What Jesus Said About His Death

The night before he died, Jesus taught his disciples the meaning of his coming death. While his disciples did not know what would happen, Jesus did. He had come for this purpose. Long before, he had told them that he "came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His death would do something for them – it would ransom them. On that night before his crucifixion, he instructed them for quite some time, but a key part of this instruction incorporated the meal itself. He used the elements of the Passover meal to refer to himself and his coming death. Not only would this set up a new ritual for his disciples (the "Lord's Supper") that replaced Passover, but it also interpreted his death in terms of the Passover and Israel's exodus from Egypt. His death, like those events, would be redemptive – it would deliver from God's judgment.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'" (Matthew 26:26-28).

It did not take long after Jesus' death and resurrection for his disciples to repeat this ritual as he had told them to do. Two months later it is described as a common practice of theirs (Acts 2:42). As the company of disciples grew, they would continue to gather on the first day of the week to practice it together (Acts 20:7). The Apostle Paul would quote the words of Jesus, passed down to him within a few years of Jesus' death, in what even skeptical scholars admit to be one of Paul's earliest letters (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

In our culture today, there are many who would want to interpret Jesus's death in ways contrary to his own words. And yet, Jesus' own interpretation of his death was well-taught to his disciples and incorporated by Him into a ritual that was practiced early, often, and across the whole church. He died to satisfy the demands of justice, ransoming us from its claim, so that we might be forgiven and reconciled to our Creator. This death is effective only to those who are united to Jesus by faith, who participate in the sacrifice. Unless one has taken refuge under the blood of this sacrificial lamb, he or she is still subject to the sentence of eternal death demanded by justice. God has provided a way of peace and reconciliation. Let us claim this death as our own, done on our behalf. Let us eat the bread and drink the wine. "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival" (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). Thanks be to God!

Jesus' Descent into Hell

"He descended into hell". This article of the Apostles' Creed has taken many who are unaccustomed to the creed by surprise. "Jesus? In hell? What was he doing there? And where is that in the Bible?" While the meaning of this article has been a matter of debate, it has generally been accepted as an important element of the faith, not only by the Roman Catholic Church, but by historic Protestantism as well.

In Reformed theology, this descent has been explained in two ways - that Jesus suffered the pains of hell or that Jesus abode under the power of death until the third day. These ways are complementary. I believe both are true, although the second way is the agreed upon understanding of the creed in my denomination (and in all denominations that hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms).

1. Jesus Suffered the Pains of Hell

The first way was defended by John Calvin, who noted that this descent into hell was "of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption" (Institutes, 2.16.8). Calvin taught that the creed, after describing the aspect of Christ's suffering that was visible to man (that he "was crucified, dead, and buried"), then described the aspect that was invisible, that Jesus felt the weight of God's wrath and judgment: "the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man" (Institutes, 2.16.10). In this way, Jesus did not go to the location of hell, but he suffered the pains of hell. Not only did he feel physical pain, but as he said, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death" (Matt. 26:38), so much that "his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44). Jesus bore our griefs and carried our sorrows (Isaiah 53:4) as he experienced the just wrath of God that was due to us. This led him to loudly cry out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). As one hymn puts it, "the deepest stroke that pierced Him was the stroke that Justice gave." The Heidelberg Catechism of the continental Reformed churches (German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, etc.) followed this interpretation by saying:

Question 44. Why is there added, "he descended into hell"?
Answer: That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, but especially on the cross, has delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell.

2. Jesus Continued in the State of the Dead, under the Power of Death

The second way is articulated in the Westminster Larger Catechism of the British Reformed churches (Presbyterians, Puritans).

Q. 50. Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?
A. Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.

The view of the Westminster standards gives attention to how this article of the creed is based on Acts 2:24-32, which quotes Psalm 16:10. There Peter, speaking of Jesus, says,

"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him '... Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption' ... He [David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." (Acts 2:24-25a, 27, 31-32, KJV)

It is important here to realize that the English word "hell" has been used to translate two different Greek words found in the Bible: "Gehenna" (γέεννα, the place of final judgment, what we usually think of when we use the term "hell") and "Hades" (ᾍδης, which can have a broader reference to death or the state of the dead, equivalent to the Hebrew word "Sheol"). The Westminster standards take into account that Acts 2:24-32 speaks of Hades, not Gehenna. Most modern translations makes this clear by leaving the word untranslated: "'For you will not abandon my soul to Hades' ... he was not abandoned to Hades" (Acts 2:27, 31, ESV). In line with this, many modern translations of the Apostles' Creed translate this article of the creed as "he descended to the dead."

Therefore, the Larger Catechism notes that the Bible does speak about the time after Jesus' death and before his resurrection, and that it speaks of this time as part of his humiliation. Jesus was dead. His soul was unnaturally separated from his body and he dwelt with other departed souls. In addition to Acts 2:24-32, Romans 6:9 also speaks of how death had dominion over Jesus until he rose from the dead.

We might even go beyond this creedal statement and say that even though it was part of his humiliation to be under the power of death, yet during this time Jesus's soul dwelt in paradise with his people (Luke 23:43), having committed his spirit to God (Luke 23:46). Notice, though, that the catechism states what seems to be clear from Scripture while not being as specific about some of the more debatable details, such as the specific identity of "paradise." The Gospel of Luke refers to the "bosom of Abraham" in 16:22 and "paradise" in 23:43. Was this the same as heaven? Or is that only the case following Christ's resurrection? In any case, these details are not the point of the catechism's answer. 

Conclusion

Like I mentioned earlier, I believe both of these perspectives teach us something important and can be expressed by this article of the creed. Jesus bore the griefs and sorrows which we ought to have suffered in hell. Not only did he experience physical pain, but he experienced that tremendous mental pain and torment of being judged by God, and he did that for us. Jesus also truly laid down his life, giving himself up to the unnatural and fearful power of death. Yet, he could not be held by it - rather, he exhausted its power and overcame it by rising from the dead, taking away its victory over his people. As Hebrews 2:14–15 teaches, Jesus took on human nature, "that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." Jesus did this work for us, so let us gratefully confess it and find in it comfort and confidence.

Christ Died for Our Sins

The death of Jesus Christ is central to the Christian faith. Some have tried to down play it, finding the key element of Christianity in moral teaching or the character that Jesus exemplified. But this leads to a version of Christianity that is foreign to the Bible and the Jesus of history. The message of the Christian faith is that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).

This early creedal summery not only recounts historical facts, but it also shows the significance of them by the little phrase, "for our sins." It also communicates that these facts are to be explained "in accordance with the Scriptures." It may sound simple, that Christ died for our sins, but since our sins have many ramifications, so does Christ's death. As John Murray explains,

"Jesus came to save and, therefore, dealt with the whole entail of sin. This is the significance of those diverse categories in terms of which the Bible interprets for us the atoning death of Christ. It views the death of Christ as sacrifice, as propitiation, as reconciliation, and as redemption. These are all conditioned in their precise character by the various ways in which the entail of sin is to be viewed.  

"Sin involves guilt and the death of Christ as sacrifice is the provision for our guilt. Sin evokes the wrath of God and propitiation is that which propitiates the wrath of God. Sin alienates us from God and reconciliation is directed to that exigency arising from sin. Sin consigns us to bondage, bondage to sin itself and to Satan. Redemption is the provision for this bondage, the death of Christ is our ransom." (Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 1, p. 38)

Murray also goes on to note that just as sin lead to death, so the death of Christ is the destruction of death. Christ's death undoes the work of sin, which leads us to consider all that sin has done. This in turn leads us to consider how God made the world before we rebelled against Him. It is no wonder, then, that the death of Christ is central to the Christian faith, for it is the remedy for our fundamental problem.

Tithing, Charity, and Financing the Work of the Church

Collecting the Offering in a Scottish Kirk by John Phillip (1855)

Giving money seems to be a topic which preachers are either too eager or too reluctant to speak about. On the one hand, sometimes the appeal for money comes off as self-serving or driven by anxiety and economic pressures. On the other hand, others want to avoid seeming greedy or anxious, and will tend to avoid exhorting people on the topic. I tend to be in the latter camp. But avoiding the subject is not a remedy for bad teaching. So what does the Bible say? Here I hope to give an overview of what the Bible says about tithing, charity, and financing the church's ministry of worship, word, and mercy.

The Old Testament Tithe and the Levites

The tithe (giving a tenth) dates back at least to the patriarchal era, long before Moses and the law given at Sinai. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20), and Jacob also vows a tenth to God (Gen. 28:22). The way it appears in these passages, it looks like the tithe was already an established pattern.

In the Mosaic law, it is debated by commentators whether there were one, two, or three tithes. Numbers and Leviticus refer to one tithe, given to the Levites and priests (Lev. 27:30-33, Num. 18:21, 24). Deuteronomy refers to using the tithe annually for the Levites and for feasting in Jerusalem and it refers to gathering it every third year as local communities for the poor and Levites (Deut. 14:22-29, see also 12:11-19). If these passages refer to three tithes, then one tenth went to the Levites, one tenth went to household celebration in Jerusalem (with Levites), and every three years one tenth was "laid up within your towns" for the local Levites, sojourners, fatherless, and widows. Yet, I find it most natural to take Deuteronomy, not adding tithes, but clarifying the multiple uses for what is always simply called "the tithe." Commenting on this passage in Deuteronomy, John Calvin say “Those are mistaken, in my opinion, who think that another kind of tithe is here referred to. It is rather a correction or interpretation of the Law, lest the priests and Levites alone should consume all the tithes, without applying a part to the relief of the poor, of strangers, and widows.”[1] If this all refers to one tithe, then the tithe was used to provide for the Levites, but also for religious celebration and (every third year) the care of the needy. The addition of these other roles in Deuteronomy would be explained by the fact that in Leviticus and Numbers the people were being still fed by manna. Deuteronomy was preparing the people to live in the land where the poor and needy would need help.

In both the "one tithe" and "three tithe" perspectives, a great deal of the tithe went to support the Levites, and a tenth of the Levites’ portion went to the Levitical priests. Those Levites who were not priests assisted the priests, enabling the priests to focus on their tasks of sacrifice and worship (Lev. 1-10), teaching (Lev. 10:10-11, Mal. 2:7), and benediction (Num. 6:22-27). In order to assist the priests, the rest of the Levites served a variety of functions, such as tabernacle transport (Num. 1:47-54), officials, judges, gatekeepers, musicians (1 Chron. 23:4-5, 25-32), treasurers (1 Chron. 9:26), and teachers of God's word (2 Chron. 17:7-9, Neh. 8). The Levites not only ministered in Jerusalem, but also lived in the towns, no doubt serving in the weekly local convocations that developed into synagogue worship (Lev. 23:3, Deut. 14:27, 2 Chron. 17:7-9).

The New Testament Tithe, the Apostles, and the Diaconate

Yet, in the New Testament, the Levites were supplanted. As the author of Hebrews points out, in Abraham, Levi gave the tithe to one who was superior, Melchizedek (Heb. 7:9-10). Christ came “in the order of Melchizedek,” and took the place of the Levites. His ministry on earth before He offered Himself as a sacrifice was one both of word and deed. On the one hand, He proclaimed, taught, and prayed, and on the other hand He healed, fed, and showed mercy to those who physically suffered. When he ascended to heaven, He left His apostles as those sent as representatives to carry on His ministry. Thus, it was natural in the early church for believers to lay their contributions at the feet of the apostles, rather than at the feet of the Levites (Acts 4:34-37). The disciples gave generously, beyond what was required by the tithe. They gave to the Lord for the furtherance of His ministry by giving to the apostles. The apostles soon realized that they needed to focus on the ministry of word and prayer, not managing money and the financial needs of the poor. Thus, they set up deacons to do this work and to thus carry out Christ’s ministry of mercy (Acts 6:1-7). The diaconate was established as a perpetual office in the church, mentioned also in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13. The apostles and elders were still involved in some of the recorded examples of collections for the saints (Acts 11:29-30), although they seemed to operate with others who might have been deacons, such as “our brother whom we have often tested” (2 Cor. 8:22) and “those whom you accredit by letter” (1 Cor. 16:3). It is likely, as was true in the early church, that the apostles/elders continued to have governing authority over the process, but left the detailed administration of finances and resources to the deacons (when deacons were available).

Current Obligations

The New Testament church, as administered by its officers, has the financial obligation to at least pay preachers (1 Cor. 9:3-14, 1 Tim. 5:17-18) and financially assist those in need (1 Tim. 5:3-16, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8-9, Acts 4:32-37, 11:27-30). Some needs, in both categories, will be occasional and will require a specific offering. Other needs, in both categories, will be regular, requiring regular giving. While the tithe is not explicitly commanded in the New Testament, it remains the biblical pattern for regular giving to the church, such that Christians should give to the church in a similar way. While the use of the tithe is not identical to that under the old covenant, it generally covers the same functions (teaching, worship, charity, religious celebration).

In addition to regular and special giving to the institutional church, all Christians are called to give charitably to others (1 Tim. 6:17-19, 1 John 3:17), to lend charitably (Luke 6:34-35, Lev. 25:35-38, Deut. 15:1-11), and to cultivate economic practices equivalent to gleaning (Lev. 19:9-10). Men are especially responsible to providing for one’s household and relatives (1 Tim. 5:8), and each person is called to work as they are able to further the wealth of one’s self and others (Eph. 4:28, 1 Thess. 4:11-12, 2 Thess. 3:12).

Example of the Early Church

The early church continued to gather the regular contributions of the church, which were administered by the deacons who reported to the bishop. As Calvin remarks concerning the early church,

"For [the deacons] received the daily offerings of the faithful, and the annual revenues of the Church, that they might apply them to their true uses; in other words, partly in maintaining ministers, and partly in supporting the poor; at the sight of the bishop, however, to whom they every year gave an account of their stewardship” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.4.5). 

Some early church leaders, like Justin Martyr and Tertullian simply refer to a collection without explicit reference to a "tithe," but others like Cyprian of Carthage and some early church manuals like The Apostolic Constitutions do refer to the practice of tithing (as a minimum, not a limit), and this became more common as time went on. Also, as the church grew, the division of church goods was specified with greater detail. Calvin quotes Gregory I (A.D. 540-604) as an example of this,

"Gregory speaks still more clearly: 'It is the custom of the Apostolic See,' says he, 'to give command to the bishop who has been ordained, to divide all the revenues into four portions – namely, one to the bishop and his household for hospitality and maintenance, another to the clergy, a third to the poor, a fourth to the repair of churches'" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.4.7).

Calvin recounted these practices to commend them. During his era, the Roman Catholic Church had lost sight of the practice of Scripture and the early church and had become corrupted by the love of money. This area of life was one in need of reformation. In our consumeristic age, where both Christian individuals and church leaders can be misguided with their use of money, may we learn to trust God for our daily needs and use our wealth for His glory, fulfilling our personal responsibilities as well as giving to the church for its ministry of word, worship, and mercy.

A Presbyterian Missionary on the Missouri Frontier

It is profitable to remember that God has preserved and furthered His church throughout all ages by raising up faithful servants by His grace to teach and proclaim His word. The gospel is not passed on automatically. At no time in history has it been effortlessly passed on to the next generation. In American history in particular, we faced the challenge of maintaining and spreading the gospel even as people moved to new lands without established churches. One man who was instrumental in this effort in our own local area was William Sterling Lacy.

William S. Lacy (1791-1881) was the first Presbyterian pastor ordained in Missouri. Before coming to Missouri, he had graduated from Hampden-Sydney College, taught there for a short time, served in the War of 1812 in Virginia, studied law under John Randolph of Roanoke, and then turned to the pastoral calling. An old newspaper recounts his time in Missouri:

"When Mr. Lacy connected with the Presbytery of Missouri [in 1820], it was as a licentiate of Hanover Presbytery of Virginia, and when he was ordained in 1824, he was the first Presbyterian Minister ever ordained in the State ... His first settlement was in St. Charles County, Mo., where he remained about a year, and he then removed to property he owned in St. Louis County, near the present site of the Maline Creek Church, and here he remained four years, actively engaged in preaching at various places in the county, such as Bonhomme, Cold Water, Bellefontaine, and other places. After this time he again removed to St. Charles County. A few years after he came to Missouri, he was commissioned by the Board of Home Missions to travel a portion of the months of the summer and fall seasons, to preach and to organize churches on the Missouri and Upper Mississippi Rivers, which portions were known as the Boonslick and Salt River sections. He was among the first Presbyterian ministers to visit the counties of Callaway and Boone ... On his return to [St. Charles County], Rev. Lacy took charge of the Dardenne Church, where he remained until 1832, when he removed south to Arkansas. He preached twice a month at Dardenne Church, with the balance of the time spent at Troy in Lincoln County. He was a fine horseman, and he was well mounted. He delighted to ride over the wide prairies in this new and sparsely settled State."

Rev. Samuel Chester, writing of his early years under Rev. Lacy's later ministry, would write of him,

"He was a man of striking personal appearance, elegant manners, and fine literary attainments. In his old age he lost his eyesight, but his memory was stored with literary treasures which made him independent of things in print. He could recite from memory the entire New Testament and many of the Psalms and other poetical parts of the Old Testament. He knew much of Shakespeare and Scott and all of Robert Burns by heart."

You can read more about Rev. Lacy at this link. He married twice due to the death of his first wife, Sally (who was the niece of Archibald Alexander, the first professor of Princeton Seminary), and he had a total of 17 children. One of them, Rev. Beverly Tucker Lacy, served as chaplain for Stonewall Jackson and his men and afterwards came to Missouri like his father and pastored churches in St. Louis and Mexico, Missouri.

Church Tradition and the Sufficiency of Scripture

Recently I was discussing some points of doctrine with a Roman Catholic, and as the discussion moved quickly to the source of doctrinal authority, I was reminded why the Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is so important. This doctrine is well summarized in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith,

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (WCF 1.6)

This idea can be found in Scripture, such as in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 where Paul tells Timothy,

"from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

It is true that God gave revelation which is not contained in Scripture. Not everything that the prophets prophesied or that Jesus spoke or that the apostles preached was written down. Yet, whatever is necessary for us to believe or obey was written down in Scripture and preserved for the ages to come. Because Scripture can give sufficient knowledge for salvation and can make the man of God complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:15-17), then the one who knows Scripture does not need to fear that he is missing out on an additional doctrine or duty which is outside of Scripture and in oral tradition alone.

The tradition of the church is important, since Christ appointed pastors and teachers for the benefit of his church. There are some things in the Scriptures that are hard to understand, "which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). Yet, these pastors and teachers are bound to teach what Scripture says, to give a faithful interpretation of what is there. Not only should they not contradict Scripture, but they should also not add more doctrines or duties to what is in Scripture, for Scripture contains all that we need to believe and obey.

As was evident in the Old Testament church, the oral tradition of the church can error. The leaders of the Jewish church had added to, contradicted, and wrongly interpreted the demands of Scripture. It was Scripture that was infallible and which Jesus and the apostles used to correct these errors (Matt. 15:1-9, Mark 7:1-23, John 7:21-23, Matt. 22:29-31). And so while some lingering oral tradition from the apostles may have given the early fathers help in faithfully interpreting the writings of the apostles, this oral tradition is not infallible and ought not to be relied upon to go beyond what is written in Scripture.

What Does It Mean to Honor My Parents?

"Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you." (Deuteronomy 5:16)

Today, the spirit of the age is autonomy. In other words, each person wants to create his or her own identity apart from external influences or authorities. Whether it is in a Disney movie or a presidential debate, we are told to look inside ourselves for guidance, and that once we make up our mind, we can be whoever we want to be. We create our identity by pure willpower, by sovereign choice. At the same time, our culture has an epidemic of people trying to find themselves. We feel lost, disoriented, searching for purpose and identity. Our culture produces songs like "A Place in This World":

“I'm alone, on my own,
and that's all I know.
I'll be strong, I'll be wrong,
Oh but life goes on.
Oh, I'm just a girl,
Trying to find a place in this world.”

Finding ourselves on our own, digging deeper into the self, is like trying to find the essence of an onion by looking for its core. We keep peeling and peeling until nothing is left. And in case you think this only applies to the people “out there” or to the music on the radio, I think Christians sometimes have the same problem. Sometimes they dress it up in the language of “finding God’s will.” While Christians have always needed guidance on decision making, the need to “find God’s will for your life” seems to be much more a problem today than at other times in church history.

Not only would our fathers in the faith point to God’s word, prayer, and the fear of God, but they would also point to our callings and the authorities in our lives. Among other things, listen to your parents! What do they counsel? What is your family’s vision and place in life? We are not isolated individuals, making a sovereign choice ex nihilo, out of nothing. But as a culture, we have cut ourselves off from many sources of counsel, calling, and inheritance – no wonder we are so lost when it comes to our identity and work! I bring this to our attention to introduce the subject of honoring our parents. Honoring our parents is actually beneficial for us, since it helps us find our identity, calling, and vision. It is the way we have been made to live. It is desirable.

So what is it to honor your parents?

1. Honor. At its root, the command, "honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12), binds us to an attitude of respect and humility. Leviticus 19:3 repeats this command but instead of "honor" it uses the word "fear" or "revere." This is a humble attitude of reverence which does not treat parents lightly, but honors them. The same chapter goes on to apply this principle more broadly to one's elders, and places it in parallel with our fear of God: "You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD" (Lev. 19:32). Notice this verse also connects honor with physical acts that demonstrate honor. We see this practiced by King Solomon in 1 Kings 2:19. When Bathsheba his mother came to see him, he - the king of Israel - rose from his throne, bowed to her, and had a seat brought for her, placed at his right. While our gestures of honor may vary from culture to culture, some tangible expressions should be used to express this attitude.

2. Obedience. The command to honor parents is quoted by the apostle Paul to support his command, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right" (Eph. 6:1). The exhortation to obedience is also found in Colossians 3:20, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord." One way to honor parents is to do what they tell you to do. This is particularly binding on children, those under their parent's authority at home. That seems to be the focus of the commands in Colossians and Ephesians. There comes a time when a young man "leaves" his father and mother in some sense, in anticipation of cleaving to his wife, who in turn also leaves her father's house and joins her husband's (Gen. 2:24, Num. 30). In biblical Israel, men reached the age of majority at age twenty and were then responsible for military service, voting, and the head tax (Num. 1:2-3, 1 Chron. 12:38, Ex. 20:13-14). Yet, there are positive examples in the Bible of adult children obeying their parents, such as the sons of Jonadab (Jer. 35). While the obligation is different than that of children, obedience is still a way to show honor. (The obedience of adult children deserves a closer look at another time, especially with an eye to how different economic arrangements influence this obligation.)

3. Internalizing Commands. Part of the transition from the obedience of a young child and the honor given by an adult child is the internalization of the parent's commands and instructions. The Bible exhorts children not only to obey their parents's commands, but also to adopt them as their own principles. Proverbs 6:20–22 says, "My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching. Bind them on your heart always; tie them around your neck. When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you." Since this passage clearly reflects Deuteronomy 6:7, it is assumed that this parental instruction is based on God's word. But as long as their instruction does not conflict with Scripture, there is a duty to humbly receive what is taught, to hold fast to what is good, and to make it your own. The greatest joy of a godly parent is to see their children walking in truth and wisdom not merely because the parent tells them to do so, but because it has become part of their character (Prov. 10:1; 23:15, 24; 3 John 1:4).

4. Seeking Counsel. Another way to show honor to parents is to seek and prize the counsel of parents. This should not be done as a replacement for internalizing their instruction, but neither should the greater independence of an adult child prevent him from seeking and listening to counsel. Proverbs 23:22 says, "Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old." Why? Because wisdom and counsel is valuable. The next verse follows up this exhortation by saying, "Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding." Your parents' counsel should be treasured. This shows honor for the ones who gave you life. This obligation does not cease then they (and you) get old.

5. Covering Disgrace. Another way you should show honor to parents is to cover their disgrace. There are limits to this - this does not require you to be dishonest or to hide crimes which ought to be reported. But it does mean you should refrain from speaking to others of what brings shame or embarrassment to your parents unless it is necessary. Genesis 9:18-29 recounts how Noah, after the flood, planted a vineyard, became drunk with its wine, and lay naked in his tent. While Ham disgraced his father by leaving his father in this state and spreading a report, Shem and Japheth honored their father by covering his nakedness, walking backwards so that they would not see their father in this state.

6. Caring for Elderly Parents. A very important part of the command to honor parents is the care of elderly parents. Just as parents are responsible to care for their children when their children are incapable of caring for themselves, so children are responsible for caring for their parents when their parents are unable to care for themselves. To ignore this responsibility is quite serious (1 Tim. 5:8). Jesus asserted this aspect of the commandment in Matthew 15:1-9. There he condemned the Pharisees for excusing people from this responsibility through their extra-biblical traditions. Jesus himself, when dying on the cross, cared for his mother. Mary was probably widowed at this point, and Jesus as the oldest son would have been particularly responsible for his mother's care. Thus while he was on the cross he gave John the responsibility to care for his mother: "he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:26-27).

7. Receiving Your Heritage. The honor of parents comes with promise (Deut. 5:16, Eph. 6:2-3). This promise generally offers long life and prosperity both on an individual level and on a corporate level. In other words, the honor of parents brings continuity and inheritance by the blessing of God. Not only will you live long in the land, but you all (as a family or people) will live long in the land. This continuity, receiving the heritage of your parents, is both a duty and a blessing, while dishonor of parents is both disobedience as well as self-defeating. Even when your parents are unbelievers, your family’s heritage is to be reformed and perfected, not obliterated. All of us are part of a multigenerational project which includes receiving, respecting, reforming, and giving. R.J. Rushdoony insightfully comments on this aspect of honor,

"This brings us to the first general principle inherent in this law: honor to parents, and to all older than ourselves, is a necessary aspect of the basic law of inheritance. What we inherit from our parents is life itself, and also the wisdom of their faith and experience as they transmit it to us. The continuity of history rests in this honor and inheritance. A revolutionary age breaks with the past and turns on parents with animosity and venom: it disinherits itself. To respect our elders other than our parents is to respect all that is good in our cultural inheritance. The world certainly is not perfect, nor even law-abiding, but, although we come into the world naked, we do not enter an empty world. The houses, orchards, fields, and flocks are all the handiwork of the past, and we are richer for this past and must honor it…The basic and central inheritance of culture and all that it includes, faith, training, wisdom, wealth, love, common ties, and traditions are severed and denied where parents and elders are not honored." (Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 166)

"To despise one’s parents, or to hate them and dishonor them is to despise the immediate source of one’s life; it is a form of self-hate, and it is a willful contempt for the basic inheritance of life. From pastoral experience, it can be added that those who, when rebuked for their hatred of and dishonoring activity towards parents, arrogantly say, 'I didn’t ask to be born,' have a limited life span, or, at best, a miserable one. Their course of action is suicidal. They are saying in effect, 'I’m not asking to live.'" (p. 168)

The honor of parents, as with the rest of the commandments, is the good way. Our heavenly Father is pleased when we honor our parents. It may be hard. Sin might get in the way. Forgiveness and love is necessary. If we realize how much we have been forgiven, we will more willingly show forgiveness to our parents. If we fear and honor our heavenly Father, we will seek to reflect that in our fear and honor of our parents. If we are thankful for receiving eternal life, we will be thankful to those who gave us life. If we truly want to know God’s will for our life, we will look to the sources of guidance that he has appointed. And if we honor our parents, we will cover their disgrace, care for them, seek their counsel, internalize their commands, and joyfully carry on the heritage they have given us. May we treasure the talents they have given us, and invest and increase them with confidence in God’s promise of life and prosperity to all such as keep this commandment.

St. Patrick's Confident Message in Dark Times

Saint Patrick was an important 5th century missionary to Ireland. In his day, civilization seemed to be collapsing. Yet, as the Romans withdrew from Britain and as pagans from Ireland, Scotland, and Germany began to raid and invade, Patrick was advancing forward with the gospel. Later in life, he saw these difficulties as signs of God's judgment - his people had ignored the warnings of their priests and fallen into ignorance and apathy. He had done the same as a youth, but when Patrick himself was taken captive by Irish raiders, this caused Patrick to reconsider the gospel he had heard and repent. He turned with all his heart to God. After six years in captivity he escaped, returning later to the land of his captivity as a missionary. Late in life, he wrote his Confession, in which he tells the story of his life. You can read it at this link. Just after recounting his conversion during his captivity he explains his motive for evangelism and describes the faith he preached. 

"That is why I cannot be silent – nor would it be good to do so – about such great blessings and such a gift that the Lord so kindly bestowed in the land of my captivity. This is how we can repay such blessings, when our lives change and we come to know God, to praise and bear witness to his great wonders before every nation under heaven. 

"This is because there is no other God, nor will there ever be, nor was there ever, except God the Father. He is the one who was not begotten, the one without a beginning, the one from whom all beginnings come, the one who holds all things in being – this is our teaching. And his son, Jesus Christ, whom we testify has always been, since before the beginning of this age, with the father in a spiritual way. He was begotten in an indescribable way before every beginning. Everything we can see, and everything beyond our sight, was made through him. He became a human being; and, having overcome death, was welcomed to the heavens to the Father. The Father gave him all power over every being, both heavenly and earthly and beneath the earth. Let every tongue confess that Jesus Christ, in whom we believe and whom we await to come back to us in the near future, is Lord and God. He is judge of the living and of the dead; he rewards every person according to their deeds. He has generously poured on us the Holy Spirit, the gift and promise of immortality, who makes believers and those who listen to be children of God and co-heirs with Christ. This is the one we acknowledge and adore – one God in a trinity of the sacred name."

May the gratefulness that inspired Patrick give us also the confidence to bear witness to the great wonders of our God. May the message of the triune God and his salvation that Patrick preached be believed and proclaimed by the church today. Even if we face difficulties, may we be confident that Christ will continue to preserve and expand his gospel reign even in the midst of dark times.

Presbyterian Church Government

The Ordination of Elders in a Scottish Kirk, by John Lorimer

If someone asked me to define Presbyterianism, I would point to our doctrinal standards (the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and perhaps list a few notable distinctives like a belief in God's sovereignty in history and salvation, the unity of the Old and New Testaments in terms of covenant theology, and its distinctive form of church government. But it is the last of these, church government, which provides the origin of the word "presbyterian."

The word "presbyterian" comes from the Greek word for elder (πρεσβύτερος). The term began to be used back when the major divisions among English-speaking denominations were defined by church government. On the one hand there was the Church of England with its episcopal system (the word "episcopal" come from the word for bishop, ἐπίσκοπος). In that system, the churches in a region were governed by an individual, the bishop. On the other hand you had congregational churches which were independent local churches governed largely by congregational vote. Presbyterian churches, though, were governed by a plurality of elders, both in the local church and on a regional level.

In the Presbyterian system, the congregation is led and governed by a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23), who along with deacons are elected by the congregation and ordained by other elders (Acts 6:1-6, 14:23, 1 Tim. 4:14). These elders also meet with the elders of other churches to lead and govern the church on regional and denominational levels (Acts 15). The assembly of elders in a local church we call a session, the regional assembly we call the presbytery, and the denominational assembly we call the general assembly. As the Scripture citations above indicate, we adopt this form of government because it is what Christ and the apostles appointed for the church. The Bible does not appoint all the details of how this system operates, leaving some room for flexibility where wisdom and prudence must dictate. Yet, it does describe these basic principles.

Biblically speaking, elders can also be called overseers and shepherds (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-4). While all elders are equal in authority, there is a difference between what we call “ruling elders” and what we usually call “teaching elders” or “ministers of the word.” These teaching elders are those elders “who labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). They are are called to preach the gospel, and to do so as their life calling (1 Cor. 9). And as the sacraments are signs and seals of the gospel, they are administered by preachers of the gospel. Like teaching elders, ruling elders are church shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4) who join in the care and oversight of the congregation, but they are not preachers and they usually make their living in another way. The ruling elders are representatives of the people, like the elders of the people who joined with the ministers of the world in the government of the old covenant church (Ex. 4:29, Num. 11:16, Matt. 26:3). Ruling elders may seem to be laymen since they usually do not have a seminary degree and are not part of a paid staff, but ruling elders are ordained officers of the church and serve on the ruling bodies of the local, regional, and denominational church.

We also believe deacons fulfill an important office in the church (Acts 6:1-7). They oversee and administer the mercy ministry of the church, helping those in need and coordinating the efforts of the congregation to that end. 

In this form of government, both church members and church officers are held accountable. No individual governs by himself. If things go wrong on a local level, there is the ability to appeal to the regional presbytery (and the general assembly, if necessary). This connection between local churches not only helps coordinate church discipline and settle doctrinal controversies, but it also helps coordinate and strengthen efforts like home and foreign missions, Christian education, and diaconal assistance. It is not foolproof or infallible - no system of government can save a church on its own - but it is a wise system, established by our wise Lord, for the good of His people. As Ephesians 4:7-16 teaches, Christ gave His church its leaders to strengthen the body so that it may attain to "the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Eph. 4:13–14). May Christ bless what He has appointed and give His church shepherds that reflect Him, our chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

------------------------------

For more on this topic, you can read our Book of Church Order at this link and chapters 30 and 31 of the Westminster Confession at this link. 

Viewing the World as God's Creation

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith...who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”
1 Timothy 4:1-5

The truth that God is the Creator of this world has implications for us literally all over the place. Rather than rejecting marriage and certain foods, we can say that these earthly physical things are good. They have a purpose and definition from God. We are held responsible for our use of them. Our relation to the Creator is foundational to our relation to the world. If we are in rebellion to God, we will be frustrated in this world. We might then say with T.S. Eliot before his conversion:

“Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table.” 

But if we have been reconciled to the Creator as our Father, we look at the sunset as a glorious manifestation of His beauty for our enjoyment. We can receive it as it was intended to be received - with thanksgiving.

One of our Missouri sunsets

But from where does evil and suffering come? Unless we believe in the doctrine of creation, it will seem that suffering is natural to this world and that man is a victim. But believing that God created all things good, we see that evil is an intruder into the world, suffering being a result of this, and the responsibility for this is laid at our feet. Sin is not natural, but it became natural to us when we rebelled against God in Adam. Humanity’s relation to God, as covenant-keeper or covenant-breaker, determines the fate of the world. When humanity fell morally, the whole world was cursed. Evil is not nature’s fault. We can’t blame suffering on the fact that we are physical. Rather, our relation to God is central.

This leads us back to the creedal recounting of Christ’s life given in 1 Timothy 3:16, which immediately precedes 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (quoted above). Jesus did not save us from our flesh. He did not save us by forbidding things like food and marriage. Salvation is not defined as escape from creation. Rather, He saved us, body and soul, by becoming man and bearing the curse in His death. He restored our relationship with God. Humanity had become the source of the problem, therefore He created a new humanity. He rose again to new life and was taken up into glory. Those who participate in His work through faith are restored us to a life of godliness – a life that is just as human, but not under bondage to sin’s guilt and power.

This teaches us to see sin and suffering as invasive and unnatural. Christians learn to see their sin as repulsive and antithetical to their identity. We have died with Christ and have been raised with Him to new life, to a renewed creation, one which is alien to sin. We also groan with lament and expectation, knowing that suffering, death, and decay still abide in this world but will not be here forever. Yet we also can enjoy the goodness of creation that still exists. Marriage, food, work, art, and community can be pursued with joy. We have been restored to the good work of living in our Father’s world. Rather than being the out-of-tune instrument in the band, we have been repaired to join back in the song of creation. In other words, Jesus “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). Good doctrine leads us back to our callings in the world. God’s story leads us to godliness. Saturating in this truth should make it more and more natural to serve our Creator in all of life with thanksgiving for all He has given us.

Contentment and Generosity

I finished a sermon series on Paul's letter to the Philippians this past Lord's Day (you can listen to the series here). One point I noticed at the end of this letter was how Paul ended by highlighting both contentment and generosity.

Paul notes that he received their gift with joy, but not because he was discontent and desperate until he received it. Rather, he had learned to be content in whatever situation (4:10-13). And since Paul had just exhorted the Philippians to imitate him (3:17, 4:9), Paul intends for his reader to practice this contentment as well. But at this point, his readers could have wondered, "should we have sent this gift? If Paul was content, we could have saved ourselves the trouble and kept the gift."

Valuing contentment without also valuing generosity could leave you thinking that you don’t need to help others - they just need to be content. If they are content like they should be, why should I send help?

Paul correct this false inference: "Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble" (4:14). In fact, he notes that this generosity contributed to their own credit (4:17) and that it was a "a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God" (4:18). This gift was an expression of the partnership they had with him (4:15). It gave him joy (4:10).

When God's people exercise both contentment and generosity, they steer clear of the temptations of envy, greed, and selfishness and learn to live in unity and love. Both of these traits depend upon a trust in God found in the gospel. Contentment is only possible "through him who strengthens me" (4:13), and generosity is motivated by its value in the sight of God and the assurance that God "will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (4:19). The peace of God comes to us as individuals and as a community when we turn from trust in our self and our stuff unto trust in God through Christ, leading us to both contentment and generosity.