Vol. 81; No. 6; December 15, 2004
One-year's trial
subscription1/2 price!!
EDITORIAL POLICY
Every editor is solely responsible
for the contents of his own articles. Contributions of general interest from our readers
and questions for "The Reader Asks" department are
welcome. Contributions will be
limited to approximately 300 words and must be neatly written or typewritten, and must be
signed. Copy deadlines are the first and fifteenth of the month. All communications
relative to the contents should be sent to the editorial office.
REPRINT POLICY
Permission
is hereby granted for the reprinting of articles in our magazine by other publications,
provided: a) that such reprinted articles are reproduced in full; b) that proper
acknowledgment is made; c) that a copy of the periodical in which such reprint appears is
sent to our editorial office.
SUBSCRIPTION POLICY
Subscription
price: $17.00 per year in the US., US $20.00 elsewhere. Unless a definite request for
discontinuance is received, it is assumed that the subscriber wishes the subscription to
continue, and he will be billed for renewal. If you have a change of address, please
notify the Business Office as early as possible in order to avoid the inconvenience of
interrupted delivery. Include your Zip or Postal Code.
BOUND VOLUMES
The
Business Office will accept standing orders for bound copies of the current volume. Such
orders are mailed as soon as possible after completion of a volume year.
l6mm microfilm, 35mm microfilm and 105mm
microfiche, and article copies are available through University Microfilms international.
For new subscribers in the United States to the Standard Bearer, there is a special offer: a ½ price subscription for one year--$8.50. Those in other countries can write for special rates as well to: The Standard Bearer, P.O. Box 603, Grandville, MI 49468-0603 or e-mail Mr. Don Doezema.
Each issue of the Standard Bearer is available on cassette tape for those who are blind, or who for some other reason would like to be able to listen to a reading of the SB. This is an excellent ministry of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church. The reader is Ken Rietema of Southeast Church. Anyone desiring this service regularly should write:
Southeast PRC
1535 Cambridge Ave. S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506.
Meditation - Rev. Rodney Miersma
Editorial - Prof. Russell Dykstra
All Around Us Rev. Rodney Kleyn
Day of Shadows George M. Ophoff
Search the Scriptures Rev. Ronald Hanko
Marking the Bulwarks of Zion Prof. Herman Hanko
Ministering to the Saints -- Rev. Douglas Kuiper
When Thou Sittest in Thine House Rev Wilbur Bruinsma
Understanding the Times Mr Calvin Kalsbeek
News From Our Churches Mr. Benjamin Wigger
Rev. Miersma is a missionary of the Protestant Reformed Churches, currently serving in Ghana, West Africa.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem
of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ, born
King of the Jews, far transcends the limits of the Jewish nation. While the carnal Jews do not receive Him, the
called of God come from afar, from the Gentiles, and acknowledge Him as their God and
King. Of this coming of the Gentiles we have
the firstfruits and prophecy in the incident of the wise men coming to visit the Babe of
Bethlehem.
According to tradition the wise men were three in number and were kings. It is even pointed out from what land they came,
the Orient. However, this is all a matter of
conjecture. The fact of the matter is that
we do not know their number and they were not kings.
The Scriptures call them wise men, who in the east were quite distinct from the
rulers of the Gentiles.
Several things we can determine. They
were Gentiles who came to Jerusalem from a heathen country.
They were magi who occupied their time by studying the book of creation, paying
special attention to the starry heavens. Somehow
they had come into contact with the revelation that God had given to Israel, for they knew
of the expectation of the Jews with respect to the Messiah. Their definite language
reveals this when they ask, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? Such knowledge cannot be learned from the
revelation of God in creation. The magi must
have come into contact with the Old Testament Scriptures.
This is possible, for Jews had not only been carried away into captivity in
Babylon, but were dispersed over the whole world. In
addition, the Old Testament had been translated into the Greek language, which was the
universal language at the time.
Quite some time must have elapsed before they made their visit, for immediately
after they left Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary, with the Babe, fled to Egypt. That implies that the presentation at the temple
after the forty days of purification had already taken place. Simeon and Anna in their old age had seen their
Savior. Joseph and Mary were now living in a
house. That some time had elapsed we also
gather from the fact that when Herod realized that he was mocked of the wise men, he set
the age limit of those to be killed at two years. This
lapse of time is all proper, for salvation begins with Israel, with the church, in order
then to include the Gentiles also.
They had seen His star. This is the
reason why they made the long journey to Jerusalem. Although
many ideas have been set forth to explain the star, none of them fit our text. The magi had seen this star in its rising in the
east where they lived. This induced them to
go to Jerusalem in quest of the born King of the Jews.
While on their journey they did not see the star, but it reappeared when they left
Jerusalem for Bethlehem. Verse 9 reads,
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in
the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
Indeed, unique and miraculous! Unique
in that it occurred only once, at our Saviors birth.
It had followed a special course in the heavens for the purpose of being a sign of
the birth of Christ. It had been predestined
for this special purpose.
Miraculous! It served the purpose of
grace in a special manner, and was a special symbol of the bright and morning star. It is evident that the wise men beheld in this
star a sign of the coming of the King of the Jews. No
doubt this revelation came to them through the Old Testament Scriptures, which speak of
Israel as the stars in multitude, and of the star that would arise in Jacob, and of the
expectation of the Jews that a special star would announce His coming. The wise men must
also have received special assurance from God that they would see His star, and a special
revelation through the Spirit that this was the star.
To Jerusalem therefore they go. Surely
He that is born King of the Jews will be found in the city of the kings. Disappointed they must have been when they
arrived, for the city showed no interest in their King, or knowledge that such a birth had
taken place.
Even though it was natural for the wise men to go to Jerusalem, God had a deeper
reason for leading them to Jerusalem rather than to Bethlehem. This reason is threefold. First, the visit to Jerusalem had to impress upon
their minds that Jesus was no king of the world. That
is why He was not born in a palace, but in a stable, and now lived in a lowly dwelling in
Bethlehem. Secondly, it was Gods
purpose that they visit Herod, who was now king. The
visit would induce the occupant of the throne of David to try to kill the born King of the
Jews. Already Christ was being persecuted by
the power of the world. Thirdly, it was the
divine purpose to reveal that Christ came to His own, but His own received Him not.
Scribes and Pharisees hardened their hearts. Seeing
they see not; hearing they hear not. Israel
is ripe for being rejected and cast out by God.
The arrival of the magi had a profound effect on Herod. We read in verse 3 that he was troubled. When Herod the king had heard these things,
he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Herod
could only look upon the Christ child as a rival to him for the throne. He therefore attempted to find Him and kill Him,
as he had done before to many others who he thought posed a threat to his kingship.
However, this is not simply history; this is also biblical prophecy. Herods hatred and his attempt to kill the
Lord is prophetic of the opposition of the world power against Christ and His people. This opposition and persecution shall culminate in
the Antichrist. The reason is that the
kingdom of Christ is not of this world. He
will not antagonize the kingdoms of this world by an arm of flesh, as Herod suspected. To the contrary, the kingdom of Christ is a
spiritual kingdom. He will overcome the
kingdoms of this world by a spiritual power. He
will be King of kings, and Lord of lords! He
will condemn the world and the ideals of world power and establish His eternal kingdom of
righteousness and peace.
The arrival of the wise men also had its effect on all Jerusalem. They too were troubled. We are not talking now about the spiritual babes
such as Simeon, Anna, the shepherds, and the many others who believed, but of carnal
Jerusalem as represented in the Scribes and Pharisees.
They had heard many rumors about His birth in Bethlehem, which was now announced to
them through the mouths of these Gentiles from afar.
When asked by Herod where the Christ would be born, they were able to give it. They knew the Scriptures. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of
Judæa: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,
art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that
shall rule my people Israel (vv. 5, 6).
Thus, they serve to bring the Word to the Gentiles, but they themselves perish. Knowing the Scriptures and proclaiming them to
others, they are not interested and do not go to Bethlehem, nor even ask the wise men to
report to them what they had seen. There is
in their heart no seeking after the righteousness of the kingdom of God. The coming of the Messiah can bring for them
nothing but trouble and judgment.
The reaction of Herod and the Scribes and Pharisees had its effect on the wise men. No doubt at first they were disappointed. They had come to see and to worship the hope of
Israel, expecting to see Jerusalem rejoicing because the King was born. Instead they find troubled hearts and ignorance of
what had happened; knowledge of Scripture, but lack of spiritual interest.
However, they also had joy in their hearts. Undoubtedly
the hope of Israel had been born. Therefore
they did not leave for their own country but followed the directions and started for
Bethlehem. And the Lord comforted them. The star that they had seen in the east appeared
again and led them to Bethlehem, even to the very house.
We read that they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
A strong and profound faith they expressed. They
had faith, the evidence of things not seen. The
Christ child was indeed Immanuel, God with us, born King of Israel, destined to rule over
all things. But none of this could they see
with the natural eye. All they could see was
a lowly babe, weak and helpless, like all other babes. Yet,
they fell down and worshiped and gave Him their gifts as an expression of their adoration.
Thus, in these Gentiles the prophecy of
Isaiah 2:2, 3
was realized. And it shall come to pass in the last days,
that the mountain of the Lords house
shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills;
and all nations shall flow unto it. And many
people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will
teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the
law, and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem.
To these Gentiles we also belong. Even
with the first weak beginnings of our Saviors earthly life, there is a foretokening
of the wide embrace of that kingdom He came to establish.
Here we have the first fulfilling of the ancient prophecies that had foretold that
the Gentiles should come to this light, and kings to the brightness of its rising; that
all they from Sheba should come, bringing gold and incense. These wise men were the earliest ambassadors from
heathen lands, the first shadowy precursors of that great company to be gathered in from
the east and west, north and south, to sit down with Abraham in the kingdom of the just. In these persons, and in their act, the Gentile
world gave an early welcome to the Redeemer, and hastened to lay its tribute at His feet.
In fact, they were our representatives at Bethlehem, making for us the first
expression of our faith, the first offer of our allegiance.
In our name they worshiped and gave the best and richest things they had. Let us also go to Bethlehem and worship our King. Let us not come with idle or empty hand, nor
grudge the richest thing that it can hold, nor the best service it can render. This is true thankfulness for the great salvation
that He has wrought.
The spring edition of
the biannual magazine Origins has an article about movies entitled, To Go or
Not To Go (To The Movies). Origins
is the historical magazine of the archives of Calvin College and Seminary. It is a fascinating magazine for those who enjoy
reading about the olden days lives and institutions in the Reformed
churches in general, and more specifically in the Christian Reformed Church. Most of the articles consist of well-researched
and well-written historical material.
Of late, Origins has been printing articles that include an editorial
element. Such is the case in the article on
movies by Rev. Harry Boonstra, minister emeritus in the CRC.
Rev. Boonstra recounts the varying reactions to movies over the years in the
Reformed church world. He traces this history
in the Reformed Church of America (RCA), the Christian Reformed Church (CR), and the
Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). A brief
synopsis follows.
In the RCA, while the church paper (The Church Herald) condemned
Hollywoods moving pictures, the RCA did not do so officially. Synods warned, but did not forbid. Boonstras assessment is that the RCA was
already adapted to the American culture. Thus,
acceptance of movies came relatively early in the RCA, so long as one watched them
with discrimination, with Christian sensitivity and judgment.
The Christian Reformed Church started out condemning movies in no uncertain terms. Already in 1913, an editorial in the Banner
observed that members of the CRC were allowing their children to attend the nickel
theater, and expressed the belief that it is more than time to open the eyes of our
people
for the very pernicious character of most of the scenes thrown on the
screen. By and large, the Banner
would continue to hold this anti-movie stance for some fifty years.
The Christian Reformed Church condemned movie attendance at the synodical level in
1928 and 1951, even adding the sobering warning that persistence in this activity should
result, ultimately, in discipline. This stand
was reversed in the CRC in 1966 with the adoption of the report The Film Arts and
the Church. While acknowledging that
movies contained much that is false, immoral, and perverse, the report pointed out that
the same is true of current magazines, literature, and the radio. The church was exhorted to claim and restore
movies as part of the cultural mandate.
The Banner began publishing movie reviews in 1975. Any objections raised were rebutted with arguments
that boiled down to the two words, common grace.
Herman Hoeksemas prophecy with regard to movies in the CRC was
fulfilled.
Boonstra then turns to the last holdout the PRC. He documents the fact that
movies have been condemned in the PRC from its earliest history, citing the Standard
Bearer, pamphlets, and speeches. Boonstra
notes, too, that the PRCs condemnation of movies has an additional element not found
in either the RCA or the CRC, namely, that drama itself is to be condemned, regardless of
the content of the particular movie or play.
Boonstra focuses on what he calls the widening gap between preaching and
practice in the PRC. He observes that
the PRC have preached against common grace for over 75 years and still the lure of
the film continues and watching movies increases.
The purpose of this editorial is not to answer Rev. Boonstra. Whatever his motives may be for writing his
article, that is not our concern.
Nonetheless, the article is a sobering reminder to the Protestant Reformed
Churches, as well as to the broader church world, of the pervasive character of common
grace. Common grace is the ground that allows
the discriminating Christian to view all sorts of filth, to soak up the
blasphemy, to drink up the hedonism, and vicariously to experience fornication, stealing,
murder wanton or vengeful, lying, Sabbath desecration, and rebellion. Common grace opened the floodgates of the CRC to
what the Banner editor H. J. Kuyper in 1947 recognized as the open sewer in
the city of Amusement from which men and women of perverted tastes seek to satisfy their
thirst for pleasure.
Recognizing what horrible evils common grace spawns, our prayer is that God will
grant the Standard Bearer, as well as faithful preachers everywhere, the strength
to repudiate, and boldly to condemn the pernicious false doctrine of common grace.
The article also serves as a notice to Reformed churches of the pervasive evil of
drama in the lives of altogether too many of Gods people. That includes members of the Protestant Reformed
Churches in America.
I could wish that Boonstras portrayal of the use of drama in the PRC could be
rejected out of hand. I fear that it cannot
be. Drama is a serious problem. He cites evidence from articles and pamphlets
published within the PRC, and his own personal experience.
It grieves me that I could add to the evidence from what I have heard.
However, the problem must not be overstated. Drama
is not a problem in every Protestant Reformed home. There
are homes where the evils and temptations of drama are so clearly recognized that no
television set is allowed, nor even desired. There
are homes, many homes, where the television is strictly controlled and drama is not viewed
on the screen. There are VCRs (and DVDs) that
have never run a drama, but rather films displaying the glories of Gods creation, as
well as informative or edifying speeches. There
are covenant young people in the Protestant Reformed Churches who by Gods grace
resist successfully the pressure to visit a theater or attend a video party.
But on the whole, it must be admitted, Boonstra is correct. Attending/renting movies and watching televised
drama are altogether too commonplace in many Protestant Reformed families.
If Boonstras description is accurate, his solution is unacceptable. Though not specifically stated, the thrust of the
article is that the PRC ought to stop
condemning common grace and end the blanket condemnation of the worlds movies and of
drama itself. This is the only way that the
PRC can avoid being hypocritical, since Protestant Reformed people are watching
television, renting movies, and going to theaters.
His solution is that the churchs teaching be determined by the practice
of the members. The Origins article
demonstrates that the CRCs movie policy changed in exactly that way. A survey of the members of the CRC revealed that
many members, especially of the youth, were attending movies. However, the official stand of the denomination
prohibited movie attendance. Synod resolved
the conflict by voting to abolish the condemnation of movies.
I have a contrary solution, which I will set forth at a later time. But let it be firmly established that the
churchs teaching and preaching may be governed only by the Bible, not by common
practice. It is an established Reformed
conviction that Scripture is the only rule for faith and life, that is, what one believes,
and how he lives. Admittedly, those two
things (belief and practice) ought not be in conflict.
Obviously, believers sin. They fall
short of the life that they confess Gods Word requires of them. However, if the church teaches the Word of God
faithfully, and that teaching is simply ignored in practice, this is a dangerous
situation. It cannot last.
It is my settled conviction that to go or not to go to the movies is not a question
which a believer need deliberate. Scriptures
teaching on sanctification alone proves that drama ought to have no place in the life of a
follower of Christ. The sins portrayed in
movies rule out the worlds drama for the Christian.
That aspect will be discussed, the Lord willing, in a subsequent issue.
The other point we hope to demonstrate is that drama per se is wrong. This idea may be new for those who are unfamiliar
with the PRC. It is not, however, anything
new in the PRC. In the third volume of the Standard
Bearer, Herman Hoeksema insists that the movie and the theater are to be
condemned principally. There is no good
movie. A Christian theater and a Christian
movie are a contradiction in terms.
Before going any further, it is necessary to say what we mean by drama. Drama is the acting out of a story by means of
dialogue and action as in real life. One sees
immediately that there is an aspect of this discussion that involves Christian liberty. To be clear, it is not a matter of Christian
liberty as to whether or not the Christian may enjoy sin.
That should be obvious. Rather the
question that involves Christian liberty is this When does mimicking become drama? When a little boy begins to hammer some nails into
a board, thus imitating his dad is that drama?
When two men get up at a wedding reception and tell jokes together as they pretend
to be a baseball player and a news reporter is that drama? When a group plans a three-minute skit, practices
it twice, and gives it at a dinner party is that drama? So one can talk about a first grade play, and a
high school play, and so on, all the way to the Broadway plays and the Hollywood movies. There are different levels of impersonation in
these activities. Somewhere in that spectrum,
one draws a line and says: As far as I am
concerned, drama begins here.
I contend that the heart of drama is that the actor endeavors to suppress his own
God-given personality in order to assume that of another.
There are those who argue that drama does not necessarily require such an activity. However, it is clear that a good actor seeks to
think, feel, act, and speak like his assumed character.
The more successful the effort, the more convincing the result, and the more
certainty of great public acclaim for the performance.
The better actors will go to great lengths to accomplish this. I read some time ago of an acclaimed actor who put
on forty pounds in order to act out the part of a boxer, because, said he, he wanted to
feel like a boxer. It is lately reported that
an actress added thirty pounds to her weight in order to play the part of a clumsy
character in a movie. Rave reviews of a
recently released movie about a blind singer declare that the actor does more than mimic
his character, he becomes the legendary musician. To prepare for his role, the actor wore
prosthetics over his eyes for entire days to understand how it feels not to have sight.
Years ago (March 3, 1980), Time magazine did an extensive report on a
notable movie star named Peter Sellers. The
article demonstrates that his stellar acting was due to his ability to assume the
personality of his assigned character. For
him, it all revolved around the voice. Said
Sellers, Once I had the voice, I suddenly found that I was doing what the character
would do, so I did not have to think about it. The
character did it for me. The report
revealed the dreadful truth about the man after so many different acting rolls, his
own personality was virtually obliterated. The
interview revealed, wrote the reporter, his (Sellers) profound fear that the
real Peter Sellers, at 54, is virtually a cipher, and that he has no personality. This report is more than a profoundly sad account. On the one hand, it demonstrates that the
actors goal is to adopt the personality of his character. The successful actor can do it. On the other hand,
it demonstrates the destructive power of this sinful activity.
The personality of a man is what makes him unique.
It is Gods stamp on the individual that makes him different from every other
human being on the earth right down to the print of his fingers. There are not two persons identical in all the
world. Deliberately to override ones
personality, and adopt another, I consider to be rebellion against the Creator. I am fearfully and wonderfully made, we
confess with the psalmist. Part of that
wonder of our creation is that God unites body and soul, perfectly fit together, and then
presses upon that living being the one personality that is perfectly made for it. Overriding that personality in superb acting
results in the devastation apparent in the mind of a Peter Sellers.
There are those who cannot agree that the essence of good acting is suppressing
ones own personality in order to assume another.
I will freely admit that I was not always so convinced, as I now am. Yet, there is another dimension to drama, namely,
that drama always includes acting out sin. That
should seal the question for the believer. More
on this next time.
Rev. Kleyn is pastor
of Trinity Protestant Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan.
all that live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution
(II Tim. 3:12).
In our intercessory prayers we often remember before God Christians being persecuted. In these prayers we are not, I hope, just praying
for ourselves and those we know who must endure scorn for their faith, but we are praying
especially for those suffering physical persecution imprisonment, hunger, torture,
beatings, death, etc. Usually, we are not
aware personally of such saints, and so we are praying with a certain lack of
understanding.
In my recent reading in a variety of religious periodicals, I have been struck by
the reality and severity of the persecution of Christians in some parts of the world. The persecution comes from oppressive governments
and other non-Christian religious groups who through violence seek to destroy
Christianity.
China is an example of the first form of persecution an oppressive
government. In a recent Christian Renewal
article (October 6, 2004), the following item of News appeared under the heading
Chinese Torture Continues.
Allie Martin, Agape Press The head of the U.S. Department of States Office of International Religious Freedom says China continues to oppress Christians and other religious groups, and that is why the Communist nation remains on the departments list of countries of particular concern. The release of the sixth annual State Department Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom cited a number of repeat offenders on its list of governments that violate citizens basic human right to religious liberty. China is one of five nations that have been among those offending nations for quite some time. John Hanford, Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, notes that the conditions reported in China warrant that regimes inclusion on the list of countries of particular concern. For years the Communist government in China has continuously engaged in the repressive treatment of Christians and other religious groups, Hanford explains. Protestants are forced to belong to the government-sanctioned church, he says, and if they dont and they try to meet in house churches, then they risk arrest and, in some severe cases, beatings and torture.
Of course, we dont ever hear about these severe cases from our
media, unless an American is the object of the persecutions. But I have another periodical that fills in some
of these details. In the November 2004 issue
of The Voice of the Martyrs, under the title Martyred in China, one
reads of two women who went to the market place of Pusdu Town, Tongzi County
and were arrested by the local PSB while they were distributing Bibles and other
gospel tracts. In the official arrest
document, both were accused of suspected spreading of rumor and disturbing the
social order. After their arrest
they were interrogated through the night of June 17th
and morning of June 18th. Then during the
evening of June 18th, Sister Jiangs village chief told her relatives she was
declared dead at the PSB office of Tongzi County, around 2:00 p.m., that day. Villagers affirm she was a strong, healthy
lady, without any medical problems. Pictures
show she was beaten and had her hair torn out. Her
fellow prisoner says she was kicked a lot, her shoes were torn off, and her hair was
pulled out. Family members who saw her
at the funeral home said that they saw much blood on her body and scars from
beatings on her legs and her neck. The
PSB would not return her personal belongings, including the clothes she was wearing during
the interrogation.
This, I have to believe, is just one instance among many. In fact, Presbyter Ji Jianhong, chairman of the
national committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant churches in
China (a government sanctioned organization), admits as much. When asked by Mark Galli of Christianity Today
(November 2004), about the persecution of Christians in China, he says on the one hand,
There is no persecution of Christians in China, and on the other hand,
Yes, some Christians get arrested, but not for their faith. They get arrested because they have broken some
law. It is not against the law to be a
Christian or to practice your faith.
No, Christianity is not against the law when you do it as the Communist Regime
stipulates. But you can be arrested for any
individual expressions of your faith, and the results of the arrests are persecution and
death for the faith.
Indonesia, and other countries with a large Muslim population, are increasingly
becoming difficult places for Christians to live and work in missions. In these countries Muslims target Christians by
destroying churches and going on killing rampages. Because
the population in Indonesia is 80% Muslim, and because the government is mostly Muslim,
these things are overlooked unless they cause some massive civil turmoil.
Reverend Yonson Dethan, a graduate of the Theological College of the Canadian
Reformed Churches and a minister in the Calvinistic Reformed Churches in West Timor, in a
lengthy article in The Reformed Perspective (October 2004) explains some of the
persecution going on in Indonesia. He writes,
If you go on the Internet and type in Poso persecution or Ambon persecution (Poso and Ambon are provinces of Indonesia, RK), then you can see and read how terrible the persecution is. We get some information in the newspapers here about it, but seeing it on the Internet was quite something; people were being slaughtered and pregnant women were being cut open and also a baby was, in front of her father, burned up by fire.
There is much more in the article: rape,
mass murders, church bombings, and more. All
this persecution comes for one thing; confessing Christ and gathering to worship Him. Would we be ready to suffer like this for our
faith?
Rev. Dethan nicely concludes his article this way,
We believe that through this persecution comes blessing from the Lord, and even a double blessing. For through it we believers are being tested or purified so that we may be built up for the glorification of Gods name. Persecution reminds us of the Word of God in Philippians 1:29, that we are granted not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him . Thus we conclude that persecution is good for testing our faith, for purification, for building us up and for the glorification of Gods name.
And that is our prayer for the persecuted.
On the home front there is a buildup towards a different kind of persecution. The media, Hollywood, politicians, and other
public figures are bending the mind of society into thinking that traditional Christian
values and teachings are of the same ilk as the Taliban mentality. The build-up, of course, is towards laws that
criminalize Christian values and teachings.
In the August 14, 2004 issue of World we read about some of this education
of the American mind. World editor,
Gene Edward Veith, reports on an unbelieving reporters surprise at the Christian
teaching concerning the last judgment.
When Nicholas Kristoff of The New York Times read the finale in the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, he was shocked to see what Christians believe about the last judgment.
In Glorious Appearing, Jesus returns and unbelievers are judged. Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins present their punishment in gruesome detail: Flesh dissolves, eyeballs melt, a fiery fissure opens up in the earth and swallows up the ungodly.
Mr. Kristoff reads all of this as violence against non-Christians, as monumental
intolerance that is no different than the mindset of Islamic terrorists. The view of Jesus returning to Earth to wipe
all non-Christians from the planet, Mr. Kristoff observes, is believed by millions
of Christians. Its disconcerting
to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.
Veith continues,
The Left Behind series is not the best representation of Christian theology (an understatement, RK). But Christians who disagree with Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins on eschatology and writing style are subject to the same criticism . In the current cultural climate, the belief that there is no salvation apart from Christ will be anathema.
Veith is correct. The media makes no
bones about labeling Christian teaching and lumping it with the terrorist mindset. Why? The
explanation is their own fear of the judgment. As Paul reasoned with Felix of judgment, he trembled
(Acts 24:25).
The judgment is the terror of the Lord
(II Cor. 5:10-11).
And so it is labeled
ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.
Veith goes on to show that the biblical teaching on the judgment has nothing to do
with ethnicity, but with sin, and particularly the sin of rejecting the gospel of Christ. Christianity, he points out, is not primarily
about punishment, but is a message of deliverance from punishment. This message, he says, will not
be popular, since the proclamation of forgiveness through Christ implies a sin that needs
to be atoned for. I dont need
forgiveness, many will say, I havent done anything wrong.
Because they do not want to hear about sin, they label and lump Christianity with
the terrorists.
And briefly something the politicians and media missed in the pre-election
campaigning and reporting.
Pollsters had focused on terrorism, Iraq and the economy as key issues in the run-up to Tuesdays election . But moral values was the single top issue cited by voters, and social and religious issues such as gay marriage, gun ownership, and abortion loomed large . CNNs analysis of the exit data showed that morality was cited as the number one concern by 22 percent of voters (Reuters, Nov. 3, 2004).
A surprise for the pollsters, the media, and the politicians!
A surprise for us? Or, an answer to
prayer?
.that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty
(I Tim. 2:2).
George Ophoff was Professor of Old
Testament Studies in the Protestant Reformed Seminary in its early days. Reprinted here, in edited form, are articles that
Ophoff wrote at that time for the Standard Bearer.
Previous article in this series: December
1, 2004.
Second principle of interpretation
Let us now consider another important principle of
interpretation. Reflecting again on the
examples of typical materials that we considered last time, we discover that not one of
the events, transactions, or persons used by the inspired writers as figures of the good
things under the gospel is of a sinful nature. Hence,
we conclude that events or persons of a sinful nature may not be regarded as figures of
things sacred and holy. This is never done
neither by Christ, nor by the inspired writers in general. Nevertheless, it is maintained by some that this
rule has its exceptions. It is claimed that
no one less than Christ can be said to have violated it, when He uttered the parable of the unrighteous judge (
Luke 18).
Let us see. There was in a city, so spake Christ,
...a judge which feared not God, nor regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
It is held by some that in this parable the unrighteous judge is represented as a
figure or image of God. Nothing, however, is
farther from the truth. The unrighteous
judge is, in a spiritual-ethical sense, the very opposite of God and may not, for that
reason, be regarded as Gods image or figure. This
unlikeness is one of the elements constituting the message of the parable. The ungodly judge hearkens unto the pleadings of
the widow. In doing so, he is being impelled
by selfish motives. Since God is righteous,
and since those who turn to Him are the elect, the beloved of God, we may be sure that
they do not turn unto God in vain. I
tell you that he will avenge them speedily.
Another parable to which the critics of the rule under consideration might turn for support is the parable of the crafty steward (
Luke 16).
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him of wasting his goods. And he called him and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? For my lord taketh away from me my stewardship; I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lords debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generations than the children of light.
Christ now gives the application,
And I say unto you, Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another mans, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Now it is held by some that the unjust steward, the representative of the children
of the world, is in this particular parable set forth as an image or type of that child of
the light who is wise and who is therefore engaged in making to himself friends of the
mammon of unrighteousness. But, again,
nothing is farther from the truth. Before
explaining the matter, it is best that we first attend to the rather obscure injunction of
our Lord, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness. The meaning is that the children of the light
should make their worldly goods bear them interest in heaven. This is done when these riches are placed in the
service of heaven instead of in the service of self.
Our possessions become our friends when we lay them at the feet of Christ, whose
property they are.
The unjust steward is the ungodly one who is very clever when it comes to
safeguarding his own interests with Gods riches.
Hence, we may not regard this one as an image or figure of the child of light. He is not, for he is darkness, and the children of
the light are light. And what concord
hath darkness with light? None whatsoever. There are, therefore, no points of convergence
between the two. The unjust steward is not a
type, nor may he be taken as an example. Hearken
then unto the message of the parable: The
ungodly one as a man of affairs is very wise. He
knows how to make Gods riches serve him to the very best advantage. Be ye wise as children of the light and see to it
that your riches bear you interest in heaven.
Third principle of interpretation
Another leading principle of interpretation is that the type can have but one basic
meaning. A self-evident truth, we would say. For the sum total of the typical events,
transactions, and persons in sacred history constitute a language that God was pleased to
use to convey information from His own consciousness into the consciousness of man. Now, every one is quite ready to admit that a
language consisting of words with divers meaning would occasion unheard of confusion in
that circle where the language was being spoken. The
word tree, let us say, would soon become obsolete if it were being used as a symbol of
three or four dissimilar things. The type,
then, as the word, can have but one meaning. In
other words, a type cannot possibly be a figure of two or more dissimilar events,
transactions, or persons.
Fairbairn reflects on this principle in his evaluation of the typical exegesis of
Classius and Taylor:
Classius makes the deluge to typify both the preservation of the faithful through baptism, and the destruction of the wicked in the day of the judgment; and the rule under which he adduces this example is that a type may be a figure of two, or even contrary things, though in different respects. In like manner, Taylor, taking the full liberty of such a canon, when interpreting the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea as a type of baptism, sees in that event, first the offering of Jesus Christ to their faith, through the sure and safe way to the celestial Canaan; and then this other truth, that by His merit and mediation He would carry them through all difficulties and dangers as deep as the bottom of the sea, unto eternal rest. In this specimen the Red Sea is viewed as representing at the same time, and in relation to the same persons, both the atoning blood of Christ and the outward trials of life. The other example is not so palpably incorrect, nor does it in fact go to the entire length which the rule it is designed to illustrate properly warrants; for the action of the waters in the deluge is considered by it in reference to different persons as well as in different respects. It is at fault, however, in making one event typical of two diverse and unconnected results.
In spite of the above criticism of Fairbairn, however, the typical exegesis of
Classius and Taylor is basically correct. It
has the sanction of Scripture. According to
the testimony of Holy Writ, the Red Sea is at once a type of the atoning blood of Christ
and of the trials of life. But to this must
be added in different respects. And
the above authors did not fail to make this addition.
There is that familiar passage in the first epistle to the Corinthians:
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
In this Scripture the waters of the Red Sea are represented as a symbol of the blood of
Christ. The other Scripture is found in
Isaiah 11:
And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry shod. And there shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.
There
is a plain allusion in this Scripture to the passage of the Israelites through the Red
Sea. Rivers and seas are here represented as
types of difficulties which stand between the elect sinner and salvation
difficulties insurmountable by man, yet overcome by Jehovah. Of such distressing obstacles the Red Sea was also
a type.
Classius erred, however, in maintaining that a single type may be a figure
of two, or even contrary things, though in different respects. It is certainly true that any thing or person
in sacred history may prefigure, in different respects, two dissimilar events under
the gospel. The Red Sea, from the point of
view of the cleansing properties of its waters, is a symbol of the atoning blood of
Christ. The event of the waters of the Red
Sea engulfing the obstinate Pharaoh and his hosts is a figure of the Christ vanquishing
the foes of His kingdom. But the Red Sea
would also have effectively obstructed Israels path had not Jehovah intervened. As such, this sea is also a type of the
difficulties encountered by the pilgrim journeying to the celestial city
difficulties which are overcome in that the Almighty God takes a hand. God makes a path for His people. The Red Sea, in these three respects, does serve
as a figure of three distinct events or series of events.
But it is not the case that the one type or figure has three meanings. Rather, we are confronted here with three types: (1) The baptizing of Israel by the waters of the
sea; (2) the drowning of Pharaoh by these same waters; (3) the passage of the Israelites
through this sea. On this one body of water
has been engraved, as it were, the images of three distinct yet related events or series
of events. The waters of the sea are indispensable to the three pictures.
There is yet one rule remaining to which we shall attend in a following article.
Rev. Hanko is pastor
in the Protestant Reformed Church of Lynden, Washington.
Previous article in this series: November 1, 2004.
The Third Prophecy (cont.)
2:11. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
Haggai is commanded
to go to the priests with a question concerning several points of law, the law of Moses. He asks the priests these questions because they
were the official interpreters and teachers of the law. This is especially clear from
Malachi 2:6, 7.
There we read:
The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
This particular question is not specifically answered in the law of Moses. There is, in other words, no specific verse or
verses in which the questions of Haggai are dealt with, but the answer could easily be
deduced from the teaching of the law regarding cleanness and uncleanness, especially in
personal matters, and the priests to whom Haggai brought his questions apparently had no
difficulty finding answers.
They answer these questions, however, not only as a matter of personal interest for
Haggai, or even for themselves, though the matter certainly concerned them also, but for
the benefit of the people who were doing the
work. That is clear from verse 14, where the
lesson from the law is applied to the people in the form of a rather sharp word of God
that concerns the personal holiness of the people in the work they were doing.
That Haggai addresses this matter of holiness does not mean that people had turned
away from God once again and were living very sinfully.
Of that there is no evidence in the text or in the other accounts of the work. In fact, the blessing that God promises in verses
15-19 is proof that God was pleased with them and with the work they were doing. Nevertheless, the matter of their holiness was so
important that it had to be addressed at the very beginning of the work.
12. If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine of oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
The two questions are very similar. The first concerns the meat of the sacrifices, especially of the sin offerings
(Lev. 6:25, 26)
that were offered in the temple. That meat is
called holy flesh by Haggai. That
meat was apparently carried at times by the priests in the skirts of their robes, perhaps
to the altar to be burned there, or from the altar to be eaten by the priests or the
people. In
instances where they were carrying the meat, Haggai asks if contact with the robe
in which they carried the meat would make other things holy. He mentions other food especially. In other words, if the robe brushed against other
food, would the holiness of the sacrificial meat be transferred to the items that were
touched by it or by the robe in which it was carried?
The priests were able to answer that question correctly with the simple answer, No.
Leviticus 6:27
indicates that
the garment itself or any other vessel in which the meat was carried would be holy. The rest of the priests answer is not
specifically given in the law, that the holiness would not be transferred from garment or
vessel to other things. They must have
deduced their answer from those passages in the law that indicated that the people, who
often ate the meat of the sacrifices, were not themselves necessarily made holy by the
holy food they ate. It was possible for them
to eat and to remain unholy.
Haggai is talking about ceremonial holiness, the holiness of things
that were set apart and kept separate for the worship of God. That ceremonial holiness, however, is a picture of
true spiritual holiness, for true holiness also means to be set apart for and dedicated to
the service and worship of God. Haggai, then,
is pointing out through this question and its answer that holiness is not transferred by
mere external contact with holy things.
The Jews often fell into that way of thinking.
They thought that because they had the temple and the sacrifices and the worship of
God there, and because they attended faithfully on those things, that they were different
and better than the nations around them. Nor
were the Jews unlike Christians today.
That is also a very important principle in the New Testament. It is a principle that applies to the bread and
wine of the Lords Supper and to the water of baptism.
It also applies, however, to any circumstances in which we have external contact
with holy things, worship, the reading and study of the Scriptures, prayer, church
membership, the hearing of the preaching. In
all of these circumstances we come into very close contact with holy things, but the
holiness of those things, which is the holiness of God Himself, is not transferred by mere
contact.
We must think of the holy flesh in terms of the sacrifice of Christ, which alone
redeems and sanctifies, of the Spirit of the living God, and of His own divine saving
power. These things are carried to us in the
preaching of the gospel, the sacraments, prayer, church membership, and all of the other
means that God uses to give His saving grace to His people, just as the holy flesh was
carried in the priests garments. The
holy things of God are wrapped in these things, and we come into contact with them only
through these wrappings.
The holiness of the things of God, their separateness, lends a certain holiness and
separateness to the external forms in which they are wrapped, but the holiness is not
further transferred by mere contact with those forms and wrappings. Hearing the preaching, attending on the worship of
God, being a member of the church, does not make someone holy. This first question and its answer, therefore, add
up to a warning against formalism and dead orthodoxy in worship and church membership
first of all.
The principle that is illustrated by this first question and answer applies in
other everyday circumstances and relationships of life.
In marriage between a believer and unbeliever, for example, the believer may have
no expectation that his own holiness will be transferred to the unbeliever simply by
virtue of the fact that they marry. Those who
sin by marrying unbelievers often justify what they do on the ground that their marrying
the unbeliever will have a good influence on the unbeliever, but that is a vain hope in
light of this Word of God. Holiness is not
transferred in that way.
We learn that same principle in the rearing of our children. Our own personal holiness and the holiness of
godly and pious family life are not automatically transferred to every child who is born
in a covenant home. Holiness does not come in
that way, no more than it did in the case that Haggai cites to the priests.
Holiness comes only as a gift of God purchased by the blood of Christ and given
through the Holy Spirit. The Lord hints at
that in verse 14 when He points out that the people of Judah were in themselves and in all
the works of their hands unholy. Even their
sacrifices were not holy, without the work of Gods Spirit and the blood of Jesus
that was symbolized by those sacrifices. Church
membership, faithfully hearing the preaching, being baptized, praying, do not in
themselves make anyone holy.
13. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
The second question Haggai asks of the priests is really the opposite of the first. He asks concerning ceremonial uncleanness. There were many ways in which a Jew could become
ceremonially unclean, all of which made it impossible for him to enter the temple or
present his sacrifices. One way a person could become unclean was through contact with a dead body
(Lev. 22:4).
In that case a person had to wash himself and was unclean for the rest of the day
(Lev. 22:6, 7).
Haggais question concerns contact of someone with something that had become
unclean. Would the uncleanness be further
transferred by contact with something or someone who had become unclean? The answer of the priests, the opposite of the previous answer, taken from
Leviticus 22:4, 5,
was that the uncleanness would be
transferred. The person who had become
unclean would make everything he touched unclean, even the food he ate.
To understand the point of the answer, we must see that the ceremonial uncleanness
of which the law spoke was a picture of the defilement of sin. Those laws certainly were used by God to protect
the physical health of His people, but the main reason for them was to teach spiritual
truths, in this case to teach them about the pollution of sin. Contact with death made a person unclean because
death is the punishment of sin.
The point of the question and its answer, then, is that while holiness is not
transferred by external contact with holy things, there is the real danger that the
pollution and defilement of sin is so transferred. To
use a similar example, one drop of filth will pollute much water, but many added drops of
clean water will not make the container of filthy water clean.
The application of this is best seen in the commands in Scripture to Gods people to keep themselves separate from the ungodly
(II Cor. 6:14-18).
The danger is always that they will become
polluted and unholy. They must, therefore,
maintain what is sometimes called the antithesis, their spiritual separation from the
ungodly and from their ways.
This separation means they may not marry the ungodly
(I Cor. 7:39),
may not be joined to them in any unequal union
(II Cor. 6:14),
ought not have fellowship with them
(Eph. 5:7-12).
They need not go out of the world altogether, as Rome teaches
(I Cor. 5:10),
but there must be a clear separation
between them, and that especially of a spiritual character.
If that separation is not maintained, it is not the unholy that will be made holy,
but the holy that will be profaned and made unclean.
Prof. Hanko is
professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed
Seminary.
Previous article in this series: November
15, 2004
In our previous article we discussed Cocceius historical approach to the study of theology. We began to show the error of his historical (or biblical) theology, as that is compared to what is known as systematic theology. We continue, now, our treatment of that comparison.
The Importance of Systematic
Theology
Systematic theology is
important and crucial for the life of the church. The
reasons are not difficult to understand.
God is Truth. God is all truth. He is the embodiment of truth, and all truth is in
Him. He is one God and, because He is all
truth, the truth is one.
Gods revelation of His truth is one in Jesus Christ, for all revelation is in
and through Christ and His work.
The record of that revelation in Holy Scripture is one. Even though Moses wrote a part, Isaiah another
part, and Jude yet another part, the one Author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit. Scriptures unity lies in infallible
inspiration. Frequently the plea for biblical
theology arises from those who make light of divine inspiration.
Thus Scripture teaches one doctrine of God, with all other doctrines as
sub-headings, in such a way that the whole teaches the same truth, and never can there be
found any contradiction. The Spirit does not
contradict Himself.
Job 19:25-27
agrees perfectly with
I Corinthians 15:42-53,
for the Spirit wrote them both. And
Genesis 1
and 2 agree completely with the fourth commandment and
Romans 4:17
b, because the Holy Spirit was the divine Author of both
passages.
It is this unity of Scripture that biblical theology denies. The principle of interpretation Scripture
interprets Scripture is minimized or lost completely.
With the loss of this principle, the regula fidei (rule of faith) is
ignored.
This latter is especially important. The
whole of the truth that the church has confessed in the past and confesses today is a
truth based upon the whole of Scripture. When
we seek to know what God has said about a given truth, then we search the whole of
Scripture to find this out. If we want to
know whether the will of God revealed in Scripture requires that infants be baptized, we
go to both the New Testament and the Old to learn concerning this doctrine. We hold steadfastly to the dictum: The New is in the Old contained; the Old is
in the New explained. Scripture does
not give us an exhaustive treatment of one doctrine in one given text. We must search all the Bible.
Our confessions contain this regula fidei.
Our confessions bring together what all Gods Word says about a given
doctrine. That is their beauty, their power,
their importance in the church. No wonder
that Baptists do not like confessions. They
prefer to prove their points by jumping about from text to text and refusing to interpret
any given text in the light of the whole of Scripture.
Arminians are cut from the same cloth. They will always appeal to
John 3:16
,
but they refuse to interpret
John 3:16
in the light of
Romans 9.
Well-meant offer defenders jump on
II Peter 3:9
or
Ezekiel 33:11.
And when it is shown that their interpretation of these verses contradicts
John 12:37-41,
they weakly
fall back on paradox, and refuse to acknowledge that Scripture interprets Scripture.
Systematic theology is nothing else but taking the whole of Scripture as ones
textbook, discovering what the whole Word of God teaches about a given doctrine, and
relating all the doctrines to each other so that they form one whole. In this way we come to know the living God in all
His glory and perfection.
If, for example, one possesses a beautiful portrait of one he loves, he does not
study each small part of the portrait by itself. He
would never, thus, come to see the portrait as a whole.
Each section, taken by itself, gives no information.
Only when each small bit is studied in relation to the whole can one see the
portrait in all its beauty. Biblical theology thinks that by studying
Genesis 17:4
in separation from
Luke 2:7
one can come to a
knowledge of the portrait of our Lord Jesus Christ, which portrait is in the Holy
Scriptures. This is obviously nonsense.
Taking the whole of Scripture as ones textbook does not preclude the
historical-grammatical method of interpretation; indeed, following this method enriches
ones understanding of systematic theology and gives one a full and broad view of the
one truth of God in Jesus Christ.
The Dangers of Biblical Theology
Biblical theology, in distinction from systematic theology, leads to many dangers. Some of these dangers appeared in the thinking of
Cocceius. He became somewhat dispensational
in his thinking, because he considered the Old Testament by itself and not in its
relationship to the New Testament. This, in
turn, led him to a wrong view of the Sabbath.
Biblical theology has had its proponents over the years. A new chair in biblical theology was established
in Princeton Seminary for the express purpose of giving the renowned Gerhardus Vos a
professorship in the seminary. Many
seminaries have followed the practice by abandoning systemic theology and have taught only
biblical theology. This has led to strange
positions.
One devastating result of this approach to Scripture has been an emphasis on the
human authorship of various books. While
proponents of biblical theology have refused to go so far as to deny (in whole or in part)
the divine authorship of Scripture, it is not difficult to see how the jump from biblical
theology to higher criticism can be made. The
Scriptures are one because they have one Author, God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, through infallible inspiration,
painted the portrait of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every
part must be explained in the light of every other part.
The unity of Scripture leads to an understanding of the one portrait of
Christ, through whom we know the one true God. It
makes no difference that the Holy Spirit painted this portrait of Christ over a period of
more than a thousand years. He alone is the
divine Artist, and He never changes.
But when one breaks Scripture into parts and studies each part in relative
isolation from the whole, one must concentrate in some measure on the human instrument,
the men God used to write the Scriptures: Amos,
Jude, Obadiah, Matthew, Paul, and all the rest. One
must determine how the writings of each one differs from the writings of the others. Then one must determine how the theology of one
differs from the theology of another. The
result is that one gets (I use familiar clichés found in most seminaries) a corpus
of Johanine literature, that is, the writings of the apostle John; Pauline
eschatology frequently in distinction from and perhaps somewhat different
from the eschatology of Isaiah. I recall
vividly a discussion in a class I was taking in which the professor insisted that any
passage in Paul was irrelevant to a discussion of the meaning of a similar passage in
John, because we are, after all, dealing with a pericope in Johanine
literature.
I am fundamentally uninterested in anything Pauline or Petrine in eschatology. I am deeply interested, when I come to Scripture,
to learn the Holy Spirits eschatology. If
this is not true, then all I can do is read Scripture as I would read a Festschrift,
in which many authors write glowing essays in praise of some renowned theologian.
If ones interest is solely in what the Holy Spirit writes, then he must study
the whole of Scripture and each part in relation to all the rest, for the Holy Spirit is
the Author of it all. One must follow the
principle of Scripture interprets Scripture because the Holy Spirit, who wrote
it all, alone can interpret His own book, something He does by means of His own book.
Biblical theology can be deadly. The
method has recently been employed by the so-called Auburn Four in defense of
the heresy of justification by faith and works. [1] In the first
chapter of the book, Doug Wilson argues strenuously against confessions. It is understandable that he does, for our
confessions give to us what the church of the past, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
found in Scripture concerning any one doctrine. The
church brought the teaching of the whole of Scripture together concerning each doctrine of
Holy Writ. The confessions are what Luther
called the regula fidei, the rule of faith.
Steve Schlissel argues against knowledge through propositions. He claims that faith is in a person, not a
proposition (p. 24). Strangely, he writes:
If Truth is raw rationality, then one must tidy up all ones propositions. But if Truth is personal, then one must get to know the Person better. And you get to know a person better by knowing his character. His character is revealed in the degree of correspondence between his words and deeds. That is why the Bible is given in the form of a story rather than a systematic theology (p. 25).
It is hard to understand what Schlissel means, but it is clear that he employs the
biblical theology method to destroy knowledge through propositions. But how, apart from propositions, can we know
anything? By inner feeling? By mystical contact? By an intuitive sixth or seventh sense? The fact is that all our knowledge is through
propositions, even our knowledge of things earthly, and including our acquaintance with
people.
Scripture speaks of a personal, experiential knowledge of God that is the knowledge
of faith. But the knowledge of faith that is
personal and experiential consists of a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth
all that God has revealed in His Word." [2]
But to such strange ideas, set forth with the express purpose of denying the truth
of Scripture, does biblical theology lead.
Herman Ridderbos wrote a book, the English translation of the title of which is The Theology of Paul. It is a popular book and widely read. It proceeds from the perspective of biblical theology. It seeks to understand, as the title indicates, what Paul believed concerning the truth of God. Frequently, what Paul believed is quite different from what John believed or Peter believed. What then? What saint of God cares what Paul believed? His interest (and everlasting salvation) is in what the Holy Spirit taught be it through the instrumentality of Paul or Peter or Moses. The search of what the Holy Spirit teaches leads us to the whole of Scripture. That way is the way of systematic theology, not the wandering heretical paths of biblical theology.
2. Heidelberg Catechism, Lords Day 7.
Rev. Kuiper is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church in Randolph, Wisconsin.
Previous article in this series: November 1, 2004.
In the last few
articles we have examined the duties of deacons in relieving the needs of the poor. Having first collected the alms, deacons in
Reformed churches are required to determine the need of those who request benevolence
help, distribute the alms according to their need, and visit and comfort the poor with the
Word of God.
If any have inferred, at this point, that the work of relieving the needs of the
poor begins only when the poor come asking, this article should dispel that notion.
Relief programs run by the government and other social agencies necessarily require
the poor to ask for such help. Such programs
advertise that money is available, and teach the public how to go about asking or applying
for that money. The right forms must be
filled out; the forms must be sent to the right person or address, etc. But such programs do not have the resources to
come looking for the poor.
However, deacons in the church of Jesus Christ are not doing enough if they wait
for the poor to come asking. They must also look
for those in need of benevolent help.
That
the deacons must actively look for those in need of benevolent help is not stated in so
many words in the Church Order of Reformed Churches, or in the Form of Ordination of
Elders and Deacons, as these were adopted by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618-1619. And no passage of Scripture can be found that
states this duty in so many words.
Nevertheless, various principles set forth in Scripture and in the Reformed
confessions lead us to say that the deacons must be looking for the poor.
I John 3:17
teaches that our care for the poor manifests Gods love in us. We read: But whoso hath this worlds
goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him,
how dwelleth the love of God in him? Clearly,
the text refers to a situation in which a brother in Christ has a bodily, material need,
which need could be supplied by giving him the goods of this world. In other words, the text speaks of the very kind
of situation that deacons are authorized to address.
Furthermore, it is clear from the text that the need is observed by others: whoso
seeth his brother have
need (italics mine, DJK). This is not a
case of a person making request for assistance; it is a case of a need being observed. In such a case, the Word of God says, we are to
meet the brothers need! The text speaks
of the duty, not of deacons only, but of all Christians.
Every child of God is required to render aid to fellow saints whose needs are
apparent. But if every Christian is required
to do this, certainly the deacons are also required to do it. By implication, this means they must be looking to
see who has need.
In two places, the Heidelberg Catechism stresses the importance of going the
extra mile with regard to our neighbor. In
Lords Day 40, explaining the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill, the
catechism teaches that it is the duty of the child of God toward his neighbor to
prevent his hurt as much as in us lies. In
other words, we must look for ways to prevent the neighbors hurt, even before he
finds himself in a situation in which he might possibly get hurt. And in Lords Day 42, explaining the eighth
commandment, Thou shalt not steal, the catechism not only teaches that it is
our duty to labor faithfully, in order to be able to relieve the needy, but also requires
us to promote the advantage of my neighbor in every instance I can or may. This requires us to be aware of ways in which we
can help our neighbor, specifically with regard to our stewardship of goods.
I understand both statements to mean that the child of God must not only take heed
to fulfill the letter of the law, avoiding murder and theft, and being sure to love the
neighbors person and respect his possessions, but also that the child of God must
look for ways in which he can be of a help to his neighbor, possibly before his neighbor
even realized the need for help. And this
principle I now apply to the work of the deacons let them look for those in
need.
Furthermore, the example of our Lord Jesus Christ shows that this is the duty of
deacons. By His grace and Spirit, Christ supplies the needs of all His brothers and
sisters. He does so when we cry for help to
God in Christs name. But His supply of
our need in answer to our cry is not the first instance of His help. Even before we were aware of our sin and misery,
Christ saw us in the misery of sin, humbled Himself in our flesh to atone for our sins,
and rose again the third day with power to work His new, heavenly life in us. Before we knew our misery and need, He worked His
life in us, to meet that need! He saw our
poverty, before we were aware of it; and He acted to make us rich, before we desired these spiritual riches
(II Cor. 8:9)!
Deacons are to manifest the compassion of Jesus Christ. They also, therefore, are not only to wait to be
asked for help, but must be looking in the congregation to see who needs their help.
To
this duty of the deacons other Reformed writers have referred by using the term
preventing poverty." [1] By this term, they
do not mean that the goal of deacons must be the eradication of all poverty in the church
of Jesus Christ. These writers have not lost
sight of the blessedness of having the poor, and of the fact that Jesus said that the church would always have the poor with us
(Matt. 26:11).
Rather, they mean that the deacons must work to prevent individual instances of
poverty, by looking for those who are in danger of poverty. Prof. Heyns writes,
It is in the nature of the case that real care for the poor will first of all put forth earnest endeavors to prevent poverty where it is threatening . When the danger of falling into poverty is warded off, it is a greater benefit to a person or family than relief can be when poverty has befallen them. Here, too, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. [2]
And DeJong says:
Just when must the deacons step in and offer assistance? Must this be done only when an individual or a family has become so economically impoverished that they can no longer provide even the barest necessities? This position has been advocated in some diaconates. Yet such a conception is fallacious . [3]
The idea that the prevention of poverty is the work of the deacons is not new or
recent, according to DeJong. He asserts that
the duty of preventing poverty in specific cases has been recognized as part of the diaconal calling for many years by the Reformed churches. Already Voetius argued in favor of this attempt in his day. He based his position largely on Leviticus 25:35 . From this he concluded that to fulfil the law of brotherly love the prevention of poverty in concrete cases was preferable to waiting with assistance until extreme need had arisen, using as an example that the prevention of disease in the body is always to be preferred to a cure. [4]
Nor has the idea that the deacons are required to prevent concrete instances of
poverty been limited to individuals. At least
one Reformed denomination has required her deacons to prevent poverty. The Form for the Ordination of Elders and Deacons
as found in the CRC Psalter Hymnal, 1959 edition, reads:
The work of the deacons consists in the faithful and diligent ingathering of the offerings which Gods people in gratitude make to their Lord, in the prevention of poverty (italics mine, DJK), in the humble and cheerful distribution of gifts according to the need, and in the relief of the distressed both with kindly deeds and words of consolation and cheer from Scripture. [5]
The phrase regarding the prevention of poverty was not in the form as it was written by
Peter Datheen, approved by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618-1619, and used in the churches
in the Netherlands. According to an
introductory note in the Psalter Hymnal, a committee of the Synod of the Christian
Reformed Church revised and rewrote the form, and this revised edition was adopted by the
CRC Synod in 1934. [6] In 1982 this revised form was replaced with an
entirely new form, in which is made no mention of the duty of deacons to prevent poverty. [7]
We can appreciate this point that the deacons must work to prevent poverty,
especially when we know that the term is not used to refer to the impossible task of
eradicating all poverty, but to the prevention of specific cases of poverty. We mean the same thing, substantially, when we say
that the deacons should be looking for those in need.
Not only should they look for those who are greatly impoverished and destitute, but
they should also look out for others who, though not destitute, still have needs that the
deacons might be able to supply.
The
reasons why deacons must be sure to look for those
in need are several.
First, some who have a pressing and immediate need are reluctant, for one reason or
another, to come to the deacons in their need. The
deacons must therefore be observant of the members of the congregation, and be ready to go
to those whom they suspect have need of benevolent help.
Second, some might be blind to their own needs.
Not infrequently elders and pastors might find that people either do not see their
spiritual needs, or refuse to admit their needs. Likewise
it is possible that some will be blind to their material needs, or not admit that they
have such needs. So the deacons must be
looking.
Third, in some instances the saints of God face the real threat of poverty, even
though they have not actually fallen into poverty. Perhaps
such do not actually need benevolent help at the moment but it is appropriate that
already the deacons convey to such people their willingness to help. All of this requires the deacons to be observant
regarding the earthly condition of the people of God.
How,
practically, might the deacons implement this aspect of their work?
First, by working hard to get to know the people of God better. The deacons must know the congregation. They must take seriously their calling as
individuals to fellowship with all in the congregation, and not only with their favorite
group of friends. In this way they will more
quickly become aware of the needs of the people.
Second, when the deacons hear of a family in which the head of household has lost
his job, or in which a member has been recently hospitalized, the deacons would do well to
send a committee to visit this family. Not
only would the committee have the mandate of asking whether the familys situation
has resulted in benevolent need, but the committee could also bring from Scripture words
of comfort and encouragement that God will care for the material needs of the family in
their affliction.
Third, the deacons show they are looking for the poor when they bring a word of
admonition and caution to a family that appears not to exercise good stewardship of its
resources. Before the familys poor
stewardship results in poverty, the deacons may encourage the family in the right use of
the gifts God has given them.
Fourth, when the deacons are aware of approximately how much a family is
contributing to the general fund budget, the deacons may contact those whose giving is not
in accord with the budgeted amount, with a view to finding out whether the family needs
benevolent help. This does not mean that our
deacons must be budget police rather, I have simply given one example
of what might indicate to the deacons that a family has need.
At least one of our diaconates makes provision for paying a portion of the
Christian school tuition bill for families whose tuition obligation exceeds a certain
percentage of its income. Significantly, this
diaconate considers such help to be a matter of benevolence. This seems to me to be another way in which
deacons can be looking for those in need.
I have given ideas as to how deacons will implement this aspect of their work, but
I can do no more than that. The
how might be different for every diaconate and congregation. But regarding the need to look for the poor, let
godly, Reformed deacons face this question at their next meeting: have they been content
merely to lend aid when asked for help? Or
are they also looking for those in need?
1. Cf. Prof. William Heyns, Handbook for Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1928), pages 324ff., and Peter Y. DeJong, The Ministry of Mercy for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1952), p. 137ff.
2. Heyns, op. cit., pp. 324-325.
3. DeJong, op. cit., p. 138.
4. DeJong, op. cit., p. 139.
5. Psalter Hymnal Centennial Edition: Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, Inc., 1959), p. 123 of the section on doctrinal standards and liturgy.
7. The interested reader can find the current form on the internet, at www.crcna.org/whatweoffer/resources/synodical/liturgy/deacons82.asp.
Rev. Bruinsma is
pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The largest share of
the body of this article is made up of a personal letter I received from a Protestant
Reformed sister in our church in Edmonton, Canada. I
am grateful that she has allowed me to print this letter because I believe it reveals what
must be in the heart of every godly mother of Zion. Not
only must there be peace and contentment in a mothers labors in the home, but she
must see this task as challenging, exciting, and rewarding.
All these are revealed in this letter. It
is for that reason we print it.
I am going to give an answer to this letter in the next article I write because
this letter raises questions that are worthwhile answering.
In this article I would only ask the reader to take note of the following in the
letter published. First, the emphasis on
safety found within the circle of the home and family.
This emphasis is all but lost in our modern society. I agree wholeheartedly that too much time is
spent outside of the home by parents and children alike.
Mothers who are in the home spending profitable time with their children, and
fathers who likewise are able to do the same inasmuch as they are able, make for a happy
and godly home. Children too, when they are
little but also when they become teens, must be shown that life and joy is found, not
always on the go with friends, but in the quietness of home and family. Mothers go a long way in establishing this godly
atmosphere in the family.
In the second place, I appreciate the emphasis on willingness to sacrifice of self
for others. Career mothers are often times
heard saying, I just am not fulfilled in my work in the home. I need more!
That reasoning is self-seeking: I need fulfillment. What about the need of the children to have a
mother in the home to field questions and to teach them by example what it means to live
in communion with our heavenly Father? Motherhood
is a time of self-sacrifice and giving of oneself to children. But the rewards are great!
Finally, take note, in this letter, of the desire to serve God in the calling of a
mother in the home. That is above all our
chief calling in this life: serve God! God gives us our covenant children for a short
time in order that He might use a godly father and mother as means in His hand to nurture
the children of His family and covenant. A
mother in the home who is busy doing this is humbly but cheerfully too
walking as a servant of God in her life. That
makes for the best of mothers!
Keeping these thoughts in mind, read the letter.
Dear Rev. Bruinsma,
I am writing to you regarding two Standard Bearer articles you wrote. The first one, titled Gods Command to
Mothers, I found very encouraging and clear in setting forth the principles of
Scripture concerning this calling. I hope
that you will be willing to expand on a couple of points in a subsequent article entitled
Working Mothers.
I pray that I am not being touchy at the thought of being placed in a category
named Extreme, but I did struggle with a feeling that enough had not been said. Will not there be mothers who now feel they have
just cause to pursue work outside the home since Rev. Bruinsma has given his ok? This I try to see from Gods perspective, in
my very finite way, as to what He would have me do. I
was very pleased that you brought up the phariseeism that is prevalent in this area. This truly must be seen as a matter of the heart.
There is the eleventh commandment
. This statement came off sounding rather
sarcastic, leaving me with the impression you were about to embark in a whole different
direction than your previous article. Away
from living the antithetical walk, though it be difficult, to something fraught with
indecision and no clear direction from God: There
are conceivably times when a mother will work outside the home and family. Certainly, if God places work in the church for
her to do, I can agree. This is a part of her
calling within a place of safety. But that
statement was followed by sets of circumstances with which I have difficulty. It would seem necessary to ask the question, Where
is God? Is He not sovereign over all, even
difficult circumstances in our lives? He has
commanded us to live in obedience to Him in all things, and promises to make a way out. Where, then, do we place the church in this? Is it not an organic, living part of our daily
lives and circumstances? The office of
deacon is beautiful and must be protected at all costs as Gods providential way out
of the cares of this world. Our dependence on
God comes at great cost to our pride but affords much wealth to our souls.
It was clear that you said that full-time work was impossible for mothers, but was
the door left open to other perilous alternatives? Why
do I see peril? This goes back to a sermon
you preached in Spokane, WA at their conference. Biblical
child-rearing, where we as parents are to train our children in a life of obedience, was
the subject. I remember, because it forever
altered my perspective. Gods Word led
me to understand that I must properly deny myself and live in my calling as mother as an
ambassador of Him. There is a circle of
safety in which children can live. And in
that circle there is a command to parents to train their children within it, living out of
faith in Gods promises, spanking because God chooses it as a means to train our
children. In this way we use that circle of
safety as a means, not questioning it but loving it and seeing its blessings, trusting
that He who sovereignly decrees knows best. There
is then a circle of safety for fathers and husbands, as well as for mothers and wives. This is ordained by God and laid out in
Scripture, as you well pointed out. For
wives, it is to live in subjection. This too,
you aptly showed us, was Gods ordained chain of authority.
Now for those wives whom God has called to be mothers, it is perilous to try to
live outside of their circle of safety. Who
sets the boundaries? God, who is all wise. He has chosen with great care the vocation
perfectly fit for her. She will be saved in
childbearing, on her knees, soul baring, cross bearing, and in sacrificing service
morning, noon, and night. To walk away from
that submission to Him, and the subjection He places as boundaries on her, is to choose
peril. Satan did that to Eve when he came to
her and twisted the words of God and presented to her the lie as truth. She left obedience, and in so doing fell.
The lie appeals to our enemy within. Satan
wants us outside the home. He knows that God
places mothers in safety in the home in subjection, in humility serving while relying on
Christ. It is subtle deception to think to
myself that I would be a good helpmeet to my husband by lifting some of his burden of
making ends meet. I must remember that burden
was not given to me. It was given to the man,
and God is the one who can make that burden light. Then
I must find contentment in my station, within my God-chosen boundary, and not seek any
merit or fulfillment outside of that.
It is appealing to find fulfillment outside the home. Why? It
is heady, intoxicating stuff, this theology of self-love.
The god of individualism, look out for yourself, decide for yourself, puts me in
the drivers seat, determining for myself how I will find self-worth. Just a 50-cent raise will put a lift to my stride,
and a co-workers praise will bring a glow. But
it is self-glory, for a fleeting moment that is of this earth earthy. Yes, just a couple of hours a night sell
Tupperware. Help us out. We really need only a small commitment of your
time! Is there peril? Indeed! The
woman was made with her weaknesses, and this will lead her to slip off her submission,
leave her subjection behind, and suffer a rift in that sweet fellowship with God. It takes great soul searching, brutally honest
spiritual inventory, to examine why I will choose to work outside of the home as well as
to do anything that would interfere with living out of obedience to God in His command to
be a mother. Other temptations too will come,
where she will be asked to think for herself. Who
is the Sovereign of her womb? For one, her
strength is nothing in herself, so she must find her strength in Gods Word. Sabbath day to Sabbath day she will come with her
family to hear, Thus saith God, and it will rule her walk.
The last question then is: do you
place this in the realm of Christian liberty because it is a thing indifferent? Or is it
commanded?
I love the calling of motherhood! God
does flood the soul with peace, whether our husbands and children notice that loving
service or not. God brings contentment and
great joy inside the circle or station mapped out for me.
Living in the realization that He has mapped out for them what is best, and leaving
Him to direct all things, liberates mothers so they can ponder over His mercy and
governing care of His church. I would
jealously guard the self-denying, God-ordained vocation of motherhood. It is here I am humbled and privileged to witness
the wonder of a child stirred by the spirit within grabbing hold of the truths of
Gods Word and appropriating Christ, living in gratitude. It is a miracle to behold, that through weakest
means, God will be MAGNIFIED! Is the cost
then too high???
I hope this is an encouragement, for I am thrilled that we speak about these
issues. Although difficult, we must do our
battles against the world, and on the battleground of Gods Word.
Lee
Ann Ferguson.
Amen! God bless the mothers of Zion, whom God uses to build His church!
Mr. Kalsbeek is a teacher in Covenant Christian High School and a member of Hope Protestant Reformed Church, Walker, Michigan.
Previous
article in this series: November 15, 2004.
And the children of Issachar, which were men that had
understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two
hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.
In 1938, when Islam
was weaker than ever before, the Catholic writer Hillaire Belloc predicted it would rise
again to threaten the West. At the time, the
state of Israel did not exist. What Belloc
understood is that Muslims need no provocation to wage jihad against non-Muslims. Injustices on the part of the West may have added
fuel to the fire, but the flame was lit by Muhammad and his Quran.
For the Muslim, jihad (religious fighting) is very important, but even more
important is believing in Allah and his prophet.
Proverbs 4:23
informs us that out of the heart are the issues of life. Thus, for modern-day Issachar to understand these
perilous times and the role of Islam in them, we must examine a little bit of the heart,
the belief system, of Islam.
The Basis
The basis of Islam is its Scripture, the Quran. In the
Quran a good Muslim will find all that he needs to know to please Allah, and Allah
will be pleased with those who follow to the letter the Qurans teachings.
But before we delve into some of those teachings, we ought briefly to consider the
origin of the Quran. What we find in
the Quran are the words that the Angel Gabriel is supposed to have spoken to
Muhammad over a period of some twenty-three years. Since
Muhammad was illiterate, these revelations of the Angel Gabriel had to be written down
by others. This was done by Muhammads
scribes as he would recite what Gabriel had said to him.
Shortly after Muhammads death these writings were collected and put together
in a book about the size of the New Testament.
It should be understood that, while the Angel Gabriel was the means by which
the Quran was given to Muhammad, the Quran itself is, to a Muslim, the Word of
Allah. By making that claim, Muslims do not
mean the same thing that Christians and Jews mean when they say the Bible is the Word of God. The traditional (and still nearly universal) Muslim understanding of the Quran is far beyond the Biblical idea that God inspired human authors. Allah dictated every word of the Quran to the prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. Allah Himself is the only speaker throughout the Quran, and most often he addresses Muhammad, frequently telling him what to say to various adversaries. [1]
The arrangement of these writings is a bit unusual.
Those who assembled the Quran did not know the chronological order in
which the suras (chapters, ck) came down. They
opted for the format found in current interpretations:
The 114 chapters begin with the longest and end with the shortest.' [2] Understandably,
this arrangement results in a rather disorganized set of writings, with little if any
continuity whatsoever.
Consequently, reading the Quran is often like walking in on the conversation between two people with whom one is only slightly acquainted. Frequently they make reference to people and events without bothering to explain what is going on. In other words the context is often not supplied. Wishing, perhaps, to fill this gap, early in Islamic history Muslims elaborated two principal sources for that context: tafsir (commentary on the Quran) and hadith, traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. [3]
It should be noted further that the Quran and the Bible have much in common. In fact, much of the Quran is dependent upon
the Bible.
With the exception of a few narratives purely Arabian in origin, all Quranic stories have their biblical parallel. The many discrepancies between biblical and Quranic accounts indicate that Muhammad was less concerned with the details of the event and more concerned with the moral underlying them. He cited such narratives not to preserve them in the Quran for their own sake, but rather to support a point he wished to emphasize.[4]
Nevertheless, the
Muslim attitude toward the Bible is one of reverence.
Sura 3:84 of the Quran states: Say,
We believe in Allah and that which hath been sent down to us, and that which was sent down
to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which was
delivered to Moses, and Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction
between any of them; and to him we are resigned. [5] Where discrepancies between the Bible and the
Quran occur, Muhammad concluded that in those instances the Bible must have been
altered. Clearly Muhammad plagiarized and
manipulated the teachings of the Bible to serve his purposes.
Quranic Inconsistencies
While Muhammad found fault with the Scriptures, the Quran has its own
problems, one of which is that contradictions occur.
These discrepancies most often are found when comparing Muhammads early
revelations (Meccan suras) with his later ones (Medinan Suras). Robert Spencer explains the difference as follows:
The Meccan suras date from the early period of the Prophets career, when he concentrated on calling people to accept his new faith. In the year 622, Muhammad fled from Mecca to Medina to escape the growing hostility of the pagans in his native city; this was the Hegira, the event that marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. In Medina, he became a head of state and a military leader for the first time. [6]
Obviously
Muhammads attitude toward those who rejected his new religion changed. During the Meccan period, he appeared to be
conciliatory in order to gain converts from Judaism and the pagans that worshiped in
Mecca. However, once he became the dominating
force in the area, his attitude toward unbelievers changed significantly, as
the Medinan suras reveal.
This distinction between Meccan and Medinan suras becomes important because of the
Muslim doctrine of abrogation. Abrogation
is the Islamic doctrine that Allah modifies and even cancels certain directives, replacing
them with others." [7] This doctrine is to be taken very seriously
because it is grounded in the Quran: None
of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something
better or similar: Knowest thou not that
Allah Hath power over all things? (Sura 2:106).
While Muslim theologians disagree concerning which verses have been abrogated and
which others have replaced them, they generally agree that when inconsistencies occur
between Meccan and Medinan suras, the Meccan has been abrogated and replaced by the
Medinan one.
This is especially important when one considers Muhammads teachings about
jihad. Muslims will often point to the Meccan
suras to demonstrate that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion. The problem is that the Qurans last
word on jihad, which is of Medinan origin, is very intolerant. Therefore, according to Islamic exegesis, the
tolerant verses must be read in light of the intolerant ones.
The Five Pillars of Islam
The teachings of the Quran also include the five demands made upon the
believers in Islam. They are known as The
Five Pillars of Islam. These works of
righteousness are critical for Muslims. None
of their other works will be acceptable to Allah if these are not first satisfied. Further, these five pillars are the main unifying
force of Islam. They are:
1. The Creed. There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. It is mandatory that during his lifetime each Muslim must say this creed at least once correctly and with heartfelt conviction. In practice, however, the devout Muslim speaks it many times a day. In this creed the Muslim not only states his belief, but he sounds forth his evangelistic call to Jew and Christian to turn away from the near-idolatry of the Torah and the idolatry of Christ.
2. The Ritual Prayer. Prayers are to be said five times daily, upon rising, at noon, mid-afternoon, after sunset, and before retiring. The prayers consist of set formulas with prescribed bowings and prostration. In addition to the primary purposes of praise and supplication, the prayers serve two other purposes in the faith of the Muslim. According to the Quran, the most difficult lesson for man to learn is that he is not God; the prayers keep man humble before Allah. Secondly, the set times for prayer create for the Muslim a sense of participation in a worldwide fellowship, even if he is isolated from other Muslims.
3. Almsgiving. The required almsgiving is separate and distinct from voluntary alms, and is set at 1/40 (2 ½ %) of all that a man possesses, that is, his holdings rather than just his income. The Muslim distributes his alms where he sees the most direct needto debtors unable to meet their obligations, to slaves who are buying their freedom, to transients, and to the desperately needy.
4. Fasting. Muslims are required to abstain from food and drink and sexual intercourse from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ramadan. Since Islam employs a lunar calendar, the month rotates through all seasons. When Ramadan falls in the scorching days of summer, the longer days without a drop of water can become an ordeal. Such fasting, the Muslim believes, teaches self-discipline and aids in the curbing of appetites also at other times.
5. The Pilgrimage to Mecca. It is obligatory for every Muslim during his lifetime to make a pilgrimage to Mecca if he can possibly do so. The pilgrimage is a scheduled event each year and includes special ceremonies en route and a visit to Muhammads tomb at Medina. The purpose of the pilgrimage is said to be a reminder of the equality of all men and the devotion that all owe to Allah. [8]
Other Significant Teachings
In addition to its Five Pillars, the Quran teaches that in the
Garden of Eden Adam and Eve sinned, then repented and were forgiven. However, their sin bore no consequences. In fact, it almost seems that Adams sin is
rewarded, because, following Adams sin, Allah makes him his deputy (caliph) and the
first of the prophets. Clearly, Islam does
not acknowledge original sin.
Also, Muslims have a tendency to revere strong leaders who put forth an image
of perfection." [9] Muslims believe that people with a strong character can live
sinless lives by following their plethora of rules. And
do they ever have rules! They have rules to
cover everything, from where you can go to the bathroom to how you may kill insects. There is even a rule that forbids reading the
Quran in a house where there is a dog, unless the dog is used for hunting,
farming, or herding livestock." [10]
And what does the Quran do with Christ?
Islam respects Christ as one of about 124,000 messengers of Allah. In fact, He is
Since man has no
original sin and is basically good, he is able sincerely to repent when he makes a
mistake. Allah will then return him to a
state of sinlessness, with no outside help needed. As
expressed in the Quran, for him whose measure (of good deeds) is heavy, those
are they who shall be successful (Sura 7:8-9).
These beliefs and their consequences are succinctly expressed as follows:
The Muslims watered-down understanding of sin makes the Islamic belief in salvation by works plausible. People do not have original sin, especially no inherited guilt. Morally, a person is born as a blank book, more good than evil. What people need to be saved is moral guidance not rebirth. Sin is forgiven when evil is balanced by enough good. To help us achieve the correct balance God may even charge us less than our sins deserve and he may give us extra credit for our good . On the one hand, this makes it possible for the Muslim to say, It feels good to know you are accomplishing your salvation. On the other hand, a Muslim can never feel sure of his salvation; because he can never be sure that he has been credited with more good than evil. [12]
Interestingly, there is one exception to this teaching that one cannot be assured
of salvation:
Those who die as martyrs, those who die while waging jihad against enemies of God, will enter paradise instantly, all their sins washed away by their own blood and the blood of the infidels they have shed." [13]
Righteous by Works Alone
All things considered, in the end Islam has adopted (either intentionally or
unintentionally) the Adam of Pelagius and the Christ of Arius. Their theology of man (free from original sin) and
Jesus (only a good man) leaves the Muslim to fend for himself when it comes to salvation. How hopeless!
Yet, apostatizing Christianity finds in Islam just another way to the same God.
How can this be? It would appear that
Islam and Christianity have little (theologically speaking) in common. Closer examination, however, indicates that
apostatizing Christianity appears to be gravitating in the direction of Islamic theology. Note the movement, even in evangelical and
Reformed circles, to attribute mans salvation to a combined effort of God and man:
faith and works is the cry today. The
result is a powerless Christ, or at best a Christ with limited power. Issachar beware,
for one of these two
things must be true, either that Jesus is not a complete (emphasis, ck) Savior, or
that they who by a true faith receive this Savior must find all (emphasis, ck)
things in Him necessary to their salvation (Heidelberg Catechism, question 30).
1. Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003) p. 127.
2. Thomas C. Pfotenhauer, Brother Richard Challenges A Great Law/Gospel Debacle: The Quran, Christian News 8 December, 2003: 7.
4. Philip H. Lochhaas, The Foundation of Islam, Christian News 15 October, 2001:16.
5. Lochhaas, p. 16.
6. Spencer, p. 134.
9. Marvin Olasky, A Cold War for the 21st century, World Nov./ Dec. 2001:14.
12. John Brug, The Menace of Islam, Christian News 6 September, 2004:9.
13. Gene Edward Veith, Lethal gospel, World 22 February, 2003: 13.
Mr. Wigger is an elder in the Protestant Reformed Church of Hudsonville, Michigan.
Mission Activities
Thursday evening, November 18, was
Light Up Night in Forest Hills, a suburb of Pittsburgh, PA, and the location of our denominations Mission Office
and work in Pittsburgh. The Fellowship there
decided to mark the event with an open house at the Mission Office, with lights, banner,
reception table, coffee, lemonade, homemade cookies, and free tapes and pamphlets for all
their visitors. Plans also called for a brief
Bible Study and devotions, and a time of singing. Depending
on the turnout, Pittsburgh also hoped to spend time showing visitors the Mission Office.
Also present that night in Pittsburgh were Rev. W. Bruinsma and Elder Gary
Boverhof, as representatives of our churches Domestic Mission Committee, making
their annual visit on November 18-22. On this
visit these representatives were accompanied by their wives. They planned to join the Fellowship for the Bible
Study/Open House on Thursday evening, visit with Missionary Rev. J. Mahtani and his family
on Friday, and meet with the Steering Committee on Saturday afternoon. The Steering Committee was also encouraged by the
visiting DMC delegates, who spoke on the trials and joys of holding office in
Christs church.
We express our thanks to Justin and Cathie Koole, who left our churches
mission work in Ghana in mid-November, after having served faithfully there for one year
as assistants to our missionaries. As
replacements for Justin and Cathie, the Hull, Iowa PRC and the Foreign Mission Committee
sent John and Judy Bouma. You may remember
that they were in Ghana at the beginning of the work there and were looking forward
eagerly to seeing the members of the Fellowship once again.
They were scheduled to arrive on November 26, D.V.
Mr. Alvin Bylsma and Mr. Gerald Brummel, delegates from Hull PRC and the FMC, were
scheduled to visit Ghana from November 24 through December 6.
The next British Reformed Fellowship Family Conference will be held August 5-12,
2006, the Lord willing, at the Cloverley Hull Conference Center, Whit Church, Shropshire,
England (near Wales). The speakers will be
Prof. H. Hanko and Prof. D. Engelsma. The
subject treated will be: The Five
Points of Calvinism. For information on
the Conference Center check: www.cloverleyhall.com,
and for those interested in seeing highlights of the last conference, there is available a
DVD of approximately 50 minutes in length for a cost of $15.00 (US). For a copy write Rev. G. VanBaren, 4683 Crescent
Dr., Hudsonville, MI 49426.
The Council of the Doon, Iowa PRC, the calling church for our denominations
mission work in the Philippines, was pleased to inform their congregation and the
denomination that the mission work in Manila continues to progress. With the FMCs concurrence, Rev. A. Spriensma
was granted permission to give the votum and salutation to the saints of the Berean Church
(Reformed). This decision is grounded in our
denominations position as it can be found in Article 29 of the 2001 Acts of Synod.
Rev. A. Stewart, missionary pastor of Covenant PR Fellowship in Northern Ireland, gave a lecture in mid-November on the topic 1000 Years of
Revelation 20
in
Limerick. The lecture was well attended and
well received and a good time of questions followed the meeting. Rev. Stewart also had an excellent opportunity
earlier in November when he spoke for the first time at a primary/grade school assembly. Rev. Stewart spoke to the 10-12 year old students
on Adam and Eve, the fall, and Gods sovereignty over the fall, etc.
On November 5 Rev. T. Miersma, our denominations missionary to Spokane, WA
and the Covenant of Grace PR Fellowship there, gave a lecture and spoke on The
Protestant Reformation: A Return to the Truth
of Sin and Grace.
Evangelism Activities
Friday, November 5, the Evangelism Committee of the
Randolph, WI PRC hosted a Fall Lecture given by Prof. H.
Hanko entitled, Luther and Erasmus: Free
Will or Sovereign Grace? Prof. H. Hanko
also gave a lecture the following Friday, November 12, at Hope PRC in Redlands, CA. In that lecture, Prof. Hanko spoke on Is the
King James Still the Best Translation Available?
A collection was taken for the evangelism fund of Covenant PRC in New Jersey.
School Activities
The senior class of Covenant Christian High School in
Grand Rapids, MI sponsored a fund-raising breakfast on Saturday, November 13, from 7-10:30
a.m. at their high school.
The Earthquake Committee of Hope Christian School in Redlands, CA asked their
supporters to consider donating old blankets and small pillows for their schools
earthquake preparedness supplies.
Supporters of Eastside Christian School in Grand Rapids, MI were invited to attend
a meeting on November 18 at Eastside. Mr.
Greg Yoder, from the Christian Learning Center, spoke to the Eastside Promoters on how the
CLC is helping teachers meet the needs of gifted students, as well as those students who
struggle in some areas.
Minister Activities
The congregation of Bethel PRC in Roselle, IL called Rev.
W. Bruinsma to become their next pastor. With
him on that duo was Rev. J. Mahtani. Rev. R.
Cammenga was initially included as well, but became ineligible when he accepted the call
to Faith PRC.
The Doon, Iowa PRC extended a call to Rev. A. Brummel to serve as their next
pastor.
The Hudsonville, MI PRC called Rev. Bruinsma to serve as their next pastor.
Correction!!
The cover of the November
15, 2004 issue of the SB incorrectly identified it as Volume 80, Number 3. Readers who save their issues for future reference
may want to correct that. Its Volume
81, Number 4.
Last modified; 10-dec-2004