Ellison: God’s Acts

“In Ezekiel’s day men were quite sure what Jehovah would and would not, could and could not do. The coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple [as foretold by Ezekiel] and the building of a new people in exile meant the turning over of a fresh leaf in the book of God’s revelation, and Ezekiel is stressing that the one who is bringing calamity and fresh grace upon them is the same one who brought them out of Egypt and made a covenant with them at Sinai. We must note though that this fresh knowledge of God was not to come by a fresh study of the revelation of the past or by a renewed speaking through His prophets, but before all else by His acts.

Our God is not merely a God who speaks but also a God who acts, and His words have to be interpreted in the framework of His mighty acts.”

-H. L. Ellison, Ezekiel: The Man and His Message, 38.

Martin: July 4th and 5th

July Fourth is coming soon and I’m thankful for the many blessings we experience in our country. I’m excited to celebrate this Saturday God’s goodness and grace to us that we experience in the USA. I’m also, very grateful that the next Lord’s Day (July 5th) my church family New City Church http://www.newcitychurch.org will gather in person and via Zoom to celebrate the Lordship of Christ alone. We won’t sing the national anthem of any country, neither will we fly any flag. Why? Because we are there to worship Christ, and only Jesus is Lord. Caesar may have what is his—for the time he is allotted—but inside the church house, and among the gathered assembly, Caesar has no claim. #JesusIsLord #CitizensOfAnotherKingdom


Edwards and Strachan: Love Our Enemies

“Christ denied himself to help us, though we are not able to recompense him; so we should be willing to lay out ourselves to help our neighbor freely, expecting nothing again. Christ loved us, and was kind to us and was willing to relieve us, though we were very hateful persons, of an evil disposition, not deserving any good, but deserving only to be hated, and treated with indignation; so we should be willing to be kind to those that are an ill sort of person, of a hateful disposition, and that are very undeserving. Christ loved us, and laid himself out to relieve us, though we were his enemies, hated him, had an ill spirit towards him, had treated him ill; so, as we would love Christ as he hath loved us, should {we love those who are our enemies, hate us, have an ill spirit toward us, and have treated us ill}.”

-Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses, 1730-1733.

“It isn’t hard to say that we’re Christians. If we keep the definition vague, the shoe seems to fit. We go to church, do what we’re supposed to do at work, and write a check once in a while to a worthy cause. With this low threshold, the faith doesn’t seem all that challenging; it fits comfortably into a typical American lifestyle, and we experience little discomfort.

But when we dig into the priorities of true Christianity, that laxness seems woefully deficient. The standard of Christ is not simply to love people who love us back, or to love humanity in a general sense. The standard of Christ is to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44). Such teachings present us with a major challenge. It’s no easy thing to love someone who acts hatefully toward us. Our every instinct runs away from love in such situations.

Christianity brings about a quiet revolution in the human heart. One of its chief effects is to awaken a full range of compassion and kindness to the people we encounter. Faith grabs hold of the truly repentant, and upends us, making friends of those who once were enemies. “Christ loved us” when we “hated him.”

Now, God gives us the strength, the otherworldly ability, to emulate our Savior and love those who despise us. Few practices are more challenging—or more revealing of the authenticity of our faith.”

‘If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.’ (Romans 5:10)

-Owen Strachan, Always in God’s Hands, Day by Day in the Company of Jonathan Edwards, 167.

Beale: Future Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel ?

“The notorious problem of what to make of the sacrifices in Ezekiel’s temple may be solved by seeing them beginning fulfilment in Christians who offer themselves to God by suffering for their faith…

Implicitly, Christ’s great sacrifice is the ultimate fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple vision, since Revelation 11 portrays the career of the church according to the outline of Christ’s career. Hence, it is not incorrect to say that Ezekiel speaks in the language and images familiar to his audience in portraying sacrifices in a temple to prophesy about the escalated redemptive-historical realities of Christ’s sacrifice and the church’s imitation of that sacrifice. Both of these ‘sacrifices’ of the new epoch are linked exegetically by allusions to the Ezekiel temple in Revelation 11:1-2 and the Lamb of 21:22.

Those who see a literal temple structure as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy usually interpret the sacrifices there to be ‘memorial sacrifices’ that commemorate Christ’s death. In response, numerous commentators have pointed out that this would violate the principle of Hebrews: the Old Testament sacrifices pointed to Christ’s ‘once for all’ sacrifice (Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10-18), so that to go back to those sacrifices would indicate the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for sin (cf., e.g., Heb. 10:18: ‘Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin’). This would appears to amount to a reversal of redemptive history and, more importantly, a denial of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice.

The Scofield Bible, espousing the standard literalist dispensational approach, gives a surprising response to what appears to be a vexing problem for those arguing for the future revival of the sacrificial system. In addition to saying that the sacrifices might be memorials Scofield also offers the following possibility: “The reference to sacrifices [in Ezekiel’s temple prophecy] is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings [according to Hebrews], but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day’ (C. I. Scofield, The New Scofield Reference Bible, 1967, 888).

More than one commentator has recognized the inconsistency in this quotation from the Scofield Bible: ‘These words convey a far-reaching concession on the part of dispensationalists. If the sacrifices are not to be taken literally, why should we take the temple literally? It would seem that the dispensational principle of the literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is here abandoned, and that a crucial foundation stone for the entire dispensationalist system has been set aside!’ (Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 1979, 204).

Therefore, make the sacrifices symbolic and the temple becomes symbolic too (H. L. Ellison, Ezekiel: The Man and His Mission, 1956, 140). Even to entertain the possibility that the sacrifices are memorials contravenes a literal interpretation of prophecy because of the Hebrew word that Ezekiel uses to explain the purpose of the sacrifices: ‘to make atonement’ (45:15, 17, 20). The verb is kipper (in the Piel verb form), which is the exact word (and verb form) employed in the Pentateuch to describe sacrifices that have an atoning purpose (Lev. 6:30 [23]; 8:15; 16:6, 11, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34; Num. 5:8; 15:28; 29:5) (following Hoekema 1979, 204). Of course, the atoning purpose in the Old Testament accomplished only a temporary ‘covering’ (which is the meaning of kipper) of Israel’s sin, which pointed typologically to Christ’s ‘once for all atonement’. The point is that Ezekiel does not call these sacrifices ‘memorials’, but puts them on a par with the Levitical typological sacrifices of atonement. 

From a New Testament perspective, the Lord’s Supper is the only memorial instituted by Christ to ‘memorialize’ his redemptive work. To suggest that this memorial will cease in a coming millennium, to be replaced by the ‘old’ Old Testament sacrifices, not only is at variance with the book of Hebrews, but abrogates Christ’s command to remember him in the Lord’s Supper (Ellison 1956, 142). This in light of the evidence, it does not seem likely that Ezekiel’s sacrifices will be literally fulfilled in a future temple.”

-G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, 2004, 343-345.

Clowney: Jesus is the Greater Temple

[The view that Israel’s temple or one rebuilt by human hands is not the fulfillment of Old Testament temple prophesies] is not spiritualization in our usual sense of the word, but the very opposite.

In Christ is realization. It is not so much that Christ fulfils what the temple means; rather Christ is the meaning for which the temple existed. Our reflection on the claims of Christ has already shown us that his use of the Old Testament is far from figurative. The situation is completely reversed. In the wisdom of God’s purpose the earlier revelation points forward to the climax, when,in the fullness of time, God sent his own Son into the world.

Christ is the true temple, the true light, the true manna, the true vine. The coming of the true supersedes the figurative. The veil of the temple made with hands is destroyed, for its symbolism is fulfilled.

At the cross the actualization of the symbolism of sacrifice is particularly clear. It is not a figurative use of Old Testament language to say that Christ is the Lamb of God offered to make atonement for sin. The sin-offering at the temple altar is not being ‘spiritualized’ when we say it is fulfilled in Christ.

Neither is the temple being ‘spiritualized’ when we say that in the resurrection the true temple was raised up. No earthly temple made with hands can ever again become the place of God’s dwelling.”

-Edmund Clowney, The Final Temple, Westminster Theological Journal, 35, (1972) 177,182-183)

Martin: We Need Change; We Need the Police

PSA: It is possible to hold fast to the gospel and also believe that the gospel requires we care for the outcast and the oppressed. Faith without works is dead. It is possible to be anti-riot, anti-racism, opposed to the abuse of power by some law enforcement members, and also support just police officers. I am thankful for every good and righteous law enforcement professional; They are vital and essential.

Defunding the police is a horrible idea. We need reform and change, but abolishing the police will destroy our cities and communities. We cannot ignore the fact that some law enforcement professionals commit evil and oppressive acts. We also can’t ignore the history of Jim Crow and the legacy of racism that still affects so many of our brothers and sisters, even today. But racism and the legacy of slavery are not just issues in law enforcement. Racism exists in many areas of society, and beneficial reform will address racism and injustice wherever it exists.

We need to stop attacking the police, most officers are just and truly seek to protect and serve. That doesn’t mean we can’t hold people accountable and policy changes are definitely needed in many communities. Let’s unite in condemning violence on all sides. We need Jesus to heal us, and only regeneration of the heart by the Holy Spirit brings true and ultimate justice, but that’s not an excuse to ignore evil here and now.


Robertson: Types

“John declares that God now “tabernacles” with his people in a way that far surpasses his dwelling with Israel in the days of their wilderness wandering (John 1:14), that the angels of God now ascend and descend on the Son of Man rather than on Jacob’s visionary ladder (John 1:51), that the lifting up of the Son of God supersedes the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), and that the manna from heaven given by Moses has been transformed into “living bread” given by Christ (John 6:49-51).

Paul speaks of the religious festivals of the old covenant as “a shadow of the things that were to come” (Col.2:17), and the events of Israel’s redemptive history as “types” for believers during the new covenant age (1 Cor.10:6). All these authors of new covenant documents develop a significant aspect of their theology by contrasting old covenant shadows with new covenant realities.

It is particularly in the epistle to the Hebrews that this contrast between anticipation and realization, between shadow and reality, finds its fullest and most distinctive expression. According to the writer to the Hebrews, the administration of redemption under the law of the old Covenant was “only a shadow” of the good things that were
coming (Heb. 10:1). These shadowy images of redemptive reality did not originate merely in the context of old covenant experiences. Instead, these prophetic shadows originated in the abiding realities of heaven itself.

Because Melchizedek the priest-king was made “like” the Son of God in his eternal relationship to the Father, he could anticipate the priestly role of Jesus (Heb. 7:1,3). Similarly, only because the tabernacle in the wilderness was constructed precisely “according to the pattern” shown to Moses on the mount, could its pattern of worship provide insight into the realities of a proper approach to God under the provisions of the new covenant (Heb.8:5).”

-O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, 5.

Origen: The Scarlet Thread

“The sign of salvation (the scarlet thread) was given through the window because Christ, by His Incarnation, gave us the sight of the light of the godhead as it were through a window. Thus all may attain salvation by that sign which shall be found in the house of her who once was a harlot, being made clean by water and the Holy Spirit, and by the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”


Anselm: God Cannot Remit A Sin Unpunished

“For the devil would not have been able to tempt mankind if it had been God’s will to prohibit him. Would God, I repeat, not be acting in a similar way if he were to bring man back to Paradise stained with the filth of sin without any washing, that is, in the absence of any recompense, at least supposing man were to remain in this state for ever?

…Consider it, then, an absolute certainty, that God cannot remit a sin unpunished, without recompense, that is, without the voluntary paying off of a debt, and that a sinner cannot, without this, attain to a state of blessedness, not even the state which was his before he sinned. For, in this case, the person would not be restored, even to being the kind of person he was before his sin.

…It is to no avail that someone who is not making payment says, ‘Forgive’, and the reason why someone who is making payment makes supplication is that this very fact of his supplication is a contingency of relevance to the repayment of the debt. For God owes nothing to anyone, but all creation is in debt to him, and therefore it is not expedient that a human being should deal with God as an equal deals with an equal.”

-Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man, Book 1, 19.