A Corinthian Problem

I Corinthians 11: 17-34

Much confusion reigns about the argument Paul uses in this chapter because most people do not consider the argument as it is set forth. This section has been used to justify a number of views of elements of the Lord’s Supper that Paul’s concern has been lost in those other considerations. In essence Paul wants the church to stop their misbehavior at the Lord’s Supper because it is harmful to them. If we view the whole argument he says:

“But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you” (I Cor. 11: 17-22).

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (I Cor. 11: 23-26).

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world” (I Cor. 11: 27-32).

“So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come” (I Cor. 11: 33-34).

Note the link points in each section: verse 23 begins “For I delivered …” indicating the reason he was not about to praise them because he had passed on to them exactly what he had been given himself. And their behavior showed they were not merely ignoring what he had taught them they were dishonoring the Lord. This is why the next section begins at verse 27 with “Therefore whoever eats or drinks …” the conclusion to be drawn from the previous section. They are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord because they are misusing the Supper – hence the reason why things were going so wrong in the Church. Then the last section begins “So then my brethren …”

In reality the essence of Paul’s solution to the problem described in verses 17-22 is in this last section. “Wait for one another and if you are hungry eat at home so you do not come together for judgment.” That is indicated by his next statement “and the rest I’ll deal with when I come.” If we lose sight of what Paul is seeking to achieve with this line of argument we cannot discern rightly how the parts are meant to be understood.

So if the first section and the last contain the problem and its solution what are the functional parts of sections two and three? The “therefore” of section three makes it clear that section two is the basis of his argument in three. So what is his argument in three? Anyone who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, so each of you examine yourself and so eat. And why do they eat and drink judgment to themselves? Because as section two shows, their actions in the Supper ritual proclaim Christ’s death but their acting toward one another denies what they are proclaiming.

Which leads to the key thought: what does Paul mean by “eating and drinking unworthily?” And from the context (verses 17-22) that is eating, while leaving some hungry and drinking with some getting drunk. That makes sense of the proposed solution – “wait for one another and if you’re hungry eat at home.” After urging them to examine themselves, Paul adds an explanation of why the church is in such a poor state – they do not judge themselves as they ought.

If, therefore, section three applies the principle they ought to have learned from section two what does the Lord’s Supper picture in this instance; why does Paul explain it as he does? In particular what is it about his death, proclaimed in the Supper, that applies to the Corinthians and the way they were celebrating the Lord’s Supper. The two truths are that Christ died for his people and his blood was shed to establish the New Covenant of which they are a part. It is true this happened as God ordained it but the means by which it happened was that one of his own betrayed him. If, then, even the betrayer was given the Supper by what right did they cut off some congregation members [for whom Christ also died] from the meal?

Church: it’s you AND me

One of the frustrating things about Christianity is the frequency with which we cannot answer simply what seem to be simple questions. Here are a few: “Is it right to work at your normal job on the Lord’s Day?” “Does a growing Church prove the preacher is faithful to the Scriptures?” and “May I take a drink of alcohol now and again?” The simple answer, and the one most frequently given to each of these questions is “No.” The more correct answer is: “It depends …”

The past few months have made all of us think about the question of worship – Is worship something we offer to God as individuals or something offered as a group – as a gathering of his people? Like the questions above the real answer is “It depends …” As the title of this article indicates, it depends on how you view the Church. We may see it as you (as you) and me (as me) who meet yet retain our individuality – and this is the way many today understand the nature of the Church. Peter is clearly not Paul and each one makes his own individual and necessary contribution to the Church. It is the vital nature of the individual, even of the lowliest individual, contribution to the working of the whole which seems to be the focus of chapters 12-14 of 1^st Corinthians.

Important, however, though each one’s part is in the Church, it is unwarranted to place too much emphasis upon the individual. In first few chapters of the same letter the Apostle Paul reminds the readers that he, Apollos and Peter were merely workers in God’s garden and that they as a Church were that garden. Their individual tasks might differ and, in that task each was doing his best to be faithful but they were all there to work for the benefit of the whole. In the three chapters mentioned above Paul includes the same idea by reminding the reader that the different gifts of the Spirit are all intended for the benefit of the body. The Church is truly you (as you) and me (as me) but it is as we work together that we are clearly recognized as the Church.

Though there is truth in all the descriptions of the Church given so far, almost any society of man can be described in the same terms. In fact, the names “Church,” “Assembly” and even “ἐκκλησία” may be, and have been, used to describe a gathering of people with no implications as to their purpose. What makes a group of people a church is not whether they are viewed as individuals, or as a group or even that they come together to encourage one another – it’s something else. Church, we are reminded, is where we come together to sing praises to God and are encouraged to honor him a bit more faithfully in the way we live. It is this concept, almost that of a modern seminar, that is at the heart of Pliny the Younger’s description sent to his Emperor of the services of the Church of his day.

While this representation of the Church is closer to the truth, even this description is flawed. Almost any seminar may “provoke us to love and good deeds,” though the definition of those terms may vary. The flaw lies in the focus on the members thus giving the impression the Church exists for their benefit. Some actually go so far as to evaluate a congregation’s worth by the way interaction with its members makes them feel. It is easy to become so comfortable with our rituals that we can believe the Church exists for the benefit of its members. While this is partly true, missionaries have a way of reminding us the Church exists mostly to benefit unbelievers.

Surely this provides us with the clue which lets us recognize what the Church actually is. We must begin with Paul in recognizing the Church is gathered together, not by common interest alone it is God who makes anyone a part of it. It is he who gives us the talents required to build the Church and it is he who gives the insights that will convict unbeliever, call them to account and disclosing the secrets of their hearts cause them will fall on their faces and worship God, declaring God is certainly among us. In the interests of truth that is how each and every one of us came to be members of the Church. It may not have been as dramatic as that as the Apostle Paul’s experience but it is certainly through the Church members that we come to understand who we are and why we need to change and, in every case, God uses them to show us the hidden things of our hearts. And sometimes they are not even aware that has been done.

Jesus described this event as “the wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going;” applying it to “everyone who is born of the Spirit.” We may se the results of the Spirit’s work when the unbeliever is convicted, falls down and worships God, declaring God is among us but we can neither predict when, or even if, such a thing will happen. That being the case there is no place for pride in our Church membership we were added because of our need and none of us is any better than any other – including the unbeliever who comes to visit. It is God who makes us, each and every one of us a part of his Church and we exist in order to make clear to the world how wonderful and worthy of praise he is. As a painting may appear to be only a series of smears of paint on a canvas until it is complete when it reveals the genius of the painter so the Church will in time reveal the true glory of God. Peter describes us as living stones brought together to become the temple of God – a temple based on a promise that includes you and me, our children and as many as the Lord calls to himself.

Where is the Promise?

One of the hardest things about living in our era is to persevere in trusting in our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. Like the Jews of old, the people of our era are looking for people who can give some insight into the events of the day and predict what is coming. We listen to people who will tell us that our present pandemic will lead to so many deaths and that it is necessary, therefore, to close down businesses, avoid human contact with others and generally heed the restrictions our medical prophets have given as instructions to avoid death or (at best) diminished health.

Peter warns that there will (and have already) come scoffers who require signs and wonders before they will believe in the message given by the Apostles. “Where is the promise of his coming (or, better, his presence)?” they ask. The church, as a consequence, so often responds by seeking to produce the kinds of sign demanded by these scoffers. It is interesting, however, that Peter does not point to events or signs in his own day —some of which he had, himself, been responsible for producing. He reminds them that the claim on which they based their opposition was faulty. He pointed, in fact, to the past and (specifically) the record of Scripture.

If God intended to provide us with a timeline which we could use to show us how close is the Second Coming then it seems strange Peter did not point to the words of the Lord or of the signs in his own day. But, in reality Jesus did the same as Peter. When answering the disciples question about the signs of the end of the age he said that there would be no sign but that of Noah. And that, as the people of Noah’s day were eating and drinking and living normal lives not knowing when the flood was going to come until it came upon them, so it will be at the end. To hold fast to the word of God in spite of appearances to the contrary is a test of our faith in the character of God.

It is also the sign for our age. Noah heard the command of God to go and build an ark even as the people of God are commanded to make disciples of all nations, preaching the need for sinners to repent and find forgiveness in Christ. That the Church exists and grows and has continued to do so until our day is the promise of Christ’s second coming — for he will not return until all his chosen have been gathered from the four corners of the earth. In contrast to the signs designed to warn of the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem Jesus made it quite clear that there would be no sign of the end of the age but that the Church should remain faithfully working at its task (Matt. 24: 36 – 25: 30). A great Puritan commentator, Matthew Henry, well described the situation of Peter’s day and one which has persisted until our own:

 

“2 Peter 3:1-4 — The purified minds of Christians are to be stirred up, that they may be active and lively in the work of holiness. There will be scoffers in the last days, under the gospel, men who make light of sin, and mock at salvation by Jesus Christ. One very principal article of our faith refers to what only has a promise to rest upon, and scoffers will attack it till our Lord is come. They will not believe that he will come. Because they see no changes, therefore they fear not God, (Psalm 55:19). What he never has done, they fancy he never can do, or never will do.” 

Hebrews 11 and Creation

Investigator using a Microscope

¹ Some view believing in creation as a matter of “faith” while belief in the theory of evolution is “accepting scientific fact.”² The origin of the universe, by definition, cannot be verified scientifically in spite of the fact that no human being was there to observe or record what happened, nor can the beginning of the universe be repeated. Any theory of origins, therefore, must be based on faith.

Last time we recognized some have faith the universe is made of materials which have always existed by the random interaction of the forces that still operate today. Interestingly, evolutionary scientists seem to be willing to accept almost any theory of origins except one – that which would have the world as we know it come into existence by the power of God, as described by the Bible. Even though no theory of origins can be subjected to scientific investigation, this theory must be rejected since it implies the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. If so, that would also mean accepting the reality of the God of the Bible.

A complicating factor in this debate is that the language of the Bible is that of the ordinary person. This should not be a barrier to the scientist, however, since they also speak of the sunrise and sunset though we know better. We know the sun does not move and what we call sunrise is caused by the rotation of the earth. That means the earliest chapters of Genesis may portray reality to us even though we may need to interpret carefully what it means if we are to be precise enough to work out its implications.

When the Bible speaks of animals and plants reproducing “after their kind,” for example, it should be apparent that we are talking of those which may interbreed, to produce a viable offspring. That the category is broader than a particular breed should be apparent. The various breeds of dog would all be classed as the same kind in spite of the fact that this may include a number of pairings which would not necessarily occur in the wild. Nevertheless the language of the Bible is clear, even though there may be times when we are left with questions about what, exactly, is meant by the words used. What is interesting is that the Bible presents some concepts which our present level of knowledge finally allows us to understand even though previously denied scientists.

A further complicating factor is that the Bible claims the process of creation ceased which would mean the creative process cannot be investigated and the world which we live in is not the same as the one originally created. The Bible declares a world-wide flood in the past completely changed the world we live in. So great was the change that it can be described as “destroying” at least the whole ecosystem of the past. Accepting this as true means we cannot investigate the system which was in operation prior to the flood since it no longer exists – a totally unacceptable stance to an evolutionary scientist.

Not all the blame for the confused state of affairs in this area is to be laid at the door of the scientists. Because of the use often made of, for example, fossil evidence the Church has too often been quick to claim that such evidence was false. It was common to find past Church leaders arguing that there were no such creatures as dinosaurs, As investigations have been carried out in numerous fields, however, it becomes clearer that where the Bible speaks about a subject it can be trusted. Today one of the best evidences of the world-wide flood comes from the extent and many types of fossil left in the rocks in the past.

In fact it is becoming obvious to those doing the investigations that we do not know as much about past events as we believed (even as little as 50 years ago). Since the Bible has been shown to be accurate with respect to verifiable matters we may presume, without evidence to the contrary, that it is equally accurate about those things we cannot test as yet. Where there appears to be new evidence to the contrary, it should be noted and further investigation undertaken to decide on its implications. Such an approach has led to some valuable insights into Bible teaching and incidental support to the veracity of the Bible record. This stance, it seems, ought to have been the response to the evidence from the beginning.

Faith in the Bible is not, therefore, legitimately characterized as a “blind” faith since it rests upon the proven character of the one speaking. And one who knows precisely what he is talking about, even if the language he uses is that of the common man and not that of the scientist. Unlike the theories of those who claim their “scientific” investigations provide them with assured facts about our origins in spite of ignoring the evidence of the great flood, the Bible presents the record of the one person who was there and who has revealed how he brought the former world into being.

Believing the Bible content was written down by men chosen by God who were moved to record their message by the Holy Spirit is a vital element of faith in its veracity. We trust that, since it is from God, he has ensured its interpretation of history provides us with insight into the way he sees things. This becomes evidence to us of things we have not seen, providing a basis for hope in its promises. It also means a clear, but unusual, turn of phrase in one part of the book may shed unexpected light on another which is more obscure or ambiguous.

Where errors commonly occur is noting only some of the data when describing the Bible’s teaching about any particular subject. According to Hebrews 11, then, there are two factors which have a direct bearing on the creation record of Genesis 1 and 2. First, that all that has come into being did so by the word of God. The original language puts the focus on the means used rather than the content. It would be fair to translate as “by God’s speaking.” The second factor is that the basic materials of our present universe have not always been there. Things that are were made of things which do not appear. This is the reason the Church has always believed, though not usually expressed in this manner, God even created the basic building blocks of the universe.

Recent studies into the evidence for Intelligent Design, in uncovering the way each particle in a substance contains the information necessary for its interaction with other particles, tend to emphasize this same point. The way complex systems are related to one another and have to work together in order to work properly makes the idea of randomly generated changes bringing our universe into existence increasingly unlikely to be true.

Peter reminded us the evolutionist says “all things continue as they have from the beginning.” It is possible to read the opening verse of the Bible as implying God created everything that we see from stuff that was already in existence. This was certainly the view of the ancient Greeks. They called this stuff “chaos” and it was the Olympian gods, they said who brought the present order to the universe. And modern scientists also accept that there was some matter which was in existence long before this universe because the most popular theory (the Big Bang) rests on that fact in order be logically possible. Hebrews reminds us, however, that God created all that is from that which does not appear and he did it by speaking. Genesis 1 seems to make what that means clear.

Conclusion:

Faith is an essential element for any discussion about how everything began. It does not matter whether you are a believer in evolution or of creation. Taken at face value the record of Genesis chapter 1 indicates that God spoke and what came into being was the result he intended. Hebrew 11 indicates that by faith we understand that God made everything. Recognizing the flaw in the argument what says we can scientifically verify something that cannot (by definition) be repeated allows us to accept the fact that we trust the record of the one person who was there – since there is no other way to know what happened for certain.

1  Wikimedia Commons copyright information: “This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the Agricultural Research Service, the research agency of the United States Department of Agriculture.”

2  According to dictionary.net, Princeton’s Wordnet defines a scientific fact, is “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).”

A Day to Remember

In Israel today begins Yom HaShoah the day in which the Holocaust (Hitler’s Final Solution to the  “Jewish Problem” — their complete extermination) is remembered. For non-Dispensational Christians it might seem a bit odd to take note of this event never mind spend time thinking of its significance. After all these things happened nearly 80 years ago now, and (we are told) the world has changed. For those things which have changed and have made life a little better for many people we should be thankful, not to the scientists or to our governments but to God.

We may hear words like bigotry and racism used to describe the reasons for Hitler’s Final Solution or the Holocaust. In some circles we may even hear the problem blamed on nationalism after all Nazi is a representation of the principles of National Socialism. It should never be forgotten, however, that it was not only Jews that were targeted by the Murder Squads. The ultimate aim was to bring the German people to realize their full potential by selective breeding so while it is true that 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazi regime in order to cleanse the world of Jewish influence, the aim was to remove any influence which might be detrimental to their ultimate goal.

Unlike the Spanish Inquisition which was aimed at forcible conversion of the Jews to Christianity, “The Final Solution” included Communists, Gypsies, and (bringing the point back to us) Christians who either refused to go along with government plans or protested against them. Those supporting or harboring Jewish people or those holding to the same beliefs immediately became suspects — a part of the problem for eventual removal. As you have read through the paragraphs above, I hope you have noticed the way those being described are viewed as less than image-bearers of God.

Sadly, in the descriptions above both the Nazis and their “problems” can be looked upon as categories of people which we can, by “objective” discussion, view from an increasingly distant stance until we cease to remember that these are God’s image-bearers we are discussing. Our Christian perspective should not allow us to be happy about this and it is interesting that the Jewish remembrance focuses on the survivors not the victims. It is easy to remember that it was the Jewish people who were responsible for the death of the Lord and Savior, ours and theirs, and to feel righteous about the fact that they have suffered as they ought.

It is quite another thing to remember that had they not fulfilled the role they chose we would not have gained any benefit from Jesus’ life here on earth. “… the Son of Man is going as it has been determined;” he said, “but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (Luke 22: 22). We should remember that, disaster though it must have seemed, the betrayal and his death was a part of God’s plan of salvation. How then should we view those who put him to death “by the hands of wicked men?” Surely it’s as those who are in need of redemption even as the rest of us. Interestingly the first ones to whom the gospel was sent were those in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria — those very same people. Hatred of the Jewish people does not seem to be justified by the attitude of God towards them. In fact, as Paul says, the promises of God to the fathers are irrevocable so let us not forget that he blesses those who bless Abraham and his descendants and those who curse them are cursed in their turn.

There is a new mankind to be revealed in its time but that is not the product of evolution but the regenerating power of God!

II Peter and Creation

¹ The Apostle, Peter, wrote his second letter to the Christian Church in order it seems to encourage them to believe they would neither be useless nor unfruitful if they stood firm in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. He reminded them that God had granted them everything necessary for life and godliness, through that knowledge of Christ. Given that he was writing from a concern to help them stand firm against false teachers who would lead them astray, it is not surprising that he uses the word “knowledge,”² granted in two forms, four times in the first eight verses of this letter.

So he sets out to remind them of the things they already know. The first thing he draws to their attention is that the message they first heard from the Apostles was not a cleverly constructed tale but the record of eye-witnesses, those who had heard God speak from heaven – confirming the word of prophecy which they had read in the Scriptures (1: 16-19).

Now, he reminds them, they know that prophecy is from God since the prophets spoke as they were moved by God, himself. But in the same way as there were false prophets who arose in Israel, there will also be false prophets arise among them too. One mark of such prophets is their arrogance but they are not only fitted for destruction themselves, they will lead others to the same end (1: 20-2: 22).

It is in this context that he turns to the matter which is really characteristic of their false teaching. They mock the warning of the judgment to come at Christ’s return by denying there is any evidence that it will come. “all things continue as they have from the beginning” they say.

Peter responds to this false claim in two ways. First by pointing to the flaw in their argument; and second, by reminding them that God’s concern is that none who have been promised to Christ will be lost. In the second of those answers, Peter reminds them that just because God has delayed Christ’s coming, does not mean the event is any less sure. On the contrary, the delay is so that none will be missed – God gives the opportunity to find and save those who without that delay would be lost. So they, who know the truth ought to be holy and godly in conduct both looking for and hastening the coming of the Lord (3: 8-13).

It is the flaw in their argument, however, that leads us back to the Bible book of Genesis. Here also Peter has two elements that the mockers ignore – that “by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water” (3: 5-6) and that also by his word “the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3: 7).

The only part of verse 7 which is clearly spelled out in the early chapters of Genesis is that the present heavens and earth are being reserved (or maintained) although it is hinted at by the state of men’s hearts (their intent is “evil from his youth”) and God’s use of the words “while the earth remains” in Genesis 8: 21, 22.³ Taken together, an ending; possibly an ending with judgment is clearly implied. Further, there would be no need of the reminder, God says he will set in the clouds (the rainbow) to reassure us he would be reminded of the promise every time he saw it. We deserve his condemnation and the rainbow is designed to encourage our trust that God will deal with our sins another way.

Clearly, then, the fact that mockers could point to the continuance of the heavens and the earth from the time the fathers “fell asleep” should remind them that God keeps his promises. If he has promised a coming judgment when Christ returns the delay cannot be that God has forgotten or never intended to keep his word.

More important for a biblical understanding of the origins of our world is the language of verses 5 and 6.⁴ Peter calls to mind two events 1) that the earth was made by the word of God out of water and by water and 2) that, also by water, it was destroyed. So that the world in which we live, and to which the mockers make reference, is not the same one which was first created. This makes it clear that how we understand both creation (Genesis 1 and 2) and the Flood of Noah have profound implications for how we should perceive both our present and future history.

Conclusion:

Peter’s argument for our living holy and godly lives rests to a great extent upon our view of Scripture. He urges his readers to live in a particular manner because they know (as they had been taught) that Christ will return and there will be a judgment in which the world will be purged (as by fire) of all ungodliness and unrighteousness. There is evidence to be found in the prophecies of old and the claims of mockers may be answered by reference to the Scriptures.

Endnotes:

1   This image is included from Wikipedia Commons under the following terms: “Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.” A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License.”

2   ἐπιγνώσω in verses 2, 3 and verse 8 and γνῶσις in verses 5 and 6 where, though it is used twice the construction shows it ought to be noted as one use.

3   God responded to the offering Noah made after the flood be saying to himself: “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, Seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Genesis 8: 21-22)

4   He says that his readers should “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’ For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” (II Peter 3: 3-7 emphasis added)

Love and Marriage

While I was browsing the books available at Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing I ran into a title I knew but had never purchased. I had browsed the original series on GI Williamson’s website quite some time ago but the format was difficult to read for any length of time and I soon stopped — promising myself I would get back to read it when I had more time. It is a series of sermons on the Song of Solomon which he had preached as a result of a request originating in his congregation.

Having listened to GI preach many times it is easy to imagine that these sermons will be helpful and I have no doubt they were. It is good to know that P&R have printed the series which covers a subject where thoroughly bible-based exposition is hard to find. One area where I think his insights are necessary to take into account are the thoughts he shares on those who are and may be destined to remain single. It is refreshing to hear it said that one who is single is not missing out because they are not married.

Even more important, in a sense, is the view that we will not find ultimate fulfillment in a marriage no matter how thoroughly biblical. Our ultimate fulfillment is in Christ and a good marriage may reflect some of that reality and be satisfying to both partners. In our day, however, romanticism leads us to expect more of a marriage than God ever intended us to find there. Whether single or married this series of sermons is one you should have. I for one am glad that the insights I gained by my browsing are now available (and have been, I discovered, for some time) in a more readable form.

The book version may be purchased from the publishers as either a paperback for $7.50 or e-book (for $6.99) here — the URL being:

https://www.prpbooks.com/book/the-song-of-songs

If you have the perseverance, the website version can be read here which is at this URL:

http://www.premieronline.net/~giwopc/song_of_songs.html

The Two Kingdom Speech

I have often heard the most dramatic part of this speech cited but have not previously found the whole speech. Thanks to David Myers’ blog it is now my pleasure to share it with you. It’s taken from “This day in Presbyterian History” for September 2, 2014 citing Melville’s Diary, as recorded in WM Hetherington “History of the Church of Scotland” (p. 105). The entry for September 2nd, by David T Myers, and citing Hetherington’s History reads:

The day is lost to church history. We know the month and the year of the Two Kingdom Speech of Andrew Melville. That month and year was September 1596. But the exact day is lost to us.  So this author is going to put it on September 2, this day in Presbyterian history, because it is too important not to consider it.

The elders of the General Assembly were meeting in Cupar, Fife, Scotland. Due to a breach of faith on the part of King James, the assembly had decided to sent a deputation to seek the resolution of their concerns. Heading that deputation was James Melville, who was chosen because of his courteous manner and the apparent favor he had with the king. Along side him, out of the spotlight, was his uncle, Reformation leader Andrew Melville.

Barely had James Melville begun speaking before the king cut him off and accused him of meeting in a seditious manner with other elders of the kirk, and bringing causeless fears before the people of Scotland. Andrew Melville stepped in, despite his nephew’s attempt to keep him silent, by taking the king’s robe by the sleeve, and saying that the king was “God’s silly vassal.”

“Sir,” said Andrew Melville, “we will always humbly reverence your majesty in public; but since we have this occasion to be with your majesty in private, and since you are brought in extreme danger of your life and crown, and along with you the country and the Church of God are like to go to wreck, for not telling you the truth and giving your faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty, or else be traitors both to Christ and to you. Therefore, Sir, as divers times before I have told you, so now again I must tell you, there are two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James, the head of the commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the King of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. Sir, those whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over his church, have power and authority from Him to govern his spiritual kingdom, both jointly and severally; the which no Christian king or prince should control and discharge, but fortify and assist; otherwise they are not faithful subjects of Christ and members of his Church. We will yield to you your place, and give you all due obedience; but again, I say, you are not the head of the Church; you cannot give us that eternal life which we seek for even in this world, and you cannot deprive us of it. Permit us then freely to meet in the name of Christ, and to attend to the interests of that Church of which you are the chief member. Sir, when you were in your swaddling clothes, Christ Jesus reigned freely in this land, in spite of all his enemies. His officers and ministers convened and assembled for the ruling and welfare of his Church, which was even for your welfare, defense and preservation, when these same enemies were seeking your destruction. Their assemblies since that time have continually have been terrible to these enemies, and most steadfast to you. And now, when there is more than extreme necessity for the continuance and discharge of that duty, will you (drawn to your own destruction by a most pernicious counsel) begin to hinder and dishearten Christ’s servants and your most faithful subjects, quarreling them for their convening, and the care they have of their duty to Christ and you, when you should rather commend and countenance them, as the godly kings and emperors did? The wisdom of your counsel, which I call devilish, is this, that you must be served by all sorts of men, to come to your purpose and grandeur, Jew and Gentile, Papist and Protestant; and because the Protestants and ministers of Scotland are over strong, and control the king, they must be weakened and brought low by stirring up a party against them, and, the king being equal and indifferent, both should be fain to flee to him. But, Sir, if God’s wisdom be the only true wisdom, this will prove mere and mad folly; His curse cannot but light upon it; in seeking both ye shall lose both; whereas in cleaving uprightly to God, His true servants would be your sure friends, and He would compel the rest counterfeitly and lyingly to give over themselves and serve you.” (Melville’s Dairy, pp. 245, 246, quoted in W.M. Hetherington, “History of the Church of Scotland” p. 105

New URL

GI Williamson’s website has been down a while but has been restored you can find it here — as usual the URL, for those who prefer to type it, is:

http://www.premieronline.net/~giwopc/My_Web_Site/Home_Page.html

Why John Baptized Jesus

One of the puzzling things about the Gospel records of Jesus’ life is the purpose of his baptism by John. It is customary to understand it as the way he identified with his sinful people. Since he had never sinned, he did not need to repent personally and so being subject to John’s “baptism of repentance” had to serve a different purpose for Jesus when compared with the rest of the nation. One of the supports for this interpretation is the discussion between John and Jesus, recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. When Jesus comes to be baptized John says he ought to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way about. It is Jesus’ answer that interpreters use to describe his baptism as covenantal in nature, and designed to unite him to sinful Israel.

John comment recognizes Jesus’ did not need his baptism so that when Jesus says to him: “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” it seems natural to assume Jesus’ baptism represents the union of  Messiah and his people in order to effect their redemption from bondage to sin. Further support comes from the question Jesus asks of his disciples, James and John “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Jesus clearly intended them to answer that they could not. One difficulty with the identify-with-his-sinful-people interpretation is that there is nothing in Matthew’s record to explain what Jesus meant by “fulfill[ing] all righteousness.”

A further interpretive problem is the way Jesus responds to those who challenge his authority, specifically when he chased the money-changers out of the temple (in Luke 20 and Matthew 21, for example). He asks his challengers whether God or man was the source of John’s baptism which hardly seems to answer their questions. It almost seems as if he used one of their own tactics; raising the matter only to silence their objection by their fear of the people. As leaders of the people they had the right to ask the question so there should have been an answer made — which the parables supplied. We have to wonder, then, what was the purpose of the question?

If we accept the baptism was merely to identify Jesus with his fallen people, would acknowledging John’s baptism was from God impart the necessary authority for Jesus’ actions? Why, then, would they want to insist that it was from man? Would answering either way have added to, or detracted from, Jesus’ authority? That such an interpretation does not provide a truly satisfactory answer to those questions leads us to wonder if he really did ask the question only to distract and silence? It is true that Jesus was able to use irony and sarcasm effectively but surely there was a more direct aim to his question than that.

Now there are some things for which we have no answers. If all four Gospels record an event, however, it has to be significant. To their credit, all who deal with the matter have tried to make sure we note the event as significant.  Given that both Matthew and Luke begin the record of of the life and ministry of the Lord with his birth of a virgin we might also ask why Mark describes the beginning of his Gospel by referring to Jesus’ baptism. While the common answer, that it was the beginning of his public ministry, is acceptable (in the absence of other evidence) I do believe there is a better answer. We will go into more detail later but we contend that Mark shows evidence of Christ’s authority so we can lay a solid foundation for the good news that follows. It is an introduction well worth the statement in verse 1 — “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” That evidence if we are correct in our assessment makes us see Mark’s introduction is still abrupt but it does provide us with a satisfying view of both the person of the Messiah and his credentials through whom the gospel is to be realized.

The next few posts are intended to show how the common interpretation of Jesus’ baptism introduces some difficulties, contingent on that approach, which are removed by a better understanding of John’s role in redemption history.