The Vision (5.29.26): The time is fulfilled

 

Image: Modern view of the Sea of Galilee.

Note: Devotion based on last Sunday's sermon on Mark 1:9-15.

Mark 1:14  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

The beginning of our Lord’s public ministry followed his baptism (Mark 1:9-11) and his wilderness temptation (1:12-13).

 It was initiated or triggered by the arrest of John the forerunner: “Now after that John was put in prison….” (v. 14a; cf. 6:14-29). It was an act of manly courage for our Lord to begin his public ministry at this time.

Mark continued, “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching [proclaiming] the gospel of the kingdom of God” (v. 14b).

Christ’s public ministry did not begin with miracles, feeding the masses, opening blinded eyes, raising the dead, or telling parables, but Christ came first as a Preacher.

The apostle Paul would later write, in 1 Corinthians 1:21, “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”

The premier practitioner of this means of grace was Christ himself. Christ is the Prototypical Preacher. We merely human and very fallible preachers stumble and stammer and preach imperfectly. Christ is the Perfect Preacher.

What did he proclaim? The gospel [good news] of victory. Mark began by noting this book records, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1).  It will end in Mark 16:15 with the risen Lord telling his disciples, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

In v. 14 Mark the Evangelist describes Christ as preaching “the gospel of the kingdom of God.” This means the rule or reign of God on earth. Christ did not, in his first advent, come to establish a political kingdom. He told Pilate at his trial, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Here is the gaping difference between the Lord Jesus Christ and Muhammad. One conquers by the cross, and the other attempts to conquer by the sword.

In v. 15 we have Christ’s own words recorded by the evangelist. Christ said, “The time is fulfilled.” The word for time here is kairos. It refers to special time, the right moment, and not mere chronological time, chronos.

Christ recognized that in his coming and in his initiation of his public ministry he was fulfilling the plan of God that would lead to the bloody cross and the glorious resurrection, a shameful defeat and a stunning victory.

Christ declared, “the kingdom of God is at hand.” The rule and reign of God is present in Christ Himself. This happens even before the end of history. Christ comes into history and into time, and his kingdom is established, though it is not yet fully realized till he comes again with power and great glory.

He ends with two commands: “repent ye [experience a change of mind and a change of heart] and believe the gospel [the good news which is centered in the person of Christ himself].

There is a debate about the order of these two things in what is called “the order of salvation.” Do I first repent and then believe, or do I believe and then repent? Here, repent comes first in order, but it may well be that they come as contemporaneous events.

Christ has come. The time is fulfilled. Let us turn from sin in disgust and turn to Christ in faith.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Robert Preus on Seventeenth Century Lutheran Dogmaticians & Textual Variants:

 

From X post:

Here is Robert Preus’s description of how the seventeenth century Lutheran dogmaticians handled textual variants:

"In their defense of the authority of Scripture the dogmaticians were obligated to enter upon an involved discussion on the authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture. It was their conviction, as opposed to the Catholics and Socinians, that there had been no general corruption of the Scriptures. Not only the canonical books themselves but also the sentences and words and letters of these books are authentic. They have not been corrupted by Jews or Christians by the errors or negligence or ignorance of copyists, but by divine providence have been preserved intact and incorrupt. There are of course innumerable individual errors in the thousands of codices, just as there are in copies of other books, and these errors may even have been inserted by Jews or heretics, but there has been no general corruption of Scripture. Most of the individual errors in Scripture are variant readings of a technical nature and of little importance, such as omissions, spellings, transpositions and the like, and can be quite easily corrected. Such variations, along with diversities in pointing and accent, cannot be called corruptions. It goes without saying that the dogmaticians argue for the authenticity of only the original Greek and Hebrew texts, not for translations."

-The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the 17th Century Lutheran Dogmaticians, 134-135.

At least Five Lessons:

1. The Lutheran orthodox were aware of minor textual variants in the transmission of the text of the Bible.

2. They did not see such variants (whether intentional or unintentional) as defeaters for embracing the divine preservation of Scripture without corruption, just as the English orthodox divines would say in WCF 1:8 that the Bible had been by God's singular care and providence "kept pure in all ages."

3. Canon involves not only the books but also the texts (i.e., sentences, words, and letters) of those books. 4. They held to the original Hebrew and Greek texts as authoritative and not ancient versions (Latin, LXX, etc.).

5. The Protestant view was distinct from the RCC and Socinians.

WM 385: REJOINDER to Zachary J. Cole: "Modern" Textual Criticism & the Westminster Divines: PART TWO

 

JTR

WM 384: Bishop J. C. Ryle on the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)

 

JTR

The Vision (5.22.26): The Beginning of the Gospel (Mark 1:1)

 

Image: British Museum: Lullington (England) Chi Rho, wall plaster painting, 4th century.

Note: Devotion based on last Sunday's sermon on Mark 1:1-8.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).

It is said that the most important part of any book, including Biblical ones, is the way they begin and end. The opening verse to the Gospel of Mark serves as an overall title.

It starts, “The beginning….” This echoes the start to Genesis, the first book in the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” It also echoes the start of John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not begin with an account of our Lord’s miraculous conception by a virgin and his birth in Bethlehem. This is not to say that Mark is unaware of Christ’s virgin birth (implied in Mark 6:3: “Is this not the carpenter, the son Mary…?”).

He commences, however, by noting that Christ’s coming was the beginning of the Gospel. The word “gospel,” at root, means “good news.” When word came from the battlefield, all hoped the messenger would bring the “gospel (good news)” of victory.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul described the “gospel” as containing four key facts: (1) Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; (2) Christ was buried; (3) Christ rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures; (4) Christ appeared to his disciples (To Cephas and the twelve and others). This was the core “good news” of his victory.

In the very last chapter of this book, the risen Christ will tell his disciples, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Thus, it begins and ends with reference to the good news.

The title extends in v. 1. This is good news about “Jesus.” This is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. It means “Jehovah saves.” The name “Jesus” tells us he came as a true man.

He is next given two titles:

First, he is the Christ, the anointed one, the Messiah, coming from the line of King David.

Second, he is the Son of God. He is from all eternity the only begotten Son of God. This tells us of his true divinity. As John puts it, “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18).

The Father is, from eternity, unbegotten. The Son is eternally begotten. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

A lot is said in this opening verse. It provides us an orthodox doctrine of God, the Trinity. The one God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost from everlasting to everlasting. It also provides an orthodox doctrine of Christ. He is one person with two natures, true man and true God.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

John Owen on Inspiration and Uncorrupted Preservation

 

From X Post:

John Owen (1616-1683) on why the affirmation of the inspiration of Scripture must also be accompanied by the affirmation of its uncorrupted preservation:

"But what, I pray, will it advantage us that God did so once deliver his word, if we are not assured also that that word so delivered hath been, by his special care and providence, preserved entire and uncorrupt unto us, or that it doth not evidence and manifest itself to be his word, being so preserved?" -Collected Works, 16:350.

J. A. Alexander on the Four Gospels

 

From X Post:

J. A. Alexander on the four Gospels:

"The Gospels, thus viewed, have been likened to four portraits or four landscapes, all presenting the same objects, but in different lights and from different points of view, and illustrative of one another, yet wholly insusceptible of mere mechanical amalgamation without utterly destroying their distinctive character and even intrinsic value. So the Gospels, although really harmonious and equally inspired, are designed to answer each its own specific purpose and produce its definite impression on the reader, a design which would be nullified by blending them together into one narrative, however, chronologically or skillfully constructed."

-Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, ix.

WM 383: Rejoinder to Zachary J. Cole: "Modern" Textual Criticism & the Westminster Divines: Part One

 

Below is a table of the 16 examples of Westminster divines supposedly using "Modern" Textual Criticism shared by Zachary J. Cole. Of these 16 note: Two of the examples (3 and 4) are referenced with regard to the sermon audience (House of Commons, a company of soldiers) but not discussed in any detail. One of the examples (2) relates to harmonization of Matthew and Luke and order of verses but not text of those verses. Four examples (5, 6, 7, 8) are a defense of the TR and is not an example of a divine embracing a variant. One (16) involves a one letter difference in a single word. Four examples (1, 9, 10, 14) involve the difference of a single word without any semantic significance (a difference in form but not matter; see discussion above on the authoritas divina duplex). Three other examples (5, 6, 11) relate to one word. One example (2) relates to a single prepositional phrase with minor variation. One example (7) relates to a verb mood. One (15) relates to the person of three verbs. One (13, the example from Ussher) seems to involve an interpretation of the verse rather than the text, per se. If eight of the examples are excluded from consideration, because they are not detailed (3, 4), do not involve embracing a variant (5, 6, 7, 8), or have to do with an interpretation rather than text (2, 13), this leaves only eight remaining examples. Of these all would be considered minor in scale. Does this demonstrate that the Westminster divines were doing "modern" textual criticism?

In his article promoting the idea that the Westminster divines were doing "Modern" Textual Criticism just like evangelical scholars today, Zachary J. Cole can offer no examples of Westminster divines who rejected the authenticity of the two lengthiest passages challenged by modern textual criticism: the traditional ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53—8:11). He can cite no Westminster divine who challenged the authenticity and suggested the removal from the text of an entire verse, as often occurs in the modern critical text (see e.g., Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 28:29; Rom 16:24). He gives no example of a Westminster divine who challenged the authenticity of various readings typically rejected as spurious within modern textual criticism, including the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b); Christ’s prayer “Father forgive them…” from the cross for those who crucified him (Luke 23:34a); John’s declaration that Christ is “the only begotten Son” (John 1:18); Paul’s declaration that in Christ “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16); and the “three heavenly witnesses” (1 John 5:7). Indeed, Cole offers not one example of a divine who challenged any of the prooftexts found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, passages which came to be undermined with the rise of modern textual criticism (see, e.g., 1 John 5:7 and John 1:18 as cited in WCF 2:3; Mark 16:15 and Acts 8:37 in WCF 28.4). Cole seems to operate with the understanding that the examples he cites, though minor, indicate that the divines did not hold to any received text “approved,” as he puts it, “in every point of variation” and that, furthermore, this indicate they were committed to the same “reconstruction” method as that found in modern textual criticism. He offers no acknowledgement of the more likely explanation that the divines affirmed the common, received text while at the same time acknowledging the existence of some minor variants in the transmission process. Discussions of such minor variants in written sermons or other writings differs substantially from the reconstruction methods of modern textual criticism, because the Protestant orthodox men believed that they possessed a reliable received text and so did not have to set out to reconstruct the text of the Holy Bible de novo.

JTR

John Owen on Confessional Bibliology

From X post:

John Owen (1616-1683) articulates Confessional Bibliology:

"The sum of what I am pleading for... is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as are capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority."

-Collected Works, 16:349-350.

Commendation: Zanchi's Commentary on Philippians

Edited X Post:

Last Sunday completed a short expositional sermon series through Philippians (18 sermons). One of my reading companions through the series has been

@Pjobanion's translation of Girolamo Zanchi's Commentary on the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Philippians from @MerchRoyalPress (2024).

I'm hoping to write a review of the commentary that might show up in an academic journal somewhere, but for now, let me offer a short commendation of this commentary here on X. Excellent insights on text, structure, and doctrine, not to mention pastoral and practical applications. Many pithy and meaty short quotes were mined, extracted, and employed in preaching (many long and short quotes were shared by me on X).

If you are a confessional minister planning to preach through Philippians, ditch the modern commentaries (or at least supplement them) and take up Zanchi. You and your hearers will be richly rewarded. This should now be essential reading for confessional preaching through Philippians.

JTR

Zanchi Defends the Traditional Reading of Philippians 4:13

From X post:

Zanchi defends the traditional reading of Philippians 4:13 ("I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."):

"Paul does not simply say in Him who strengthens but in Christ who strengthens within. Hence, he indicates that it is Christ, dwelling in the hearts of the pious by His Spirit and through faith, who supplies the internal strength in the inner man whereby we can do all things and be content with our lot in all circumstances. Otherwise, we cannot properly and suitably either make use of prosperity or endure to the end. Christ learned this perfectly, and for that reason, He Himself strengthens us and grants us this contentment."

-Commentary on Philippians, 638. Contrast some modern translations of Philippians 4:13: RSV: I can do all things in him who strengthens me. ESV: I can do all things through him who strengthens me. NIV: I can do all this through him who gives me strength. NASB: I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.

See my BLQ article on the text of Philippians 4:13.

The Vision (5.8.26): All Things Through Christ

 

Note: Devotion taken from sermon on Sunday, March 3, 2026.

“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13).

As Paul draws to a close his epistle to the saints at Philippi, he rejoices that their care and concern for him has flourished once again, as they sent Epaphroditus to care for him while he was imprisoned (4:10). With this aid, Paul could write, “But I have all, and abound. I am full…” even while he was still in bonds within a grim prison cell (4:18).

The apostle notes that in the course of his ministry, which included many instances of outrageous suffering (cf. 2 Cor 11:22-28), he had learned “in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (Phil 4:11). This learning he desired to pass on to them.

In Philippians 4:13 Paul directs us to the source of his contentment, in a statement that is one of the best-known verses in this letter, in the New Testament, and even all of Scripture. His contentment had not come about through his stoic resolve, but through the presence of Christ in him (cf. Gal 2:20).

It would be an audacious statement were it not clearly qualified. Paul does not simply say, “I can do all things,” but, “I can do all things through Christ.” That is, by means of Christ, the one who is the source of all strength and provision for the believer. It is a statement about the ability of Christ and the inability of man.

Paul is saying he could face all those extremes and challenges of life not because of some innate power he possessed, humanly speaking, but because of the one who was within him. As Paul wrote in Romans 8:31, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” And as the apostle John noted, “greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4).

What storms and troubles surround you, Christian friend? What fears and anxieties torment you? What deficiencies alarm you? Take Paul’s words in Philippians 4:13 and do what generations of Christians before you have done to their spiritual profit. Write them in the flyleaf of your Bible. Memorize them. Repeat them over and over again, both aloud and silently in your mind, till the Spirit brings comfort and assurance, even “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding” (Phil 4:7).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

WM 382: Discussion with James Snapp, Jr.: "Hot Takes" on Wallace & Trobisch, 2 Peter 3:10, & Revelation 20:5

 

Links:

www.jamessnappjr.com

www.thetextofthegospels.com

Zanchi: "For our lives... is like a wheel...."

From X post:

Zanchi on Philippians 4:12 ("I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound..."):

"For our lives—or our status in the world—is like a wheel, on which we go around, at times on the lowest part and at times on the highest, with divine providence ruling all. Now we excel all others in honor, power, and riches; now we are humbled below everyone. Now we have large and well laid tables; now we cannot even eat bread. In short, sometimes we abound in all things; sometimes we are reduced to utter destitution. But the Christian who has been given the virtue of contentment learns to adapt himself to all these things everywhere and at all times."

-Commentary on Philippians, 637.

The Vision (5.1.26): The Battle for the Mind (Philippians 4:8)

 

Image: Rhododendron, North Garden, Virginia, May 2026.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Philippians 4:7-9.

When a lawyer (expert in Biblical law) asked Christ to name the greatest commandment, he replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt 22:37).

We are to love God with all our heart (the center of our affections), with all our soul (our spirits), and with all our mind (the center of our intellect, understanding, and thoughts).

In Romans 12:2 Paul called upon disciples to be transformed “by the renewing of your mind.” Our minds must be submitted to Christ.

The ancient Greeks and then the Romans had much to say about virtue, living with moral excellence. It meant aligning oneself as much as possible with what is true, just, good, and beautiful. This includes having a virtuous mind. Paul and other Christians argued that even unbelievers had God’s moral law written on their hearts (Rom 2:15). They asserted, however, that believers have an even greater capacity than did pagans for virtuous living, doing and thinking what is pleasing in God’s sight, because they have faith in Christ.

In Philippians 4:8 Paul lists six things upon which the upright believer should settle his mind. This is positive teaching, not negative. It is a “Thou shalt” rather than a “Thou shalt not” kind of instruction.

First, whatsoever things are true. Christians care about the truth. They don’t want to bear false witness. What a refreshing notion this is in a world where there is so much fake news and so many biased perspectives that one wonders if anyone cares about the truth.

Second, whatsoever things are honest [semna, venerable, respected, admirable]. Our consciences condemn us if our thoughts are not upon that which is honest.

Third, whatsoever things are just. This word relates not only to justice but also to righteous. We should think on that which is right in the Lord’s sight.

Fourth, whatsoever things are pure. Out mind should rest on the uncorrupted rather than sullied and filthy things.

Fifth, whatsoever things are lovely. The word is pros-phile, promoting or orienting one toward love to God and neighbor, and especially to the brotherhood of believers.

Sixth, whatsoever things are of good report (eu-phema). In our fallen state we tend to love bad reports. We like the sensational, the macabre, the titillating. But what if our minds were re-oriented by Christ to seeking about news of that which is good?

He closes: “If there be any virtue (moral excellence), and if there be any praise (praise of God, that which bends one toward the ways of praising and extolling the Lord), think on these things.

Coming to Christ changes our minds. It calls for us to think upon things that are pleasing to the Lord. There is a battle for our minds (our intellect, understanding, and thoughts). May the Lord have the victory in this and every area of our lives.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle