I listened to a sermon preached this last weekend (here) at Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church by Elder David Pyles on Joshua as a type of Christ, and I heartily commend this sermon to all.
I enjoyed it on many counts, as the interconnected truths of Scripture were deftly manifested by the Elder in the application of the typology of Christ and His triumphant kingdom by Joshua's leadership of Israel in the conquest of Canaan.
Pertaining to some of my recent blogs on the Sculptor's Hammer, I found the sermon quite relevant to the Faithless Generation and John 10:24-28 posts, especially as Elder Pyles rebuts the tendency of some PB ministers to apply Canaan's land only to the New Testament Church and affirms the obedience of the new generation of Israelites that enter Canaan's land as an example of Psalms 110:3. He quotes John 10:27 also in application of the obedience of the generation that entered Canaan.
Wonderful sermon, and an intellectual treat.
Some Primitive Baptists seem to have a bizarre view of spiritual preaching. I hear comments often to the effect of divorcing spiritual preaching with the intellect.
I have heard an older sermon by Ray Piles (and Elder Sonny Pyles has stated in his sermons) that, though the Apostle Paul had the gospel revealed to him directly by Christ, Paul's exhortation to Timothy, as a non-Apostolic minister of the gospel, was to, "Study to show thyself approved...". A minister that is not given to study cannot be a God-called minister, therefore.
Nevertheless, an attitude exists among some PB's that true spiritual preaching is done by an ignorant minister having the Holy Spirit "funnel" the gospel through Him, as if the man plays little or no part in the message. Often, ministers with this tendency of attitude will "chant", "sing-song", or "cry" their messages, as if the Spirit is palpably manifested in something other than truth. Preachers today do not receive the gospel to be preached on Sunday morning like Paul received it from Christ. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost gave and revealed the power of the gospel by the Spirit to the Apostles in a different manner (with the knowledge of foreign tongues, etc.) than ordinary preachers learn to preach it.
Intellectual truth of the preached gospel is the chief evidence of the Spirit. This is established plainly in John 4:24 by Jesus' statement that only those who worship God in Spirit and in truth are in true worship. These do not exist separately from each other, but are mutually dependent.
The elders that rule well, and especially those that labor in the word and doctrine are counted worthy of double honor, according to 1 Timothy 5:17. I do not find that it is unscriptural, therefore, to recognize in Elder David Pyles an Elder worthy of double honor in regard to his intellectual/spiritual grasp and command of the doctrines of the bible.
I have never personally met Elder David, though I have corresponded with him in emails. My enthusiasm for his sermons is that I am spiritually/intellectually fed by them. My hope and prayer is that the study habits of some of the ministers among the PB's will improve, and the superstition of "Holy Ghost conjuring" by chant, tears, or hoarse wails will be abolished.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
John 10:24-28
I have been somewhat unclear with this text in my past writing on my Primitive Baptist Apologist blog, and I would like to state clearly the meaning of this passage, as I understand it.
Most Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett, I think, apply and correlate this passage to John 5:25 in the "voice" of Christ being the effectual call, which I think is partially correct.
What I have tried to point out, is that this passage clearly applies more of John 5 than simply verse 25 as I shall show. The "hearing" and "following" of the sheep in 10:27 is plainly contrasted to the gospel unbelief of the pharisees in 10:25. The evident and incontrovertible point of Christ is that the pharisees were gospel unbelievers because they were not of Christ's sheep.
Now, the problem here for some modern Primitive Baptists is that this passage clearly makes the gospel belief lacking in the pharisees (vs. 25, 26) part of the "hearing" and "following" of the sheep by contrast. This follows quite clearly to any reasonable mind free of prejudice. The unbelief of the pharisees in this passage to the ministry of Jesus is clearly a result of non-election, and the gospel belief of sheep is plainly a part of hearing and following the voice of Christ, as, "He that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God (John 8:47)".
The problem for Stephen Garrett, and some Primitive Baptists also, is observed in 10:27 as correlated to John 5, is that in John 5, spiritual life is not limited to the quickening of the Son in verse 25. As Christ stated plainly in 5:21, the Father quickened whoever He willed, as the Son. It is clear from John 5:37, 38 that there were many already quickened by the Father, but that those not quickened by the Father showed damnation in rejecting the ministry of Jesus.
John 5:24 is understood in this vein, as the ministry of Jesus was compatible with the Father, and he that rejected Christ, rejected the Father (5:23), showing their damned state in their pseudo trust in Moses (5:45-47).
John 5:24 refers to those Jews with the Father's word already abiding in them (21, 38) who embraced the public ministry of Christ because they had eternal life.
John 5 does not isolate the hearing of the words of Jesus to the quickening, resurrecting power of Jesus, manifestly, as there were clearly Jews already quickened of the Father. John 5:25 refers to the quickening power of Jesus, indeed, but there is no reason to view John 10:24-28 as only referring to John 5:25 because the "sheep" is a reference to all of the elect, even those already quickened by the Father. John 10:24-28 clearly encompasses the truth of the 5th chapter that there were many pseudo-Jews who "trusted" in Moses to their own damnation, who were not quickened by the Father or Jesus.
The pharisees in 10:24,25 were clearly such Jews who did not have the Father's word abiding in them. The idea that the sheep are all quickened by the voice of Jesus contradicts John 5:21. The point of 10:27, in harmony with the entire 5th chapter of John, is that hearing the voice of Christ is not only the quickening of the dead by the Spirit, it is also the corroboration of those with eternal life that have been quickened by the Father (John 6:45).
I do not think that some modern Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett clearly evaluate John 10:24-28 in relation to John 5, and realize that it must refer both to Christ's quickening and the illumination of the Father's previous quickening, just as the effectual call may be with the gospel as preached by men or apart from it. But regardless of whether the words of Christ are physically present whether by Christ or preachers of Christ, it is Christ or the Father by the Spirit that effects quickening through the spiritual revelation of the person of Christ (5:25), which embraces the words of Christ as preached by men, if they are present, as the sheep follow their shepherd (5:24).
The sheep already quickened by the Father would hear the voice of Christ to gospel conversion (5:24, 6:45), and the sheep yet dead in their sins would hear the voice of Christ (or be drawn of the Father - 6:44) first by Spirit (5:25), then by following immediately in faith and life in the person of Christ and gospel belief tantamount to the spiritual experience of His person (10:27).
The central point is that John 10:27 does not establish that all the elect are quickened by the Son, as this would make Christ to contradict Himself in John 5:21. All of the sheep hear the voice of Christ whether by quickening power, as in the first instance of life from the dead (5:25), or because they have been quickened already by the Father (5:24).
Most Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett, I think, apply and correlate this passage to John 5:25 in the "voice" of Christ being the effectual call, which I think is partially correct.
What I have tried to point out, is that this passage clearly applies more of John 5 than simply verse 25 as I shall show. The "hearing" and "following" of the sheep in 10:27 is plainly contrasted to the gospel unbelief of the pharisees in 10:25. The evident and incontrovertible point of Christ is that the pharisees were gospel unbelievers because they were not of Christ's sheep.
Now, the problem here for some modern Primitive Baptists is that this passage clearly makes the gospel belief lacking in the pharisees (vs. 25, 26) part of the "hearing" and "following" of the sheep by contrast. This follows quite clearly to any reasonable mind free of prejudice. The unbelief of the pharisees in this passage to the ministry of Jesus is clearly a result of non-election, and the gospel belief of sheep is plainly a part of hearing and following the voice of Christ, as, "He that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God (John 8:47)".
The problem for Stephen Garrett, and some Primitive Baptists also, is observed in 10:27 as correlated to John 5, is that in John 5, spiritual life is not limited to the quickening of the Son in verse 25. As Christ stated plainly in 5:21, the Father quickened whoever He willed, as the Son. It is clear from John 5:37, 38 that there were many already quickened by the Father, but that those not quickened by the Father showed damnation in rejecting the ministry of Jesus.
John 5:24 is understood in this vein, as the ministry of Jesus was compatible with the Father, and he that rejected Christ, rejected the Father (5:23), showing their damned state in their pseudo trust in Moses (5:45-47).
John 5:24 refers to those Jews with the Father's word already abiding in them (21, 38) who embraced the public ministry of Christ because they had eternal life.
John 5 does not isolate the hearing of the words of Jesus to the quickening, resurrecting power of Jesus, manifestly, as there were clearly Jews already quickened of the Father. John 5:25 refers to the quickening power of Jesus, indeed, but there is no reason to view John 10:24-28 as only referring to John 5:25 because the "sheep" is a reference to all of the elect, even those already quickened by the Father. John 10:24-28 clearly encompasses the truth of the 5th chapter that there were many pseudo-Jews who "trusted" in Moses to their own damnation, who were not quickened by the Father or Jesus.
The pharisees in 10:24,25 were clearly such Jews who did not have the Father's word abiding in them. The idea that the sheep are all quickened by the voice of Jesus contradicts John 5:21. The point of 10:27, in harmony with the entire 5th chapter of John, is that hearing the voice of Christ is not only the quickening of the dead by the Spirit, it is also the corroboration of those with eternal life that have been quickened by the Father (John 6:45).
I do not think that some modern Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett clearly evaluate John 10:24-28 in relation to John 5, and realize that it must refer both to Christ's quickening and the illumination of the Father's previous quickening, just as the effectual call may be with the gospel as preached by men or apart from it. But regardless of whether the words of Christ are physically present whether by Christ or preachers of Christ, it is Christ or the Father by the Spirit that effects quickening through the spiritual revelation of the person of Christ (5:25), which embraces the words of Christ as preached by men, if they are present, as the sheep follow their shepherd (5:24).
The sheep already quickened by the Father would hear the voice of Christ to gospel conversion (5:24, 6:45), and the sheep yet dead in their sins would hear the voice of Christ (or be drawn of the Father - 6:44) first by Spirit (5:25), then by following immediately in faith and life in the person of Christ and gospel belief tantamount to the spiritual experience of His person (10:27).
The central point is that John 10:27 does not establish that all the elect are quickened by the Son, as this would make Christ to contradict Himself in John 5:21. All of the sheep hear the voice of Christ whether by quickening power, as in the first instance of life from the dead (5:25), or because they have been quickened already by the Father (5:24).
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Michael Gowens on Philippians 1:6
Michael Gowens is a gifted writer and minister of the Primitive Baptists. I would like to consider his comments on Phil. 1:6, which can be found in his article, "The Place of the Gospel".
Elder Gowens wrote:
"Philippians 1:6 is frequently employed to teach that every regenerate person will be automatically and progressively sanctified: “Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ.” But the verb epiteleo translated “will perform” does not mean “will continue to work”, but literally “will bring to completion”. The same root verb (telos) is translated “finished” in John 19:30: “It is finished”. Did the Lord Jesus intend to suggest by that statement that the work of redemption would continue, or that it was completed? Obviously, he intended the latter. Similarly, “will perform” does not mean “will continue” but “will complete”. Philippians 1:6, then, is an eternal security text, not a text to argue for the Reformed idea that every truly regenerate person will persevere in faith and holiness. Paul is simply affirming that the God who quickened them into Divine life will finish the work by giving them glorified bodies to match their regenerate souls when Jesus Christ comes again."
I agree with Elder Gowens that Phil. 1:6 obviously does not establish that children of God are preserved from temporal disobedience, as the London and Fulton Confession allow from Ephes. 4:30.
The Calvinistic view of perseverance is in error when it conditions perseverance, contrary to the London Confession (chapter 17, section 2), on the free will of men rather than God's decree of election. However, the London Confession clearly states in chapter 3, section 1, that the liberty of the creature is established by God's decree, so that, while perseverance is not predicated on the liberty of man's will, the will of the effectually called is established in grace and holiness by God's decree and effectual call.
So, it is not an issue of either preservation by God's decree or perseverance by man's will, but that the elect are preserved by God's decree of election to persevere in the faith and holiness of the seed of God remaining in them (1 John 3:9), which is the "work" begun in them according to Gill in his commentary on Phil. 1:6.
The "faith" and "holiness" persevered is not necessarily every full measure of discipleship, though, surely, in such individuals who persevere in discipleship it is God that worketh in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
The inner man, the principle of grace of 1 John 3:9, is the good work of God begun that will continue until the day of Jesus Christ, and it is the essential faith in the person of Christ of this principle of grace that is kept by the power of God unto salvation ready to be revealed at the last time. This principle of grace manifests the children of God from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10).
Now, it is incorrect to argue that 'epitelesei' refers only to glorification, as if it does not refer to sanctification in time. The sense of the prepositional phrase 'unto the day of Jesus Christ' clearly implies that the good work begun by God is performed in the interim between the beginning of the work at the effectual call and up to the day of Jesus Christ.
Beside this, there is a significant difference between teleo and when the prefix epi is placed before the stem. Epi amplifies the significance of the stem, as it does with 'episkopos'. As Strong's indicates, it means to complete further or perfect, not simply "complete", which is why the text of Phil 1:6 is rendered "will perform it" as an ongoing work. The good work begun is not performed AT the day of Christ's final appearance, but is performed UNTO that day, which plainly implies sanctification in time to any reasonable mind.
This method of attack on this text is unnecessary to uphold the criticism of some Reformed formulations of perseverance. As Gill argues, it is the principle of grace of the inner man that is secured unto eternal life, not a standard of perfect discipleship:
"...it is but a begun work; it is not yet finished and perfect: this appears from the several parts of this work, which are imperfect, as faith, hope, love, knowledge, &c. from the indwelling of sin, and corruption in the best of saints; from their various continual wants and necessities; from their disclaiming perfection in this life, and their desires after it. But the apostle was confident, and so may every good man be confident, both for himself and others, that God who has, and wherever he has begun the good work of grace, will "perform", finish it, or bring it to an end, as the word here used signifies: and this the saints may assure themselves of, from many considerations; as from the nature of the work itself, which is called living water, because it always continues, a well of it, because of its abundance, and is said to spring up to eternal life; because it is inseparably connected with it, where there is grace, there will be glory; grace is the beginning of glory, and glory the perfection of grace; this work of grace is an incorruptible seed, and which remains in the saints, and can never be lost; it is a principle of life, the root of which is hid in Christ, and that itself is maintained by him, and can never be destroyed by men or devils: and also from the concern God has in it, who is unchangeable in his nature, purposes, promises, gifts, and calling; who is a rock, and his work is perfect sooner or later; who is faithful, and will never forsake the work of his hands, and has power to accomplish it; and who has promised his people, that they shall grow stronger and stronger, that they shall not depart from him, and he will never leave them."
What a beautiful passage from Dr. Gill! The tenor of perseverance by preservation is obvious here, and in the London Confession. "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
Elder Gowens wrote:
"Philippians 1:6 is frequently employed to teach that every regenerate person will be automatically and progressively sanctified: “Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ.” But the verb epiteleo translated “will perform” does not mean “will continue to work”, but literally “will bring to completion”. The same root verb (telos) is translated “finished” in John 19:30: “It is finished”. Did the Lord Jesus intend to suggest by that statement that the work of redemption would continue, or that it was completed? Obviously, he intended the latter. Similarly, “will perform” does not mean “will continue” but “will complete”. Philippians 1:6, then, is an eternal security text, not a text to argue for the Reformed idea that every truly regenerate person will persevere in faith and holiness. Paul is simply affirming that the God who quickened them into Divine life will finish the work by giving them glorified bodies to match their regenerate souls when Jesus Christ comes again."
I agree with Elder Gowens that Phil. 1:6 obviously does not establish that children of God are preserved from temporal disobedience, as the London and Fulton Confession allow from Ephes. 4:30.
The Calvinistic view of perseverance is in error when it conditions perseverance, contrary to the London Confession (chapter 17, section 2), on the free will of men rather than God's decree of election. However, the London Confession clearly states in chapter 3, section 1, that the liberty of the creature is established by God's decree, so that, while perseverance is not predicated on the liberty of man's will, the will of the effectually called is established in grace and holiness by God's decree and effectual call.
So, it is not an issue of either preservation by God's decree or perseverance by man's will, but that the elect are preserved by God's decree of election to persevere in the faith and holiness of the seed of God remaining in them (1 John 3:9), which is the "work" begun in them according to Gill in his commentary on Phil. 1:6.
The "faith" and "holiness" persevered is not necessarily every full measure of discipleship, though, surely, in such individuals who persevere in discipleship it is God that worketh in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
The inner man, the principle of grace of 1 John 3:9, is the good work of God begun that will continue until the day of Jesus Christ, and it is the essential faith in the person of Christ of this principle of grace that is kept by the power of God unto salvation ready to be revealed at the last time. This principle of grace manifests the children of God from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10).
Now, it is incorrect to argue that 'epitelesei' refers only to glorification, as if it does not refer to sanctification in time. The sense of the prepositional phrase 'unto the day of Jesus Christ' clearly implies that the good work begun by God is performed in the interim between the beginning of the work at the effectual call and up to the day of Jesus Christ.
Beside this, there is a significant difference between teleo and when the prefix epi is placed before the stem. Epi amplifies the significance of the stem, as it does with 'episkopos'. As Strong's indicates, it means to complete further or perfect, not simply "complete", which is why the text of Phil 1:6 is rendered "will perform it" as an ongoing work. The good work begun is not performed AT the day of Christ's final appearance, but is performed UNTO that day, which plainly implies sanctification in time to any reasonable mind.
This method of attack on this text is unnecessary to uphold the criticism of some Reformed formulations of perseverance. As Gill argues, it is the principle of grace of the inner man that is secured unto eternal life, not a standard of perfect discipleship:
"...it is but a begun work; it is not yet finished and perfect: this appears from the several parts of this work, which are imperfect, as faith, hope, love, knowledge, &c. from the indwelling of sin, and corruption in the best of saints; from their various continual wants and necessities; from their disclaiming perfection in this life, and their desires after it. But the apostle was confident, and so may every good man be confident, both for himself and others, that God who has, and wherever he has begun the good work of grace, will "perform", finish it, or bring it to an end, as the word here used signifies: and this the saints may assure themselves of, from many considerations; as from the nature of the work itself, which is called living water, because it always continues, a well of it, because of its abundance, and is said to spring up to eternal life; because it is inseparably connected with it, where there is grace, there will be glory; grace is the beginning of glory, and glory the perfection of grace; this work of grace is an incorruptible seed, and which remains in the saints, and can never be lost; it is a principle of life, the root of which is hid in Christ, and that itself is maintained by him, and can never be destroyed by men or devils: and also from the concern God has in it, who is unchangeable in his nature, purposes, promises, gifts, and calling; who is a rock, and his work is perfect sooner or later; who is faithful, and will never forsake the work of his hands, and has power to accomplish it; and who has promised his people, that they shall grow stronger and stronger, that they shall not depart from him, and he will never leave them."
What a beautiful passage from Dr. Gill! The tenor of perseverance by preservation is obvious here, and in the London Confession. "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
Friday, July 13, 2012
A Balanced View of the Faithless Generation in Hebrews
As I have stated to Stephen Garrett on my blog, Primitive Baptist Apologist, Primitive Baptists are not committed to viewing the "faithless generation" of Hebrews 3 and 4 as born again individuals that failed to inherit the temporal Kingdom of God in the gospel rest of which Canaan's land was the direct reference, as the temporal promise of God to those in the visible community of believers.
First, it is clear that Moses and Aaron were clearly, according to Numbers 14:4-7, on the side of Caleb and Joshua against the faithlessness of that generation. Moses and Aaron were not faithless in regard to the promise of God of entering into Canaan's land. They were prevented from entering into the Kingdom of God in time because of other acts of disobedience from this event.
Second, the central faithlessness of that generation is clearly presented in the Scripture as evidence of the eternal damnation of that generation. This is clearly proved by an examination of Jude 4-7:
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though you once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
To any reasonable mind, the faithless of that generation that failed to inherit the temporal promises of God is indicative of non-election in those "before of old ordained to this condemnation". The faithlessness is placed in the same category as the devil and his angels and the damned of Sodom who are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the vengeance of the Lord of eternal fire.
It is, therefore, untenable to suggest that there were born again individuals in that faithless generation that opposed Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, and Yahweh of whom it is said in Hebrews 3 that they, "always do err in their heart and have not known my ways".
However, Moses and Aaron still failed to inherit the temporal Kingdom of God in Canaan's land for other acts of disobedience. This obviously proves that regenerate children of God can fail to enter the temporal Kingdom of God through disobedience.
The point of Hebrews 3 and 4 is that there is a temporal rest promised to the people of God in the gospel - a temporal realization of an eternal reality, as there was to that faithless generation, and it's foundation is the eternal, Sabbath rest of God that Christ secured for His house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end (Heb. 3:6).
Without laying hold of the temporal rest of Christ and His righteousness in gospel belief, there is no basis to hope for the eternal, Sabbath rest of God in Christ, obviously. This is the point. There is no hope of eternal heaven apart from gospel belief, as the faithless generation failed the temporal rest of God because they were damned, according to Jude.
One cannot find solace in Moses and Aaron's disobedience, as on what basis could one identify themselves apart from the company of the damned in Jude as simply disobedient but regenerate when they fail to embrace Jesus Christ as did the damned?
However, just because some "seem to come short of it" (temporal rest in gospel belief), does not necessarily mean they are damned, though this could explain disobedience as it did for that faithless generation, as the temporal exhortation of Paul is to seize the temporal inheritance while it is called today - while the disobedient are yet in the way (Matt. 5:25,26), proving one's election of God in fear and trembling, before one is delivered into the prison of hell to pay every farthing of sin treasured up unto wrath and the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to the gospel.
The missing piece to understanding Hebrews is the epistemic focus of the quality of faith that confers assurance of eternal salvation. Hebrews does not provide assurance of eternal salvation to those who draw back unto perdition, but to those who believe unto the saving of the soul, which is placed in Hebrews 10 in regard to Christ's final appearance.
I pray that Primitive Baptist ministers will seek a balanced position on disobedient children of God, and teach the whole counsel of God. Unrepentant "disobedience" is not a fruit of the Spirit which leads those truly effectually called (Romans 8:14).
First, it is clear that Moses and Aaron were clearly, according to Numbers 14:4-7, on the side of Caleb and Joshua against the faithlessness of that generation. Moses and Aaron were not faithless in regard to the promise of God of entering into Canaan's land. They were prevented from entering into the Kingdom of God in time because of other acts of disobedience from this event.
Second, the central faithlessness of that generation is clearly presented in the Scripture as evidence of the eternal damnation of that generation. This is clearly proved by an examination of Jude 4-7:
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though you once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
To any reasonable mind, the faithless of that generation that failed to inherit the temporal promises of God is indicative of non-election in those "before of old ordained to this condemnation". The faithlessness is placed in the same category as the devil and his angels and the damned of Sodom who are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the vengeance of the Lord of eternal fire.
It is, therefore, untenable to suggest that there were born again individuals in that faithless generation that opposed Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, and Yahweh of whom it is said in Hebrews 3 that they, "always do err in their heart and have not known my ways".
However, Moses and Aaron still failed to inherit the temporal Kingdom of God in Canaan's land for other acts of disobedience. This obviously proves that regenerate children of God can fail to enter the temporal Kingdom of God through disobedience.
The point of Hebrews 3 and 4 is that there is a temporal rest promised to the people of God in the gospel - a temporal realization of an eternal reality, as there was to that faithless generation, and it's foundation is the eternal, Sabbath rest of God that Christ secured for His house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end (Heb. 3:6).
Without laying hold of the temporal rest of Christ and His righteousness in gospel belief, there is no basis to hope for the eternal, Sabbath rest of God in Christ, obviously. This is the point. There is no hope of eternal heaven apart from gospel belief, as the faithless generation failed the temporal rest of God because they were damned, according to Jude.
One cannot find solace in Moses and Aaron's disobedience, as on what basis could one identify themselves apart from the company of the damned in Jude as simply disobedient but regenerate when they fail to embrace Jesus Christ as did the damned?
However, just because some "seem to come short of it" (temporal rest in gospel belief), does not necessarily mean they are damned, though this could explain disobedience as it did for that faithless generation, as the temporal exhortation of Paul is to seize the temporal inheritance while it is called today - while the disobedient are yet in the way (Matt. 5:25,26), proving one's election of God in fear and trembling, before one is delivered into the prison of hell to pay every farthing of sin treasured up unto wrath and the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to the gospel.
The missing piece to understanding Hebrews is the epistemic focus of the quality of faith that confers assurance of eternal salvation. Hebrews does not provide assurance of eternal salvation to those who draw back unto perdition, but to those who believe unto the saving of the soul, which is placed in Hebrews 10 in regard to Christ's final appearance.
I pray that Primitive Baptist ministers will seek a balanced position on disobedient children of God, and teach the whole counsel of God. Unrepentant "disobedience" is not a fruit of the Spirit which leads those truly effectually called (Romans 8:14).
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Elder Walter Cash on Is Time Salvation Conditional?
I noticed while perusing the Spring 2012, The Old Path Contender, a quarterly Primitive Baptist publication edited by Elder Kenneth Clevenger, that it showcased Elder Walter Cash's article in the Messenger of Peace in February 1924.
I have enjoyed and commend Elder Cash's writings to all, and count him certainly to be one of the most knowledgeable and Biblically faithful Primitive Baptists of the last century who emphasized, above all, using Bible language wherever possible. The semantic confusion that can arise when doctrine is formulated conceptually apart from the language of Scripture, even if substantively synonymous, has been the cause of unnecessary strife within the Bride of Christ. Certainly for the cause of the babes in Christ who might strain at concepts like the meat offered to idols, language that is not Biblical, though it is conceptually consistent with the logical consequence of expressed Biblical concepts, ought to be eschewed in preaching in favor of the language of Scripture.
This truth reproves both sides of the debate between those that advocate God's predestination of all things, and the so-called "conditional", time salvation, as Brother Cash's writings demonstrate.
I present the article that was originally presented by Elder Cash, whose years of life were from 1856-1937, in the, Messenger of Peace, in February, 1924:
Is Time Salvation Conditional?
Brother J.S. Rippeto, of Hartsburg, Missouri, asks me to answer this question, "Is Time Salvation Conditional?" through the MESSENGER of PEACE. It cannot be answered "yes" or "no." The reason why it cannot be is because the meaning of "time salvation" has to be defined before it can be intelligently discussed. It would be better to say in the beginning that the term should not be used at all, for the reason that it is too indefinite. It is not a Bible expression and we should always be careful about using expressions that are not warranted by the Bible.
It may be true that in some sense we might use the expression, "time salvation," but it would always need to be qualified. It is better to use terms so plain that they will be understood without having to qualify them. The word "salvation," as used in the Bible, generally refers to God's salvation of his people, whether it be in time or to eternity. God's salvation is God's saving and the manifestation of this commences in time and it's blessings and benefits are felt and known in time, and are made perfect in eternity. Whenever this is used, those not used to some special explanation would be likely to think of this salvation and object to saying that it was conditioned on the acts of men. For this reason I feel that the expression, "time salvation" is not good usage.
This expression is generally used to refer to blessings that follow obedience to God's will and way, or contrariwise, to the chastisement that follow disobedience. Upon these points the Bible is so clear that if we use Bible terms no one will be misled. If we ask, is there conditional chastisement? The Bible will answer such a question. God said to Samuel of David, "If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him." This course is also true of God's dealings with his children in all the ages. "We are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world." Our fathers, after the flesh, "chastened us after their own pleasure; but He (God) for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness."
No one with reason would claim that God chastised without cause or that He chastised the obedient. So, likewise, we know that the obedient have the approval of the Master and the fruits of the Spirit will be manifest in them. So, while it is true that the obedient save themselves from chastisement, it is not necessary to call it time salvation.
At the same time, Elder Cash in an article entitled, Thoughts on Predestination, published in Messenger of Peace, 1928, opposed the use of "predestinate" in reference to what God suffers or permits:
"
In modern PB's, you often hear of this latter, semantic objection to the use of the expression of God's predestination of all things by fiat or permissive decree. I agree with the point here, as it cannot be denied that the Bible's direct use of the word "predestinate" in the New Testament is expressly in reference to the specific salvation of individuals, though I do not object to the use of this term in reference to what God suffers as long as it is clearly qualified that God's predestination of sin is permissive and not causative, as the Fulton Confession (Hassell through this confession, as they adopted his statements in the footnotes) and the LCF allowed.
However, it is inconsistent to stress this semantic focus of Biblical language without doing the same of the expression, "conditional time salvation", which is the focus of Elder Cash in his article posted above. The salient objection to Absoluters and Stephen Garrett's view of soteriology, is that the sin of the regenerate, and the consequent chastisement in time, are clearly presented in the Scripture as conditional, not absolute, as the Bible commands in Ephesians to, "grieve not the Holy Ghost" and, 1 Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit." Also, clearly James 1:13,14 emphatically makes this point.
It does not follow from this fundamental objection that the subjective experience of grace and mercy of God is as conditional as disobedience, as the effectual call is manifestly unconditional, as an aspect of salvation experienced in time. As Cash argues, it is disobedience that is conditional from the Scripture, not salvation (except as salvation pertains to deliverance from temporal disobedience), which is the common experience of all those truly shepherded.
May the truth and emphases of the Scripture inform the emphases of His ministers.
I have enjoyed and commend Elder Cash's writings to all, and count him certainly to be one of the most knowledgeable and Biblically faithful Primitive Baptists of the last century who emphasized, above all, using Bible language wherever possible. The semantic confusion that can arise when doctrine is formulated conceptually apart from the language of Scripture, even if substantively synonymous, has been the cause of unnecessary strife within the Bride of Christ. Certainly for the cause of the babes in Christ who might strain at concepts like the meat offered to idols, language that is not Biblical, though it is conceptually consistent with the logical consequence of expressed Biblical concepts, ought to be eschewed in preaching in favor of the language of Scripture.
This truth reproves both sides of the debate between those that advocate God's predestination of all things, and the so-called "conditional", time salvation, as Brother Cash's writings demonstrate.
I present the article that was originally presented by Elder Cash, whose years of life were from 1856-1937, in the, Messenger of Peace, in February, 1924:
Is Time Salvation Conditional?
Brother J.S. Rippeto, of Hartsburg, Missouri, asks me to answer this question, "Is Time Salvation Conditional?" through the MESSENGER of PEACE. It cannot be answered "yes" or "no." The reason why it cannot be is because the meaning of "time salvation" has to be defined before it can be intelligently discussed. It would be better to say in the beginning that the term should not be used at all, for the reason that it is too indefinite. It is not a Bible expression and we should always be careful about using expressions that are not warranted by the Bible.
It may be true that in some sense we might use the expression, "time salvation," but it would always need to be qualified. It is better to use terms so plain that they will be understood without having to qualify them. The word "salvation," as used in the Bible, generally refers to God's salvation of his people, whether it be in time or to eternity. God's salvation is God's saving and the manifestation of this commences in time and it's blessings and benefits are felt and known in time, and are made perfect in eternity. Whenever this is used, those not used to some special explanation would be likely to think of this salvation and object to saying that it was conditioned on the acts of men. For this reason I feel that the expression, "time salvation" is not good usage.
This expression is generally used to refer to blessings that follow obedience to God's will and way, or contrariwise, to the chastisement that follow disobedience. Upon these points the Bible is so clear that if we use Bible terms no one will be misled. If we ask, is there conditional chastisement? The Bible will answer such a question. God said to Samuel of David, "If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him." This course is also true of God's dealings with his children in all the ages. "We are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world." Our fathers, after the flesh, "chastened us after their own pleasure; but He (God) for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness."
No one with reason would claim that God chastised without cause or that He chastised the obedient. So, likewise, we know that the obedient have the approval of the Master and the fruits of the Spirit will be manifest in them. So, while it is true that the obedient save themselves from chastisement, it is not necessary to call it time salvation.
At the same time, Elder Cash in an article entitled, Thoughts on Predestination, published in Messenger of Peace, 1928, opposed the use of "predestinate" in reference to what God suffers or permits:
"
It may be urged that God certainly knows what will be, and so it may be said he "predestinated to permit" all the evil that there is in the world. The fact that he does not prevent evil cannot be denied. And he permits in the sense that he has power to prevent and does not do so. But we should so hold ourselves to the use of scripture language that we do not use terms that the scriptures do not use, and it is nowhere said in his word that he predestinates to permit. This is too strong a term to use unless God himself had authorized it.
"In modern PB's, you often hear of this latter, semantic objection to the use of the expression of God's predestination of all things by fiat or permissive decree. I agree with the point here, as it cannot be denied that the Bible's direct use of the word "predestinate" in the New Testament is expressly in reference to the specific salvation of individuals, though I do not object to the use of this term in reference to what God suffers as long as it is clearly qualified that God's predestination of sin is permissive and not causative, as the Fulton Confession (Hassell through this confession, as they adopted his statements in the footnotes) and the LCF allowed.
However, it is inconsistent to stress this semantic focus of Biblical language without doing the same of the expression, "conditional time salvation", which is the focus of Elder Cash in his article posted above. The salient objection to Absoluters and Stephen Garrett's view of soteriology, is that the sin of the regenerate, and the consequent chastisement in time, are clearly presented in the Scripture as conditional, not absolute, as the Bible commands in Ephesians to, "grieve not the Holy Ghost" and, 1 Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit." Also, clearly James 1:13,14 emphatically makes this point.
It does not follow from this fundamental objection that the subjective experience of grace and mercy of God is as conditional as disobedience, as the effectual call is manifestly unconditional, as an aspect of salvation experienced in time. As Cash argues, it is disobedience that is conditional from the Scripture, not salvation (except as salvation pertains to deliverance from temporal disobedience), which is the common experience of all those truly shepherded.
May the truth and emphases of the Scripture inform the emphases of His ministers.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Awake Thou That Sleepest!
Stephen Garrett stated (here) in regard to Ephesians 5:14:
"I see this as a serious difficulty for the Hardshells relative to this passage. Even if we apply the "command" to those who are already spiritually resurrected and alive, is Christ still not calling, with his "word" and"voice," his living children to "come forth" in a "resurrection"? Even if one makes the "resurrection," experience alluded to in the passage, a"conversion" experience, to a post "regeneration" experience, then is it still not a case where a command, exactly like the one he makes in regeneration, is made? Does the passage then not show, by any honest admission, that the command to be "converted" is the same kind of command as given in the work of "regeneration"? Is God still not commanding a "resurrection," of some sort, to take place in both regeneration and conversion? Why then is one experience "irresistable" and"efficacious" and the other not, seeing the same language is used by God in commanding both?"
I reject Stephen Garrett's general view of this passage for the reasons I will state on my blog, "The Primitive Baptist Apologist". However, I couldn't have stated the logical implications of this passage better for some ministers among the Primitive Baptists who would make moral sanctification and gospel conversion not of grace and fully optional, which is unbiblical.
However, I deny this error has been the view of knowledgeable Primitive Baptists, and I assert it is nothing less than a relapse into the hollow log heresy, which every single Primitive Baptist claims to deny.
2 Peter 1:3 clearly states that God gives all things that pertain to life and godliness, and it is God that works within the regenerate to will and do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12,13), perfecting them unto the image of His Son unto the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).
The degree of sanctification and gospel conversion is something in which the spirit of God leads the regenerate man's will (Romans 8:14), and yet it can be resisted to some degree, as 1 Thess. 5:19.
But there is a rudimentary sense, according to the grace of God, in which a fundamental presence of both is irresistible, not optional, and the necessary effect of the moving cause of Christ within; both in the sense of that which characterizes the regenerate in vital union with Christ in Romans 8:1, "...who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit", and as respect to a basic conviction and conversion of all the elect when exposed to the special revelation of God, as the same spirit that testifies that one is a child of God (Rom. 8:16), testifies of the truth in resurrecting power per Ephesians 1:19,20, 1 John 3:24, 1 John 4:4,6, Ephesians 5:14 above, 1 Corinthians 1:18,24, Romans 1:16, and 1 Peter 4:6.
"I see this as a serious difficulty for the Hardshells relative to this passage. Even if we apply the "command" to those who are already spiritually resurrected and alive, is Christ still not calling, with his "word" and"voice," his living children to "come forth" in a "resurrection"? Even if one makes the "resurrection," experience alluded to in the passage, a"conversion" experience, to a post "regeneration" experience, then is it still not a case where a command, exactly like the one he makes in regeneration, is made? Does the passage then not show, by any honest admission, that the command to be "converted" is the same kind of command as given in the work of "regeneration"? Is God still not commanding a "resurrection," of some sort, to take place in both regeneration and conversion? Why then is one experience "irresistable" and"efficacious" and the other not, seeing the same language is used by God in commanding both?"
I reject Stephen Garrett's general view of this passage for the reasons I will state on my blog, "The Primitive Baptist Apologist". However, I couldn't have stated the logical implications of this passage better for some ministers among the Primitive Baptists who would make moral sanctification and gospel conversion not of grace and fully optional, which is unbiblical.
However, I deny this error has been the view of knowledgeable Primitive Baptists, and I assert it is nothing less than a relapse into the hollow log heresy, which every single Primitive Baptist claims to deny.
2 Peter 1:3 clearly states that God gives all things that pertain to life and godliness, and it is God that works within the regenerate to will and do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12,13), perfecting them unto the image of His Son unto the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).
The degree of sanctification and gospel conversion is something in which the spirit of God leads the regenerate man's will (Romans 8:14), and yet it can be resisted to some degree, as 1 Thess. 5:19.
But there is a rudimentary sense, according to the grace of God, in which a fundamental presence of both is irresistible, not optional, and the necessary effect of the moving cause of Christ within; both in the sense of that which characterizes the regenerate in vital union with Christ in Romans 8:1, "...who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit", and as respect to a basic conviction and conversion of all the elect when exposed to the special revelation of God, as the same spirit that testifies that one is a child of God (Rom. 8:16), testifies of the truth in resurrecting power per Ephesians 1:19,20, 1 John 3:24, 1 John 4:4,6, Ephesians 5:14 above, 1 Corinthians 1:18,24, Romans 1:16, and 1 Peter 4:6.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
God's Faith in Christ and Christ's Faith in God
Some Primitive Baptist Elders hold the view that texts of Scripture - specifically Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:3, 21-31 - refer to God's faith in Christ (Rom. 3:3, or his blood as in Rom. 3:25), and Christ's faith in His Father as in Gal. 2:16 and Romans 3:22.
First of all, I want to agree with the Elders that take this view that it is a faith that is OF God and OF Christ. What I mean is that in these texts θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ are nouns in the genitive case. To render these texts with the preposition "in" God and "in" Christ is not the literal translation; there is a way to state that in Greek according to the dative case, making these nouns objects of the preposition "in" or "to" or indirect objects. If Paul intended such meaning he could have easily stated it clearly with different suffixes.
However, as William Mounce states on page 52 of the Basics of Biblical Greek:
"Genitive
1. The most common use of the genitive is when the word in the genitive gives some description of the head noun (descriptive).
2. The head noun can be possessed by the word in the genitive (possessive)."
William Mounce gives Matt. 19:21 as an example of the possessive genitive in which a personal pronoun, "sou" - your - is in the genitive case.
PB Elders are right to object to translating or understanding these nouns as objects of a preposition that would imply the dative case, but they, in turn, claim that the use of the genitive case must show possession. The possessive genitive is usually indicated by the presence of pronouns. Besides, if the translators thought the genitive possessive was in context, the King James Version would have been rendered in these texts with personal pronouns, or, at the very least by the English words, "belonging to" or "possessed by". The fact the King James translators did not translate the "faith of God" as "His faith", "faith possessed by God", or "God's faith" all indicate that the genitive case of these nouns be understood in a generally descriptive manner.
Consult this sheet found here: http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf, which discusses the most common uses of the genitive case. The author states that a pronoun will most often be present, if the genitive possessive use of a noun is intended. They also state that contexts of possession are not always literal, so even if the nouns considered above were genitive possessive, it still would not prove that Paul intended to communicate that God or Christ has/had faith as an attribute.
There is no grammatical basis from a comparison of the textus receptus and the KJ translation to surmise the translators viewed these nouns as anything more than generally descriptive of faith.
As used as a noun, faith in these passages refers to the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant as distinct from the mechanism of justification under the law or the old covenant, it is not directly addressing any one's or any thing's subjective faith. This is clearly proved by context when one compares Romans 3:7 to Romans 3:3. Notice Paul is still considering the question of whether unbelief makes the 'faith of God' without effect. This text illustrates the manner in which the Jewish adversaries attacked Paul's gospel in that they argued it commended rather than excluded unrighteousness. They accused the faith of God as an ineffective method to attain righteousness because it - they claimed - was a tool of unrighteousness rather than what Paul claimed of it; namely, that it revealed God's righteousness.
It is evident that Paul is still considering the question of verse 3 in verse 7, yet he refers to the 'truth of God' rather than the 'faith of God'. Paul is using 'aletheia' here interchangeably with the 'pistin' of verse 3. God's subjective faith in Christ is alien to the grammar, and it is alien to any preceding context.
Coming to Romans 3:22 and Gal. 2:16, which refer to justification or attaining the righteousness of God 'by faith of Jesus Christ', it is not any one's subjective belief that is referenced by the grammar, but, again, the system of justification under the new covenant, as opposed to the law. There is abundant evidence that this is Paul's meaning in both passages. In both passages (really the whole book of Galatians is about this very point), Paul contrasts two systems of justification, one of Sinai, the other of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:21-31)
However, the 'faith of Jesus Christ' as a concept, clearly refers to man's individual faith by which he is justified. Gal. 3:2 makes the contrast plain. The contrast is between man's works under the law and man's hearing of faith under the new covenant. Men know they have received the spirit when they hear and believe the gospel, as it is the earnest of inheritance until the end time.
Subjective belief is treated separately from the 'faith of Jesus Christ' in both Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22. Subjective belief, indicated by the phrase 'even we have believed in Jesus Christ' in Gal. 2:16, and 'unto all and upon all them that believe' in Rom. 3:22, marks an intellectual distinction in Paul's mind between the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant, and specific examples of the justified by those who have evangelical faith.
Even Abraham's belief in God in Gen. 15, referenced in Romans 4, certainly cannot be said to be when Abraham was first justified. Did not Abraham believe God when he left Ur? Evangelical belief, like Abraham's belief in Gen. 15, evidences a righteous standing before God. It does not confer it. Paul states that it is God that justifies (vs. 26), so the idea that Paul made evangelical belief in the literal blood of Christ per 3:25 as a 'sine qua non' of justification does not follow. Abraham would not have passed that strict standard, manifestly, as the Bible gives no evidence that Abraham knew clearly of the historical events of Calvary.
Certainly, though, if we view 'through faith in His blood' as a reference to the full revelation of God (whom God hath set forth - revealed in the gospel), witnessed (but not revealed) by the law and the prophets (vs. 21), it is certain that to whom this revelation is made, they cannot be thought of as having been made just by God when they reject evangelical faith in Christ's blood.
It is God that justifies in regeneration when the measure of faith is given to all the seed, so that it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise of eternal life might be sure to all the seed (Rom. 4:16).
So there is no doctrinal reason for PB ministers to insist that the 'faith of Jesus Christ' be Christ's subjective faith in God, as the thought process above strikes down the Calvinist notion that evangelical belief in the gospel is to be equated with the doctrine of justification, though Calvinist ideas of associating evangelical belief with justification are consistent with the truth for those in this gospel era that already have His seed remaining in them (1 John 3:9); they err in limiting justification to propositional knowledge about Christ rather than to Christ Himself. The true object of justifying faith is the person of Christ, as experienced in the new birth. The true knowledge that justifies begins with an experiential knowledge of Christ in which direct perceptions and affections toward Him are aroused by the Spirit alone.
As we have seen, there is no contextual, grammatical, or doctrinal basis to insist that these texts refer to God and Christ having faith. With the same logic used to establish this view, no scriptural interpretation could be invalidated. There is no evidence in the context of these passages to suggest this perspective.
First of all, I want to agree with the Elders that take this view that it is a faith that is OF God and OF Christ. What I mean is that in these texts θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ are nouns in the genitive case. To render these texts with the preposition "in" God and "in" Christ is not the literal translation; there is a way to state that in Greek according to the dative case, making these nouns objects of the preposition "in" or "to" or indirect objects. If Paul intended such meaning he could have easily stated it clearly with different suffixes.
However, as William Mounce states on page 52 of the Basics of Biblical Greek:
"Genitive
1. The most common use of the genitive is when the word in the genitive gives some description of the head noun (descriptive).
2. The head noun can be possessed by the word in the genitive (possessive)."
William Mounce gives Matt. 19:21 as an example of the possessive genitive in which a personal pronoun, "sou" - your - is in the genitive case.
PB Elders are right to object to translating or understanding these nouns as objects of a preposition that would imply the dative case, but they, in turn, claim that the use of the genitive case must show possession. The possessive genitive is usually indicated by the presence of pronouns. Besides, if the translators thought the genitive possessive was in context, the King James Version would have been rendered in these texts with personal pronouns, or, at the very least by the English words, "belonging to" or "possessed by". The fact the King James translators did not translate the "faith of God" as "His faith", "faith possessed by God", or "God's faith" all indicate that the genitive case of these nouns be understood in a generally descriptive manner.
Consult this sheet found here: http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf, which discusses the most common uses of the genitive case. The author states that a pronoun will most often be present, if the genitive possessive use of a noun is intended. They also state that contexts of possession are not always literal, so even if the nouns considered above were genitive possessive, it still would not prove that Paul intended to communicate that God or Christ has/had faith as an attribute.
There is no grammatical basis from a comparison of the textus receptus and the KJ translation to surmise the translators viewed these nouns as anything more than generally descriptive of faith.
As used as a noun, faith in these passages refers to the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant as distinct from the mechanism of justification under the law or the old covenant, it is not directly addressing any one's or any thing's subjective faith. This is clearly proved by context when one compares Romans 3:7 to Romans 3:3. Notice Paul is still considering the question of whether unbelief makes the 'faith of God' without effect. This text illustrates the manner in which the Jewish adversaries attacked Paul's gospel in that they argued it commended rather than excluded unrighteousness. They accused the faith of God as an ineffective method to attain righteousness because it - they claimed - was a tool of unrighteousness rather than what Paul claimed of it; namely, that it revealed God's righteousness.
It is evident that Paul is still considering the question of verse 3 in verse 7, yet he refers to the 'truth of God' rather than the 'faith of God'. Paul is using 'aletheia' here interchangeably with the 'pistin' of verse 3. God's subjective faith in Christ is alien to the grammar, and it is alien to any preceding context.
Coming to Romans 3:22 and Gal. 2:16, which refer to justification or attaining the righteousness of God 'by faith of Jesus Christ', it is not any one's subjective belief that is referenced by the grammar, but, again, the system of justification under the new covenant, as opposed to the law. There is abundant evidence that this is Paul's meaning in both passages. In both passages (really the whole book of Galatians is about this very point), Paul contrasts two systems of justification, one of Sinai, the other of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:21-31)
However, the 'faith of Jesus Christ' as a concept, clearly refers to man's individual faith by which he is justified. Gal. 3:2 makes the contrast plain. The contrast is between man's works under the law and man's hearing of faith under the new covenant. Men know they have received the spirit when they hear and believe the gospel, as it is the earnest of inheritance until the end time.
Subjective belief is treated separately from the 'faith of Jesus Christ' in both Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22. Subjective belief, indicated by the phrase 'even we have believed in Jesus Christ' in Gal. 2:16, and 'unto all and upon all them that believe' in Rom. 3:22, marks an intellectual distinction in Paul's mind between the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant, and specific examples of the justified by those who have evangelical faith.
Even Abraham's belief in God in Gen. 15, referenced in Romans 4, certainly cannot be said to be when Abraham was first justified. Did not Abraham believe God when he left Ur? Evangelical belief, like Abraham's belief in Gen. 15, evidences a righteous standing before God. It does not confer it. Paul states that it is God that justifies (vs. 26), so the idea that Paul made evangelical belief in the literal blood of Christ per 3:25 as a 'sine qua non' of justification does not follow. Abraham would not have passed that strict standard, manifestly, as the Bible gives no evidence that Abraham knew clearly of the historical events of Calvary.
Certainly, though, if we view 'through faith in His blood' as a reference to the full revelation of God (whom God hath set forth - revealed in the gospel), witnessed (but not revealed) by the law and the prophets (vs. 21), it is certain that to whom this revelation is made, they cannot be thought of as having been made just by God when they reject evangelical faith in Christ's blood.
It is God that justifies in regeneration when the measure of faith is given to all the seed, so that it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise of eternal life might be sure to all the seed (Rom. 4:16).
So there is no doctrinal reason for PB ministers to insist that the 'faith of Jesus Christ' be Christ's subjective faith in God, as the thought process above strikes down the Calvinist notion that evangelical belief in the gospel is to be equated with the doctrine of justification, though Calvinist ideas of associating evangelical belief with justification are consistent with the truth for those in this gospel era that already have His seed remaining in them (1 John 3:9); they err in limiting justification to propositional knowledge about Christ rather than to Christ Himself. The true object of justifying faith is the person of Christ, as experienced in the new birth. The true knowledge that justifies begins with an experiential knowledge of Christ in which direct perceptions and affections toward Him are aroused by the Spirit alone.
As we have seen, there is no contextual, grammatical, or doctrinal basis to insist that these texts refer to God and Christ having faith. With the same logic used to establish this view, no scriptural interpretation could be invalidated. There is no evidence in the context of these passages to suggest this perspective.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
The New Heavens and Earth
For my initial posting on this blog, I would like to exhibit Elder David Pyles' article, which is on his website at www.pb.org.
There are many reasons why this article is important.
The first reason is that it demonstrates that certain doctrines, like the doctrine of the New Heavens and Earth, are "anathematized" by some PB ministers by association, and not individual doctrinal merit.
As Elder David Pyles argues in this article, there is no necessary, logical connection between viewing the New Heavens and Earth literally and being committed to a premillennial position on the thousand year reign as he states in the conclusion, "We fail to see where this interpretation logically commits one to any of the amillennial, premillennial, or postmillennial models."
I have often thought the same myself, and wondered why certain PB ministers frowned upon the idea of a literal New Heavens and Earth.
This particular idea of a literal New Heavens and Earth has been one of the passions of my Uncle Roy Brown who was an Elder for the Primitive Baptists until the late 1980's. This last Thanksgiving when I visited with him, I said as much to him that it seemed to me that one could logically hold a literal view of the New Heavens and Earth yet deny a literal thousand year reign. But in his case, he defends premillennialism, and I have some difficulty persuading him against that view, though we both agree about the New Heavens and Earth.
The point here is, surely, on such issues, a great degree of latitude must be granted.
The next reason I would like to consider as to the importance of this issue, is what it implies for radical views of some ministers that seem to disassociate works from eternal salvation. This very well could be the primary interpretive reason why some ministers wish to allegorize the New Heavens and Earth, but as Elder David Pyles points out, this places such ministers in a very awkward position to deal with apparent literal references to the New Heavens and Earth as in 2 Peter 3:10-14.
As he states in reference to Revelations 22:14:
"
Certainly the forthright and honest approach to exegeting the Scripture as Elder Pyles exhibits in this article ought to be the kind of approach sincere bible students seek to adopt.
The New Heavens and Earth
By Elder David Pyles
Our purpose in this paper is to examine the statement of the Apostle John regarding the new heaven and earth in the following scriptures:
Rev 21:
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Many Bible students agree this is one of the most interesting passages in Bible prophesy. Unfortunately, this interest has resulted in much disagreement about its interpretation, even among Primitive Baptists. These disagreements are not peculiar to our era. History will show that our brethren in every age have had differing individual views, both on this passage and on the book of Revelation in general. However, most have been tolerant of opinions differing from their own, provided these opinions were in accordance with doctrinal essentials. This freedom of interpretation has been afforded because all would readily admit a need for further enlightenment on the subject. We admit the same, and are therefore willing to handle the subject with an open mind, and strongly encourage others to respectfully consider alternate views.
We are always pleased to find believers in grace with an interest in resolving biblical prophesy. The most popular interpretations of prophesy offered by the world today are too crippled by Arminian thinking to walk on their own feet. It seems highly doubtful that an accurate picture of prophesy can be painted on a backdrop of erroneous doctrine. Consequently, we are persuaded that if biblical prophesy is ever to be resolved, then believers in salvation by grace must do it.
It is our hope and expectation that a greater light will be granted on this subject as the end of time approaches. We base this belief on the statement of the Lord to Daniel:
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. - Dan 12:4
While this text likely has reference to modern transportation and technology, it would seem that it must have some reference to prophetic understanding also, since this was the form of knowledge Daniel so earnestly desired at the time. We anxiously await this greater light.
The Literal Sense Makes Sense
It seems that most who write about Revelation introduce their remarks with some defense of their method of interpretation, with some favoring a literal approach and others an allegorical one. Our personal rule is: "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense." We believe the literal sense usually makes sense, but sometimes it does not; therefore, we prefer not to be categorized as a "literalist" or "allegorist." These are common labels, but they tend to be misleading. For example, no reasonable literalist believes Jesus had reference to farm animals when He spoke of His sheep, nor does any reasonable literalist believe the seven-headed, ten-horned beast of Rev 13 will literally walk the earth. Similarly, any reasonable allegorist believes the resurrection and second coming of Jesus to be literal events. Hence, literalists commonly allegorize, and allegorists commonly literalize. However, it seems that once men take such labels unto themselves, there is a human tendency to defend the label even if it doesn't exactly fit, and this tendency drives men to extreme positions. Therefore, we prefer to be identified by the rule of interpretation we have stated above rather than as a literalist or allegorist.
Besides, it is our opinion that such labels prove distracting on the issue of the new heaven and earth, because they of both the literal and allegorical schools agree that we should not assign our own interpretation to a scripture when another scripture has already interpreted it for us. That is, if we have a scripture containing ambiguities on a certain point, but have another scripture which speaks plainly on that same point, then the former scripture should be interpreted in light of the latter. Such would appear to be the case with the issue of the new heaven and earth. We have two New Testament scriptures referring to this same concept. These are Rev 21:1 and 2 Pet 3:13. We agree the former text, by itself, might reasonably admit either an allegorical or literal interpretation, but the latter text contains no such ambiguities. The text along with its context states:
2 Pet 3:
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
Several simple observations can be made from these: First, it is clear that the new heavens and earth of the 13th verse are futuristic, or at least they were things in Peter's future. They were things Peter and those of the apostolic church anticipated. Second, it seems unlikely that the new heavens and earth pertain to the church here in time, because Peter was then a part of the church, yet he awaited the new heavens and earth. Third, these texts indicate the new heavens and earth pertain to nothing else in time, because the context places them at the end of time. Fourth, the new heavens and earth must be things that are literal, because they are represented as the replacements of that which is literal. The context clearly presents them as being replacements for the current heavens and earth, which will one day be dissolved and melted with a fervent heat.
If these verses are referring to the same thing as Rev 21:1, then our case should be settled. In proof of our belief that both texts are indeed referring to the same concepts, we offer not only their commonalty in terms, but also the simple transitivity axiom that two texts which refer to the same text must also refer to each other. It seems most reasonable that both texts are referring to Is 65:17-20, which read:
Is 65:
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
First, Peter says we according to his promise look for a new heavens and earth. We would certainly expect the promise under consideration to be some promise recorded in the scriptures, yet the new heavens and earth are referred to by name only in Is 65:17, Is 66:22, 2 Pet 3:13, and Rev 21:1. Therefore, it should be reasonable to conclude that the promise to which Peter refers is that of Isaiah. As for Rev 21:1, the parallels between Rev 21:1-8 and Is 65:17-20 strongly suggest the former has reference to the latter. In particular, both accounts speak of a new heavens and earth; both speak of the passing of the former heavens and earth; both speak of a new Jerusalem; both speak of no crying, and we think by reasonable interpretation we can also conclude that both speak of eternal life for the righteous, and of the eternal punishment of the wicked.
In light of the above considerations, it appears reasonable to conclude that all scriptures in the Bible explicitly speaking of the new heavens and earth refer to the same thing. In any event, we should at least assume this from the outset, and not depart from this assumption until forced by reason to do so. We concede that our literal interpretation of Rev 21:1 is predicated upon this premise, and if our premise be false, then our interpretation may be false as well. But we see nothing in reason or scriptures which invalidates our premise, and we feel the arguments of the previous paragraph demand it.
Common Misconceptions Corrected
The Literal Sense Does Not Overthrow Usual Notions
There are some who seem to think those who advocate a literal new heavens and earth are setting up great revolutionary ideas about the life hereafter. This is not the case. The new heavens and earth do not replace the usual notion that we have a future dwelling in heaven. We believe both expressions refer to the same thing. Nor do we believe new heavens implies a replacement of the place where God dwells. The expression has reference to the natural heavens, or the first and second heavens, but not the third one (1 Cor 12:3). The idea is that this present universe will be replaced with a new existence, which is filled with the presence of God and His perfect righteousness. The fact that the Bible refers to this existence as a new heavens and earth gives us additional insight about it. In particular, it is suggested that this dwelling will contain many of the natural beauties and wonders observed in the present creation. Doubtlessly, they will all be in perfection, and will exceed everything here in beauty and splendor. They will also be new, and will remain new. The eternal dwelling will not be cursed with the present laws of entropy, which cause things to decay, wear our, and die.
Paul described both creations in the first chapter of Hebrews with these words:
Heb 1:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
The present creation is waxing old in all parts under the curse of sin, but Paul asserts this will be changed. We also note that in the next chapter he writes:
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. - Heb 2:5
Observe that Paul asserts he had spoken of a world to come. When we examine the preceding context, it becomes clear that he must have reference to his statement in the 11th and 12th verses of the preceding chapter. Hence, the world to come has reference to the changed universe, or the new heavens and earth which shall replace the old ones.
These interpretations of Paul's statements in Hebrews fully accord with what Peter said in the third chapter of Acts:
Acts 3:
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
These texts assert a time of refreshing and restitution of all things. This blessed state is accomplished in a series of steps. First, there is a regeneration of the soul and spirit in man by means of the spiritual birth. Next, there is a regeneration of the body in the resurrection. Finally, there is a regeneration of the material creation resulting in the new heavens and earth. And we would also note that all forms of regeneration are accomplished in exactly the same manner; namely, by the supernatural power of God and without the aid or instrumentality of man.
The Literal Sense Does Not Imply Russellism
The next misconception we wish to address is the idea that a literal interpretation of the new heavens and earth originated with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Only the uninformed would make such claims. The Jehovah's Witnesses did not exist as a body prior to 1872, and they have existed by their present name only since 1931. Many sound Christians held the literal view prior to this time, one being John Gill, who clearly sets forth a literal interpretation in his commentary.
The Jehovah's Witness view is a distortion, for it claims an elite group of 144,000 will dwell in heaven, while others will dwell on a new earth. The Bible speaks of no such separations in the family of God, and if there were such a group of spiritual elitists, then surely the Apostle Peter would be in it, but his personal testimony was that he also looked for the new heavens and earth. The Bible never makes a special connection between the new heavens and earth and the 144,000 of Revelations 7 and 11. If one can draw such conclusions on the basis of the inspired text, then the Bible could be made to mean anything.
The Literal Sense Does Not Imply Premillennialism
But the greatest misconception we wish to address is the idea that premillennialism is implied by a literal interpretation of the new heavens and earth. This is not the case. The new heavens and earth of Rev 21 and the thousand year reign of Rev 20 are not the same, not even in the premillennial system. But some amillennial brethren have rejected a literal new heavens and earth simply because premillennialists believe in such notions. We cannot understand this. Apart from the fact this is obviously an invalid way to interpret scriptures, it would seem that if one's objective were to destroy premillennialism, then a literal new heavens and earth would be one of the most formidable weapons at their disposal.
There are numerous texts in the scriptures which describe a utopian state of life in a setting similar to this earth. The premillennialists are quick to conclude that such scriptures will be fulfilled in a thousand year reign on this earth, and they adduce these scriptures as proof that such a reign will occur. But if the eternal state also has characteristics similar to this earth, so that it can be described as a new heavens and earth, then the texts in question might very well be describing the eternal state, and not a thousand year reign.
We will not belabor this point, because it is merely peripheral to our primary theme. However, we will offer the following examples:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. - Mt 5:5
Rev 5:
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
What earth shall the meek inherit? Upon what earth will the redeemed of God reign? Many premillennialists will say it is this earth during a thousand year reign, but it seems far more reasonable to us that these texts speak of another existence. They speak of the new heavens and earth.
Similar texts can be adduced from the Old Testament also, especially from the book of Isaiah. Such verses would include: Is 3:2-4, Is 25:6-9, Is 35:1-10, and Is 65:17-25. These verses are commonly applied to the thousand year reign, but they would seem to fit the new heavens and earth at least as well. We are not insisting upon this interpretation of these texts. Our point is simply that a literal new heavens and earth should not be considered as a premillennial doctrine. In many ways, it is an alternative to this doctrine.
Difficulties Considered
Our contention is that all scriptural references to the new heavens and earth are equal and literal. This interpretation is confronted by certain difficulties. We think these difficulties are less formidable than those facing other interpretations, and we think the difficulties facing our interpretation can be reasonably resolved. This is what we now undertake to do.
Is 65:17-25
The difficulty with the literal interpretation of verse 17 is that the subsequent texts would then seem to imply the untenable propositions that there will be death, human reproduction, and agriculture in the eternal state. We offer the following commentary to show these things are not implied under close inspection.
Is 65:
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
Observe that every detail in these verses is matched in John's account in Rev 21:1-4. Therefore, we should be very disinclined to adopt an interpretation which makes these two accounts refer to different phenomena.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Premillennialists often apply this and the following texts to the thousand year reign. They speculate that death will not be eliminated in this reign, but lifespans will be extended to what they had been in the antediluvian earth (around 900 years), so that a person of 100 years age could be counted as a mere child. While we can respect their views on certain points, we are always astounded with this interpretation, because the context clearly places the text in the new heavens and earth - not a thousand year reign. Furthermore, there has never been an age of the earth in which a 100 year old person would be reckoned as a child.
A comparison of the four verses just considered with the first four verses of Rev 21 resolves the issue in our opinion. Both accounts use almost identical terms when speaking of the new heavens and earth, the passing of the former heavens and earth, the new Jerusalem, and the elimination of sorrow. As of the fourth verse, there is a divergence in terms, but not in meaning. In the place of Isaiah's lengthy 20th verse, John simply states, there shall be no more death. Again using the rule that an ambiguous text should be interpreted in the light of a plain one, we conclude that Isaiah's 20th verse imports the idea of immortality. There is no problem with applying this interpretation to there shall be no more thence an infant of days. This simply says that infants do not die in the new heavens and earth. As for the remainder of the text, we offer a complex but reasonable explanation.
We believe Isaiah is describing eternal life in terms of its implications for this life. Therefore, he is looking at both the present and the future, but is viewing the future in terms of its implications for the present (We are thankful to Elder Sonny Pyles for showing us this possibility). In this life infants often die, and it is always a great tragedy when they do. But when this tragedy is viewed from the perspective of the new heavens and earth, it is all the same as though the child had died at 100 years of age. On the other hand, people sometimes live to be 100 years old in this life, and such longevity is generally considered a blessing, but if such a person dies in their sins, then their case is infinitely worse than that of the dying child. Any finite span of time, whether it be an hour or 100 years, is reduced to a meaningless infinitesimal point when compared to eternity.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Again, Isaiah is viewing the future in terms of its implications for the present. When we examine this life alone, it oftentimes appears that our labors in the Lord are in vain. In this life, the best of people often receive the worst, and the worst of people often receive the best, so that it does not necessarily appear that what we sow of the Spirit shall be reaped of the same. Accordingly, there are cases where the good sown by God's people is perverted and exploited by the wicked, whose purpose is to harvest to their own carnality. Such cases can prevail upon the minds of God's people to the extent that even great men of the Bible have been temporarily deceived by the illusion that service to God is vanity (Ps 73, Jer 12:1-4, Hab 1). But the illusion is destroyed when the reality of future eternal bliss is brought into view. From this perspective, it is plain that our labors in the Lord are not in vain (1 Cor 15:58).
As for the days of a tree are the days of my people, this is not intended to say lifespans will be limited to that of trees. Rather, the statement alludes to the previous clause, which asserts that God's children shall eat of the fruit of their labors. The context suggests these figurative trees were planted by God's people. The idea is that these people will not be outlived by the fruit of their labors.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
The text does not assert there will be human reproduction in the eternal state (Mt 22:30). The logic is structured the same as before. In this life people commonly bear children, and notwithstanding all the parental love which seeks their welfare, every parent will discover it is not within their power to deliver their own offspring from the burden of the world's curse. However, in that life, both the parents and their offspring are the children of God, and He will have that same parental love for His children as we would have for ours, but God will have the power to meet their every need.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
This implies there is no carnivorous behavior in the eternal state, nor any hurt or destruction of any kind.
Is 66:22-24
Is 66:
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
The objection to the literal interpretation of the new heavens and earth in verse 22 will be that the subsequent verses would then imply the eternal state will possess sabbaths, lunar months, and the visibility of carcasses and possibly of eternal punishment. However, we do not think the 23rd and 24th verses refer to the new heavens and earth of verse 22. The new heavens and earth are used merely as a comparative reference in the 22ond verse. This being the case, there is no complication to interpreting them literally, regardless of the proper interpretation of verses 23 and 24.
[We believe verses 23 and 24 either refer back to verses 15 and 16, or else they refer back to verse 5. In the first case, the carcasses under consideration would likely be of those slain in a latter day destruction of the enemies of Israel (Ezek 39:11-16). In the second case, the carcasses and their eternal punishment would pertain to certain Jews themselves, who persecuted their own brethren in the name of religion and for the pretended purpose of glorifying the Lord. Such persecutors include the Pharisees in the times of Christ and their predecessors, all of whom are set forth as undeniable cases of eternally condemned people who shall not escape the damnation of hell (Mt 23:33), and who are held in contempt by people in all nations of the world. While neither the carcasses of these persecutors nor their eternal punishment is literally observed with the natural eye, it is nonetheless seen in the imaginations of those who know the pronunciations of the Lord Jesus against them.]
Rev 21 & 22:
Nearly all will agree that the entire contents of these two chapters refer to the same subject; however, there are two prevalent opinions as to what this subject is. Some think these chapters describe the eternal state, while others think they are an allegorical description of the timely church. Those of the eternal view may also use some degree of allegory, but not nearly so much as those preferring the timely one. The timely view therefore has to its advantage the flexibility inherent to allegorical interpretation; however, it is also more susceptible to the usual ambiguities of allegory.
Most would agree the direction one takes with these two chapters is dictated by the very first verse. If one takes this to refer to the eternal state, they, as a general rule, will be logically committed to do the same for the remainder of Revelation. Similarly, if one takes the first verse to be an allegorical reference to the timely church, they become obligated to this approach for all subsequent texts. Since the first verse is about the new heaven and earth, one can readily see the importance of our subject. Two entire chapters in Revelation tend to hinge upon it.
We believe many have dismissed the literal interpretation of the new heaven and earth because of Rev 21 and 22. This is because they are persuaded that the contents of these two chapters cannot be entirely applied to the eternal state. They apparently feel compelled to part with the plain implications of 2 Pet 3:10-14 because of these difficulties. However, it is our opinion that the problems appearing to be rectified by the allegorical approach are far outweighed by the problems it creates. Not only is one placed in an awkward posture with respect to other scriptural teachings about the new heaven and earth, they are also placed in an awkward posture with respect to Rev 21 and 22 themselves, because the entire tenor of these chapters is of final and eternal glory.
We believe the difficulties with the eternal application of these two chapters can be reconciled, and this is what we now undertake to do. Space limits us from considering all verses, but we will attempt to deal with the most difficult verses.
Rev 21:
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Some will say these texts express too much conditionality on human obedience to pertain to eternal life. However, such objectors fail to understand or appreciate the fact that God's elect shall surely overcome by the work of regeneration and the blood of Christ (Jn 6:37-39, 1 Jn 4:4, Rev 12:10-11), whereas they that are without electing grace do not overcome, nor do they have any desire to do so (Jn 6:44-45, Rev 20:15). See our comments on Rev 22:14 below.
Rev 21:
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
These texts have reference to New Jerusalem, which is to be situated in the new heaven and earth (vs 2). They do not necessarily teach God's family will be partitioned into nations there, or that God's people will be under kings there apart from God Himself. We believe they teach what are separate nations here will walk in the common light, and under the common authority, of the New Jerusalem there. Accordingly, those who are kings here will relinquish their honor and glory to the Lord there, and to the New Jerusalem. Some kings will do this willingly; others unwillingly.
Rev 22:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
The objection will be that an eternal application of this text would make eternal salvation contingent upon works. However, we do not think the eternal application implies this. Even those who advance such objections will make an eternal application of numerous other texts which associate works and salvation. Such texts might include: Mt 7:15-23, Mt 10:14-15, Mt 12:33-35, Mt 12:41-42, Mt 16:27, Mt 24:10-13, Mt 25:14-30, Mt 25:34-46, Mk 8:34-38, Mk 16:15-16, Lk 13:24-28, Lk 18:29-30, Jn 3:18-21, Jn 3:36, Jn 5:28-29, Gal 6:8, 2 Thes 1:7-8, 1 Jn 3:8-15. These texts do not teach salvation by works; rather, they teach the reverse - works by salvation. The doctrines of grace do not disassociate works and salvation; rather, they reverse the order of causality from that implied by the law. Obedience to the commandments of Christ are the evidences of salvation because they are the effects of salvation (Mt 12:33-35, Jn 1:11-13, Jn 6:37, Jn 8:43-47, Jn 10:25-29, Jn 15:16-19, Acts 9:15, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:48, Acts 15:14, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:9-10, Rom 8:29-30, 1 Cor 1:22-24, 1 Cor 1:30-31, Gal 5:22-24, Eph 1:4-5, Eph 2:10, 1 Thes 1:4-5, 2 Thes 2:13-14, Tit 3:3-5, 1 Pet 2:9). It is by such obedience that one obtains an assurance of salvation, of right to the tree of life, and of admission through the gates of the Holy City.
Rev 22:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
It will be objected that an eternal application of this text violates the doctrine of preservation. However, we believe this objection derives from a misconception of the book of life. It is generally believed that this book was designed to enroll the names of the elect, and therefore, that the book logically follows election. This formulation is confronted by the fact that certain scriptures express the possibility of being removed from the book (Ex 32:33, Ps 69:28, Rev 3:5, Rev 22:19). We believe the elect, and only the elect, are now written in the book; however, we do not believe the book logically follows election. We believe the book logically precedes election; that it is a book which enrolls the names of all men possessing endless life; that all mankind, in effect, fell from the book because of sin, and that Jesus restored the elect to the book. Therefore, it is indeed a book from which men fall because of their rebellion against God, but those whose transgressions have been blotted by the blood of Christ have been restored to the book never to fall again.
Observe that two books are mentioned in Rev 20:12-15. The first book is a record of sin, and the second is the book of life. We believe these books are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. That is, every man is recorded in one of the two books but cannot be recorded in both. Therefore, if there is a logical sense in which the elect were in the book of sin, then in that same sense they were not in the book of life. But Jesus blotted them from the book of sin (Ps 51:9, Jer 18:23, Col 2:14), by which action they were simultaneously and permanently restored to the book of life.
Conclusions We humbly offer these explanations for your prayerful consideration. We could not insist upon our views while being in a state of uncertainty about other aspects of prophecy. However, we believe a literal intepretation of the new heaven and earth is supported by very strong scriptural evidence. We fail to see where this interpretation logically commits one to any of the amillennial, premillennial, or postmillennial models. The literal interpretation of the new heaven and earth is therefore exempt from the uncertainties associated with these eschatological schemes. May God bless the reader to understand the prophesy, and we are confident that all who endeaver to do such will experience the blessed promise:
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. - Rev 21:3
There are many reasons why this article is important.
The first reason is that it demonstrates that certain doctrines, like the doctrine of the New Heavens and Earth, are "anathematized" by some PB ministers by association, and not individual doctrinal merit.
As Elder David Pyles argues in this article, there is no necessary, logical connection between viewing the New Heavens and Earth literally and being committed to a premillennial position on the thousand year reign as he states in the conclusion, "We fail to see where this interpretation logically commits one to any of the amillennial, premillennial, or postmillennial models."
I have often thought the same myself, and wondered why certain PB ministers frowned upon the idea of a literal New Heavens and Earth.
This particular idea of a literal New Heavens and Earth has been one of the passions of my Uncle Roy Brown who was an Elder for the Primitive Baptists until the late 1980's. This last Thanksgiving when I visited with him, I said as much to him that it seemed to me that one could logically hold a literal view of the New Heavens and Earth yet deny a literal thousand year reign. But in his case, he defends premillennialism, and I have some difficulty persuading him against that view, though we both agree about the New Heavens and Earth.
The point here is, surely, on such issues, a great degree of latitude must be granted.
The next reason I would like to consider as to the importance of this issue, is what it implies for radical views of some ministers that seem to disassociate works from eternal salvation. This very well could be the primary interpretive reason why some ministers wish to allegorize the New Heavens and Earth, but as Elder David Pyles points out, this places such ministers in a very awkward position to deal with apparent literal references to the New Heavens and Earth as in 2 Peter 3:10-14.
As he states in reference to Revelations 22:14:
"
The objection will be that an eternal application of this text would make eternal salvation contingent upon works. However, we do not think the eternal application implies this. Even those who advance such objections will make an eternal application of numerous other texts which associate works and salvation. Such texts might include: Mt 7:15-23, Mt 10:14-15, Mt 12:33-35, Mt 12:41-42, Mt 16:27, Mt 24:10-13, Mt 25:14-30, Mt 25:34-46, Mk 8:34-38, Mk 16:15-16, Lk 13:24-28, Lk 18:29-30, Jn 3:18-21, Jn 3:36, Jn 5:28-29, Gal 6:8, 2 Thes 1:7-8, 1 Jn 3:8-15. These texts do not teach salvation by works; rather, they teach the reverse - works by salvation. The doctrines of grace do not disassociate works and salvation; rather, they reverse the order of causality from that implied by the law. Obedience to the commandments of Christ are the evidences of salvation because they are the effects of salvation (Mt 12:33-35, Jn 1:11-13, Jn 6:37, Jn 8:43-47, Jn 10:25-29, Jn 15:16-19, Acts 9:15, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:48, Acts 15:14, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:9-10, Rom 8:29-30, 1 Cor 1:22-24, 1 Cor 1:30-31, Gal 5:22-24, Eph 1:4-5, Eph 2:10, 1 Thes 1:4-5, 2 Thes 2:13-14, Tit 3:3-5, 1 Pet 2:9). It is by such obedience that one obtains an assurance of salvation, of right to the tree of life, and of admission through the gates of the Holy City.
"Certainly the forthright and honest approach to exegeting the Scripture as Elder Pyles exhibits in this article ought to be the kind of approach sincere bible students seek to adopt.
By Elder David Pyles
Our purpose in this paper is to examine the statement of the Apostle John regarding the new heaven and earth in the following scriptures:
Rev 21:
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Many Bible students agree this is one of the most interesting passages in Bible prophesy. Unfortunately, this interest has resulted in much disagreement about its interpretation, even among Primitive Baptists. These disagreements are not peculiar to our era. History will show that our brethren in every age have had differing individual views, both on this passage and on the book of Revelation in general. However, most have been tolerant of opinions differing from their own, provided these opinions were in accordance with doctrinal essentials. This freedom of interpretation has been afforded because all would readily admit a need for further enlightenment on the subject. We admit the same, and are therefore willing to handle the subject with an open mind, and strongly encourage others to respectfully consider alternate views.
We are always pleased to find believers in grace with an interest in resolving biblical prophesy. The most popular interpretations of prophesy offered by the world today are too crippled by Arminian thinking to walk on their own feet. It seems highly doubtful that an accurate picture of prophesy can be painted on a backdrop of erroneous doctrine. Consequently, we are persuaded that if biblical prophesy is ever to be resolved, then believers in salvation by grace must do it.
It is our hope and expectation that a greater light will be granted on this subject as the end of time approaches. We base this belief on the statement of the Lord to Daniel:
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. - Dan 12:4
While this text likely has reference to modern transportation and technology, it would seem that it must have some reference to prophetic understanding also, since this was the form of knowledge Daniel so earnestly desired at the time. We anxiously await this greater light.
It seems that most who write about Revelation introduce their remarks with some defense of their method of interpretation, with some favoring a literal approach and others an allegorical one. Our personal rule is: "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense." We believe the literal sense usually makes sense, but sometimes it does not; therefore, we prefer not to be categorized as a "literalist" or "allegorist." These are common labels, but they tend to be misleading. For example, no reasonable literalist believes Jesus had reference to farm animals when He spoke of His sheep, nor does any reasonable literalist believe the seven-headed, ten-horned beast of Rev 13 will literally walk the earth. Similarly, any reasonable allegorist believes the resurrection and second coming of Jesus to be literal events. Hence, literalists commonly allegorize, and allegorists commonly literalize. However, it seems that once men take such labels unto themselves, there is a human tendency to defend the label even if it doesn't exactly fit, and this tendency drives men to extreme positions. Therefore, we prefer to be identified by the rule of interpretation we have stated above rather than as a literalist or allegorist.
Besides, it is our opinion that such labels prove distracting on the issue of the new heaven and earth, because they of both the literal and allegorical schools agree that we should not assign our own interpretation to a scripture when another scripture has already interpreted it for us. That is, if we have a scripture containing ambiguities on a certain point, but have another scripture which speaks plainly on that same point, then the former scripture should be interpreted in light of the latter. Such would appear to be the case with the issue of the new heaven and earth. We have two New Testament scriptures referring to this same concept. These are Rev 21:1 and 2 Pet 3:13. We agree the former text, by itself, might reasonably admit either an allegorical or literal interpretation, but the latter text contains no such ambiguities. The text along with its context states:
2 Pet 3:
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
Several simple observations can be made from these: First, it is clear that the new heavens and earth of the 13th verse are futuristic, or at least they were things in Peter's future. They were things Peter and those of the apostolic church anticipated. Second, it seems unlikely that the new heavens and earth pertain to the church here in time, because Peter was then a part of the church, yet he awaited the new heavens and earth. Third, these texts indicate the new heavens and earth pertain to nothing else in time, because the context places them at the end of time. Fourth, the new heavens and earth must be things that are literal, because they are represented as the replacements of that which is literal. The context clearly presents them as being replacements for the current heavens and earth, which will one day be dissolved and melted with a fervent heat.
If these verses are referring to the same thing as Rev 21:1, then our case should be settled. In proof of our belief that both texts are indeed referring to the same concepts, we offer not only their commonalty in terms, but also the simple transitivity axiom that two texts which refer to the same text must also refer to each other. It seems most reasonable that both texts are referring to Is 65:17-20, which read:
Is 65:
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
First, Peter says we according to his promise look for a new heavens and earth. We would certainly expect the promise under consideration to be some promise recorded in the scriptures, yet the new heavens and earth are referred to by name only in Is 65:17, Is 66:22, 2 Pet 3:13, and Rev 21:1. Therefore, it should be reasonable to conclude that the promise to which Peter refers is that of Isaiah. As for Rev 21:1, the parallels between Rev 21:1-8 and Is 65:17-20 strongly suggest the former has reference to the latter. In particular, both accounts speak of a new heavens and earth; both speak of the passing of the former heavens and earth; both speak of a new Jerusalem; both speak of no crying, and we think by reasonable interpretation we can also conclude that both speak of eternal life for the righteous, and of the eternal punishment of the wicked.
In light of the above considerations, it appears reasonable to conclude that all scriptures in the Bible explicitly speaking of the new heavens and earth refer to the same thing. In any event, we should at least assume this from the outset, and not depart from this assumption until forced by reason to do so. We concede that our literal interpretation of Rev 21:1 is predicated upon this premise, and if our premise be false, then our interpretation may be false as well. But we see nothing in reason or scriptures which invalidates our premise, and we feel the arguments of the previous paragraph demand it.
The Literal Sense Does Not Overthrow Usual Notions
There are some who seem to think those who advocate a literal new heavens and earth are setting up great revolutionary ideas about the life hereafter. This is not the case. The new heavens and earth do not replace the usual notion that we have a future dwelling in heaven. We believe both expressions refer to the same thing. Nor do we believe new heavens implies a replacement of the place where God dwells. The expression has reference to the natural heavens, or the first and second heavens, but not the third one (1 Cor 12:3). The idea is that this present universe will be replaced with a new existence, which is filled with the presence of God and His perfect righteousness. The fact that the Bible refers to this existence as a new heavens and earth gives us additional insight about it. In particular, it is suggested that this dwelling will contain many of the natural beauties and wonders observed in the present creation. Doubtlessly, they will all be in perfection, and will exceed everything here in beauty and splendor. They will also be new, and will remain new. The eternal dwelling will not be cursed with the present laws of entropy, which cause things to decay, wear our, and die.
Paul described both creations in the first chapter of Hebrews with these words:
Heb 1:
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
The present creation is waxing old in all parts under the curse of sin, but Paul asserts this will be changed. We also note that in the next chapter he writes:
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. - Heb 2:5
Observe that Paul asserts he had spoken of a world to come. When we examine the preceding context, it becomes clear that he must have reference to his statement in the 11th and 12th verses of the preceding chapter. Hence, the world to come has reference to the changed universe, or the new heavens and earth which shall replace the old ones.
These interpretations of Paul's statements in Hebrews fully accord with what Peter said in the third chapter of Acts:
Acts 3:
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
These texts assert a time of refreshing and restitution of all things. This blessed state is accomplished in a series of steps. First, there is a regeneration of the soul and spirit in man by means of the spiritual birth. Next, there is a regeneration of the body in the resurrection. Finally, there is a regeneration of the material creation resulting in the new heavens and earth. And we would also note that all forms of regeneration are accomplished in exactly the same manner; namely, by the supernatural power of God and without the aid or instrumentality of man.
The Literal Sense Does Not Imply Russellism
The next misconception we wish to address is the idea that a literal interpretation of the new heavens and earth originated with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Only the uninformed would make such claims. The Jehovah's Witnesses did not exist as a body prior to 1872, and they have existed by their present name only since 1931. Many sound Christians held the literal view prior to this time, one being John Gill, who clearly sets forth a literal interpretation in his commentary.
The Jehovah's Witness view is a distortion, for it claims an elite group of 144,000 will dwell in heaven, while others will dwell on a new earth. The Bible speaks of no such separations in the family of God, and if there were such a group of spiritual elitists, then surely the Apostle Peter would be in it, but his personal testimony was that he also looked for the new heavens and earth. The Bible never makes a special connection between the new heavens and earth and the 144,000 of Revelations 7 and 11. If one can draw such conclusions on the basis of the inspired text, then the Bible could be made to mean anything.
The Literal Sense Does Not Imply Premillennialism
But the greatest misconception we wish to address is the idea that premillennialism is implied by a literal interpretation of the new heavens and earth. This is not the case. The new heavens and earth of Rev 21 and the thousand year reign of Rev 20 are not the same, not even in the premillennial system. But some amillennial brethren have rejected a literal new heavens and earth simply because premillennialists believe in such notions. We cannot understand this. Apart from the fact this is obviously an invalid way to interpret scriptures, it would seem that if one's objective were to destroy premillennialism, then a literal new heavens and earth would be one of the most formidable weapons at their disposal.
There are numerous texts in the scriptures which describe a utopian state of life in a setting similar to this earth. The premillennialists are quick to conclude that such scriptures will be fulfilled in a thousand year reign on this earth, and they adduce these scriptures as proof that such a reign will occur. But if the eternal state also has characteristics similar to this earth, so that it can be described as a new heavens and earth, then the texts in question might very well be describing the eternal state, and not a thousand year reign.
We will not belabor this point, because it is merely peripheral to our primary theme. However, we will offer the following examples:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. - Mt 5:5
Rev 5:
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
What earth shall the meek inherit? Upon what earth will the redeemed of God reign? Many premillennialists will say it is this earth during a thousand year reign, but it seems far more reasonable to us that these texts speak of another existence. They speak of the new heavens and earth.
Similar texts can be adduced from the Old Testament also, especially from the book of Isaiah. Such verses would include: Is 3:2-4, Is 25:6-9, Is 35:1-10, and Is 65:17-25. These verses are commonly applied to the thousand year reign, but they would seem to fit the new heavens and earth at least as well. We are not insisting upon this interpretation of these texts. Our point is simply that a literal new heavens and earth should not be considered as a premillennial doctrine. In many ways, it is an alternative to this doctrine.
Our contention is that all scriptural references to the new heavens and earth are equal and literal. This interpretation is confronted by certain difficulties. We think these difficulties are less formidable than those facing other interpretations, and we think the difficulties facing our interpretation can be reasonably resolved. This is what we now undertake to do.
Is 65:17-25
The difficulty with the literal interpretation of verse 17 is that the subsequent texts would then seem to imply the untenable propositions that there will be death, human reproduction, and agriculture in the eternal state. We offer the following commentary to show these things are not implied under close inspection.
Is 65:
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
Observe that every detail in these verses is matched in John's account in Rev 21:1-4. Therefore, we should be very disinclined to adopt an interpretation which makes these two accounts refer to different phenomena.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Premillennialists often apply this and the following texts to the thousand year reign. They speculate that death will not be eliminated in this reign, but lifespans will be extended to what they had been in the antediluvian earth (around 900 years), so that a person of 100 years age could be counted as a mere child. While we can respect their views on certain points, we are always astounded with this interpretation, because the context clearly places the text in the new heavens and earth - not a thousand year reign. Furthermore, there has never been an age of the earth in which a 100 year old person would be reckoned as a child.
A comparison of the four verses just considered with the first four verses of Rev 21 resolves the issue in our opinion. Both accounts use almost identical terms when speaking of the new heavens and earth, the passing of the former heavens and earth, the new Jerusalem, and the elimination of sorrow. As of the fourth verse, there is a divergence in terms, but not in meaning. In the place of Isaiah's lengthy 20th verse, John simply states, there shall be no more death. Again using the rule that an ambiguous text should be interpreted in the light of a plain one, we conclude that Isaiah's 20th verse imports the idea of immortality. There is no problem with applying this interpretation to there shall be no more thence an infant of days. This simply says that infants do not die in the new heavens and earth. As for the remainder of the text, we offer a complex but reasonable explanation.
We believe Isaiah is describing eternal life in terms of its implications for this life. Therefore, he is looking at both the present and the future, but is viewing the future in terms of its implications for the present (We are thankful to Elder Sonny Pyles for showing us this possibility). In this life infants often die, and it is always a great tragedy when they do. But when this tragedy is viewed from the perspective of the new heavens and earth, it is all the same as though the child had died at 100 years of age. On the other hand, people sometimes live to be 100 years old in this life, and such longevity is generally considered a blessing, but if such a person dies in their sins, then their case is infinitely worse than that of the dying child. Any finite span of time, whether it be an hour or 100 years, is reduced to a meaningless infinitesimal point when compared to eternity.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Again, Isaiah is viewing the future in terms of its implications for the present. When we examine this life alone, it oftentimes appears that our labors in the Lord are in vain. In this life, the best of people often receive the worst, and the worst of people often receive the best, so that it does not necessarily appear that what we sow of the Spirit shall be reaped of the same. Accordingly, there are cases where the good sown by God's people is perverted and exploited by the wicked, whose purpose is to harvest to their own carnality. Such cases can prevail upon the minds of God's people to the extent that even great men of the Bible have been temporarily deceived by the illusion that service to God is vanity (Ps 73, Jer 12:1-4, Hab 1). But the illusion is destroyed when the reality of future eternal bliss is brought into view. From this perspective, it is plain that our labors in the Lord are not in vain (1 Cor 15:58).
As for the days of a tree are the days of my people, this is not intended to say lifespans will be limited to that of trees. Rather, the statement alludes to the previous clause, which asserts that God's children shall eat of the fruit of their labors. The context suggests these figurative trees were planted by God's people. The idea is that these people will not be outlived by the fruit of their labors.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
The text does not assert there will be human reproduction in the eternal state (Mt 22:30). The logic is structured the same as before. In this life people commonly bear children, and notwithstanding all the parental love which seeks their welfare, every parent will discover it is not within their power to deliver their own offspring from the burden of the world's curse. However, in that life, both the parents and their offspring are the children of God, and He will have that same parental love for His children as we would have for ours, but God will have the power to meet their every need.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
This implies there is no carnivorous behavior in the eternal state, nor any hurt or destruction of any kind.
Is 66:22-24
Is 66:
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
The objection to the literal interpretation of the new heavens and earth in verse 22 will be that the subsequent verses would then imply the eternal state will possess sabbaths, lunar months, and the visibility of carcasses and possibly of eternal punishment. However, we do not think the 23rd and 24th verses refer to the new heavens and earth of verse 22. The new heavens and earth are used merely as a comparative reference in the 22ond verse. This being the case, there is no complication to interpreting them literally, regardless of the proper interpretation of verses 23 and 24.
[We believe verses 23 and 24 either refer back to verses 15 and 16, or else they refer back to verse 5. In the first case, the carcasses under consideration would likely be of those slain in a latter day destruction of the enemies of Israel (Ezek 39:11-16). In the second case, the carcasses and their eternal punishment would pertain to certain Jews themselves, who persecuted their own brethren in the name of religion and for the pretended purpose of glorifying the Lord. Such persecutors include the Pharisees in the times of Christ and their predecessors, all of whom are set forth as undeniable cases of eternally condemned people who shall not escape the damnation of hell (Mt 23:33), and who are held in contempt by people in all nations of the world. While neither the carcasses of these persecutors nor their eternal punishment is literally observed with the natural eye, it is nonetheless seen in the imaginations of those who know the pronunciations of the Lord Jesus against them.]
Rev 21 & 22:
Nearly all will agree that the entire contents of these two chapters refer to the same subject; however, there are two prevalent opinions as to what this subject is. Some think these chapters describe the eternal state, while others think they are an allegorical description of the timely church. Those of the eternal view may also use some degree of allegory, but not nearly so much as those preferring the timely one. The timely view therefore has to its advantage the flexibility inherent to allegorical interpretation; however, it is also more susceptible to the usual ambiguities of allegory.
Most would agree the direction one takes with these two chapters is dictated by the very first verse. If one takes this to refer to the eternal state, they, as a general rule, will be logically committed to do the same for the remainder of Revelation. Similarly, if one takes the first verse to be an allegorical reference to the timely church, they become obligated to this approach for all subsequent texts. Since the first verse is about the new heaven and earth, one can readily see the importance of our subject. Two entire chapters in Revelation tend to hinge upon it.
We believe many have dismissed the literal interpretation of the new heaven and earth because of Rev 21 and 22. This is because they are persuaded that the contents of these two chapters cannot be entirely applied to the eternal state. They apparently feel compelled to part with the plain implications of 2 Pet 3:10-14 because of these difficulties. However, it is our opinion that the problems appearing to be rectified by the allegorical approach are far outweighed by the problems it creates. Not only is one placed in an awkward posture with respect to other scriptural teachings about the new heaven and earth, they are also placed in an awkward posture with respect to Rev 21 and 22 themselves, because the entire tenor of these chapters is of final and eternal glory.
We believe the difficulties with the eternal application of these two chapters can be reconciled, and this is what we now undertake to do. Space limits us from considering all verses, but we will attempt to deal with the most difficult verses.
Rev 21:
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Some will say these texts express too much conditionality on human obedience to pertain to eternal life. However, such objectors fail to understand or appreciate the fact that God's elect shall surely overcome by the work of regeneration and the blood of Christ (Jn 6:37-39, 1 Jn 4:4, Rev 12:10-11), whereas they that are without electing grace do not overcome, nor do they have any desire to do so (Jn 6:44-45, Rev 20:15). See our comments on Rev 22:14 below.
Rev 21:
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
These texts have reference to New Jerusalem, which is to be situated in the new heaven and earth (vs 2). They do not necessarily teach God's family will be partitioned into nations there, or that God's people will be under kings there apart from God Himself. We believe they teach what are separate nations here will walk in the common light, and under the common authority, of the New Jerusalem there. Accordingly, those who are kings here will relinquish their honor and glory to the Lord there, and to the New Jerusalem. Some kings will do this willingly; others unwillingly.
Rev 22:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
The objection will be that an eternal application of this text would make eternal salvation contingent upon works. However, we do not think the eternal application implies this. Even those who advance such objections will make an eternal application of numerous other texts which associate works and salvation. Such texts might include: Mt 7:15-23, Mt 10:14-15, Mt 12:33-35, Mt 12:41-42, Mt 16:27, Mt 24:10-13, Mt 25:14-30, Mt 25:34-46, Mk 8:34-38, Mk 16:15-16, Lk 13:24-28, Lk 18:29-30, Jn 3:18-21, Jn 3:36, Jn 5:28-29, Gal 6:8, 2 Thes 1:7-8, 1 Jn 3:8-15. These texts do not teach salvation by works; rather, they teach the reverse - works by salvation. The doctrines of grace do not disassociate works and salvation; rather, they reverse the order of causality from that implied by the law. Obedience to the commandments of Christ are the evidences of salvation because they are the effects of salvation (Mt 12:33-35, Jn 1:11-13, Jn 6:37, Jn 8:43-47, Jn 10:25-29, Jn 15:16-19, Acts 9:15, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:48, Acts 15:14, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:9-10, Rom 8:29-30, 1 Cor 1:22-24, 1 Cor 1:30-31, Gal 5:22-24, Eph 1:4-5, Eph 2:10, 1 Thes 1:4-5, 2 Thes 2:13-14, Tit 3:3-5, 1 Pet 2:9). It is by such obedience that one obtains an assurance of salvation, of right to the tree of life, and of admission through the gates of the Holy City.
Rev 22:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
It will be objected that an eternal application of this text violates the doctrine of preservation. However, we believe this objection derives from a misconception of the book of life. It is generally believed that this book was designed to enroll the names of the elect, and therefore, that the book logically follows election. This formulation is confronted by the fact that certain scriptures express the possibility of being removed from the book (Ex 32:33, Ps 69:28, Rev 3:5, Rev 22:19). We believe the elect, and only the elect, are now written in the book; however, we do not believe the book logically follows election. We believe the book logically precedes election; that it is a book which enrolls the names of all men possessing endless life; that all mankind, in effect, fell from the book because of sin, and that Jesus restored the elect to the book. Therefore, it is indeed a book from which men fall because of their rebellion against God, but those whose transgressions have been blotted by the blood of Christ have been restored to the book never to fall again.
Observe that two books are mentioned in Rev 20:12-15. The first book is a record of sin, and the second is the book of life. We believe these books are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. That is, every man is recorded in one of the two books but cannot be recorded in both. Therefore, if there is a logical sense in which the elect were in the book of sin, then in that same sense they were not in the book of life. But Jesus blotted them from the book of sin (Ps 51:9, Jer 18:23, Col 2:14), by which action they were simultaneously and permanently restored to the book of life.
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. - Rev 21:3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)