The Riddleblog

"Why the Incarnation?" Calvin's Explanation

The situation would surely have been hopeless had the very majesty of God not descended to us, since it was not in our power to ascend to him. Hence, it was necessary for the Son of God to become for us “Immanuel, that is, God with us” [Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23], and in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together. Otherwise the nearness would not have been near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hope that God might dwell with us. So great was the disagreement between our uncleanness and God’s perfect purity! Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator. What, then, of man: plunged by his mortal ruin into death and hell, defiled with so many spots, befouled with his own corruption, and overwhelmed with every curse? In undertaking to describe the Mediator, Paul then, with good reason, distinctly reminds us that He is man: “One mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ” [1 Tim. 2:5].

To read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Theology, Biblical Events, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerDecember 21, 2022Christ's IncarnationComment

The Name That Is Above Every Name -- An Exposition of Philippians 2:1-11

“The Name That Is Above Every Name”

One of the most famous and well-known passages in all the Bible is the famous hymn to Christ (the Carmen Christi) of verses 6-11 of Philippians 2. Martin Luther writes in his famous essay The Freedom of the Christian, that this passage is a prescribed rule of life which is set forth by the Apostle Paul, who exhorts us to devote our good works to the welfare of our neighbor out of the abundant riches of faith. John Calvin tells us that anyone who reads this passage but fails to see the deity of Jesus and the majesty of God as seen in his saving works, is blind to the things of God.[1] The passage contains a very rich Christology, but is included in this letter not to settle any debate over the person and work of Jesus, but rather, to instruct Christians how to imitate Jesus in a profound and significant way. The Carmen Christi also speaks directly to modern Americans by reminding us that the self-centered narcism of American culture is not a virtue, but runs completely contrary to the example set for us to follow by Jesus in his incarnation.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Theology, Biblical EventsKim RiddlebargerDecember 14, 2022Philippians 2:1-11, The carmen ChristiComment

The Psalm of Moses -- "YHWH, Our Dwelling Place" An Exposition of Psalm 90

Life in a Fallen Word Is Nasty, Brutish, and Short

Life is fleeting. The average life span of an American is 78.2 years (75.6 for men, 80.8 for women). That seems like a long time until we consider that the last veteran of World War One (1914-1918) is long since dead and World War 2 ended seventy plus years ago. My high school class is holding its fiftieth reunion this year. 9-1-1 occurred more than two decades ago. When viewed in that light, an average life span of nearly 80 years is not all that long. Yet, time keeps marching on. As each and every day goes by we struggle with our sins, we face suffering and calamity, we wonder what tomorrow holds (given the mysterious providence of God), and we worry about facing the wrath of God when we die. In Psalm 90, Moses speaks to this struggle of daily life as he exhorts us to number our days and to live this life in light of eternity.

When you study the Psalter, you find select Psalms associated with various authors (David, the sons of Korah, etc.) and Psalms with different content and purposes (royal Psalms, wisdom Psalms, Psalms used in worship in the Jerusalem temple), and so on. In this exposition, we will look at the historical background to the composition of Psalm 90, then we will work our way though the text of the Psalm, and finally, we will look at the application of this Psalm to the Christian life.

The Only Psalm Written By Moses

Psalm 90 is the only Psalm written by Moses, which likely makes Psalm 90 the oldest Psalm in the Psalter. As for the historical background to this Psalm, recall that Moses lived about 1500 BC, and David about 1000 BC., so the origin of this Psalm goes back to that time described in the closing chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy when the people of Israel arrived on the plains of Moab, just across the Jordan River from the promised land of Canaan before they crossed the Jordan and conquered Jericho. This puts the composition of Psalm 90 about 500 years before the temple was built in Jerusalem, and well before Israel’s kingdom extended all the way from Damascus to Egypt (under David and Solomon). This is why Psalm 90 has such a different feel than the other Psalms.

Psalm 90 is the first Psalm in Book Four of the Psalter (i.e., Psalms 90-106). Most of the Psalms in Book Four are anonymous (the so-called “orphan Psalms”), except Psalm 90 which was written by Moses, and several Psalms which are attributed to David. The Psalms in Book Four tend to deal with difficult questions about human frailty and the meaning of life, the nature of justice and God’s faithfulness, and the difficult question of why it is that God does not immediately punish the wicked. These difficult questions about life in a fallen world were raised in Psalm 89 (which closes out Book Three of the Psalter, and which is a Psalm of lament because of Israel’s sin). These questions are addressed, in part, throughout the various Psalms found in Book Four.[1]

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Jews Back in their Ancient Land? That Isn’t Gonna Happen! Sometimes Our Best Guys Get It Wrong

Every eschatological position has sharp edges which don’t seem to fit neatly within the system. I am of the conviction that Reformed amillennialism (AKA the “Dutch school”) has the fewest and least consequential of these “sharp edges.” One of these sharp edges associated with amillennialism is the binding of Satan—how can you claim Satan is bound when there is so much evil in the world? This can be readily explained—see my essay, The Binding of Satan.

But the presence of Israel as a nation living back in their ancient homeland is always the pink elephant in the room whenever amillennarians discuss eschatology with dispensationalists. This is a sharp edge for amillennialism for several reasons. One is that the Reformed are not in full agreement among themselves about the role and place of national Israel in the new covenant era, especially in the days before the Lord’s return. Another reason is that the hermeneutic (the operating assumptions) underlying the various millennial positions assigns widely varying roles to a future nation of Israel in redemptive history. Dispensationalists assert that Israel’s return to the land of Palestine in 1947 is the fulfillment of the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-8), and is therefore thought to be a fatal weakness of amilliennialism.

I recall receiving an email claiming that Reformed amillennarians get the question of a future for Israel terribly wrong—embarrassingly so. In fact, two of our stalwart theologians both dismissed premillennialism largely on the grounds of the expectation of a return of the Jews to Palestine. The author of the email cited two well-known Reformed theologians, Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof, both of whom did dismiss the very possibility of such a thing, yet such a thing did happen. Oops . . . On the basis of UN Resolution 181, Israel became a nation in 1947, Jews returned to their ancient homeland, survived three major wars, which in anyone’s estimation is a monumental event that dispensationalists have always expected, and which they say commences the events associated with the time of the end.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Jesus, the Greater Melchizedek

Abraham Encounters Melchizadek

In Genesis 17, Abraham is returning from battle with local tribes when the man of faith encounters the mysterious king of Salem (Jerusalem) named Melchizadek. According to verses 18-20, “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed [Abram] and said, `Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!’ And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” Who is this mysterious Melchizadek, and why would Abraham pay tithes to him?

In Psalm 110:4 (which is one of the most often-cited Old Testament passages in the New Testament), the Psalmist speaks of Melchizadek as follows. “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, `You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” Given the fact that Jesus quotes this same passage while debating with the Pharisees about whether or not he is the true “son of David” (Matthew 22:44), it is clear that the passage has strong messianic implications–as a prophecy (Psalm 110:4) fulfilled by Jesus–the one of whom the Psalmist had been speaking.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical EventsKim RiddlebargerNovember 3, 2022Melchizadek Comments

The Great Tribulation -- When and How Long?

I am often asked whether or not the “tribulation” is a seven year period which immediately precedes the second coming of Jesus Christ, or is it the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second advent, the so-called “great tribulation?”

This is an important question for several reasons. First, when most people think of the “tribulation,” they are thinking of the popular dispensational notion that at (or about) the time of the Rapture, the world enters a seven-year period— “the tribulation”—in which the Antichrist comes to power after the unexpected and instantaneous removal of all believers. The Antichrist then makes a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, only to turn upon the nation after three and a half years, plunging the entire world into the final geopolitical crisis which ends with the battle of Armageddon. Dispensationalists believe the seven year tribulation is a time of horrific cruelty and persecution for those who are “left behind,” and that the only way to be saved during this period is to refuse to take the mark of the beast, and not worship the beast or his image, which will likely result in martyrdom. The critical flaw with the dispensational doctrine of a future seven-year tribulation is that it is nowhere found in Scripture—although dispensationalists make appeal to Daniel 9:24-27 (more on this below).

A second reason why this question is important has to do with the rise of various forms of preterism. Full-preterism is properly considered a heresy. But so-called “partial” preterism is not. Preterists (I am speaking here of the orthodox, “partial” variety) contend that Jesus Christ returned in the clouds in A.D. 70 to execute judgment upon apostate Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish temple, and its sacrificial system. Those who hold to the various orthodox forms of preterism believe that the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:21, has come and gone with the events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans. All that remains is the Lord’s return.

To read the rest, follow the link below:

My Tabletalk Essay on "Man as a Body-Soul Composite"

The good folks at Tabletalk have been keeping me busy. Here’s my essay from the September 2022 issue.

Tabletalk -- "Man as a Body-Soul Composite"

Biblical Events, Biblical Theology, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerSeptember 1, 2022Trichotomy, Body-Soul CompositeComment

"Luther's Psalm" -- A Look at the 46th Psalm

Luther’s Interest in Psalm 46

Most people cannot recite Psalm 46 from memory. But many are so familiar with the words to Martin Luther’s famous hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” that they can sing it without looking at the hymnal. “Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott” is actually Luther’s paraphrase of Psalm 46. This Psalm has several very familiar lines, has been cited by American presidents (most recently by Barak Obama), and portions of it appear in well-known Jewish prayers. Found in Book Two of the Psalter and attributed to the Sons of Korah, it is classified as a “Psalm of Zion.” It contains loud echoes from Psalm 2, where that divine protection promised to the king, is extended to include his capital city (Jerusalem). Charles Spurgeon aptly speaks of the 46th Psalm as “the song of faith in troubled times.”[1] Martin Luther thought this Psalm of such comfort, he put it to verse.

It is important to reflect upon Psalm 46, because we sing this particular Psalm as often as any other–often in the form of Luther’s famous paraphrase. Before we take up the text of the Psalm–where we will find much deep and rich biblical theology–I think it appropriate to consider Luther’s use of this Psalm, then debunk one of the persistent myths surrounding the version of the Psalm which appears in the KJV, and then look at the context in which the Psalm was originally composed. Then, we will look at the text of the Psalm while making various points of application as we go.

As for Luther and “A Mighty Fortress,” although there are many theories about when it was written and for what occasion, Luther’s hymn first appears in a 1531 hymnal which would indicate that Luther wrote it several years earlier, likely in 1527-29. This was ten years or so after his 95 theses were circulated throughout Europe, igniting the theological fire which became the Protestant Reformation. The black plague was especially virulent throughout much of Europe in the winter of 1527, nearly killing Luther’s son. Luther was also a physical wreck during this time (from exhaustion). He began spending much time reading and reflecting upon Psalm 46, especially its promise that God is the bulwark (fortress) who never fails. From Luther’s reflection on that word of comfort, the famous hymn was born.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"Faith Apart from Works Is Dead" -- James 2:14-26 (Part Two)

“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” — James 2:14-26 (Part Two)

From a sermon series on the Book of James, preached at Christ Reformed Church in 2007 and edited for the Riddleblog

_______________________________________________

Part Two

With this important background in mind, we turn to specifics of the text, James 2:14-26.

In this section of chapter 2, James makes a general appeal to his readers that when someone claims to have faith, and there are no accompanying good works, their so-called “faith” can be called into question. James moves on to give an illustration in verses 15-16 drawn from the earlier discussion in chapter 2 about discriminating against the poor and favoring the rich. In verse 17 he offers up the conclusion that faith without works is dead. Then, in verses 18-19 James connects faith and works, as cause and effect–faith produces works. James then appeals to the examples of Abraham and Rahab, sandwiched around his main premise in verse 24–“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” In this section, James makes his main point three different ways. Faith, if not accompanied by works is dead (v. 17). Faith without works is useless (v. 20). Faith without works is not a living (or justifying) faith (v. 26).[1] James’ primary point is simply this–genuine faith leads to the performance of good works. To put it another way, a person who claims to be a Christian (and professes faith in the Lord of glory) will demonstrate that faith to be genuine through the performance of good works.

To read the rest, follow the link below

“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” -- James 2:14-26 (Part One)

“Faith Apart from Works Is Dead” — James 2:14-26 (Part One)

From a sermon series on the Book of James, preached at Christ Reformed Church in 2007 and edited for the Riddleblog

_______________________________________________

It would be hard to find a passage of Scripture which is more controversial than James 2:14-26.

The reason for the controversy is James’ assertion in verse 24 of chapter two of his epistle that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” On its face, this seems to fly in the face of a number of passages in Paul’s letters where Paul appears to be saying the exact opposite thing. Take, for example, Galatians 2:16. “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Are James and Paul on the same page? Yes, they are as I intend to demonstrate.

Those who believe that the justification of sinners is a process which is not complete until death (Rome), view James’ assertion here as a classic proof-text which supports this view. But those who see justification as an instantaneous declaration made about the sinner because the merits of Christ are imputed to them through the means of faith, seem to stumble all over James’ declaration that works are somehow tied to justification, and that we are not justified by faith alone. But as we will see, James and Paul do not contradict each other. In fact, when James’ assertion is put in its proper context, there is nothing whatsoever in James 2 which conflicts with the doctrine of justification sola fide.

To read the rest, follow the link below

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul Confronts Peter in Antioch--Why It Matters to Us

From the Blessed Hope Podcast (Episode Four, Galatians 2:11-21)

The Success of the Gentile Mission Raised Questions

As new churches were established in Gentile areas north of Palestine, one pressing question needed to be addressed. How were Jews and Gentiles to get along with one another in these new churches? This was especially the case in Asia Minor where Jews lived in many cities among large Gentile populations. Jewish Christians remained steeped in Jewish life and culture. No doubt, they struggled with the fact that recent Gentile converts had different sexual mores, ate things Jews did not, and who, when pressed about matters of the law may have asked, “who is this Moses fellow you keep talking about?” How would close fellowship between Jewish believers and “unclean” Gentiles in Galatia and Antioch be seen back in Jerusalem? The dicey relationship between Jew and Gentile meant that a collision between the weak-willed Peter and the iron-willed Paul was at some point inevitable. In verses 11-14, Paul demonstrates that even apostles must have their doctrine and conduct checked in the light of Scripture, specifically the revelation of Jesus about the gospel.

Moving on from recounting his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem, Paul tells the Galatians how he was forced to confront Peter to his face when the latter had caved in to pressure from messengers from James possibly claiming they were sent by the Jerusalem church. This confrontation likely occurred not long after Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after their prior visit to Jerusalem. As N. T. Wright points out, it is easy to overlook the fact that the reason why this seems so vivid in Paul’s account is because these events had taken place quite recently [1].

There is a noticeable progression in Paul’s recounting of his relationship with Peter, especially in light of the burgeoning Gentile mission undertaken by Paul, Barnabas, and others. Paul describes being Peter’s guest for fifteen days during his first trip to Jerusalem post-conversion (Galatians 1:18-20). Then, he speaks of Peter as a fellow apostle when recounting his second trip to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10), before, finally, describing a confrontation with Peter when the latter falls into serious doctrinal error (Galatians 2:11-14).[2] While it is difficult to know how much of this is a word for word account of what Paul said to Peter and how much is a summation, what follows amounts to a major confrontation between the two men over the ground and meaning of the doctrine of justification.

To read the rest, follow the Link Below

The Binding of Satan

The Binding of Satan — Background and Introduction to the Controversy

In Revelation 20:1-3, John is given a remarkable vision:

“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.” In verse 7, John adds, “and when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison.”

The binding of Satan as depicted in this passage raises several obvious questions, especially in light of the on-going debate between amillennarians and premillennarians about the timing and character of the millennial age. This is the only biblical text which specifically mentions a thousand year period of time in which Satan’s power and activity are curtailed (the millennial age). The two most obvious questions raised by John’s vision are, “what does it mean for Satan to be bound in such a manner?” and “are the thousand years a present or a future period of time?” Amillennarians and premillennarians take quite different approaches to this passage and offer conflicting answers to these questions.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Speaking of Paul, What Did He Look Like?

Of course, we have no idea what Paul looked like—the varied paintings and historic mosaics bear this out. The Bible is not concerned with such things, and there is no known description of Paul from his lifetime.

But there is one physical description of Paul, written about 160 A.D. It is found in an apocryphal writing, known as the Acts of Paul. Its veracity is a matter of some debate. Often, there is just enough truth in such accounts that they gain acceptance. Here is what we have:

And he (Onesiphorus) proceed along the royal highway to Lystra and stood expecting him, and according to the information of Titus, he inspected them that came. And he saw Paul coming, a man small in stature, bald-headed, crooked in legs, healthy, with eyebrows joining, nose rather long [lit. somewhat hooked], full of grace; for sometimes he appeared like a man, but sometimes he had the face of an angel.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Did Paul Ever See Jesus During Our Lord's Earthly Ministry?

Although most New Testament scholars simply assume that Paul had never seen Jesus prior to Paul’s Damascus Road experience, Stanley Porter raises the fascinating possibility that Paul and Jesus had indeed crossed paths before Paul’s conversion. The argument can be found in summary form in: Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought and Letters (Eerdmans, 2016), 33-38. A more extensive (and expensive) version can be found here: When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

Porter’s case is based upon several lines of evidence.

First, Jesus spent much of his time in Galilee, but went to Jerusalem on several occasions. Jesus also spent the last part of his messianic mission in the city. Given the fact that Paul too spent significant time in Jerusalem as a teen studying under Gamaliel, and that Jesus was a very well-known and controversial figure within Pharisaical circles, Paul likely knew of Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem, even if he had not seen him personally. But given Jesus’ controversial ministry among Jews in the city, a zealous young rabbinical student like Paul very likely would have been quite interested in evaluating Jesus for himself, possibly on one or more occasions. Paul and Jesus were in the same place at the same time so it is very plausible that Paul would have been curious enough to go and see Jesus for himself.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Three Takeaways from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

There are a number of important points made by Luke in Acts 15, but three stand out for brief mention here, especially when considered in light of Paul’s recently written Letter to The Galatians (which I take to be written in A.D. 48, a year or so before the Jerusalem Council convened). Paul, Barnabas, along the with apostles (James and Peter) and the elders of the Jerusalem church (including Judas called Barsabbas and Silas) were present to debate the matter of whether circumcision was required of Gentile converts to Christianity, if they were to be saved (Acts 15:1-2).

First, despite the ethnic and cultural differences between Jew and Gentile, both groups were equal and full members in the Israel of God which is Christ’s church (cf. Galatians 6:16). As Paul made clear in his Galatian letter, the gospel is not based upon human obedience to the Law of Moses or submission to circumcision (“works of the law”—Galatians 2:16), which supposedly made the Jew superior to Gentiles. It is clear that the gospel is the preaching of Christ crucified, through which, God in his grace, calls his elect to faith in Jesus Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Who Is to Blame for Tragedy? A Look at Jesus’ Answer in Luke 13:1-5 and John 9:1-3

Almost every culture–whether ancient or modern–seems to possess a superstitious belief that whenever anything bad happens to someone, it must be because the person has done something which brought the tragic event about. People seem wired to ask themselves, or inquire of others, what the victim did which brought calamity down upon their heads. What did they do to provoke God to anger? The underlying assumption is correct–bad things happen to bad people. We do live in a fallen world after all, so we expect tragedy and disaster. But the conclusion often reached when we seek an answer as to “why?” these things happen is incorrect–that there is an immutable cause and effect relationship between specific sins and immediate bad consequences. What is often overlooked is that the one questioning why something bad happened to someone else, is as guilty before God as is the person they are speculating about.

In Luke 13:1-5, Jesus speaks about two tragic events which occurred in first century Israel which produced just this sort of speculation. The first of these is mentioned in verse 1, when we read of those “who told [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” We do not know exactly to what historical event this was referring (we have no known record of it), but the implication seems to be that Pilate ordered certain Galilean Jews to be killed at the time of the Passover sacrifices, in effect “mixing blood.”

The question is an important one because based upon Old Testament texts such as Job 4:7 (“Remember: who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?) the Pharisees commonly taught that bad things happened to people as a consequence of personal sin. But the assumption that the Galilean’s blood was mixed with their sacrifices because of a particular sin is addressed directly by Jesus in the form of a rhetorical question. In verse 2, Jesus asks those asking about this, “do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?” In a second example, Jesus mentions another disaster apparently well-known to his audience. “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?” (v. 4).

To read the rest, follow the link below

One People or Two? The Challenge Raised to Dispensationalism by Ephesians 2:11-22

It was the famed New York Yankees’ catcher turned philosopher, Yogi Berra, who once said, “when you come to a fork in the road, take it!” Paul’s discussion in Ephesians 2:11-22, addresses the relationship between Jew and Gentile in Christ’s church. It is a passage which requires us to ask a “fork in the road” sort of question. “In the new covenant era, does God have one people (the church), or two peoples (Jew and Gentile) each assigned different redemptive purposes?” Reformed amillennarians and dispensationalists take quite different directions when coming to this important Pauline “fork in the road.”

Dispensationalists struggle to understand and explain Ephesians 2:11-22 because Paul assets something much different than the standard dispensational claim that although there is but one gospel, nevertheless, God has two distinct redemptive purposes, one for national Israel and another for Gentiles.

To illustrate the problem faced by dispensationalists, it is useful to survey the way in which traditional dispensational writers have approached this passage. J. Dwight Pentecost, writes that this passage describes God’s purpose for the present age (where there is a visible unity), but does not describe his purpose for the millennial age when the two peoples (Jew and Gentiles) are again distinct groups. Pentecost is so bold as to state, “Scripture is unintelligible until one can distinguish clearly between God’s program for his earthly people Israel and that for the church.”[1]

John Walvoord understands the passage as referring to the “new program” for the church which, he claims, was a mystery in the Old Testament. In the New Testament dispensation, a living union is formed so that Jew and Gentile are brought together with all racial tensions eliminated [2]. Like Pentecost, Walvoord argues that such unity is only temporary and in the millennial age the historic and ethnic differences between Jew and Gentile re-emerge.

To read the rest, follow the link below

A Rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem? A Look at Ezekiel's Vision in Chapters 40-48

In light of periodic calls to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple (Time to Rebuild the Temple?), the matter of whether or not this will come to pass is part and parcel of the on-going debate about events associated with the end times and the return of Jesus Christ. The very possibility of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple raises a number of serious theological questions which ought to be addressed, especially in light of the dispensational expectation of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the dawn of the supposed seven-year tribulation period, which then functions as a center of worship during the millennial age.

As for the possibility of the temple actually being rebuilt, I am one who says “never say never” about future world events. I have no idea what will happen over the long run in Jerusalem and Israel. That said, I do not think such a thing is even remotely likely, given the current tensions in Jerusalem over control and access to the Temple Mount, much less the long-term political circumstances of doing so. Should Israel develop the religious and political will to occupy the Temple Mount (something unforeseeable at this point in time) and eventually take the steps necessary to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is the third holiest site in Islam), the Jewish state would face the wrath of the entire Islamic world as well as that of much of the secular West. Since dispensationalists often connect the rebuilding of the temple to the geo-political tensions necessary to foster the appearance of the Antichrist, who, they claim, will make a peace treaty with Israel before betraying the nation leading to a final end-times catastrophe, such upheaval is not beyond the realm of possibility. Dispensationalists expect the Jerusalem Temple to be rebuilt and fervently hope for it.

To read the rest follow the link below

When We Confess the Church to be Apostolic

When We confess the Church to Be Apostolic

I know that this might come as a shock to my fellow baby-boomers, but the Christian church wasn’t founded by the Jesus people in the 1960’s—although their own congregation might have been. Americans often think about the church as though it was founded by Charles Finney during the Second Great Awakening. It was not. Nor was the church established by Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield during the First Great Awakening. The church was already fifteen centuries old when Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to reform it at the time of the Reformation. There is even a sense in which the church is as old as Adam and Eve and the first family. And Calvin was absolutely correct to affirm that the church existed in its infancy in the midst of Israel before the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Christian church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ when he called his apostles to follow him, and is then given a significant Spirit-filled role in redemptive history after Pentecost. When we consider that the church of Jesus Christ is apostolic, this is where we begin.

It is fashionable in those circles dominated by critical biblical scholarship to think of the church as a worshiping community in need of a Messiah–the first Christians supposedly elevated an itinerant apocalyptic prophet (Jesus of Nazareth) to his messianic status and then put pithy “Jesus sayings” back in his mouth. The church was not the fruit of the organizational genius of a group of followers who came to believe that Jesus had risen in their hearts (the so-called “Easter experience”) as they tried to cope with the disappointment they felt once Jesus was put to death by the Romans and his glorious kingdom did not manifest itself as promised. Rather, the biblical record tells us that the church was founded by a Risen Savior who left behind an empty tomb and then appeared to a number of his chosen witnesses the first Easter, confirming that his death on Good Friday was the ultimate triumph over human sin. The church confessed in the Creed was founded by Jesus Christ, victorious over sin, death, and the grave.

to read the rest, follow the link below

Biblical Events, Biblical TheologyKim RiddlebargerApril 22, 2022The church as apostolicComment

Jonah -- The Preacher of Repentance (1): Who Was Jonah?

A Well-Known Story

Most everyone knows the story of Jonah. Jonah was a reluctant Hebrew prophet who, while fleeing from his divine commission, was thrown overboard in the midst of a horrific storm by his terrified shipmates, only to be swallowed by a big fish (usually assumed to be a whale). Jonah then spent three days and nights in the fish’s belly, before being vomited up by the fish on a foreign shore. Once safely on land, Jonah fulfilled his evangelistic mission, went to Nineveh as commanded, and preached to the Ninevites who repented en masse. The story is simple enough it can be understood by a child, but profound enough that theologians and biblical scholars still debate its meaning.

Whenever considering any book of the Bible it is important to ask and answer several questions to make sure we interpret the book and its message correctly. Who was Jonah, when did he live, why did he write this book, and what is in it? How does this particular prophecy compare with the other Minor Prophets who lived and ministered about the same time? These questions are especially important with a book like Jonah, which many think to be an allegory or a moral fable, seeing the story as so implausible that it cannot possibly be speaking of historical events. How can someone be swallowed alive by a whale and live for three days? No, the critics say, this cannot be history, so it must be an allegory, a teaching parable, or a work of fiction, designed to teach us some important spiritual or moral truth.

When we interpret Jonah’s prophecy through this fictional lens, the reader’s focus usually falls upon Jonah himself, the prime example of a reluctant prophet who refuses to obey God’s will. By not obeying God, Jonah finds himself in the belly of a whale, until God relents and the whale then spits Jonah out safe and sound–if a bit shook up. The moral to the story is that should God call you to do something you do not want to do, learn the lesson of the story of Jonah. Obey the Lord and avoid the kind of calamity which comes upon those who, like Jonah, will not do what they know God wants them to do.

To read the rest, follow the link below