation in Isaiah 9:6 (v. 5 in Hebrew; 43f.). More study will be necessary. However, given the changes versions such as the TNIV made to the text for sheerly cultural/political reasons, I can't reject out-of-hand the thought that apostate Jewish scribes "adjusted" the text here and there, in the hopes of denying convincing material to faithful Jews who had not departed from Yahweh when Messiah Jesus came.

Having said that, they all are very intriguing. Particularly I was interested in reading Numbers 24:7 as "higher than Gog" (after the LXX) rather than "higher than Agag," given the sense it makes of Ezekiel 38:17, which had long puzzled me (38-39).

Aside: Two personal connections heightened my interest. As I mentioned, Rydelnik leans on the work of John Sailhamer, under whom I had the pleasure of studying Hebrew for a semester. Also, Rydelnik makes use of the works of David L. Cooper (1886-1965), who did a lot of writing on Messianic (and other) prophecy. The first teaching and preaching I did was in the late Dr. Cooper's Biblical Research Society building, then in Los Angeles.

I hope this book has a wide audience, bears fruit, and helps turn the tide back towards affirming the directly-predictive Messianic nature of the Old Testament.

---

A Word in Favor of Mature, Not-So-Restless Reformers

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson





The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Ripe Fruit," a sermon preached on Sunday morning, 14 August 1870, at the Met Tab in London.





he church wants mature Christians very greatly, and especially when there are many fresh converts added to it. New converts furnish impetus to the church, but her backbone and substance must, under God, lie with the mature members.

We want mature Christians in the army of Christ, to play the part of veterans, to inspire the rest with coolness, courage, and steadfastness; for if the whole army is made up of raw recruits the tendency will be for them to waver when the onslaught is fiercer than usual. The old guard, the men who have breathed smoke and eaten fire before, do not waver when the battle rages like a tempest; they can die but they cannot surrender. When they hear the cry of "Forward," they may not rush to the front so nimbly as the younger soldiers, but they drag up the heavy artillery, and their advance once made is secure. They do not reel when the shots fly thick, but still hold their own, for they remember former fights when Jehovah covered their heads.

The church wants in these days of flimsiness and timeserving, more decided, thorough-going, well-instructed, and confirmed believers. We are assailed by all sorts of new doctrines. The old faith is attacked by so-called reformers, who would reform it all away. I expect to hear tidings of some new doctrine once a week.

So often as the moon changes, some prophet or other is moved to propound a new theory, and believe me, he will contend more valiantly for his novelty than ever he did for the gospel. The discoverer thinks himself a modern Luther, and of his doctrine he thinks as much as David of Goliath's sword, "There is none like it."

As Martin Luther said of certain in his day, these inventors of new doctrines stare at their discoveries like a cow at a new gate, as if there were nothing else in all the world but the one thing for them to stare at.

We are all expected to go mad for their fashions, and march to their piping. To whom we give place; no, not for an hour. They may muster a troop of raw recruits, and lead them whither they would, but for confirmed believers they sound their bugles in vain. Children run after every new toy; any little performance in the street, and the boys are all agog, gaping at it; but their fathers have work to do abroad, and their mothers have other matters at home; your drum and whistle will not draw them out.

For the solidity of the church, for her steadfastness in the faith, for her defense against the constantly recurring attacks of heretics and infidels, and for her permanent advance and the seizing of fresh provinces for Christ, we want not only your young, hot blood, which may God always send to us, for it is of immense service, and we cannot do without it, but we need also the cool, steady, well-disciplined, deeply-experienced hearts of men who know by experience the truth of God, and hold fast what they have learned in the school of Christ.

May the Lord our God therefore send us many such; they are wanted.

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... the abiding authority and perspicuity of His teaching (full post)?

by Dan Phillips

"Of course, I don't expect anyone to understand any of this after about 40 years." 

— OR equally —

"Of course, I don't expect anyone to understand any of this for about 2000 years."

Everybody who's heard of Him tries to "deal with" Jesus, and there are only two basic ways to do it:

1. Submit to His Lordship claims; or
2. Don't

The latter category has many varieties, of which this post hits on three.

There are the airy hand-wavers, who like to dismiss Jesus as a child of His time, merely reflecting current beliefs and speaking only to them. Some will throw in the gem that He wrongly expected the apocalypse within a few years, so He taught with no long-term thoughts or expectations.

It may be a lovely theory to some, but it comes to grief on the facts of history. The only Jesus who actually lived expected His words to be around, and to remain binding, for the duration of history. Note: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). We're familiar with this assertion, so perhaps we don't feel how counter-intuitive it is. But which is more permanent — words, which are lost in the wind? Or the heavens, and the earth, which have already stood for thousands of years? We'd pick the latter, but in Jesus' case His words are more abiding.

Not only will those words abide, but their force will transcend history: "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day" (John 12:48). Jesus' words will be present as witnesses on the last day, and will judge those who dismissed them as inconsequential or non-credible. Dismissers will die, then will be raised to judgment, only to find the witness of Jesus' words awaiting them.

Second, there are the wild and wacky cultists. There are the "Mind Science" cults such as Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, and Religious Science, as well as other New Age cults. They approach Jesus' words almost as if they were floating in mid-air, free to be re-attached to any philosophy or worldview at all.

They forget that Jesus spoke from a knowable and understandable spiritual/intellectual framework. He has a context. Jesus was quite emphatic in His embrace of the literal truth of the entire Old Testament as the Word of God, from its earliest narratives (Matthew 19:4-6) to its latest (Matthew 23:35). He saw the entire Old Testament as a revelation of God, pointing forward to and framing Him and His work (Matthew 26:54; Luke 24:25-26, 44-47). The imagery and phrases and even specific words He used were already familiar to any careful student of the Old Testament.

Finally, there are academic Gnostics, who imply that no one can puzzle out Jesus' meaning unless he has immersed himself in highly-academic, highly-specialized studies.

If the great bulk of Jesus' teachings are comprehensible only to academics, then Jesus was a failure as a teacher. He was less the consummate teacher (as He claimed; Matthew 23:8; Luke 6:46), and more of a verbal graffiti artist, penning images lost on all but a tiny fragment of the initiated.

Regular readers know I'm far from denigrating godly scholarship. However, Jesus' words and images were chosen by vast, limitless, shoreless wisdom, crafted to connect with all sorts of people throughout history until the consummation (again, see Matthew 24:35). It seems that children were never far off (Mathew 18:2), and His audiences were made up of a wide variety of folks (Matthew 14:21). Jesus Himself rejoiced that the academics of His day missed what the "children" were able to grasp (Matthew 11:25).

So we go astray if we look for highly coded or highly specialized language. It's a step back to pre-Reformation Roman tyranny, the Bible reserved only for the Specialists and held off from commoners.

The Bible was meant for commoners. Jesus spoke to commoners.

After all, "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4) did not come until Jesus could teach people in a dialect that came to be known as Κοινή.

Which means "common."

I got nothin'

by Frank Turk

Not even a "best of".

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... His teaching? (full post)

by Dan Phillips

"I think ______...."

The truth about men. The wisest, smartest, most educated man who ever lived can never honestly go far beyond "I think" — except insofar as he builds on an authority greater than his own.

Imagine the vast, nearly infinite array of facts and information that exist on any subject; then think of the tiny sliver of a portion of a fragment of that which any of us can directly access. Then factor in human fallibility, and any sense of history (e.g. the absolutely certain "scientific" verities that have had to be thrown out and replaced)... and "I think" is about our highest expectation.

The truth about Jesus. Then comes Jesus, to tell us about God — a literally infinite subject which, even if we had access to all the facts, we could never surround. What do we read as coming from His lips? How does He frame his teaching? With "I think"?

Jesus' first recorded preaching in Matthew and Mark certainly cannot be characterized as an invitation for open discussion, debate, or joint exploration. Rather, it is a call for unconditional surrender:

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17)

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15)

Now, as far as it goes, this echoes John's teaching (Matthew 3:2). But John was a prophet, and a great one (Matthew 11:9). He too could speak with certainty, because he spoke God's word (cf. Exodus 4:12; 7:1). Did Jesus do more?

We see "more," when Matthew presents Jesus' laying out of His platform, known popularly as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). Again and again we read His citation of Law or tradition, countered by "But I say to you" (5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). This takes the prophet's "Thus says Yahweh," and raises it by a vast factor.

So it is unsurprising to read, at the sermon's conclusion,  that "when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes" (7:28-29). And this is characteristic of the whole. Never does Jesus present His teaching about God as the result of speculative reflection, as His best assembly of the facts, as His best stab at a subject that is beyond Him. Never do we sense the least whiff of tentativeness in His doctrine, of uncertainty.

What we have is either the most massive case of unwarranted hubris, ever, or the words of someone with unmatched authority. Where you stand on that divide defines whether or not you are a Christian.

How could Jesus speak with such authority? Because He did not merely hear and tell God's Word — He was God's Word, incarnate (John 1:1, 14), telling truth He knew directly (as only God can know it) of the Father  (John 1:18). He knew God as no mere created being could know Him (John 1:18). So Jesus was simply relaying what He had directly received (John 8:40).

This is why Jesus repeatedly used a phrase found nowhere else: ἀμὴν ἀμὴν, "Amen, amen," "Truly, truly I tell you." (Tobit 8:8 is not a true parallel.) The phrase is found in John's Gospel alone (1:51; 3:3, 4, 11; 5:19, 24-25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20-21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18). It is a very solemn, emphatic insistence that Jesus is telling the absolute, pure, high-grade, industrial strength, unvarnished truth.

How this truth affects us. I see at least three possible effects on two categories of people.

Unbelievers should be awakened and brought to repentance by it. They need to realize that they know nothing whatever with any certainty — except the fact that they can never know anything with any certainty! Their grip on reality is microscopic, evanescent, and baseless. Their greatest teachers are but guessers in a whirlwind; and once they step beyond a small array of facts to claim Certainty, or to expatiate on Meaning, they are 'way out of their depth and self-discredited. They can say nothing authoritative whatever about meaning, value, or significance. Their own premises doom them to walk as blind men in a trackless darkscape.

To them Jesus alone shines as a beacon of light, the Light of the World (John 8:12). His foundation is immovable, His knowledge exhaustive, His authority absolute. He is Lord, and if they are to know anything truly, they must bend the knee and begin knowing on His terms.

Believers should be both emboldened and humbled: emboldened insofar as they echo Jesus' truth, but humbled in the knowledge that their grasp of that truth can only ever be finite.

Christians should never forget that our stance is not and never has been that we are marked off from other men because we are smarter, sharper, wiser, more intelligent. Apart from God's wisdom and grace, we're not an atom better, and may be far worse, than any unbeliever. It is our belief that sheer grace found us dead and blind and obstinate, and sheer grace gave us life and sight and repentance. What we know, we know by divine grant. Our best position is to echo what has been shown us in the Bible, and for that we can take no credit whatever.

And insofar as we are echoing and affirming His word, we should be bold. We aren't standing on our own notions; we're standing on His...if we're doing it right. We aren't preaching ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord. It ill-befits heralds to read their King's words bracketed by "I feel" or "for me." Truth would be truth if I'd never been born, and will still be truth if I die. Jesus is the truth, Jesus speaks truth, and if I affirm His teaching, I am also speaking truth. It should be a trumpet-blast, not a kazoo-toot.

At the same time, we must remain humbled, knowing that while we live, we have more to learn, revise, revisit. Our text will never change, but our grasp of it should grow. Virtually every one of us will attest that what we were saved with is not what we were saved to. Many of us were some kinds of Arminians, but were awakened to the Biblical vision of the sovereign Lord. Many of us were some kinds of Charismatics, but had our eyes opened to the sufficiency of the Word. It would be silly to think that, having learned that one lesson, we can close our notebooks and sit still, awaiting our wings and halos.

Above all, when we get into the pulpit to preach (if that is our gift and responsibility), we should be sure that we speak the Word as purely, clearly, and fittingly as God enables us to do. What possible place is there for lengthy guessing and speculation and meandering, when we have barely begun to scratch the surface of revealed truth?

As this post has barely begun to scratch the surface of the significance of the fact that Jesus never prefaced His teaching about God with "I think."

---