God Has Sabbath Blessings for the Christian!

When I defend the confessional (and scriptural) view of the Sabbath, one of the most-common arguments I get is, "Jesus is our Sabbath. We rest in Him." Yet, when I ask where Scripture says that, I get only dodges, generally of the ad hominem sort. I would know that, if I weren't such a legalist, they say. In my mind, a response like that is actually a concession that the person has no evidence for his claim. Just because, like some children would say.

Yet, I would say there are two very clear scriptures against that view.

The first is Hebrews 4:9: "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." In the last (or near-last) book of the New Testament, the writer tells us, not that the Sabbath  has been fulfilled, but rather that it yet awaits the Christian!

The other is Revelation 14:13: "I heard a voice from heaven saying, 'Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' 'Blessed indeed,' says the Spirit, 'that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!'" When do we achieve the fullness of Sabbath rest? Not two-thousand years ago, in the salvation work of Jesus. Rather, we achieve it when we die in the Lord. That is when the futility and labor of the Curse (Genesis 3:17-19) are done away. Only when Jesus returns will the intermediary step of death no longer be necessary.

I am sympathetic with a desire to dismiss legalism. However, how can obedience to a blessing (Mark 2:27) be legalism? God gives us a day to be free from the drudgery of our daily labor, to focus on joy, peace, and rest with Him: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken" (Isaiah 58:13-14). Rather than legalism, I would suggest that my anti-sabbatarian brethren have a sinful inability to enjoy our God!

Biblical Church Government: Presbyterian

Before I start, this post makes number 500. I'll pretend that it is in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

My church derives from Scottish Presbyterians who separated from the Church of Scotland, in part, over the issue of patronage. After the Act of Union of 1703, which abolished the Scottish Parliament, the English Parliament passed a law required the Scots to accept pastors appointed by the local landowners, whether those landowners were members of the church or not. The Church of Scotland submitted to that requirement, contrary to her own constitution. This resulted in three secessions: the Associate Presbytery (also nicknamed the Secession Church) in 1733, the Relief Church in 1761, and finally the Free Church of Scotland in 1843.

What was the principle which these secessionists upheld? That a congregation has a right under God to choose her own officers, including the pastor, contrary to the impositions of Parliament. This continues to be what distinguishes Presbyterians from the episcopal churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, which appoint their pastors, or move them, according to the whims of their bishops.

On what basis do we Presbyterians insist on this principle?

In Acts 6:1-6, we have the first description of the choice of church officers under the Apostles: "Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, 'It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.' And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them." The situation was a result of the growth of the church, both in numbers and in cultural diversity, resulting in interpersonal conflicts. The Apostles were unable both to attend to these conflicts and to evangelize. Therefore, they called for the church to choose (the Greek word means to choose by a show of hands) seven men, who would then be appointed to the office of deacon.

This pattern wasn't created ex nihilo by the Apostles. Rather, they followed biblical precedent. Moses had a similar difficulty as he led Israel in the Wilderness after the Exodus (Deuteronomy 1:9-18). Under God's instruction, Moses commanded the Israelites to "Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads" (Deuteronomy 1:13). We see the very procedure adopted by the Apostles, as the congregation  elects men from within, who are then appointed to their authority by Moses.

The Apostles demonstrated their passing on of authority through the laying on of hands (Acts 13:3). With the passing of the Apostles, those who had inherited their authority continued the procedure (I Timothy 4:14, II Timothy 1:6). Thus, we have an orderly distribution of authority from Christ, the only head of the church, to the Apostles, and then to the elders and deacons of the church. There is provision neither for rule by individual men or for imposition of leaders, whether by a man or by the state, against the will of the church. This rules out popes, bishops, men of social standing, or of any authority supposedly over the church. This is the origin of the truth expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6: "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."

The Unchristian Doctrine of the Prosperity Preachers

Part of what makes the Prosperity Gospel so evil is that its purveyors teach people that Jesus doesn't allow us to suffer. They claim that the Christian should never know hardship or poverty, or the loss of a loved one. When that teaching fails, as all falsehood must, it isn't the prosperity preachers who are held to account. Rather, the Christian in misery is made to feel that his suffering is the result of his own failure of faith. That can only lead to guilt, anger, and even cursing against God.

That certainly wasn't the teaching of Jesus. Luke, the Gentile Physician, records the account of His healing of the daughter of Jairus, an elder in the Jewish synagogue (Luke 8:40-42, 49-56). Jairus pleads with Jesus on behalf of his dying daughter. Surely anyone can empathize with a father's fear and desperation under such circumstances. Yet, Jesus turns away from Jairus to heal the woman with a twelve-year hemorrhage (verses 43-48). That delay proves fatal for Jairus's daughter, as a messenger arrives to inform him of his daughter's death.

Notice how contrary this story is to Prosperity teaching. Here is a man who believes in Jesus and comes to Him for help. Yet, Jesus attends to other things for a time too long for the little girl to hang on. What suffering this must have brought to this father's heart! What we see, though, is that his suffering is not the last word in the story, because Jesus does, indeed, meet his desperate need.

Why the wait? Well, we know that part of Jesus's timing is so that He could address the need of the woman with the hemorrhage. Also, we (and His Palestinian audience) see His power, not just over illness, but over even death itself!

The Apostle Paul also lived with deprivation, even as he was doing the greatest ministerial work that history has known. "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" (Philippians 4:11-13). He testifies that he has had high points and low points, and known both plenty and hunger. Surely this Apostle should have known perpetual prosperity if anyone should. Right? Well, no, not right. The problem with someone who knows no hardship is seen in the last sentence of these words from Paul: "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." How could Paul have learned that dependence on God if he had never experienced need? And that is where the Prosperity Gospel fails. It teaches, not dependence on God, but rather dependence on belief. Belief in belief. And there can be no assurance when ones faith is in the wrong object.

Jairus Pleads With Jesus

The Diagnosis Must Come Before the Prescription: Total Depravity

A memorial to the victims in Sandy Hook, CT

 The Bible says that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23), and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). While I can understand why unbelievers reject what God says here, I am bewildered by the reaction of professing Christians, who want to hold on to a basic goodness in men. I would ask such "Christians," Have people ceased to be sinners? Has there been some miraculous transformation in human nature, such that Scripture doesn't apply any more?

I cannot imagine any person - at least, one who seriously describes himself as a Christian - answering either question in the affirmative.

Rather, man's total depravity is taught all through Scripture. That is not teaching that men, or any particular man, are as wicked as we could be - though I admit that I wonder sometimes, such as after the Sandy Hook massacre. Rather, it is the teaching that every faculty, whether physical, mental, or spiritual, of every man is corrupted by the effects of sin.

While I have cited many passages on this issue (use the "total depravity" tag at the bottom), I want to add one that is rarely considered, Titus 3:3: "We ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another." A key element in this verse is that Paul uses the past tense. He describes the nature that Christians had before our conversion. And he does not paint a pretty picture, certainly nothing that should be a basis for self-esteem!

What changes a person is not increased self-esteem, or social reform, or any of the other progressive psycho-babble proposals that are so popular these days. Rather, the solution is regeneration, that change of a man's heart by which the Holy Spirit gives him a new nature, not free from sin in this life, but free from the dominion of sin: "I [God] will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules" (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

The problem with the corrupt Christianity preached by Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, etc., is that they try to hush up what Scripture says about sin and its consequences. Yet, that attitude is contrary to Scripture, such as Paul's comment to Titus cited above. But the question must then be asked of them, How can a man believe the good news of salvation if he doesn't first hear the bad news of the sinful condition from which he must be saved? Imagine the doctor who tries to convince a patient to undergo surgery if he hasn't first told him of the tumor that threatens his life. What would the reaction of the patient be? I know that I would never submit to surgery without a sufficient cause! In the same way, the unbeliever cannot repent and turn to Christ until he first knows his sinful condition and the eternal death that is its consequence.

God's Love: The Fly in the Oneness Ointment

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as He is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because He first loved us."
- I John 4:7-8, 16-19

This passage was written by the same Apostle John who gave us the Revelation. Yet, while that book can often be mystifying, I don't think anyone can say that of the portion I quote here. There is one central point, and he makes it eminently clear: It is, and has always been, God's nature to love. Therefore, we, His people, can express love confidently.

Orthodox Christians hold that the love God shows to us is a manifestation of that same nature of love that He had shared so intimately within the Trinity, the Father's loving the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son's loving the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit's loving the Father and the Son. We have assurance of His love because it is an infinite and eternal love, preceding even our existence.

However, the Sabellian (or Modalist, or Oneness) believes in a monadic deity, a unitary oneness that had no companionship for the unknowable eternity before Genesis 1. He must ask the question, Whom did God love? Since he believes that there was no one else there to be loved, then his answer can only be "no one." And that presents a problem.

We do know from Scripture that it is contrary to God's nature to change: "I the LORD do not change" (Malachi 3:6, compare Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29). Therefore, since the Sabellian God did not have love in eternity past, then neither could He become loving, since that would have been a change of nature. A God without love would not be a redeemer, a sanctifier, or a merciful Father. Therefore, the Sabellian God cannot be the God of the Bible (John 3:16).

The Ethiopian Eunuch and the Mode of Baptism

On the Desert Road to Gaza

When it comes to the mode of baptism, all Baptists, most (maybe all) Pentecostals, and other groups, claim that it must be by immersion. They often even claim that the Greek word "baptizo" (from which the English word "baptize" is derived) itself means "to immerse." As I have argued before, such as here, that is not the case. I will here offer another proof that "baptizo," in fact cannot mean "to immerse" (at least, in some passages).

Most Christians know the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39). To summarize, God sends an angel to tell Philip to go to a place along the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. There, he sees an Ethiopian riding in a chariot, presumably with a driver, reading the scroll of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). He asks Philip to explain the passage. Philip does so, and the Holy Spirit blesses His word in the conversion of the Ethiopian. Ethiopian Christians claim this event as the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia.

Baptists often point to verses 38 and 39: "And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing." Since the two men went "down into" the water, and then "came out of" the water, the Baptists claim, then Philip must have immersed the eunuch in the water. In fact, pictures based on this story consistently show this supposed scenario.

However, there is a huge problem with this picture. the problem is found in verse 26: "This [area] is desert." Does the picture above show a desert? Obviously not! How likely is it that a desert road will happen to pass a river or pool deep enough to immerse a grown man? Extremely unlikely!

I conclude that this passage cannot be used as Baptists have commonly used it. in fact, I would take it to require the opposite of the claim of the immersionists. It necessarily requires that the baptism here described must have been by either pouring or sprinkling, not by immersion. 

This last image gives a more-likely scenario for the baptism.

God's War on Idolatry

"On the day after the Passover, the people of Israel went out triumphantly in the sight of all the Egyptians, while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom the Lord had struck down among them. On their gods also the Lord executed judgments. [And God said to Moses] 'Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places. If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.'"
- Numbers 33:3-4, 51-52, 55-56

The main focus in the story of the Exodus is God's redemption of His people out of slavery in Egypt. It is a glorious story to every Christian, because it serves as a type of our rescue from slavery to sin by the atoning cross work of Jesus Christ.

However, that is not the whole of the story.

I want to point especially at the words of Numbers 33:4, included above: "On their [i. e., the Egyptians'] gods also the Lord executed judgments." The ten plagues are seen to be on the Egyptian people, yet, somehow, they were also judgments on the deceiving spirits that they considered to be gods.

Jehovah continues in His exhortation to Israel: "Just as you saw Me destroy the gods of Egypt, so shall you do the religion of the Canaanites" (paraphrased from Num. 33:52). This demonstrates that the conquest of the Promised Land by the Israelites was not the capricious, vindictive act portrayed by liberal theologians. Rather, it was an act of judgment, one that was deserved by the Canaanites. Why? Because God is jealous of His divine prerogatives: "You shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exodus 34:14). Worshiping any god but Jehovah is to steal from Him what is properly His alone, an act of severe treason. That's why the abolition of it is the first of the Ten Commandments. Is the violation of the Prime Directive (to borrow a Star Trek term) not sufficient reason for capital punishment? I don't believe that any person can say that it is not, except as a self-serving effort to protect his own idolatry (Romans 1:18).

Righteous Judgment: The Judge's Gavel in the Hands of the Church

Most Christians understand that God normally works through means. For example, when He heals our illnesses, He usually does so through doctors, medications, surgeries. When He converts an unbeliever, He does so through the means of the Christian who shares the Gospel with that unbeliever. This is not to deny that he also works miraculously, that is, directly, without means. It is merely a belief that miracles are necessarily the exceptions, not our daily experience.

The number one means that God uses in achieving His purposes in this world is His Church. For example, Psalm 149:6-9 describes the role of the Church in applying God's judgment in an unbelieving world:
"Let the high praises of God be in their throats
     and two-edged swords in their hands,
to execute vengeance on the nations
     and punishments on the peoples,
to bind their kings with chains
     and their nobles with fetters of iron,
to execute on them the judgment written! 
     This is honor for all His godly ones."

This is the downside of evangelism. As Paul says, our message is "to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life" (II Corinthians 2:16, compare the words of Jesus in John 9:39). While the Gospel is a source of life to the elect, those who are being made alive by the Spirit, it is a message of death to the reprobate, those who remain in their spiritually-dead state.

Jesus repeats the Psalmists message in Matthew 19:28: "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The Apostles, who had suffered, and who were to suffer much more, even martyrdom, at the hand of the apostate Jews, were given this comfort, that someday they would sit in judgment on those very persecutors. 

What means will we use in applying that judgment? The Psalmist tells us "two-edged swords," a phrase which is explained in Hebrews 4:12: "The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." We also have the description of Jesus: "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" (Revelation 1:16). Thus, this judgment will not be by any prejudices of men, but rather by the applying of God's infallible word. And that word was given by Jesus Himself!

We live in an age of syrupy Christianity, a Christianity which must only speak sweetness and light, never the truths of sin and judgment. I call it the Osteenification of the church. But that is not the Christianity or the Church of Scripture. Shall we live by the standards of a self-esteem world? Or shall we apply the truth of God's Word, and warn of the judgment to come?

The Ordo Salutis: Justification Before Repentance

The contrast between Calvinists and Arminians is most visible in our understanding of the ordo salutis (theological terminology for "the order of salvation"). In what order (whether logically or chronologically) do the steps occur when a person is converted. Specifically, I want to address the place of repentance in that order: does justification precede repentance, as Calvinists hold? or does repentance precede justification, as the Arminians insist?

To my mind, there is an obvious logical requirement that justification must precede repentance. And in saying that, I mean logically, not that there will be a time gap between them. My question to the Arminian is, How can a man turn from his sin to a God whom he does not yet know? The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews addresses that same question: "Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). If repentance precedes justification, i. e., saving faith, then, by definition, it cannot have merit before God, because He rejects anything that is not of faith! The person must have the assurance by faith that God is now favorably disposed toward him, and will receive him as redeemed in Christ. Therefore, repentance cannot precede that act of grace.

The Old Testament also teaches us this truth.

Through the Prophet Isaiah, God tells us, "I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to Me, for I have redeemed you" (Isaiah 44:22). In the application of Christ's blood, the sins of the elect are blotted out, the meaning of "justification." We have been redeemed. Therefore, He says, return to Him, the definition of "repentance." God Himself makes explicit that repentance is not the basis of justification. Rather, just the opposite, justification must be the basis of repentance!

The Counterfeit Tongues Movement

When discussing the issue of tongues, the primary text used by Pentecostals is Acts 2, the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit at the first Feast of Pentecost (the origin of the Pentecostal name) after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They point especially to the first four verses: "When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Pentecostals still claim that a first or early sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in every individual is a repetition of this experience. They often describe it as a "prayer language."

But that isn't what you see if you continue in Acts 2.

The passage continues (verses 5-11): "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." This is not the description of some unknown gibberish. Rather, those upon whom the Spirit has come are speaking known languages, though they were unknown to the speakers.

The Apostle Paul talks about this same experience in his first epistle to the Corinthian church, especially in chapters 12 and 14.

Paul says this: "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me" (I Corinthians 14:10-11). As did Luke in Acts, Paul here talks about tongues, again not as random noises, but rather as known (though not by the speaker) foreign languages.

It is on this basis that I have issued a challenge several times to Pentecostals, especially of the Oneness variety, to prove that their "tongues" are real languages, and not merely random animal noises. While I have heard plenty of protestations of offense, I have yet to get even one effort to meet the challenge. Which, I think, proves what I have said elsewhere, that today's tongues movement is a counterfeit version of the original.

God's Sovereign Grace: His Gift to the Church

In Psalm 148, an anonymous poet exhorts nature and all classes of men to praise Jehovah. I especially want to emphasize the last two verses:
"Let them praise the name of the Lord,
     for His name alone is exalted; 
His majesty is above earth and heaven.
      He has raised up a horn for His people,
praise for all His saints,
for the people of Israel who are near to Him. 
     Praise the Lord!"
     - Psalm 148:13-14

My emphasis is on the line, "He has raised up a horn for His people."  As most of my readers will be aware, "horn" is a Hebrew metaphor for power, or strength. That is, the Psalmist tells us that we have a special reason to praise Jehovah because He has exercised His strength on behalf of His people, the Church. 

The Apostle Paul described the same principle in his literate prose: "We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). It is sad that this verse has been turned into a truism. Every time someone is suffering, we can depend on someone's quoting of the first half of this verse, but rarely the second. It is true that God always brings all experiences to some good purpose. But for whom? The touchy-feely types would have us believe everyone. However, Paul excludes that misrepresentation by limiting the principle to God's chosen people, the elect, those who love Him, i. e., to the Church. He was even more explicit in Ephesians 1:22: "He [the Father] put all things under His [the Son's] feet and gave Him [the Son] as head over all things to the church." That is, the glorified Christ rules over every thing, not just as God, but for the benefit of His church!

This is a big part of why I am a Calvinist. Even without the positive reinforcement, I would acknowledge it as a summary of biblical truth. However, my commitment is strengthened by the additional awareness of the assurance that He rules all things, not just for Himself (though that would be sufficient justification), but also for me!

The Book of Acts: The Record of Leadership, from Jesus to the Apostles

One of the basic rules of biblical hermeneutics, i. e., the proper interpretation of a document, is that a text must be considered according to the type of literature it is. The Bible contains all of the forms of literature that we see in any other context of written communication, such as poetry, narrative, law, etc. And one form of literature cannot be interpreted the same way as another. Poetry communicates in a way that narrative does not, for example.

The Book of Acts is a book of history, covering a period of about thirty years from the resurrection of Christ to the imprisonment of Paul. It is not primarily a book of doctrine, in contrast to the epistles, or a book of eschatology like the book of Revelation. Rather, it is a description of the historical events that happened at a certain time. Therefore, any doctrine that depends inordinately on Acts as its basis is likely to lead in an unorthodox direction. We see this in the Pentecostal movement, especially in its Oneness aberration. Acts is the Word of God, requiring that any doctrine in it must be infallible. However, to put undue emphasis on doctrinal statements in Acts, without vetting it with the rest of Scripture, will always lead to trouble.

What was Luke's purpose in writing Acts? We see where he gave some indications. Look especially at the first two verses (Acts 1:1-2): "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen." Luke's first book, that which is called by his name, was devoted to the person and direct teachings of Jesus. The second, on the other hand, was dedicated to His leaving and the growth of the new church under the care of His lieutenants, the Twelve Apostles (with Matthias in the place of Judas, and then augmented by His brother James and the converted Paul). So, according to Luke's own words, his intention was to describe a particular historical situation, not to give doctrinal tutoring. And that makes sense, since Luke was the companion of Paul. Paul's ministry was, in part, to develop the theology of the church. Luke, therefore, provides the historical complement to the ministry of Paul.

We immediately see Jesus's carrying out this program in verses 8 and 24 of the same chapter. In Acts 1:8, Jesus gives another version of His Great Commission: "You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." The rest of the book would be a record of the first steps in the fulfillment of this commission. Verse 24 is the Apostles profession that they understood their offices to be, not an opportunity for power, but rather that same assignment from their Lord. 

We see the continuing development of this post-Jesus church government in chapter 6, where the Apostles this time, not Jesus by direct act, in the appointment of the seven deacons (Acts 6:1-6). The Apostles are now acting in their own authority (under the headship of Christ), a maturing of their sense of responsibility. We see this again in Acts 10:42: "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead." The Apostles, emboldened by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (chapter 2), now took a personal responsibility for the ministry assigned to them by Christ, on which the rest of the organized church would be built: "The household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).

The logical conclusion from all of this is that Acts is a book of history, a description of events at a particular point in history, and not (speaking in general) a record of how things are supposed always to be. Compare the Old Testament. Only a lunatic would claim that the command given to Israel to conquer Canaan was intended to be normative for the rest of history. Is each generation of believers supposed to go conquer the land that is now Israel? No. In the same way, the tongues and other miraculous signs of Acts were intended for a particular point in the history of the church, that of its passing from a body in the physical presence of Jesus, to a body spiritually headed by Jesus, but organized by men appointed to that end, as evidenced by special abilities given to them, as Luke himself tells us (Acts 14:3): "They remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (see also Mark 16:20, II Corinthians 12:12, and Hebrews 2:3-4).

Is Trump Your Savior?

In every presidential election season since I have been old enough to follow (which would be since Reagan's initial election), I remember so many voices proclaiming that we must "save America" by voting for one candidate, or by voting against another. This was especially apparent in the 2016 election. "The only hope for America is to elect Trump!"

In conscience, I must deny that such a concept is any way biblical.

An anonymous Hebrew poet recorded God's words on this subject in Psalm 146:3-4:
"Put not your trust in princes,
     in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; 
     on that very day his plans perish."

There is no salvation in a king or a president? Why? Because he dies and turns to dust just like any other man. On that day, his political plans, as wonderful as they might have been, are buried in the grave with him.

However, that Hebrew poet didn't stop there, as if he saw no hope in the world of men. Rather, he continued, in Ps. 146:5-7,
"Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
     whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth,
     the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
     who executes justice for the oppressed, 
     who gives food to the hungry."

First, notice what he does not say. It is common to say about any problem, "You just have to have faith." Not faith in, but just faith. Faith in faith. No, the Psalmist says. Rather, we must have faith in God, the triune God of the Bible. It isn't faith as such that saves, but rather faith in the proper object, the one true God.

Why is God the only proper hope? Because, unlike human kings - or presidents - He is eternal. Men die, and they and their plans rot into dust. Not so with God. He is eternal, as are His purposes, as is His sovereignty. 

And this isn't simply a practical issue, one of depending on a resource that can sustain that dependency. Rather, for the Christian, this is a matter of faithfulness. How easily we forget the First Commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). "I don't think Trump is God," you are no doubt saying. However, whatever you depend on for salvation is your god, whether you use that word or not. As Jesus Himself said (Matthew 6:24), "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." He speaks of God or money, but it is just as true of God or government. "I, I am the LORD, and besides Me there is no savior" (Isaiah 43:11).