The Olivet Discourse (Part 2): The Desolation of Jerusalem

In this series on the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25), we come to Matthew 24:15-35. Jesus spoke these words on the Mount of Olives, two days before he was crucified. While he would rise from the dead, the disciples would go through a similar experience, being opposed by the chief priests and elders, beaten, and most of them eventually killed for their faith. Jesus instructs them ahead of time by this prophecy, teaching them not only what to expect, but also that he is in control. He and his disciples would be vindicated and delivered, but those who persisted in hostility and their temple, though they would seem impressive for a time, would be destroyed.

The main point of this passage is that the desolation of Jerusalem in the first century would be a sign that the Son of Man had been enthroned in heaven and would powerfully gather his elect from all the earth into his kingdom.

In the previous chapter, Jesus had told the scribes and Pharisees that because of their hypocrisy, unbelief, and consistent persecution of God’s messengers and saints, God’s judgment would be poured out on that generation in particular (Matt. 23:36). In Matthew 24:1-3, the disciples had asked about the timing of this judgment and the destruction of the temple, although they conflated it with the end of the age. Jesus then answered their question, and gives a clear indication of the timing in 24:34, repeating the same phase found in 23:36. From verse 4 to 34 he prophesies concerning the events that would take place in that generation. In verse 36 he begins to speak of the end of the age and distinguishes it from the destruction of Jerusalem and gives no timing or sign for that day.

Verse 15 - The Abomination of Desolation

While Jesus had described things which would take place in their lifetime which were not signs of imminent judgment (Matt. 24:4-14), now he gives them such a sign, a sign which will require them to take immediate action to avoid the impending judgment.

The “abomination of desolation” or a similar phrase is found in Daniel 8, 9, 11, 12. Most of these passages were prophecies of what Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 215 BC–164 BC) would do when he conquered Jerusalem with Gentile armies and desecrated the temple (Dan. 8, 11-12). This therefore was a model of what the disciples should expect. Daniel also wrote of the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9, how that after the Christ’s first coming in the final of the "seventy weeks," the abomination of desolation would come and the city and sanctuary would be destroyed.

Luke 21:20 makes clear that this would be fulfilled when the armies came to attack Jerusalem, the holy place. Writing to a Gentile audience, Luke interprets the Old Testament phrase: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near” (Luke 21:20). The standards of the army were objects of idolatrous worship. Thus, they were an abomination that brought desolation.

Verses 16-20 - The Flight to the Mountains

When the Roman armies came to Jerusalem, many Jews fled into the city, but the Christians knew to flee away from it (Matt. 24:16). This direction was similar to Jeremiah’s exhortation to leave Jerusalem when the Babylonians came.

At the end of AD 66, the Roman army made its first attempt on Jerusalem and then retreated. Josephus (a 1st century Jewish historian) records that after it left, some people ran away from Jerusalem. After that, those in charge of the city took greater measures to keep people from deserting. Eusebius (an early Christian historian) tells of how Christians fled away from Jerusalem to Pella, on the other side of the Jordan River, outside of Judea.

Those who did not take the opportunity to flee were trapped and unable to leave later. Quick decisive action was needed, as when a person leaves a burning house - don't get your stuff, just leave (Matt. 24:17-18). This applied to all "Judea," as the Romans came to suppress the rebellion in the region.

Verses 19-20 mention winter, sabbath, and those pregnant or nursing since flight from Judea would have been difficult in winter, on a Sabbath (e.g. less assistance from Jews), or for those pregnant or nursing.

Verses 21-22 - Great Tribulation

"For then there will be great tribulation..." (Matt. 24:21). This refers to the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66–74) and the siege of Jerusalem (AD 70). Some think this phrase cannot refer to these events because worse things have happened. But this is not meant to be pressed too literally (how could a local tribulation "in Judea" be greater than the flood? greater than the final judgment?). Instead, it fits the idea that this was the judgment that had been building from the death of Abel which would be poured out on that generation (Matt. 23:35-36).

It was indeed a remarkable and horrendous tribulation. There was war throughout Judea. There were uprisings against the Jews in cities across the empire. The Romans armies closed in on Jerusalem. In the spring of 70 AD, Jews swarmed into Jerusalem, for protection and for the Passover. Over a million of them were there. Titus began his siege. With so many inside, they soon began to suffer from famine and disease. They also fought each other. Factions fought for control of the city and people fought each other for food. Some tortured others to force them to reveal the location of food. Some resorted to cannibalism. They also desperately fought the Romans. Those who fled were crucified by the Romans in sight of the city. After 5 months, the Romans finally triumphed and spread slaughter and fire throughout the city. In the end, Josephus estimates 1.1 million Jews died. The remaining 97,000 went into captivity, to slavery, or to be killed in the arena.

Verses 23-28 - False Christs

False messiahs and prophets abounded as Judea moved into rebellion. The Jewish historian Josephus records that there were “a great number of false prophets” during the siege. They prophesied that the Jews would be victorious and told people to not desert. He recounts one false prophet who told the people to “get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance.” 6,000 of the people followed his directions and came into the cloisters of the temple, and there they were caught by the Romans and perished in a fire (The War of the Jews, 6.5.2).

The disciples were told not to follow the false prophets into the wilderness (as some did) or into the city (as some did) (Matt. 24:26). Christ’s coming (parousia) would be unmistakable when it happened. He distinguishes his parousia from the chaotic events of that day. He would not come to save Jerusalem.

In verse 28, Jesus seems to compare Jerusalem to a corpse. "Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather" (Matt. 24:28). In other words, it's dead meat, do not expect its deliverance. As with a corpse, the bird would gather to feast on it. “Vultures” can also be translated “eagles” (as in a similar phrase in Job 39:30). So this reference would be especially fitting for a Roman army which carried the emblem of the Roman eagle.

Verse 29 - The Powers of the Heavens

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days...” The horrendous siege of Jerusalem would result in verses 29-30. In these verses, Jesus gets to the destruction of the city and temple itself.

Some think that this description of the sun, moon, and stars being darkened or falling can only mean the end of the world. But this language is commonly used in Scripture to refer to historical judgments. The disciples would have heard this and recognized it as prophetic language referring to the fall of a nation and its rulers. The sun, moon, and stars, being appointed to rule the day and night, often represented earthly and spiritual powers (e.g. Is. 24:21).

"The oracle concerning Babylon" in Isaiah 13 that prophesied its conquest by the Medes said, "For the stars of the heavens and their constellation will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.” (Isaiah 13:10)

Isaiah 14:12-15 says the Israelites will taunt the king of Babylon by comparing him to a fallen star.

Isaiah 34:4, a prophecy of God’s judgment on Edom, says “All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall…”

Ezekiel 32:7-8, in a prophecy of Pharaoh’s defeat by Babylon, says, “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness on your land, declares the Lord GOD.”

The desolation of Judea would shake the powers of the heavens. It would be “lights out” for Jerusalem. What power would do this desolating and shaking? The power of the Son of Man, “who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Peter 3:22).

Additionally, there were in fact reports of signs in the heavens during that time. Josephus says during the siege “there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year” (The War of the Jews, 6.5.3). And before the siege, he says chariots and troops were seen in the clouds.

Verse 30 - The Sign of the Son of Man in Heaven

"Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man..." (Matt. 24:30). This can be translated, and is better translated, "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven." Then, at the end of this tribulation, would appear the sign that Christ reigns in heaven. What was the sign? The fulfillment of his prophecy, the desolation of the temple and vindication of him and his people.

The "tribes of the earth" refers to the people of Israel. That is the references of the phrase in Zechariah 12, and the word "earth" can also mean "land."

They would then "see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." This "coming" was not a coming down to earth but a coming up to glory in heaven, as in Daniel 7. This desolation would be a visible manifestation of Christ's exaltation. The Greek word used here is not the word used particularly for his second coming (parousia) used in verses 3, 27, 37, 39, but is the more general word for coming or going (erchomai). Three other times in Matthew (10:23, 16:28, 26:64), it is said that Christ's coming (erchomai) would happen within that generation. Just a day or two after this discourse, Jesus told the high priest and council, "But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). 

Verse 31 - The Gathering of the Elect

"And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matt. 24:31). These are not necessarily spiritual “angels” but can be human “messengers” (the Greek word can be translated either way). The reference to a "loud trumpet call" alludes to the trumpets used in the year of Jubilee and to the gathering of the lost among the nations in Isaiah 27:13. 

In this case, this is a reference to preachers of the gospel, messengers of Christ, sent out by the exalted Christ to gather his elect from one end of heaven to the other. Compare this with the parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1-14) - after bringing down judgment upon the rebellious city, the king sends out his servants to invite as many as they find, and these servants gathered all they found into the wedding hall (while the collection is mixed, it is through this means that the elect are brought into the kingdom). This work is ongoing in this age as the gospel gathers the elect into the kingdom. 

Verse 32-33 - A Parable of the Fig Tree

These verses do not mean that when you see this fig tree, which is Israel, reborn, then Christ’s return is imminent. It is not a continuation of the earlier parable of the fig tree (Matt. 21), but an analogy using the way trees work. The analogy is not particular to a fig tree, since in Luke 21:29, the analogy used is "the fig tree, and all the trees."

Its meaning is when the disciple see these things (the events just described, the "leaves"), then it is near. The ESV uses the pronoun "he," but it can also be translated as "it." This could refer to the prophesied judgment, to Christ (as the one bringing the judgment), or to Christ's reign. Luke helpfully clarifies in his parallel passage. "So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near" (Luke 21:31). This is not a reference to the return of Christ, but to the coming of God's kingdom in this age.

Verse 34-35 - Certainty and Timing 

Jesus repeats the phrase from Matthew 23:36. "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (24:34). He summarizes his answer to the question concerning "these things" - the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. It would happen during “this generation,” the generation which had rejected John and would crucify Christ and persecute his apostles.

Verse 35 does not mean that heaven and earth would pass away during that generation, but is an expression meaning that his words were more certain and fixed than heaven and earth.

Application

Christ’s words are certain and sure. His prophecy came to pass. He is a true prophet, not a madman or deceiver. He was right about the desolation of Jerusalem, and he is also right in the other prophecies he made, such as the advance of his kingdom and his second coming.

Christ reigns in heaven, and he exercises this authority by pouring out judgment, protecting and vindicating his people, and powering gathering his elect from all the earth. These things demonstrate his enthronement in heaven. The risen Christ has reigned from heaven ever since his ascension. These things are what we can expect from him. All authority has been given him.

Do not be led astray by false christs and false prophets. Do not get caught up in foolish rebellions and suffer for the folly and apostasy of others. See that you are not deceived.

Do not seek a return to the old covenant ceremonies. Do not hope for a rebuilding of the temple and the resumption of sacrifices. But rather, be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.

Heed the example we find in the desolation of Jerusalem. This is what happens when a people persists in apostasy and hostility to Christ and his people. As Christ left the temple and destroyed it and the city around it, so he can do when a church departs from him. If God did not spare the natural branches when they fell away into unbelief, neither will he spare Gentiles if they do the same.

Revere the Lord Jesus. Rejoice with trembling. He is a powerful king. Submit to him, lest he be angry and you perish in the way. He is a compassionate Savior who wept at the sight of Jerusalem and would have gathered Jerusalem’s people under his protection, but he also a mighty King who will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. Blessed are all that take refuge in him.

Look to the future with endurance and hope. The future belongs to Christ’s church, for he is powerful to vindicate, deliver, and bless you and your efforts. The future does not belong to hypocrites and tyrants. Promote the gospel, make disciples, and extend the reign of Christ, in your life and the world. Gather with the elect, answering the trumpet call of the gospel, and edify one another. Do so that you all might be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, an outpost of the kingdom of heaven.

Conclusion

The desolation of Jerusalem in the first century is a sign that Jesus Christ has been enthroned in heaven and is currently gathering his elect from all the earth into his kingdom. The Lord reigns! Let the earth rejoice, let the many coastlands be glad! Let the peoples tremble and take refuge in him.

The Olivet Discourse (Part 1): Do Not Be Alarmed

Matthew 24-25, commonly known as the "Olivet Discourse" due to the fact that the Lord Jesus delivered it on the Mount of Olivers, has been a contested passage. It has been used as the source of end times predictions and a pessimistic view of the future, which I think misuse the text. To understand Scripture, it is important to remember the context and to interpret the difficult parts by the clearer parts. This blog post is the first in a series on this passage. Here is an overview of Matthew 24-25: 

• Sightseeing and a prophecy (24:1-2). "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, 'You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.'" This was fulfilled exactly as Jesus said. Josephus records how not only the temple, but all the buildings in Jerusalem except three towers were systematically torn down to the ground.
• The question (24:3). The disciples wanted to know when this judgment would happen, and they seem to confuse it with his parousia and the end of the age. That the destruction of Jerusalem is the main thing in their minds is clear from the context (Matt. 23:29-39, 24:1-2) and from the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, which do not refer to Jesus’ coming and the end of the age in their question. So Jesus first answers their main question, and then goes on to distinguish his second coming and the end of the age from the time of that generation.
• The timing and sign of when judgment on Jerusalem (“these things”) will take place (24:4-35). His basic answer is these things would happen within that generation and would be signaled by the abomination of desolation, but would not take place immediately - they would follow after a time of birth pains and trials.
• The parousia of Christ and the end of the age (24:36 to the end of chapter 25). He does not give the timing or a sign of his coming, only a call to wakefulness and faithfulness.

In verses 4-14, Jesus describes the apostolic age extending to the time when the destruction of Jerusalem would take place. The “end” spoken of in verses 6 and 14 is not the “end of the age” because (1) it is a different Greek word for “end,” (2) it is the natural word for the accomplishment of “these things” (telos), and (3) it is part of “all these things” that verse 35 says will happen during that generation.

This period would be a rough time. In the previous chapter, he had told the scribes and Pharisees that he would send messengers to them whom they would persecute, bringing upon them this judgment. So for the apostles, this would be a time of tribulation, leading to their vindication. 

Notice that Jesus begins his answer with a caution: “see” or “take heed.” He calls his disciples to watchfulness, patience, endurance, and evangelism. He still calls his disciples to the same things. His answer is more practical than the disciples’ question. Just as back then, his disciples are prone to be led astray by obsession and anxiety about the future, while neglecting their responsibilities.

In looking at verses 4-14, I want to focus on (1) Jesus’ description of the difficulties that would come before the judgment on Jerusalem, (2) his instructions regarding those difficulties, and (3) his description of when the judgment would come.

1. The Period Before Jerusalem's Desolation 

False Christs (24:5). These were common in the 1st century and were often leaders of armed revolution. Acts 5:36-37 refers to a few earlier false Christs, and Acts 21:38 describes one in Paul’s day. Josephus recounts quite a few of these imposters, such as a Samaritan who claimed to be Moses reincarnate in AD 36 and gathered an armed following but was executed with his closest followers by Pilate; or how in AD 45 a man named Theudas claimed to be a prophet who would split the Jordan but was he was killed with his followers by the governor. These figures increased in number and violence as Judea moved towards their revolt in 66.

Wars and rumors of wars (24:6-7). In AD 37 there was war between Herod the tetrarch and Aretas the Arab. In 39 the Jews took up arms to oppose Caligula’s statue being placed in the temple. For several decades there were wars in Britain. From the 30s to the 60s there was fighting among the Armenians, Parthians, and Romans, which involved the Jews. In Judea there was increasing unrest and outbreaks of violence and then the revolt in 66.

Natural disasters (24:7). There were famines in those decades. Most notable was the major famine in the days of Claudius (see Acts 11:28-30). There were also earthquakes, some recorded in Scripture (Matt. 27:54, 28:2, Acts 16:26) and several earthquakes recounted in other historical accounts (e.g. Asia Minor in A.D. 61, Jerusalem in A.D. 67).

Persecution of Christians (24:9). Persecution throughout this period is described in the book of Acts. Imperial persecution broke out against Christians under Nero in AD 64. 

Apostasy and betrayal (24:10). This experienced and expected by the Christians of the apostolic age (Matt. 10, 1 John 2, 2 Tim. 4, etc.). 

False prophets (24:11). Nearly every book of the NT warns of false prophets/teachers. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). 

Increase of lawlessness, causing love to grow cold (24:12). We find this described in places like 2 Timothy 3 and Revelation 2. "But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first" (Rev. 2:4). 

All these things would happen first, but they would not indicate the arrival of the end. They were not signs of the destruction of the temple and judgment on Jerusalem. "All these are but the beginning of the birth pains" (Matt. 24:8). 

Just as they were not signs of Jerusalem's desolation, so they are also not signs of the end of the age. They are present more or less in this age, although not with the same intensity in all times. Jesus is not prophesying that things will get worse and worse in history, or that no progress will be made by the church. But these difficulties will persist to some degree during this age. When you encounter them, you should handle them in accordance with the instructions Jesus gave to his disciples. 

2. Jesus’ Instructions Regarding These Difficulties

See that no one leads you astray (24:4). There were revolutionary leaders who led the Jews into a foolish rebellion, teachers who taught various false doctrines, and teachers who twisted doctrine to support immorality. These kinds of dangers are still present today. There are radicals who lead people astray into revolutionary movements, destructive ideologies, and violence. There are teachers who profess Christ who lead people astray into error, into heresy, or into unprofitable obsessions. There are teachers who profess Christ who twist doctrine to attack the relevance or authority of God’s law, to support antinomianism, to support sexual immorality, gender confusion, egalitarianism, and the like. See that you are not led astray. Watch yourself.

See that you are not alarmed (24:6). When civil turmoil, natural disasters, apostasy, and trials happen, how do many people react? They get alarmed and they think, this must be the end! But Jesus said, these are not signs of the end - not the end of Jerusalem, and certainly not the end of the age. Do not be alarmed. Don’t panic. Don’t freeze in terror. Do not leave your post. There are times for tactical retreats. Jesus will give them a specific sign in verse 15 to indicate when they would need to get out of Jerusalem to save their lives. But tactical retreats are different than a rout or a surrender. He calls you to continue patiently, steadily, press on with your mission despite these various difficulties.  

Endure to the end (24:13). "But the one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13). Be ready to encounter difficulty and run the race to the end. The Greek word for "endure," ὑπομένω, means "to maintain a belief or course of action in the face of opposition, stand one’s ground, hold out, endure." The noun form refers to "the capacity to hold out or bear up in the face of difficulty, patience, endurance, fortitude, steadfastness, perseverance."

Perseverance is a gift of God given to his elect. All who are chosen by God and who come to true faith in Christ will endure to the end (Rom. 8:28-30, Phil. 1:6, John 10:28-29). Nevertheless, it is also something which we do, using the means he has given. One mark of true faith is that it is a faith that endures. 

One condition of salvation is perseverance in the faith. You must endurance to the end to be saved, and all who endure to the end will be saved. “…if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard…” (Col. 1:23). “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). 

Proclaim the gospel throughout the whole world (24:14). The disciples are interested in the timeline. Jesus answers them, but he also directs their attention to their mission. Amid these difficult times, "this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations..." (Matt. 24:14). While Jesus initially sent them to the lost sheep of Israel, he will send out his disciples to make the nations his disciples and gather them into the kingdom (Matt. 28:18-20). 

Likewise, when you meet with trials, turmoil, disasters, apostasy, continue to make the gospel known to all. In fact, persecution, when it is received for righteousness’ sake, often provides opportunities to witness to Christ and make him known (Matt. 10, 1 Peter 3).

3. When Judgment Would Come upon Jerusalem

Jesus taught that the judgment would come upon Jerusalem when the gospel has been widely proclaimed in the world. "And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (Matt. 24:14). Despite all the hardships of that period, the gospel would go forth to the world. Natural disasters, false teachers, persecution, and apostasy cannot keep the gospel from spreading throughout the world.

Judgment would fall upon Jerusalem once this testimony had been given. This testimony would be given to the scattered Jews and to the Gentiles, to call them to salvation, to lay a foundation for the new covenant temple, to show the nations why Jerusalem would be judged. Was the gospel proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations by A.D. 70? Yes.

First, notice it does not speak of the discipleship of the nations, but merely the proclamation of the gospel as a testimony. The gathering and discipleship of the nations would continue over a much longer time.

Second, the word for “world” is not the normal word for world (cosmos), but oikoumenē, the inhabited or civilized world. It can refer to the Roman Empire, as in Luke 2:1, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” See how it is used in Acts 11:28, “…Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius).” A fully global reach is not necessarily intended by Matthew 24:14. 

Third, consider how Scripture itself speaks of the spread of the gospel before A.D. 70. “Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and increasing…” (Col. 1:5-6). “…the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven…” (Col. 1:23). “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world” (Rom. 1:8). The gospel is the mystery which “has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations…” (Rom. 16:26). 

Conclusion

When you meet with the difficulties described in this passage, remember that Jesus has taught you how to handle them. They are not signs of the end. They are not a sign that your work is futile. Rather, they are trials, through which the gospel comes forth as strong as ever, along with those who have stood by it faithfully. So when you meet with these trials, see that no one leads you astray, see that you are not alarmed, endure to the end, and proclaim the gospel throughout the whole world. 

Man and Woman in Genesis 2

In Genesis 1, we find that God made everything and that he gave form to everything, distinguishing things and designing them for their purposes. As Psalm 104:24 remarks, “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all…” This harmonious order, with everything working according to its design, we call the “creation order.” This includes God's creation of man as male and female. This distinction is good and ought to be obediently affirmed by the way we think about ourselves, present ourselves to others, and live.

We find in Genesis 1 that God made both the man and the woman in the image of God and gave them a shared mandate to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. In Genesis 2 we are given details about how man and woman are different, created differently to contribute to this shared task in unique ways.

A common but erroneous view today treats men and women as the same and expects equal outcomes from them. Any difference or disparity between them in society is due to discrimination and custom, both of which are seen as evil restrictions on individual autonomy. When they get married, they are supposed to have the same role in the marriage by default. Marriage is subordinated to the pursuit of individual dreams and is a wax nose which the couple can shape as they will. This is not in accord with Scripture or the creation order it describes. 

In Genesis 2, we find man and woman distinguished by their origins, names, and distinctive purposes. 

What was Adam made from? Adam was formed from the ground (Gen. 2:7). What was the woman formed from? The woman was formed from Adam’s rib (Gen. 2:22)

Where does the word "Adam" come from? "Adam" (אָדָם), which can be translated as man or as the name Adam, comes from adamah (אֲדָמָה), the word for “ground” used in Genesis 2:5-7. “...the LORD God formed the Adam of dust from the adamah…” Where does the word "woman" come from? The word for the "woman" (אִשָּׁה, ishshah) is linked to אִישׁ (ish), which means man. Adam said, "she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Gen. 2:23). And where does the name Eve come from? Eve (חַוָּה), the woman's second name given to her in Genesis 3:20, is from חַי, the word for living. "The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20). 

Genesis 1 spoke of how mankind was made to glorify God as his image, but Genesis 2 points to additional and distinctive purposes behind the creation of man and woman. Why was Adam created? Adam was created to work the ground and keep it (2:5, 15). Before he was created, "there was no man to work the ground" (2:5), and after he was created, the Lord God "took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it" (2:15). Why was the woman created? The woman was created for Adam as a helper fit for him. God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (2:18, cp. 2:20).

Thus, the man was taken from the ground, named after the ground, to work the ground. The woman was taken from the man, named after the man, to help the man as one fit for him. There is a clear orientation of the man to the ground and the woman to the man. The ultimate end for both of them was the creation mandate as God's image, but Adam found the task and therefore received a beloved helper, while Eve found the man and thus received the task.

This is not just about marriage. This is about our origin as men and women. This is about how we were made and designed and named. Now, this text does show how important marriage is, how it is tied up in our very creation. Our design corresponds with marriage. Woman was taken from man, and ever since there has been a desire to become one flesh again, to be fulfilled in marriage. But these distinctions which are especially evident in the context of marriage are rooted in our natures, in our identities as men and women, and thus have implications for all of life. Here are a few of those implications. 

1. With respect to each other, the man is designed for leadership. God gave his command about the trees to the man, leaving it for the man to communicate it to the woman. The man was to give instruction, direct the work, and communicate the mission.

The woman was made for the man. As 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 says, "man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." Thus, this inequality and order is not a product of the fall, but of creation. This does not mean she was made for the man’s self-satisfying whims. She was made for the man so as to help the man with the task God had given him. So the man is designed not only to pursue this task, but is placed to lead others onward.

2. Men are designed with an orientation outward to the world while women are designed with an orientation inward to the family. Thus, men go to the front lines of work, war, and politics, while women are to be workers at home (Titus 2:5), that being the center of their work.

Not that the man should neglect his family. He cleaves to his wife (Gen. 2:24) and is responsible to raise his children well (Eph. 6:4). Nor does the woman neglect the world. She is to be a diligent and productive manager of resources as she tends to her household, and Proverbs 31 illustrates the diversity of this work. But the work and priorities of each are shaped by these basic orientations.

3. One way this orientation manifests itself is that men are given the primary task of guarding the community. The man is placed in the garden “to work it and keep it.” To “keep” is to guard and protect it. The man should defend his ground and protect his territory and home. This responsibility was expanded more in time (e.g. Neh. 4:14, Num. 1), but foundations were laid in Eden.

4. Another way this orientation manifests itself is that women are given the unique task of giving birth and nurturing the young. Eve is named as the life-giver. Women are uniquely designed to nurture and nourish children. While obviously men and women are both needed to be fruitful and multiply (and the father has responsibility for and claim to his children), yet this responsibility is especially borne by women. This takes up a great deal of energy, time, and strength. It is something that only they can do, to their credit and honor, and it also uniquely limits them. This design is a good thing, but it is considered a bad thing by egalitarians, so that abortion is brought it to abolish this difference between men and women. As the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decision maker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

The unique orientations of man and woman also show up in Genesis 3 after Eve and Adam sinned. What God said then to the woman had to do with her relation to childbirth and the man. The woman was cursed with pain in childbirth. She was placed again with and under her husband (see more about that here). There would be hope through childbirth.

The man was cursed in his relation to the ground. He would have pain and difficulty in his work and opposition to his cultivation of it. The ground would gain dominion over him in the end in death. From Adam came death to all mankind. Yet he would produce and eat bread. And one man would be born of woman to crush the serpent, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Describing Manhood and Womanhood

God has made us in wisdom. He intricately and purposefully designed men and women differently. Not only did he give them different responsibilities, but he gave them different designs to match those responsibilities. These differences are ingrained in our natures, not restricted to roles we play in certain contexts.

Allan C. Carlson has described the traditional family as the "natural family" because it is not merely traditional, but rooted in nature, the creation order (see his books, The Natural Family: A Manifesto and The Natural Family Where It Belongs). Men and women are designed to create the natural family and to build society in conformity to it, but our society continually suppresses and rebels against this design in the name of the unnatural ideology of egalitarian individualism.

The Bible teaches that men and women are different and that these differences are not a total mystery. The fundamental differences are taught in the biblical account of the creation and the naming of man and woman (see Genesis 1-5). They can be found in other parts of Scripture. Furthermore, they can be observed in nature. The Bible treats this knowledge as common sense. When it says that a particular army became like women (Jer. 50:37, 51:30, Is. 19:16), it assumes you know this is not a compliment. When it asks if a woman can forget her nursing child or fail to show compassion on the son of her womb (Is. 49:15), it assumes you know that this is a rhetorical question.

One passage where some of the characteristic strengths of men and women are described is 1 Thessalonians 2. There the apostle Paul compared himself, Silas, and Timothy to a mother and a father. This does show that men can and should have virtues like gentleness that are more characteristic of women, just as the whole congregation can be exhorted to "act like men" in 1 Corinthians 16:13, that is, to be courageous. But at the same time, it affirms that men and women have unique gifts and strengthens which particularly equip them for their place in life.

But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:7–8)

A woman is uniquely designed be nurturing and tender. She is designed to compassionately share her self with her children. She carries them in her womb and even after giving birth keeps them alive with her body, giving them milk. A mother best exemplifies what it looks like to be gentle and affectionately desirous of someone. And while not all women become mothers, all women have the nature of mothers, engrained as it is into their embodied existence. And therefore this sacrificial care, personal affection, and gentleness is characteristic of femininity in general.

For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:11–12)

A man is designed to rule and to lead others to accomplish the mission. Note the words Paul uses. "Exhort" - a father calls his children to act. "Encourage" - a father motivates his children and gives them confidence. Without this, children get provoked to anger. "Charge" - a father entrusts responsibility to his children and holds them accountable. To see an example of what this fatherly exhortation looks like, read Paul's second epistle to Timothy. While a mother is best equipped to nurture and comfort a child, a father is best equipped to correct and direct the child unto maturity. Both of these elements are important for a child's upbringing. And again, while not all men become fathers (Paul, for example), all men have the nature of fathers.

While 1 Thessalonians 2 does not encapsulate everything about manhood and womanhood, it assumes a knowledge of sex distinctions which our culture is hesitant to admit. Our culture is hesitant to affirm that there is a natural order at all - this impinges on my freedom to be what I want. Instead, all these distinctions are explained as mere social constructs, which can and should be challenged. But if a design deeper than a social construct undergirds traditional gender distinctions, then it would be wiser to make peace with the Creator and begin to learn how to live in the world he designed.

A History of the Nicene Creed

This year is the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. Last Sunday, I began a four-part sermon series on the Nicene Creed, preaching its doctrine from Scripture. The theme text for the series is Ephesians 4:4-6. You can find recordings from this series at this link. In light of this, here is an overview of the history of the Nicene Creed adapted from a lesson I gave a few years ago in a teaching series on creeds and councils (available here). 
 

The Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

Diocletian, who reigned AD 284-305, sought to save the Roman empire by unleashing one of the fiercest imperial persecutions of Christians across the empire, as well as by appointing a co-emperor and two caesars to assists the emperors. After his death, the persecution of Christians continued under some of the rulers as they fought each other for control. Constantine converted to Christianity as he arose victorious in the west in 312. He ended the persecution of Christians with his co-emperor with the edict of Milan in 313. Constantine became the sole emperor in 324.

Meanwhile, the church had become troubled over Arianism. Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, taught that there was once when the Son was not and that the Son was created by the Father. Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, taught that the Father and Son were coeternal. Alexander called two regional councils which condemned Arius and his followers in 320-321. Arius took refuge with a bishop in Asia Minor who called a regional council that absolved him. 

Emperor Constantine invited all the bishops of the church to come to a council to address this matter. His main concern was the unity of the church. 318 bishops attended according to Athanasius (others counted more than 250 or about 270 or more than 300). Each bishop was able to bring two presbyters and three deacons, so the total number of attendees was much greater than 318. They came from all over the Roman Empire and even from beyond its borders. Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were best represented, and others came from places like Arabia, Persia, Libya, Greece, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Cyprus, Carthage, Rome, Spain, and Gaul.

The recent persecutions were still fresh in the memories of the attendees. Some of them bore marks of persecution. Paphnutius, a bishop who came from Upper Thebes, had suffered and lost his right eye for confessing the faith. These were not men who would be easily cowered or bullied by power. Constantine did not control the council, but arranged for it, was respectful toward the bishops, urged them to unity, and supported their decisions by banishing Arius after the council excommunicated him.

It seems that the council assembled on May 20th and that Constantine arrived on June 14th. The creed was signed by all except two of the bishops on June 19th and the council concluded on August 25th. Not only did the council deal with Arianism, but it also dealt with the date of Easter, the Meletian schism, and various matters of church order and discipline.

The creed adopted by the council was adapted from one of the many similar creeds already in use. It maintained the core doctrines of the faith and distinguished the faith from Arianism, affirming that Jesus is fully divine, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. Here is Philip Schaff's translation of the original form of the creed, with a couple of words modernized:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The Aftermath of the Council of Nicaea (325-381)

Despite the unity expressed at the Council of Nicaea, the following years were not smooth sailing. The various emperors went back and forth between opposing the Arians and seeking to force the orthodox to receive them. One emperor, Julian the Apostate, even tried to revive paganism.

Athanasius (c. 296-373) had attended the council of Nicaea as a deacon, assisting Alexander of Alexandria, one of the foremost opponents of Arianism. Athanasius himself became the bishop of Alexandria for 46 years and defended Nicene orthodoxy. During his time as bishop, he was exiled five times for a total of 17 years because he refused to readmit Arius and his followers. And so the saying came about, “Athanasius contra mundum”: Athanasius against the world.

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390), Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-c. 395) are known as the Cappadocian fathers and the latter two were brothers. These two brothers had eight siblings, including a younger brother who became a bishop and an older sister Macrina. Macrina became known for her saintly life and for turning her parents’ household into a religious community, inspiring her brother Basil to promote a more communal approach to monasticism than the isolationist model popular in Egypt. Their grandfather has been a martyr in Diocletian’s persecution. In addition to learning from his father, a rhetorician, Basil studied in in Cappadocia, Constantinople, and Athens. Basil became a friend of Gregory of Nazianzus during these studies. Gregory of Nazianzus was ordained as a presbyter by his father, who was a bishop. Basil became a bishop and ordained both Gregorys as bishops. Together, they defended, explained, and promoted the orthodox faith as affirmed at Nicaea.

The Cappadocian fathers, building on Athanasius’ work, brought clarity to the doctrine of the Trinity by distinguishing two Greek words, ousia (essence, substance, being) and hypostasis (person), in the way Tertullian had earlier distinguished two Latin words, substantia and persona. They taught that God is one ousia and three hypostases who are distinguished by their personal properties: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. This alleviated the fears of some that opposition to Arianism would lead to modalism. They also defended the faith against Macedonianism, a teaching promoted by Macedonius which denied the full divinity and personhood of the Spirit. This was rejected at the council of Constantinople in 381. Both Gregorys attended the council.

The Council of Constantinople (381)

This council was called by Emperor Theodosius, who was a baptized Christian with pro-Nicene convictions. It was attended by 150 bishops (or 150 orthodox and 36 heretical bishops). While all the attendees were from the eastern part of the empire, it was regarded as an ecumenical council afterwards by the church, especially since it was affirmed as such at the Council of Chalcedon (451). It met from May to July of 381. This council reaffirmed the position taken at the Council of Nicaea and also clarified the church’s position on the Holy Spirit.

The Council of Constantinople (381) further expanded the creed of Nicaea, especially with respect to the Holy Spirit, and removed the closing negative statements. This Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed, which we commonly call the Nicene Creed, was reaffirmed by Council of Chalcedon (451) as the creed of the 318 fathers at Nicaea and the 150 fathers at Constantinople, recognizing its form had been expanded to clarify its doctrine against those who sought to disparage the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque Clause

While various church fathers had described the Son as involved in the procession of the Spirit (with phrases like “proceeds from the Father through the Son”), the creed simply stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. At a regional council in Toledo (Spain) in 589, the words “and the Son” (Latin: filioque) were added. This addition was received by the western church, but the eastern church later complained against this perceived innovation and did not receive it.

In John 15:26, Jesus says, “when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” Notice Jesus refers both to the Spirit’s work in history ("whom I will send to you") and his eternal ongoing identity ("who proceeds"). But not only does Scripture speak of the Spirit of God as “the Spirit of your Father” (Matt. 10:20), but also as “the Spirit of his Son” (Gal. 4:6, see also Acts 16:7, Rom. 8:9-11), and so the filioque clause is biblical, even through the phrase is not in John 15:26. 

The Nicene Creed

Here then is the Nicene Creed in the translation found in The Trinity Hymnal (1990):

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 

    Maker of heaven and earth, 

    of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, 

    begotten of his Father before all worlds, 

    God of God, Light of Light, 

    very God of very God, 

    begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; 

    by whom all things were made; 

    who for us and for our salvation 

    came down from heaven, 

    and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, 

    and was made man; 

    and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; 

    he suffered and was buried; 

    and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, 

    and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; 

    and he shall come again with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; 

    whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, 

    who proceeds from the Father and the Son; 

    who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; 

    who spoke by the prophets; 

    and we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church; 

    we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; 

    and we look for the resurrection of the dead, 

    and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Flee Fornication: The Bible and Premarital Sex

God created marriage as a one-flesh union of a man and a woman and he designed sexual union for marriage alone. Within that context, it is a good thing. But all sex outside of God’s ordinance of marriage is sinful. God has made us and our bodies and tells us how to use them. Sexual immorality is a rebellion against God and his design. There is much confusion over sexual ethics in our culture today. Some may be tempted to listen to those who claim that sex between unmarried people, as long as it is consensual, is not sinful. In this situation, it is worth reviewing the teaching of the Bible concerning this subject.

Genesis 1-2

“And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:22–24)

In the opening chapters of the Bible, we find that God made man and woman and brought them together in marriage, a union of one man and one woman until death separates them. Jesus explained this text as foundational for marriage (Matt. 19:3-9). The union of the two into “one flesh” (a phrase which at least describes sexual union) is a part of the God-ordained marriage relationship. It is not something to be done outside marriage. 

Malachi 2:14

Marriage is a covenant. “…she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:14). Marriage is not created by a sexual relationship or cohabitation or even by wedding plans, but by a covenant, that is, by solemn promises made before God and human witnesses.

1 Corinthians 6-7

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul gives a warning to the unrighteous and includes “the sexually immoral” in a list of those who are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent of such unrighteousness and believe in Christ. Then in verses 12-20, he exhorts the saints to “flee sexual immorality.” 

“Sexual immorality” is a general term for unlawful sexual activity, but the kind that Paul particularly addresses is sex between unmarried people. Homosexuality and adultery are listed separately in 6:9-10, being further departures from God's design, not only outside of God's ordinance of marriage, but in the one instance being between the same sex and in the other a violation of an existing marriage. Paul argues against sex outside of marriage, even if neither one is married, by noting that “he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her” and quotes Genesis 2:24, “The two will become one flesh.” This union this does not make them married. It is described as immorality. What it good and appropriate within marriage is immoral outside of marriage. The marriage act belongs in marriage.

The apostle makes it clear that what you do with your body is all the more important for Christians, since your body is a member of Christ (6:15), a temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19), and a ransomed possession of Christ (6:19-20). But “the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (6:18).

The point is even more clear when connected with the discussion in the next chapter. In chapter 7, Paul argues that “because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (7:2). The only legitimate outlet for sexual desire is marriage. He said that if the unmarried have the gift of remaining content with sexual abstinence, then they may remain single. But if not, then the solution is to marry. In verses 8-9, Paul says, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” The arguments of this chapter only make sense if sexual relations outside of marriage are immoral.

Exodus 22:16-17

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16–17)

While this law is primarily concerned with what to do once premarital sex has already happened, it also condemns the act by prescribing a penalty for it. Even if the man is rejected as a husband for the woman he laid with, he would still need to pay money equal to the bride-price (better translated “engagement present”).

Genesis 34

Genesis 34 describes two sins, the defiling of Dinah and the slaughter of the men of Shechem. Simeon and Levi overreacted to the first sin when they slaughtered all the men of the city, but they were right in recognizing what Shechem did as a sin. Jacob’s daughter visited a city, and the prince of that city, Shechem, saw her and had sexual relations with her.

Depending on your translation, you could get the impression that Shechem raped Dinah, but the text does not warrant that conclusion. What Shechem did was clearly wicked, but none of the words used imply the use of force or violence, and all of them can be used to describe consensual relations. The Hebrew word for “seize” is the generic word for “take”, used often for taking a wife (e.g. 34:9). The word for “humiliated” sometimes refers to rape (Judges 20:5, 2 Sam. 13:12) but is also used to refer to violating a woman in consensual adultery or premarital sex (Deut. 22:24, 28-29). The word used throughout the narrative is “defiled,” which is used for defiling immoral sexual relations (Lev. 18:20, 23, Ezek. 23:17). All considered, this event is described as a case of seduction and premarital sex initiated by Shechem, aggravated by the fact that Shechem was a pagan Canaanite.

Shechem’s action is condemned. He had “defiled” Dinah (34:5, 13). He “had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing must not be done” (34:7). He had treated Dinah like a prostitute (34:31). 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

In this case law, it describes the situation of a man who married a woman under the impression that she was a virgin, but then accused her afterwards of having not been a virgin (i.e. having had premarital sex before their wedding). If the elders of the city found that his accusation was false, then he was to be whipped and fined a hundred shekels of silver, “because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days” (Deut. 22:19). But if his accusation was true, then the woman was to be executed, “because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house” (22:21). Notice here that “whoring” here does not apply to prostitution in particular, but simply to premarital sex, since all that was proved was that she was not a virgin by the time of her wedding. Notice also that this penalty was prescribed for cases in which a woman pretended to be a virgin but was not - if she had been honest before the wedding or had not married, she would not have received the same penalty - but the sin that is specified as an outrageous thing was not her lie but rather her premarital sex.

Conclusion

The Bible teaches that fornication, sex between unmarried people, is a sin deserving God's judgment. It teaches repentance from this and other sins and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We are called to be chaste in thought, speech, and behavior, abstaining from sexual immorality. This means sexual abstinence for the unmarried and faithfulness for the married. We should honor and appreciate God's design for sex and marriage, not abusing his good gifts.

"Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:18-20)

Francis Makemie (1658-1708): Presbyterian Missionary to America

Francis Makemie is known as the "father of American Presbyterianism." He was born in County Donegal, Ireland in 1658. At the time of his birth, Oliver Cromwell was the Lord Protector. Makemie described himself as being converted at age 15 due to the influence of a godly schoolmaster. He then went to Glasgow University as an older teenager in the 1670s, studying there in Scotland even as the king's troops sought to suppress the persistent conventicles of the Covenanters. Then he returned to northern Ireland and was ordained in 1682 around the age of 24.

Northern Ireland had been relatively peaceful during these years, a refuge for Presbyterians during the suppression of the Covenanters in Scotland, but the persecution of Presbyterians in Ireland was increasing around the time Makemie was ordained. In 1681, the year before he was ordained, five ministers of the presbytery that would ordain him had been arrested and fined for gathering together for a fast that they had appointed.

In the midst of these harsh conditions, this presbytery received requests for ministers for the American colonies, such as Maryland and Virginia. They sent the newly-ordained Francis Makemie in 1683 to minister to the colonists. At that time Maryland did not have an established church. It was initially set up to allow for Roman Catholics to have toleration there, but the toleration also applied to Presbyterians. Rev. Makemie got to work organizing churches, beginning in Maryland on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Like Paul and Barnabas of old, he preached, gathered the saints, and oversaw the election of elders in every church. He also got married and worked as a merchant to both support his family and help raise funds for church planting. He ministered in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and, for much of 1692-1698, on the island of Barbados.

Barbados, one of the southernmost Caribbean islands, was an English colony. Some Presbyterian Covenanters had been sent there in bondage amid the wars, uprisings, and persecutions of the 1650s-1680s, while other Presbyterians had settled there voluntarily. While he was there, Makemie wrote a booklet, available online here, entitled, Truths in a True Light, or, A Pastoral Letter to the Reformed Protestants in Barbados Vindicating the Non Conformists, from the Misrepresentations, Commonly Made of Them in that Island, and in Other Places: And, Demonstrating, That They are Indeed the Truest and Soundest Part of the Church of England. In it, he wrote to the leaders of the Church of England, 

Let me humbly and earnestly, with all Submission address the conformable Clergy, in this island, to instruct their People, that they and we profess the same Christian and Protestant Religion, only with some alterations in external Ceremonies and circumstances; that we may unite in affection and strength, against the common Enemy of our Reformation, and concur in the great work of the Gospel, for the manifestation of God’s Glory, and the Conviction, Conversion and Salvation of Souls in this Island, instructing such as are Ignorant, in the principle & great things of Religion, promoting virtue and true holiness, and Preaching down and reproving all Atheism, irreligion, and profanity, sealing and confirming all by a universal Copy, pattern and example, of a holy, and Ministerial Life and Conversation.

After his return to Maryland and Virginia, he came into conflict with Quakers. Makemie was not so like-minded with the Quakers and he engaged in debate with their doctrine. He wrote a catechism that critiqued their teachings and he published a response to their objection to his catechism. This response was published in Boston and recommended by ministers such as Increase and Cotton Mather. Makemie was friends with the Mathers and he sought to get ministers for the churches he was planting from New England and England. He worked tirelessly and traveled much. On one of those trips he ran into trouble.

When Makemie arrived in New York in 1707, he stepped into a sensitive situation. There was a new governor in town. When Lord Cornbury had become governor in 1702, he had wanted to firmly establish the Church of England in New York. This was not easy, since there were many Dutch settlers there already and Presbyterians from New England. He had found that the Presbyterians had a church building in Jamaica (the neighborhood in Queens, not the island) that had been funded with tax money. Initially the building had been shared by the Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Dutch Reformed, but as the other groups formed their own churches, the Presbyterians, the largest group, retained the building. When the new governor found out about this, he locked the Presbyterian minister out and took the church and manse away from them. In time, the church was able to take the matter to court and they got their building back.  

Thus Lord Cornbury had his eye out for Presbyterian activity in New York. When Francis Makemie came into town, he was arrested for preaching in a private house because he had preached without getting a license from the governor of New York. He was put into prison along with a friend of his who had preached in a different church in town. A few weeks later, his trial was held, at which he produced his license from Barbados. He had obtained licenses to preach, although not from New York in particular. He appealed to the Toleration Act of 1689 and argued that these rights were retained throughout the colonies.

The governor described Makemie as a "Jack of all Trades he is a Preacher, a Doctor Physick, a Merchant, an Attorney, or Counsellor at Law, and, which is worse of all, a Disturber of Governments." Makemie contested the last phrase, arguing that he had not done anything to disturb governments. He printed his sermon, which was on Psalm 50:23b, "to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God." He said he would preach if even he did not have a license, but that he was law-abiding and licensed, and that his doctrine, expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, was in agreement with the 39 Articles of the Church of England, with those exceptions specified in the law.

Makemie won his case, an important one that helped to ensure that religious toleration would be extended to the colonies. All the non-conformists, whether they were Presbyterians or Baptists or Independents, appreciated his stand. Nevertheless, Makemie did suffer since he was forced to pay all the legal expenses. On the other hand, Lord Cornbury was recalled the following year in 1708. 

The year before this trial, in 1706, Francis Makemie had organized the first presbytery in America. There had been Presbyterian churches established in the 1600s, but they had not been connected with each other through regional presbyteries until this time. At that first meeting, seven ministers attended. Most of them were Scottish or Scots-Irish, but one was from Massachusetts, a graduate of Harvard under Increase Mather. Makemie mentioned this presbytery meeting in a letter, saying, 

Our design is to meet yearly, and oftener, if necessary, to consult the most proper measures, for advancing religion, and propagating Christianity, in our Various Stations, and to mentain Such a Correspondence as may conduce to the improvement of our Ministeriall ability by prescribing Texts to be preached on by two of our number at every meeting, which performance is Subjected to the censure of our Brethren…

They wanted to coordinate their efforts for the spread of Christianity as well as help each other improve. It was a common practice for presbytery meetings to include "presbyterial exercises," in which a couple of them would preach and get feedback from the rest. The next presbytery meeting included ruling elders as well as ministers. From that point forward, it would be expected that all ministers were to attend and that each church was to send a ruling elder. A decade later in 1716, four presbyteries were formed with a synod over them. This expansion happened just in time, since the great migration of the Scots-Irish to America would begin in 1717.

As for Francis Makemie, he died at home in Virginia on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in 1708. He was about 50 years old. You can read more about him and by him online at the Log College Press: Francis Makemie (1658-1708). You can hear more about the history of American Presbyterianism from this lesson series of mine: American Presbyterian History.

John Calvin on "the Wondrous Exchange"

In his chapter on the Lord's Supper in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin reflects on the wondrous exchange between Christ and believers: 

"Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that everything which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness."

The Lord's Arrival in Jerusalem: Three Threes in Matthew 21-22

Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on the Sunday before his crucifixion. Matthew 21-22 recounts his first few days in Jerusalem by describing three symbolic acts, three parables, and three questions answered by Jesus.

The three symbolic acts were the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, and the cursing of the fig tree. Jesus chose to ride on the donkey’s colt as he journeyed over the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem (after walking for miles from Galilee) to symbolize his identity as the King of Zion, the Son of David, the Christ (Matt. 21:1-11, Zech. 9:9). His hour had come, and it was time for him to unfurl his banner in the presence of his enemies, praised by his disciples and the crowds of pilgrims coming to the city. He then drove out the buyers and sellers from the temple courts to symbolize the coming judgment upon that "den of robbers" (Matt. 21:12-13, Jer. 7:11). He also cursed a fig tree to symbolize judgment upon those who failed to bear fruit (Matt. 21:18-22, 43, Jer. 8:13).

The three parables were those of the two sons, the tenants, and the wedding feast. They were told in response to a challenge to his authority from the chief priests and elders of the people (Matt. 21:23-27). In the first parable (Matt. 21:28-32), a father told two sons to work in the vineyard, and the first son said “I will not” but then changed his mind and went, while the second son said “I will go, sir” but then did not go. In the second parable (Matt. 21:33-46), the tenants of a vineyard beat or killed the landowner's servants and then finally his own son, so that they might have it for themselves; the point being that Jesus would be rejected, like the prophets who proceeded him, yet he would become the cornerstone. Those who were going to cast him out and kill him were going to then be cast out and killed. Jesus, though killed, would return from the dead and give the kingdom to his disciples. In the third parable (Matt. 22:1-14), the king invited guests to a wedding feast for his son, but the guests ignored or killed his servants. Therefore the king sent troops to destroy those murderers and their city (i.e. Jerusalem) and he sent his servants to invite whoever they can find to the feast, filling the wedding hall. But this was a mixed group, good and bad, and so the king inspected the guests and cast out the man not wearing a wedding garment. All three parables stressed the need to be true sons of the kingdom by receiving the gospel of the kingdom.

The three questions posed to him were concerning taxes, the resurrection, and the great commandment. The Pharisees and Sadducees took turns trying to entangle him in his words, but Jesus silenced them by his answers and astonished the crowds by his wisdom. Concerning taxes (Matt. 22:15-22), he pointed to the image on the coins they possessed, saying, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." They were to give back taxes to the civil government, as was but fair and just, and they were to give back themselves, made in God's image, to God. Concerning the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-33), he answered the conundrum posed to him by noting that procreation, and therefore marriage, would be no longer needed or practiced in the coming age, and he noted that the Sadducees had errored in their denial of the resurrection by not taking into account the Scriptures and the power of God. Concerning the great commandment in the law (Matt. 22:34-40), he quoted two commandments, the one commanding wholehearted love for the Lord your God and the other commanding love for your neighbor as yourself (Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18), as the first and second commandments that together summarized the law. 

Chapter 22 ends with a final question, a question posed by Jesus himself about whose son the Christ is. Quoting Psalm 110:1, he asked, "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" (Matt. 22:45). Jesus had presented himself as the son of David and he had been acclaimed by the crowds as such. Now he pointed to the fact that while he was the son of David, he was no mere man. He was greater than David. He is David's Lord and the Son of God. He was the son described in the parables of the tenants and the wedding feast. The eternal Son of God had come in the flesh to his people as their king.

Men, Women, and Sin

God created mankind as male and female. Here are four ways in which sin corrupts and distorts this aspect of God's creation order:

(1) Masculinity and femininity, which are good, being twisted and redirected by sin. For example, man’s strength and aggression, designed to work and keep the garden, is used instead to oppress, exploit, and rob. Both men and women use their respective strengths for evil ends.

(2) Men and women rebelling directly against their design. For example, men who were given strength to protect and provide become lazy and soft, abdicating their responsibilities. Women who were given a unique ability to nurture their young can yet prove cruel and heartless to them. Men and women, designed for sexual relations with the opposite sex, sometimes pursue sexual relations with the same sex, contrary to nature.

(3) Enmity between men and women. They blame each other, are bitter against each other, hating and being hated by each other. There are men who despise and mistreat women, and women who despise and mistreat men. Masculinity and femininity get despised, blamed for their sinful perversions.

(4) Rebellion against the sexual distinction itself. Since the distinction between man and woman is an occasion of conflict, some want to solve it by getting rid of it. Other may be motivated by a desire to transcend their createdness, to avoid any prescribed identity. But one way or another, people rise up against this distinction and promote androgyny. Especially in our day, people seek to leverage the powers of science to overcome nature and free humanity from this distinction, making men and women interchangeable.

The good news is that redemption for sinners is found in Christ. Apart from Christ, humanity is lost in a labyrinth of confused and miserable rebellion, but that is not the case when one is in Christ. In Christ, you are forgiven and reconciled with God. In Christ, man and woman become co-heirs of grace, fellow members of the household of God. In Christ, you all are restored to live in accordance with your created design as the image of God and as men and women. 

Some error by thinking that in Christ we transcend our created nature and are freed from these created distinctions. But the problem was not in your created design. The problem was in rebellion and the misery it caused. Redemption does not destroy nature but restores and perfects it. The unity and distinctiveness of man and woman is restored, purified, and perfected in Christ. 

When Paul says in Galatians, “there is no male or female,” he explains what he means by saying, “for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Both men and women are fully and equally members of Christ and united as one body of Christ. There is no distinction in that respect, but that is not the case in every respect. The same Paul teaches that men and women in Christ do not loose their distinctive natures and duties, but are enabled and instructed to be godly men and godly women. Just as you are the image of God, and Christ restores your conformity to that identity, so in a similar way you are men and women and Christ restores your conformity to those identities in a way that is good and pleasing to God. 

Distributing the Lord's Supper

In this article at American Reformer, I review the history of the distribution of the Lord’s Supper in the Presbyterian tradition in light of current discussions about who should help in the distribution:

Distributing the Lord's Supper in the Presbyterian Tradition by Peter Bringe