Matthew Poole: "Why did God so severely punish Saul for so small an offence...?"

Note:  My sermon Sunday morning was What hast thou done? (1 Samuel 13) on the rejection of Saul.  Here is the conclusion of the message that makes use of Matthew Poole's thoughts on this passage:

There is yet one lingering spiritual question we might have in our minds about this passage. Why is God so sever with Saul? He transgresses in just one command and the Lord removes his kingdom and his prophet from him. Is this fair? It is like Moses not being allowed to enter the Promised Land, because of one act of disobedience.  He was told to speak to the rock but he struck it twice, and for this he could not enter the Promised Land (see Numbers 20:8-13).

Matthew Poole pondered this in his commentary. He offers something like a catechism on this point:

Question: Why did God so severely punish Saul for so small an offence, and that occasioned by great necessity, and done with an honest intention?

Answer: First, men are very incompetent judges of God’s judgments, because they see but very little, either of the majesty of the offended God, or of the heinous nature and aggravations of the offense. For instance, men see nothing but Saul’s outward act, which seems small; but God saw with how wicked a mind and heart he did this…. Besides God clearly saw all the wickedness that yet lay hid in his heart, and foresaw all his other crimes; and therefore had far more grounds for his sentence against him than we can imagine.

Secondly, God doth sometimes punish small sins severely and that for diverse weighty reasons, as that all men may see what the least sin deserves, and how much they owe to God’s free and rich mercy for passing by their great offenses….

Do you get Poole’s point? When you read 1 Samuel 13 you should not think “How could God treat Saul like that?” But you should think, “Why has God treated me as he has? Why has he cast all my infirmities upon his Son? Why has he removed my transgressions from me as far as the East is from the West?”

So then, it is, in the end, we who say to God, "What hast thou done for us in Christ?"

JTR

Text and Translation Note on Jude 1:3

The issue:

An issue here is whether or not to include the personal pronoun “our” (hemon). The traditional text omits it, while the modern critical text includes it. So, the KJV (based on the traditional text) reads, “of the common salvation,” while the NASB (based on the modern text) reads “about our common salvation” and the NIV (also based on the modern text but with a dynamic equivalent twist) reads, “about the salvation we share.”

External evidence:

Here are the two main options:

Traditional text (codex P and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts): peri tes koinones soterias: “concerning the common salvation”

Modern critical text (p72 and codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, et al.): peri tes koinones hemon soterias: “concerning our common salvation”

There are, however, a number of significant variations in the texts:

Two codices (1881 and 2298) along with a few Vulgate and Bohairic manuscripts read humon soterias, making the pronoun a second person plural, so “your common salvation.”

Two other codices (1505 and 2495) read humon zoes, also making it a second person plural pronoun and changing the noun, so “your common life.”

Then, most interestingly, Codex Sinaiticus (along with codex Psi) provides the harmonizing reading, hemon soterias kai zoes, so “our common salvation and life.”

N. B.: This variation is noteworthy on several levels. First, it demonstrates again that codicies Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though often presented as putting forward a unified alternative to the traditional text, are very often, in fact, at odds with one another. Second, this example shows that Sinaiticus can bear a tendency to harmonize and conflate variant readings. This undermines its reliability as a clear witness to the “original text.”

Internal evidence:

Here, the traditional text represents the shorter reading. It is easier to understand the scribal addition of the pronoun rather than to explain its omission. The shorter reading is typically the one preferred, according to the canons of modern criticism, except, apparently, when it supports the ecclesiological text.

Final thought on English translations:

The translation of this phrase provides an example of a place where the NKJV follows the modern critical text rather than the TR (which it usually follows). So:

Geneva Bible: “of the common salvation”;

KJV: “of the common salvation”;

NKJV: “concerning our common salvation”

JTR

Spiritual Thoughts on a Bird's Nest

I was out pruning the Bradford Pear trees that line my yard this afternoon and discovered this nest and these eggs hidden in the branches.

It reminded me of two things:

1.  The work of church planting (and parenting, for that matter).  Building a nest.  Nurturing growth.  Patient waiting for God's timing.

2.  God's providential care for his saints.  "He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust" (Psalm 91:4).

JTR

The Vision (5/26/11): The Mandate of Local Church Membership

Image:  CRBC's home education co-op group and their families took a field trip to the farm of one of our attending families in Madison to see chickens, goats, rabbits, and llamas on Friday, May 20, 2011.

Note: Daniel Houseworth is our first Ruling Elder at CRBC. We set him apart to this office on February 13, 2011.

As a CRBC elder, one of my greatest desires and fervent prayers is to see our congregation grow spiritually and numerically. However, the numerical growth is not what you are likely thinking. My immediate vision for “church growth” is to literally add to our membership roll regularly attending brothers and sisters in Christ who show no inclination to be a part of another local church.

With this desire in mind, I want to share with you part of an article I recently read in the Winter 2011 edition of The Founders Journal entitled, “The Household of God: An Introduction to the Church,” by Steven B. Cowan, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southeastern Bible College in Birmingham, AL (note: it is not yet available on the Founders Ministry website, www.founders.org). While I encourage everyone to read the entire article when it is posted online, there is one part in particular that I want to draw to your attention. In the closing section of the article, Professor Cowan writes, “For Christ’s purposes for the church to be fulfilled, for His purposes for you (emphasis added) to be fulfilled, you have to make a covenant commitment to a local church...” These particular words should resonate with those who heard Pastor Riddle’s preaching this past Lord’s Day on 1 Samuel 12 and his discussion of covenant renewal. Today, the people of God – regenerate believers – participate in a covenant renewal ceremony every time we gather for worship, and God’s covenant with His people is most prominently displayed for us when we participate together in the Lord’s Supper during our afternoon worship service.

Professor Cowan highlights the very nature of this covenant community – the local church – by examining Acts 5 and focusing on verses 12-13, “12 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.” These verses follow the Holy Spirit striking down Ananias and Sapphira for their sin, and the locals clearly exhibited not just a healthy fear of divine judgment, but they understood the consequences of joining the church. Professor Cowan points out that “[w]hat we need to note here is that the church was seen as something that could be joined and this tells us that the church had a clearly defined membership. It was known who was in and who was out. But we can go further than this by looking more closely at the word ‘join’ that Luke uses in the text. The Greek word used here is kollaō [κoλλάω] and it means ‘to glue’ or ‘cement together.’”

While kollaō has a mundane usage in the New Testament (such as the reference to dust clinging to one’s shoes in Luke 10:11), this same word is used in the following passages to exhibit intimacy:

- 1 Corinthians 6:16 describes being joined in a sexual relations,

- Matthew 19:5 uses the root word to describe when a man is joined to – literally cleaves to – his wife,

- 1 Corinthians 6:17 describes our spiritual union with the Lord.

It is these latter uses that well describe the formal nature of being “cemented together” as members of a local church. Does this not fit with the building metaphor that is used throughout the New Testament, like in Ephesians 2:19-22? “19Now therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Professor Cowan closes the article with this admonition: “The early Christians understood their duty to be committed members of a local church, the household of God. It is important that Christians today understand this, too. To shun this duty is to shun Christ’s gift to you. To neglect church membership is to neglect your obedience to Christ. If you love Jesus, you love what he loves; and Jesus loves the church. If you are a Christian, but not a member of a local church, you should make this your first priority.”

If you are a believer and a regular attendee at CRBC or any other local church, I encourage you to take seriously the requirement to be joined to a local church. In Ephesians 5: 25 we are reminded that Christ loves the church and died for her, and the illustration used in the verse is that of a husband and wife. In that same vein I plead with you to leave the world and cleave to Christ; be joined with your fellow believers in the local church. Only then will we all covenant together in the fullest sense as we gather on the Lord’s Day to worship our triune God.

Daniel Houseworth

Sermon of the Week: Michael Barrett on the Tradition, Text, and Translation of the KJV

In celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible (1611-2011), Dr. Michael Barret of Geneva Reformed Seminary in Greenville, South Carolina recently offered a lecture on "The Tradition, Text, and Translation of the KJV" that is worth hearing.

JTR

The Piety of "Stonewall" Jackson: Part Six: Time Steward

Dabney describes a typical day for Jackson in his pre-war days in Lexington (pp. 119-120):

1. Dawn: “He always rose at dawn; and his first occupation was secret prayer, followed, if the weather permitted, by a solitary walk.”

2. 7:00 am: “His family prayers were at seven o’clock, summer and winter…” Everyone in this household was required to be present, “[b]ut the absence of no one was allowed to delay the service.” Breakfast followed.

3. 8:00 am: First class at VMI.

4. 11:00 am: Classes end at VMI. Jackson returns to his study through to lunch time. “The first book which engaged his attention was the Bible, which was not merely read, but studied as a daily lesson.”

5. Afternoon (lunch to supper): “the interval was occupied by his garden, farm, or church duties.”

6. Evening: “The evening was devoted first to the mental review of the studies of the day, made without a book, and then to literary reading or conversation, until ten o’clock, P.M., when he retired.” In reading material, he “never chose works of fiction, but the classic historians and poets of the English tongue.”

Word Magazine (5/23/11): The Overlooked Problem with Camping: Rapture Teaching

I recorded another Word Magazine commentary titled:  "The Overlooked Problem with Camping:  Rapture Teaching."  Though many have rightly criticized Camping for weird hermeneutics (numerology), rejection of the local church, and false date setting, the problem with his teaching that has received less attention is his emphasis on the "rapture" borrowed from classical dispensationalism.

I am still learning to use Audacity, the microphone I used was crackling, and I have a Spring cold.  Hopefully, listeners can make it through these distractions!

JTR

Who wrote Jude?

Who wrote the book of Jude? The little book begins, “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James….” (1:1).

I. We know three things about the author:

1. He was a Jewish man.

His name Ioudas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Judah. Judah was the son of Jacob and father of the one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

2. He was a Jewish Christian man.

He calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ.”

3. He was a Jewish Christian man directly related to a leading figure in early Christianity named James, and, thereby, to Jesus himself.

He calls himself the brother (adelphos) of James (Iakobos). The reference to James is apparently to James, the elder of Jerusalem, and prominent leader in the early church (cf. Acts 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12). Paul refers to him as “James the Lord’s brother” (adelphos; Gal 1:19).

II. There are at least seven persons identified with the name “Jude” in the NT:

1-2. In Luke 3:26 and 3:30 there are two figures listed in the genealogy of Jesus named “Juda” (from Ioudas. Note that the text of 3:26 is disputed with some reading Ioda. This reading is adopted by the modern critical text, so that modern translations render the name in 3:26 as "Joda" [so RSV/ESV, NIV, NASB]). Obviously, neither of these is the author of Jude but there appearance shows the prevalence of the name and its appearance in the family line of Jesus’ household.

3. This is the name of Judas Iscariot the disciple who betrayed Jesus. He may be excluded for consideration of the authorship of this book for obvious reasons. The typical English rendering of his name (“Jude” rather than “Judas,” though it is exactly the same in Greek, indicates a desire to distance the author from the notorious betrayer of Jesus).

4. Another of the twelve apostles has the name of Judas (or Jude). John 14:22 specifically refers to him as Judas “not Iscariot.” In the listing of the apostles in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 he is described as Judas “of James (Iakobou).” The AV translates this as “Judas the brother of James”; the NKJV, however, as “Jude the son of James” (note the italic).

5. In Acts 9:11 there is mention of a man named Judas in Damascus who welcomed the blinded Saul into his home. There is no other known reference to this man in the NT.

6. In Acts 15:22 there is mentioned “Judas surnamed Barsabbas.” He and Silas are recognized by Luke as “chief men among the brethren” (v. 22) and “prophets” (15:32; cf. also v. 27).

7. Finally, there is a Judas (or Jude) who is listed among the brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 (translated “Judas” in the AV of Matthew and “Juda” in Mark). These would have been the half-brothers of Jesus, the children of Joseph and Mary. The order varies between Matthew and Mark. In Matthew the brothers are listed as “James, Joses, Simon, and Judas” and in Mark as “James, Joses, Juda, and Simon.” Note that James is listed first in each list either owing to his being the eldest (after Jesus) or to his later prominence among Jesus’ followers or a combination of both factors.

Now, who wrote the book of Jude? We can look to the men of this name mentioned in the NT. As noted above, we can rule out both the historical Judes of Luke 3:26, 30 and Judas Iscariot. It also seems less likely that Jude (not Iscariot) the apostle is the author. Surely, if the author were an apostle he would have noted his apostolic authority or his eyewitness testimony to Christ’s public ministry as Paul, Peter, and John do (cf. Gal 1:1; 1 Peter 1;1; 1 John 1:1-3). He speaks of the apostles as if he were not among them (cf. v. 17). Finally, it seems more likely that the apostle was the son of a man named James, rather than the brother of James. There is no compelling reason to believe that the author of this book was the obscure Judas of Damascus or Judas Barsabbas. Neither of these are associated with James. This leaves us with Jude the brother of Jesus and James as the most likely author.

The Gospels indicate that the family of Jesus did not at first acknowledge him as the Christ (cf. Mark 3:21, 31-35). John starkly records that early in his public ministry, “neither did his brethren (hoi adelphoi) believe in him” (John 7:5). After the cross and resurrection, however, things change. Luke records that when the early church gathered in Jerusalem, May and his “brethren” were among them (Acts 1:14). Paul alludes to “the brethren of the Lord” engaging in public ministry (1 Cor 9:5).

We can conclude then that Jude, the author of this letter, was a Jewish Christian minister who was the half-brother of Jesus and the brother of James of Jerusalem.

JTR

Rapturefail.org

You can track the failure of Camping's end times prophecy at http://www.rapturefail.org/.

Does Deuteronomy 18:20 apply?

JTR

White-Camping Dialogue

For those interested in the current stir about Harold Camping of Family Radio and his prediction of the Rapture this Saturday (May 21), you might be interested in listening to this diaologue (not really a debate since Camping essentially ignores anything White says) between Camping and RB apologist James White on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" radio broadcast back in July 2009:

Part one.

Part two.

Part three.

Part four.

JTR

The Vision (5/19/11): Saul and Christ

Image:  Fellowship at CRBC after morning worship last Lord's Day (May 15, 2011)

Note: Our current Lord’s Day morning sermon series at CRBC is on the life of Saul (1 Samuel 8-15). Below are my notes from the conclusions of last Sunday’s message on “The Anointing of Saul” (1 Samuel 9-11).

What Saul failed to do in the office of king, Christ has perfectly accomplished for his people.

Why did the Lord allow the office of king to be established in Israel? He did so to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, the anointed one.

There are both similarities and great differences between Saul and Christ:

Saul comes from the tribe of Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes of Israel (1 Sam 9:21). Christ will come from the tribe of Judah, but he will be born in Bethlehem, “little among the thousands of Judah” (Micah 5:2).

Saul was a “choice young man” who stood head and shoulder above his peers (1 Sam 9:2). Christ had “no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa 53:2).

Saul seeks lost donkeys (1 Sam 9:3). Christ will come to seek the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24).

Saul was appointed by God to save his people out of the hand of the Philistines (1 Sam 9:16). Christ was appointed by God to save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21).

Saul was invited to commune at the table of Samuel (1 Sam 9:25). Christ will invite his disciples to commune with him at the Lord’s table (Luke 22:19; Rev 3:20).

Saul was anointed with oil by Samuel (1 Sam 10:1). Christ was baptized in the Jordan by John and the Holy Spirit descended upon him like a dove (Matt 3:16).

When the moment came for Saul’s appointment to the kingly task, he hid himself “among the stuff” (1 Sam 10:22). When Christ’s moment came to take on his kingly task, though all his disciples deserted him, he manfully stood his ground and offered up his life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; 14:50).

When Saul was appointed king, scoffers derided him, “How shall this man save us?” (1 Sam 10:27). When Christ went to the cross, men derided him, mocking, “He saved other; himself he cannot save” (Mark 15:31).

Saul established his kingship by defeating Nahash the Ammonite, but he left many other foes for Israel to face (1 Sam 11). Christ proved his kingship by offering up himself, once for all, a perfect atoning sacrifice for sin and defeated the world, the flesh, death, and the devil (Rom 6:10; 1 Cor 15:55-57).

Everything that Saul could not accomplish, Christ did. Everything Saul was not, Christ is.

Grace and truth, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Piety of "Stonewall" Jackson: Part Five: Body Steward

Dabney describes Jackson’s typically self-disciplined oversight of his physical appetite and bodily health. He describes Jackson as a “valetudinarian,” but by this term he does not seem to mean that Jackson had an excessive concern for this physical health but a “regimen of body” that “contributed no little to his character for singularity” (p. 73).

He suffered from “weakness of eyes” and thus “made it a conscientious duty, as well as found it a necessity, to forgo all reading after nightfall, except the short portion of the Scriptures with which he invariably closed the day” (p. 65).

Jackson was “ever scrupulously neat” (p. 73).

He became a great “votary of cold water” p. 73).

In diet he was rigidly abstemious. Dabney observes: “It is noteworthy that, at all times, he preferred the simplest food, and that he lived absolutely without any stimulant; using neither tea, coffee, tobacco, nor wine” (p. 74). “One of his most rigid rules was, never to eat a morsel after his frugal supper” (p. 77).

On a wet and chilly night near the battlefield in 1862 he consented to a medical attendant’s urgings to take “ardent spirits” (p. 74). When he coughed and swallowed with difficulty, he was asked if he found the drink unpleasant. “No,” he said, “no, I like it; I always did; and that is the reason I never use it” (p. 74).

On another such occasion, a fellow officer who was “a temperate and God-fearing man” urged him to take some brandy and water. “No,” he said, “I am much obliged, but I never use it; I am more afraid of it than of Federal bullets” (pp. 74-75). Dabney adds, “How many a young man would have escaped the drunkard’s grave if he had acted on that manly philosophy!” (p. 75).

Jackson had little patience with those who suffered from over-indulgence. When those about him complained of headaches or other problems caused by “imprudence,” he declared, “Do as I do; govern yourself absolutely, and you will not suffer. My head never aches; if a thing disagrees with me, I never eat it” (p. 75).

Once he set a rule for personal discipline he felt morally obligated to keep it. When told that to relax his system in one instance would not bring injury, his typical response: “Perfectly true; but it would become a precedent for another and thus my rule would be broken down, and health would be injured, which would be a sin” (p. 75).

The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and Prayer

Our Tuesday men’s group is still working our way through Robert Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology. Yesterday we were in the chapter on the Trinity. Reymond’s approach is not to begin with elaborate theological or philosophical arguments for the Trinity. Instead, he begins with the Biblical revelation. His reason: “The evidence for the Trinity, then, since the deity and personal subsistence of the Father may be viewed as a given, is just the Biblical evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ and the personal subsistence of God the Holy Spirit” (p. 211).

Reymond, therefore, offers an extensive survey of the Biblical evidence for the deity of Christ as a proof for the Trinity. I was struck by his discussion of the presentation of Jesus in the NT as hearing and answering prayer (pp. 232-233). Jesus declares he will hear and answer the prayers of his disciples:

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

This is “an implicit claim to deity” (p. 233). Furthermore, Reymond points to instances in the NT of prayer being addressed to Jesus (Acts 1:24; 7:59; 9:10-17; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16) which “bear out the literalness with which the disciples understood Jesus’ promise, and reflect the immediacy on their part of the recognition of his divinity” (p. 233).

JTR

New Book Review Page

"...of making many books there is no end..." (Ecclesiastes 12:12)

"...when thou comest, bring...the books, but especially the parchments" (2 Timothy 4:13)

I enjoy reading.  I often take notes on the books I read for reference in future sermons, teaching, or writings.  I also write reviews and book notes on some of the books I read.  I have found that this helps me remember the content of the book and understand better the positions of the author.  As a ministry it serves as a way to commend good books to other readers or to warn them against poor content in others.

Some of these reviews have appeared in various print journals (including American Theological Inquiry, The Baptist Banner, The Evangelical Forum Newsletter, Faith & Mission, Interpretation, Perspectives in Religious Studies, and The Reformed Baptist Trumpet) and online blogs and websites.  I am also steadily working on more reviews.  Now, for example I am workng on three reviews for the next RB Trumpet and two for American Theological Inquiry.

Jeff and Anna W. have created a book review page on the CRBC website to which we are adding many of these reviews under various topics (Apologetics and Culture; Baptist Studies; Biblical Studies; Biblical Translation and Text Criticism; Biography; Calvinism and Reformed Theology; Church History; Family and Education; Ministry; Puritans; Theology; and Worship).  There will soon be nearly 60 reviews and book notes of various length and depth available to read on this page, linked to their titles.  Thanks to Jeff and Anna for their work.  May it prove helpful to some.

JTR 

MacArthur on Jude

I started reading John MacArthur's little book on Jude titled Beware the Pretenders (Victor, 1980) as a companion to preaching through this book on Sunday afternoons at CRBC.  This was apparently written before MacArthur's Calvinistic soteriology chrystallized.  As an example, at one point he writes:  "When people hear the Gospel preached, they ought to receive it; they ought to obey it.  But each person has a choice--he can receive Christ or reject him" (p. 12).  I think that he would now nuance that kind of statement a bit to include reference to God's sovereignty in election.  I am looking forward to reading the upcoming biography of MacArthur from Banner of Truth that Ian Murray has written (released at the end of this month).

At any rate, here is MacArthur's assessment of the purpose of the book of Jude: 

The book of Jude is a survival manual for Christians living in times of apostasy.  This often neglected book clearly sets forth the character of apostasy and apostate people.  No other book gives Christians such a clear picture of how God wants them to live when they find themselves in the midst of widespread apostasy (p. 6).

JTR

Text and Translation Note: Jude 1:1

I began a series of Lord’s Day afternoon expositions yesterday at CRBC on the book of Jude and was struck by a word order difference in various translations of the first verse. The book follows the ancient epistolary order of identifying first the sender and then the recipients. The issue here is the text and translation of the section of the verse that identifies the recipients of the letter by three qualities (sanctified [or “beloved” in modern critical text] , preserved, called). Most translations alter the order (called, sanctified [beloved], preserved) on grammatical grounds.

Text:

The issue here is whether Jude identifies the recipients as sanctified (hegiasmenois) or beloved (epagemenois).

The traditional text (emphasis added):

tois en theo patri hegiasmenois, kai Iesou Christo teteremenois, kletois

The modern critical text (emphasis added):

tois en theo patri egapemenois kai Iesou Christo teteremenois kletois

Analysis:

The traditional text is supported by P and the Majority tradition. The modern critical text is supported by the heavyweights favored by modern text critics; p72, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. The similarity of the two words offers obvious possibilties as to how it might have been altered in scribal transmission.

Translation:

The prime question here, again, is the word order. Should the order follow that of the original text (whether traditional or modern critical) or should “called” be moved to the front of the list? Does its appearance in the final place in the original text indicate special emphasis or accent that would justify making it the first item in the three part list?

Comparison of English translations:

Geneva: to them which are called and sanctified of God the Father, and reserved to Jesus Christ

AV: to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called

RSV/ESV: To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ

NIV: To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:

NASB: to those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:

NKJV: To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:

Analysis:

The AV stands alone among English translations in providing a window into the original word order (cf. even the Geneva and NKJV that normally support the AV). There is no doubt that grammatically the emphasis is on the fact that the recipients are called. Should a translation reflect the original word order (AV) or the grammatical emphasis (the other English translations cited)?

JTR 

Word Magazine (5/12/11): Christians and the Arts: Love God, and do what you want?

Image:  "The Garage" in downtown Charlottesville

I had been thinking of creating an occassional commentary on theological, doctrinal, Biblical, and cultural issues.  I finally sat down yesterday and recorded an initial episode of what I am calling "Word Magazine" (though on a listen back I realize I called it "Word Commentary" in the recording).

The topic is "Christians and the Arts:  Love God and do what you want?"

The commentary interacts with the cover article in the May 3-9, 2011 issue of C-ville that focused on the burgeoning "Christian" arts community in Charlottesville.  Here are a few links that go along with the commentary:

The C-ville article "Signs of a Crossing."

The website for The Garage, a "Christian" arts and performance space in C-ville.

Augustine's Tractate VII on 1 John (the source for the quote "Love God, and do what you want" which I take exception with in my commentary).

JTR

The Vision (5/12/11): Preparing for Worship

My family recently read through Bruce Ray’s book Celebrating the Sabbath: Finding Rest in a Restless World (P & R, 20000). The book closes with a challenge to keep the Lord’s Day Holily, Happily, Honestly, and Humbly. At one point Ray offers these convicting exhortations:

We come into our King’s presence and our spiritual family reunion tired, late, and unprepared to worship him—if we make it at all. This is not right. If we were this careless in our worldly occupations, we would soon be unemployed. If we treated our natural families and friends with such disrespect, we would soon lose them.

On almost any Sunday afternoon, you will find thousands of people crammed into some sports arena or stadium to cheer on their home team. They prepared for this event. The checked the team schedule and wrote this date on the calendar. They set aside some of their paycheck and bought the best tickets they could afford. They will go to bed at a decent hour so that on the big day they will be rested and able to enjoy the game. They will plan to drive in early so they can find good parking and not be late. Once in the stadium, they will sit for hours on uncomfortable seats or benches without complaining. They are not ashamed to be called fans (short for fanatics). They will shout and cheer and clap their hands and have a wonderful time.

But next Sunday morning, look around you. Where are the crowds to clap and cheer and praise the Lord? They’re all at home sleeping in. It was too hard to get out of bed this morning….There’s too much to do and too little time during the week, so they steal the time that God has specifically set apart for enjoying him and celebrating his works….They wonder why they do not grow spiritually. Why does God seem so distant, and the church so weak? Could it be that grace is leaking out of our earthen vessels like water through a sieve? (pp. 114-115).

May we come into the Lord’s presence this Sunday prepared and fresh with anticipation of meeting with and serving our God.

Grace and truth, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Piety of "Stonewall" Jackson: Part Four: Man of Prayer (Continued)

Dabney relays how Jackson once spoke with a Christian friend who asked “can one be always praying?”:

He answered that if it might be permitted to him, without suspicion of religious display he would explain by describing his own habits. He then proceeded with several parentheses, deprecating earnestly the charge of egotism, to say that, besides the stated daily seasons of secret and social prayer, he had long cultivated the habit of connecting the most trivial and customary acts of life with a silent prayer. “When we take our meals,” said he, “there is the grace. When I take a draught of water, I always pause, as my palate receives the refreshment, to lift up my heart to God in thanks and prayer for the water of life. Whenever I drop a letter into the box at the post-office, I send a petition along with it, for God’s blessing upon its mission and upon the person to whom it is sent. When I break the seal of a letter just received, I stop to pray to God that He may prepare me for its contents, and make it a messenger of good. When I go to my classroom, and await the arrangement of the cadets in their places, that is my time to intercede to God for them. And so of every familiar act of the day.” “But,” said his friend, “do you not often forget these seasons, coming so frequently?” “No,” said he, “I have made the practice habitual to me; and I can no more forget it, than forget to drink when I am thirsty.” He added that the usage had become as delightful to him as it was regular (pp. 106-107).

JTR

The Piety of "Stonewall" Jackson: Part Four: Man of Prayer

In Life and Campaigns, Dabney present Jackson as a consummate man of prayer, both publicly and privately.

His local church in Lexington had a midweek “concert of prayer” or prayer meeting. Dabney notes, “Jackson was, of course, from the beginning, the most punctual of attendants on these meetings” (p. 90).

Jackson did not enjoy public speaking and so was initially hesitant to pray aloud in public. After his pastor had taught the congregation on the duty of public prayer, Jackson met with him to discuss the matter. He told his minister, “You…are my pastor, and the spiritual guide of the church; if you think it is my duty, then I shall waive my reluctance, and make the effort to lead in prayer, however painful” (p. 91). Soon afterwards, the minister called upon Jackson to pray aloud in the weekly prayer meeting. Jackson stammered through the prayer with embarrassment, his petition being “almost as painful to his brethren as it obviously was to himself” (p. 91). Attempting to spare Jackson further embarrassment, the minister did not call again on him to pray publicly over the several weeks. When he told Jackson he wanted to spare him an uncomfortable duty, Jackson replied, “Yes…but my comfort or discomfort is not the question; if it is my duty to lead my brethren in prayer, then I must persevere in it, until I learn to do it aright; and I wish you to discard my feelings in the matter” (p. 92). Dabney concludes: “He was again called on; he succeeded in curbing his agitation in a good degree; and, after a time, became as eminent for the gift, as he was for the grace of prayer” (p. 92).

Later Dabney links Jackson’s prayer life with his steadfast belief in providence:

Hence it will be anticipated, that he who was so clear in his recognition of Providence was also eminently a man of prayer. This was one of the most striking traits of Jackson’s religious character. He prayed much, he had great faith in prayer, and took much delight in it. While his religion was the least obtrusive of all men’s, no one could know him and fail to be impressed with the regular habits of his private devotion….

This spirit of prayer was manifested by the change which it wrought in his whole manner. Everywhere else his speech was decided and curt; at the throne of grace all was different; his enunciation was soft and deliberate, and his tones mellow and supplicatory. His prayers were marked at once by profound reverence and filial confidence, and abounded much in ascriptions of praise and thanks, and the breathings of devout affections towards God…. (pp. 103-104).

JTR