A new book by Paul Tripp is always reason for rejoicing. This one is a series of meditations on Psalm 51, which is every Christian’s Psalm.

This book has been out a while now. However, its importance can hardly be exaggerated. We know next to nothing about Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Letham has done us a very valuable service by reintroducing us to our long-lost cousin (p. 11-12). The purpose of Letham’s book is well summarized in the preface: “I hope that, in drawing attention to the agreements and misunderstands, readers may come to a better understanding of where the real differences lie” (p. 13). So, Letham’s purpose is to point out where we Reformed agree with EO (especially against Rome, as there are many who think we are further away from EO than we are from Rome), and where we have misunderstood EO. This all serves the purpose of clarifying where we in fact disagree (and Letham never papers over those differences), so that further discussion can perhaps result in greater unity.

One of the most interesting points about EO is that it never had to face the Enlightenment fractionalization of knowledge (p. 12, 275 and elsewhere). In other words, most EO theologians plunge right in to theology without concern for defending their beliefs against a form of rationalism. As a result, the EO church does not have the great divide between theology and piety. The connecting glue between the two is the liturgy. It was rather eye-opening to see how much Scripture is read in an EO service (see pp. 163-164). For the Good Friday service alone, there are 37 (!) readings from the Bible, many of them whole chapters, or even several chapters! Compare this to the paucity of evangelical services, where one is fortunate to have one reading sandwiched in between the puppet show and the dance.

The book starts with an excellent historical overview of the seven ecumenical councils (which constitutes the confessional basis of the EO church). Of course, we as Reformed folk hold to them as well, except for the icons business, which Letham discusses at great length. Letham also discusses the most important EO theologians (ranging from Chrysostom, the Cappadocians, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas and more modern theologians, such as Bulgakov (although the last is discussed more fully in Letham’s book on the Trinity).

In the next part of the book, Letham tackles the main issues: prayer, icons, Scripture, tradition, Church, Sacraments, the Trinity, and Salvation (including justification, deification, and synergism). Then Letham ties it all up very nicely in the concluding chapters by reiterating what we have in common, where we have misunderstood them, and where they have misunderstood us, and where we still plain ol’ disagree. All in all, the best book for an entrance into understanding the EO church.

And, as one last point, I must commend Christian Focus in the Mentor imprint for what is surely the most creative book cover for a theological book that I have ever seen.

1 Peter is my favorite book of the Bible, largely because it was a Bible study on this book by a previous pastor that made me want to become a pastor myself. So, I obtain all the commentaries on 1 Peter that I possibly can. I recently got a hold of this commentary on Peter/Jude. Every commentary that I have seen and worked with in this series has been of great benefit to preachers of the Word. So far, I have worked my way through Genesis, and am currently reading the excellent volume on Daniel. See here for my review of 1 Samuel.

David Helm is on the pastoral staff of Holy Trinity Church, a multi-congregational church in Chicago. He is also the director of Simeon Trust, an organization dedicated to helping pastors preach expository sermons with practical application.

David has written a very helpful commentary that majors on the majors. This is always a good thing in preaching. The payoff on 1 Peter is very helpful indeed, since the (in)famous passage about the spirits in prison is located in chapter 3. I appreciated his sermon on this text, as it was a refreshing approach that sought to major on the main point. There are a myriad of questions surrounding that text, of course, but David Helm concentrates on the fact that Christ is crucified, raised, and ascended, and that therefore, just as Jesus is victorious, so also should we be encouraged, knowing that we will be victorious in Christ as well. 

Helm has a helpful way of reminding readers where in the letter they are (a big picture perspective). See, for instance, the section on pp. 47-49, which details the flow of thought from the first nine verses of chapter 1 into the second major section of chapter 1. He notes the movement from the future (vv. 3-5) to the present (vv. 6-9) to the past (vv. 10-12).

Helm affirms the full plenary inspiration of Scripture in his sermon on 2 Peter 1:16-21, and offers some helpful points about the lamp shining in a dark place, as well as an explanation of how the Holy Spirit carried the authors of Scripture.

Helm does not shortchange Jude, either, with nine whole sermons on the book (80 pages). All in all, a very good preacher’s aid. It should rank with Clowney and Schreiner for practical help in preaching these books.  

One of the biggest hangovers from the Enlightenment is the fragmentation of knowledge. This is true of all departments of knowledge, not just theology. With the rush to specialization, there comes greater knowledge in specialty departments, but with a corresponding lack of general knowledge. No longer could one acquire a Ph.D. in Physics generally. You can only get a Ph.D. in Physics now if you do it in a sub-department of a sub-department of a sub-department of Physics.

Seminaries today are specialized. Faculties are specialized. This has some advantages. There can be a good division of labor this way. Specialists have a better chance of keeping up in their field. However, there comes a terrible price to pay that goes largely unnoticed by all but a few (usually in church history and systematics, who are more attuned to the unity of theology anyway): departments not only stop talking to each other, but start becoming suspicious of each other. The very worst part of this suspicion certainly surrounds the exegetical departments in their relation to systematics. The fault here is almost entirely on the part of the exegetes. Systematics professors have been warned for so long about the dangers of proof-texting that they are gun shy to a certain extent. But if I had a dollar for every time I read in a commentary ”That’s a systematic category, and we can’t talk about that in a commentary,” I would be exceedingly wealthy indeed. Exegete this passage, folks: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” from Deuteronomy 6:4. Does not the Shema tell us that the Lord is one? Then shouldn’t theology also be one in some sense? I do not advocate the elimination of departments in seminaries. But there are some things that seminaries need to do if students are not to leave bewildered by the competing methodologies of the various disciplines.

First, have students read Richard Muller’s book The Study of Theology. And they should read it at the beginning and at the end of their seminary training. Either that, or read Edward Farley’s book Theologia (unfortunately out of print).

Second, the introductory classes to the various disciplines should have sections dealing with how their discipline is dependent on every other discipline.

Third, all throughout the courses, specific application should be made apparent as to how the knowledge they are acquiring is inter-dependent on all other disciplines in theology.    

For his post on Charles Hodge and the Phenomena of Scripture. Gary Johnson alerted me to this post, which, ironically, I had requested Jeff Waddington to request Paul Helm to post. There are few men alive who are better acquainted with Charles Hodge than Paul Helm is.

I do not necessarily speak for the other Christ the Center folks in responding the way I do to Scott Clark’s blog post about our FV discussion. This should be very clearly in mind. If the others decide they agree, fair enough, they can comment on my blog or elsewhere.

The issue with Dr. Gaffin is certainly a WTS versus WSC issue, not just an issue regarding the Federal Vision, or even regarding Norman Shepherd. In my opinion, Dr. Gaffin has sufficiently distanced himself from those problematic formulations in his recent book, in the article in the WTS book on justification, and in his article in the newest Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes. This may be a matter of a difference of opinion. However, in talking at length with Dr. Gaffin about these matters, it seems quite clear to me that Dr. Gaffin does in fact uphold the Westminster Standards on these issues. And I am not merely defending my professor on this issue. I think it is true.

The second issue is a point well taken. I think we were more concerned with describing what the Federal Vision is, rather than describing its reception per se in the NAPARC denominations. It certainly cannot be heard too many times that it has been rejected by so many denominations in the NAPARC organization.  

Last time I went through the FV Joint Statement, I dealt with paragraphs 5-6 together. A word on the rhetoric of that post: what I mean when I say “in other words” is that this is the consequence of what is being said. I still do think these two paragraphs are the weakest section in the whole document. I really want to ask several questions, however.

Could Doug please explain what “hyper-specialized terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints?” Especially since it appears he is talking about hyper-specialized terms that have broader biblical usage (”biblical use of the same language”). What is his target here? The terms justification, sanctification, propitiation, expiation? Oh wait, those are biblical terms. Election, predestination, fore-ordination? Oh wait, those are biblical terms, also. Maybe he is talking about the terms that the church has been forced to use because of heresies (such as the Arian heresy). Words like “homoousias,” which can be translated as “of the same essence.” I’m not sure how that term could be confusing, though.

Second question: is such language (let’s talk about the Dordtian use of the term “election,” which might very well be what Doug is talking about) not biblical? Is “good and necessary consequence” a legitimate way of using terms as summaries of biblical teaching? Oftentimes, I think the question comes down to exegesis of such passages as Ephesians 1: is Paul using the term “election” there in what could be described somewhat anachronistically as the Dordtian way, or is it the FV “covenantal election?” Here it is clear that I believe that the FV has not proven their case exegetically AT ALL. I have yet to see a detailed exegetical discussion of why they interpret Ephesians 1 of covenantal election rather than decretal election. Look at the benefits that come from election in Ephesians 1: adoption (vs 5), redemption through Christ’s blood (vs 7), forgiveness of sins (vs 7), obtaining the inheritance (vs 11), the hope in Christ (vs 12), belief in Him (vs 13), and the seal of the Holy Spirit (vv 13-14). These people are true believers, not just covenant members according to the FV definition of covenant. Unless the FV is willing to say that all these benefits are losable, then it seems rather clear that Ephesians 1 is talking about election in the decretal way, not a supposed covenantal way.

In this post I am going to argue that the meaning of the word ἀνάμνησιν in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 does not provide evidence one way or the other as to whether children may participate in the Supper, since the whole question depends on a prior question of whether infants participated in the Passover. 

First of all, I reject the interpretation of the word that makes it into something that God remembers.
The reason for that is very simple. The folks who have argued for this position have been using the wrong Old Testament precedents for arguing as its meaning. John Barach, for instance (and I think Leithart also goes this direction), looks to the Noahic covenant and the rainbow as a precedent for understanding the term in this way. The problem here is that there is a much more direct precedent for understanding the term, and that is in the institution and instructions for Passover itself. Even Leonard Coppes agrees that the Passover is part of the background for the Lord’s Supper (Coppes would argue that most of the other Old Testament feasts participate in the type as well). Deuteronomy 16:3 says this:

לֹא־תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל־עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם עֹנִי כִּי

בְחִפָּזוֹן יָצָאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְמַעַן תִּזְכֹּר אֶת־יוֹם צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ

מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ׃  

In Greek: οὐ φαγῇ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ζύμην· ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας φαγῇ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἄζυμα, ἄρτον κακώσεως, ὅτι ἐν σπουδῇ ἐξήλθετε ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· ἵνα μνησθῆτε τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς ἐξοδίας ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν.

In English: You shall eat no leavened bread with it. Seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction—for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste—that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.

The point here is that “remembering” is clearly second person in both Greek and Hebrew: “You will remember.” The verse has a summarizing feel to it such that this is the purpose for the Passover, so that the people will remember.

Exodus 12 does nothing to shake this conclusion, since the whole emphasis is on the people remembering. They do all the necessary preparations so that they will remember everything the Lord wants them to remember. There is no indication in Exodus 12 that the Lord is doing the remembering. Of course, Tim Gallant argues (pg. 86 of Feed My Lambs) that it is both God remembering and the people remembering. He argues that ἀνάμνησιν means both, and that it is the purpose of the Sacrament, not a prerequisite (pg. 85). I am personally leaning towards the people being the ones who remember on this one, as I see no indication of Passover meaning anything else. There is no proof that the word means anything other than the people’s remembrance. Even if there were, it would not prove that the word meant that in 1 Corinthians 11. If the Passover is the main antecedent in the Old Testament (which I agree that it is), then the Passover’s theology of remembrance should carry over into the Lord’s Supper. The reason why this argument cannot be used in favor of credo-communion is that it is debated as to whether children partook of the Passover. If they partook of the Passover, and yet they can still be said to be doing the remembering by their very partaking, then the argument is not proved one way or the other. The whole question will then turn on whether children partook of Passover or not.

Matthew 12:1-8

5/25/2008

Audio Version

“Come to me, and I will give you rest.” So says Jesus. The burden of Jesus is light, and His yoke is easy, He says. And yet, sometimes we feel as if the burden should be heavier. There are some Christians who would prefer a life of self-accusation, self-burdening, self-atoning, self-salvation. Such people are likely to add to the law of God. The Pharisees were like that. Jesus will accuse them of placing impossibly heavy burdens on the people without lifting a single finger to help. One of those heavy burdens is the case-law that built up around the Sabbath. Against all the laws that the Pharisees and rabbis made so that the Sabbath would not be violated, Jesus tells us that He is Lord of the Sabbath, and that the purpose of Sabbath is not to impinge on human needs, as if people could not satisfy their hunger on the Sabbath. Rather, the purpose of the Sabbath is to worship God. Let me repeat that: the purpose of the Sabbath is to worship God. However, the worship of God does not mean that we starve ourselves, nor does it mean that we exercise no mercy towards people in distress. Let’s look at what the Sabbath means, and then look at how the Pharisees were adding to the Sabbath law, and lastly, how Jesus frees the Sabbath from all the extra commands of the Pharisees.

The Sabbath was instituted at creation. On the seventh day of creation, the Lord rested, or ceased from His work. Therefore, the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, like marriage and like work. Those are the three creation ordinances: Sabbath, marriage, and work. The Sabbath did not come into existence on Mount Sinai. Of course, the Ten Commandments are still a guide for the Christian life. But in no sense can we say that the Sabbath is only for Old Testament Israel. The Sabbath is for all humanity. In the Old Testament, there are two reasons given for why Israel was to observe the Sabbath day. The first reason is creation, as we have already seen. As God rested on the seventh day, so also the Israelites were rest on the seventh day. In Exodus, that is the reason given in the Ten Commandments themselves. In Deuteronomy, the reason is a different, but related reason. In Deuteronomy 5, the second telling of the law, the reason for keeping the Sabbath is that they were redeemed from the land of Egypt. They were slaves under the Egyptians, and had no time to rest, and no time to worship God. God redeemed them from the land of Egypt precisely so that they could rest from work on the seventh day and worship God. These are the two reasons for keeping the Sabbath: creation and redemption. As we saw in our call to worship from Isaiah 53, the Sabbath is for worship, and it is not for us to do any old thing we want to do. Some people might say, “well, the Sabbath is Old Testament, and we are in the New Testament, so the Sabbath law does not apply.” If that is true, then it is the only one of the Ten Commandments that does not apply any more. Is that really a reasonable conclusion to draw? Where does Jesus say that the Sabbath no longer applies? Jesus spends 14 entire verses talking about the Sabbath right in this very chapter. Would He have done that for a law that was about to become obsolete? Indeed, Jesus speaks of the Sabbath commandment just as much, if not more, than any of the other commandments. But there are further reasons for believing that the Sabbath is still in effect for Christians. We said that the two reasons for keeping Sabbath are creation and redemption. Well, the Bible speaks of the work of Christ as being a new creation, and a new redemption. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ, there is a new creation. And, of course, Christ’s work is obviously that of a Redeemer. Just as God freed Israel from the land of Egypt, so that the Israelites would not have to work so hard, so also did God free us from our Egypt of sin and death, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin. So Jesus fulfills the creation and redemption reason for keeping the Sabbath. That does not mean that the Sabbath is ended. It means that the day has changed from Saturday to Sunday.

In the Old Testament, there was a telescoping Sabbath pattern that points to the eternal Sabbath rest. There is the weekly Sabbath. Then, every 7 years, there was a Sabbath rest for the land, and then every 7 times 7 years (49 years), there was a Jubilee of freedom from servitude. These Sabbaths telescoped into each other, and opened out into the eternal Sabbath rest that Paul speaks of in Hebrews 4. There still remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, says Paul in Hebrews. Ultimately, what the Sabbath means is eternal rest from our labors. Every time we celebrate the Sabbath Day, we are now looking forward to the eternal rest that comes when we get to heaven. Sunday Sabbath, then, is supposed to be a bit of heaven experienced beforehand. It is the sacred brought into the realm of time. However, there are lots of things that get in the way of our enjoying this day, just as there were lots of things that the Pharisees put in the way to keep that day from being a foretaste of heaven.

The Pharisees had 39 activities that were forbidden to do on the Lord’s Day. You could not carry something on the Sabbath Day, unless you were wearing it. You could not travel for very long. You could not reap, winnow, or cook on the Sabbath. And that, of course, is the source of their objections to what the disciples were doing on the Sabbath. The Pharisees did not have a problem with the disciples picking heads of grain from a field that did not belong to them. This was already allowed under Old Testament law. The problem was that they were doing these things on the Sabbath. The disciples were harvesting grain, and they were getting rid of the husks, and they were making a meal out of this grain. That was against their man-made laws.

Notice that Jesus never says that the disciples were actually breaking the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus argues that hunger is a legitimate reason to “break” the Sabbath. Hunger is not a sin. Hunger is something that makes eating a necessity. Jesus uses the example of David and the showbread. That showbread was only for the priests to eat. No one else was allowed to eat it. However, since David and his men were going about the Lord’s work, and they were fainting from hunger, the priest gave them the showbread, or consecrated bread. Necessity and the preservation of human life “trumps” other laws.

However, a word is necessary here about “necessity.” All too often, we make up things that are “necessary” so that we can break the Sabbath. We just “have” to go to the Hague Cafe, because we are tired. What did your fathers and grandfathers do when the Hague Cafe wasn’t open? What did they do when there was no cafe open for them to force other people to work on the Sabbath? They planned ahead. With a little planning, you can make Sunday very easy. Make a double batch on Saturday night of whatever you are making for supper. That way, Sunday is easy. You just have leftovers. Keep the meal simple otherwise. These are suggestions, of course. No one is going to make a rule about that. But that Sabbath is supposed to be a day of rest from our normal labors, and is for worship. Now, some people might think that it is hypocritical of me to say that going to the Hague Cafe makes people work on Sabbath, and so breaks it, but then have potlucks on Sunday that make our people work. However, there are two differences between the two situations. The first is that the Hague Cafe involves people working for money, doing business as usual, whereas a potluck does not involve that. Secondly, a potluck is doing the Lord’s work of fostering fellowship among believers. Plus, when many people work together, is it really that much more work than eating a dinner at home? Therefore, I do not believe that they are the same kind of thing.

The next example Jesus gives to the Pharisees is that of the temple priests themselves. They work on the Sabbath, because they are doing the work of God, and they are doing the work of worship. They “work” on the Sabbath, and yet do not break the Sabbath. So, even if the disciples were “breaking” the Sabbath, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that it is fine for the disciples to do so, since He Himself is greater than the Sabbath, and is indeed Lord of the Sabbath. Incidentally, this proves that a minister is not breaking the Sabbath when he preaches on Sunday. He is leading the people in worship, just as the Old Testament priests did. Now, I make every effort to have all the reading and writing done before Sunday, so that all that is left is to preach and lead worship. But occasionally, necessity, in the form of many interruptions during the week, will force me to finish the work on Sunday. That is no breaking of the Lord’s Sabbath, since it is the Lord’s work.

The last piece of evidence that Jesus gives is the purpose of the law, which is mercy, not sacrifice. The Pharisees were not being merciful to the disciples, and not allowing them to eat these picked heads of grain (which, when you think about it, is such a small thing!). They were more interested in the letter of the law, than in the heart of the law, which was mercy. Jesus will go on to heal a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath as an act of mercy.

To sum up what we have been saying then: the Sabbath is for worship. On this day, we cease what we usually do during the week in order to worship God. That is the purpose. Everything we do on Sunday should be conducive to worship. Sometimes that means taking a nap, so that you can be awake for the evening worship service. Sometimes it means activities for children, so that they can sit quietly and reverently in the worship service. It means fellowship with believers, talking about the sermon and how it can apply to our lives. There are two categories of works that are lawful on the Sabbath: one category is the works of necessity, and again, that does not mean those things which we think are necessary, but really are not. It means those things which are truly necessary, like feeding hungry mouths, as Jesus here proves. And secondly, as we will see next time, acts or works of mercy, like healing, or visiting the sick and shut-ins. This is calling the Sabbath a delight.

is the focus of Dr. Scott Oliphint’s critique of I&I.