WM 368: RBS Journal: The Reformation Text and the Septuagint

 

JTR

The Vision (2.20.26): Being "one one mind" in the Lord

 

Image: Fellowship at CRBC Midweek Meeting (2.18.26)

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Philippians 2:1-5.

“Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Philippians 2:2).

Philippians is Paul’s thank you note and his love letter to the saints at Philippi. He does not take on the harsh tone he uses in letters like 1 Corinthians and Galatians, where he is correcting gross errors.

This does not mean, however, that Paul is not using all his gifts of rhetoric and leveraging all his apostolic authority to exhort the church at Philippi and especially to urge them to avoid divisions and schisms by being “likeminded” and having “one mind” in the Lord.

The Italian Reformer Zanchi said this concerning our passage:

“…we are of one mind if we hold fast to the one Christ (and not to many), to the one Head of the church (not to many), to the one Supper of the Lord that He celebrated and instituted (not to many), and finally to that single doctrine that He gave us through the apostles, and if we embrace no others” (Commentary on Philippians, 222-223).

Some have fouled things up by suggesting that clarity of doctrine divides. If we take too clear a stand on doctrine, we’ll drive people away. It is actually just the opposite. Clarity of doctrine unites. This is why we are glad to use a classic confession of faith (the Second London Baptist Confession) that offers specific details and not general notions about what we believe. This allows us to enjoy unity of faith and avoid unnecessary division.

We seek not only unity of faith but also of practice. This is the beauty of the regulative principle of worship. Following the simple Biblical guidelines for worship (singing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; prayer; the public reading of Scripture; preaching; baptism and the Lord’s Supper) unites Christians around the world. As some pastor friends reminded me in a podcast once, even using the same translation of the Bible in the church, based on the traditional text, unites us. “Uniformity” of practice, leads to unity in the body.

May the Lord make us “likeminded” and give us “one mind” as we know and serve Him and His people.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Thoughts from Hugh Latimer on "Ash Wednesday"

From my x account:

On this "Ash Wednesday," it might be edifying to consider what the Protestant Bishop and Martyr Hugh Latimer (1487-1555) wrote:

"Where the devil is resident, and hath his plough going, there away with books and up with candles; away with the Bibles and up with beads; away with the light of the Gospel and up with the light of candles, yea, even at noonday. Where the devil is resident, that he may prevail, up with all superstition and idolatry, censing, painting of images, candles, palms, ashes, holy water, and new services of men's inventing."

-As cited in J. C. Ryle, Five English Reformers, 113.

The Vision (2.13.26): Conversation that becometh the gospel of Christ

 

Image: Winter sunset. North Garden, Virginia. February 2026.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Philippians 1:27-30.

“Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27).

Philippians 1:27-30 has one main thought dominated by one main command spelled out in v. 27a: “Let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ….”

This is the headwaters from which the steams that make up the rest of this passage flow.

We hear the English word “conversation,” and we think of two people talking. In the King James translation, however, “conversation” usually has to do not with talking but with action. It means “conduct.” So, we might render the opening to v. 27: “Let your conduct be as it becometh the gospel for Christ….”

To go a bit further, the verb here for “to conduct oneself” in Greek is politeuo. It has as its root the word “polis” which in Greek means “city.” The Greeks had city states where each polis or city was like a small country. Many of the names for our cities today have “polis” at the end of them, like: Annapolis, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Indianapolis, Indiana. We also get terms like “politics” from this word root.

The statement here literally means: Conduct yourself as a citizen of the kingdom of Christ, as is fitting for someone whose life has been changed by the gospel and who continues to promote and live for Christ.

Paul uses a related term (the noun, politeuma) in Philippians 3:20 when he writes, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.” Many modern translations render politeuma here not as “conversation” but as “citizenship” (cf. NKJV: “For our citizenship is in heaven….”).

Here is mentor Paul, spiritual father Paul, older brother Paul saying to the Philippians: If you are citizens of the kingdom of Christ, if by God’s grace you have been translated out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of light, then live in such a way as befits those who know the good news of what God has done for us in Christ. Live as a genuine Christian. Don’t be a phony. Don’t be a hypocrite. Don’t be a play actor.

Where my boys played youth baseball, at the end of the regular season, some boys were selected to take part in the all-star season. The man who ran the park would always have a meeting with these boys tapped for all-stars, and he explained to them that they would be traveling to play other teams and there would even be one long trip out of state. He would then say very seriously, “Respect the uniform! When you wear this uniform with the name of our park on the front you represent this park and this program.” And he said, “If you do anything to bring disrespect upon that uniform, you will be kicked off the team and sent home.”

We can draw an analogy from this to what Paul says here to the Philippians. If you say you are a citizen of the kingdom of Christ, then live like it. Don’t do anything that is incongruous with one who claims to know the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Reformation Bible Society Journal: Volume 1: The Reformation Text and the Septuagint

 

The Reformation Bible Society has published the first volume of the RBS Journal: The Reformation Text and the Septuagint (RBS, 2025). This initial volume contains papers from the inaugural RBS conference held on August 3, 2024 at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia and a couple of extra articles and book reviews.

We hope to produce Volume Two this year (2026) with papers from the 2025 conference held on August 2, 2025 at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan on the theme: "The Text and Canon of Revelation."

Lord willing, we will host our third annual conference on August 1, 2026 at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary in Taylors, South Carolina on the theme: "Confessional Bibliology: Defined & Defended."

The RBSJ is available now in both an e-book and a paperback format. Look here for links.

JTR

Below is the title page and table of contents:

New Leather Hardback edition of Baptist Confession of Faith & Baptist Catechism from Broken Wharfe

Got the new hardback edition of the The Baptist Confession of Faith & The Baptist Catechism (Broken Wharfe, 2025) in mail this week. Very handsome and sturdy edition, inside cover artwork, crisp and clear font, chapter and paragraph in red, gilded book ribbon, "Printed in Britain" back cover stamp. This is a gem. JTR

More views:

Williams Perkins (1558-1602) on the Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture

 

The Vision: To live is Christ (2.6.26)

Image: Winter evening. North Garden, Virginia. February 2026.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Philippians 1:19-26.

In Philippians 1:21 the apostle Paul makes this great statement while imprisoned in Rome, not knowing whether he would live or die: “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

What is he saying? If I live, I will live for Christ. I will live the rest of my days loving and serving Christ (cf. Gal 2:20).

If I die, however, I will be absent from the body and present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8). I will be with Christ, and I will no longer be in his sin-sick world. I will not so much have lost my life, but I will have gained even more of Christ.

This is, for the apostle, a win-win scenario. Heads I win, tails I win.

Now we should not, however, think that Paul had some kind of glib attitude toward death. He knew that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). He knew that death had a sting. He knew that to die by execution would hold terror for him, humanly speaking. But when it was over, he’d have great gain.

He also knew that his death would bring great sorrow and pain, especially to his dear loved ones in the Lord. Recall Paul’s parting with the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:36-38, as they knelt in prayer, through tears, thinking they would not see each other again face to face on this side of the kingdom.

Partings in death can be very sorrowful. In September 1542, Martin Luther’s precious 13 year-old daughter lay dying of the plague. He said to her, “Magdalene, my dear little daughter, would you like to stay here with your father, or would you willingly go to your Father yonder?” She answered, “Darling father, as God wills.” And soon she died in Luther’s arms. At her funeral Luther said:

Darling Lena, you will rise and shine like a stat, yea, like the sun… I am happy in spirit, but the flesh is sorrowful and will not be content, the parting grieves me beyond measure… I have sent a saint to heaven (as cited in Peter Barnes, Pain of a Particular Kind, 32-33).

In Philippians 1:23-24 Paul describes his sense of being hoisted upon the horns of this dilemma, feeling as though he was being pulled or torn in two directions: “For I am in a strait betwixt the two….” (v. 23a).

First, he had a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which would be far better (v. 23b). All the struggling and suffering and the pain would be over. Many a godly saint has been on the sick bed which has become a death bed and felt this pull. It would be so much better to be with Christ!

Second, however, he knew that to abide in the flesh [in this present life] would be more needful for the saints at Philippi and for so many other brethren who had profited so much from Paul’s apostolic ministry (v. 24).

This is Paul’s dilemma, and one day it might be ours as well.

What do we gain spiritually from this passage? We are spurred on and encouraged in the faith to have the same mind in serving the Lord Jesus Christ as the apostle Paul had.

Many of us, in our younger years, had an older brother or sister whom we idolized and wished to follow. The older sibling was so smart, so good in sports, so dashing and self-assured. We wanted to be like him.

The apostle Paul appears to us here in Philippians as our older and so-much-more mature brother in the faith. We want to be like Paul.

Are we in this life? Our calling is to serve Christ and to be a blessing to his people, to advance them in the gospel and in joy (Phil 1:25).

Are we being called out of this life? What awaits is something far better.

Let us then declare with Paul, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

WM 367: KEACH on DIVINE AUTHORITY of the Holy Scriptures: Part 17 of 17: INTERNAL TESTIMONY of HOLY SPIRIT

 

JTR

A Reply by Robert L. Vaughn to "The Authority of the Septuagint"

I subtitle this “A Reply to” rather than “A Review of” The Authority of the Septuagint. It contains some review, but I also make severe criticisms and strong complaints about the work, and focus on certain authors, traits, and chapters far above the others.

Note: Robert L. Vaughn is pastor of Old Prospect Baptist Church near Mt. Enterprise, Texas.

The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches was released by IVP Academic October 30, 2025. [i] Edited by Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, they add contributions from ten other scholars: Levi Berntson, J. V. Fesko, Edmon L. Gallagher, Karen Jobes, Thomas Keene, Joshua McQuaid, James B. Prothro, Myrto Theocharous, Daniel Treier, and Mark Ward. (When I look at the list, the last name seems to be the “odd man out,” in several ways.) [ii] The contributors combine to create nine chapters (one an introduction by Lanier and Ross and one a summary by Theocharous), two excursuses, and an afterword. The bulk of the work is followed by an extensive bibliography, brief information about the contributors, a meager general index, as well as scripture and ancient text indices.

In the introduction, Lanier and Ross introduce their purpose, provide overviews for the coming chapters, and set up three interesting categories of test cases. The purpose of the book is to address the question of whether the Septuagint has any authority for churches today (and, if so, what is the nature of that authority). Up front they make it clear that voices at the far poles will be excluded – the Greek Orthodox because they hold the LXX as their definitive text, and any variety of Protestants who believe the LXX has no authority. Here, on page 2, they boldly conflate as one two different views that are not the same – exclusive use of the King James Bible and Confessional Bibliology. In this they will go from bad to worse. While the Greek Orthodox position will simply be ignored, the Confessional Bibliology position will not. The Greek Orthodox gets no place at the table, while the Confessional Bibliologist gets no place at the table and get an entire “chapter” (excursus) attacking their position. In her summary, Myrto Theocharous mildly rebukes the exclusion of the insights of “the Christian traditions of the East” (pp. 205-206, 232), but seems to generally accept as “gospel” the hatchet job on Confessional Bibliology.

The three categories of test cases (pp. 6-17) are (1) New Testament citations that align with the LXX against the Hebrew; (2) New Testament citations that align with the Hebrew against the LXX; and (3) New Testament citations that do not align with one another. These cases have interesting potential, but are not engaged by every contributor. I have not analyzed all the test cases, but one caught my eye – NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 (pp. 15-16). This example is presented as textual diversity or non-alignment of citations. One difference cited is the difference “of the verb for ‘cling’.” Matthew, in NA-28, has κολληθήσεται while Mark and Paul have προσκολληθήσεται. However, there is a variant here, a case where some MSS of Matthew have προσκολληθήσεται (compare NA-28 with TR and RP in Matthew 19:5). [iii] It does not exude confidence, whether the editors simply did not know this or chose not to mention this to their readers.

Chapter Six – but especially the two excursuses – appear designed to challenge and refute the Confessional Bibliology view of the Septuagint. Confessional Bibliology almost seems to be a burr under the saddles of the editors. On the one hand, they wish to sideline it as a view unworthy of notice, while on the other hand giving it prominent notice in their design to refute it! Berntson has a good historical overview of the Reformed view of the LXX, but, in my opinion, seems to overemphasize the minority views (pp. 113-137). In her summary, Theocharous, without drawing attention to Berntson, corrects this with his conclusion (Table 9.1, p. 232) by stating the consensus view of the Reformers and Early Scholastics was that the Hebrew text was authoritative and the LXX was not.

In his excursus “‘Kept Pure in All Ages’?” (pp. 138-146), J. V. Fesko fires a warning shot across the bow of Confessional Bibliology by addressing the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, which states (among other things) that “The Old Testament in Hebrew” is “Authenticall.” [iv] Without specifically mentioning it, Fesko reviews a primary point of Confessional Bibliology. When all is said and done, however, the shot misses its mark. The Westminster Confession still places authority in “The Old Testament in Hebrew” – the Old Testament in Hebrew, not the Old Testament in Greek!

The excursus by Mark Ward is titled “The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology.” [v] Rather than have a proponent discuss their view and its relation to the Septuagint, the editors hired a hit man to write a hit piece. Ward is not a random scholar chosen to write about this subject, but an opponent who has prayed imprecatory prayers against Confessional Bibliology! [vi] The excursus begins its excursion poorly and ends it badly.  In violation of his promise to stop identifying Confessional Bibliology with IFB King James Bible “Onlyism,” he calls the two views “fraternal twins” (p. 169). [vii] For his schtick, Ward “reviews” the Reformation Bible Society Conference of 2024 (p. 170). He undertakes to summarize and reply to “the main confessional bibliology arguments levied against the use of the Septuagint.” He further misunderstands, since the conference focused on the Old Testament and the LXX, that Confessional Bibliology has found some new direction. [viii] Something is not new simply because it just dawned on him!

Ward falsely indicates that he is interacting with “the four key presenters at the Reformation Bible Society conference” (p. 170, fn 6). [ix] He includes three of the plenary lectures given at the Reformation Bible Society conference, but avoids the fourth. He knows he is misrepresenting the facts – and so does editor William Ross, who attended the conference. The four plenary lectures were: “What Exactly is the Septuagint?” by Russell Fuller; “How Did the Early Church Use the LXX?” by Jeffrey Riddle; “What was the Reformation Perspective on the LXX?” by David Kranendonk; and “Why Does the Septuagint Matter Today?” by Christian McShaffrey. [x] He avoids the fourth and replaces it by mentioning – and then dismissing – a short paper that was not particularly relevant to his cause (because it was a paper given in a breakout session). [xi] When Ward excludes one of the primary speakers at the conference he is reviewing, how can we have any confidence when he says things like, “none of the speakers reckon in any detail with…” (p. 173). How can the reader know this, when Ward refuses to present all the facts?

On page 173 Ward muddies the waters by implying that Confessional Bibliologists are tilting at windmills, then gives examples that show they are not, including citing the ESV preface concerning using the LXX (and other ancient versions) “to support a divergence from the Masoretic text” (p. 174). He further stirs the mud by saying that Confessional Bibliologists oppose use of the LXX (p. 176), as if the conference presenters do not know the difference between using the LXX to help understand Hebrew words and using it to emend the base text to reflect the reading of the LXX rather than the MT. Their opposition is not to use of the LXX or other early versions to help understand words and such like, but to the use of the LXX to change the Hebrew Masoretic text. Ward even points to examples where modern versions do just that, such as the NIV at Genesis 4:8. [xii] Who’s tilting at whom?

Perhaps Ward raises some questions that Confessional Bibliologists will need and want to answer, but the overall excursus runs off in the wrong direction, smattered with misrepresentations and falsehoods.

While excluding the Confessional Bibliologists from giving their viewpoint, the editors chose to have a Roman Catholic scholar give a Catholic viewpoint. James B. Prothro’s chapter “A Roman Catholic Approach” injects further questions about the authoritative canon (pp. 190-191), gives due deference to the deuterocanonicals (pp. 184, 187, 204), and even in an indirect way questions sola scriptura (pp. 193). [xiii] However, “A Roman Catholic Approach” fits the mold for which the editors were looking – a view between the poles that gives some authority to the LXX, rather than all or none (p. 2). [xiv] The book ends with Myrto Theocharous summarizing things, and Septuagint scholar Karen Jobes reflecting on the overall topic. [xv]

Straight talk, no excursus.

The Authority of the Septuagint contains a lot of information that I found interesting, educational, and even helpful, even though I disagree with the book’s aim and its conclusions. Nevertheless, to a greater degree, I found that The Authority of the Septuagint, like sheep and commentaries, went far astray. This is especially true in the choice to have Mark Ward – of all people – write the excursus on Confessional Bibliology. In his so-called review of the Confessional Bibliology book Why I Preach from the Received Text, Mark Ward ended with an imprecatory prayer against Confessional Bibliology, “I pray that its days will be few.” On his blogpost “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Ward professed to disliking leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology. [xvi] Yet Lanier and Ross chose this man to run off and on about Confessional Bibliology. They obviously knew that Ward was an opponent of the position. Ross, in fact, was a guest on the podcast when Ward “broke his silence.” [xvii] Ross also attended the very Reformation Bible Society conference that Ward misrepresented in his excursus! He knew better. The editors could not have not known that Ward misrepresented parts of the conference, dislikes leading proponents of the position, and desires that the Confessional Bibliology position should be destroyed! I find their choice of Mark Ward to write about Confessional Bibliology in their book to be misguided, reprehensible, and unsuitable for a book foisted on the public as “academic.”

In their “Preface,” Lanier and Ross say that a project like this could easily “go off the rails” (p. vii). [xviii] I believe it did. This book will stand as a perpetual stain on the reputation, honesty, and decency of its editors, as well as a question mark on the quality of oversight and care put into the materials published by InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic.

Endnotes

[i] https://www.ivpress.com/the-authority-of-the-septuagint

[ii] The information about contributors says that Mark Ward “serves as editor for Crossway Publishers.” Ward was not an editor with Crossway when the book was published in 2025. He was only there from May to November in 2024. However, he probably was in that position at the time he contributed the excursus. https://byfaithweunderstand.com/c-v/ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewxfs5gE9Q

[iii] For example, κολληθήσεται appears in B D W Θ 078; προσκολληθήσεται appears in א C L Z f¹ 33.

[iv] Authentical = original, genuine, trustworthy, reliable.

[v] He also includes this “chapter” on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2hkulghmI

[vi]  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/ “I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”

[vii] http://www.jeffriddle.net/2022/07/wm-243-responding-to-another-comment-by.html I was one of several individuals – including Dane Jöhannson, Dwayne Green, and Tim Berg – who advised and asked Mark to stop calling Confessional Bibliology “KJV-Onlyism” – to which he agreed, writing, “I have prayerfully considered their appeals and yours, and I have decided to stop using that label” for Confessional Bibliology. However, he did not stop.

[viii] This is another instance showing that Ward misunderstands Confessional Bibliology and is not qualified to lecture or write about it. First, it implies that Ward is not familiar with the OT views of the Reformers and the Protestant Scholastics. Westminster 1.8 (as well as the Savoy and 1689 London Confessions) is a touchstone of the Confessional Bibliology movement, and clearly includes the Old Testament in Hebrew as one of the two confessional texts. Additionally, this is addressed in Why I Preach from the Received Text (e.g., pp. 15-17), which Mark Ward reviewed as soon as it was available in July 2022. To address Confessional Bibliology’s position on the Old Testament as if it were some new thing suggests either pretense or incompetence.

[ix] Ward again misrepresents that he is discussing the “four main presenters” on page 178.

[x] https://www.textandtranslation.org/videos-2024-reformation-bible-society-conference/

[xi] Not that there was anything wrong with this short paper, just that it is misrepresented by Ward as if it were one of the plenary lectures. Short papers in breakout sessions are usually situated somewhat more peripherally to the main topic than the plenary lectures. Ward knows how conferences work in this regard.

[xii] The ESV adds from the LXX to the text of Psalm 145:13, and this book notes other places where the LXX “corrects” the Hebrew.

[xiii] Prothro provides a “fraternal twin” to Daniel Wallace’s “gift that keeps on giving.” Prothro writes: “At the same time, it is not as though we do not have God’s Word unless we have a perfect Bible. Given the textual evidence, it would be difficult in most cases to know that we had such a Bible even if we did” (p. 190).

[xiv] …there must be some option between these two poles…” Another interesting thing about the inclusion of a Roman Catholic view: Many modern Protestants and evangelicals sound closer to the Roman Catholics who were debating the Protestant Scholastics and further from the view of men like John Owen and Francis Turretin.

[xv] It was my impression that Myrto Theocharous is not all that familiar with Confessional Bibliology and assumed that Ward was shooting straight.

[xvi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2024/09/26/breaking-my-two-year-silence-on-confessional-bibliology/

[xvii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8

[xviii] There is an interesting “fraternal twinship” between “go off the rails” and “excursus.” The latter comes from Latin excurrere, “to run out of.”

WM 366: KEACH on the DIVINE AUTHORITY of the Holy Scriptures: Part 16 of 17: RAGE of the DEVIL

 

JTR

WM 365: GERHARD on the HEBREW TEXT: NOT CORRUPTED by the "CARELESSNESS OF SCRIBES"

JTR

The Vision (1.23.26): When things "fall out" for the furtherance of the gospel

 

Image: Winter sunset. North Garden, Virginia. January 2026.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Philippians 1:12-18.

“But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel” (Philippians 1:12).

Paul writes his epistle to the saints at Philippi while in bonds, literally in chains. As now, such circumstances did not typically win friends and influence people in that day. Paul had been slandered, attacked, beaten, and imprisoned throughout his ministry as an apostle.

He had survived death by stoning at Lystra (Acts 14:19-20). He fled Thessalonica “by night” after being threatened (Acts 17:10). He was nearly torn limb from limb in the temple in Jerusalem as the mob cried out, “This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place” (Acts 21:28). Forty Jews took a vow not to eat or drink till he was assassinated (Acts 23:12-13). Transferred to Caesarea, a Jewish orator named Tertullus accused him before the Roman governor Felix of being “a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 25:5). Appealing his case to Caesar, Paul was sent to Rome under the guard of a Roman centurion named Julius (Acts 27:1). The ship was wrecked in a storm, and Paul made it to shore clinging to the wreckage (27:44). As the survivors built a fire, a poisonous snake came out from the wood pile and bit the apostle on the hand. He shook the snake off into the fire and miraculously persevered. Eventually he came to Rome and was kept a prisoner for two years. In 2 Corinthians 11:23-28 Paul provides a list of many of the things he had endured as an apostle.

When Paul said in Galatians 6:17, “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus,” he was not speaking metaphorically.

Paul’s statement in Philippians 1:12 comes in the context of his “lived experience.” He begins, “But I would ye should understand, brethren….” He wants them to understand his circumstances with Christian discernment. He calls them his brethren. They are together part of the family of God.

He declares that the things which have “fallen out” (taken place in his life in the providence of God; the verb means to loosen or unravel) for him have transpired for the furtherance [advance] of the gospel [here: the proclamation of the good news of what God has done for us in Christ].

As I read this passage it took me back to Genesis 50:20: “ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good.”

It also recalls Paul’s great declaration in Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

Just as God had allowed Joseph’s suffering to save many from physical famine in Egypt, God had allowed Paul’s suffering so that he might preach the gospel to many in Rome and save them from spiritual famine. This included some in the Roman palace (1:13) and even in “Caesar’s household” (4:22).

This is the way believers look at their circumstances whether filled with “smiling” or “frowning” providences. God is making things “fall out” for his own glory and the good of his people, for the furtherance of the gospel.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (1.16.26): He which hath begun a good work in you

 

Image: Winter morning. North Garden, Virginia. January, 2026.

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Philippians 1:3-11.

“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6).

In Philippians 1:3-4 Paul offers thanks to God for the saints at Philippi: “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you. Always in every prayer of mine making request with joy.” For what cause does Paul offer these constant prayers of thanks and intercession? He says in v. 5 that it is “for your fellowship (koinonia) in the gospel from the first day until now (the present).”

Koinonia is a great Christian word. Fellowship in the gospel means a common commitment to the truth of and proclamation of the good news of what God has done for us in Christ. This is the unseen glue that binds believers together. If I love the gospel and I meet someone else who loves the gospel, we have an almost instant koinonia.

Paul says he had this fellowship with these “saints” at Philippi from the beginning. It has been consistent, from the first day to the present. It is unbroken. He could not say that to some churches, like those of Galatia who had left the true gospel for “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6).

Paul then expresses a confidence in the Philippian believers in v. 6. Namely, that He (that is, God Himself) “which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Christ Jesus.”

I have often used this verse in pastoral meetings to speak to individuals who have wondered about their standing in the faith. Have they come to the faith for the first time, or have they taken a great leap forward in the faith? Is God doing something new or is he growing and advancing what was already there in seed form?

I think this verse can rightly be used to that end. But notice the context. Paul is addressing a church. He is affirming that God will perform what He has started in this church (and indeed in all true churches).

Those who are disappointed in what the church looks like at present need to remember that she is not now what she one day will be by God’s grace. One day the church will be like a bride adorned for her husband in fine linen (“the righteousness of saints”) (Revelation 19:8).

Until what time will the Lord be nurturing that which He has begun in His people? “Until the day of Jesus Christ” (v. 6). That is, until the day of our Lord’s glorious second coming when all things are made new. The apostle John thus rightly says, “it doth not yet appear what we shall be” (1 John 3:2).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle