Piper on Romans 9…A Classic!

I have been listening to John Piper for a few years now and I have tremendously enjoyed his preaching. It is rare to hear an individual preach so passionately like he does while retaining a balanced exegetical ability to teach the text especially in an expositional fashion.  One talk that he did several years ago was an introduction to a series of talks he was giving on Romans 9. As most know, this is a wonderful text and Piper has spent much time studying it. He had written a book called “The Justification of God” which he deals with this beautiful chapter in much detail. I have listened to this talk on several occasions and it has moved me each and everytime I have played it. I thought that perhaps some might find this to be a blessing and an encouragement since it has certainly been so for me. Please feel free to listen here.

And the saga continues…

The Church I attend has gone ahead with the move to the new place of gathering. I had expressed my orignial views on this move in an earlier post that can be found here. I have not attended these meetings since the move last week. I know through emails that many are saddened by my current conviction although many are in agreement with my stance. There is no question that many are seeing this as a blatant act of rebellion against the decision of the gathering and the responsible men. As I had mentionned previously, my intentions were never to go against any decisions of the gathering but to be honest with myself and my conscience. I thougth today about Martin Luther’s words during his trial at the diet of worms when they desired him to recant from his teachings and convictions.  He stated: my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.” These are very similar words penned by Luke when it was said “I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. (Acts 24:16) I just don’t feel I can keep such a good conscience by associating myself, whether directly or indirectly, with this organization.

Am I being too extremist in my disassociation with these religions? Should I see this meeting place as simply a building? I probably would see it as such should it not have the name of the organization directly fixed on the front of it. It has been expressed how much I am needed at the gathering  and I have been appreciative of all the concerns that have been expressed. I continue to seek the will of the Lord through His holy word.

Adventures in Eschatology: Daniel’s 70th Week Pt.3

The Partial Preterist Side

A Case for Amillennialism: Kim Riddlebarger

This book was not a commentary but a book affirming the position of Amillennialism. It was given to me by a friend and I decided to use it as one of my references since he does address the text in some detail.

 Mr. Riddlebarger (further as RIDD) argues that throughout the bible, from Genesis to Revelation, Jesus Christ is the central figure in redemptive history and eschatology. He argues that the pillar passage of dispensationalism in Daniel 9:24-27. They would argue as followed:

• This text speaks of God’s dealing with Israel & Gentiles
• The gap between the 69^th & 70^th week of Daniel is the church age.
• This is the main text to interpret Matthew 24 and other texts in Revelation.

RIDD states that the dispensationalist interprets the NT through the OT rather than allowing the greater revelation to interpret the Old.

Points of Exegesis

2 Chronicles 36:21 states that the 70 years spoken of in Jeremiah was completed. This is why in v.22 it mentions the first year of Cyrus, because Israel’s exile was over and the time of redemption had begun. Isaiah saw the events of Cyrus when he could say to Jerusalem “let it be rebuilt” (Isaiah 44:28). –Also see Daniel 10:1 for a parallel to 2 Chronicles 36:22

RIDD argues that this decree of Cyrus ended the 70 weeks and the new 70 weeks would begin. This last 70 weeks would end with the coming of the Messiah prince who would be “cut-off” (v.29) which is very similar to the language of Isaiah 53:8-11. There is a covenant made in v.27 by “the prince”. That prince is identified as “Messiah the prince” The dispensationalist, according to RIDD, insists that the Messiah is cut-off after 62 sevens. There is at least 2000 years between the 69 and 70 sevens. He argues that the dispensationalist is inconsistent with the professed “literal” hermeneutic here since there is no mention of a gap found in the text. RIDD argues that the dispensationalist confuses Christ with the antichrist. He sees the confusion based upon v.24 and what exactly will be accomplished at the completion of the 490 years. He continues by stating that the decrees in v.24 are accomplished during the 490 years in order for those blessings to be available to God’s people. They are enjoyed for all after the 490 years. In Christ’s obedience and death, all these things were accomplished (Romans 6:1-2,14; 5:12-19; 6:23; 3:21-26). In other words all the events in Daniel 9 were accomplished in the first coming of Christ.

The covenant made in v.27 was the New Covenant which was ratified by the “cutting-off” of Christ. He argues that the covenant made was one that existed already because of the use of “firm” in v.27. It was a covenant that was “made strong” or “prevailed” not a new covenant. The security for that was the shed blood of Christ.

What happens at the last part of the 1 week or 3 ½ years? RIDD argues that we find the answer in Rev. 12:14 which John interprets as “a time, times and a half time”. It depicts the symbolism of the church on earth during the entire time of its existence and tribulation.

The sacrifices & offerings were ended in the 2^nd clause of v.27. How can this be if the sacrifices continued after Christ’s death until A.D. 70? RIDD argues that, in a religious sense, they didn’t. This is seen in Hebrews 9:26. Those sacrifices after the death of Christ were an abomination which were shadows of the sacrifice of the Messiah.

 

THE SEVENTY WEEKS: Philip. Mauro

I know I shouldn’t have favourites regarding these 4 books I’m presenting however this book was definitely the best of the bunch.

Mr. Mauro begins by stating that Daniel was studying Jeremiah 25:11 & 29:10 and reading that the desolation of Jerusalem was 70 years. This period was about to expire and the decree by which they would be allowed to go back into their land to rebuild was at hand.  Mauro believes that this was done within two years by Cyrus (Ezra 1:1) which fulfilled Jeremiah’s words.  The express purpose of this was that “the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled.

Mauro states, as most expositors would agree, that seventy sevens = 490 years. He argues that the starting point of the 70 weeks is the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1) to rebuild. He argues that there are two main subjects in the prophecy:

• The coming and cutting off of the Messiah
• The destruction & desolation of the city and sanctuary

 Mauro brings the question to the table…when did the 490 years begin? When did the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem go forth? He argues that from the “commandment” till “Messiah the Prince” is 483 years (7 weeks + 62 Weeks) He then argues that 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 demonstrate that the decree to rebuild was from Cyrus. He turns to Isaiah 44 & 45 to show that God had deemed that Cyrus (naming him 2 centuries before he became king) would rebuild the city.

He demonstrates that in Isaiah 44:26-27, that Cyrus was prophesied to rebuild the city (also see Isaiah 45:13). Cyrus was to rebuild Jerusalem and restore the captive Jews which is exactly what Daniel said in v.24: From the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Daniel would have known the prophecy of Isaiah. Josephus, in antiquities, quotes Cyrus as saying that he decreed that the Jews would rebuild their city (see P.33)

It should be noted that Ezra doesn’t explicitly say “Cyrus decreed the building of the city” but it is implicitly taken. Notice Ezra 6:6-12 how the Jewish opposers had complained yet the search showed that the temple was to be rebuilt upon the authority of Cyrus (see Ezra 9:9…a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem” Mauro argues that Artaxerxes could not have been the one who decreed the rebuilding. (see p37-38)

Mauro states that we are not told, in v.24, the starting point of the 490 years or how the predicted events will be accomplished however we are told these things in the following verses. Mauro argues that the 6 points mentioned in v.24 were accomplished when the Messiah was cut-off. He argues that the “know therefore” of v.25 explains the prophecy contained in v.24

 

The 6 points:

To finish the transgression: The transgression was why they were in captivity (v.11). This transgression was not post but future. Mauro argues that the transgression spoken of here was the crucifixion of the Messiah (see. P.45-46)

To make an end of sins: Christ put an end to sin by offering Himself (Heb. 9:14; 10:12) and had purged our sins (Heb. 1:3)

To make reconciliation for iniquity: The death and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus made reconciliation (Romans 5:8-10). This was totally accomplished and there is no doubt about it (Colossians 1:12-22)

To bring everlasting righteousness: Christ’s death did accomplish this (1 Corinthians 1:30). This was brought in by Christ (Romans 3:21-26). It is the enduring righteousness (Isaiah 51:8) and is the very essence of the Kingdom (Matthew 6:33 & Romans 14:17) and that which the branch of David brought (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

To seal up the vision and prophecy: Mauro would take this as the sealing up of God’s word to the Israelites. In other words, it is a part of the judgment against them. Mauro sees this prophesied elsewhere explicitly (Isaiah 28:16; 29:1, 10-11; and implicitly (Isaiah 6:10). Mauro sees the siege of 70 A.D. as a fulfillment of Isaiah 29.

To anoint the most holy place: Mauro initially believed that the anointing would be when the Lord entered into the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:23-24) however his position is at the time of writing this that the anointing was that of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:21) who anointed the spiritual temple (2 Corinthians 6:16) of the people of God.

 

Messiah the Prince

Mauro deals with what event in the earthly life of the Lord Jesus happened in the 483^rd year from the decree of Cyrus. Mr. Mauro asks “when was Jesus of Nazareth presented to Israel as the anointed one or Messiah? (P.56). he sees this at His baptism where He was anointed for His ministry and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him (Acts 10:38). Shortly after His baptism, the Lord went to the Synagogue where He read: “He has anointed me to preach the gospel”. (see Luke 4:16-21). Mauro argues that after His baptism he was constantly before the people in His Messianic character, fulfilling His Messianic mission (P.57-58). He pronounced Himself as Messiah to the woman of Samaria (John 4:25-26)

Mauro makes an interesting remark in that the confession of Christ as Messiah was the mark of the church (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11). It could also be said that it is a sign of the new birth (1 John 5:1). Mauro argues that there is no other event that could be seen as a fulfilment of the 483 years.

The “time” of the cutting off of the Messiah is his next point. He sees this as the cross! Mauro sees:

• The 6 predicted things in v.24 where accomplished by the cutting-off at the cross.
• The covenant with the many (v.27) was confirmed and the sacrifice & offerings stopped
• The judgment was to fall on the city, the temple and the people.

 

A very good argument that Mauro presented was that the cutting off was after the 62 weeks. The “cutting-off” wasn’t to happen during the 69^th week but during the 70^th week. It was within the 490 years from the beginning of the decree that the predictions inv.24 were fulfilled. The personal ministry of the Lord Jesus was within the final week. It is only after the 69^th week that the cutting off occurs. Mauro sees the Lord’s ministry was 3 ½ years in duration, hence from His anointing to His death is in the midst of the 70^th week. The text in v.27 says that He will cause the sacrifices and offerings in the middle of the last week to stop hence 3 ½ years. They stopped because He offered Himself a sacrifice for sin “once and for all”.

Mauro sees the “being cut-off and having nothing” as similar language to Isaiah 53:8. The “having nothing” would be that he had no prosperity to continue His name. This was a great calamity. He didn’t have a place to rest His head.

Mauro sees the “prince” in v.26 as Titus the Roman General. The destruction of the city & sanctuary was in A.D. 70. He sees the “flood” as being the army that invaded.  Mauro would argue that Christ “confirmed” the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Heb. 8:6-13; 10:1-18).

The “he” that is in contention should be taken as the Messiah because:

• The prophecy is primarily about Christ
• Titus never made a covenant with the Jews.
• There is nowhere in this text where it talks about a prince making a covenant with them in the future.

Christ confirmed the covenant: He does so in Matt. 26:28 by instituting the NT. Notice the language used by Matthew (New Covenant, many). The “many” wasn’t for all people (see Acts 3:23; Romans 11:17 & Luke 2:34)

In the Midst of the week:  Christ’s ministry lasted 3 ½ years then He was crucified.

He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease: There is no questioning that Christ put an end to these things (Hebrews. 8-10)

 

Mauro continues the argument and makes the point to mention that the “he” in v.27 is Christ. He argues that the following views cannot be substantiated by scripture:

• That there is a future Roman prince who will make a covenant with Israel
• That the covenant will be for 1 week
• That the purpose will be to permit Jews to do their sacrifices
• That the prince will break the covenant in the midst of the week.
• Texts such as Matt.24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 & Revelation 13:3-15 do not substantiate these claims.

Mauro states that the other sides view argues that the 70^th week is a prophetic period that has been interrupted for at least 2000 years after the 69^th week hence the 70^th week is still future.  Mauro argues that “it is therefore a necessary law of language that time units be understood as being connected together without a break. “(see P.94 )

Mauro sees that the last 3 ½ years in the last week as non-essential. What this means is that we are not told that anything happens but only that after in the midst of the week that the Messiah is cut-off.

 

Conclusion

There were many good arguments for both sides of the debate and to be honest there are several books and articles that I wish to read to further my study of this important text. I believe Mauro made probably the best case for his position out of all these commentators. I found Mr. Paisley a little better balanced in respects to affirming his position than Mr. Ironside. Obviously, as I had previously mentioned, if you have any comments, I’m all ears!

Burning the NIV

Adventures in Eschatology: Daniel’s 70th Week Pt.2

Dispensational Side

This Daniel: Harold Paisley

I began my study with some commentaries from the dispensational camp. My first reading was from a man by the name of Harold Paisley entitled “This Daniel”. Mr. Paisley is an able commentator who’se commentary on Daniel is very easy to follow. Harold Paisley’s “This Daniel” was the second book I ever bought since ironically I was into prophecy during the first days of my conversion but for some reason I had lost interest. Let’s take a look at some of the points Mr. Paisley brought out in his small volume.

He begins this section by mentionning that Darius was the same man who threw Daniel into the lion’s den. The first year of Darius marked the end of the 70 weeks of captivity. Paisley sees much like most commentators that this is speaking of the nearing of the restoration in their own land. Mr. Paisley also sees this as a finishing of the prophecy of Jeremiahs 25 & 29

 V.24-27

Mr. Paisley’s argument is that vs. 24-27 are about the unfolding of the future of Israel hence for the most part these events are all future. He stresses the importance of these passages to the point where he states that “any leader who has a wrong conception of these verses will be astray in his ministry of eschatology”. As you can see, dispensational pre-millennialism banks much on this particular passage. Paisley sees in these passages (vs.24-27) seven personages; mainly:

• Artexerxes: Who gave the commandment to restore & rebuild (Nehemiah 2:1)
• Messiah the prince: The Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 21:15)
• Titus the Roman: he who destroyed the city in AD 70
• The coming prince: the little horn of chapter 7, head of the Roman Empire.
• The false prophet: He is the one who is in cahoots with the coming prince and confirms the covenant to protect Israel in the future. He is teh ruler over the land of the antichrist. (John 5:43; Rev. 13:11-12)
• The Desolator (JND): The last king of the north in chapter 8
• The King of Kings: Christ in His glorious return.

Mr. Paisley continues by arguing that all the “events” of v.24 are accomplished during the 70 weeks in the future for Israel. He states that these events or “blessings” are at the end of the 70 weeks when Israel will truly repent and receive the blessings of the sacrifice of Christ. The phrase “bringing everlasting righteousness” (NASB) is a reference to the one thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. The last two “events” are accredited to give substance to the vision and Daniel as a prophet. The “anointing of the holy place” is the anointing of the holy of holies in the millennial temple, literally rebuilt in Jerusalem.

Mr. Paisley sees an importance in dividing the “weeks” properly to which we would agree in its significance.  70 weeks would refer to “seventy heptads” or “sevens” He would argue that the seventy sevens refers to 490 years followed by 434 years (62 weeks) and one week of seven years. His main argument is that 69 weeks have already occurred and the 70^th week is still in the future.

The command to rebuild, argues Mr. Paisley, took place in 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1) by Artaxerxes. This is quite a different position than the partial-preterist takes. He sees the 434 years pointing to the presentation of the Messiah to Israel and their rejecting Him in the first coming. He then states that following the death of the Messiah, the city & sanctuary  are destroyed during the Roman siege in A.D. 70 which is the 69^th week. He sees a very large gap between the 69^th and 70^th week. This is generally where the preterist critiques the dispenstationalists consistency in arguing for a literal interpretation since it is stated that the text doesn’t allow for a gap. This “time” is when the Jews would be scattered and troubled.

Mr. Paisley would argue that “the prince” is the head of the revived Roman army. He comes to power in the middle of the week (argues from Daniel 7) The covenant in v.27 is between “the prince” and “Israel” but not with all Jews (the many). These are made up of 10 Kingdom confederacy in his opinion. The covenant itself is for the protection from the king of the north & south hence it is not the New Covenant in question here. The one who comes , the “desolator”, invades Israel and He is the last king of the north, mainly the Assyrian.

I felt that this was a good presentation of the dispensational position and coincided with most commentators except for maybe a few points.  As could be seen, for the most part, the events of Daniel 9 are still future and will be accomplished in the rise of the beast, a covenant between Israel and the anti-Christ, the rebuilding of the temple and God’s final dealings with ethnic Isreal.

 

H.A. Ironside

I decided to offer a second commentary from the dispensational side simply to solidify what was already said by Mr. Paisley. Mr. Ironside (further known as HAI) was a well known and respected dispensationalist hence I feel is a good witness in interpretating this side of the debate. HAI, much like Mr. Paisley, sees the importance of the prophecy of the 70^th week. He states “if the seventy weeks are misunderstood, then an effort must be made to bend all the other prophetic scriptures into accord with that misrepresentation. (P.111) There is no question in his mind and most dispensationalist that this text is key.

He argues that seventy weeks = seventy years to which all these things are linked to Israel. He states that heptad is a generic term such as dozen. HAI argues that the seventy weeks are only running on while there is a remnant acknowledged by God (p.116). He argues that the cycle of seventy weeks is divided into three parts:

• Seven sevens (49 years): The time when the walls and city were rebuilt
• Sixty-two sevens (434 years): This is the time before the Messiah is cut-off
• Seven Sevens (49 years): yet to be fulfilled and will only be when there is a remnant in Judah.

Much like Mr. Paisley, he sees that a time was nearing its end since the 490 years had come to a close in the Babylonian Captivity. HAI sees the events of v.24 as not yet been accomplished. In other words, the 2^nd 49 years has not been accomplished. He argues that the command to restore and build is in Nehemiah 2:1 hence it happened in 445 B.C. and denies the command was given in Ezra 1 in the days of Cyrus because it was only the rebuilding of the house of God at Jerusalem, the temple of Zerubbabel. He states that this has to be Artaxerxes. Once again, this is a main point of contention in the debate.

HAI argues that there is not really a chronological order in the 490 years but simply three series. The 62 weeks follow the completion of the seven weeks. Chronologically, it should follow as:

7 weeks →62 weeks →1 week = 70 weeks

Time, times and half times is what we see in Daniel 7:25 & 12:7he states which is found in the book of Revelation. HAI sees this in comparing the seven times when Nebuchadnezzar was driven out which is basically represented by 3 ½ years. He sees that at the end of the 69^th week, the Messiah was cut-off. He argues that everything was “ticking out the years one after another in fulfillment”. In other words everything was playing out consecutively and consistently until that time. After the death of the Lord, the clock stopped and has not began again since that day.

HAI sees the prince in v.26 as “that dreadful character yet to arrive on the scene..he is emphatically the beast of revelation ch.13:1 and 17:3” (P118) The beast or the prince is the one who makes a covenant with the many. HAI sees the 70^th week beginning when the Jews are restored to their land and city hence in the future. The prince, in the middle of the week (3 ½ years) will violate the covenant and the sacrifice &offerings will cease. He and Paisley disagree on this point since Paisley didn’t really see the beast breaking his covenant. After this, the great tribulation will begin for 1260 days.

HAI states that the interpretation that the prince who shall come who confirms the covenant is the Lord Jesus as something that is peculiar. They argue that the Lord Jesus never confirmed a covenant for 7 years. He argues that even though the blood of Christ is called “the blood of the everlasting covenant”, it still is not a covenant for one week of years.

Also, In the Q & A section at the end of the book, it is argues that the great tribulation is at the last half of the final week.

Now, let’s move on to the partial-preterist side of the tibor to see the differences in interpretation.

Adventures in Eschatology: Daniel’s 70th Week Pt.1

Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25″So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26″Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27″And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

I would like to begin sharing my thoughts on eschatology by perhaps addressing specific texts that seem tremendously important in light of the different views. Once I’ve addressed the first few I will continue by perhaps commenting on some of the argumentation used in various forms by various authors. I would like to make it very clear that what I am posting are merely notes and not a full exposition of the texts in question. There are some great websites and books available which deal more fully into the matter at hand.

One of the priority texts that has seen various interpretations in light of eschatological studies is the text of Daniel chapter 9. It is referred to as the chapter containing the “70 Weeks” which it seems is a base text for the interpretation of many other eschatological passages in scripture. There have been many writings made available to expound the exegesis of this text and I’m certain that some might be disappointed that I didn’t add them here in these notes however there is only so much time in a day! There are two interpretations that I would like to present mainly the understandings are the dispensational futurist view and the Covenant partial-preterist views. I have decided to use two different authors per side of the tabor hence, in other words, four resources to help me in my understanding of this text. There were other commentaries that I had consulted however they merely reiterated what was found in these volumes. Perhaps through the notes you might see it worthy to purchase these books and examine the content yourselves!

Background:

The time that Daniel received this vision was “in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of Median Decent”. This would have been Darius’ first year as king of the Chaldeans. Daniel was “reading the books which were revealed to Jeremiah” which would have been found in 2 Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10. Daniel was paying special attention to the “number of years” for the completion of the desolation of Jerusalem which was 70 years. Daniel was awaiting the end of the captivity of Jerusalem. It seems that Daniel was meditating on the completion of the desolation of Jerusalem (70 years) when this caused him to seek God in prayer and supplication. Daniel prayed to Yahweh and refers to Him as: The great and awesome God” (or the great and dreaded/terrible God-KJV/JND) and He who keeps His covenant & lovingkindness.

Daniel prays for Himself and the people by confessing:

• We have sinned
• Committed iniquities
• Acted wickedly
• Rebelled
• Turned aside from the commandments and ordinances
• Didn’t listen to the prophets

In contrast Daniel affirms that to Yahweh belongs: righteousness (v.7) and compassion & forgiveness (v.9) while to Israel belongs open shame (v.8). The true petition that Daniel asks Yahweh is to “turn away His anger and wrath from Jerusalem”.

Daniel inclines the Lord to:

• Shines his face on the desolate sanctuary
• Incline His ear and hear
• Open His eyes and see the desolation

The answer through Gabriel (vs. 24-27)

The answer to Daniel’s prayer is given by Gabriel which can be broken down as 70 weeks decreed. The things decreed for this time are as followed:

• The finish of transgression
• The end of sin
• The atonement for iniquity
• Bringing everlasting righteousness
• The sealing of the vision
• Prophecy (or prophet)
• Anointing of the holy place

In light of all this it is said that from the time Jerusalem will be rebuilt and Messiah prince “will be” 70 weeks and 62 weeks and it will be rebuilt. The messiah is said to be cut-off after 62 weeks. The people of the prince destroy the city and sanctuary. The end then will come as: a flood, a war & desolation and after this the prince will:

• Make a covenant with many for 1 week
• In the middle of the week sacrifices and offerings will stop

After this there is “one” who comes on “the wings of abominations” to make desolate.

A Look at Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 22

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

We now turn to the final verse of the chapter however we stress in this last commentary that the argument of the writer does not end here. It carries on into chapter 2 and when one studies the entire letter with time and passion, there is much blessing that accompanies its examination.  Here the writer now returns to speaking of the angels once again similarly to v.5 and is contrasting the angels with the Lord Jesus. This should come to no surprise taking into consideration the audience to which he is writing. He wants to take the time to emphasize the point he has been making since the beginning of the chapter.

The ministering work of these angelic beings is captured in the testimony of scripture and was quite admired by these Hebrew believers. They would not have forgotten their roots! Their labors of the angels consist of protection (2 Kings 6:15-17), deliverance (Acts 5:17-19; 12:6-9) and taking an individual to heaven (Luke 16:22).[1]  The question that might come to mind is: why even mention this verse? The simplest reply we can give is that it keeps with the context to exhibit Christ’s superiority over the angels. The application here is to show the roles of both beings in that Christ is the one sitting on the throne as Prophet, Priest and King while the angels function as those who were sent forth as servants. It must be noted carefully that these angels are servants while the Lord Jesus Christ became a servant by His voluntarily taken on flesh. 

Even though these angelic servants had historically displayed many tasks, the writer defines a particular work which is given to these servants in that they are to be ministers “for those who will inherit salvation”. There is particularity within this statement in that this labor they partake in is not for each and every individual who ever existed in history but to a specific group of people. They are those who have a future hope in the kingdom of the Lord! As genuine believers who are being sanctified in the Lord Jesus Christ, there should be a great comfort that comes to those who are the Lord’s people in that we have powerful servants ministering and watching over us even in our greatest afflictions. On our own accord we would fail miserably but the Lord who bought us with His own blood is the one who sees to our preservation and perseverance.

 

---

[1] Also see Exodus 23:20; 1 Kings 19:5; Psalm 91:11 and Mark 1:13

A Look at Hebrews Chapter 1: Part 21

But to which of the angels has He ever said: “ Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

The argument in order to offer a distinction between the Son and the angels continues. His intent is to make certain the reader is has well understood the urging he has presented.  The writer now draws from his previous thoughts in v. 5 when he stated For to which of the angels did He ever say then continuing with quotations from Psalm 2 and 2 Sam. 7.  The emphasis here is to make a reiteration from the previous thoughts in vs. 5-7. This is quite popular in Hebrew thought along with the technique of repetition for emphasis. Once again we have in this case a question asked which must be answered in the negative sense.

The writer proceeds to once again consistently cite OT passages to substantiate his claims. This time around he quotes from the 110^th Psalm which is a very well known Psalm since it is the most quoted Psalm in all of the New Testament scriptures. This passage is corresponding back to v.3 where the writer states that the Son sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high once again pointing to the enthronement of the king. The fact that anyone could ever sit on the throne of God was foreign to Jewish thinking since it brought the concept of equality with God. This is exactly what enraged the High Priest during the Lord’s mock trial.

 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. (Mark 14:62-63)

There has been some controversy surrounding the word till (Heos) where there seems to be a time of ending to His sitting on the throne. There have been those who would submit that Christ couldn’t be God since His reign on the throne will come to an end. To hold to this position in any logical terms would mean that one would have to ignore the previous 12 verses that demonstrate His divinity with clarity. Sadly this is the case, in our experience, with those who have a religion to defend. The earthly reign of Christ is in view here when He will leave the throne in heaven to make rule over the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 19:11-12; cf. Isaiah 63:1-3) What a glorious day this shall be!

A Lack of Ambassadorship and Testimony Pt.3

The Fear of the Lord

Our appreciation for the grace, mercy, power and holiness of our Lord brings our hearts to a position of great admiration of His person. There is joy in the heart of a believer who has seen and appreciated the majesty of the greatness of His perfection. With this retrospect comes a great humility! When we view God in such a light we begin our road to reverencing His glorious majesty. This reverence is what the bible reveals to us as the fear of the Lord.  It is the pinnacle of a heart that is truly faithful to its master and leads to the desire of Ambasadorship and a consistent testimony. There used to be a time when people who were believers would be consistently referred to as “God-fearers” (Gen.20:11) They were followers who were willing and eager to reverently bow the knee to their God. They had understood the words of wisdom from the book of proverbs as to: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 1:7) and the ability to discover the knowledge from God flowed from it. (Proverbs 2:5) They were a people who “trembled at my word” (Isaiah 66:2) and had as their confidence this Godly fear (Job 4:6)

We feel that much of this special fear that is to be directed towards God has been lost and replaced by the desire to please men. Much of the Christian testimony has been taken much too lightly simply because we do not live in the fear of the Lord. This is exactly the way the unbeliever lives in light of his rebellion against the Majesty of Jehovah. (Psalm 36:1; Romans 3:18). These men unfortunately hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD. (Prov. 1:29). What do I mean that we fear men rather than fearing God? Let’s face it, there are times when we are more occupied with how to bring people in to hear the gospel rather than the substance of the message itself. We live in a generation where we find pleasure in doing things that the unbeliever feels tremendously comfortable in associating with. There is the tendency to take something of the world and give it a “Christian” twist. We are, in essence, sugar-coating the pleasures of those who are not reverent towards the Lord. Some have spoken of this as our churches essentially feeding the goats rather than providing food for the sheep with a desire that the goats become sheep! This, in effect, brings much less relevance to the message of the Gospel and to the testimony of the believer. In order to live a life that is pleasing to God and continue to retain our testimony, we must pursue to cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) The gathering of Christians should always be striving to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12) When our testimony becomes “soft” and our desire for holiness becomes “trivial” then we have not understood that it isn’t only the unbeliever who needs to “fear the Lord” but especially the believer. The fear of the Lord causes us to hate evil (Proverbs 8:13) and to “keep away from evil” (Proverbs 16:6; Nehemiah 5:15). Why? Because it results in being conscientious and careful not to offend God! It is walking with respect and reverence to His character and person with the mindset that He can be affronted even by His children. We are to place God as supreme in our reverence rather than fall in the trap of fearing men over Him. (Matthew 10:28)

There is another issue that arises from the lack of a true fear of God. There are exhortations in scripture that are taken much too lightly. This seems, in our experience, to be some unfortunate cause of concern. We read certain “warning” passages as if they are to be taken without true consideration. The attitude seemingly expressed is that we should try our best to accommodate these scriptures but because we are now redeemed by the blood that there is nothing to truly have any real concern. We forget that God blesses those who take Him seriously! It is to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word (Isaiah 66:2) and that there is judgment for those who do not take His words seriously. (Revelation 2 & 3)

John Piper on the Pride of Attachment to Someone Special