Category: Mining the Archives

Mining the Archives: Good Friday, The Day the Moon Turned to Blood

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published April 6, 2012.

This post is long but especially appropriate for today (Good Friday). I have taken the liberty of slightly editing the original post.

Today is Good Friday. We celebrate the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ today. When we think back to all that happened on Good Friday, we of course focus on Jesus’ becoming the “propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2).

But I want you to also think about all the signs and wonders which were on display that day. The sky turned dark, there was an earthquake and many who were dead came back to life. The veil of the Temple ripped from the top down. And on top of all of this, the weeks leading up to Jesus’ death were filled with all the talk of his many miracles including the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

Peter’s Sermon at Pentectost

Keep these signs and wonders in view as you look at Acts 2 with me, as Peter tries to explain another miraculous event – the mighty, rushing wind, tongues of fire, and the miraculous speech that enabled the 120 who were gathered in the upper room to tell the Good News to people of a multitude of languages, who all heard the Gospel in their native tongue.

For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [quoted from Joel 2:28-32]

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it….

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:15-24, 32-33)

Put in this light, you can see what Peter is doing. He’s comparing both the signs and wonders that were seen on Pentecost with the larger story of all that was seen surrounding Jesus – and all of this is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy, which Peter quotes. We have the men and women speaking in tongues (the first part of Joel’s prophecy), and we have a darkened sky and other wonders (the second part). Peter is making a point that the “last days” have now come. He adds the words “last days” to Joel’s prophecy for this very reason (Joel has “and afterward”). The “signs of the times” as it were, were already being seen – and Peter felt like he was living with the “day of the Lord” in the near future.

Some object to this view of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. They claim that Peter was just making an anlogy with Joel 2 to the current situation. Others claim that just the first part was being fulfilled, not the heavenly signs – which would obviously be in the future tribulation period. I won’t delve into all the arguments, but suffice it to say that the view that the New Testament authors understood the “last days” to have begun is quite strong and is attested to throughout the New Testament (see 1 Cor. 10:11, Heb. 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:20, 1 John 2:18).

Going back to Acts 2 now, let me quote from a book I’ve been reading: 40 Questions About the End Times by Eckhard Schnabel (Kregel, 2012):

The connections of the “wonders” and “signs” of Joel’s prophecy with Jesus’ ministry and death provide the basis for Peter’s subsequent arguments concerning the status and the significance of Jesus. The reference to the “last days” establishes how Peter reads the prophets: God has begun to fulfill his promises; the last days have arrived with Jesus’ ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension, and his bestowal of the Spirit. (pg. 21-22)

I agree with Schnabel’s conclusion, but I was especially intrigued with another point he made, almost in passing, in this chapter.

The Moon Turned to Blood

The suggestion that Acts 2:19 refers to a lunar eclipse during which the moon assumes a dull, red color, which was visible in Jerusalem at Passover in A.D. 33, is intriguing; however, it requires a later date for Jesus’ crucifixion, which is more plausibly dated in the year A.D. 30. (pg. 20)

Ever since I read Harold Hoehner’s Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Zondervan, 1978), I have held to a Friday crucifixion and to April 3, A.D. 33 as the most likely date for Jesus’ death. This view, that A.D. 33 to be the most likely year of Christ’s death and resurrection, is commonly held by a wide number of evangelical scholars. So I was not put off by Schnabel’s preference for A.D. 30. Instead I was very much intrigued by his reference to the moon turning to blood being explained by a lunar eclipse.

I must be honest in admitting that while I have understood Peter to be saying Joel 2 is fulfilled, I was thinking the literal fulfillment focused on the Pentecost event not on the darkening of the sun at Christ’s death. Or at least I hadn’t thought very much about this. So I was eager to read the paper that Schnabel cited which dealt with this lunar eclipse. I was happy to find that the paper is freely available online. It is titled, “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ’s Crucifixion” by Colin J. Humphreys and W. Graeme Waddington (Tyndale Bulletin 43, 1992).

I encourage you to read the entire paper (available here), but for my purposes I will excerpt the chief evidence presented for understanding a lunar eclipse to be in view with the prophecy that the moon would turn to blood.

Evidence from Early Christian Writings

In addition to quoting from the apocryphal “Report of Pilate”, the authors of the paper cite Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 412) as evidence:

The so-called ‘Report of Pilate’, a New Testament apocryphal fragment states, ‘Jesus was delivered to him by Herod, Archelaus, Philip, Annas, Caiphas, and all the people. At his Crucifixion the sun was darkened; the stars appeared and in all the world people lighted lamps from the sixth hour till evening; the moon appeared like blood’. [No matter the authenticity of this later document,] there must have been a tradition that at the Crucifixion the moon appeared like blood….

Further evidence is provided by Cyril of Alexandria, the orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria in AD 412. After stating that there was darkness at the Crucifixion he adds, ‘Something unusual occurred about the circular rotation of the moon so that it even seemed to be turned into blood’, and notes that the prophet Joel foretold such signs. (pg. 342)

The Technical Nature of the Phrase “Moon Turned to Blood”:

The moon turning to blood is a graphic description of a lunar eclipse. The reason an eclipsed moon appears blood-red is well known and the effect has been well documented. Even though during an eclipse the moon is geometrically in the earth’s shadow, some sunlight still reaches it by the refraction of light passing through the earth’s atmosphere. The light reaching the moon is red since scattering by air molecules and very small particles along its long path through the atmosphere preferentially removes the blue end of the spectrum. The phrase ‘moon turned to blood’ has been used by writers and historians to describe lunar eclipses for many centuries, and the expression dates back to at least 300 BC….

In the medieval European annals compiled by G.H. Pertz there are so many lunar eclipses described by ‘the moon turned to blood’ that the phrase appears to be used as a standard description. (pg. 343-344)

For additional corroboration, see the picture at the top of this post (taken from this article about a lunar eclipse in Brooklyn from 12/21/10). In that article, the moon is described as going “dark red” — very similar to the “blood red” description of the medieval era.

Conclusion

On this point, the authors put forth the following conclusion:

There is therefore strong evidence that when Peter, the ‘Report of Pilate’, and Cyril of Alexandria refer to the moon turning to blood on the evening of the Crucifixion, they were describing a lunar eclipse. It is surprising that this deduction does not appear to have been made before, although F.F. Bruce almost reaches this conclusion. He states, with reference to Peter’s Pentecost speech, ‘It was little more than seven weeks since the people in Jerusalem had indeed seen the sun turned into darkness, during the early afternoon of the day of our Lord’s Crucifixion. And on the same afternoon the paschal full moon may well have appeared blood-red in the sky in consequence of that preternatural gloom’. Presumably Bruce and other commentators have not been aware that a blood-red moon is a well-documented description of a lunar eclipse. (pg. 344)

The paper goes on to document how there was only one lunar eclipse that would have been visible from Jerusalem during the Passover in any of the years that are possible dates for his death. That eclipse is dated to Friday, April 3, A.D. 33 – the most likely date of the crucifixion.

This study has forced me to see the Crucifixion anew — to realize what a world-shattering event it really was! The death of Christ and His resurrection marked the end of the old age and the beginning of a new one. And miraculous signs in the heavens and on earth all attest to the prophetic undertones of what is happening. This also should serve to wake us up to the importance of the Cross of Christ and the Empty Tomb. The Gospel of Christ really is world-shattering. The realities we are sharing through the indwelling Spirit and our present realization of the blessings of the Gospel are all a brand new experience which is a foretaste of even greater things to come!

We are living in the last days and Jesus’ return draws near. May we live soberly and righteously in light of all that Christ has done for us. And may we not forget that the power of His resurrection has been given to us — we can live lives that testify to the glory of the age to come.

UPDATE: You can read my review of 40 Questions About the End Times here.

Mining the Archives: The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published March 17, 2006.

This post is long but covers this issue well. I have taken the liberty of slightly editing the original post and shortening it here for the re-post.

The main point of  the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism — Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg — can be summarized as follows.

  1. God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
  2. God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
  3. God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)

Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology [editor’s note: the idea that the Bible does not teach that there is a “universal church” but that God works through local churches only], and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.

The proponents of KJV-onlyism seem to  have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.

The third point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism, and is what I intend to focus the rest of this post on. This point at first glance, appears to give authentication to the KJV-only position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.

The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.

  1. That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
  2. That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
  3. That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
  4. That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
  5. That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.

In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. [Editor’s note: I would now add that the political climate of England during and after its civil war was a boon to the KJV since the Geneva Bible’s notes were considered treasonous.] Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).

I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now some would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.

With regard to assumption 3, some might counter that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.

Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?

The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!

In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.

I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this, but most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.

Mining the Archives: The Rising of The Sun of Righteousness

~ Bob Hayton


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published February 20, 2006.

 

The Sun of Righteousness shall rise with healing in [His] wings...Mal. 4:1-2a For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings.

Is. 60:19-20 The sun shall be no more your light by day,nor for brightness shall the moon give you light; but the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory. Your sun shall no more go down, nor your moon withdraw itself;for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of mourning shall be ended.

Matt. 17:2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.

Rev. 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

Ps. 84:11a For the LORD God is a sun…

Rev. 22:5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

Acts 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me.

...the Lord God will be their light...As I drove home from work early Sunday morning, I encountered a fiercely bright sunrise. It reminded me of the glory of Christ, who is the Sun of Righteousness. The Sun is the brightest and most awesome light that we encounter in God’s physical creation. Since Jesus is compared to the sun, we are to see Him when we see and are arrested by the sheer glory of the physical sun. This is a means of us comprehending how much more amazing and brilliant is Christ’s glory, He who is brighter than the noon-day sun (as Paul experienced on the road to Damascus).

Thinking about how the sun and Christ (the S-O-N) compare has made me ponder some thoughts a close frined shared with me recently. When giving me A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards recently, he had opportunity to share some thoughts about the book. The book traces God’s work of redemption from the Fall to the Ascension and beyond. Edwards does a spectacular job dealing with OT types and highlighting the gospel/Christ-centeredness of all of Scripture. He has excellent thoughts on the advance of the gospel after the writing of the NT up to his present time, as well. His thoughts are rooted in Scripture and the work is well worth puchasing and reading, as it magnifies God for His great and glorious work of redemption.

A few thoughts Dave (my friend) shared have stuck with me. First, he mentioned that the natural creation was created to show the glories of God’s spiritual work. When encountering Scriptural teachings on types or comparisons, I typically just assumed that God was borrowing from the natural realm, so to speak, to highlight truth about His spiritual works. But the work of redemption was planned “before the foundation of the world”! So, when God created the world, the very way in which He did it was not arbitrary but planned. He knew that He would expressly compare the creation of life in dead hearts to the creation of physical light (2 Cor. 4:6). The physical process of human birth was designed with the new birth in view. I think one of the ways the heavens and physical creation declare the glory of God is that they provide illustrations of His work of redemption. When God is compared with light–the very quality of physical light is meant to teach us about God’s character (albeit it cannot teach us perfectly or completely, as it is only a picture of Someone who defies description). The family unit, with father-child and husband-wife relationships, were designed and established to reveal aspects of our relationship with God as His beloved children, and our relationship with Christ as His church-bride. This thought can be expanded and more examples found for sure.

The other thought Dave left me, concerned a specific allegory Jonathan Edwards used over and over again in his book. In looking through the book recently I encountered it in at least 8 different places. Here is the picture:

Behold, the day is coming...for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings...The OT reflects the light of the glory of Christ and the gospel much like the moon reflects the light of the sun. At first the OT only has brief glimmers here and there of Messianic prophecies and gospel teachings. But the moonlight of OT revelation grows and grows until it reaches its zenith in the period of David and Solomon. David is the greatest personal type of Christ, Edwards argues (pg. 104). The Psalms written at this time, display the glories of Christ in unparalleled fashion in the OT. The building of the Temple and the reign of peace experienced in Solomon’s reign represent the greatest epoch of Israel’s history.

But then the moon begins to wane throught the less glamorous reigns of Solomon’s heirs and the exile and post-exilic periods of Israel’s history. Edwards explains, “As the moon, from the time of her full, is approaching nearer and nearer to her conjunction with the sun, so her light is still more and more decreasing, until at length, when the conjunction comes, it is wholly swallowed up in the light of the sun….If the Jewish church, when Christ came, had been in the same external glory that it was in, in the reign of Solomon, men would have had their eyes so dazzled with it that they would not have been likely joyfully to exchange such great external glory for only the spiritual glory of the poor despised Jesus.” (pg. 129, 131-132)

The incarnation of Christ and His ministry are represented by the dawning of the sun. Edwards argues that after redemption has been purchased on the cross and specifically upon the resurrection of Christ, the sun actually rises over the horizon. “Thus the Sun of Righteousness, after it is risen from under the earth, begins to shine forth clearly, and not only by a dim reflection as it did before. Christ, before his death, revealed many things more clearly than ever they had been revealed in the Old Testament; but the great mysteries of Christ’s redemption, and reconciliation by his death, and justification by his righteousness, were not so plainly revealed before Christ’s resurrection….Thus we see how the light of the gospel…is now come to the light of perfect day, and the brightness of the sun shining forth in unveiled glory.” (pg. 282)

...His face was like the sun shining in full strength...We are thus now living in the age of daytime. The sun is rising in the sky slowly and steadily. The glorious noon-day shining of the sun in unparalleled glory will be the consummation of the eternal kingdom of Christ (which we experience already, but not yet in its fullness)!

That allegory by Jonathan Edwards in a succinct and vastly helpful way sums up the history of redemption (and revelation for that matter). It should help us see the glory of the Sun of Righteousness. And it should make us realize anew the incredible grace we have to be living on this side of the cross. May the light of Christ shine ever brighter and may we be ever entranced and pleased with His light alone!

Pictures above from top to bottom were accessed from these 5 sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Mining the Archives: Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published February 11, 2006.

 

 

Today’s popular evangelical maxim “once saved, always saved” while based in the Biblical truth of justification by faith alone has morphed into a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for far too many. The church’s duty to make disciples of all nations has been downgraded to an optional extra. The gospel call to repent and believe has become a plea for sinners to assent to the facts of the gospel, pray a prayer, and join the cool Christian club called churchianity. Gone are the stern warnings to “watch and pray” and “endure to the end”. Gone are the bold exhortations to “make your calling and election sure” and “be diligent to be found in [Christ] without spot or blemish”. In their place are the warm assurances “since you confessed you are saved” and “since eternal life is a free gift, God cannot take it back”, and the friendly reminders “everybody makes mistakes” and “don’t sweat: remember, we’re under grace!” The old doctrine that saints must diligently make a personal effort to persevere in faith has been overshadowed by the new doctrine that saints can live just like anyone else in the world and as long as they once assented to gospel truths they are most certainly bound for heaven.

I wish I was merely exaggerating the situation. But when a nationally well known evangelical leader like Charles Stanley seriously believes and teaches that people who actually stop believing in Christ and walk out on God are still eternally secure, I can hardly be accused of overstating my case. In the article linked to above he claims, “The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.” He goes on to only deal with Eph. 2:4-9 and 1 Cor. 1:21, while adding in a good portion of reasoning and illustrations. In his book Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? he makes the startling claim that salvation can be compared to receiving a tattoo. Even if moments later, you regret receiving the tattoo, it cannot change the fact that you have it! (pg. 80)

The Grace Evangelical Society exists to perpetuate such ideas. In other specters of evangelicalism, easy believism is represented by a 1-2-3-repeat-after-me approach to evangelism. A very large segment of independent fundamental Baptists (represented by literally thousands of churches and tens [if not hundreds] of thousands of members) emphasizes this approach to such excess that staggeringly huge numbers of salvations and baptisms are reported each year–which if really true, would make the Great Awakening look like a picnic. People are converted in five minutes or less–even through a rolled-down window during the duration of a stop light! One church has boasted of a million souls saved in the past 25 years, and yet less than 500 attend on any given Sunday.

Today no view seems criticized as much as Lordship Salvation or the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. These views are very similar, if not synonymous and both share a strong critique. Charges of “works-salvation” or “perfectionism” are thrown mercilessly at these misunderstood views.

So how did we come to such a time and situation as this? It seems that in a mix of zeal and evangelistic fervor, popular Christianity began to move away from its confessional roots in the late 1800s. American individualism probably worsened the situation, as Sola Scriptura became the license for anyone and everyone to disregard centuries of theological formulations and church teaching and come up with a myriad of homespun theories. The lasting impact of Charles G. Finney, who rejected substitutionary atonement among other orthodox doctrines, also contributed to what became popular American revivalism. Today, people have hardly heard of many of the great Reformation confessions like the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort, and yet they are quick to find a proof text for a host of contradictory Biblical teachings.

Yet a misunderstanding of perseverance is not limited to Arminians and non-Calvinists today, either. Doug Wilson says it well in a recent post on Heb. 3:7-19:

Apostasy is a real sin, committed by real people. This is something that Arminians get, and that most Calvinists do not get. None of the elect can every [sic] be taken out of God’s electing and sovereign decree. This is something that Calvinists get, and that Arminians do not get. Arminians can read Romans 8 through 11 and not see the absolute sovereignty of God, which is something that never ceases to astonish me. But lest we Calvinists get on a high horse, Arminians can read though Hebrews and can see real apostasy there. There are few things more exegetically embarrassing than to hear a Calvinist talk about how the warnings are hypothetical, like “keep off the grass” signs in the middle of the Sahara. There are many things that can be said to this, but the most compelling of them is that the warnings invariably deny that they are anything like hypothetical….The sin warned against here is that of evil unbelief, pure and simple. Not only is it unbelief, it is unbelief resulting in apostasy — departure from the living God, falling away from the living God. The sin is spoken of in the sternest possible way — rebellion, hardened hearts, evil heart of unbelief, and a departure from God…..This book [Hebrews] is about the sin of apostasy. Can a Christian fall away? Yes. Can someone who is truly regenerate, elect of God, an eternal Christian, fall away? No, clearly not.

Before I go on to defend the Biblical (I believe) doctrine of perseverance, let me provide here a brief excerpt from John Piper’s book The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace

A few years ago I spoke to a high school student body on how to fight lust. One of my points was called, “Ponder the eternal danger of lust.” I quoted the words of Jesus–that it’s better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with two–and said to the students that their eternal destiny was at stake in what they did with their eyes and with the thoughts of their imagination….After my message…one of the students…asked, “Are you saying then that a person can lose his salvation?”…This is exactly the same response I got a few years ago when I confronted a man about the adultery he was living in….I pled with him to return to his wife. Then I said, “You know, Jesus says that if you don’t fight this sin with the kind of seriousness that is willing to gouge out your own eye, you will go to hell”….As a professing Christian he looked at me in utter disbelief, as though he had never heard anything like this in his life, and said, “You mean you think a person can lose his salvation?”…So I have learned again and again from firsthand experience that there are many professing Christians who have a view of salvation that disconnects it from real life, and that nullifies the threats of the Bible, and puts the sinning person who claims to be a Christian beyond the reach of biblical warnings. I believe this view of the Christian life is comforting thousands who are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13)….The main concern of this book is to show that the battle against sin is a battle against unbelief. Or: the fight for purity is a fight for faith in future grace. The great error that I am trying to explode is the error that says, “Faith in God is one thing and the fight for holiness is another thing….The battle for obedience is optional because only faith is necessary for final salvation.” (pg. 330-331 and 333)

Belief in perseverance does not negate the great truth that faith alone justifies and secures our eternal salvation. Rather it affirms with Martin Luther, “We are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” Our works prove the sincerity of our faith, and are in this sense necessary. This is why so many passages teach that God will actually judge all mankind by their works. Without exception, Rom. 2:6-11 states: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immorality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” The reason this does not teach works salvation is that when we come to God in faith (as a result of his work of regeneration in our hearts–John 1:13 and 1 Jn. 5:1, and his gifts of faith–Acts 3:16, 15:9, 18:27, 1 Pet. 1:21, Phil. 1:29, Eph. 1:19-20, 2 Pet. 1:1 and repentance–Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25) he begins a good work in us (Phil. 1:6) and will be the One to complete it. He will produce good works in us as a testimony of the genuineness of our faith–Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13, 1 Cor. 15:10, 1 Thess. 5:23-24, Jude 24, Tit. 2:14.

In other words, true regeneration produces true fruit. This is Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 7:18-19 “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” In the parable of the sower, the only soil which produced fruit was the good soil. Even thought the rocky soil produced plants which looked healthier than the fruitful plants, they bore no fruit and withered away. Jesus said this represents those “who receive [the word] with joy…but…have no root: they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.” The clear teaching of the parable is that transient faith does not save. Only the faith that bears fruit saves.

In understanding perseverance, it is important to recognize the difference between justification and glorification. Justification is the legal pronouncement of “not guilty” which happens immediately upon our faith and is based on Christ’s substitutionary atonement. This pronouncement is a voice from heaven, so to speak, concerning our hearts. The testimony from earth (our lifestyle) does not unfalteringly reflect this. Sanctification is a slow and gradual process of the out-working of our faith and the living out of our justification. Glorification is the point when we are gloriously transformed into Christ’s image immediately after our death. At this point salvation is final. Up until then, since we cannot enter heaven’s throne-room and hear the irreversible verdict of “not guilty” applied to us, we must trust in sanctification to prove the genuineness of our faith. The term “salvation” is most often used in Scripture to refer to our glorification and only sparingly used to refer to justification. So when we see the English words “whoever believes will be saved” it usually is teaching that whoever believes will one day ultimately be saved/glorified. The Greek tense used for “believe” most often (99% or more of the time) in such statements is the present tense which directly conveys a continual action. Literally, it is often stated, “the believing one will be saved”. If we walk away from faith and cease believing we prove to not be a “believing one”.

Perseverance is required of believers. It is our duty. But the flip side of this is the teaching that God will preserve His elect (John 10:26-30, 1 Pet. 1:5, etc.). So all of the elect–all the truly regenerate among professing believers–will persevere and it will be by God’s grace. Most reading this post already understand that God will preserve the elect, so I will not labor to prove that assertion. But what follows will conclude this post by providing a defense of my assertion that the Bible requires us (professing believers) to persevere.

The Bible speaks of our need to “examine” ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5) and to diligently “make our calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). We cannot assume that since we believed in the past or made some profession of faith, we are absolutely and inviolably secure eternally. We must make room for the Scriptural potential that our faith could be insincere or not genuine. Luke 8:13 again, speaks of those who “believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away”. Even Paul leaves it open that he might even still yet become a “castaway” (same Greek word for apostate) in 1 Cor. 9:27.

Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily exhort one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following verses: Col. 1:23–“if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast,…”; 1 Cor. 15:2–“by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–“and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–“we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–“if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–“the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–“if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–“if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–“in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–“holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–“faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”

Scripture never gives us assurance of salvation based on our profession of faith (in a past time and place), rather it declares the objective reality of Christ’s work and the subjective reality of the Spirit’s work in our lives as the grounds for assurance. (And the stress in 1 John is on our subjective experience of characteristic obedience.) 1 John 2:3 states ” And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:19 also gives us the key to understanding this truth. It helps us to interpret what happened when we see someone who seemed to have genuine faith fall away. It declares, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” In other words, we should not conclude like some Arminians that all professing believers who fall away have in fact lost their salvation. Rather we should conclude that they were only professing but not possessing faith. Paul teaches this same truth when he declares belief could be in vain (1 Cor. 15:2) or could be only temporary (see 1 Thess. 3:5). Jesus also clearly taught both the reality of professors being proven to not possess faith in the scary passage of Matt. 7:21-23, and the need to persevere in Luke 21:34-36 among other places.

To sum up the teaching of perseverance, let us quote 2 passages. 2 Thess. 2:13b “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Heb. 6:12b “be…imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” Both of these passages teach that ultimate, final salvation (inheriting the promises) come to those who both believe and persevere (are sanctified/have patience).

But should this teaching result in our condemning large segments of evangelicalism and condemning many we know? Are we to judge them as not being true possessors since we may doubt their perseverance? No! Emphatically, no! Remember, justification is a heavenly sentence. We do not know, here on earth, what that sentence is. We can judge based on their fruits, but we also must be aware of the motes and beams in our own eyes. We should judge ourselves first and others much later. We can have confidence and hope in our sovereign God that there are evidences of grace in all who profess salvation. But then again, we know Biblically that this is most likely not the case. So rather than condemn one another, we should seek to edify one another and encourage them to press on, and to continue in belief (Heb. 3:2-14 and Gal. 6:1-9).

Before I close, we must revisit that popular maxim, “once saved, always saved.” If “saved” is viewed as glorification, I do not disagree at all with that statement. Nor would I if “saved” is viewed as justification. But once again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of justification is in your works (James 2). So even with the truth of once justified, always justified in view, we must never assume we have been justified if we have no good works to point to as Spirit-wrought proof.

In conclusion, brothers and sisters, I say with the apostle John “Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.” (2 John 1:8) And remember that although Jude warns us to “Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (v. 21) he also assures us “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy…” (v. 24). So do not lose heart. Trust in God’s great promises, and fight the good fight of faith. Above all, do not presume that you have arrived and are outside the bounds of Scripture’s warnings. Rather, “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” (2 Pet. 1:10)

For a more succinct treatment of this topic, I refer you to an earlier post where I reproduce a helpful outline on Heb. 3:2-14. Also, for a Biblical look at how important mutual edification of believers is, see my post on 1 Thessalonians. And for more resources concerning this topic, check out some articles and sermons by John Piper listed here on the issue of future grace, or just read his book referenced above. (You can get a copy at the following retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com & Amazon.com.)

For further thoughts on this topic check out posts in my Perseverance category. You may also want to look at my explanation of the five points of Calvinism here. Also, if you want, you can read all 65 comments on the original post.

Mining the Archives: 1 Thessalonians and the Church’s Greatest Need

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published January 13, 2006.

Clergy over the laity mindset, excessive pastoral authority, a cultural lack of community, an emphasis on individualism, market-driven church ministry philosophies, a modern consumer mindset to Christianity–all of these and more contribute to what I believe is the greatest need in churches today: the “one another” ministry.

What is the “one another” ministry? It is the mutual encouraging and exhorting, indeed even admonishing, which is to be woven throughout the life of a church. It is the pattern we see over and over in the NT (Acts 2:44-47; 4:32; 18:27; Jn. 13:34-35; Rom. 1:12; 12:10, 16; 13:8; 15:1-7, 14; 1 Cor. 12:25; 14:26, 31; 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:13; 6:1-2, 6; Eph. 4:2-3, 32; 5:19; Phil. 1:27; 2:2; Col. 3:13, 16; 2 Thess. 1:3; Heb. 3:12-14; 10:24-25; James 5:16; 1 Pet. 1:22; 4:8-11; 1 Jn. 1:7; 3:11). The above list is not exhaustive, either!

I believe this is a great need in most churches. Our church has small groups in part to fulfill the instruction to daily exhort one another in Heb. 3:12-14. Yet even in small groups, intentional encouraging and exhortation can be neglected. It is one thing to believe and another to practice that belief. Our small group is in the process of trying to become more intentional in this regard. (By the way, this still must happen in church-wide contexts too. But small groups definitely can help us fulfill this important feature of church life.) In preparing for a small group meeting, I looked at 1 Thessalonians a little further concerning this “one another” ministry, and want to share my findings with you, briefly.

1) This “one another” ministry is a way God’s word is intended to work in us.

1 Thess. 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

I believe that God’s Word presently working in the believers, in part, was their living it out through love, encouragement, and exhortation as we will see.

2) This “one another” ministry is needed lest our faith die.

1 Thess. 3:5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.

Heb. 3:12-14 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

Paul in 3:5 clearly indicates that he feels their faith could have died. This would have made his labor vain. What made him confident this was not the case was their faith and love and mutual love for Paul, which Timothy testified to. Heb. 3:12-14 also indicates that without mutual love, expressed through loving exhortation, our faith might die. This means that this “one another” ministry is vital in helping us persevere.

[Note: I am not claiming that we must produce works to save ourselves. Rather all truly saved people will work good works (Eph. 2:8-10, Titus 2:14), and it is by these works that their faith’s genuineness will be known (Matt. 7:16, James 2:20-26, Rom. 8:13, and especially 1 Jn. 2:19). Since we are admonished that our faith might be in vain (1 Cor. 15:2) and directed to examine ourselves whether we be in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5), and further instructed to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10), we must not take our faith for granted. Rather we must with Paul recognize that some have made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim. 1:19), realize that we ourselves could potentially make shipwreck of our faith (1 Cor. 9:27, Phil. 3:8-14), and so resolve to hold on to faith, and fight that good fight of faith, and thereby take hold of eternal life (1 Tim. 1:19; 3:8; 6:11-12).]

3) We must depend upon God to energize this “one another” ministry in our personal lives.

1 Thess. 3:11-13 Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you, and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

As I said before, we can believe in this, but when the rubber meets the road it is difficult to practice. Thus we must depend on God to “make” us increase in this “one another” ministry. (See also 1 Thess. 5:23-24, set at the end of a series of what I believe are coorporate exhortations .)

4) We need to always abound in this regard and grow, doing “one another” ministry “more and more”.

1 Thess. 4:9-10 Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, [See also 3:12; 4:1; and Heb. 10:25b]

We have never “arrived” when it comes to this or any other ministry. We need to be growing and abounding more and more.

5) This “one another” ministry has many facets.

We are to…

a) love each other [1 Thess. 3:12 and 4:9-10]
b) encourage one another [1 Thess. 4:18 and 5:11]
c) “be at peace” with one another [1 Thess. 5:13b]
d) “admonish the idle” [1 Thess. 5:14a]
e) “encourage the fainthearted” [1 Thess. 5:14b]
f) “help the weak” [1 Thess. 5:14c]
g) “be patient with them all” [1 Thess. 5:14d]
h) not seek vengeance (not repay wrong for wrong) [1 Thess. 5:15a]
i) “seek to do good to one another and to everyone” [1 Thess. 5:15b]
j) “rejoice always” (In context, this is a coorporate command) [1 Thess. 5:16]
k) “pray without ceasing” (again, while this certainly applies personally, it is a coorporate command) [1 Thess. 5:17]
l) “give thanks in all circumstances” [1 Thess. 5:18]
m) let the Spirit move (do not quench the Spirit)[1 Thess. 5:19]
n) do not despise the preaching and teaching of the word [1 Thess. 5:20]
o) test everything (including sermons and teaching from the context), holding only to what is good [1 Thess. 5:21]
p) abstain from all forms of evil (church discipline could be in view with the coorporate context, too) [1 Thess. 5:22]

6) This “one another” ministry is clearly a duty of every believer, not merely the church leaders, elders, deacons, or pastors.

1 Thess. 5:12-14 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle,[c] encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all….

From the above verses it is clear that each brother (and the word can refer to men or women) in the church is responsible to follow the commands of vs. 13b (be at peace) and following. Notice that 1 Thess. was addressed to the whole church. If the pastoral staff, elders, and deacons are the only ones needed to minister to us in this encouraging, exhorting, admonishing sense, why is it that most of the NT epistles are addressed to churches (ie the people) rather than just the elders? Phil. 1:1 mentions the saints in Philippi as the primary audience, with the elders and deacons also–not the other way around.

7) This “one another” ministry is indispensable.

1 Thess. 4:18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. [See also 1 Thess. 5:11]

Notice, Paul’s having written the words to each person in the church was not enough. They were to pick up the book/letter and use its teaching to encourage each other. Just reading the Bible and studying it alone does not cut it. We need the mutual ministry of the Word to be working in us through the mutual encouraging and exhorting, even admonishing, of our fellow believers (along with a weekly sermon from our preacher).