Justin Taylor's Blog, page 7

John Piper’s Word to Husbands Who Demean Their Wives

In an episode of the Ask Pastor John podcast in 2020, John Piper responds to a question from a woman whose husband regularly demeans here.

Piper’s response can be listened to in the video above, is worth hearing in its entirely.

Piper points out that this man is obviously in significant bondage to the root sin of selfishness and pride, which we today would call narcissism.

He then explains how the Bible would diagnose the five sinful, damaging mistakes this man is making and should be held accountable for:

He thinks that creation has a built-in subservience for women.He infers from creation a built-in superior-inferior relationship. He infers from his superior-inferior paradigm for men and women that he may therefore rightly treat his wife in demeaning ways.He lives now with anger and aggressiveness in his prison cell.The result of living in the bondage of sin and delusion is acting like a jailer or a pathetic child throwing a temper tantrum.

He then closes with this counsel for her:

Now, she didn’t ask me for any counsel; she just wanted me to say something that might be helpful in general when women are dealing with a man like this. But let me go ahead and say what I think. I’m assuming there hasn’t been physical abuse. She didn’t say that. And the reason I’m telling you that is because what I’m about to say would be different if there were. In other words, if he is brutalizing her, then she is, I think, obliged — rightly and legally — to go to the police and to the ways that the arm of our government has set for helping women or men deal with that kind of brutality.

But short of that, she should be stepping forward — and I do hope she’s in a church where this is possible. I hope she can go to trusted elders, tell them her situation, and ask for them to intervene. I think it’s part of the elders’ job at a church to step into the lives of the sheep — men and women — and to be a part of their protective shield, and to give them guidance and wisdom for how to move forward.

The World’s Most Realistic Animation of the Development of a Baby within Her Mother’s Womb

The organization Live Action has put together a beautiful and medically accurate animation of life within the womb, from fertilization to birth. Go to babyolivia.liveaction.org for more resources.

Fertilization
Olivia’s life begins and her gender, ethnicity, hair color, eye color, and other traits are determined.

Week 1
Olivia implants in the lining of her mother’s uterus, where she’ll live for the next 9 months.

Week 3
By week three, Olivia’s heartbeat can be detected, her brain and gastrointestinal tract have begun to form, and the cells for her nerves, blood, and kidney have appeared. Her mother may know of Olivia’s existence through a pregnancy test at this stage.

Week 4
At just four weeks, the buds of Olivia’s arms are and legs are visibly forming, and the right and left hemispheres of her brain are beginning to take shape.

Weeks 5–6
At weeks five and six, Olivia moves spontaneously and reflexively, her bones begin to develop, and her brain activity can be recorded.

Weeks 7–8
Olivia can bring her hands together, she can hiccup, she has had over one million heartbeats, and her ovaries and the cells needed for future generations of children are present.

Weeks 9–10
Olivia’s stage of human development now classifies her as a fetus. She can suck her thumb, swallow, grasp an object, touch her face, sigh, and stretch out in her mother’s womb.

Weeks 11–14
Olivia can play in the womb and her taste buds have matured to discrete tastebuds. By week 14, Olivia’s lips and nose are fully formed, she makes complex facial expressions, and her mother can finally feel her movements.

Weeks 15–16
The neuron multiplication of Olivia’s brain is mostly complete and she is sensitive to touch. At this stage of development, ultrasounds can detect speaking movements in her voice box and her teeth are beginning to grow.

Weeks 19–21
By 19 weeks old, her heart has beaten over 20 million times. At 21 weeks old, Olivia could survive outside of the womb with medical assistance.

Week 27
Olivia can recognize her parents’ voices and will react to sudden loud noises. Her eyes respond to light, and she also has a functioning sense of smell.

Week 38
Olivia exhibits breathing movements, she can produce tears, her umbilical cord is typically twenty to twenty-four inches long, and she will weigh between six and eight pounds at birth.

The Time Jesus Acted Out a Parable of the Gospel for His Disciples

From Sinclair B. Ferguson’s beautiful new short book, Lessons from the Upper Room:

John’s gospel has quite a different feel from the first three Gospels. . . . The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) show us “His body”—they tell the story from the outside, as it were. But the nearer John’s gospel gets to its climax the more we learn about what was “going on inside” our Lord.

This is preeminently true in chapters 13 through 17. Here we are invited to listen in as Jesus patiently instructs His closest friends as they sit around Him during a Passover meal.

It would have lasted several hours—truly memorable hours with the Master!

The narrative begins with Jesus showing His disciples that “he loved them to the end” (John 13:1)—and what true love is really like.

Characteristically, He gives a sign—He washes the disciples’ feet.

Then He provides an explanation and asks: “Do you understand the meaning of this sign? Do you see what it means for Me? And do you understand the implications it has for you?”

Doubtless the room had fallen silent. This was a very private gathering—only Jesus and the Twelve.

No house-servant had welcomed them; no one had washed the street grime from their sandaled feet. And clearly, they had all been too proud to do it—either for Jesus or for one another. In fact, Luke tells us that the disciples had been arguing with each other about which of them was “the greatest” (Luke 22:24–27). In sharp contrast, Jesus told them, “I am among you as the one who serves.”

Perhaps it was at this point that He rose from table.

In this world, disciples did not wash each other’s feet—that was a servant’s work. But now the Master is doing it!

When Jesus kneels down before Simon Peter, however, it is too much for him. Appalled and resistant, he breaks the silence: “Lord, do you wash my feet?”

Jesus answers: “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me” (John 13:8).

Clearly something deeper is going on here than Jesus merely removing dust and dirt. This is a prophetic action—like those performed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. He is acting out a parable of the gospel, showing them by means of a dramatic sign both who He is and what He has come to do. Here, in the foot-washing, He reveals both His person and His work, both His identity and the purpose of His ministry.

One of the best ways to understand the inner significance of these verses is to look at them side by side with the Apostle Paul’s teaching about the Lord Jesus in Philippians 2:6–9:

Point by point, Jesus is acting out symbolically what Paul describes theologically—how He came from the highest glory of heaven, into the depths of our human condition, took the form of a slave, and accomplished our cleansing from sin by His death on the cross, and then was exalted to the right hand of the Father.

—Sinclair B. Ferguson, Lessons from the Upper Room: The Heart of the Savior (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2020), 8–11.

For the video version on this teaching, go here.

The Deadly Sin of Sloth

Dorothy Sayers (1853–1957):

The sixth deadly sin is named by the Church acedia or sloth.

In the world it calls itself tolerance; but in hell it is called despair.

It is the accomplice of the other sins and their worst punishment.

It is the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, loves nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive only because there is nothing it would die for.

We have known it far too well for many years. The only thing perhaps that we have not known about it is that it is a mortal sin.

—Dorothy L. Sayers, “The Other Six Deadly Sins,” in Letters to a Diminished Church: Passionate Arguments for the Relevance of Christian Doctrine (reprint, Thomas Nelson, 2004), 98.

C. S. Lewis on Why Horizontal Love Needs to Be God-Centered

“'(Sensual love) ceases to be a devil when it ceases to be a god.’ Isn’t that well put? So many things—nay every real thing—is good if only it will be humble and ordinate.”

C. S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths, April 16, 1940

“Put first things first and we get second things thrown in: put second things first and we lose both first and second things. We never get, say, even the sensual pleasure of food at its best when we are being greedy.”

C. S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths, April 23, 1951

“When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. Insofar as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.”

—C. S. Lewis to Mrs. Johnson, November 8, 1952

“The woman who makes a dog the centre of her life loses, in the end, not only her human usefulness and dignity but even the proper pleasure of dog-keeping.

The man who makes alcohol his chief good loses not only his job but his palate and all power of enjoying the earlier (and only pleasurable) levels of intoxication.

It is a glorious thing to feel for a moment or two that the whole meaning of the universe is summed up in one woman—glorious so long as other duties and pleasures keep tearing you away from her. But clear the decks and so arrange your life (it is sometimes feasible) that you will have nothing to do but contemplate her, and what happens?

Of course this law has been discovered before, but it will stand re-discovery. It may be stated as follows: every preference of a small good to a great, or partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice is made.

. . . You can’t get second things by putting them first. You get second things only by putting first things first.”

—C.S. Lewis, “First and Second Things,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 280.

For an outstanding study of Lewis’s understanding of the Christian life, see Joe Rigney, Lewis on the Christian Life: Becoming Truly Human in the Presence of God (Wheaton: Crosssway, 2018).

And for the most comprehensive study of Lewis’s life, see Harry Lee Poe’s trilogy in the making, with two volumes out so far: (1) Becoming C. S. Lewis: A Biography of Young Jack Lewis, 1898–1918 (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019); (2) The Making of C. S. Lewis: From Atheist to Apologist, 1918–1945 (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021)

C. S Lewis on Why Horizontal Love Needs to Be God-Centered

“'(Sensual love) ceases to be a devil when it ceases to be a god.’ Isn’t that well put? So many things—nay every real thing—is good if only it will be humble and ordinate.”

C. S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths, April 16, 1940

“Put first things first and we get second things thrown in: put second things first and we lose both first and second things. We never get, say, even the sensual pleasure of food at its best when we are being greedy.”

C. S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths, April 23, 1951

“When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. Insofar as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.”

—C. S. Lewis to Mrs. Johnson, November 8, 1952

“The woman who makes a dog the centre of her life loses, in the end, not only her human usefulness and dignity but even the proper pleasure of dog-keeping.

The man who makes alcohol his chief good loses not only his job but his palate and all power of enjoying the earlier (and only pleasurable) levels of intoxication.

It is a glorious thing to feel for a moment or two that the whole meaning of the universe is summed up in one woman—glorious so long as other duties and pleasures keep tearing you away from her. But clear the decks and so arrange your life (it is sometimes feasible) that you will have nothing to do but contemplate her, and what happens?

Of course this law has been discovered before, but it will stand re-discovery. It may be stated as follows: every preference of a small good to a great, or partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice is made.

. . . You can’t get second things by putting them first. You get second things only by putting first things first.”

—C.S. Lewis, “First and Second Things,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 280.

For an outstanding study of Lewis’s understanding of the Christian life, see Joe Rigney, Lewis on the Christian Life: Becoming Truly Human in the Presence of God (Wheaton: Crosssway, 2018).

And for the most comprehensive study of Lewis’s life, see Harry Lee Poe’s trilogy in the making, with two volumes out so far: (1) Becoming C. S. Lewis: A Biography of Young Jack Lewis, 1898–1918 (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019); (2) The Making of C. S. Lewis: From Atheist to Apologist, 1918–1945 (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021)

Why “Abba” Does Not Mean “Daddy”

We are sometimes told that the Aramaic word Abba in Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6 indicates that we are to address God the Father as “Daddy” as an expression of  reverential relational intimacy.

The New Testament scholar Murray Harris—who has been called one of the great Greek minds of our day—talks about why this is not true.

The following is an excerpt from his book Navigating Tough Texts: A Guide to Problem Passages in the New Testament:

It is true that in the Jewish Talmud and other Jewish documents we find statements such as “When a child experiences the taste of wheat (i.e., when it is weaned), it learns to say ’abbā and ’immā” (Berakot 40a in the Babylonian Talmud) (= our “dada” and “mama”).

However, even if the term abba began as a childish babbling sound (and this is far from clear), at the time of Jesus it was a regular adult word meaning “Father” or “my Father” (as terms of address) or “the Father” or “my Father” (as terms of reference).

That is, abba was not a childish term of the nursery comparable to “Daddy.” It was a polite and serious term, yet also colloquial and familiar, regularly used by adult sons and daughters when addressing their father. Ideas of simplicity, intimacy, security and affection attach to this household word of childlike trust and obedience. So to bring out the sense of warm and trusting intimacy that belongs to the word, we could appropriately paraphrase it as “dear father.”

If Paul had wanted to convey the sense of “Daddy,” he could have used a Greek word he undoubtedly would have known – papas or pappas that means “papa” or “daddy,” a child’s word for “father.”

There are four further reasons it is inappropriate to translate Abba by “Daddy.”

First, in all three NT passages where the word abba occurs (Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), it is immediately translated by the term “Father” (the Greek articular nominative, ho patēr, used in a vocative sense).

Second, Jesus himself directed his followers to address God as “our Father,” pater hēmōn (Matt 6:9).

Third, each of the seventeen prayers of Jesus (not counting parallels) recorded in the Gospels begins with “Father,” presumably Abba in each case.

Fourth, for Christians, young or old, to address God as “Daddy” is totally inappropriate, for in English usage the term is too casual and flippant and unassuming to be used in addressing the Lord God Almighty, the Creator and Sustainer of all things, not to mention the fact that “daddy” is often abbreviated to “dad.”

It may be that an improper sense of familiarity with God on the part of some Christians prompted Peter to say, “If you address as ‘Father’ the One who judges each person’s work impartially, live in reverent fear of him during the time of your exile on earth” (1 Peter 1:17).

That is, to address God as “our Father in heaven” in the Lord’s Prayer is to remember he is the all-knowing and impartial Supreme Judge of every person, who therefore must approach him with reverential awe, not as though he were simply another commonplace “Daddy.”

How Would You Summarize the Old Testament in 2,000 Words?

In his commentary on the book of Hebrews for the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary published by Lexham, Tom Schreiner provides a good summary of the entire Old Testament storyline, reprinted below with permission. [I’ve added headings.]

The Scriptures open in Genesis with God as the sovereign King creating the world and everything in it.

Adam and Eve

Human beings are made in the image of God and appointed to rule the world for God (Gen 1:26–27). They are mandated to rule the world under God’s lordship and for his glory.

Instead of trusting and obeying God, Adam and Eve defied him and refused to submit to him (Genesis 3). Because of their transgression incited by the words of the serpent, they were spiritually separated from God and introduced death into the world.

Nevertheless, death is not the final word, for God promises that the offspring of the woman will crush the serpent (Gen 3:15).

The initial optimism engendered by the promise collapses, for human beings are radically evil. Cain was the offspring of the serpent and murdered Abel. (All the offspring of Adam and Eve come into the world as the offspring of the serpent, and hence those who belong to God are the recipients of his grace.) The offspring of the serpent were triumphing over the offspring of the woman, though God granted Seth to Adam and Eve to continue the lineage through which the promise would be fulfilled (Gen 4:25).

Noah

Because the corruption was so great, because the offspring of the serpent were spreading so rapidly, God had to destroy them with the flood, showing that he rules and reigns even when evil seems to have the upper hand. God established a covenant with Noah, pledging to preserve the world until he accomplished redemption (Genesis 6–9).

Tower of Babel

Still, the story of the tower of Babel reveals that human beings had not changed (Gen 11:1–9); they were still inclined toward evil and lived to make a name for themselves instead of living for the glory and honor and praise of the one true God.

Genesis 1–11 unveils the depth of human evil so that readers will grasp that victory over the serpent is a massive undertaking. The evil in human beings is no trivial matter. A demonic rejection of God and an embrace of evil afflict human beings.

Abraham

Despite human evil, which defies the imagination, God is gracious. He chose one man through whom he would fulfill the promise made to the woman. He promises Abraham that he will have:

land (Canaan),offspring (Isaac), anduniversal blessing (Gen 12:1–3).

Still the story rolls on slowly. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never possessed the land, and Abraham found it agonizingly difficult to have even one child! The Lord teaches him through the birth of Isaac that the promise will only be fulfilled through God himself, that human beings can’t contribute to the promise’s fulfillment.

Isaac and Jacob learned the same lesson so that, when Genesis ends, Israel was in the wrong land (Egypt), there were only about 70 Israelites (when God promised they would be as many as the stars of the sky), and there was certainly not universal blessing. What is said here could be misunderstood, for there could scarcely be countless descendants in three generations, and Joseph as Pharaoh’s right-hand man did bless the nations.

Exodus

When Exodus opens, the promise of offspring for Israel is being fulfilled, for their population was exploding, which terrified the Egyptians. The Lord intended to show Israel again and again that salvation is his work, not theirs. Hence, he freed Israel from Egypt through Moses with great signs and wonders (Exodus 1–18). The Lord crushed the offspring of the serpent (Pharaoh), who attempted to annihilate the people from whom the offspring of the woman would come (Gen 3:15).

Covenant with Israel

Israel recognized that the Lord had redeemed them, fulfilling his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel was adopted as God’s son (Exod 4:22), becoming his special possession and a kingdom of priests if they followed the Lord’s instructions (Exod 19:5–6). The redemption from Egypt becomes a type and anticipation of the redemption that would be accomplished in Jesus Christ.

The Lord entered into a covenant with Israel, choosing them as his special people (cf. Exodus 19–24). If Israel obeyed the covenant stipulations, they would be blessed; but if they transgressed what the Lord commanded, they would experience the curses of the covenant (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 26–28). The Lord didn’t demand perfection to remain in the covenant, for sacrifices were instituted to grant forgiveness for Israel’s transgressions (Leviticus 1–7, 16).

The Lord also impressed on Israel his holiness. He dwelt with his people in the tabernacle (Exodus 25–40), but those who treated the Lord with contempt would be destroyed (Leviticus 10), as the thunderstorm which gripped Mount Sinai clearly taught the people.

Ultimately, the old covenant was a failure. The sacrifices didn’t cleanse the conscience of sin and provide free access to God, nor did the old covenant inscribe the law on the heart. But we are getting ahead of the story here!

The Land of Canaan

The next element of the promise of Abraham was ready to be fulfilled. Israel was about to take possession of Canaan. We read in Numbers how the people failed to follow the Lord’s instructions. After seeing the Lord’s signs and wonders that routed the Egyptians, Israel, amazingly enough, didn’t believe the Lord could bring them into the land, and hence they disobeyed his instructions.

The story wasn’t over, however, for under Joshua Israel possessed the land of Canaan, though the story clarifies that they didn’t possess the entirety of the land. Israel’s triumphs are the Lord’s work, for they win impossible victories over foes that are far stronger than they are. Joshua concludes by saying that the Lord has given rest to Israel (21:4; 22:4; 23:1). The rest under Joshua was a type and anticipation of a greater rest to come.

Judges

Upon opening Judges, we might think that paradise is around the corner. Two elements of the promise to Abraham are fulfilled: Israel

had a large population andnow inhabited the land of Canaan.

Hundreds of years had passed since the promise was made to Abraham, but Israel now seemed to be on the cusp of blessing.

It is rather stunning to see where the story goes next. Instead of moving forward, Israel slipped backward. They were in that sense like Adam in paradise. Instead of trusting and obeying the Lord, they turned toward idols so that the Lord unleashed their enemies upon them. Israel repeated a cycle of sin, defeat before enemies, repentance, and deliverance. Judges concludes with a story that echoes what happened to Lot in Sodom (Judges 20; Genesis 19). Israel was in the land, but they were not submitting to Yahweh’s lordship. Instead of blessing the nations, they were being corrupted by the nations.

King Saul

When 1 Samuel opens, Israel had a corrupt priesthood and was teetering toward collapse. Still the Lord was gracious, raising up Samuel to bring the nation back to him. The kingship was instituted under Samuel when Saul was installed as the first king.

If we read perceptively, the theme of kingship is actually in the narrative from the beginning. The Lord promises that kings will come from Abraham and Jacob (17:6, 16; 35:11). Indeed, the scepter will belong to Judah, and the peoples of the world (universal blessing!) will obey him (Gen 49:10). Balaam prophesies that a star and scepter from Israel will crush (cf. Gen 3:15) the enemies of the Lord (Num 24:17–19). The offspring of the woman who will destroy the serpent will come from a king in Israel.

The narrative poses an implicit question: is Saul that king? On first taking the reins of power, it looked as if he might be. But Saul turned out like Adam in the garden and like Israel after possessing Canaan. Instead of trusting and obeying the Lord, he followed his own desires, and hence the Lord pledges that there will not be a Saulide dynasty.

Covenant with King David

David was anointed as king instead of Saul, and Saul became David’s mortal enemy, following the footsteps of Pharaoh (the offspring of the serpent!) who tried to destroy the chosen of the Lord. David was persecuted and on the run, but he trusted in the Lord to exalt him instead of wresting the kingdom from Saul. Finally, the Philistines killed Saul in battle, and David as king reigned over all Israel.

David’s kingship was marked by his trust and obedience to the Lord. Indeed, the Lord made a covenant with David that is central to the scriptural story line. The offspring of the woman who would triumph over the serpent would come from David’s line. He would be a Davidic king, for the Lord promised David a perpetual dynasty (2 Samuel 7). This promise finds its fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.

Despite all of David’s virtues, he was not the one who would crush the serpent, for he too was a sinner needing forgiveness since he violated the covenant with the Lord by committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering Uriah (2 Samuel 11).

Solomon

Still, when David’s son Solomon ascended to the throne, it seemed that paradise was around the corner. Israel was at peace. Solomon was a wise and judicious king, and a marvelous temple was erected to worship the Lord. Could universal blessing be far behind?

But Solomon recapitulated the story we have seen over and over again. He followed the pattern of Adam in the garden, Israel in Canaan, and Saul as king. He ceased to trust in the Lord and turned to idols.

Divided Kingdom

The kingdom, after Solomon’s day and as a result of his sin, was divided between the north and the south, with Israel in the north and Judah in the south.

Every single king in Israel followed the pattern of the first king, Jeroboam son of Nebat, and worshiped idols. The kings of Judah had a more mixed record, for some were faithful to the Lord, though even the best of them failed to do all the Lord commanded.

Exile

At the end of the day, though, both Israel and Judah gave themselves over to sin, and thus both kingdoms experienced the curses of the covenant:

Israel was exiled to Assyria in 722 BC andJudah was exile to Babylon in 586 BC.

The new covenant is better than the old. Such a judgment is verified by the history of Israel. The kingdom was not realized through the old covenant since both Israel and Judah did not and could not keep the prescriptions of the covenant.

Prophets

The prophets came to center stage after the kingdom was instituted in Israel, warning both Israel and Judah that exile would come unless they repented and turned to the Lord. The Day of the Lord will come, and it will not be a day of salvation but a day of judgment for disobedient Israel.

The prophets, however, did not only proclaim a message of judgment. Israel would go into exile, but there would be a new exodus. Israel, by the grace of God, would return to the land. There would be a new start for the people of God, and the kingdom would come with the arrival of the new exodus.

And that is not all. There will be a new covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:26–27) in which Israel’s sins will be finally and fully forgiven. The Lord will write the law on Israel’s heart by giving them the Holy Spirit, and so they will desire to do what the Lord says. The Lord will pour out his Spirit on his people, and a new age of salvation will arise (cf. Isa 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28). Creation will be renewed, and there will be a new exodus, a new covenant, and a new creation.

The kingdom God promised has not been withdrawn. It will come, and a new David will reign on the throne (Hos 3:5; Mic 5:2–4; Isa 9:1–7; 11:1–10; 55:3; Jer 23:5–6; 30:9; 33:15–17; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Zech 9:9). The new creation, the new exodus, and the new covenant will be fulfilled through a king! The serpent will be defeated, and the kingdom will come.

Return from Exile

Israel returned from exile in 536 BC, and yet the promises of a new covenant, a new creation, and the coming kingdom were not realized. It seems that the prophecies found in the prophets only had an already-but-not-yet fulfillment. Remarkably Israel, by and large, did not surrender their faith. They continued to believe that the Lord would fulfill his promises to them.

Schreiner goes on to provide a brief summary of the culmination of this story in the Gospels and the book of Acts:

Gospels

When the NT opens, there are a variety of opinions and sects in Israel, but there was a common belief that the Lord would keep his kingdom promises. Most believed that the great promises would be realized only if Israel was obedient to the Torah. The events in the Gospels took place before Hebrews was written and hence are part of the theological backdrop of the letter. We can hardly do justice to the message of the Gospels here, but certain themes stand out.

First, Jesus is the new David promised by the prophets. He is the one through whom the blessing promised to Abraham and David would be fulfilled.

Second, Jesus teaches that the kingdom has arrived in his ministry. The kingdom has come because the king has come!

Third, Jesus clearly teaches that he is the one who will give the Spirit to his people (cf. Matt 3:11–12 par.; John 14–16); the promises of return from exile, a new covenant, and a new creation would come to pass through God’s Spirit.

Fourth, Jesus is the Son of Man who will receive the kingdom (cf. Dan 7:9–14). He is the Son of God who is Immanuel, God with us (Matt 1:23). He is the Word of God (John 1:1–18) who is fully divine (cf. John 5:23). He existed before Abraham was born (John 8:58). He is the Bread of the Life, the Light of the World, the Good Shepherd, the Resurrection and the Life, the Way and the Truth and the Life, and the True Vine.

Fifth, at the Last Supper Jesus teaches that the new covenant is instituted with his death (Matt 26:26–29 par.). Jesus is the Servant of the Lord (cf. Isaiah 53) who took upon himself the sins of his people. The Gospels have been called passion narratives with an extended introduction, for the climax of the story comes with Jesus’ death and resurrection, and all the Gospels teach that through Jesus’ death and resurrection forgiveness is granted (e.g., Matt 1:21; 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:19–20; John 1:29; 6:51; 11:49–52).

Much more could be said. What is striking in the story of the Gospels is that the people of Israel, except for a few disciples, failed to see what was right before their eyes. The problem that plagued Israel throughout its history still persisted. They continued to resist God’s revelation. Jesus wasn’t embraced as Israel’s deliverer. He was despised as a messianic pretender, especially since they thought his teaching didn’t accord with the law. Hence, instead of crowning Jesus as the king, they crucified him on the cross.

They didn’t realize that Jesus was the Passover Lamb, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Word of God, and the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah 53.

They didn’t understand that through Jesus’ death on the cross the new covenant was instituted as he taught at the Last Supper.

They didn’t realize that the forgiveness that the new covenant promised (Jer 31:34) was accomplished through Jesus’ death.

Death was not the end of the story. God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead. The resurrection (Isa 26:19; Ezekiel 37; Dan 12:2) signaled the arrival of the new creation and age to come.

In Jesus the return from exile (which is the coming of the kingdom) had arrived, though it won’t be consummated until the second coming.

The new covenant was inaugurated with his death and the gift of the Spirit.

The new creation had come with his resurrection, and he was most certainly the new David.

The prophecies of the OT were all fulfilled in him.

And yet there was a proviso. The new creation, the new covenant, and the new exodus were inaugurated but not consummated. The kingdom had come but not in its fullness. All nations would be blessed through him, so that there was an opportunity for salvation for all peoples before the final day.

Acts

We see in the Acts of the Apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit given to the church (Acts 2), signaling that the eschaton had arrived. The new covenant is the age of the Holy Spirit, which came at Pentecost. In Acts the good news about Jesus Christ is proclaimed to both Jews and Gentiles, so that the promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of worldwide blessing began to be realized.

Do You Still Believe the Church Is the Hope of the World?

In his most recent essay at First Things, Carl Trueman takes aim at those have made it a virtual cottage industry to blame “the church” for all of her woes.

He points out that critiques can and should be made but contrasts what we see today with the posture of the apostle Paul:

St. Paul was certainly well aware of the failings of Christians, even of the wickedness that they could perpetrate in the church’s name, as his blunt letters to various congregations indicate. But he never ceased to present the church—flawed, divided, morally compromised as she was—as the meaning and hope of history.

Trueman is not just critiquing those on the left. He writes:

[There is] a rather unpleasant truth about the loudest voices in the conservative Christian world: They seem united only in their apparent belief that a posture of righteous indignation and demands for extreme sanctions against those who hold different opinions are essential parts of courageous Christian discipleship.

Here is his conclusion:

The church’s exile from mainstream culture is going to be hard, but the Bible makes it clear that she wins in the end.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against her. That is the source of our hope at this time, and so it is pastorally cruel and theologically irresponsible for Christians to obscure this truth with endless complaints about “the church’s” past behavior and present inadequacies.

By all means, call out the moral failings of Christians, congregations and denominations, left and right; but be specific, do so without slander and vitriol, and make a clear distinction between the church and the specific failings to which you allude in order to promote clear thinking.

And remember—if your critique of Christians is not balanced by a Pauline emphasis on the church, the body of Christ, as the answer to the world’s problems, you ultimately offer no true Christian commentary on the contemporary scene. For as soon as you see the church herself as part of the problem, you have lost the gospel and deprived yourself and your audience of hope.

You can read the whole thing here.

The Song Scott Swain Wants Played at His Funeral

In his book, Worship Seeking Understanding, John Witvliet cites a worship leaders who spoke of weekly congregational singing as “rehearsing the congregation for a future funeral.” Witvliet comments: “What if we planned our music with this as a primary goal? ‘Musician, why did you choose that piece of music?’ ‘Well, it fit the texts of the day, it was well crafted, it challenged us musically—but mostly I picked it because you’ll need to know that piece when your family is preparing to bury a loved one.”

This made me want to ask a few godly leaders I trust and respect for one song that they would like to have played at their funeral.

Below is an entry from theologian Scott Swain, president of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.

[See the other entries: Joni Eareckson Tada, Russell Moore, Michael Reeves, John Piper]

I have instructed my wife and children on several occasions that Anne Cousin’s hymn, “The Sands of Time Are Sinking,” is to be sung at my funeral. Though they don’t appreciate me bringing up the morbid topic of my death, they know why I want this song sung.

Cousin’s hymn, written in 1854, is based on the letters of seventeenth-century Presbyterian minister and theologian, Samuel Rutherford.

The song is replete with allusions to Isaiah 33, Genesis 49, Revelation 14, Song of Songs, along with many other biblical texts and images, which makes it a fitting instrument for allowing “the word of Christ” to “dwell richly” in those who sing it (Col 3:16).

The subject of the hymn is the glory of Jesus Christ, Scripture’s handsome King (Ps 45:2) and our happy hope (Titus 2:13). Verse after verse, the song celebrates Jesus Christ as the one in whom our Christian pilgrimage will reach its final resting place and realize its fullest joy.

Each verse concludes with some version of the refrain: “Glory, glory dwelleth in Emmanuel’s land.”

I can hardly sing Cousin’s hymn without tears. Because “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine,” Jesus brings me, “a poor vile sinner,” “into his house of wine” (cf. Gen. 49:11–12). Wonder of wonders! What better to celebrate at the hour of death, and for all eternity?

—

The sands of time are sinking,
The dawn of Heaven breaks;
The summer morn I’ve sighed for,
The fair, sweet morn awakes;
Dark, dark hath been the midnight,
But dayspring is at hand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

The King there in His beauty,
Without a veil is seen;
It were a well spent journey,
Though sev’n deaths lay between;
The Lamb with His fair army
Doth on Mount Zion stand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

O Christ, He is the fountain,
The deep, deep well of love;
The streams on earth I’ve tasted,
More deep I’ll drink above;
There to an ocean fullness
His mercy doth expand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

With mercy and with judgment
My web of time He wove;
And always dews of sorrow
Were lustered with His love;
I’ll bless the hand that guided,
I’ll bless the heart that planned,
When throned where glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

Oh! I am my Beloved’s
And my Beloved’s mine!
He brings a poor, vile sinner
Into His “house of wine;”
I stand upon His merit,
I know no other stand,
Not e’en where glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

The bride eyes not her garments,
But her dear Bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze at glory
But on my King of grace;
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand;
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Immanuel’s land.