Complementary letters

I stumbled on an article by A. T. Pierson on the unity of Scripture tonight. It was published in Volume 7 of The Fundamentals, an original set of which I was given over a quarter of a century ago by a family friend, now in glory. I wouldn’t be keen on his dispensationalism, but I did find the following paragraph towards the end of the article a rather engaging summary of the New Testament letters:

The Epistles are likewise all necessary to complete the whole and complement each other. There are five writers, each having his own sphere of truth. Paul’s great theme is Faith, and its relations to justification, sanctification, service, joy and glory. James treats of Works, their relation to faith, as its justification before man. He is the counterpart and complement of Paul. Peter deals with Hope, as the inspiration of God’s pilgrim people. John’s theme is Love, and its relation to the light and life of God as manifested in the believer. In his Gospel, he exhibits eternal life in Christ; in his epistles, eternal life as seen in the believer. Jude sounds the trumpet of warning against apostasy, which implies the wreck of faith, the delusion of false hope, love grown cold, and the utter decay of good works. What one of all these writers could we drop from the New Testament?*

There is a good deal more in the NT letters, but this looks like a useful overview.

* Arthur T. Pierson, The Testimony of the Organic Unity of the Bible to its Inspiration, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, edited by R. A. Torrey (Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company, 1909-15). Vol. 7, Ch. 4, p. 68.

How did the New Testament come to be written?

James B Jordan, et al, have been posting an interesting series of speculations on how Matthew’s Gospel (20 Mar), James’ Letter (21 Mar, by Jeff Myers), and Mark’s Gospel (24 Mar) might have come to be written. Riveting reading and provocative in the best sense of the word. As Jordan concludes about Matthew:

Given how all these people thought, and the context in which they lived, it should be pretty obvious that the book of Matthew was produced immediately after Pentecost. Anyone who thinks otherwise should come forward with any reason why the apostles would have waited.

It certainly makes a lot of sense, despite what many scholars believe. And even if it is apocryphal, there are some valuable insights into the contents of the books. Enjoy.

The principle of government

It struck me this morning as I read Genesis 1 that it bears witness clearly to the principle of government in God’s creation. In day 4 the two great lights are created specifically to govern day and night (the triple repetition of the word makes a clear emphasis). And in day 6, of course, human beings are given delegated authority from the Creator himself to subdue and rule over the various other animals (again with a triple repetition of the terms). There is perhaps a distinction in that the lights are somewhat passive in their government, while humanity has a much more active task, made all the more difficult by our current sinful condition that prevents us from carrying out the creation mandate as originally intended.

This same theme of government in the universe is also evident in the Book of Revelation, with its constant reference to God’s throne.

Though we humans often despise, or at least complain about, our earthly governments, it is noteworthy that the principle of government is built-in to our world. Government is not required by the Fall, but predates it, and is to be exercised “under authority”, as a delegated function. The failures and flaws of human governments are but a reflection of their failure to recognise that they exercise authority only under delegated orders. Genesis 1 gives us hope, and Revelation comfort, that God is still on the throne. Every time we see the sun and the moon we have a physical reminder that this is so.

Things to do before you die?

In last evening’s sermon our pastor mentioned the popular book 100 Things to Do Before You Die. A quick Google search revealed that others have lists ranging from 10 to 1000 things. It got me to thinking that though the books may be best sellers, and the concept appealing to many, the whole idea holds no attraction whatsoever for any Christian.

Why? Because the books have been published too late! Isn’t a Christian someone who has already died? Romans 6:2 and Galatians 2:19-21 spring readily to mind.

What would be a more appropriate concept is x things to do after you die. Now that would be interesting for a Christian.

But then again, the publishing opportunity is limited — it’s already been done. It’s called The New Testament.

Reflections on Revelation – 3

Just before going to morning worship I was reading the first chapter of the Book of Revelation in preparation, since our pastor is preaching through the book. It struck me that while it is a book in two parts, there are also two major strands running through the book. The book deals with events (“to show to his servants the things that must soon take place”, 1:1) and behaviour (“who keep what is written in it”, 1:3). Thus, the purpose of the book is to show coming events, while the purpose of showing the events is to encourage readers to live in coming with those coming events.

The events are not unimportant, but are not an end in themselves. Of far greater importance is the kind of life lived in the knowledge of those events, what David Gooding would call “the moral and spiritual implications of prophecy”. Peter’s question is relevant to any study of Revelation — “since all these things are to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness … ?” (2 Peter 3:11).

But while the main purpose of the book is to encourage a Christian lifestyle consistent with the teachings of Revelation, and by extension the Bible as a whole, the means God has employed to encourage us to live this kind of life is to reveal future events. So we must not neglect understanding what it is God has revealed to us. While it can be an attractive option to skim lightly over the events in Revelation, and be happy to agree to disagree with others on the detail, that is unlikely to yield sufficient benefit from any reading of the book.

If the keeping of the teaching is related to the knowing of the events, it must surely be more difficult, if not impossible, to understand the teaching without understanding the events. And a further implication for any interpretation of the book is that as it was God’s intention to reveal the events, rather than conceal them, interpretation must not only be possible, but is unlikely to be exceptionally difficult. That is not to say that a superficial reading of Revelation will yield any or all of the meaning and teaching of the book, no more than it will for any other part of Scripture.

It may, of course, rank alongside those difficult parts of Paul’s letters to which Peter alludes (2 Peter 3:15-16). But the problem is not, he tells us, the difficulty in understanding, but ignorance. If we do not know what Revelation is about, and that would include the events, then there is a very real danger that our ignorance, combined with instability, will lead to our destruction. If we don’t know the events, and don’t discover the doctrine, that will impact our behaviour.

Peter is not specific about the instability he mentions, but given the context of understanding Scripture, it is reasonable to conclude that he is on a similar tack to James, where wisdom and unwavering faith are the antidote to instability (James 1:5-8). Paul himself indicates that mature understanding of doctrine is an essential antidote to instability (Eph 4:11-16). There he stresses the importance of knowing Christ as an effective remedy against instability.

If we are to understand Revelation properly, we must get to know Christ, as he is portrayed throughout the book. Chapter 1 brings us with John to the feet of Christ. If we are to understand the seven letters that follow, we must understand what chapter 1 teaches about Christ, for the letters are closely related. And Christ appears similarly throughout the book — in chapter 5 as the Lamb in the midst of the Throne; in chapter 10 as a mighty angel, astride land and sea; in chapter 14 as the Lamb amidst the 144,000; and in chapter 19 as the rider on the white horse. Are these other pictures of Christ similarly related to the passages that follow them?

It would appear, then, that the key to understanding Revelation is to understand the events, and the key to understanding the events is to understand Christ as he reveals himself in the book. But then that is no different from the rest of Scripture, as our Lord himself taught us, as he showed the disciples in the Seven-Mile Sermon, where he began “with Moses and all the prophets” and “interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).

So without understanding Christ we will fail to understand Revelation. But perhaps John’s reaction to the vision of Christ in chapter 1 is also instructive for our understanding of the book — he fell at Christ’s feet (1:17). It is most likely because of the overwhelming nature of the encounter, rather than worship, though often his falling is taken to be worship. We, too, can be overwhelmed by the vision. But we need to take Christ’s reassurance not to fear to heart. We need to heed the guides John has throughout the book, who patiently explain the meaning of the various things he saw. Interpreting Revelation may not necessarily be straightforward, but it will be needlessly more difficult if we fail to see Christ in its pages, and heed the guides embedded within the text.

But worship will be important in gaining a proper understanding of the book. John may not have worshipped in chapter 1, but Christ’s appearance in chapter 5 elicits worship from the heavenly multitude. It is expected of God’s people that they will worship in response to what they see and hear in this book. In chapter 13 , by contrast, the earth dwellers and beast followers worship the dragon and the beast (13:5, 15), and one senses disapproval at that point.

When John finally falls down himself in worship (19:10; 22:8,9) he is rebuked for attempting to worship anyone less than God himself. And throughout the book we have regular refrains of worship that must lead us to conclude that the only adequate response to this book will be worship. If our supposed grasp of it does not lead us to worship then it might be a reasonable conclusion that we have failed to obtain a truly sound grasp of it, however much we might claim to understand the events described in it.

To understand Revelation aright we will need to get to grips with the events, and from them deduce the doctrine. The test of our understanding will be in our behaviour in the light of the events, and our evident worship stemming from our grasp of the teaching, and the Christ of the book.

Reflections on Revelation – 2

I’ve been reading Revelation since our pastor started a series of Sunday morning sermons on the book last Sunday. As is my practice, I try to break up the book into sections to get a better understanding of its contents, and as usual I find myself torn between several schemes.

A passing comment last Sunday about the book being in two sections led me to think what they might be. Here’s my initial take on a bipartite Revelation.

The basis of such a division has to be Rev 1:19 which identifies the book with “the things that you [John] have seen”. The book is a record of the vision(s) John saw, and accords with his constant refrain of “I saw …” or “I was shown …”.

Part 1 would be “those that are”, presumably the present from John’s perspective. This must be chapters 1-3, dealing with the 7 churches, and preceded by the vision of the “one like a son of man” (1:13).

Part 2 would be “those that are to take place after this”, which would be future from John’s perspective, and at least partly future from ours (how much would depend on your millennial views). This would be the remainder of the book (chapters 4-22). Like the first part, it begins with a vision of God, this time the one who sits on the throne (ch 4) and the Lamb (ch 5). The remainder of this part is a more involved series of visions.

Reflections on Revelation – 1

In last Sunday morning’s sermon, our pastor mentioned what might be termed the general optimism about the future of the world up to, say, the mid twentieth century. He noted how this has been replaced in recent decades with a general pessimism, symbolised most notably in the popular consciousness by global warming.

And yet, despite frequent predictions of cataclysm, it struck me that we tend to live our lives almost in complete oblivion to it. In some ways we are like King Hezekiah, who responded to Isaiah’s prediction of disaster by comforting himself that it wouldn’t happen in his lifetime (Isa. 39:8).

However, perhaps our reaction is based on our implicit faith in science. Scientists have revealed this scenario of doom to us, and we trust them to discover the solution. In so doing, we attribute to them an omnipotence they do not possess. We place in them a trust they cannot fulfil. And we give them honour they do not deserve. That is not to denigrate the great ability of many, which has brought much blessing to humankind. But the self-evident fact is that they are not in control of our destiny. God alone is. That is the clear message of the last book in the Bible — Revelation.

Succeeding the Old Testament

I’m reading Graeme Goldsworthy’s book Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, at the moment. His insights in ch 5 (“Was Jesus a Biblical Theologian?”) have been personally quite stimulating. There he points up the limitations of using first century Judaism in understanding Jesus and the early Church and concludes,

The gospel interprets Judaism as a historical and religious phenomenon, not the other way round.
(46, 47)

It can be easy to consider first century Judaism as a “magic key” to unlock the secrets of the New Testament.

Such an approach is rather akin to taking a cloth or sponge that has been wrung out, and attempting to extract further liquid. Possible by dint of force, but greatly lacking in volume. It is something to which we can be drawn if we consider Judaism as a legitimate successor of OT religion on an equal footing with Christianity. However, the NT is the rightful continuation of OT religion, and Judaism is a deviation from it. It is apt that Christ regarded the Pharisees as blind guides, for so they were.

In the 400 so-called silent years between Malachi and Matthew, a man-made religion had developed from God’s OT revelation. When God’s final revelation in Christ was revealed, the deviation from OT religion was apparent. Christ took exception not to OT Scripture and revelation, but to Pharisaic interpretation and their own religious system which had deviated so far from OT religion that it did not require reformation, but replacement.

A Christian can therefore expect little help in understanding NT Christianity from first century Judaism. Like the insight an evangelical Protestant Christian might expect form a traditional Roman Catholic interpreter, it is at best occasional and surprising; sporadic rather than constantly recurring.

Goldsworthy points out how Christ himself saw the gospel as “the completion and fulfilment of all God’s saving acts and promises in the Old Testament.” (48)

He concludes his discussion of Jesus’ View of Himself by saying,

While it is true to a point that the Old Testament is needed to enable us to interpret the New, the overruling principle is that the gospel expounded in the New Testament is the definitive interpretation of all that the Old Testament was about. (50)

Loved with everlasting love

I was struck by something Ian Hamilton wrote in his recent article, The Everlasting Love of Christ:

Commenting on God's words in Jeremiah 31:3, "I have loved you with an everlasting love," Vos wrote, "The best proof that He will never cease to love us lies in that He never began" (Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. By Richard B. Gaffin, p.298).

We often think of God's everlasting love as stretching into the future, but forget that eternity doesn't begin now. That certainly is a love without breadth, length, height or depth (Eph 3:17-19).

Hello world!

This blog is unashamedly biblical and personal. It comes principally from my reading of Christian Scripture and other edifying literature, though sometimes it may be a response to current events or media reports. Being personal it will necessarily be open to criticism for it is likely incomplete and may be mistaken. Often it may be nothing more than thinking aloud, but I do trust that it will be stimulating and ultimately edifying as I try to "take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2Co 10:5).

Peter F Whyte