Hudsonville Protestant Reformed Church

5101 Beechtree

Hudsonville, Michigan 49426
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org

Vol. 8, No. 3

 

Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org

Contents:

Our Resurrection
God's Covenantal Promise
Does Scripture Condemn Polygamy?

Our Resurrection

Revelation 20:5 speaks of a "first resurrection" implying a second and perhaps others. It is this passage, therefore, more than any other, which is used to support the teaching that there will be more than one resurrection of the body before the end of time. Indeed, Premillennialism teaches two resurrections and Dispensationalism three or four.

Premillennialism, for example, teaches a resurrection of saints before its expected future millennium and another general resurrection at the end of the world, the two separated, therefore, by 1000 years of history. Those who are raised at the beginning of the millennium, they say, both OT and NT saints, will reign with Christ on earth 1000 years.

We believe that Scripture teaches only one general resurrection of the dead, and that at the end of the world. Then all shall be raised to stand before God in judgment and to receive in the body the reward either of grace or works. This, we are certain, is the clear teaching of Scripture in such passages as John 5:28-29 (note the word "all") and Acts 24:15 (notice the teaching that there is one resurrection of the just and unjust).

Notice, too, that in John 6 Jesus four times states that the resurrection of believers takes place at the last day, not 1000 years before (vss. 39, 40, 44, 54). That phrase, "last day" in Scripture always refers to the very end of something (cf. Jn. 11:24; 12:48; 7:37).

What, then, are the first and second resurrections of Revelation 20? We believe that the first resurrection is that of souls, when they are taken to be with Christ after death and reign with Him in that disembodied state until the end of the world when their bodies are raised in the second resurrection. There are a number of reasons we believe this.

First, Revelation 20:4 actually speaks of "souls." It is interesting, to say the least, that the Premillennialists and Dispensationalists who insist so strongly on a strictly literal interpretation of Revelation 20 are forced in defense of their views of the resurrection to say that these "souls" are in fact complete persons, whose bodies are raised 1000 years before the end and who then reign with Christ in their resurrection bodies on earth for 1000 years.

It is true that the word "souls" is used in Scripture to denote complete persons (Gen. 2:7; 46:26-27), but in every such case the word "person(s)" can simply be substituted for the word "soul(s)" (our readers can check this for themselves). That is not possible in Revelation 20. It makes no sense to read Revelation 20:4, "and I saw the persons of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus."

Second, we would point out that Revelation 20 also speaks of two deaths. (cf. vs. 14). The second death is not a physical death, a death of the body, but of the soul. Why then should both resurrections be resurrections of the body?

Third, we would remind our readers of all those passages that speak of the new life of the soul in terms of a resurrection (Col. 2:12; Eph. 2:5; Rom. 6:13; Jn. 11:25-26; 5:24-25). Why then should it be thought strange that the receiving of the souls of believers by Christ at death be described as a resurrection in Revelation 20?

We believe, then, in one coming of Christ, one resurrection, and one hope. Rev. Ronald Hanko

God's Covenantal Promise (1)

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. - Acts 2:38-39.

Many of our readers send in texts without any attached comments or questions. While this is appreciated because it gives me opportunity to talk about texts one would not ordinarily discuss, it also has its problems. One is not always sure why a particular text was sent in. Perhaps a reader did not understand some part of it. Then again, a reader may want to point to a given text as "proof" for a position different from mine. And it is not impossible, I think, for readers to send in a text because he or she thinks it is of sufficient importance that the truth of it ought to be call to the attention of a wider audience.

Whatever the reason may be, I run the risk of missing the point which a reader had in mind when he or she sent in the text. I hope, if this should be the case, that a disappointed reader will write again and give the reason for sending in that particular text.

Having said all that, I want now to make some remarks about this important text in Acts 2, which one of our readers sent in. It is one of the New Testament texts which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Christ's will for the church is that infants of believers be baptized; and that failure to do so is disobedience to the will of Christ.

The first point of the text that needs to be noted is the fact that it is the conclusion of Peter's remarkable Pentecostal sermon. It is, if I may put it that way, the "application" of a sermon which explained to the people the meaning of the outpouring of the Spirit.

The audience were Jews and proselytes (v. 10). They were steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures. They were, in the deepest and most profound sense of the word, a covenant-conscious people. They were covenant-conscious in a deeper way than we are oftentimes, although we ought to be even more covenant-conscious than they were. They knew thoroughly and completely the fact that the truth of God's covenant was the one great theme of all the Old Testament Scriptures. They knew that Christ could come only because of a God faithful to His covenant. They understood that believing Israel, living in the hope of Christ's coming, rejoiced in the fact that they were God's covenant people and that they were God's means to bring forth the seed of the covenant, Christ.

All their thinking was in terms of the covenant, and especially the fact that God established His covenant in the line of generations, i.e., with believers and their seed. I belabor this point because from the point of view every person in Peter's audience not only knew exactly what Peter was talking about when he spoke of "the promise to you and your children" but they all understood full well that this was exactly what the OT was always talking about, and that all that had not change with the coming of Christ.

The second point that needs emphasis is the fact that Peter is answering a query that came from the people, a query recorded in v. 37, and that arose out of the fact that the people were pricked in their hearts.

Peter's sermon, as is always true of the preaching of the gospel, was the means God used to bring His people to the consciousness of their sin and of their just judgment before God. Out of their distress, they asked Peter and the apostles, "What shall we do?"

They did not mean, of course, what works of merit can we now perform in order to placate an angry God and secure, perhaps, some favor from Him. They meant: "We justly deserve God's wrath for we have crucified the promised Messiah, Him Whom we claimed to be the object of our hope. What shall now become of us? Is there no hope?"

In answer to that anxious and troubled query Peter responded: "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."

What a remarkable answer!

It was really the whole gospel which had already been preached in the old dispensation when the prophets had called the people to repentance; and it had been the very heart of the ministry of John the Baptist. Repent! That was what God had always demanded, and still demands.

But now repentance had to be a confession of the sin of crucifying the Christ! The greatest, most terrible sin of all, would be forgiven by repentance! Nothing more. But also nothing less. Sorrow for sin. A heartfelt confession of its terrible wrongness. Still it was true that a broken spirit and a contrite heart God would not despise.

Such repentance would bring forgiveness: "Repent…for the forgiveness of sins." Even nailing Christ to the cross would be forgiven in the way of repentance.

Why? Well, simply because Christ Himself had suffered and died to pay for all sin, even the sin of the ages, the sin of crucifying the Son of God.

These were Peter's astounding words.

But we shall have to continue our discussion of this text. Prof. H. Hanko

Does Scripture Condemn Polygamy?

Our question for this issue is both historical and doctrinal: "I have read that prominent reformers such as Luther, Bucer and Melancthon approved of a polygamous marriage by Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. And I have come across an internet page that argues it is wrong for Christian missionaries to ban polygamy. Why do so many Christians teach that polygamy is wrong if Luther thought it was allowed? Is there any proof in the Bible one way or the other?"

First, the matter of Luther and Philip of Hesse. To say that the three Reformers named approved of polygamy is not entirely correct. They did advise Philip to take a second wife in secret rather than to divorce and remarry. When this advice became public knowledge, all of Christendom was scandalized and Melancthon, who had originally approved, was so overcome with remorse that he became dangerously ill.

No excuse can be made for such behavior in the part of these leaders. All the Reformers, Calvin included, had unbiblical views of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Their views on divorce and remarriage are not the subject of this article, but are the reason why they could go so far astray as these three did in their advice to Philip.

As far as bigamy or polygamy is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is condemned by Scripture. This is the universal testimony of the church, and Luther, Melancthon and Bucher's attempts at secrecy in the matter of Philip of Hesse indicate that they knew better than they advised.

The clearest evidence in Scripture against polygamy is to be found in Matthew 19:5-6 which not only teaches that marriage is one man and one woman for life, but teaches also that it was so from the beginning. This passage leaves no doubt, therefore, that polygamy was wrong even in the Old Testament.

That it was wrong also in the Old Testament is evident, not from any explicit command forbidding it, but from the several facts: (1) that it was introduced by godless Lamech (Gen. 4:19); and (2) that those of God's people who committed the sin suffered the consequences of it, sometimes all their lives. Witness the brotherly strife that nearly destroyed the families of Jacob and David, and the idolatry of Solomon.

Other New Testament passages also condemn the practice. Most commentators agree that I Timothy 3:2 has to do with polygamy. It forbids the ordination of men who have been involved in such a practice, and important principle of foreign missions. Nor, we should add, does the fact that it is specifically forbidden of elders mean that it is permitted to others. Finally, all the passages which speak of marriage, speak always of one husband or wife, not many (Rom. 7:1-3; I Cor. 7:10-16; Eph. 5:22-33).

Most conclusive, however, is the fact that marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and His church (Eph. 5:32). If this is the case, then it ought to be evident to us that our behavior in marriage is always to be patterned on Christ's behavior in relation to the church. In this case, the rule is that Christ has only one bride-one church.

Knowing by grace something of that relationship between Christ and His beloved church, we have even less excuse in these New Testament times for abusing marriage, and especially for such gross abuse as taking more than one wife or approving of such actions. Let us follow Christ's great example in every aspect of marriage. Rev. Ronald Hanko