BROTHERS, PRAY FOR THE SEMINARIES

BROTHERS, PRAY FOR THE SEMINARIES

WE CANNOT overemphasize the importance of our seminaries in shaping the theology and spirit of the churches and denominations and missionary enterprise. The tone of the classrooms and teachers exerts profound effect on the tone of our pulpits. What the teachers are passionate about will by and large be the passions of our younger pastors. What they neglect will likely be neglected in the pulpits.

When I was choosing a seminary, someone gave me good advice. “A seminary is one thing”—he told me, “faculty. Do not choose a denomination or a library or a location. Choose a great faculty. Everything else is incidental.” By “great faculty” he, of course, did not mean mere charismatic personalities. He meant that wonderful combination of passion for God, for truth, for the church, and for the perishing, along with a deep understanding of God and His Word, a high esteem for doctrinal truth and careful interpretation and exposition of the infallible Bible.

I believe his advice was right: choose a seminary for its teachers. Which means that when we pray for our seminaries, we pray especially for the minds and hearts of faculty and those who assess and hire them.

When we stop to think for a while about what to pray, we start to clarify our own concept of ministry. We can’t pray without a goal. And we can’t have a goal for a seminary faculty unless we have a vision for what kind of pastors we want to see graduate. So the more we try to pray, the more we are forced to define what we value in the pastoral office. And once we clarify this, we begin to ponder what sort of person and pedagogy cultivates these values.
So the will to pray for the seminary presses us on to develop at least a rudimentary pastoral theology and philosophy of theological education. What follows is a baby step in this direction, a rough sketch of what I think we need from our seminaries. My petitions cluster in three groups. Each group echoes a Biblical value at which I think we should aim, and toward which we should pray, in pastoral education.

Under the all-embracing goal of God’s glory (first petition), petitions 2–7 echo my goal that we cultivate a contrite and humble sense of human insufficiency. “I am the vine, you are the branches.… Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves” (2 Cor. 4:7 NASB). “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16).

Petitions 8–11 echo my goal that we cultivate a great passion for Christ’s all-sufficiency and that, for all our enthusiasm over contemporary trends in ministry, the overwhelming zeal of a pastor’s heart be for the changeless fundamentals of the faith. “Whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil. 3:7–8 NASB).

Petitions 12–20 echo my goal that we cultivate strong allegiance to all of Scripture and that what the apostles and prophets preached and taught in Scripture will be esteemed worthy of our careful and faithful exposition to God’s people. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

You will want to supplement these prayers with the burdens of your own heart for the seminaries you care about most deeply. But these are essential, I think, to breed power and purity in our churches.

I pray:

    1.      That the supreme, heartfelt, and explicit goal of every faculty member might be to teach and live in such a way that his students come to admire the glory of God with white-hot intensity (1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 5:16).

    2.      That, among the many ways this goal can be sought, the whole faculty will seek it by the means suggested in 1 Peter 4:11: Serve “in the strength which God supplies: in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.”

    3.      That the challenge of the ministry might be presented in such a way that the question rises authentically in students’ hearts: “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16).

    4.      That in every course the indispensable and precious enabling of the Holy Spirit will receive significant emphasis in comparison to other means of ministerial success (Gal. 3:5).

    5.      That teachers will cultivate the pastoral attitude expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Romans 15:18: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.… I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience by word and deeds.”

    6.      That the poverty of spirit commended in Matthew 5:3 and the lowliness and meekness commended in Colossians 3:12 and Ephesians 4:2 and 1 Peter 5:5–6 be manifested through the administration, faculty, and student body.

    7.      That the faculty might impress upon students by precept and example the immense pastoral need to pray without ceasing and to despair of all success without persevering prayer in reliance on God’s free mercy (Matt. 7:7–11; Eph. 6:18).

    8.      That the faculty will help the students feel what an unutterably precious thing it is to be treated mercifully by the holy God, even though we deserve to be punished in hell forever (Matt. 25:46; 18:23–35; Luke 7:42, 47).

    9.      That, because of our seminary faculties, hundreds of pastors, fifty years from now, will repeat the words of John Newton on their deathbeds: “My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: that I am a great sinner and that Jesus is a great Savior.”1

    10.      That the faculty will inspire students to unqualified and exultant joy in the venerable verities of Scripture. “The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart” (Ps. 19:8).

    11.      That every teacher will develop a pedagogical style based on James Denney’s maxim: “No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.”2

    12.      That in the treatment of Scripture there will be no truncated estimation of what is valuable for preaching and for life.

    13.      That students will develop a respect for and use of the awful warnings of Scripture as well as its precious promises; and that the command to “pursue holiness” (Heb. 12:14 JP) will not be blunted, but empowered, by the assurance of divine enablement. “Now the God of peace … equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20–21 NASB).

    14.      That there might be a strong and evident conviction that the deep and constant study of Scripture is the best way to become wise in dealing with people’s problems. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17 NASB).

    15.      That the faculty may not represent the contemporary mood in critical studies which sees “minimal unity, wide-ranging diversity” in the Bible; but that they will pursue the unified “whole counsel of God” and help students see the way it all fits together. “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27).

    16.      That explicit Biblical insights will permeate all class sessions, even when issues are treated with language and paradigms borrowed from contemporary sciences. That God and His Word will not be taken for granted as the tacit “foundation” that doesn’t get talked about or admired.

    17.      That the faculty will mingle the “severe discipline” of textual analysis with an intense reverence for the truth and beauty of God’s Word.

    18.      That fresh discoveries will be made in the study of Scripture and shared with the church through articles and books.

    19.      That faculty, deans, and presidents will have wisdom and courage from God to make appointments which promote the fulfillment of these petitions.

    20.      And that boards and all those charged with leadership will be vigilant over the moral and doctrinal faithfulness of the faculty and exercise whatever discipline is necessary to preserve the Biblical faithfulness of all that is taught and done.

Brothers, let us not merely criticize or commend the seminaries. God loves His church and His truth. He ordains to do His work through the intercession of His people. Generations of faithfulness are at stake. Therefore, brothers, let us pray for the seminaries.


John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 261–266.

Are you praying for Far Eastern Bible College and Emmanuel Reformed Bible College?

MCINTIRE, Carl (1906–2002)

MCINTIRE, Carl (1906–2002), militant separatist fundamentalist and anti-Communist crusader, was born in Ypsilanti, Michigan, on 17 May 1906. His father, Charles Curtis McIntire, was a Presbyterian minister, and his mother, Hettie, was a teacher and librarian. Soon after McIntire’s birth, the family moved to Durant, Oklahoma, where his grandmother had been a missionary to the Choctaws. His father suffered from delusions and spent 1914 to 1919 in a mental institution, forcing Hettie McIntire to raise her four sons on her own. She sought a divorce in 1922, fearing for her own safety and that of her family, and eventually became dean of women at a college in Oklahoma. When Carl McIntire reached college age, he began to attend Southeastern State College in Oklahoma, but then transferred to Park College in Kansas City, Missouri, where he received his BA in teacher education in 1927. Although McIntire contemplated a law degree, he decided instead to study for the ministry and entered Princeton Seminary in 1928, where he was elected president of the entering class.

Princeton in the late 1920s was caught up in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, and McIntire soon came under the influence of the renowned scholar and fundamentalist leader J. Gresham Machen. When the Presbyterian Church placed Princeton Seminary under a liberal governing board in 1929, Machen left to found Westminster Seminary in Chester Hill, Pennsylvania. McIntire followed his professor and graduated from Westminster in 1931. Soon afterwards he married Fairy Eunace Davis of Paris, Texas. On 4 June 1931 McIntire was ordained into the Presbyterian Church and installed as pastor of the Chelsea Presbyterian Church in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which had been decimated by the suicide of the previous pastor. Through aggressive evangelizing and outdoor preaching on the ocean boardwalk, McIntire added almost 200 members within two years. On 28 September 1933 McIntire was called as pastor to the 1,000-member fundamentalist Collingswood Presbyterian Church in Collingswood, New Jersey, a position that he would hold for the next sixty-six years.

In 1934 McIntire became a member of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, which Machen had created as an alternative to the increasingly liberal Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions. The creation of a rival missions agency provoked the ire of the Presbyterian General Assembly, which brought McIntire, along with Machen and his followers, to trial for creating disorder. McIntire responded by broadcasting his evening services on a local Philadelphia radio station, giving full vent to his dispute with the Presbyterian Church. He began publishing The Christian Beacon, a weekly newspaper that chronicled his struggles, on 13 February 1936, and he continued to publish it for more than five decades.

On 15 June 1936 McIntire and the others responsible for the Independent Board were found guilty and ousted from the Presbyterian Church. Those expelled immediately formed the Presbyterian Church of America, but this new denomination was soon racked by internal conflicts. Two factions developed, one (represented by McIntire) that supported premillennial dispensationalism and another (represented by Machen) that accepted premillennialism but viewed dispensationalism with suspicion. Machen managed to hold the denomination together until his death in 1937, but soon afterwards McIntire’s followers formed the Bible Presbyterian Church, while those loyal to Machen formed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. McIntire founded Faith Theological Seminary in July 1938 to train ministers for his fledgling denomination.

All but eight of McIntire’s congregation voluntarily left the Presbyterian Church when McIntire was expelled, but as a civil court in 1938 refused to grant them ownership of the Collingswood Presbyterian Church property, they were forced to meet in a tent while a wooden ‘Tabernacle of Testimony’ was built, which served the congregation from 1938 until 1957. Denied the Collingswood Presbyterian Church name, the congregation changed its name to the Bible Presbyterian Church of Collingswood.

Ruthlessly insistent on doctrinal purity, McIntire formed the American Council of Christian Churches in 1941 and the International Council of Christian Churches in 1948 to oppose and offer an alternative to the ecumenical positions of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. McIntire’s extreme separatism created a schism within the Bible Presbyterians that caused more than three-quarters of the denomination’s hundred churches to disassociate themselves from him in 1956. The American Council of Christian Churches followed suit in 1968. However, McIntire was far from beaten by these struggles. He continued to pastor his large Collingswood church, maintained control of Faith Seminary and the International Council of Christian Churches and reached millions more through his radio broadcasts and The Christian Beacon.

On 7 March 1955 McIntire began broadcasting ‘The Twentieth Century Reformation Hour’, a thirty-minute radio programme on WCVH in Chester, Pennsylvania. He daily excoriated the twin threats of apostasy and Communism, and his message proved popular in the Cold War era. Within five years, he was heard on 600 stations throughout the country and was receiving almost two million dollars a year in contributions from an estimated 20 million listeners. These funds enabled him to buy several hotels in Cape May, New Jersey, which he turned into fundamentalist conference centres. In addition, he assumed control of Shelton College (formerly the National Bible Institute) in 1964. He founded a secondary school in 1968 and a primary school in 1973.

McIntire worked closely with Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Affairs Committee to identify suspected Communist clergymen. He also regularly attacked the National Association of Evangelicals, Billy Graham and other ‘New Evangelicals’ for their refusal to separate themselves from non-fundamentalists. His other targets included the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church and the Civil Rights movement. He used protest demonstrations at the meetings of groups he opposed to attract publicity. In 1970 and 1971 McIntire garnered national media attention by rallying at least 50,000 people for a series of ‘Victory Marches’ in support of the Vietnam War.

McIntire’s influence waned greatly after 1971, and he faced insurmountable obstacles. In 1971 Faith Seminary was rocked by the departure of the institution’s president along with all but two of its staff and half the student body in protest at McIntire’s dictatorial style. McIntire fought the Federal Communications Commission for years over the licensing of his radio station WXUR. McIntire’s conference centres in Cape May proved unsustainable when the city decided that they did not meet the requirements for tax-exempt status. Shelton College faced twenty years of struggles over accreditation with the state of New Jersey. McIntire attempted to move the school to Florida, but financial difficulties forced a return to New Jersey, where the accreditation struggles continued until they were settled by the US Supreme Court in favour of New Jersey in 1985. By that time, the school had been reduced to a handful of students.

Despite these obstacles and a near-fatal pancreatic disorder in 1978, McIntire continued to fight Communism and ecumenism well into the 1990s. Yet his situation worsened. His wife died in 1992 and a car crash almost killed him in 1993. The Christian Beacon ceased publication soon afterwards. In 1996 financial problems forced the sale of Faith Seminary, which according to some insiders had become a money-oriented diploma mill. In 1999 the Bible Presbyterian Church in Collingswood ousted McIntire after he refused to retire. The ninety-two-year-old McIntire responded by holding Sunday services in his home. Carl McIntire died, aged 95, on 19 March 2002.

Bibliography

J. Fea, ‘Carl McIntire: From Fundamentalist Presbyterian to Presbyterian Fundamentalist’, American Presbyterians, 72, 4 (1994), pp. 253–268; E. Fink, 40 Years …: Carl McIntire and the Bible Presbyterian Church of Collingswood, 1933–1973 (Collingswood: Christian Beacon Press, 1973); C. McIntire, ‘Fifty Years of Preaching in Collingswood, N. J.’, Christian Beacon 48, 33 (1983), pp. 1–5, 7.

D. K. LARSEN

D. K. Larsen, “McIntire, Carl,” ed. Timothy Larsen et al., Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 393–395.

We should have learned something from Carl McIntire, but sad to say, we did not.

Immanuel: A message of hope (Isa. 7:1–25)

Immanuel: A message of hope (Isa. 7:1–25)

A promise to King Ahaz (Isa. 7:1–9). These were perilous days for the nation of Judah. Assyria was growing stronger and threatening the smaller nations whose security depended on a very delicate political balance. Syria and Ephraim (the Northern Kingdom) tried to pressure Judah into an alliance against Assyria, but Ahaz refused to join them. Why? Because he had secretly made a treaty with Assyria! (2 Kings 16:5–9) The king was playing “power politics” instead of trusting in the power of God. Syria and Ephraim planned to overthrow Ahaz and put “the son of Tabeel” on the throne, and Ahaz was a frightened man.

The Lord commanded Isaiah to take his son Shear-jashub (“A remnant shall return”) and meet Ahaz as the king was inspecting the city’s water system. Ahaz’s heart had been wavering, and the hearts of his people had been shaking for fear (Isa. 7:2); but Isaiah came with a message of assurance: “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted” (v. 4). How would Ahaz find this inner peace? By believing God’s promise that Judah’s enemies would be defeated. “If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established” (v. 9, NKJV). Faith in God’s promises is the only way to find peace in the midst of trouble. “You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You” (26:3, NKJV).

In God’s eyes, the two threatening kings were nothing but “two smoldering stubs of firewood” (7:4, NIV), who would be off the scene very soon; and they both died two years later. Furthermore, within sixty-five years, Ephraim (Israel, the Northern Kingdom) would be gone forever. Isaiah spoke this prophecy in the year 734 B.C. Assyria defeated Syria in 732 B.C. and invaded Israel in 722 B.C. They deported many of the Jews and assimilated the rest by introducing Gentiles into the land; and by 669 B.C. (sixty-five years later), the nation no longer existed.

A sign to the house of David (Isa. 7:10–16). If Ahaz had believed God’s promise, he would have broken his alliance and called the nation to prayer and praise; but the king continued in his unbelief. Realizing the weakness of the king’s faith, Isaiah offered to give a sign to encourage him; but Ahaz put on a “pious front” and refused his offer. Knowing that he was secretly allied with Assyria, how could Ahaz honestly ask the Lord for a special sign? So, instead of speaking only to the king, Isaiah addressed the whole “house of David” and gave the prophecy concerning “Immanuel.”

Of course, the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy is in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is “God with us” (Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:31–35). The virgin birth of Christ is a key doctrine; for if Jesus Christ is not God come in sinless human flesh, then we have no Savior. Jesus had to be born of a virgin, apart from human generation, because He existed before His mother. He was not just born in this world; He came down from heaven into the world (John 3:13; 6:33, 38, 41–42, 50–51, 58). Jesus was sent by the Father and therefore came into the world having a human mother but not a human father (4:34; 5:23–24, 30; 9:4).

However, this “sign” had an immediate significance to Ahaz and the people of Judah. A woman who was then a virgin would get married, conceive, and bear a son whose name would be “Immanuel.” This son would be a reminder that God was with His people and would care for them. It is likely that this virgin was Isaiah’s second wife, his first wife having died after Shear-jashub was born; and that Isaiah’s second son was named both “Immanuel” and “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” (8:1–4; note vv. 8 and 10).

Orthodox Jewish boys become “sons of the Law” at the age of twelve. This special son was a reminder that Syria and Ephraim would be out of the picture within the next twelve years. Isaiah delivered this prophecy in 734 B.C. In 732 B.C., Assyria defeated Syria; and in 722 B.C., Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom. The prophecy was fulfilled.

A warning to Judah (Isa. 7:17–25). Instead of trusting the Lord, Ahaz continued to trust Assyria for help; and Isaiah warned him that Assyria would become Judah’s enemy. The Assyrians would invade Judah and so ravage the land that agriculture would cease and the people would have only dairy products to eat (vv. 15, 21–23). The rich farmland would become wasteland, and the people would be forced to hunt wild beasts in order to get food. It would be a time of great humiliation (v. 20; 2 Sam. 10:4–5) and suffering that could have been avoided had the leaders trusted in the Lord.

Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Comforted, “Be” Commentary Series (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 30–34.

For Emmanuel Reformed Bible College...to reflect 

THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE

In his first interview with Mary, Queen of Scots, John Knox set forth the clarity of Scripture: “The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, who is never contrary to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places: so that there can remain no doubt, but to such as obstinately remain ignorant.” Zwingli, too, tested everything by the light of the gospel and the fire of Paul. He remarks that philosophy and theology prevented him from devotion to the Scriptures: “But eventually came to the point where led by the Word and Spirit of God I saw the need to set aside all things and to learn the doctrine of God direct from his own Word. Then I began to ask God for light and the Scriptures became far clearer to me—even though I read nothing else—than if I had studied many commentators and expositors.” Zwingli mounted the pulpit of the Great Church in Zurich, January 1, 1519 to announce a program of preaching consecutively through Matthew and ultimately the New Testament. Though Luther could not accept the militant Swiss reformer and the tragic division over the sacrament separated these leaders at Marburg in 1529, Zwingli’s appeal was to divine authority.

In the Baden Disputation of 1526 Zwingli answered how one ought to listen to that Word. It must be direct and master the understanding lest one’s own meaning make vain the Word of God. “If it is obscure in any place, it is to be expounded by God’s Word from another place.” Whether at the great disputation of January 29, 1523 or when Zwingli was at the point of death, both the preaching and hearing of the Word guided the Reformation in Zurich. There was a Zwingli Luther never knew, who wrote on October 31, 1531 before his death on the battlefield, “This is the best weapon, the only one that will be victorious, the Word of God.… Listen to the Word of God! That alone will set you right again.” To all of this John Calvin added common sense. For the reformers Christ was the subject and sovereign of Scripture. If for Jerome to be ignorant of Scripture was to be ignorant of Christ, for them to be ignorant of Christ was to be ignorant of Scripture.

The Bible was desired in the early Reformation, says Professor Van Den Brink, as a help to find a better way to God. The Word of God “seated in the minds of the faithful” led to possession and perception of its clarity. Patrick Hamilton it seems was accused in 1528 of just that opinion that the people of Scotland were well able to understand the New Testament. In Patrick’s Places, Hamilton expressed that better way to God:

    The Law sayeth

    Pay Thy debt

    Thou art a sinner desperate

    And Thou shalt die.

    The Gospel sayeth,

    Christ hath paid it.

    Thy sins are forgiven thee

    Be of good comfort, thou shalt be saved.

For all the reformers the clarity of Scripture led to that certainty. Its clarity and certainty provoked a crisis for Catholic exegesis.

Robert B. Laurin, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Interpretation,” ed. Ralph G. Turnbull, Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 125–126.

Love: FEBC and LBPC must love one another!

First and last word in Christian theology and ethics. It is therefore important to understand clearly this exceedingly ambiguous term.

In the Old Testament. Sexual love is frankly recognized in stories of Adam and Eve, Jacob and Rachel, and in the Song of Songs. The Hebrew word can also mean tormenting lust (2 Sm 13:1–15), parental love (Gn 37:4), and both sexual and divine love in one context (Hos 3:1). It is used too of the love of friends (1 Sm 20:17), David’s love having some ground in gratitude, Jonathan’s in admiration, but with an element of altruistic self-renunciation as the crown prince stepped down for David’s sake. For this strong, unselfish love the OT usually employed another word, almost untranslatable, hesed, rendered sometimes “loyalty” (2 Sm 22:26 RSV), more often “steadfast love” (Gn 39:21) or “kindness.”
The connotation of this significant word is clear in Hosea 2:19, 20: “I will betroth you for ever … in righteousness … justice … steadfast love … faithfulness”; in Job 6:14, 15, where kindness is compared with treachery; and in 1 Samuel 20:8, which speaks of covenanted kindness. This unshakable, steadfast love of God is contrasted with the unpredictable, capricious moods of heathen deities. Hesed is not an emotional response to beauty, merit, or kindness, but a moral attitude dedicated to another’s good, whether or not that other is lovable, worthy, or responsive (see Dt 7:7–9).
This enduring loyalty, rooted in an unswerving purpose of good, could be stern, determined to discipline a wayward people, as several prophets warned. But God’s love does not change. Through exile and failure it persisted with infinite patience, neither condoning evil nor abandoning the evildoers. It has within it kindness, tenderness, and compassion (Pss 86:15; 103:1–18; 136; Hos 11:1–4), but its chief characteristic is an accepted moral obligation for another’s welfare, which no ill-desert or want of gratitude will quench.

Nevertheless response was expected. The Law enjoined wholehearted love and gratitude for God’s choosing and redeeming Israel (Dt 6:20–25). This was to be shown in worship, and especially in humane treatment of the poor, the defenseless, the resident alien, slaves, widows, and all suffering oppression and cruelty. Hosea similarly expects steadfast love among men to result from the steadfast love of God toward men (6:6; 7:1–7; 10:12, 13).
Love for God, and for “your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18) are thus linked in Israel’s law and prophecy. While much love of another kind lies within the OT, these are the major points: God’s loving initiative, the moral quality of love, and the close relation of love for God with love among men.

In the New Testament. Christianity inherited this strongly moral connotation of love, not always remembered by those who sentimentalize the love ethic.

Agapē. Of Greek words available, eros (sexual love) does not occur in the NT; phileō, spontaneous natural affection, with more feeling than reason, occurs some 25 times, with philadelphia (brotherly love) 5 times, and philia (friendship) only in James 4:4; storgē, natural affection between kinfolk, appears occasionally in compounds. By far the most frequent word is agapē, generally assumed to mean moral goodwill which proceeds from esteem, principle, or duty, rather than attraction or charm. Agapē means to love the undeserving, despite disappointment and rejection; the difference between agapaō and phileō is difficult to sustain in all passages. Agapē is especially appropriate for religious love. Agapē was long believed to be a Christian coinage, but pagan occurrences have recently been claimed. The verb agapaō was frequent in the Greek OT. Though agapē has more to do with moral principle than with inclination or liking, it never means the cold religious kindness shown from duty alone, as scriptural examples abundantly prove.

The Synoptic Gospels. Jesus embodied the concept of hesed in the all-caring, all-inclusive fatherhood of God, shown toward just and unjust, far exceeding the divine concern for ephemeral grass, falling sparrow, or untoiling lilies of the field. God’s sons are freed, by their confidence in the Father’s love, from fretful care about material provision and personal safety to seek first God’s will and kingdom. This is the Father’s world; the Father knows; the Father loves. For the children of a loving Father, life is no struggle for existence but a serenity born of trust in a basically friendly universe.

In a sinful and suffering world divine love will show itself supremely in compassion and healing for the distressed and in redemptive concern for the alienated and the self-despairing. Hence the kingdom Christ proclaimed offered good news to the poor, to captives, the blind, the oppressed (Mt 11:2–5; Lk 4:18); while the attitude of Jesus toward those ostracized, despised, or grieving over sin in some far country of the soul assured them of forgiveness and a welcome return to the Father’s house (Lk 15). Such forgiveness was free, its only precondition being readiness to receive it in repentance and faith. Even here, however, the moral clarity of divine love is not obscured. For the obdurate, the unforgiving, the self-righteous, Jesus has only warning of the consequences of sin and the judgment of God (Lk 13:1–5); for the wavering or impulsive, stern discipline and unrelenting standards (Mt 10:34–39; Mk 10:17–22; Lk 9:23–26, 57–62).

Moreover, the good news of divine love does impose its own obligation: to love God and to love others as God does (Mt 5:44–48). The first and greatest commandment in God’s Law is, “You shall love the Lord your God.… And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Mt 22:35–40, citing Lv 19:18; Dt 6:5).

The first commandment is not identical with, lost in, or only fulfilled through the second; it is separate and primary. What Jesus meant by loving God is indicated by his own habits of public worship, private prayer, absolute obedience; by the requirement “Him only shalt thou serve,” not dividing devotion with mammon, hallowing the divine name in daily business by avoiding empty oaths; by his zeal for the Scriptures, his defense of the sabbath, his unshaken trust and frequent thanksgiving (Mt 4:1–11; 5:33–37; 6:1–6, 9, 24; 7:21; 12:50; 23:16–22; Lk 4:16; 22:42).

Love for one’s neighbor is nowhere defined but everywhere illustrated. In the parable of the good Samaritan, “neighbor” is shown to mean anyone near enough to help, and love involves whatever service the neighbor’s situation demands. The parable of the sheep and goats shows love feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting with kindness the sick and the imprisoned. In the untiring example of Jesus love heals, teaches, adapts instruction to the hearers by parable and symbolic language, defends those criticized or despised, pronounces forgiveness, comforts the bereaved, befriends the lonely. We are to love others as he has loved us and as we love ourselves, which means “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” (Mt 7:12). Such imaginative transfer of self-love does good without expecting return, never returns ill treatment, ensures unfailing courtesy even to the lowliest, sustains thoughtful understanding that tempers judgment.

Nevertheless love deals frankly with human weakness and wickedness. Jesus prays for Peter, but not that he shall be spared temptation; he rebukes disciples, warns Jerusalem and Judas, makes Peter painfully retract his denials, accepts that love may have to lay down its life. Christ’s love is no timid meekness, no sentimental mildness, inoffensive and ineffectual, helpless in face of the world’s evil. It is a strong determination to seek others’ highest good in all circumstances, at any cost. On that simple but demanding principle hang all moral obligation and divine law. To love is enough.

But it is also imperative. To Jesus the outstanding sin was lovelessness, the willful omission of any possible good, passing by on the other side while others suffer, ignoring the destitute at one’s gate, withholding forgiveness. Lovelessness was made worse by self-righteousness, censoriousness, the religious insensitivity that ignores another’s distress to preserve some petty ritual regulation. At the last, obedience to or neglect of the law of love will determine everyone’s eternal destiny (Mt 25:31–46).

Paul. The apostolic church quickly grasped the revolutionary principle that love is enough. Paul’s declaration that love fulfills the whole law is almost a quotation from Jesus. His exposition of various commandments against adultery, killing, stealing, and coveting is summarized in loving, because love can do no wrong to a neighbor (Rom 13:8–10). Ephesians 4:25–5:2, where all bitterness, anger, lying, stealing, slander, and malice are to be replaced by tenderness, forgiveness, kindness, among those who by love are made members one of another, makes the same point another way.

Love is, for Paul, “the law of Christ,” supreme and sufficient (Gal 5:14; 6:2), and Paul neatly defines what alone “avails” in Christianity as “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). He insists that the supreme manifestation of the Spirit which Christians should covet is “the more excellent way” of love (1 Cor 12:27–13:13; cf. Rom 5:5; Gal 5:22). Here too he contrasts love with five other expressions of religious zeal much prized at Corinth to show that each is profitless without love (1 Cor 13:1–3). He ends the chapter by comparing love with faith and hope, the other enduring elements of religious experience, and declares love to be the greatest.

Paul’s description of love in action includes liberality, acts of mercy, and hospitality; avoidance of revenge; sympathy that weeps; rejoicing with others; sharing of weakness, shame, or need; restoring, supporting, and upbuilding others, giving them all honor, kindness, forgiveness, encouragement; restraining criticism, even of the divisive, overscrupulous “weaker brother”—the list is almost endless. More generally, love is revealed as a quality of activity, of thinking, and of suffering (1 Cor 13:4–8). In brief, love does no harm and omits no good; and it is God’s Law.

But for motive Paul appeals beyond duty. To love we owe everything in salvation. God shows his love in that Christ died for us; out of his great love he made us alive in Christ; and in that love we live, by it we conquer, and from it nothing shall separate us (Rom 5:8; 8:32, 37–39; 2 Cor 13:14; 2 Thes 2:16; Eph 2:4; Ti 3:4, 5). God’s love is almost indistinguishable from Christ’s. “The love of Christ controls us” reveals the experiential heart of Paul’s thinking (Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 5:14; Eph 5:2, 25). Our love reflects the love first “poured into our hearts” (Rom 5:5), and is directed toward Christ (1 Cor 7; 16:22; Eph 6:24) and toward others, whom we love for his sake.

The love of God, experienced through Christ, returning in love for God, for Christ, and for his people—such is Christian love as Paul analyzed it.

John. What John later recalled, and reflected upon, forms the crown of biblical teaching about love. For John, love was the foundation of all that had happened—“God so loved the world …” (Jn 3:16; 16:27; 17:23). This is how we know love at all: Christ laid down his life for us (1 Jn 3:16). The mutual love of Father, Son, and disciples, must be the fundamental fact in Christianity, because God himself is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

We know this by the incarnation and by the cross (1 Jn 4:9, 10). Thus we know and believe the love God has for us, and that love itself is divine (“of God”). It follows that “he who loves is born of God.” “He who does not love does not know God,” nor “the message” of the gospel; “is in the darkness,” “is not of God,” and “remains in death.” No one has ever seen God; nevertheless “if we love, … God abides in us” and we in God.

God’s love is thus prior and original; if we love at all, it is “because he first loved us.” Our love is directed first toward God, and John is exceedingly searching in his tests of that Godward love. It demands that we “love not the world,” that we “keep his word, … his commandments,” and that we love our brother. This commandment we received from Christ, “that he who loves God should love his brother also,” for “if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” Twelve times John stresses the duty of mutual loyalty and love. Indeed, if one closes his heart against his brother, “how does God’s love abide in him?”

This emphasis upon the mutual love of Christians has been held a serious limitation of the love Jesus required. “Your brother” appears to have supplanted “your neighbor.” In this respect the commandment given in the upper room (Jn 13:34) is “new” compared with that in Matthew 22:39 (citing Lv 19:18), and the circumstances explain why. The night on which Jesus was betrayed was shadowed by the surrounding world’s hostility, the imminent crucifixion, and the defection of Judas. All the future depended upon the mutual loyalty of the 11 disciples, standing together under social pressure. By the time of John’s letter, new defections had rent the church. A perversion of the gospel called Gnosticism, essentially intellectualist, proud, “giving no heed to love” (Ignatius), had drawn away leaders and adherents (1 Jn 2:19, 26). Once again mutual loyalty was all-important, and John wrote expressly to consolidate and maintain the apostolic fellowship (1 Jn 1:3).

However, love for one’s brethren does not exclude, but instead leads on to, a wider love (cf. 2 Pt 1:7). John insists that God loved the whole world (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:14). Moreover, if love fails within the Christian fellowship, it certainly will not flourish beyond it, but evaporate in mere words (1 Jn 3:18).

In countering the loveless conceit of gnostic Christianity, John’s concern was with the basic commandment of love to God and man as at once the criterion and the consummation of true Christian life. He does not, therefore, detail the many-sided expressions of love. For description of love in action, his mind recalls Christ’s words about “keeping commandments” and “laying down life” in sacrifice (Jn 15:10, 13; 1 Jn 3:16), and he mentions especially love’s noticing a brother’s need, and so sharing this world’s goods (1 Jn 3:17). Terse as these expressions are, they contain the heart of Christian love. John’s forthright realism in testing all religious claims ensures that for him love could be no vague sentimentalism.
The Christian ideal can only be socially fulfilled within a disciple band, a divine kingdom, the Father’s family, the Christian fellowship. In Scripture love is no abstract idea, conceived to provide a self-explanatory, self-motivating “norm” to resolve the problem in every moral situation. It is rooted in the divine nature, expressed in the coming and death of Christ, experienced in salvation, and so kindled within the saved. Thus it is central, essential, and indispensable, to Christianity. For God is love.

R.E.O. WHITE

See GOD, BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF; GRACE; MERCY; WRATH OF GOD.

Bibliography. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1.2, 371–401; V.P. Furnish, The Love Command in the NT; C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves; J. Moffat, Love in the NT; L. Morris, Testaments of Love; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros; N. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the OT; C. Spicq, Agape in the NT, 3 vols.


R.E.O. White, “Love,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1357–1360.

Bible, Alleged Errors in.

Critics claim the Bible is filled with errors. Some even speak of thousands of mistakes. However, orthodox Christians through the ages have claimed that the Bible is without error in the original text (“autographs”; see Geisler, Decide for Yourself). “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture,” Augustine wisely noted, “it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood” (Augustine, 11.5). Not one error that extends to the original text of the Bible has ever been demonstrated.

Norman L. Geisler, “Bible, Alleged Errors In,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 74.

Approaching Bible Difficulties. As Augustine said above, mistakes come not in the revelation of God, but in the misinterpretations of man. Except where scribal errors and extraneous changes crept into textual families over the centuries, all the critics’ allegations of error in the Bible are based on errors of their own.

Norman L. Geisler, “Bible, Alleged Errors In,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 75.

The church as Christ’s body

      The church as Christ’s body

  The church is Christ’s body (Eph. 1:23); we are one body in Christ (Rom. 12:5); you are Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:27); as the body is one yet has many limbs, so is Christ (1 Cor. 12:12); your bodies are limbs of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15); we are members of his body (Eph. 5:30); we who are many are one body (1 Cor. 10:17); eager to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3); the whole body is fitted together by every joint (Eph. 4:16); building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12); there is one body and one Spirit (Eph. 4:4); Christ is the Saviour of the body (Eph. 5:23); he is the head of the body, the church (Col. 1:18); his body, the church (Col. 1:24); called in the one body (Col. 3:15).

A. Colin Day, Collins Thesaurus of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009).

Jeffrey Khoo cannot say to Charles Seet, I do not need you.

Charles Seet cannot say to Jeffrey Khoo, I do not need you.

Bible Presbyterian Church cannot say to Baptist nor to Methodist, we do not need you.

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

1 Co 12:12–27.

Excommunication

Excommunication

    The Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.

According to the Talmud, there were three grades of excommunication among the Jews. The first was called niddin, and those on whom it was pronounced were not permitted for thirty days to have any communication with any person unless at a distance over four cubits (about 6 feet). They were not prohibited from attending public worship, though they could not, during the thirty days, enter the temple by the ordinary gate. They were not allowed to shave during that time, and were required to wear garments of mourning.

The second was called cherem, and was pronounced on those who remained openly disobedient under the first. It was of greater severity than the other, and required the presence of at least ten members of the congregation to make it valid. The offender was formally cursed, was excluded from all intercourse with other people, and was prohibited from entering the temple or synagogue.
The third was shammatha, and was inflicted on those who persisted in their stubborn resistance to authority. By this they were cut off from all connection with the Jewish people, and were consigned to utter perdition.

The Talmud assigns as the two general causes for excommunication, money and epicurism. The first refers to those who refused to pay the moneys that the court directed them to pay; the second refers to those who despised the Word of God or of the scribes—both being put on an equal basis.

Excommunication is alluded to in Matthew 18:17; John 9:34; 12:42; 16:2. Some think Jesus in Luke 6:22 refers to the several grades of excommunication noted: “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake” (KJV).


James M. Freeman and Harold J. Chadwick, Manners & Customs of the Bible (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998), 517–518.

“What Makes a Good Biblical Scholar or Theologian?”

A good biblical scholar brings the text to life.

The Bible is about meaning. And whether you are a Christian or not, the Bible can teach us about living a life that is meaningful.

~Matthew Ryan Hauge, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Azusa Pacific University

Distortion

August 8: Distortion

Isaiah 14:24–16:14; Luke 6:1–49; Job 4:12–21

If attending church and small group or even reading the Bible and praying become activities that we do out of obligation, then we have a bigger problem than we might realize. If our hearts are disengaged, our religious motions and listless obedience serve only as a security blanket—something that makes us feel safe and good.

The Pharisees faced this dilemma, but they took the error one step further. They took the Sabbath—a practice intended to point people toward God—and twisted it into a heavy burden. So when Jesus wanted to do good on the Sabbath, it’s no surprise that they seized the opportunity to trap Him.

Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ accusation by telling them He is “Lord of the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5). But He also showed them the true purpose of Sabbath while at the same time exposing their hearts: “And Jesus said to them, ‘I ask you whether it is permitted on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to destroy it?’ ” (Luke 6:9).

Caught up in their religious observance, the Pharisees misunderstood the heart of God’s commands. Not only this, but they used the Sabbath to do harm—the polar opposite of Jesus’ life-giving actions.

Ultimately, the actions of the Pharisees appeared holy and righteous, but underneath they were lifeless. They were like the lukewarm waters described in Revelation, for which Jesus feels utter contempt: “Thus, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of my mouth!” (Rev 3:16).

Nothing displeases God more than when our hearts and our actions don’t match up. If this is the case for us, we need to let Scripture examine our hearts as we pray for wisdom and the Spirit. Nothing can make us right with God unless we know why we are wrong with Him—and where our hope really lies. Our outward actions need to be infused with the desire to follow Him.

What are the motives behind your motions?

REBECCA VAN NOORD



John D. Barry and Rebecca Kruyswijk, Connect the Testaments: A One-Year Daily Devotional with Bible Reading Plan (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012).

Easier to Condemn Sins Than Mortify Them

It is easier to declaim, like an orator, against a thousand sins of others than it is to mortify one sin, like Christians, in ourselves; to be more industrious in our pulpits than in our closets; to preach twenty sermons to our people than one to our own hearts.

JOHN FLAVEL




Elliot Ritzema and Elizabeth Vince, eds., 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Puritans, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).

PHARISEES—separatists---BIBLE PRESBYTERIAN?

PHARISEES—separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, “to separate”). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the “pious”), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145). The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6–8; 26:4, 5).

There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a “generation of vipers.” They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1–4).

From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.

M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893).