Zwingli and Bullinger on Pictures of Jesus

Two of the Reformed champions of the second commandment and the regulative principle of worship are Huldrych Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger. As a pastor at Zurich, Zwingli was the driving force behind the purging of images that were being abused as objects of worship in the city’s houses of worship. Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor at Zurich, later wrote the Second Helvetic Confession, which contains a clear and strong creedal condemnation of the idolatrous use of images in worship.

These were men of the sixteenth century. In the eighteenth century, Ralph Erskine promoted the view that every possible visible representation of Jesus in His humanity is inherently an idolatrous moral abomination. He regarded a mental image of Jesus in His humanity as a form of atheism and referred to such images as vermin. We should not assume without evidence that this eighteenth century view was shared by sixteenth century champions of the regulative principle such as Zwingli and Bullinger.

Zwingli obviously didn’t share Erskine’s view as evidenced by the following statement in his 1525 work, An Answer to Valentin Compar: “No one is forbidden from having a portrait of the humanity of Christ.” Zwingli allowed such images with two restrictions: they should never be venerated, and they should never be put in any place designated for worship. Zwingli also cautioned that everyone “who now has the image of Christ in his house should take care that he not make it into an idol; for as we have already said, with us no pictures become idols faster than those of Christ.” Notice that Zwingli warned against making such an image into an idol. He did not label all such images as inherently idolatrous or necessarily idolatrous. An Answer to Valentin Compar contains Zwingli’s most extensive treatment of images, the one that he himself referred to as his “complete opinion.” (Garside 1966, 162, 171, 179)

There is further evidence of Zwingli’s view on this question in an edition of Zwingli’s treatise on the Lord’s Supper published in Zurich in 1526. In the center of the title page is a box containing the book’s title and other publication information. To the left of the box is a drawing of Israelites collecting manna in the wilderness, and to the right of the box is a drawing of Jesus feeding the five thousand in another wilderness. Above the box is a drawing of what I take to be some Israelites standing around a Passover table, and below the box is a drawing of Jesus seated at a Passover table with eleven disciples for the Last Supper (Dyrness 2004, 59–60; Zwingli, H. 1526b). The use of these drawings on the title page may have been the decision of the printer independent of the author. Another Zurich printer printed the same work in the same year without using this artwork (Zwingli, H. 1526a). Nevertheless, the title page art found in one Zurich printer’s 1526 edition of the book is consistent with what Zwingli had written earlier about visual representations of Jesus in His humanity. Also, this book was published in Zurich, the city where Zwingli had so much influence. The only departure from the realism of a historical scene in this title page art is the aura around Jesus’ head which symbolically alluded to His deity. Symbolically alluding to Christ’s deity is not the same as trying to depict the deity of Jesus, which is invisible and undepictable.

Zwingli’s balanced moderation is especially commendable in light of the abuses against which Zwingli was reacting. The core of the popular piety in the western church shortly before the Reformation was a devotion to the cult of the saints combined with an insatiable appetite for sensuous forms of worship, especially worship through visual experiences. In the early days of the Reformation, Zwingli commented:

Have we not all thought it a sacred thing to touch these images? Why have we imprinted kisses upon them, why have we bowed the knee, why have we paid a high price merely for a view of them? (Zwingli, H. 1981, 332)

Zwingli was pastor of the Great Minster church in Zurich from 1518 until his death in 1531. When he became the pastor, the church building contained some relics and many visual representations of Jesus, apostles, martyrs, and other departed saints, including Mary, the mother of Jesus. All of these items and even ornamental decorations were removed in the cleansing in 1524. The reason for removing even decorations was that all these items had long been integral parts of a larger system of false worship with a long history. The iconoclastic cleansing of the church buildings in Zurich removed all remnants and reminders of this comprehensive religious system which had defrauded the people for so long. The greater the fraud, the greater the reaction of the victims when they discover it. Therefore even some of the ornamental decorations had to go.

One of the criteria for selecting what to remove in the Zurich cleansing is illustrated by some comments that Zwingli made about one image that was removed and another which was not. The Great Minster building had two images of Charlemagne, the king who long before had ordered the erection of the church building. One image was an altar painting of Charlemagne in a kneeling position, and the other image was a statue of Charlemagne seated on a throne in a niche high up in an exterior tower. Zwingli explained why one was purged and the other was allowed to stay:

We have had two great Charleses: the one in the Great Minster, which was venerated like other idols, and for that reason was taken out; the other, in one of the church towers, which no one venerates, and that one was left standing, and has caused no annoyance at all. (Garside 1966, 150)

The criterion for purging that is here illustrated is functional abuse. The people had venerated the image with religious connotations that was located inside the church, but they had not venerated the image with secular connotations that was located high on the church’s exterior. The one that had been abused as an object of veneration was purged, and the other was allowed to stay. Thus decisions were sometimes made based on people’s attitude toward an object and the way they treated it.

Another illustration of this functional criterion in purging images is Zwingli’s attitude toward images that were in the sanctuary windows. Zwingli expressed tolerance of these because no one tended to worship them there.

Next after these I do not think those images should be disturbed which are put into windows for the sake of decoration, provided they represent nothing base, for no one worships them there. (Zwingli, H. 1981, 337)

Zwingli, an advocate and champion of iconoclasm in the sense of purging images from places of worship, was moderate regarding some non-cultic visual representations of Jesus in His humanity. A good summary of Zwingli’s balanced views on images is found in this statement from his 1523 work, A Brief Christian Introduction:

It is clear that the images and other representations which we have in the houses of worship have caused the risk of idolatry. Therefore they should not be allowed to remain there, nor in your chambers, nor in the market-place, nor anywhere else where one does them honour. Chiefly they are not to be tolerated in the churches, for all that is in them should be worthy of our respect. If anyone desires to put historical representations on the outside of the churches, that may be allowed, so long as they do not incite to their worship. But when one begins to bow before these images and to worship them, then they are not to be tolerated anywhere in the wide world; for that is the beginning of idolatry, nay, is idolatry itself. (Jackson 1901, 208; Zwingli, H. 1984, cf. 2:70–71; Garside 1966, cf. 149–50)

Zwingli was killed in battle in 1531, and he was succeeded as the religious leader of Zurich by his close friend Heinrich Bullinger. One would expect Bullinger to continue the doctrines and practices of Zwingli, the martyred pastor. There is evidence of this in the Zurich church’s policy toward music in public worship. Under Zwingli’s influence, the church at Zurich removed all music from its public worship services. The church at Zurich did not resume singing in public worship until 1598, twenty-three years after Bullinger’s death.

In his book Zwingli and the Arts, Garside argues that Bullinger continued the legacy of Zwingli. As evidence of this, Garside shows the similarity of Bullinger’s language on images in the Second Helvetic Confession to some of the language on images which Zwingli used in his Commentary on True and False Religion and in An Answer to Valentin Compar. Yet Bullinger did have some statements in his confession that some might interpret as contrary to Zwingli’s position on visual representations of Christ in His humanity:

We do therefore reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. For although Christ took upon him man’s nature, yet he did not therefore take it that he might set forth a pattern for carvers and painters. He denied that he came ‘to destroy the law and the prophets’ (Matt. v. 17), but images are forbidden in the law and the prophets (Dent. iv. 15; Isa. xliv. 9). He denied that his bodily presence would profit the Church, but promised that he would by his Spirit be present with us forever (John xvi. 7; 2 Cor. v. 5).
Who would, then, believe that the shadow or picture of his body doth any whit benefit the godly? . . .
But that men might be instructed in religion, and put in mind of heavenly things and of their own salvation, the Lord commanded to preach the Gospel (Mark xvi. 15) — not to paint and instruct the laity by pictures; he also instituted sacraments, but he nowhere appointed images. (Schaff 1977, 3:836–37)

Bullinger, however, does not here directly address the limited and restricted possibilities in which Zwingli allowed for certain visual representations of Jesus in His humanity. Also, there is nothing in the above which indicates that Bullinger would disagree with Zwingli’s position, nor is there reason to believe that Zwingli would disagree with what Bullinger wrote in the above. The purpose of the incarnation certainly was not for the Theanthropos to serve as a model for engravers and painters. Nor can pictures serve as a substitute for the reading, teaching and preaching of the Scriptures. There is nothing in Bullinger’s statements above that condemns as necessarily immoral all possible mental and artistic images based on the graphic descriptions of events involving Jesus that are found in the inspired gospel accounts.

In Common Places, Peter Martyr Vermigli expressed a view of visual representations of Jesus in His humanity that is similar to Zwingli’s view:

Now, as touching those images, which resemble things created, let us see how they may be suffered, or not suffered. And first of all, Christ cometh verie well to remembrance, in that he is man, for in that respect he may be resembled, painted out. For that is not against the nature of the thing, seeing he was verie man, neither against the art of painting, which may imitate bodies. (Martyr 1583, 340 2.5.10)

Peter Martyr Vermigli also read and expressed agreement with the Second Helvetic Confession. I assume that he would have qualified his agreement if he had found any of the confession’s language contradictory to his own position on visual representations of Jesus in His humanity.

Update:

Here are some additional relevant woodcuts:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ad_Theobaldi_Billicani_Et_Vrbani_Rhegii/zk1lAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ulrich+zwingli&printsec=frontcover

https://www.europeana.eu/en/item/532/item_B2FILJU2GF2XUAS6TKIUP4OMZHGI3DHH?lang=en

Item 4 under “Five Highlights from our Collection” at this link is a woodcut allegedly designed with Zwingli’s involvement: https://www.zb.uzh.ch/en/zuerich/reformation

Here is book by Heinrich Bullinger published in Zurich in 1599. A representation of Moses with the two tablet of the law is on the left, and one of Jesus as the Good Shepherd is on the right. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1900-1019-179

Here is another by Bullinger published in Zurich in 1605. There is a nativity scene at the bottom: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1900-1019-178

See also:

Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 109 and Representations of Deity

Peter Martyr and the Second Commandment

The Geneva Bible and Visual Representations of Deity

Charles Hodge and Pictures of Jesus

Archibald Alexander and Mental Images of Jesus

Preaching and Mental Images

The Christological Argument and Images of Jesus

Westminster Larger Catechism 109: A Short Analysis

My Understanding of Images of Jesus

Works Cited

Dyrness, W. A. 2004. Reformation Theology and Visual Culture: The Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garside, C., Jr. 1966. Zwingli and the Arts. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.

Jackson, S. M. 1901. Huldreich Zwingli: The Reformer of German Switzerland 1484–1531. Heroes of the Reformation. New York, NY, and London: The Knickerbocker Press.

Martyr, P. 1583. The Common Places of the Most Famous and Renowmed Divine Doctor Peter Martyr, Divided into Foure Principall Partes: With a Large Addition of Manie Theologicall and Necessariie Discourses, Some Never Extant Before. A. Marten. London: H. Denhad and H. Middleton.

Schaff, P. 1977. The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes in Three Volumes. Vol.  3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Zwingli, H. 1526a. Ein Klare under Richtung vom Nachtmal Christi. Zurich: Cristoffel Froschouer.

———. 1526b. Ein Klare underrichtung vom Nachtmal Christi. Zurich: Hans Hager.

———. 1981. Commentary on True and False Religion. Editor S. M. Jackson and C. N. Heller. Curham, NC: The Labyrinth Press.

———. 1984. Huldrych Zwingli Writings. Vol. 2, In Search of True Religion: Reformation, Pastoral and Eucharistic Writings. H. W. Pipkin. Pittsburgh Theological Monographs. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications.

Westminster Kingdom Theology

I was at a Presbytery meeting listening to the examination of a candidate for ordination. When asked, “What is the kingdom?” the candidate simply answered, “The church.” I was surprised by the brevity of the accepted answer. I wondered at the time if the candidate was implying that there are no senses in which the kingdom is a broader concept than the church. I was later told that the question and answer were based on Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2:

“The visible church … consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ…”

The examination was thorough overall, and I am grateful for those who do this work. I am also grateful that this exchange motivated me to examine this subject more thoroughly.

As a general rule, the current members of the visible church and the citizens of the kingdom now alive are the same people. There is this degree of identity within this limited context. That doesn’t mean that the kingdom and the church are identical in every way and in every context. There are different nuances to being under Christ’s royal reign and being part of the gathered assembly of the saints. There are also contexts in which the kingdom is a broader concept than the church because Christ’s royal authority extends beyond the assembly of the saints.

In its commentary on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” the Westminster Shorter Catechism refers to the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. We are to pray “that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it” and “that the kingdom of glory may be hastened” (WSC 102). The kingdom of grace is here a reference to the visible church in this age, and the kingdom of glory, a reference to the invisible church in the full glory of a new creation after the second advent. The Westminster Confession of Faith mentions a related concept, the keys of the kingdom, which refer to the power to open and close access to gospel benefits and church privileges through administering the Word and through church discipline. This is a power wielded by church officers and not by civil magistrates (WCF 30.2; 23.5).

In their commentaries on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” the Westminster catechisms mention a third kingdom: Satan’s kingdom, or the kingdom of sin and Satan (WSC 102; WLC 191). We are to pray for Satan’s kingdom to be destroyed. Jesus three times referred to Satan as the ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), and the Apostle John said that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). What are we praying to be destroyed, the world as a place or the sway of Satan over the world? I believe the latter, and this implies that the domain of Satan’s kingdom is not a static domain limited to any specific place but a dynamic domain defined by its moral orientation and ultimate allegiance. This understanding is further confirmed in that we are to pray the second petition “acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan…” (WLC 191). This is a reference not to humanity’s created nature but to humanity’s “corrupted nature, conveyed to all [our fallen first parents’] posterity descending from them by ordinary generation” (WCF 6.3). “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified…” (WCF 6.5).

The Westminster Larger Catechsim mentions one other kingdom in its commentary on the second petition, the kingdom of Christ’s power. We are to pray that Christ “would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends” (WLC 191). “These ends” include the destruction of Satan’s kingdom, the fulfillment of certain duties of the civil magistrate and the rule of Christ in Christian hearts. These are objectives that are not totally confined within the boundaries of the church. The effective range is “all the world.” The power in play here includes God’s providential control within history. The Triune God who created the world preserves and governs all His creatures and all their actions (WSC 11). The question is whether God the Son now exercises this providential power as part of the power that was entrusted to Him as the God-Man when He was seated at the right hand of God the Father.

Some answer yes to this question. This means that the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of Christ’s power are all complementary aspects of a unified kingdom under the royal authority of the resurrected, glorified and ascended Christ seated at the right hand of God the Father. This understanding is found in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology:

“Christ has what theologians are accustomed to call his kingdom of power. As Theanthropos and as Mediator, all power in heaven and upon earth has been committed to his hands. … This universal authority is exercised in a providential control, and for the benefit of his Church. … Under the present dispensation, therefore, Christ is the God of providence. It is in and through and by Him that the universe is governed. This dominion or kingdom is to last until its object is accomplished, i.e., until all his enemies, all forms of evil, and even death itself is subdued. Then this kingdom, this mediatorial government of the universe, is to be given up. (1 Cor. xv.24.) (2.600-601; cf. 2.635-638)

The kingdom of Christ’s power is here defined as one of the temporary elements of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom. There are other temporary elements as well. “Christ executeth the office of a king in subduing us to Himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all His and our enemies” (WSC 26). The only element in this list that is not temporary and thus lasts into the kingdom of glory is Christ’s ruling His people as their King.

The positive answer to our question does not limit the power given to Jesus as the exalted God-Man to His power and authority over the church. This is consistent with the statement of the Westminster Larger Catechism that “Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favor with God the Father, with all fulness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth” (WLC 54). In addition, Jesus’ execution of His office as a king includes His “restraining and overcoming all [His people’s] enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel” (WLC 45). The Scriptural evidence also points in this direction. Hebrews 2:8 says, “For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him.” Ephesians 1:22 says, “And He put all things under His feet…” In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” 1 Corinthians 15:27 implies that all has been put under the rule of the exalted God-Man except God Himself:

27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

This understanding is also consistent with the Bible’s teaching that Jesus is not only the Head of the church but also the ruler of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5; cf. 2:27).

This understanding does not require a Lutheran explanation of Jesus’ exaltation. Many are familiar with the Lutheran teaching that the physical body of the exalted Christ experiences some form of omnipresence. Such thinking is not necessary to explain how Jesus administers the kingdom of His power as the exalted God-Man. One can explain the ministries of the exalted God-Man “without conversion, composition, or confusion” of the two natures (WCF 8.2). No one questions that Jesus exercises His priestly ministry as the exalted God-Man. Yet His priestly ministry also has challenges that are beyond finite human capabilities. As our heavenly high priest, Jesus hears untold numbers of prayers every minute of every day. This does not mean that the human mind of the exalted God-Man now possesses some form of omniscience. Similarly the exalted God-Man exercises His kingly ministry without His human nature possessing some form of omnipotence. The Westminster Larger Catechism explains how this is possible without confusing the two natures:

Q.40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person ?

A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.

Returning to our question as to whether God the Son now exercises this providential power as part of the power that was entrusted to Him as the God-Man when He was seated at the right hand of God the Father, some answer in the negative. This means that the kingdom of Christ’s power is not related to Christ’s current heavenly session and thus is in a different category from the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. With this understanding, God the Son exercises His providential power apart from His exalted humanity even as He did before His incarnation and exaltation.

In summary, Westminster kingdom theology includes two antithetical kingdoms, the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. Within the kingdom of Christ are three divisions: the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of Christ’s power. Some hold that all three of these are part of the mediatorial kingdom of the exalted God-Man. Others separate the kingdom of Christ’s power as a providential rule apart from the mediatorial kingdom. In any case, the exercise of the kingdom of Christ’s power “in all the world” implies that the concept of the kingdom is broader than the concept of the church, even though there are also senses in which the kingdom and the church can be identified.

This broader understanding of the kingdom is taught by others as well. In his book, The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology, Geerhardus Vos said this about the kingdom:

Christ is the anointed King, not only over His church, but also He has been given to her as Head over all things. Hence, in the activity of believers, by which His rule is realized, lies also the urgency to work in all spheres of life. For the Reformed believer Christianity, by virtue of its covenantal character, is a restless, recreating principle which never withdraws itself from the world, but seeks to conquer it for Christ.

Louis Berkhof has in his Systematic Theology a section called “The Church and the Kingdom of God.” There he said that “the Roman Catholics insist indiscriminately on the identification of the Kingdom of God and the Church.” He presents the Reformed understanding as a more nuanced identification:

While the Kingdom of God and the invisible Church are in a measure identical, they should nevertheless be carefully distinguished. Citizenship in the one and membership in the other are equally determined by regeneration. It is impossible to be in the Kingdom of God without being in the Church as the mystical body of Jesus Christ. At the same time it is possible to make a distinction between the point of view from which believers are called the Kingdom and that from which they are called the Church. They constitute a Kingdom in their relation to God in Christ as their Ruler, and a Church in their separateness from the world in devotion to God, and in their organic union with one another.

…

The visible Church may certainly be said to belong to the Kingdom, to be a part of the Kingdom, and even to be the most important visible embodiment of the forces of the Kingdom.

…

The Kingdom may be said to be a broader concept than the Church, because it aims at nothing less than the complete control of all the manifestations of life. It represents the dominion of God in every sphere of human endeavor.

Now that I have summarized the Westminster kingdom theology, I want to consider some questions about the kingdom and then to share the answers that I consider most consistent with Westminster kingdom theology. These are questions that those who have kept up with recent theological controversies might expect to be asked. Some others may be surprised that some of these questions even need to be asked.

The first question is, Is reality outside the church a common realm that is unrelated to the kingdom of Christ? No, the moral division in this life is not between the kingdom of Christ and a common realm considered as two static domains with diverse locations. The moral division in this life is between the kingdom of Christ and Satan’s kingdom considered as two dynamic domains that can penetrate any sphere of life. Both these kingdoms are defined by moral orientation and ultimate allegiance. The primary domain of the kingdom of Christ is the church, and that of Satan’s kingdom is the world. Yet in this life, “the purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan” (WCF 25.5). Every social sphere in this life is contaminated to some degree by allegiance to Satan’s kingdom and antagonism to the kingdom of Christ.

A second question is, Is there a common realm that is governed only by natural law and never by Scripture? No, that is too optimistic a view of the moral abilities of fallen humanity and too high an estimation of the clarity and sufficiency of natural revelation. Also, the term “natural law” is never used in the Westminster Standards.

Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (WLC 1, WSC 1). “The word of God … is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him” (WSC 2). Thus the Christian needs to interpret the totality of life in terms of the word of God in order to fulfill his chief end in life. No man can truly pursue “man’s chief end” in any of life using only the direction found in his conscience and the light of nature.

God created humanity “after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it” (WCF 4.2; cf. 9.2; 19.1). Yet this moral ability did not survive the fall. Fallen man “became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body” (WCF 6.2; cf. 9.3). “From this original corruption … we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil…” (WCF 6.4; cf. WLC 25). There remains after the fall not the law itself but the work of the law written on the natural man’s heart. This continuing but limited effect of the law upon the fallen heart informs the natural man’s conscience as evidenced by his at times excusing himself and accusing others (Romans 2:14-15). Thus the natural man’s conscience functions sufficiently to make him responsible for his sins but not sufficiently for him to have an adequate moral framework for life.

As to the “light of nature,” “the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable…” (WCF 1.1; cf. 21.1; WLC 2). Yet the natural man “suppress[es] the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Romans 1:20-21

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The “light of nature” does not provide the natural man with an adequate moral framework for the complexities of life in a fallen world. Yet the natural man can sin by rebelling against the limited moral guidance that is available to him through “the light of nature” (WCF 20.4; cf. WLC 151).

God limits the moral blindness of the natural man enough to make some degree of civilized society possible apart from special revelation. Yet Christians have a great advantage because God has “enlighten[ed] their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God” (WCF 10.1; cf. WSC 31; WLC 67), because the Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures for them and because the Scriptures serve as corrective lenses (Calvin’s “spectacles”) in observing the light of nature. “The supreme judge by which all … doctrines of men … are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (BCO 1.10). The revelation found in Scripture is “most necessary” (WCF 1.1), being the only divinely inspired “rule of life and faith” (WCF 1.2). “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1.6). There is nothing in the Westminster Standards to hint that the Christian should lay aside these valuable insights when engaging with the world outside the church. For the Christian to join with the world in its groping in darkness (Acts 17:27) rather than to share the light that he has would be contrary to the Golden Rule.

There are truths accessible empirically through “the light of nature” that are not specifically revealed in Scripture. These other truths can be rightly perceived and understood only when viewed from the perspective of the truth infallibly revealed in Scripture. Thus our Confession teaches that when ordering “some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies” “by the light of nature, and Christian prudence,” this is to be done “according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (WCF 1.6).

A third question is, Can and should the Christian seek to transform worldly culture into godly culture? I will answer this question in terms of the three prayers that the Westminster Shorter Catechism says that we are to pray regarding the coming of the kingdom:

Q.102. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, which is,”Thy kingdom come,” we pray, that Satan’s kingdom may be destroyed, and that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it, and that the kingdom of glory may be hastened.

The prayer for the advancement of the kingdom of grace will not be fully answered until Jesus returns. Yet the content of this prayer request regarding the church is not limited to its complete fulfillment at the second coming. The content includes advancements between now and the second coming. What we are praying for, we should also be working toward. I would apply these same principles to the other two prayer requests.

The prayer for the destruction of Satan’s kingdom will not be fulfilled completely until the second coming. Yet should we not be praying for partial fulfillments before the second coming? Should we not be working toward what we are praying for? The same is true for the prayer for the hastening of the kingdom of glory. Does not the kingdom of glory involve more than the church? Should we not be praying for partial manifestations of the kingdom of glory before the second coming?

Suppose the board of a community children’s library is taken over by secularists who believe that young children should learn about perverse sexual practices. Would it not be good for a group of Christians to seek to replace this board at the next election? If they succeed, would this not be a partial destroying of Satan’s kingdom and a partial hastening of the kingdom of glory? Would this not be a partial transformation of culture?

A fourth question is, Can anything beyond the individual Christian and the church be properly called Christian? Suppose the previously mentioned group of Christians are all defeated when they run for positions on the board of the local community children’s library. Suppose that they then establish their own children’s library containing only books that are wholesome according to Christian moral standards. Why would it not be legitimate to refer to this library as a Christian library?

The family is a sphere of society outside the church. Marriage is not a church sacrament, and non-Christian marriages can be legitimate. The Westminster Confession of Faith has a whole chapter on marriage. The content of this chapter is not taken from the light of nature but from Scripture, God’s special revelation. Here is a sphere of society other than the church that is defined and regulated by Scripture. If a Christian couple faithfully submit to this Scriptural guidance, why cannot their marriage be called a Christian marriage and their family a Christian family?

A common rebuttal is that there is no such thing as a Christian plumber. A non-Christian plumber may have the same occupational standards as a Christian plumber and may even be more gifted in the craft. That may be true, but let us take a step back and consider not the Christian plumber but Christian plumbing. We take for granted the standards of workmanship that are the result of generations of Christian cultural development. Even the non-Christian plumber in our culture probably adheres to these well established cultural norms as a means of competing for business. Yet as our culture loses its Christian moorings, these standards can deteriorate and eventually vanish. Most of us have never lived in a culture where such standards have never been developed.

As to the Christian plumber, he is a plumber who is doing his work as a calling from God in the service of his neighbor to the glory of God (Colossians 3:23-24). This is the gist of the Protestant teaching on vocation. In the Middle Ages, the idea prevailed that one could serve God only in the church or a monastery. The claim that there is no such thing as a Christian plumber is a return to that kind of thinking.

Even if the secular plumber and the Christian plumber are doing the same work, only the Christian plumber is doing the work as described in WCF 16.2:

These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

A fifth and last question is, Do good works done outside the church have any eternal relevance? Related to this is the question whether at the second coming, God’s first creation will be absolutely destroyed and replaced by a totally new creation. Not a totally changed creation but a totally new creation with no ontological or substantial continuity with the old creation. Thus good works related to cultural development outside the church would have no substantial continuity with the world to come.

The Westminster Confession of Faith has a whole chapter on good works. One necessary quality of good works that are acceptable to God is that they are “done in obedience to God’s commandments” (WCF 16.2). Do God’s commandments relate only to life within the church or to all of life? They relate to all of life. Thus we should not expect that good works have to be done within the realm of the church in order to be real good works in God’s sight.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is very clear that good works do not “merit pardon of sin, or eternal life” (WCF 16.5). The Westminster Confession of Faith also teaches that the Christian’s good works “as they are good, … proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment” (WCF 16.5). Yet Jesus does reward the Christian’s good works:

16.6 Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

There is no hint in the Westminster Standards that only good works done within the context of the church have eternal relevance.

As to the continuity between the old creation and the new creation, the best guide in the Westminster Standards is its teaching on resurrection. Jesus rose from the dead “having the very same body in which he suffered, with the essential properties thereof (but without mortality, and other common infirmities belonging to this life), really united to his soul” (WLC 52). As to the resurrection at the last day, “the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ” (WLC 87). We would expect this same pattern to be followed with the rest of creation. This would mean that the new earth is not an absolutely new earth but the same earth purged of sin and the curse and raised to a new level of glory. The Apostle Paul speaks of a personified creation eagerly awaiting this event (Romans 8:20-22). This substantial continuity between the old and new creation gives us confidence that our labor in the Lord done in the context of the old creation will not be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58). Genuine Christian good works done in this life have an endurance that persists into the next life.

1 Corinthians 3:11-14

11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.

14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.

The Westminster Standards do emphasize the vital importance of the church as the central institution of the kingdom of Christ on earth. Yet there is nothing in the Westminster Standards to hint that the only enduring good works are those done in the context of the church. One can build on the foundation of Christ with biblically sound material in any legitimate sphere of life and through any legitimate vocation.

The Current Cultural Craziness

There are multiple examples of the current woke craziness, but I think that there are three that stand out from the rest. The first is the new legal definition of marriage to include not only the union of a man and a woman but also the union of a man and a man or of a woman and a woman. The second is the recent allowance for certain biological men to access women’s locker rooms and to dominate women’s sports. The third is the recent rejection of many of the virtues of western civilization as systemic forms of white supremacy. Why are such things happening in our culture, and why are they happening now? I think that a key to answering these questions is understanding what James 3:17 calls wisdom from above and the alternate wisdom which is wisdom from below.

In a nutshell, wisdom from above is a wisdom rooted in the fear of God, and wisdom from below is a wisdom rooted in rebellion against God. From the perspective of wisdom from above, wisdom from below is foolish. From the perspective of wisdom from below, wisdom from above is foolish. Everyone today is living a life that is some combination of these two contradictory forms of wisdom.

For those who do not know Jesus, wisdom from below dominates their lives, but not absolutely. Wisdom from below saturates and taints the totality of their experience, but wisdom from below does not dominate them absolutely. A total domination by wisdom from below would be fatal. No one could live a life absolutely dominated by wisdom from below. Wisdom from below leads to deadly lifestyles and actions. God restrains wisdom from below in the lost, and uses wisdom from above to exercise a moderating influence over them. That is the only reason why the lost are able to survive in this world. That is also why no one is as evil as he could be. The worst of people could always be worse than they are.

For those who know Jesus, wisdom from above dominates their lives, but not absolutely, at least not in this life. Their souls will not be made perfect in holiness until the time of their physical death. Wisdom from above saturates and elevates the totality of their experience, but they still have to struggle in this life with a continuing influence of wisdom from below. That is why no one in this life is perfect, and why even the best people may fail us at times.

So all who are now alive, both those who know Jesus and those who don’t, are living a life that is some combination of these two contradictory forms of wisdom. Our culture also, at any particular time in its history, is a manifestation of both wisdom from above and wisdom from below. What differs from time to time is the relative degree of influence that these two forms of wisdom have upon our culture. There have been times in the past when wisdom from above was the predominating influence in our culture. For several generations, there has been in our culture a gradual weakening of wisdom from above and a gradual strengthening of wisdom from below. What we have seen in recent years is a volcanic eruption of wisdom from below with a new consistency and capacity and range of influence. We have seen the flow of this destructive movement wreaking havoc and destruction in its wake. We hope and pray that this destructive force will not come our way, and we hope and pray that this destructive force will weaken before it destroys our culture.

According to the book of Proverbs, the beginning of true wisdom is the fear of God. The fear of God here refers not to abject terror but to a proper respect and regard for God based on a recognition of who God truly is and what God has actually done. Let’s consider who God is and what God has done. What is the original and ultimate reality? Does the original and ultimate reality consist of the dimensions of time and space? No, God created the dimensions of time and space as part of His work of creation. Does the original and ultimate reality consist of abstract qualities that God first possessed from eternity and then we began to possess at our creation? No, abstract qualities such as goodness, truth and beauty are not qualities that God possesses. They are abstractions of realities which God is. God is not merely good; God is goodness. God is not merely true; God is truth. God is not merely beautiful; God is beauty.

The original and ultimate reality is God Himself, and God alone. We know that God created the creation out of nothing, but sometimes we underestimate the radical emptiness of that original nothingness. The ultimate and original reality is not an impersonal background consisting of dimensions and qualities. God is the ultimate and original reality. That means that we live in a world that is thoroughly personal. Not everything created is a person, but everything created is God’s creation and God is a personal being. Creation is not an impersonal world where we are free to define and use things however we might want.

This personal God has no personal needs. He is not lonely. From eternity past, God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit have had a completely satisfying personal communion with each other in the oneness of God’s being. God did not create us because He was lonely and in need of companionship. God created the world and us as a completely free act of His divine will. He was under no necessity to do so, but God freely chose to do so. God created the world not to get more glory because God was already all glorious. God does not derive any glory from the creation but rather uses the creation to manifest His glory, to make His glory known.

God first created the material of this world without any order to it. It was a chaotic arrangement and thus incapable of supporting life. God then brought order to the chaos, transforming the earth into an environment supportive of life. Then God created life to populate the waters, the atmosphere and the dry land. God gave names to His creations in order to give them meaning and definition along with their existence. God pronounced them good in order to affirm their value as His creation. As the apex of His creation, God created humanity, male and female, in His own image. God imaged humanity after Himself but on a creaturely plane. God gave humanity His divine attributes stripped of their infinity, eternality and immutability. God then made humanity His subordinate authorities upon earth. God gave them dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth. God placed them in a garden, a place with an advanced order even more conducive to an abundant life. God commissioned humanity to guard and to cultivate the garden, to universalize the garden over time by subduing the earth and to populate the earth by bearing and rearing children.

Recognizing and accepting this reality is wisdom from above. With wisdom from above, we acknowledge this world as God’s creation, a feat far beyond our finite capabilities. With wisdom from above, we acknowledge God’s ownership of this world and God’s authority over this world. With wisdom from above, we recognize God’s right to define this world and to proclaim its goodness. With wisdom from above, we accept our assignment to subdue the earth under God’s authoritative oversight.

That was the original wisdom, but there soon arose a rival wisdom from below to challenge wisdom from above. This rebellious wisdom from below first criticized the limitations on human freedom which God had established. God had given humanity freedom within prescribed limits symbolized by the one tree whose fruit God had forbidden humanity from eating. The devil through his agent the serpent planted the thought in Eve’s mind that this limitation on human freedom was not fair.

Next wisdom from below questioned the goodness of God’s creation. God had created humanity in His own image but on a creaturely plane. Thus humanity was not like God or in the same category as God in that humanity was not divine. Wisdom from below challenged humanity to seize divinity by acting with divine authority, by defining life for themselves, by determining for themselves what is good and what is evil. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, did this by eating the forbidden fruit. They chose to live in accordance with wisdom from below. They chose to elevate their truth over God’s truth and their way over God’s way.

Their truth and their way were not the way to life. The results of this act of wisdom from below were immediate and drastic. Adam and Eve were alienated from God through guilt. They were alienated from themselves through shame. They were alienated from their physical bodies through the seed of physical death that they had planted within themselves. They were alienated from each other through blame shifting. They were alienated from the rest of creation through the curse that their sin had brought upon the whole of creation. Yet in spite of all these tragic consequences, people still find wisdom from below alluring.

What we are seeing in our culture today is a dangerous public outbreak of this wisdom from below. According to wisdom from below, people find fulfillment by living self-centered lives as opposed to God centered lives. Any activity is therefore right for a person if that person thinks that activity will bring him pleasure and fulfillment. I say any activity, but some activities are still considered shameful. Yet the envelope is being constantly pushed and constantly moved. Once an activity is allowed in the name of personal fulfillment, it must not only be tolerated. It must be extolled as a virtue and promoted in society. Our society has expanded marriage to include the union of a man with a man or the union of a woman with a woman. We do not know what will next be demanded in the name of self-fulfillment. The current limit is arbitrary, and the possibilities for perversion are limitless.

According to wisdom from below, a person can be whatever he wants to be in order to find personal happiness. The current rage is the newly defined distinction between gender identity and biological sexuality. Young girls are choosing to identify as boys, and young boys are choosing to identify as girls. Some are taking hormones and submitting to surgeries that will permanently affect their bodies. Some biological males are identifying as girls and participating in female sports. Regardless of their gender identification, they maintain enough of their male biological traits to dominate women’s sports. In addition, our culture has invented a multitude of gender identities for people to choose from in addition to male and female.

According to wisdom from below, people can transform God’s creation into a paradise by correcting some basic flaws in the world as God made it. The proposed solution is always some simplistic reduction of reality. There are crusades to get rid of private property, crusades to get rid of certain classes of people or certain races of people, crusades to get rid of fossil fuels, and so on and so on. Some people really believe in these efforts. What all of these causes have in common is that they are irrational leaps of faith. There is no objective evidence that these efforts would do anything other than harm if they were successful.

I believe that there are deeper levels of this manifestation of wisdom from below. I believe that one level down are people who don’t care what the cause is. They wouldn’t care if their group one day was for saving the whales and the next day was against saving the whales. They simply believe that their group has the power to change the world, and they don’t care how. They simply want to be in the controlling vanguard when the revolution comes.

I believe that one more level down are people who champion multiple causes without believing in any of the stated issues. These people simply want to use all the conflict from all the causes to destroy society as we know it. These are the ones who never want to fix any problem because fixing problems would delay the coming destruction of society. These instead want to make problems worse in order to hasten the destruction of society. They simply want to be in the controlling vanguard when the destruction of society happens and society has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

If this outbreak of wisdom from below is the reason for the current cultural craziness, then what are we to do? First, we need to be a people of hope based on the saving work of Jesus Christ. We must maintain our faith that Jesus has defeated wisdom from below through His life of perfect obedience, His sacrificial death upon the cross, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven and His being seated at the right hand of God. Regardless of how bad things may look at any time in history, Jesus is already the winner, and He will prevail in history. His kingdom is the only kingdom that will not fall.

Second, when wisdom from below seems to be prevailing, we must not submit to the lies. The world wants us to mouth its lies, but we must refuse to do so. We must continue to confess Jesus in the face of opposition and to keep covenant with God. We must continue to live in terms of God’s definition of reality.

Third, we must pray and wait for God to do His work in His time. We can testify to the truth, but we can’t change people’s minds. We must pray and wait for God to do what only God can do.

Fourth, we need to worship with God’s people on the Lord’s Day. We live among people who accept wisdom from below. Our weekly worship with God’s people will remind us of wisdom from above and strengthen our commitment to it.

Here are your marching orders. Keep your focus on Jesus. Get your strength from Him. Reject the lies. Live the truth. Don’t be shocked that the world that rejected Jesus rejects you as well. Such rejection is what Jesus told us to expect.

The Rapture

This past week I read the newly published book, The Great Disappearance by David Jeremiah. This book is about the rapture of the saints, and it teaches the same understanding of the rapture that is found in the book The Late, Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey, and in the Left Behind prophetic novels by Tim LaHaye. Dr. Jeremiah mentions in his book that both he and Hal Lindsey studied biblical prophecy at Dallas Theological Seminary under professors Drs. Walvoord, Pentecost and Ryrie. I also studied at Dallas Theological Seminary just a few years after Dr. Jeremiah. A difference between me and Dr. Jeremiah is that I came to disagree with what I was taught at Dallas Theological Seminary about the rapture.

The rapture of the saints is a biblical doctrine that is taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. That passage says that when Jesus descends from heaven, those Christians who are then alive together with the resurrected dead in Christ will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. The Greek verb in verse 17 which is translated “we … shall be caught up” is translated in the Latin Vulgate with the Latin verb from which we get the English word “rapture.” The rapture is the catching up of the saints at the return of Jesus in order to meet Him in the air. Those alive at the time will be transformed into a glorified state, just as if they had experienced the resurrection unto life, without their ever having experienced physical death. At that moment, the living saints who have been translated or transformed and the dead saints who have been resurrected will be together raptured or caught up.

The basic message of Dr. Jeremiah’s new book is that the rapture of the saints will occur seven years before the second coming of Jesus to earth. Certain departed saints will be resurrected at the time of the rapture, and others will be resurrected later. This is a relatively new teaching in the history of doctrine. Someone first proposed it in the early nineteenth century, and it didn’t become popular until the twentieth century. It became popular through means such as the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible, Hal Lindsey’s book The Late, Great Planet Earth and Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind prophetic novels.

The historic teaching of the church is that the rapture will occur not seven years before the second coming but at the time of the second coming. This is the teaching found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was written in the seventeenth century. Here is what we read in Chapter Thirty-Two:

At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up … The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to his own glorious body.

This teaches that all the dead, both the just and the unjust, both New Testament saints and Old Testament saints, will be resurrected at the time of the rapture. See also Question 87 in the Westminster Larger Catechism.

You may wonder what difference it makes which is true, the modern teaching or the historic teaching. Every scriptural truth is important, and we should try to get them all correct so that we may be workers who need not be ashamed. Yet admittedly some doctrines are more important than other doctrines. Is there any great harm in getting wrong the relationship of the rapture to the second coming? Let me tell you about an experience that I had while attending seminary, and then you can decide for yourself if any harm was done.

When I was in seminary, I taught a high school Sunday school class. One Sunday, a teenage boy and his girlfriend visited the class. After the class, the young man stayed behind to talk with me, and he shared with me his philosophy of life. He knew that the rapture of the saints would occur really soon. He was living a life of sin, and he planned on continuing to live a life of sin until sometime after the rapture. He would be left behind, and that would give him a few more years for sinful living. His plan was to become a Christian shortly before the seven years were up so that he could avoid eternal punishment. He thought that he had figured out a way to get what he considered the best of both worlds. For some reason, he wanted me to know about it.

There wasn’t much that I could say in response because at that time I agreed with his understanding of the rapture. All I could think of to say was that his plan was risky because he might die at any moment. His response was that that was a risk that he was willing to take. He was convinced that the rapture was going to happen really soon, and he didn’t expect to die anytime soon. He was a young man, and the odds were on his side in that regard. At that point, I didn’t know anything more that I could say.

I sometimes wonder whatever became of that young man. Our conversation was over forty-five years ago. At that time, he believed the preachers who were then saying that the rapture was coming really soon. When those preachers proved to be so very wrong on the timing of the rapture, did this young man dismiss everything else that they had said as well? Did he continue sowing his wild oats without worrying any longer about a future in hell? If the preachers had been so very wrong about the timing of the rapture, then they could be wrong about the reality of hell as well.

If I had known then what I know now, I would have responded to this young man differently. I would have told him that he had been misled about the coming rapture. When the rapture of the saints happens, the day of gospel opportunity will be over. Those who are left behind won’t have a continuing opportunity for conversion. The day of the rapture will also be their judgment day. There won’t be a seven year delay during which they can come to Jesus for deliverance from eternal punishment.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is the classic Scripture on the subject of the rapture of the saints. The Christians at Thessalonica were concerned about the Christians who had already died and thus would not be alive when Jesus returned. They wanted to know if these Christians who died before Jesus returned were at any real disadvantage. In response to that concern, the Apostle Paul assured the Thessalonicans that the dead in Christ were with Jesus in heaven and that their disembodied spirits would accompany Jesus at His bodily return to earth. When Jesus returns, what will happen first is that the bodies of those who are dead in the Lord will be reunited with their souls and raised to life. As our passage says, the dead in Christ will rise first. Only then, after that resurrection, will the saints be caught up to meet Jesus in the air. The resurrected saints and the living saints will be raptured or caught up together. The saints who are alive when Jesus returns won’t have any advantage over the saints who are dead when Jesus returns. There was no reason to worry that those who die in the Lord will be at any disadvantage when Jesus returns to earth.

Where I disagree with Dr. Jeremiah is on the relationship of this passage to the second coming. According to Dr. Jeremiah, this passage is not talking about the second coming. In the second coming, Jesus will return all the way to earth in His glorified resurrection body. Dr. Jeremiah interprets the rapture as an event at which Jesus does not come all the way to the ground, all the way to the earth’s solid surface, all the way to terra firma. Dr. Jeremiah says that what is here being described is not Jesus’ second coming to earth but Jesus’ rescue mission in the sky. Jesus is descending only as far down into the atmosphere as He needs to go in order to meet the raptured saints as they ascend up into the atmosphere. After Jesus and the raptured saints meet in the sky, Jesus will reverse course and take the raptured saints with Him back to heaven from whence Jesus came. According to Dr. Jeremiah, the purpose of the rapture is to rescue the saints from the earth so that they can escape a coming seven years of tribulation on earth. The second coming, according to Dr. Jeremiah, will not be until seven years later when Jesus will descend all the way to earth and end the time of tribulation.

I have shared my understanding of the rapture’s relationship to the second coming, and I have shared Dr. Jeremiah’s understanding as well. Next I want to share some of the reasons for my understanding. One is my study of the Greek word translated “meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 where it says that we will meet Jesus in the air. Dr. Jeremiah does not discuss his understanding of this Greek word, even though the Kindle version of his book is over two hundred fifty pages long.

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the Greek word here translated “meet” “is to be understood as a technical term for a civic custom of antiquity whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors” (I.380). According to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, the Greek word here translated “meet” was “the ancient expression for the civic welcome of an important visitor or the triumphal entry of a new ruler into the capital city and thus to his reign” (I.325). In other words, when a king of antiquity approached his capital city to begin his reign from that location, citizens of the city went out to meet him in order to escort him into the city. It was the ancient equivalent of rolling out the red carpet. I believe that this meaning of the word best fits the context of 1 Thessalonians four. The raptured saints will rush forth to meet Jesus at His return as earth’s conquering king. Then the raptured saints will reverse course and accompany Jesus down to earth.

This Greek word is found two other places in the New Testament, and both of these usages are consistent with this understanding of the Greek word. It occurs in Matthew chapter twenty-five in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins:

6 “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!’
7 “Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.
…
10 “… the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.

Matthew 25

Did the five wise virgins go out to meet the bridegroom on his way to the wedding festivities in order to escort him on the final leg of his journey? Or did the five wise virgins go out to meet the bridegroom so that the bridegroom could reverse course and take the virgins away from the place of the wedding festivities back to the place from whence he had come? The answer is obvious. The virgins met the bridegroom to escort him on the remainder of his trip to the place of the wedding festivities. The bridegroom didn’t meet the virgins on his way to the wedding festivities and then reverse course. The virgins are the ones who reversed course after meeting the bridegroom. This usage of the Greek word translated “meet” is consistent with Jesus descending to earth after meeting the raptured saints in 1 Thessalonians chapter four.

This Greek word also occurs in Acts chapter twenty-eight in the account of the Apostle Paul’s journey to Rome:

15 And from there, when the brethren heard about us, they came to meet us as far as Appii Forum and Three Inns. When Paul saw them, he thanked God and took courage.
16 Now when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard; but Paul was permitted to dwell by himself with the soldier who guarded him.

Acts 28:15-16

When the brethren from Rome heard that the Apostle Paul was coming to Rome, did they come to meet him so that they could travel with the Apostle Paul on the remainder of his journey to Rome? Or did they meet the Apostle Paul so that the Apostle Paul could reverse course and take them away from the city of Rome? The answer is obvious. Soldiers were taking the Apostle Paul to Rome to stand trial. He couldn’t have reversed course in his journey if he had wanted to. The brethren who came from Rome are the ones who reversed course after meeting the Apostle Paul. This usage of the Greek word translated “meet” is consistent with Jesus descending to earth after meeting the raptured saints in 1 Thessalonians chapter four.

There is a second Greek word translated “meet” that is closely related in both form and sense to the one already mentioned. This second Greek word is used to refer to the same ancient civic custom as is the first Greek word (TDNT, I. 380). These two Greek words have the same word base with a different prefix. Their only difference is that they each begin with a different Greek vowel. Eight out of nine letters are the same in both words.

These two related Greek words are used interchangeably in Matthew chapter twenty-five in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. In verse six, the same Greek word that is translated “meet” in 1 Thessalonians chapter four is used. In verse one, that same Greek word is used in most manuscripts (the majority text), but the other similar Greek word is used in some other manuscripts (the critical text). Both verses refer to the virgins’ meeting the bridegroom. We can see from this interchangeable use how close in meaning these two Greek words are.

This second similar Greek word translated “meet” is used in John 12:12-13 to refer to those in Jerusalem who poured out of the city with palm branches to meet Jesus at His Triumphal Entry into the city:

12 The next day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: “Hosanna! ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ The King of Israel!”

John 12:12-13

This Triumphal Entry meeting does appear to be a significant parallel to the rapture meeting of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. In both events, people rush forward to meet Jesus as the Messianic King in order to accompany Him on the remainder of a journey. As Jesus and those accompanying Him neared Jerusalem, pilgrims there for the Passover came out to meet Him and to accompany Him for the remainder of His trip. Notice that there is no hint of any reversal in the direction of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem.

At the second coming, the spirits of the righteous dead will accompany Jesus on His journey from heaven. As Jesus approaches earth, these spirits will unite with their raised and glorified bodies. Then the resurrected dead saints together with the translated living saints will go to meet Jesus in order to accompany Him for the remainder of His journey to earth. When Jesus and the saints arrive on earth, Jesus will judge the living who were left behind and the resurrected lost.

The use of one of these two similar Greek words translated “meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 indicates that the resurrected saints will meet the Lord in the air in order to honor Him with an escort for the remainder of His descent to earth. Thus, the saints will meet Christ in the air at His second coming to give Him the “red carpet treatment” when He comes to earth to renew it and to rule over it for eternity. According to this explanation of 1 Thessalonians chapter four, the rapture and the second coming are two aspects of the same event, and not two separate events which occur seven years apart. Jesus will descend down from heaven and meet the raptured saints in the air. The saints will then join Jesus as Jesus continues on His original course down to earth. Upon reaching earth, Jesus will then transform the earth and rule it with the saints for eternity.

A second problem with Dr. Jeremiah’s understanding is what the Bible says about how God protects His saints from divine judgmental wrath in the book of Revelation. In Revelation chapter seven, the saints are sealed with the seal of the living God. In Revelation chapter nine, the locusts from the abyss with the power of scorpions are commanded to harm only those people who do not have the seal of God on their forehead. Dr. Jeremiah says that God has to remove the saints from the earth in order to protect them from the divine wrath which God pours out upon the earth in the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation says that God protects His saints while they are living on earth by sealing them with His protective seal. In the book of Revelation, the saints are persecuted by the world unto martyrdom, but they are protected from the wrath of God by God’s seal. The fact that God has not appointed His people for divine wrath does not mean that God must rapture them seven years before the second coming. God can protect His people from divine wrath without taking them out of the world.

A third problem is that the Bible teaches in clearly worded language that the resurrections at the end of the age will be a general resurrection in which all of the dead, the just and the unjust, will be resurrected. If all the dead are resurrected in a general resurrection, then the rapture and the second coming must be aspects of the same event because they both involve resurrections. Here are the two clearest passages on this subject:

28 “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 “and come forth — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.”

John 5:28-29

15 “… there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.”

Acts 24:15

These verses clearly refer to a resurrection that everyone will experience at the same time. These verses clearly contradict the notion that some will be resurrected at one time, and others will be resurrected at another time years later. According to the modern view, only New Testament departed saints will be resurrected at the rapture. The Old Testament saints and the departed lost and those whom they call the tribulation saints will all be resurrected later. These multiple resurrections years apart contradict the clear teaching that there will be a general resurrection.

A fourth problem is the need for a verse that actually teaches that the rapture will occur seven years before the second coming. I do not believe that there is such a verse. Dr. Jeremiah in his book shares what he thinks is the most significant verse in this regard. Here is his proof text:

10 “Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.”

Revelation 3:10

This verse is part of the letter that Jesus dictated to the church at Philadelphia in Asia Minor almost two thousand years ago. Early in the book of Revelation, Jesus dictated letters to seven churches that then existed in Asia Minor. Dr. Jeremiah says that this promise that Jesus gave to this particular church almost two thousand years ago is a reference to the rapture of the saints that is still today sometime in the future. The argument is that the protection promised here must be the rapture and that the hour of trial mentioned here must be a period of tribulation shortly before the second coming. The argument is that this hour of trial is said to come upon the whole world, and that such a universal time of testing has never occurred in the history of the world. So this verse must be talking about an hour of trial that is still in the future.

Does this argument seem a little strange to you? It does to me. According to Dr. Jeremiah, the purpose of the rapture is to rescue living saints from earth before a certain time of tribulation. Yet the saints who are specifically promised this rescue are a small group of saints who died centuries ago, and this particular hour of trial is still in the future. How does the rapture rescue the dead from future trials that only the living can experience?

In contrast, let’s consider the possibility that Jesus’ promise referred to the original situation of the church at Philadelphia in Asia Minor. Such an understanding would certainly have been much more meaningful to those Christians at that time. In A.D. 64, the Roman Emperor Nero blamed the great fire of Rome on Christians. He was the first Roman Emperor to persecute Christians as Christians. The Apostle John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. In regard to those churches to which the book of Revelation was originally sent, the Apostle John referred to himself as their brother and companion in tribulation. The Apostle Peter was crucified upside down, and the Apostle Paul was beheaded. Christians throughout the Roman Empire became potential subjects of persecution by the Roman government.

The statement to the church at Philadelphia spoke about an hour of trial that was coming upon the whole world. The Greek word here translated “world” is the same Greek word used in Luke 2:1 about a decree from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered. This Greek word can refer to the world of the Roman Empire, and that would make this word’s use here relevant to the first century context.

Jesus told the church at Smyrna that some of them would be thrown into prison and exhorted them to be faithful unto death. Jesus mentioned Antipas, the faithful martyr from the church at Pergamos who had already been killed.

In Revelation 3:10, Jesus promised that He would keep the church in Philadelphia from (tereso ek) the hour of trial that was then coming upon the world. We do not know specifically how Jesus fulfilled this promise, but He didn’t have to do so by taking the church at Philadelphia out of the world. In John 17:15, Jesus prayed regarding His disciples not that the Father would take them out of the world but that the Father would keep them from (tereseis … ek) the evil one. God can keep or protect the saints from something in the world without taking them out of the world.

When you take all these facts into consideration, the promise given to the church at Philadelphia makes much more sense in its original context than in a context that is still in the future. Yet Revelation 3:10 is the best that Dr. Jeremiah can offer as a proof text that the rapture will occur seven years before the second coming.

A fifth problem is that this division between the rapture and the second coming is so artificial that people who believe in it have trouble agreeing about what refers to which. Matthew 24:37 makes a comparison with the days of Noah. Dr. Jeremiah identifies this passage with the rapture (TGD, pp. 27, 181), and Dr. Pentecost identifies it with the second coming (Things to Come, p. 280). Luke 17:28-30 makes a comparison with the deliverance of Lot from wicked Sodom. Dr. Jeremiah identifies this passage with the rapture (TGD, p. 182), and Dr. Pentecost identifies it with the second coming (TTC, p. 157). Matthew 24:41 talks about two women, one of them taken and the other left. Dr. Jeremiah identifies this passage with the rapture (TGD, pp. 31, 206) and Dr. Pentecost identifies it with the second coming (TTC, p. 162). There are three Greek words used for the second advent. They can be translated the coming, the revealing and the appearing. According to the modern view, all three terms can describe either the rapture or the second coming. That certainly seems confusing. None of this is a problem if one merely accepts that the rapture and the second coming are aspects of the same event. That has been the historic faith of the church.

You don’t have to agree with me on the timing of the rapture to be a Christian. Yet I think that you should be aware of the old time religion when a modern view is being repeatedly promoted on television advertisements.

Regardless of what we believe about the timing of the rapture, we need to have a balanced attitude toward the second coming of Christ. We need to live each moment knowing that we will one day have to give an account to Jesus for how we used that moment of time. We should desire the day when Jesus returns because our salvation will not be complete until that day. Even in heaven, our salvation will be incomplete because our dead bodies will not yet have been resurrected. At the same time, we should live our lives with long term goals for advancing the kingdom of God. If we really believe that Jesus is coming really soon, then long term goals don’t make much sense. A friend of mine from college followed me to seminary. He stopped going to class and began spending all his time street witnessing. He eventually dropped out of seminary altogether. In contrast, I finished my seminary education. Looking back after about forty-five years, I am at peace with the decision that I made. With the advantage of hindsight, I believe that mine was a more balanced approach. We should have our long term goals. At the same time, we should say with all our heart, “Come quickly, Lord Jesus!”

[The page numbers are from the Kindle version of The Great Disappearance and the 1973 printing of the hardcover edition of Things to Come.]

Four Perspectives on the Current Middle East Crisis

On October 7, 2023, terrorists from the Palestinian organization Hamas in Gaza invaded the nation Israel and killed more than thirteen hundred Israelis, mostly civilians. The terrorists also engaged in rapes, mutilations and kidnappings. In response, the nation of Israel declared war against Hamas. In America, the reaction to these events has been quite diverse. On one extreme have been those who openly side with Hamas. On the other extreme have been those who promote unconditional support for the nation Israel as a religious obligation. In the middle are two other views which have had less exposure. I believe that a brief explanation of these four perspectives would bring needed clarity to this issue.

Let’s begin with those who openly side with Hamas. This group would include those who are themselves radical Islamists, but the group is broader than that. The larger group also includes many who are committed to wokeism or cultural Marxism.

Classical Marxism believes in a dialectical struggle between workers and the capitalist owners of the means of production. According to Karl Marx, this struggle between these two antithetical economic classes should naturally develop into the synthesis of a communist society. This prediction failed to materialize because the wealth gap between workers and owners of the means of production decreased over time in capitalist countries rather than increased. Workers who share in a growing material prosperity are not inclined toward Marxist revolution.

Some Marxists reacted to this failure by looking for potential areas of dialectical struggle other than economic class. The result was critical theory, which categorizes people as members of identity groups and labels these groups as either the oppressed or oppressors. Critical theory largely negates the concept of individual responsibility by emphasizing the guilt or innocence of the identity group. If one is a member of an oppressed identity group, then whatever he does is justified as a form of resistance to oppression. If one is a member of an oppressor identity group, then whatever he does is condemned as an effort to maintain the power to oppress. The most that a member of an oppressor identity group can do to redeem himself is to become an ally of the appropriate oppressed identity group. This involves confessing his own guilt due to a group identity that he cannot change, condemning his own identity group and championing the cause of the oppressed identity group. Critical theory has identified as oppressed identity groups people of color, indigenous people, the LGBTQ community, the handicapped, the obese and others. Many advocates of critical theory have decided to categorize Hamas as an oppressed identity group and Jews as an oppressor identity group. This means that even if Hamas engages in murder, mutilations, rape and kidnappings, these are accepted as justified means of resistance to oppression. This means that even if the nation Israel engages in self-defense through a traditional just war, this is condemned as a means to maintain its power to oppress. Hopefully the inclusion of a terrorist group such as Hamas in the big tent of cultural Marxism will accelerate the growing backlash against wokeism and cultural Marxism.

The above perspective is probably the one with the most public exposure through news reporting. A second perspective has received a lot of public exposure through advertising. This second perspective unconditionally supports the nation Israel as a religious obligation. This perspective is a relatively recent variation of the prosperity gospel.

In general, the prosperity gospel teaches that anyone can through faith obtain health and wealth. There is some truth in this message in that God does at times reward obedience in this life, not because God has any obligation to do so but because God freely chooses to do so. God rewards a Christian’s obedience in this life only as far as it serves for God’s glory and the Christian’s good (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 66). As demonstrated in the book of Job, God sometimes has reasons for allowing the faithful to suffer. The prosperity gospel contradicts this biblical balance through a one sided emphasis on divine blessings in this life.

In the past, preachers of the prosperity gospel challenged people to exercise faith by sending money in support of their ministry. This was presented as fulfilling a vow or sowing a seed that would ensure divine blessings. In recent years, some prosperity proponents have adjusted their message by presenting faith as sending money in support of their ministry to the nation Israel or needy Jews. One favorite proof text has been God’s promise to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you …” (Genesis 12:3a). This is presented as a divine promise that any individual or nation that blesses the nation Israel or a needy Jewish individual will receive divine blessings. Another favored proof text has been “‘Comfort, yes, comfort My people!’ says your God” (Isaiah 40:1). This is presented as a command from God for people to help the nation Israel or needy Jewish individuals. There has developed in recent years an international coalition of groups with this perspective. They are now the strongest Christian advocates for unconditional support for the nation Israel and for needy individual Jews. They tend to prioritize support for Israel over evangelistic missions to Israel.

The third perspective is that of the dispensationalists. These were once the Christian group considered to be most supportive of the modern nation Israel, but they have been surpassed by the prosperity Zionists. The dispensationalists are different from the prosperity Zionists in a number of ways. The most obvious is that the prosperity gospel is not a necessary element of dispensational doctrine. The dispensationalists are more interested in the nation Israel as a confirmation of their distinctive understanding of prophecy and as a reason to hope that the rapture is near.

The dispensationalists believe in evangelistic missions to the Jewish people, and this can complicate their relationship with the nation Israel. The dispensationalists believe that Jews in this age should accept Jesus and become a part of the Christian church. They also believe that Jews should believe in Jesus after the rapture. In classical dispensational theology, Jews who believe in Jesus after the rapture will not be part of the Body and Bride of Christ, the Church.

The careful and consistent classical dispensationalist does not regard the nation Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy. Classical dispensationalism teaches that no Old Testament prophecy can be fulfilled in the parenthetical church age. The most that a consistent classical dispensationalist can hope for is that current events will prove to be the setting of the stage for the fulfillment of prophecies after the rapture. They view the church age as an unexpected parenthesis in God’s program for Israel. In their prophetic scenario, the parenthesis will end when all Christians are removed from earth through the rapture, and then God’s Jewish program can resume. The careful and consistent classical dispensationalist is open to the possibility that the current nation Israel will not survive and that another future Jewish nation in Palestine will one day be raised up to fulfill prophecy after the rapture.

Many classical dispensationalists also believe that after the rapture and before the second coming, the majority of Jews will be slaughtered and the surviving Jews will be converted. Some prosperity Zionists have rejected dispensationalism’s futuristic interpretations of prophecy that offend many Jews.

The fourth perspective is the more traditional Protestant theology that I agree with. There is no religious obligation to support the modern nation Israel because Jews are today God’s chosen people or to prioritize charity to needy Jews because they are today God’s chosen people. There are, however, basic moral issues relevant to the current crisis. Murder, rape and kidnapping are always wrong. All nations have a right to wage warfare consistent with the principles of a just war in self-defense. Efforts to help the truly needy without enabling sin or fostering dependence are commendable. There are in addition many relevant secondary military and political questions about which individual Christians may disagree and for which the organized church is not the proper venue of discussion.

The text from Isaiah chapter forty is a command to comfort God’s people in the Babylonian exile with the news that their time of divine chastisement has been completed and they will be allowed to return to Judea and Jerusalem. In the New Testament, verses in Isaiah chapter forty are applied to John the Baptist’s announcement of the greater divine deliverance through the advent of Jesus and His saving work. There is nothing in Isaiah chapter forty to imply that Christians have a special religious obligation toward the modern nation Israel or toward everyone who identifies as a Jew.

The statement in Genesis chapter twelve referred only to Abraham as an individual, but the concept also applied later to the nation Israel (Numbers 24:9). I would agree that the promise still applies today, but not to everyone who claims to be a physical descendant of Abraham nor to adherents of rabbinical Judaism. John the Baptist said to certain Pharisees and Sadducees,

7 … “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,

9 “and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

Matthew 3:7-9

Jesus said to certain Jews,

37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.”

44 “You are of your father the devil …’

John 8:37, 44a

The Apostle Paul said,

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Romans 2:28-29

The true members of Israel in a spiritual sense today are the Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ. These are the ones to whom Genesis 12:3 now applies. As the Apostle Paul said,

29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:29

3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh …

Philippians 3:3

Both the prosperity Zionists and the dispensationalists reject this interpretation of the Apostle Paul’s statements as what they call replacement theology. This critical term is a caricature that implies that the Christian church replaces Israel analogous to one individual’s being fired and another individual’s being hired to take his place. The proper analogy would be a single individual who transitions from childhood to adulthood. There is development within an essential continuity as opposed to the replacement of one individual with another. A helpful analogy is the one that the Apostle Paul used in Romans chapter eleven. Israel is an olive tree, and the Jews were natural branches on that olive tree. The natural branches that did not bear the fruit of faith in Jesus as the Messiah were pruned off the olive tree of Israel. Branches from the wild Gentile olive tree who accepted Jesus were grafted into the olive tree of Israel. The olive tree of Israel before the coming of the Messiah was Old Testament Israel. The olive tree as it developed after the coming of the Messiah is the New Testament Church. This is one olive tree in two stages of development and not two separate olive trees. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of one covenant that was differently administered before and after the coming of Christ (chapter 7, paragraphs 5 and 6). “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (WCF, 7.6).

There are understandings of the land promise made to Abraham that do not involve the current nation Israel. The land promise made to Abraham will be fulfilled in its final and perfect form when all the true seed of Abraham are gathered on the new earth for eternity. The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that Christians should pray for the day when the gospel is propagated throughout the world and the Jews are called (WLC Q. 191). Some believe that the Jews will one day be converted as a people. Some who believe this also believe that the converted Jews will one day be restored as a people to their Old Testament homeland. Some believe that the land promise has been universalized in this age and is being fulfilled through Jesus’ discipling the nations that He has received as an inheritance (Matthew 28:18-20; Psalm 2:8). As it says in Psalm 72:8 and similarly in Zechariah 9:10, “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.” The promise to Abraham and His Seed ultimately has reference to the entire world (Romans 4:13).

There may be other perspectives in addition to the four summarized here. Yet I think that an understanding of these particular perspectives will help clarify the division over the current crisis in the Middle East. Christians who oppose Marxist ideology and who agree on the root essentials of the faith should maintain their Christian fellowship even if they have different approaches to this particular question.

The Four Names of Jesus

During the traditional twelve days of Christmas, let us remember the four names of Jesus found in an inspired prophecy of Isaiah. The prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 begins with the Christmas message: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder.” It is a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah as a coming great ruler. The passage then proceeds to list four names of the prophesied new born infant. Yes, in the King James Version and in Handel’s Messiah, there are five names, but I think it is best to translate the passage with four names: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Four names are a possibility because the commas in the English translation are not in the original Hebrew. There is also a more harmonious balance with four names each consisting of two words. In addition, the reading with four names better fits my understanding of the passage.

It occurred to me long ago that the background for the names in this prophecy is probably the history of David and Solomon, the father and son who were kings at the height of the glory of old testament Israel. The Messianic name “the Everlasting Father” is a bit puzzling when one is thinking in terms of the personal names of the three members of the Godhead: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The infant wrapped in swaddling cloth was the incarnation of God the Son, not the incarnation of God the Father. Yet the name “the Everlasting Father” is completely understandable when combined with the name “the Prince of Peace” and considered in another context. That other context is Jesus as both the new David and the new Solomon of the new covenant. David and Solomon were related to each other as father and prince, and both find their fulfillment as biblical types in Jesus.

The consecutive reigns of David and Solomon are prophetic pictures of the spiritual victory and reign of Jesus Christ. David was the warrior king who defeated the enemies of God’s people. When David’s wars were over, the land enjoyed rest and was at peace. David’s son Solomon reigned during this time of peace and built God’s temple in Jerusalem.

All of these events in the lives of David and Solomon are biblical types pointing to Jesus as their antitype. Jesus fulfills the spirit of David as the warrior king in His overcoming sin, Satan and the world. Jesus fulfills the spirit of Solomon in His reigning after the defeat of His enemies and in His building His church as a new covenant temple.

Again, these four names are all in some way linked either to David or to Solomon. In addition, three of these names have something in them which points beyond David and Solomon, even something which points to the divine. Solomon had the wisdom of a counselor, but Jesus is the Wonderful Counselor. David was Solomon’s father, but Jesus is the Everlasting Father. David was a mighty warrior, but Jesus is the Mighty God.

With these thoughts as background, let’s now look at these four names one at a time. The first name is Wonderful Counselor. The Hebrew word translated “Wonderful” is really a noun. A more literal translation would be “the Wonder Counselor.” This implies that Jesus is a Wonderful Counselor in that not only His counsel but even His very person and being is a wonder. The supernatural conception of the God-Man in the womb of the virgin Mary certainly was a divine wonder beyond human ability. The whole Hebrew word family related to the word translated “Wonderful” in our text is mainly used to refer to the mighty acts of God that are beyond human ability. This word family is used in Genesis 18:14 in the question, “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” In Exodus 3:20, God said to Moses, “So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in its midst; and after that [the Pharaoh] will let you go.” After God drowned the Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea, Moses sang to the Lord in Exodus 15:11, “Who is like You, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” Later in redemptive history, an adjective in this word family was used to describe the name of the Angel of the Lord. This occurred when the Angel of the Lord told Samson’s parents about the coming birth of their special son (Judges 13:18-23). Samson’s father asked the Angel of the Lord what His name was. The Angel of the Lord replied, “Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?” Then the Angel of the Lord did a wondrous thing that demonstrated His deity. Samson’s father offered a sacrifice to the Lord. As the flame of the sacrifice ascended, the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. In response, Samson’s father said to his wife, “We have seen God.” Again, this Hebrew word family refers to mighty acts of God that are beyond human ability.

The use of the word “Wonderful” in our text certainly points to the full deity of Jesus. The use of the word “Counselor” points to Jesus as the Solomon of the new covenant. Early in Solomon’s reign, the Lord appeared to him in a vision and said, “Ask! What shall I give you?” (1 Kings 3:5). In response, Solomon asked for an understanding heart to judge God’s people, so that he would be able to discern between good and evil. God was greatly pleased that Solomon had made this request instead of asking for long life or earthly riches. God then said to Solomon,

1 King 3:12

12 “… behold, I have done according to your words; see, I have given you a wise and understanding heart, so that there has not been anyone like you before you, nor shall any like you arise after you.”

Good kings surrounded themselves with wise counselors. As it says in Proverbs 15:22:

22 Without counsel, plans go awry, but in the multitude of counselors they are established.

Solomon, however, had no one wiser than himself with which to consult.

1 King 4:29-31

29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and exceedingly great understanding, and largeness of heart like the sand on the seashore.

30 Thus Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the men of the East and all the wisdom of Egypt.

31 For he was wiser than all men …

The Old Testament records a classic example of Solomon exercising his wisdom. Two harlots came to Solomon. They both lived in the same house, and each was the mother of an infant son. One son had died during the night, and both mothers claimed to be the mother of the surviving infant. To settle the dispute, Solomon commanded the child to be divided in two with one half given to each mother. One woman said regarding the child, “Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.” The other said, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” Solomon gave the child to the woman who pled for the child’s life, recognizing her as the child’s true mother. We read in 1 Kings 3:28 about the effect of this judgment upon the people of Israel:

28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice.

Of course, King Solomon was not perfect. Later in life he strayed into the worship of idols under the influence of pagan wives. Unlike the coming one whom Solomon foreshadowed as a type, Solomon had his flaws, even serious ones. The same can be said of King David.

The name Wonderful Counselor tells us that Jesus is much greater than the Solomon of the old covenant. Jesus has a greater wisdom than Solomon because Jesus has a human mind that has not been distorted by sin. Jesus has a greater wisdom than Solomon because the person thinking through Jesus’ human mind is the divine person of God the Son. Jesus has a greater wisdom than Solomon because God has poured out the Holy Spirit without measure upon Jesus.

Isaiah 11:2

2 The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

Jesus brings us divine wisdom in its clearest and most complete form. Jesus tells us heavenly things in human terms that we can understand. Jesus declares God to us with a new clarity. In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). His counsel is a wonder, a mighty act of God beyond human ability. His counsel includes His advice, His plans and His purposes.

Just as Solomon received questions that challenged His wisdom, so did Jesus during His earthly ministry. For example, some who sought to entangle Jesus asked the question, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus asked to see some tax money and then asked whose image was on the coin. His opponents answered that the image was that of the Caesar. Jesus then responded, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21; Luke 20:25). They marveled at the wisdom of His answer and had nothing to say in reply (Luke 20:26). Jesus exhibited His wisdom by commanding a proper division of wealth, even as Solomon had exhibited his wisdom by commanding as a test the division of a child.

The second name is Mighty God. Here we have another reference to the deity of Christ. The same Hebrew name here translated “Mighty God” is used in Isaiah 10:21 to refer to God Himself. This proves conclusively that Isaiah used the Hebrew name translated “Mighty God” in our text as a divine name in the fullest possible sense. In other words, Jesus is not some halfway deity or demigod like the pagan Roman god Hercules, and Jesus is not merely an angel like Michael and Gabriel. Jesus is fully God as well as fully man.

We also need to consider individually the two words here translated “Mighty God.” The Hebrew word here translated “God” is “El,” a general name for the true God who is superior to all false gods. The respected commentator Edward J. Young said this about this Hebrew word “El”: “In Isaiah it is found as a designation of God and only of Him” (1.336). And “This designation is reserved for the true God and Him alone” (1:337).

There are also overtones of deity in the Hebrew word here translated “Mighty.” This Hebrew word is often used of God as He fights for His people. For example, Psalm 24:8 says:

8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.

This Hebrew word here translated “Mighty” also has usages that can be related to King David. This Hebrew word can mean “mighty,” as it does in our text, but it can also refer to a mighty man. This Hebrew word is used elsewhere as a noun to refer to the elite soldiers in David’s army who were called David’s mighty men. David himself was a warrior hero. As a boy, David defeated the great Philistine warrior Goliath. The Hebrew word here translated “Mighty” is used to refer to Goliath as the warrior champion of the Philistines (1 Samuel 17:51). David’s defeating a warrior hero in combat would imply that David himself was a warrior hero. When David was later fighting the Philistines under King Saul, women would meet King Saul when he returned from battle. They would dance and sing, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).

Jesus as the David of the new covenant is a warrior hero of a higher sort. Jesus has defeated Satan, sin, death and the world, which are all foes vastly more powerful than the Philistine giant Goliath. Jesus came as a man to fight a human fight against our enemies on our behalf. Jesus came as God to obtain a sure victory of infinite worth. Jesus is the Mighty God, the divine warrior, the God hero.

The third name is Everlasting Father. This is another reference to Jesus as the David of the new covenant. David of the old covenant was the father of Solomon, who in his youth was a prince in Israel. In addition, Jesus is like a father to His people even as old testament David was a father to old testament Israel in his role as their king.

Yet Jesus as the David of the new covenant is greater than old covenant David. Jesus is the Everlasting Father. The adjective “Everlasting” here refers to an attribute of Jesus’ deity. David is still in his grave, but Jesus continues to rule, and will rule forever.

We read in Matthew chapter two that when the wise men from the East came to Jerusalem seeking the Christ Child, King Herod asked the chief priests and the scribes where the Christ would be born. They replied,

Matthew 2:5-6

5 … “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:

6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a Ruler who will shepherd My people Israel.'”

If we look for the fuller context in the prophecy of Micah, we find in addition that this Ruler born in Bethlehem would be one “whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). Micah and Isaiah, using different words, taught the same concept. Jesus in His deity is everlasting. He possesses the divine attribute of eternity. Jesus was born in the city of David, but the goings forth of Jesus are from everlasting. Because of His deity, Jesus was able to say, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Old covenant David was never able to say that or anything like it.

Isaiah 9:7 comments on the unending duration of Jesus’ rule:

7 Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

We read a similar statement about the kingdom given to the Son of Man after His coming with the clouds before the Ancient of Days:

Daniel 7:14

14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.

Jesus is the greater David who, in His glorified humanity, will oversee His people forever as their fatherly Ruler. Jesus gives His people eternal life, and they shall never perish. They will ever live under His fatherly rule.

The fourth and last name is Prince of Peace. This name refers to Jesus as the Solomon of the new covenant. Solomon was a prince, and Solomon’s name is related to the Hebrew word for peace, which is shalom. Because Solomon’s father David had defeated Israel’s enemies, Solomon reigned in a time of peace. Because of this peace, Solomon was able to build the first temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus is our Solomon of the new covenant. Through His saving work, Jesus has made us to be at peace with God by paying for our sins, by satisfying the just claims of God’s law against us as sinners and law breakers and transgressors. Jesus has also made us at peace with God by removing that old heart that was filled with rebellion against God and His law and by replacing it with a new heart with God’s law written upon it, a new heart that wants to please God, a new heart whose main desire and aspiration in life is submission to the will of the Father. Now that we are at peace with God, Jesus has incorporated us into His new covenant temple as living stones.

Jesus is the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace. Jesus finished all the work that is implied by these four prophetic names. After His death and resurrection, Jesus ascended up into heaven where God seated the glorified Jesus at His right hand, the place of all authority in heaven and on earth. Jesus is now seated on an exalted and universal form of the throne of David. Jesus in His humanity is now the Sovereign of the universe. God has given Jesus the nations for His inheritance and the ends of the earth for His possession. Jesus now rules that one eternal kingdom which will never fall.

Let me close by exhorting you to put your faith in Jesus and His saving work. By looking to Jesus alone for salvation, by resting upon Jesus alone, by depending upon Him and His work, you will receive the gift of salvation. Jesus will become your greater David and your greater Solomon. He will deliver you from the grip of sin and Satan. He will give you eternal life. He will provide you with wisdom and peace. He will incorporate you into His new covenant temple. One greater than David is here. One greater than Solomon is here. If we do not come to Christ in faith, then the Queen of Sheba, who came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, will rise up in judgment against us. May we instead come to Christ and enjoy the eternal benefits of His benevolent reign.

Insights on Enduring Persecution from the Church at Smyrna

I believe that the book of Revelation is especially relevant today but maybe not for the reason that many might expect. The church always finds special comfort in the book of Revelation when the church is experiencing persecution. We are today experiencing what may prove to be the early stages of a time of persecution. Some Christians have experienced various forms of persecution because they could not in good conscience provide certain services upon request for a same sex “wedding.” Some Christians in the medical profession may have been excluded from certain positions because they could not in good conscience take the life of a criminally innocent person either in the womb or in old age. Some Christian teachers may not be welcome in certain schools because they will not teach young children racial prejudices or sexual perversions. These are just a few examples, but I think that they are sufficient to give a sense of the times in which we are living. We don’t know if this persecution is going to intensify and expand, and we don’t know to what degree it will affect our own lives. We pray for a coming spiritual awakening that will radically change the direction in which our culture has been heading. Yet as long as persecution is on our horizon, the book of Revelation will have a special relevance for us. What was comforting to those seven churches in the closing years of the apostolic age can also provide comfort for persecuted Christians from then onwards down to the end of the age.

We find some insights on enduring persecution in Jesus’ letter to the church at Smyrna, found in Revelation 2:8-11. We learn here that Jesus is well aware of the church’s difficulties in a hostile world. In verse nine, Jesus said to the church at Smyrna, “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich) …” When we first read this, we might assume that this church existed in an impoverished area where jobs were scarce and resources were limited. But no, Smyrna was a large and prosperous city. The Christians there were poor because of prejudice against Christians. One could not there openly confess Christ and also get ahead socially and financially.

Like every pagan Greek city, Smyrna had its own patron deity. In addition, each trade guild would also have a patron deity. There were occasions when and situations where everyone was expected to give a certain token worship to a particular pagan deity, whether the patron deity of the city or the patron deity of a trade guild. Many would not take kindly to Christians who in principle refused to participate. Many would quickly blame such Christians for offending the gods whenever anything bad happened in the city.

Yet what was perhaps an even greater challenge in Smyrna was the rising cult of Caesar worship. The city of Smyrna had been loyal to Rome long before Rome became the dominant power in Asia Minor. About 195 B.C., Smyrna became the first city in the world to build a temple dedicated to the worship of the goddess Roma. In A.D. 26, all the major cities of Asia Minor petitioned Rome to be the site of a new temple dedicated to the worship of the Roman Emperor Tiberius while he was still alive and ruling. Smyrna was chosen for this honor and became a temple warden for the imperial cult. Cicero, the Roman orator, called the city of Smyrna Rome’s most faithful and ancient ally. We can only imagine what it would have been like to have been a Christian in the city of Smyrna during Roman times and to have refused to offer a pinch of incense to the goddess Roma or to the Roman Emperor Tiberius.

The situation gets even more complicated and dangerous. Jesus went on to say in verse nine, “… and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” We can get some insight on this verse from the Apostle Paul’s experiences on his missionary journeys as recorded for us in the book of Acts. When the Apostle Paul entered a city, he would first go to the local synagogue. There he would proclaim that the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied Messiah of Scripture. Those who believed in Jesus proved themselves to be the true Israel within Israel, and they became part of the Christian church. Those who rejected Jesus were in God’s eyes cut off the olive tree of Israel for failing to bear the fruit of faith in God’s Messiah. Some of these cut off branches would try to stir up the local pagans to persecute the church. By doing this, they became agents of Satan, the devil. The name “Satan” means adversary, the word “devil” means accuser, and later in the book of Revelation, Satan is called the accuser of the brethren. Some would accuse the Christians of refusing to worship the pagan gods and of having another king besides Caesar. They would also try to inform the pagan Gentiles that the Christians were a separate religion that did not possess the religious immunity that Rome had given to Jews since the days of Julius Caesar. They would do what they could to stir the pot of pagan persecution against the church.

Because of all this tribulation and persecution, the Christians at Smyrna were financially poor. But Jesus assured them that they were in reality rich in a way that really counted. They had stored up in heaven treasure where moth and rust do not corrupt and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Here is the counsel that Jesus gave to the church at Symrna in their situation:

10 “Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

When we first read this, we might think that these Christians were about to be sentenced to a little time in prison. We would be reading our modern world back into the text. People in Greek and Roman times did not spend time in prison as a form of punishment. They went to prison as a holding place where they waited for trial or sentencing or punishment. The exhortation “be faithful until death” implies that many of those arrested for being Christians would become martyrs for the faith. They weren’t facing just a little time in jail. For example, about the middle of the second century, the leader of the church at Smyrna, Polycarp, was burned at the stake after refusing to offer a small pinch of incense to an image of the Roman emperor.

The Christians at Smyrna were about to endure a time of testing and tribulation that would last ten days. Because the book of Revelation is full of symbolism, the ten days are probably more symbolic than a literal length of time. The number ten often signifies that which is complete and would in this context indicate a coming time of intense persecution. The fact that the time of tribulation was measured in days and not in weeks, months or years probably indicated that the time of tribulation that the church at Smyrna was then about to experience, though intense, would be limited in duration. The ten days of tribulation were in contrast to the thousand years that Christian martyrs reign with Christ according to Revelation chapter twenty.

Jesus exhorted the Christians at Smyrna to be faithful until death and promised them the crown of life. The words “crown” and “faithful” had a special relevance to the Christians at Smyrna. Smyrna was known as a beautiful city, and a part of its beauty was a prominent hill crowned with stately buildings. This hill was known as the crown of Smyrna. The city of Smyrna was also known for its faithfulness to Rome. Jesus exhorted the Christians at Smyrna to be loyal first and foremost to Him. Those pagans whose first loyalty was to Rome might very well martyr the Christians whose first loyalty was to Jesus. Through their deaths, these Christian martyrs would forfeit their beautiful city as symbolized by that hill called the crown of Smyrna, but Jesus promised them something better. Jesus promised them a crown of life. A crown symbolizes victory, and the Christian’s victory is eternal life. This is a prize that the Christian possesses from the moment when he first believes, a prize that the Christian will more fully possess at death, and a prize that the Christian will possess to the fullest in his resurrection body on the last day.

Jesus’ letter to the church at Smyrna ends with a positive word about their future. Verse eleven says, “He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” Earlier Jesus had exhorted the Christians at Smynra not to fear but to be faithful unto death. The first death is physical death, the temporary separation of the human spirit from the physical body. The second death is eternal death, the everlasting separation of the total person, body and soul, from God in a place of everlasting punishment. The faithful Christians at Smyrna did not need to fear physical death because Jesus would protect them from the harm of the second death. Jesus has transformed physical death for the Christian from a prelude to the second death into a time of rest and reward.

The letter to the church at Smyrna reminds us that there are times when and places where the Christian cannot be loyal to Jesus without experiencing persecution to some degree. A generation ago, the world called Christians fools because they believed in Jesus as He is revealed in the Bible. Today the world calls Christians bigots because they believe what Jesus teaches in the Bible about right and wrong. We are in a time when being faithful to Jesus is becoming more costly. The cost may continue to increase, but we must resolve to overcome and to remain faithful. After all, what would it profit us if we gained the whole world and in the process lost our very souls? Our goal in life must be to be rich in the way that the Christians at Smyrna were rich, even if that means that we are impoverished in this life in terms of the riches of earth where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal.

Thanksgiving in Embittered Times

This coming Thursday is Thanksgiving, that uniquely American holiday on which we take off from work and school, eat turkey and dressing, and watch parades and bowl games on television. But we need to remember that Thanksgiving should be more than a day off and a special meal and seasonal TV programs. Thanksgiving was instituted as a day which our culture sets aside to count our blessings and to give God thanks. Yet we must acknowledge that Thanksgiving as originally instituted is becoming more and more foreign to much of our culture. A radical form of ingratitude has come to characterize the culture that today dominates in certain spheres of our society. The philosophy behind this radical ingratitude is neo-Marxism, a new embodiment of the failed economic theories of Karl Marx.

The original version of Marxism tried to promote revolution through conflict between factory workers and the capitalist owners of the means of production. In the twentieth century, economic versions of Marxism were tried in numerous places and without exception proved to be economically disastrous. At the same time, the economic status of workers continued to improve in societies with a free market. In the closing decades of the twentieth century, socialism and communism were abandoned in many nations as failed economic experiments.

Sadly the ghost of Marxism has risen from the grave in the twenty-first century. The newer version of Marxism tries to promote revolution through conflict not between economic classes but between social classes referred to as the victims of oppression and the oppressors. Instead of promoting gratitude for the real blessings that people experience, neo-Marxism encourages people to view themselves as oppressed victims even when they are not. Neo-Marxism tries to convince people to view truly good things about our culture as sinister means used by the powerful to maintain power and to oppress their victims. To give some examples, free speech is opposed as a form of hateful violence, police protection for high crime neighborhoods is opposed as racial profiling, private ownership of defensive weapons is opposed as the cause of criminal violence, constitutional limits on government are opposed as barriers to radical social change, the traditional family is opposed as a barrier to new sexual liberties, and so on. In today’s world, things for which we should be grateful are labeled as means of oppression.

Perhaps the most tragic consequence of neo-Marxism is the current trend for young people to be dissatisfied with the biological sexual identity that God has encoded into every gene in their physical bodies. It is a sign of our times that instead of saying with the psalmist David, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made,” many young people resent the physical bodies which God has given them.

In contrast to much of our culture today, the biblically defined Christian is characterized not by an embittered ingratitude but by thanksgiving. To use the language of the hundredth Psalm, we enter into God’s gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise. Giving thanks to God is the Christian’s duty. In 1 Thessalonians 5:18, Paul exhorts us, “In everything, give thanks.” And consider Ephesians 5:3-4:

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;

4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

Worldly people may be known for their dirty jokes and filthy language and coarse jesting, but the Christian should be known for giving thanks to God.

I chose Colossians 3:15-17 as our passage for today because it mentions the concept of thanksgiving three times, once in each verse. This is very obvious is verses 15 and 17. Verse 15 says, “be thankful,” and verse 17 says, “giving thanks to God the Father.” The reference to thanksgiving is not as obvious in verse 16, at least not in the New King James Version, which reads, “singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” The reference to thanksgiving in verse 16 is obvious in some other translations. For example, the New American Standard and the English Standard Version both translate verse 16 as referring to singing “with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

The Greek word here is usually translated “grace.” Yet like most words, this Greek word has more than one possible meaning. The meaning of this word which we are probably most familiar with is the goodwill which motivates a giver to give a gift as an undeserved and unearned favor. This is the meaning that this word has, for example, in Ephesians 2:8, which says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” This is a reference to grace as the goodwill which motivated God to give us the unmerited and undeserved gift of salvation. Yet this Greek word also has other related meanings. It can refer to the gift itself. It can also refer to the gratitude of the person who received the gift, to the gratitude motivated by the reception of the gift.

In verse 16 of our text, the Apostle Paul is here using the Greek word often translated “grace” to refer to the gratitude of someone on the receiving end of God’s undeserved favor. This is the possible meaning that makes the best sense of verse 16 and is also the meaning that is most consistent with verses 15 and 17, both of which mention thanksgiving.

I believe our passage for today gives us some insight into how we as Christians can maintain the spirit of thanksgiving in spite of the ingratitude that dominates so much of our culture. Our passage today consists of three verses, and each verse contains a command. The three commands are 1) let the peace of God rule in your hearts, 2) let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, and 3) whatever you do, do all in the name of Jesus. I believe that obedience to these commands is the soil in which the spirit of thanksgiving flourishes. Obedience to these commands is the lifestyle which is most conducive to the thankful spirit.

I want to look at these commands and through them exhort us to give thanks to the Lord our God.

Paul’s first command is, Let the peace of God rule in your hearts. Now notice at the onset that Paul is not talking about just any old inner peace. There are plenty of people who are at peace with themselves who should not be. Many people have hearts like the false prophets of old who cried out, “Peace, peace,” when there was no peace. The Bible describes the unregenerate heart as calloused and stony, which is a metaphorical way of saying unfeeling. Their lives are burdened with sin and with guilt and yet they feel no inner grief. They have the peace of spiritual indifference, the peace of spiritual ignorance, the peace of spiritual death. Their hearts have the peace and quiet of the graveyard.

Paul is not referring to just any old inner peace. He is referring to the peace of God. This is the peace which Jesus promised as His legacy to His people in John 14:27, where He said,

27 “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

This is a God given peace which is grounded in reality. It is not some delusional fantasy based on nothing more than wishful thinking. The objective foundation of our peace is explained in Romans chapter five. Look first at verse 1:

1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Now go down a little further and look at verse 10:

10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Verse one says, “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” and then verse ten explains how this was accomplished: “when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son.”

As people covered by guilt and controlled by sin, we were once the enemies of God. This implies a state of war, which is the opposite of peace. It is a terrible thing to be at war with God. That is a war which we have no chance of winning. That is a war where we are by definition on the wrong side. But if we have a faith relationship with Jesus, then that war is over for us. Jesus has reconciled us to God through His work upon the cross. To reconcile enemies means to remove the enmity that separates them, to restore peace between them. Jesus’ death on the cross reconciles us to God through a double action. The power of the cross removed the wrath that hung over us and the war that raged within us.

The wrath of God against our sins once hung over us. On the cross, Jesus endured that wrath for His people. Once we trust Jesus for our salvation, that divine wrath is no longer hanging over us like Damocles’ sword. Jesus experienced that wrath in our place through His suffering upon the cross.

The power of the cross removes not only the wrath that was hanging over us, but also the war that was raging within us. We were in bondage to sin, and sin is rebellion against God. In that sense, we were at war with God. The power of the cross freed us from that bondage. The power of the cross transformed us into a people who delight in obeying God, into a people zealous for good works.

By removing the wrath that hung over us and the war that raged within us, Jesus made us at peace with God. That is our objective state which roots our inner peace not in fantasy but in a rock solid reality.

From this objective state of peace, there arises a life experience of peace. This is peace in the sense of the Hebrew word “shalom,” which means a total well-being, the salvation of the total person. This peace is the well ordered and blessed life which is the opposite of chaos and curse. This is the peace spoken of in Romans 8:6: “… to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” From this objective state of peace, there arises a life experience of peace. And from the life experience of peace, there arises a heart condition of peace. This is an inner peace patterned after that peace which dwells in the Savior’s own heart. It is an inner rest and repose which is a foretaste of heaven. It is an inner calm which is not shaken by adversity nor disturbed by fear. It is a tranquillity which looks at the past and sees all sins forgiven, washed away at the cross of Calvary. It is a tranquillity which looks at the present and sees God working all things for the good of those who love Him. It is a tranquillity which looks at the future and sees that nothing can separate God’s people from the love of God in Christ Jesus. This is the heart condition which is most consistent with and which should result from the salvation that is ours in Christ Jesus.

We have defined the peace of God as an objective state which gives rise to a certain life experience and heart condition. Paul then goes on to command, Let the peace of God rule in your hearts. What does that mean?

I think it is helpful to look at the root idea behind the word translated “rule.” That word originally had reference to an umpire officiating at an athletic contest. An umpire scrutinizes the conduct of the athletes and decides if that conduct is consistent with the rules of the game. If we can personify the peace of God as an umpire, it rules in our hearts in the sense that it scrutinizes our conduct and determines if it is consistent with our being at peace with God. If we are weighed down with guilt, doubting our forgiveness in Christ, then the umpire blows the whistle and cries out, “Spiritual anxiety which contradicts the peace of God that is ours in Christ Jesus.” If we are entangled in sin, then the umpire blows the whistle and cries out, “Moral rebellion which contradicts the peace of God that is ours in Christ Jesus.” If we are not running with endurance the race that God has set before us and if we are not looking unto Jesus as our finish line and goal in life, then the umpire blows the whistle and cries out, “Apathetic aimlessness which contradicts the peace of God that is ours in Christ Jesus.”

The first command is, Let the peace of God rule in your hearts. This means that we must conduct our lives in a way that is consistent with our being at peace with God as opposed to our being at war with God through spiritual rebellion.

Let’s now go to the second command, which is, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. This verse goes very well with the previous verse. If verse 15 implies an umpire, verse 16 implies a rule book. Verse 15 is not teaching that we should be guided first and foremost by our subjective feelings with no objective guidelines. The umpire of verse 15 bases his rulings not on our feelings but on the rule book found in verse 16, and that rule book is the Word of God. Our sense of inner peace with God will be a reliable guide in life only to the degree that we are well grounded in the Word of God.

You will run into people who call themselves Christians and who are absolutely determined to do something clearly forbidden by the Word of God. They will say that they are confident that they are doing what is right because God has spoken to their hearts. And who are we to argue with what God has told them in their hearts? The answer is that their argument is not with us. Their argument is with what God has clearly said in the Bible. God never tells someone in his heart to do something which God has forbidden him to do in the Bible. God speaks to His people through His Word and His Spirit working together and never with His Word and His Spirit contradicting each other.

Paul says to let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly. This means that Christian truth is to have its enduring abode within our hearts. It is not to be a stranger to our hearts, or the occasional guest. Christian truth as found in the Word of God, the Bible, is to be a permanent resident in our lives. According to the first Psalm, the blessed man delights in the law of God, and in His law he mediates day and night.

Colossians 3:16 gives us some helpful descriptions of people in whom the word of Christ dwells richly. They are constantly giving wise counsel and instruction to one another based on their study of God’s word. And they enjoy singing thankful praise to the God of the Bible.

Let’s now go to the third command found in verse 17, “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of Jesus.” We are not just to give admonition and instruction to one another in the name of Jesus. We are not just to sing songs of thankful praise in the name of Jesus. We are to do everything both in word and deed in the name of Jesus. The key to understanding this command is to understand what Paul meant by doing something in the name of Jesus. Jesus compared Himself to a master going away on a long journey and leaving his household in the care of his servants. The master has entrusted his servants with the authority they need to run the household in his absence. He has left them with instructions on how he wants the household to be run. He has left them with the resources they need to fulfill his instructions. While the master is away, these servants act in their master’s name. This means that they act with their master’s authority. This means that they act in harmony with their master’s instructions. This means that they act in dependence upon the resources which their master has entrusted to them. Jesus in His humanity has ascended to heaven, and He will stay there until the end of this age. He has left us the Great Commission as His instructions for us. He has made us His ambassadors to act with His authority. He has poured out His Holy Spirit upon us to empower us. We are acting in Jesus’ name when we act in submission to His authority, in harmony with His instructions and in dependence upon His power. I believe that is what Paul means when he says whatever we do, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Again, we should do all that we do both in word and deed in submission to Jesus’ authority, in harmony with Jesus’ commands and in dependence upon Jesus’ power.

In our passage for today, Paul gives us three rules: 1) let the peace of God rule in your hearts; 2) let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; 3) whatever you do, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Obey these three commands, and you will be a grateful people.

You will avoid the error of Israel in the wilderness. God gave them bread from heaven and water from the Rock. Instead of giving thanks, they were constantly grumbling and complaining. That generation was not allowed to enter into God’s rest.

You will instead be a people who are able to give thanks to God in every situation. I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul:

“In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”

My Understanding of Images of Jesus

Any effort to depict Jesus in His divinity is immoral because both the one divine nature and the divine person of God the Son are invisible and undepictable. Jesus in His humanity can be visually or mentally depicted as an artificial external image. Examples include a water reflection of Jesus and a memory of Jesus. Jesus can also be metaphorically represented by a visual or mental metaphor. A depiction of a lamb without spot or blemish can be a credible metaphorical representation of Jesus as the Lamb of God, and a depiction of a typical first century Jewish man can be a credible metaphorical representation of Jesus as the Son of Man. A metaphorical representation of Jesus is credible if it does not contradict any revealed truth about Jesus. A visual or mental depiction of a credible Jewish man can be identified as representing Jesus in a gospel narrative scene by the role which the representation plays in the scene. No one knows today exactly what the man Jesus looked like. I disagree with those who believe that the exact appearance of Jesus in His humanity has been preserved by tradition and who believe that to look upon an image made with that traditional appearance is to look upon the person of Jesus. A visual or mental representation of Jesus should not be misused as an object of worship. A visual representation of Jesus should not be made in a form that invites worship to or through the representation. Nor should it be put in a place that implies it to be a valid object of worship. All worship of Jesus should be directed directly to Jesus. There is no lesser form of worship that is appropriate for certain images in contrast to a higher form of worship that is appropriate only for God. The only valid object of worship is the one divine nature. Jesus in His humanity is to be worshiped because of the hypostatic union between the human nature of Jesus and the one divine nature. The hypostatic union is the union based on the simultaneous subsistence of the divine person of God the Son in the human nature of Jesus and in the one divine nature. Jesus in His humanity is God Incarnate, but neither a depiction of Jesus in His humanity nor a metaphorical representation of Jesus is God Incarnate. There is never either a natural union or a personal union between the one divine nature and either a depiction of Jesus in His humanity or a metaphorical representation of Jesus.

See also:

Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 109 and Representations of Deity

Peter Martyr and the Second Commandment

Zwingli and Bullinger on Pictures of Jesus

The Geneva Bible and Visual Representations of Deity

Charles Hodge and Pictures of Jesus

Archibald Alexander and Mental Images of Jesus

Preaching and Mental Images

The Christological Argument and Images of Jesus

Westminster Larger Catechism 109: A Short Analysis

The Double Cure

The hymn “Rock of Ages” says, “Be of sin the double cure: save from wrath and make me pure.” Another version of the same hymn says, “Be of sin the double cure: save me from its guilt and power.” Both versions are expressing the same thought. Lost sinners have a double problem. Sinners have broken God’s law and therefore have a bad legal record before God. They are guilty of sin and are under God’s condemnation and are subject to God’s judicial wrath. Their second problem is that they have a bad heart, a heart that is in rebellion against God, a heart that is inclined toward disobeying God’s law. This is the double problem, and Jesus through His saving work is the double cure. Our salvation through our saving union with Jesus saves us from the condemning guilt of sin and from the enslaving power of sin. In Christ Jesus, we have a new legal record and a new heart.

Now these two cures are two distinct cures that address two distinct problems. We mustn’t confuse them or mix them together. At the same time, we mustn’t separate them. These two cures always occur together because they are both based on our saving union with Jesus. Jesus never gives someone a new legal record without giving them at the same time a new heart, and Jesus never gives someone a new heart without at the same time giving them a new legal record. Someone may say that he wants Jesus to forgive his sins but not to deliver him from his sinful lifestyle. This sort of thinking is not uncommon today. Someone more religious might say that he wants Jesus to deliver him from sinful living but that he does not want Jesus to forgive his sins outright because as a matter of pride, he wants to help earn his own forgiveness, as if that were possible. Jesus says no to both these requests. Salvation is always a double cure. Saving faith is trusting Jesus and Jesus alone for salvation, and that salvation consists in both forgiveness of sins and deliverance from sin.

I want to examine this double cure as it is found in the first four verses of Romans chapter eight:

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NKJ)

In Romans chapter eight, the Apostle Paul first said, “There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” The key word here is “condemnation.” That is a legal term, and that tells us that the Apostle Paul is here referring to the legal aspect of salvation. When a judge condemns someone, he declares him guilty. That is the opposite of justification. When a judge justifies someone, he declares him innocent or righteous. When the Apostle Paul said that there is no condemnation to the person who is in Christ Jesus, that was just a negative, backdoor way of saying that a person who is in Christ Jesus is justified.

The second thing to notice here is the use of the word “now.” The word “now” indicates that this new legal status is immediate. It is a complete reality at this very moment. A person doesn’t have to wait until the end of this life to see if he is justified because his good works outweigh his bad works or if he is condemned because his bad works outweigh his good works. That is the way that many people think about salvation. They think that they won’t know and can’t know if they will spend eternity as a justified person or as a condemned person until after this life is over. That is not what the Apostle Paul said. The Apostle Paul said that “there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.”

The third thing to notice here is the use of the little word “no.” The word “no” as in “no condemnation” indicates that the legal status of justification is perfectly complete. The Apostle Paul didn’t say that the person who is in Christ Jesus is mostly justified or has only a smidgen of remaining condemnation or has been washed almost as white as snow. The Apostle Paul said that there is absolutely no condemnation, not one iota, not one molecule, not one single scrap, to those who are in Christ Jesus. All of a Christian’s guilt, one hundred percent of it, has been erased, removed and buried in the depths of the sea.

The fourth thing to notice here is that this is true of all those who are in a saving union with Jesus Christ, a saving union that we experience as our faith in Jesus alone for our salvation. The Apostle Paul was here describing the legal status that gets a person into heaven, the legal ticket that gains admission to heaven, the legal key that opens the door to heaven. This is the perfect and complete righteousness that only Jesus can provide for us based on His saving work in our place and on our behalf.

Jesus accomplished this through what some call the great exchange. Jesus accepted responsibility for the guilt of the Christian’s sins and then suffered the punishment for that guilt through His suffering and death on the cross.

But He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:5-6

Jesus accepted the responsibility for the guilt of our sin. Jesus then bore the punishment for that sin and paid the penalty in full. On the cross Jesus said, “It is finished!” or “It is paid in full!” Jesus then gives those who believe in Him forgiveness based on His atoning work in their place. That is one half of the great exchange.

The other half of the great exchange has to do with Jesus’ legal record of perfect obedience. Jesus never once sinned in thought, word or deed. Though tempted by the devil with the full force of his diabolical ability, Jesus never once sinned. Though obeying the will of His heavenly Father meant submitting to the painful and shameful death of the cross, Jesus never once sinned. Jesus has a perfect legal record before God, and Jesus imputes this perfect legal record to all who believe in Him. Jesus reckons this perfect legal standing of righteousness to all who believe in Him. Jesus is our righteousness.

For [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

2 Corinthians 5:21

This is the great exchange: Jesus receives our guilt, and we receive His righteousness.

So the Apostle Paul begins chapter eight with this wonderful statement about the Christian’s justification. The Christian’s legal status before God is right now, at this very moment, perfect and complete based on the Christian’s saving union with Jesus and Jesus’ saving work.

At this point, the Apostle Paul began talking about the other aspect of a person’s salvation, and that is sanctification. Justification is the cure for our bad legal standing before God, and sanctification is the cure for our morally bad hearts. In justification, Jesus forgives our sins, and in sanctification, Jesus delivers us from the power of sin. Justification is the legal action through which Jesus pays the full legal price necessary to open to us the gates of heaven. Sanctification is the saving work through which Jesus prepares us for living in heaven where there is no sin. Justification and sanctification are distinct aspects of salvation, but what they have in common is that they are both based on our saving union with Jesus. So in our text, the Apostle Paul said that there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. In other words, those who are justified are also those who are sanctified, because both justification and sanctification are saving effects of the believer’s saving union with Jesus.

Now some with certain modern translations of the Bible may be a little puzzled at this point because their Bible says nothing in verse one about walking not according to the flesh but walking according to the Spirit. All translations have this statement about walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit in verse four, but not all have it in verse one. I think that the Apostle Paul’s flow of thought is clearer with the statement in both verse one and verse four, but having it only in verse four doesn’t change what the Apostle Paul was saying. Yet I believe that the true text does have this statement in both verses because that is what we find in the majority of the surviving ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts. There is a large consensus on the true text in the majority of the surviving ancient Greek manuscripts. I believe that this general consensus among the majority of these ancient manuscripts is the means by which God has preserved for us the original inspired text. Chapter one, paragraph eight of the Westminster Confession of Faith says that the original text of God’s inspired word was, “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.” I believe that God did this by preserving the original text in the majority, and usually the vast majority, of the surviving ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts. I accept what is called the majority text reading, and on that basis I believe that the statement about walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit belongs in verse one as well as in verse four.

I think that we all know what the Apostle Paul was talking about when he spoke about walking in a certain way. The Apostle Paul used walking as a metaphor for living one’s daily life. Our walk is the way that we live from day to day. The Apostle Paul used the word “flesh” to refer to that inner inclination toward sin that all humanity has inherited from fallen Adam. To walk according to the flesh is to live in ways consistent with this spirit of rebellion. To walk according to the flesh is to submit to sinful appetites. To walk according to the flesh is to use one’s body, heart and mind as instruments of sinful activity. To walk according to the Spirit is to live in ways consistent with the influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit and consistent with the new heart that the Holy Spirit has given us in Christ.

Our text goes on to tell us how our saving union with Jesus enables us to live not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. In verse two, we read about two laws, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and the law of sin and death. In this context, the word “law” is used to refer to a principle or rule that works with a certain power and according to a certain pattern. Verse two tells us about one law that overrides another opposing law. Let me illustrate this by explaining how an airplane flies. The law of gravity gives an aircraft weight and keeps the aircraft on the ground. Yet an airplane can fly because the law of aerodynamic lift can overcome the law of gravity. When air flows over a wing that is curved on the top, the air flows faster over the top of the wing than it flows under the bottom of the wing. According to the law of aerodynamic lift, this causes an upward force on the wing. When the force of the lift pulling up on the wing becomes greater than the force of gravity pulling down on the airplane, then the airplane is able to fly. In this way, the law of aerodynamic lift frees the airplane from the law of gravity. 

In verse two, the Apostle Paul talks about two laws, the law of sin and death and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Here is how the law of sin and death operates. Sin is an act of rebellion against God. The sinner wants to separate himself from God as his source of authority so that the sinner can do whatever is right in his own eyes. Yet God is also the source of the sinner’s life and the sustainer of the sinner’s life. So when the sinner through rebellion cuts himself off from God as his authority figure, the sinner is also cutting himself off from God as the source and sustainer of all life. Thus the wages of sin is death. That is the law of sin and death.

Now the opposing law that can overcome the law of sin and death is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit is able to overcome the law of sin and death with life by working faith in the sinner’s heart and thus uniting the sinner to Christ as the source of the sinner’s salvation. By working faith in the sinner’s heart, the Spirit applies to the sinner the redemption accomplished by Jesus.

Verses three and four go on to explain how this law of the Spirit works. The law of the Spirit is able to accomplish what the moral law of God could not. The moral law of God is God’s law as summarized in the ten commandments. The moral law of God can tell a person what he should do and what he should not do, but the moral law cannot save a sinner from God’s judgment. The law of God is limited by the weakness of the flesh, a reference to a sinner’s rebellious nature that is inclined toward sinning. The moral law cannot forgive sins once they have been committed. The moral can only condemn them. The moral law cannot give the sinner a new heart. The moral law can tell a sinner what he should do, but the moral law cannot give a sinner the moral ability or even the desire to do what he should do.

Yet what the law could not do because of the weakness of sinful flesh, God did by sending His Son. The triune God – God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, working together through the one divine nature – planned in eternity past this work of salvation that was to be accomplished within history. God the Father sent God the Son into the world to save sinners. God the Son took to Himself a human body and soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. He was born of her, a sinful daughter of fallen Adam, and yet He was born without sin. He was born without sin, and yet, according to our text, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus was born not in sinful flesh but in the likeness of sinful flesh. The Apostle Paul was threading a theological needle here with this carefully worded statement. Jesus was a morally pure human with no inner inclination toward sinning. Yet Jesus in His humanity was subject to the suffering in this world that has resulted from the fall of humanity into sin. The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter eight, paragraph two) says that God the Son took “upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin.” He was totally without sin but was subject to hunger and thirst, to weariness and pain, and to other natural infirmities that are a part of this fallen world.

Jesus in His humanity had to be able to suffer human suffering in order to accomplish the purpose for which God sent Him. God the Father sent God the Son into the world on account of sin, on account of the sin problem. As the Apostle Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Jesus accomplished this purpose by condemning sin in the flesh. Sinful humans cannot save themselves because of the weakness of the flesh, because of their sinfulness. Yet sinlessly pure Jesus was able to accomplish salvation through His flesh, through His morally pure human nature that endured the suffering of the cross.

Our text mentions one aspect of the salvation that Jesus accomplished through His death on the cross. Our text says that Jesus condemned sin. What does it mean that Jesus condemned sin? Verse one tells us that Jesus saved us from condemnation as a legal declaration of our guilt. The same Jesus who saved us from condemnation in the sense of being under God’s judicial wrath also condemned the sin that was enslaving us in the sense of executing judgment upon it by taking away its enslaving power over us. We had been estranged from God by our sin, legally alienated from God, given over to our sins and to a rebellious spirit. Jesus paid the ransom price for our sins and then applied that payment to our lives through the saving work of His Holy Spirit. Jesus earned the right to free us from our enslavement to sinful living, and He freed us by giving us new hearts with God’s law written on them. This is how Jesus condemned sin as the controlling power in our lives. Jesus judged sin by taking away its power to dominate us. Our rebellious hearts have been transformed into hearts that desire to please God by obeying God’s moral law. Thus truly converted Christians are those who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The Christian, as he is progressively sanctified in this life, is more and more fulfilling the righteous requirements of God’s moral law. He is more and more living life as God has said that life should be lived. One day every true Christian will reach the goal of living life totally according to the Spirit and totally untainted by the sinful flesh. At death, the Christian’s soul will be made perfect in holiness. That is our destiny, and we should live each day as a step toward that final destiny, and we should take no step in our daily life that is contrary to that coming destiny.

This is indeed a rich passage that goes beyond the milk of the word to the solid food that is meant for the spiritually mature. This passage spiritually nourishes us by giving us a greater appreciation of salvation as the double cure. Jesus has both  saved us from condemnation and condemned the sin that was enslaving us. To use the language of Psalm 63, may your soul be satisfied as with marrow and fatness, and may your mouth praise your God and Savior with joyful lips.

Westminster Larger Catechism 109: A Short Analysis

The portion of WLC 109 that is usually at issue is the phrase about making a representation of God in the following statement of things prohibited:

“the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; …”

There are at least two possible ways to interpret the “making” phrase in the above statement of things prohibited. One way interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase, and the other way interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase. If one interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase, then WLC 109 is teaching that all visual and mental representations of deity are sinful idols even if they are not made or used for worship. If one interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase, then visual and mental representations of deity are not necessarily sinful idols if they are not made or used for worship.

Here are two examples of visual representations of the second person of the Godhead: 1) the credible generic lamb and 2) the credible generic male human identified as a visual representation of Jesus by a role in a gospel scene. A generic lamb is not a credible visual representation if, for example, it is blemished or is missing a leg. A generic male human visual representation is not a credible visible representation if, for example, it has tattoos or has superhuman physical attributes, as in some Roman Catholic counter-reformation art. A credible generic male human representation of Jesus in His humanity is one that does not contradict what we know about Jesus’ human appearance. It is not an exact depiction like a photograph.

An example of a credible generic male human identified by a role in a gospel scene is the baby in “The Adoration of the Shepherds,” painted by a pupil of Rembrandt in 1646, a year before the Westminster Assembly approved the Westminster Confession of Faith. The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase condemns this as an idol. The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase does not condemn this as an idol as long as it was not made or used for worship.

An example of a credible generic lamb is the one found on the cover page of the 1599 Geneva Bible; it is right below the heart outline in the center of the page. The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase in conjunction with the “worshiping” phrase does not condemn this as an idol as long as it was not made or used for worship. The understanding, however, of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase does condemn this as an idol if it is applied consistently. Yet some who use WLC 109 to condemn as an idol the generic male human visual representation do not regard the generic lamb visual representation as necessarily idolatrous. In my view, this is inconsistent.

An argument against interpreting the “making” phrase independently of the “worshiping” phrase is that it proves too much unless one is willing consistently to condemn as idols every possible visual and mental representation of deity. Such possible visual and mental representations of deity are the triangle, the lamb, the bridge, the dove, the IHS monogram, the chi-rho, the alpha omega, the printed word “God,” the sacraments and others.

The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase conjunctively teaches the same truth that is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith:

But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (WCF 21.1)

The understanding of WLC 109 that interprets the “making” phrase independently adds significantly to the prohibition beyond what is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith on the topic.

See also:

Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 109 and Representations of Deity

Peter Martyr and the Second Commandment

Zwingli and Bullinger on Pictures of Jesus

The Geneva Bible and Visual Representations of Deity

Charles Hodge and Pictures of Jesus

Archibald Alexander and Mental Images of Jesus

Preaching and Mental Images

The Christological Argument and Images of Jesus

My Understanding of Images of Jesus