Ruth 2:1-16, the Overflowing Covenant

[Because of the length of this passage, I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but rather refer to particular verses in it.] 

Do you ever read portions of Scripture which just move your heart? Portions that give you a particular sense of gratitude to God and peace in His covenant? For me, Ruth, chapters 1 and 2, were such a portion. While I definitely believe that Ruth is historical, not allegorical, I also see in it strong and gratifying types of Jesus Christ, the ultimate biological expression of the events of the book.

In the first verse, we are introduced to Boaz, a kinsman of Ruth's late husband. In Hebrew, his name means "in him is strength," one of the clues that he is to be taken as a type for Jesus, his lineal descendant. The typology is reinforced by the placing of the events of the book, except the sojourn in Moab, in Bethlehem. The second verse describes Ruth supporting herself and her mother-in-law, Naomi, through gleaning, a biblical form of support for the indigent, established in Leviticus 19:9-10.  See also Deuteronomy 24:19. How beautiful it is to see this type of Christ providing his overflowing benefits to this alien from the covenant!

In verse 12, we have Boaz saying of Ruth, that she had "taken refuge under the wings" of Jehovah, an obvious indication of her true conversion. This was something that hadn't been clear earlier. In Ruth 1:16, Ruth had said that Naomi's God would be her God, but it wasn't clear that this was conversion, rather than mere loyalty to her mother-in-law. We see it confirmed, now, that Ruth had truly received the God of Israel by faith. This is a vibrant example of what is described in James 2:5, "Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?"

In verses 15 and 16, we see Boaz instructing his workers to give Ruth her gleanings, not from the post-harvest field alone, but even from that portion of the harvest which had been gathered for the storehouses. God does indeed bless His people with fruitfulness. He promises this in Deuteronomy 16:15, "The Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands." But His blessing isn't just a blessing of sufficiency, but rather a blessing which overflows even to the unbelievers around us! We see this described in Matthew 15:26-28, especially verse 26, "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

In chapter 1, I described Ruth's envy of Israel's covenantal relationship with Jehovah. Now, here in chapter 2, we see here experiencing second-hand those same covenantal blessings. Why? Because was now herself in covenant with the faithful, covenant-keeping God! This is a type of us! We who were once strangers of the covenant (Ephesians 2:12), have now received the benefits of the covenant, through the Jews (Romans 11:11-12)! This is because Boaz's descendant, Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5), of whom Boaz was a type, received blessings from His Father to pass to us, His covenant people (John 15:15 and 17:18)! We have gleaned grace, sanctification, and glorification yet to come, typified here by Ruth, from the overflowing blessings of this same covenant-keeping God! To me, that is a source of great joy and comfort!

Bishops in the Church (Part 1): the Bible versus Catholic Tradition

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the churches of the Anglican Communion, all practice the form of church government commonly called "episcopalian" or "prelacy." This is in contrast to the "presbyterian" and "congregationalist" systems. They claim that church history refers to government by bishops, and is found in the earliest church Fathers, including those of the immediate post-Apostolic period. And, as far as that goes, they are correct.

The reason that I say, "as far as that goes," is that it is a half-truth, leaving out a lot of relevant information, especially the simple fact that the word "bishop," a transliteration of the Greek word "episkopos," was used very differently from the way these churches use it.

There are two New Testament verses that refer to the "episkopoi" of particular congregations. Note that: "episkopoi" in the plural, not "episkopos" in the singular. In Philippians 1:1, Paul sends salutations to the Church at Philippi: "to all the saints in Christ Jesus, with the bishops and deacons" (KJV). The other is Acts 20:28 (cf  KJV margin). In both places, modern translations read "overseers," which is the literal translation of "episkopoi." The Acts passage, which begins at verse 17, is especially important, because it begins by referring to the "elders" of the Church at Ephesus, Greek "presbuteroi," and then changes to "episkopoi" for the same men.

The importance of these two verses is that they refer to multiple bishops in single congregations, utterly contrary to the single monarchical bishops of the episcopal churches.  In fact, in the immediate post-Apostolic period, the term came to refer, not to a regional monarchical official, but rather to the pastor of a city church. St. Jerome, that prominent church Father so often quoted by Catholic apologists, said, in his commentary on Titus, "A bishop is the same as a presbyter... [S]o let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than in consequence of our Lord's appointment..." What he is referring to is Paul's instruction to Titus (in Titus 1:5) to appoint "elders," i.e., "presbuteroi," in every church. Note the plural, a plurality of elders, not a single monarchical figure. Then he continues in verse 7, "For an overseer (episkopos), as God's steward, must be above reproach." Paul uses both Greek terms to refer to the same men in the same office. That is why the New Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, translates "episkopos" as "presiding elder," not "bishop."

Thus, in two ways, both the New Testament and the first church Fathers contradict the use that episcopalians put upon them. In contrast, they support the presbyterian church of government, which not only permits, but rather requires, multiple elders to govern each local church.

For Part 2, click here. 
 

Apostasy: A Critique of "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn

It is rare for me to be completely revolted when reading a book, especially a book on some aspect of theology, even theology that I disagree with. However, this book, the tale of the journey of a Presbyterian minister and his wife to conversion to Roman Catholicism, outraged me, with its appeals to sentiment, ignorance, and strawman arguments. Especially considering that it was written by a clergyman, someone that I would expect to write on a certain moral level. I definitely didn't find that level maintained in this book. In fact, two Bible verses come to mind to express my reaction. The first is Acts 20:30, "From among your own selves, will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them." The other is I John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us." This book is a tale of bald-faced apostasy, with justifications that only the ignorant could swallow.

Let me begin with the most-deceptive elements. Scott Hahn begins by describing himself as a hardcore Calvinist in seminary. What he doesn't explain is why he chose to go to Gordon-Conwell Seminary, which is evangelical, but not Reformed. However, the answer becomes evident, even if unspoken. On page 31, Hahn informs us that he had come to "discover" that Saint Paul did not teach the doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone). Any Protestant reading that should be struck dumb, because we immediately think of such Pauline references as Romans 4:5, "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." Then Hahn adds his assertion that sola fide isn't taught anywhere in Scripture, claiming James 2:24 as his support. The reason I make such a point of this is to demonstrate that Hahn had abandoned Protestantism long before his official conversion.

We see the reason for this when Hahn mentions that he had become involved with Norman Shepherd, who was forced to leave Westminster Seminary for undermining the biblical view of justification. Hahn even mentions Shepherd's heresy trial, demonstrating that he was well-aware that those views were outside the pale of Reformed doctrine. Shepherd was the father of the Federal Vision movement, which has disrupted Reformed churches with an attempt to bring back this exact Catholic doctrine of justification. Hahn went to his first pulpit with these views, at a Federal Vision church, but does not say that he informed his presbytery of his views, a deceptive act. While there, he also began to teach at a tiny seminary, i.e., in spite of the "major seminary" claim of one article promoting him. Again, we see that this "Presbyterian" minister was never really Presbyterian.

In addition to his justification heresy, Hahn began the ministry with erroneous views on the sacraments. He complains, p. 49, about the Protestant doctrine of the Lord's Supper - or Eucharist, as he prefers to say - that it is a mere symbol. This is repeated on page 56. Unfortunately for him, that is not the Protestant view, at least among Lutherans, who hold to consubstantiation, or the Reformed, who hold to a spiritual, noncorporeal Real Presence. As the Westminster Confession of Faith XXIX:7 says, "Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death; the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." Which solution would be worse: that Hahn was ignorant of this doctrine? or that he was knowingly railing against a doctrinal strawman?

One of the endorsements on the back cover of the book says, "This book is inspiring and exciting for any reader desirous of rediscovering, from a scripture base, the reasons why the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and practices its doctrines." But this is exactly what the book doesn't do.We read statements such as, "I had fallen head over heels in love with the Lord in the Eucharist" (p. 88), and "I felt the Lord unleash his power through his mother" (p. 89). This is sentiment, not biblical exegesis. He also mentions direct revelations "from the Lord" on pages 114 and 115. Voices in the head are, again, not biblical exegesis.

This book, as well as other publications from Hahn, are promoted by (some, not all) the Catholic Church in an effort to convert Protestants. You can see them at his website, linked at the top, as well as here. This is what plays into the Acts 20:30 reference above; Hahn hasn't just committed apostasy himself, with his family, he wants to convince the rest of us evangelicals to follow him! God's warning to us is found in Deuteronomy 7:4, "[He] would turn away your sons from following Me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and He would destroy you quickly." And God's warning to Hahn is found in Deuteronomy 13:5, "That prophet shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God."

A video by two ex-Catholic priests with a viewpoint opposed to Hahn's can be seen here. 

Does John 3:16 Imply a Universal Atonement?

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

The doctrine of particular atonement, also known as definite or limited atonement, is one of the five doctrines of salvation commonly called the five points of Calvinism.  It is probably the most controversial of the five, which is why you'll even find those who call themselves "four-point Calvinists," as if the five doctrines don't stand or fall together. Arminians are most shrill in attacking the Calvinist understanding of the atonement. In essence, the Calvinist says that God the Father gave a number of particular individuals to God the Son to be redeemed and to be regenerated by God the Spirit. This group is explicitly named, not just any unspecified number. Refer to John 10:29 and 17:2.

In contrast, the Arminian (and the semi-Pelagian of any type) holds that Jesus died for every person in the world, without distinction. In every discussion on the issue I can remember, the Arminian participant always threw out the verse above, arrogantly, as if it ended the debate. They act like a man who steps on an ant; he doesn't pause to see whether not the ant is dead.

I, however, suggest that John 3:16 tells us nothing about the extent of the atonement. Let us consider what it actually says: "God so loved the world." Even if the Bible didn't explicitly state this, would it not be obvious? The world is His creation. He devoted great wisdom to its form and orderly operation. Of course He loves it! But let us consider an analogy. If I tell you that 70% of Americans are white, what race is John Smith (just to pick a name hypothetically)? You would have to say that you don't know, because what is true of the aggregate implies absolutely nothing about the particular.

In the same way, to say that God loves His creation in aggregate, in no way conflicts with, for example, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," (Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:13). The particular takes precedence over the general.

There are plenty of more-technical reasons to demonstrate that John 3:16 doesn't mean what the Arminian claims it means. However, this simple logical argument seems to me the most-straightforward way to deal with it. So, whatever you might think of the doctrine of particular atonement, I deny that you have the option of simply throwing out this verse as if it trumps every other consideration. If you want to see other arguments, simply click on the tag below, and you will see what else I have written on the issue.

Keeping the Lord's Day Holy

"The sacred observance of one day in seven is God's appointed means for the cultivation of piety: when piety vanishes, orthodoxy necessarily follows it in due time."

This quote is from the Lectures on Systematic Theology (the specific lecture is available in this pdf) of Robert Lewis Dabney, one of the two best-known theologians from the old Southern Presbyterian Church. In this passage, he was stating his opinion that a lack of Sabbath concern in European churches, including both Calvin and Luther personally, was the reason that the European mainland was, even in his time, a spiritual wasteland. I am sure that, if he lived in our day, he would suggest that the same disease is what has destroyed the Protestant churches, his own Presbyterian Church included, have faded into paganism, even in the English-speaking nations.

The view Dabney was defending can be found in the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 116: "What is required in the fourth commandment? Answer: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as He has appointed in His Word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called the Lord's day." (See also Questions 117-121). He held, and I also hold, that this view best summarizes the biblical teaching relevant to the Lord's Day, or Sabbath, for the Christian.

The opening biblical reference is Genesis 2:1-3: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation." That is, the Sabbath arises from the creative acts of God at the beginning of history. Remember that; it is a crucial aspect of what I am advocating.

Next, it comes up in the IVth Commandment, in both Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15.

The objections to continuing Sabbath observance, even in its Christian first-day form, are twofold. The first is a general objection that the ceremonial law has been fulfilled in Christ, and is therefore no longer binding on the Christian. That principle is certainly correct. However, it is irrelevant here, because, as I mentioned above, the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, instituted thousands of years - at least- before the time of Moses. In addition, we have the New Testament concurring in Hebrews 4:9, "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." Thus, the Sabbath is found both before the ceremonial law was given and after it was abrogated in Christ. Therefore, it could not have been abolished with the ceremonies, such as the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood.

The other objection is more specific. It is based on Colossians 2:16, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day." But that interpretation is only possible if you ignore the next verse, "These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." This brings us back to the exact point I made in the paragraph above. Paul is encouraging the Colossian believers not to be shaken by the criticisms of the Jews, or of Judaizers in the Church, who advocated the continuing devotion to the Jewish ceremonies, e.g., the festivals and seventh-day Sabbath attendance at synagogue or the Temple. In other words, he is not referring to the Sabbath principle here, but rather to the now-superseded Jewish Sabbath. Otherwise, Paul's companion Luke would have been remiss in recording that the Christians met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).  And Paul himself would have erred in encouraging the believers to take up an offering in their meetings on that day (I Corinthians 16:2). So, the general reading of Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 would make it contradict these two verses, and especially Hebrews 4:9 (quoted above). The narrow reading, i.e., that it is reference specifically to the Jewish Sabbath, must therefore be the correct interpretation.

The Apocrypha and the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture

"If it is well-composed and to the point, that is just what I wanted. If it is worthless and mediocre, that is all I could manage."
- II Maccabees 15:38, New Jerusalem Bible

This verse is the penultimate verse of the apocryphal Second Book of Maccabees. Along with First Maccabees, this book is an accepted part of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons of the Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox also accept Third and Fourth Maccabees. These books describe the historical period between the prophecies of Malachi and the Gospel of Matthew.

All of these books are found in the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. However, all four are excluded from the so-called Palestinian canon, the basis of both the modern Jewish and Protestant canons. The Orthodox accept all four simply on the grounds that they consider the Septuagint to be the authoritative basis for their Old Testament. And, it must be acknowledged, the manuscripts that survive of the Septuagint are far older than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts. The Church of Rome, on the other hand, pleads the actions of certain church councils (not any of the universal Ecumenical Councils), especially of the Third Council of Carthage, a provincial council that met in 397, and ratified by the Sixth Council of Carthage in 419. However, Rome rejects the Synod of Laodicea, 365, which excluded the Books of Maccabees. In addition, they claim the authority of Augustine, who accepted the books, but reject the opinion of Jerome who excluded them from his canon, i.e., the Vulgate Bible.

My point in mentioning these councils and church Fathers is that the Church of Rome cherry-picks its authorities. Since the Council of Trent "infallibly" determined to include the books, the Roman Church is forced by its own claims to profess only those authorities that agree with that decree.

The problem for the Catholic (and Orthodox) view is that it is contradicted by the very text that they are claiming as canonical. Look at the quote at the top of this page. The writer of Second Maccabees is worried that his book will be found to be mediocre! Would he have that fear if he were inspired, as, for example, Paul was? Rome claims that he was merely mistaken, unaware of his inspiration, because, they claim, the Scriptures aren't infallible in matters of science or history, i.e., "objective" facts. A-hah! Here we have the crux of the issue: in order to maintain its own infallibility, Rome is perfectly willing to cast away the infallibility of God! This is the reason the Reformers pointed their fingers at the papacy with the cry of "Antichrist"!

In contrast, Jesus, speaking to His heavenly Father, trustingly confessed, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). That is the authority that I accept. As the Psalmist says (Psalm 119:160), "The sum of Your word is truth." Since no pope has ever died for my sins or risen from the dead, I will choose the words of Jesus over the words of Rome. I am secure in the trust that those words will never change.

Tongues: Not a Blessing, but a Curse

Deuteronomy literally means "second law," because it contains the second enumeration of the Ten Commandments. It is primarily a book of the covenant, the terms of the treaty of relationship between Jehovah and His people. It includes blessings for covenant faithfulness, as well as curses for treason against the covenant. The verse I wish to highlight is in the latter portion.

Deuteronomy 28:49, "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand."

There are a number of verses throughout the Old Testament that parallel this one. For example, Isaiah 28:11, "For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue, the Lord will speak to this people." Paul also quotes this verse to the same end in I Corinthians 14:21, and then adds in verse 22, "Thus, tongues are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers." That is, to unbelieving Jews. Yet, where do we see the promotion of "tongues"? In church worship services! The purpose of these verses, if I may paraphrase, is for God to tell Israel, "If you refuse to listen to Me, then I will continue to speak to you, but through languages that you do not understand." This was a judgment. It is as the parent who continues his warnings to an errant child, even as that child puts his fingers in his ears to keep from hearing. I refer to these verses as the defense of my belief that glossolalia, commonly referred to as "speaking in tongues," is not a blessing, and is not intended for today's Church. Hearing someone else speak in an unknown tongue is a final step in God's bringing discipline against a wayward believer or church. When a professing Christian hears other people speaking in tongues, that means that either he or his entire community has provoked the wrath of God and may soon anticipate some form of judgment. This is not a good thing!