I recently read an article in which the author discussed why she didn’t cuss, and it was a breath of fresh air. Check it out here:

Jordan Harmon

WHY I DON'T CUSS

I was in downtown Indianapolis last week, where there happened to be a pride event. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, there was an angry man with a megaphone wearing a “Jesus is Lord” shirt, shouting expletives at people passing on the street as well as telling them where he believes they will spend eternity (it wasn’t heaven…

Read more

a month ago · 86 likes · 4 comments · Jordan Harmon

The arguments in the article are good, and I commend it to you. It got me thinking about the Moscow mood which permits cussing on the grounds that Paul used strong language, as did Ezekiel. Now that strong language is used in Scripture need not be refuted, it is plain. I want to look at both these biblical writers in their uses of strong language—especially to consider the exact vocabulary they use—in order to see if their use of strong language permits our use of profanity.

My contention from the outset is that profanity is not allowed for Christians, period. It is unwholesome speech which is to not proceed from our mouths (Eph 4:29). Now the CREC guys would fight me on that, and appeal to Paul and Zeke as proof positive that profanity is allowed. In order to establish this they must assert two premises: first that Paul and Zeke use language equivalent to profanity, and second that this permits our use of such. The second depends on the first, so it is the first that we will address. It will be clear that Paul and Zeke do not use profanity, though they employ strong language which was considered impolite.

Disclaimer

While I won’t be writing down cuss words (I’ll be starring out those which need to be included), I will be referring to human anatomy; all of which you may find disagreeable. If so, feel free to skip to the conclusion and you will see the summary of my argument. It is my belief that this article meets the Biblical command to speak wholesome words, that which is useful for building up.

Skubalon (σκύβαλον) means refuse or garbage not the S-word.

Only a little look at the lexicons is needed in order to see that the appeal to skubalon (“rubbish” in the LSB) in Philippians 3:8 as an example of Paul using an expletive is groundless. This word shows up in the 3rd century and is used to refer to “agricultural refuse that could be sold” and to left overs from a meal.1 While it was also used to refer to dung or manure, the application of the term to these fits because they were waste. It is the concept of “waste” or “refuse” that is common to all the uses. Already this should be enough to show that a quick appeal to skubalon as a greek equivalent of the S-word is not justified.

Philo, in the late intertestamental period, used this word literally, and metaphorically. In no instance does it seem like his use of it was obscene.2

This presents a problem for those who want to appeal to Paul based on vocabulary. The strength of his rhetoric is not in the profaneness of his vocabulary, but in the juxtaposition of a word which so strongly means “garbage, waste, something useless and to be thrown out” when speaking of his supposed advantages according to the flesh. He did not need to resort to profanity to make his rhetoric seem strong. He was no weak preacher who needed to yell in order to make his points seem strong.

Zeke’s Anatomical Language

Appealing to Ezekiel’s seeming use of anatomical language in Ezekiel 23:20, which is the word of the Lord dictated to Ezekiel, is also not a sound defense of a Christian’s right to use profanity. The LSB renders the verse thus:

She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Now the argument goes that since the “flesh” (‎בָּשָׂר) is an idiomatic way of referring to the male reproductive organ and since “issue” (‎זִרְמָה) is the Hebrew word for penis, we are justified in the use of such obscene language as “d**k” for the male organ or, for the female organ, “c**t.” (Even starred out these are obscene and I am hesitant to even write them down.) Doug Wilson uses such language and appeals to Zeke for justification in doing so (as well as appealing to Paul’s use of skubalon as justification to use the S-word).3

I want to murder this justification. I want it strangled, chopped to pieces, passed through a meat grinder, and fed to the sharks. The justification is obscene, let alone the use of the words.

Here is the simple argument: technical language is impolite and when used in certain contexts is shockingly strong, this does not transform the technical language into profanity, nor justify us to use profanity.

Imagine yourself at a dinner table with an elderly couple from your church. You know that there are certain subjects and kinds of technical (especially anatomical) language that is simply NOT appropriate. It doesn’t need to be construed as profane to make it inappropriate. Goodness, all of us know that children find potty humor hilarious but they need to be trained out of it, because it is inappropriate. If your child refers to his bathroom experience, you remind him that we don’t talk about that sort of thing in public or at the dinner table. If he does so by using the S-Word, you reach for a bar of soap. Technical language is not profanity. That doesn’t mean it is appropriate all the time. It also, certainly, does not mean that profanity is to be utilized because of its shock value and rhetorical effectiveness. The technical speech can handle that just fine. It is more than capable of impoliteness when needed. That is the example of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Paul, and any other Biblical author.

“I am weary of considering such trash” —John Owen, Works, 12.320

Conclusion

The evidence is against those who argue that the Bible uses strong language equivalent to profanity and thus permits Christians the use of such obscenity. Rather, the traditional view is best, that the Bible prohibits profane and obscene language, coarse jesting, and unwholesome speech. The Bible uses strong language, strong because of its rhetoric, not because of its obscenity. It is technical, oft times anatomical language, but never profane. This means that the two premises which must be established in order for us to be allowed to cuss are removed. Premise one was that the biblical authors used obscenity, or profane speech. They did not. Therefore, premise two, that such a use permits us to do so, is DOA.

A Christian is to be marked by holiness externally and internally. The thoughts and intents of the heart have a way of presenting themselves publicly through the tongue. The Lord did not use such language, and neither are His people permitted to do so.

Christian, bite thy tongue. Repent of your obscenity, and exercise speech that is wholesome and godly. For the sake of Christ’s name which you bear, set yourself apart from the world.

My Policy en brief:

1. I won’t use AI for images. I will use stock photos, or my own work, or an illustration from a human artist.

2. I won’t use AI for research. I will labor to personally research and understand the material I am studying.

3. I won’t use AI for writing. I will draft every word, come up with the structure on my own, and proof read my own work.

That’s it. For my substack I want the whole process to be spiritual, meaning I want my research and writing to come from the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. I want the insights I have from scripture to be from my own hard study of the scripture. I want my research of contrary opinions to be from my own study of the works of those who hold to them. I want my writing to be my voice, in 4K, not my voice passed through an AI editor that will distort it down to a C- minus quality piece of junior high prose. cue shiver here.

When you read The Dispensational Federalist, know that you are receiving a product of my personal labor, from research question to article structure to final draft. It’s from my mind. It’s not from an AI assistant, editor, or creator suite.

Dispensational Federalism is unique. And since it is arriving at exegetical conclusions which are at times more traditionally associated with Reformed Theology, a walk through some of the distinctives of Dispensational Federalism is warranted and needed. I am admittedly framing an articulation of Dispensational Federalism that is unique to me, though I believe it is substantially in agreement with Andrew Young who writes at dispensationalfederalism.com. I have written on a few distinctives already, notably understanding dispensationalism properly (as in, it’s not just all Darbyism, it’s developed quite a bit since the 1800s), and understanding federal headship.

Why not 1689 Federalism?

1689 Federalism has some strong points which should be commended. The most worthy of commendation that I know of is that it sees the New Covenant as truly new in substance from the Mosaic or Sinaitic, not just a new administration of the theological Covenant of Grace comprised in the mosaic.1 This has been an interpretive point that dispensationalists over the years have labored to make. It also sees a distinction between Israel and the church, though it makes the church the eschatological people of Israel, something dispensationalists are not able to do.2

However, we cannot bring these two systems together. I don’t know of anyone trying to do that publicly, but I do know of a few men I trained with in seminary, schooled in a dispensational system, who now affirm 1689 federalism. Why should we not give up dispensationalism altogether and jump into a baptist covenant theological system? That’s a question worth answering. I want to begin to define dispensational federalism in contradistinction to 1689 Federalism.

As 1689ers made the chart below, we will take the left and middle portions to be representative of the views of 1689 Federalism. Since Dispensational Federalism isn’t Classical Dispensationalism, the dispensationalism represented on the chart is not a fair representation of Dispensational Federalism (nor was it intended to be by the authors). The dispensational side needs to be reworked in order to represent our view.

Those Dispy Fed Adjustments

Let me bluntly state the dispensational federalist side, following the order on the right side of the chart above, from top to bottom. We affirm the three in the middle.

Dispensational Federalism:

1. Rejects a Typological Hermeneutic

2. Understands the New Covenant to be made explicitly with Israel and includes Gentiles, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant3

3. Understands believing Israel and the Church as distinct units that together comprise the New Covenant people of God

4. Understands the church to be a New Testament reality (a mystery); Gentile salvation was promised in the Old Testament (Romans 15:7–13), but the inclusion of Jews/Gentiles as co-equal in covenant standing in Christ was a mystery revealed in the New

5. Understands the moral aspects of the 10 Commandments to be in effect in the NT4

6. Affirms the Covenant of Redemption

You can clearly see that Dispensational Federalism has points of departure from classical dispensationalism and especially from 1689 Federalism. Let’s see this in an example.

An Example of This Departure: The Covenant with Abraham

In the Reformed world, the Abrahamic Covenant has become a bit of a point of departure. To the reformed presbyterian and most reformed baptists, whether he or she follows the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, or either of the London Baptist confessions of faith, the covenant with Abraham is a covenant of grace, while to the 1689 Federalist, who understands covenant theology uniquely compared to the aforementioned groups, Abraham’s Covenant is one of works.5

Let’s consider the covenant with Abraham in order to distinguish between a dispensational federalist view and a 1689 view.

1689F reduces the Abrahamic Covenant to a system of works

Lest I be charged with overstating the case, consider the argument of Sam Renihan in The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom.

Renihan argues that since God sanctions the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:10–14 with circumcision, making covenant inclusion dependent upon this sign, God therefore makes the covenant with Abraham a covenant of works.

A sanction was put in place to guarantee the fulfillment of this commitment. Failure to keep the demand of the covenant will result in disinheritance. […] Ongoing participation in the blessings of Abraham’s covenant depended on obedience to a positive law.6

He labors to show that the national guarantee of the land promise is based on God’s unilateral covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15:17, but individual inclusion in that covenant is based on obedience in Genesis 17:10. At first blush, this seems reasonable, and we are tempted to conclude, as he does, that “Consequently, this covenant can be classified as a covenant based on works, or obedience.”7 I don’t want to be flippant with Renihan’s view. It is logical, text based, and hermeneutically valid. But it is not hermeneutically sound. Circumcision would make this covenant a covenant of works if it were given as a sanction, but it is not given as a sanction, it is given as a sign.

Circumcision is given in order to be a sign of one’s membership in the covenant. It was given to Abraham after he was already a believer, as a sign and seal of the covenant God already established with him. Renihan is right to see circumcision as added to the covenant, but not as a mechanism which transforms a covenant of grace received by faith into a covenant of works established by observance of positive law.

To be fair to Renihan, he does connect individual disobedience to a lack of faith and therefore exclusion from the covenant, but he does not inform us why positive law obedience is to be understood as disbelief. A nuance is needed which he fails to provide.

We have to protect the biblical truth that faith preceded circumcision.

“Faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it counted? While he was circumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while uncircumcised (Rom 4:9–11).

Renihan would certainly affirm those words of scripture, but I do not see how he can affirm that circumcision serves as a sign and seal of a covenant based on grace while also serving to make this covenant a covenant of works. He has to split the Abrahamic Covenant into parts. One part grace, one part works. This we cannot do. We agree with Renihan that circumcision marked the boundaries of covenant membership,8 we do not affirm that covenant membership was based on adherence to circumcision as positive law. Here’s Calvin:

Since God threatens punishment only to despisers, we infer that the uncircumcision of children would do them no harm, if they died before the eighth day. For the bare promise of God was effectual to their salvation. He did not attest this salvation by external signs, as to restrict his own effectual working to those signs. Moses, indeed, sets aside all controversy on this subject, by adducing as a reason, that they would make void the covenant of God: for we know, that the covenant was not violated when the power of keeping it was taken away. Let us then consider, that the salvation of the race of Abraham was included in that expression, “I will be a God to thy seed.” And although circumcision was added as a confirmation, it nevertheless did not deprive the word of its force and efficacy. But because it is not in the power of man to sever what God has joined together; no one could despise or neglect the sign, without both rejecting the word itself, and depriving himself of the benefits therein offered.9

The sign follows and seals faith, it is not only chronologically instituted after faith, but subservient to it. It is to be a mark of a believer (understanding that that belief will manifest itself later or the member will eschew his membership). The Abrahamic Covenant—as a whole—is a covenant of grace participated in via faith.

1689F makes the land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant temporal and not everlasting

Both Dispensational Federalism and 1689 Federalism agree that there are three elements in the Abrahamic Covenant:

1. Seed

2. Land

3. Universal Blessing

Disagreement occurs on whether the Land is an everlasting possession to which the physical seed of Abraham have a right. Dispensational federalists argue in the affirmative, 1689 federalists believe the land promise is subservient to the universal and seed promises and so goes away when those come into fruition. Renihan makes this case in his synchronization of the Abrahamic and New Covenants,

The Israelite kingdom and its covenants are preparatory and subservient to God’s final purposes (Ephesians 1:10; 3:8–12). […] The purpose of the people [of Israel] is to bring forth the messiah. The Old Covenant is to give birth to the New Covenant. The kingdom of Israel is to give birth to the kingdom of Christ.10

Later, Renihan makes his view of Israel’s temporariness as a type of the NT church even clearer:

The unilateral and free gift of the earthly typical promises most clearly demonstrates the unilateral and free gift of the heavenly antitypical promises to the elect.11

Nehemiah Coxe (d. 1689) one of the main theological forebears of 1689 Federalism, puts it this way:

With respect to Israel, Abraham is to be considered in a double capacity—both as the father of all true believers, and as the father and root of the Israelite nation; and it was for both these seeds that God entered into covenant with him. Yet, these seeds being formally distinguished from one another, their Covenant-Interest must of necessity be diverse, and fall under a distinct consideration.12

This double capacity is of spiritual seed (those believers who are trusting in the Seed, Christ) and those who physically descend from Abraham, vis Israel. The natural seed, Israel, serves a temporary, typological purpose. Coxe subsumes the land promise into what he calls the covenant of circumcision, based on Genesis 17:10–14, which is given only to the natural seed—and he calls it a “covenant of works” foreshadowing the Mosaic covenant13—giving way when the Gospel fulness of the Seed promise comes into being

For although the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham has in all respects (in point of time, as well as excellence) the precedence to the covenant made with his carnal seed in Isaac’s line. Yet in the wise counsel of God, things were so ordered that the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace, the actual accomplishment of its great promises, and its being filled up with ordinances proper to it, should succeed the covenant made with Israel after the flesh. And this would take place upon the dissolution of it, when it grew old and vanished away.14

Israel in the land serves the purpose of bringing in the Messiah. When the Messiah comes and establishes the New Covenant, the Old (which Coxe seems to understand as including the Abrahamic Covenant) goes away. The Land, a characteristic of the Old in this scheme necessarily loses all importance. It has served its purpose.

Dispy Fed View of the Land Promise

The Dispensational Federalist view of the Abrahamic Covenant is that the whole thing (Seed, Land, and Universal Blessing) are to be seen as New Covenant promises given to Abraham’s natural offspring, which have a right to it only by faith in the ultimate Seed, Christ Jesus, and into which Gentiles are graciously included.15

Dispensational Federalism agrees with Coxe, Renihan, and other 1689ers that the goal of the Abrahamic Covenant is the universal blessing fulfilled in and through the ultimate Seed. But in distinction from 1689 Federalism, there is no sound hermeneutical reason to cordon off the physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant from the others.

The land was promised as “an everlasting possession” for Abraham and his descendants (Ge 17:8; cf. 13:15). It is also mentioned in the context of the solemnizing of the covenant in Genesis 15 (cf. vv. 15–21). These statements demonstrate that the land promise cannot be singled out from the other aspects of the Abrahamic promise as only temporary or a type of something “spiritual” or “heavenly.”16

The land aspect can go away when the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole can go away. Its everlastingness is the same as the everlastingness of the ultimate Seed and universal blessing in the gospel. To the extent that Jesus, in establishing the New Covenant, fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant, Jesus is and will be the means of fulfilling the land promises to Israel. Israel has a claim to them according to genealogy, but only has a right to them through faith in Jesus. When will that happen? It will happen “when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom 11:25). That is when their “partial hardening” will end. That is when the Lord will bring about the fulness of the New Covenant which has been inaugurated and is presently being experienced in its spiritual aspects by the church (including believing ethnic Jews, the Israel of God). The land matters because the Abrahamic Covenant includes it.

Conclusion

Dispensational Federalism is very much committed to the distinctions of dispensationalism. It sees these as exegetically required conclusions. The Lord Jesus is not just the federal head of a spiritual people destined for spiritual places, He is the fulfiller of the whole Abrahamic Covenant—He is the Seed through Whom universal blessing comes to the world and the Heir of the throne of David Who will reign over the whole world from the Land promised to Abraham. Whereas 1689 Federalism has some distinction between Israel and the Church, and makes a strong case for the New Covenant being truly new, it does not soundly handle the Abrahamic Covenant, which when understood properly leads to dispensational conclusions.

In economics, we have Gresham’s Law. When bad money (debased) and good money (identical face value and commodity value) both circulate in an economy at a fixed exchange rate, the bad money drives out the good. The good money disappears from circulation because it’s being hoarded, melted, or exported.

In our marketplace of ideas, something similar happens when platforms, publishers, and audiences treat high-effort, nuanced creations and low-effort, sensationalist creations as if they have the same “face value.”

When a 15-second inflammatory, conspiracy-mongering clip gets the same or better views/ad revenue as deeply researched articles, news reports, and lectures, the “face value,” is the same. The creator knows the commodity value is worlds apart, but the audience has spoken. And the creator is now in a bind. The sensationalist content is cheaper and quicker to make, and quickly becomes the bad money flooding the market. If creators don’t willingly debase the currency of their ideas, they’re going to sink.1

Perlot’s point is about short form video content, the likes of TikTok, Youtube Shorts, Facebook Reels etc. The sound bites are catchy, brash, and spread fast. Remember John MacArthur telling Beth Moore to “go home?”

This is what has happened to theological discourse online. I recall Stephen Wolfe bemoaning that his critics didn’t “do the reading"—they didn’t care to read and interact with his arguments, they just went after Christian Nationalism as a loose concept, and promptly killed whatever version they attributed to him.

Academic and scholarly integrity used to matter. If you were to assume the role of an expert in a field, you needed to actually know something about that field, something which couldn’t be learned in one semester’s worth of classes, one book’s worth of reading, and certainly couldn’t be communicated with proper nuance in sound bites or X posts.

The algorithms have shaped the viewers. This is basically common knowledge now. So when long form podcasts present to you an “expert” who blathers on about anything, and it lines up with all the sound bites, x posts, TikToks, assuming you’ve been trained by them—which means you’ve spent any extended time receiving a series of them—the verboseness of the “expert” confirms everything you have already read and heard. Now combine this with a post COVID world where the authorities and intelligentsia revealed themselves to be entirely self-serving and you’re prepped for a full blown acceptance of anything that feels like a dissident, brash, counter-narrative. Bush did 9/11. We didn’t go to the moon. Aliens are real. Hitler was a good guy.

Dispensationalism isn’t Christian

If you hop on the pseudo-reformed corners of X or other social media, the parts filled with blue-eyed SS officer anons, you’ll soon discover that Dispensationalism is a heresy. You don’t even need to go looking for this assertion anymore, it will find you, and if you’ve grown up in an American Bible church, longed for the coming of the Lord, prayed for Israel to repent and for the Lord to come and save them, while believing that there will be a Jewish nation in Palestine under the rule of Christ in the end times, you will quickly find out that you are in fact a heretic. The examples of this are essentially ubiquitous, I won’t even cite a source. Just go look. Or don’t, and save yourself some sanity.

Subscribe now

But what needs to be refuted is the claim that dispensationalism is definitionally a system of belief regarding a future for Israel/Jews that does not include salvation in the New Covenant of Christ Jesus. JD Hall on Tucker Carlson’s podcast made this point very clearly.2 At the 5:51 minute mark, he begins to articulate the difference between dispensationalism and non dispensationalism—what he calls covenant theology. I’m used to this being the broadly considered camps of disagreement, this much is par for the course. But Hall articulates the gospel as only belonging to the covenantal side. He does this by arguing—rightly—that all who believe in Christ are children of Abraham because they share the faith of Abraham. Amen! But this is in a context of talking about the differences between Dispensationalism and covenant theology, and that covenant theology teaches this message. What do the dispies believe?

JD seems to understand Dispensationalism as restricted to a judeocentric hermeneutic that minimized Christ and exalts an ethnic people: “at its heart, Dispensationalism is a Jewish interpretive model" (20:12); and “The jews will tell you that [the promise to bless the whole world given to Abraham] is because the nation of Israel is so great. Unfortunately, dispensationalists will tell you the same thing.” In fact, the judeocentricity is so marked that “dispensationalists will look at verses in the Bible about the end times…they’ll look at these eschatological texts about what God will do with ethnic Jews, the children of Abraham physically, and they’ll say, ‘See, you know, the Jews are special to God in a way that other ethnicities are, you know, are not.” (14:59). This despite the fact, he claims, that each time in the NT that it says God is not a respecter if persons it is in reference to the Jewish people (15:30). Dispensationalists are apparently unable to grasp the fact that the gospel is for all men, and that there is no hope for Jewish people apart from Christ.

You read it on X from the alt-right anons, you read it on Substack, you hear it in podcasts, apparently at Christian conferences you can now even pick up a recently published copy of the writings of Adolf Hitler and purchase some National Socialist paraphernalia to go with it—it’s located somewhere near the germanic paganism booth. And it’s on Tucker. This is why I told a pastor friend of mine that if these guys were able to get the Christian Nationalist utopia they are vying for into place, he and I would end up in the gulags.

JD is wrong about dispensationalism. Perhaps there’s some hermit out there who is so staunchly committed to the strictest take on classical dispensationalism that he essentially preaches a future for Jews apart from Jesus. But take any normal framing of dispensationalism—take this publication—and you’ll quickly find out that we all want Jews to come to Christ. We want them to enter the New Covenant, to become true sons of Abraham—sons by faith—to stop being secular atheistic ethnic Jews or religious Jews who adhere to the Talmud and not Scripture, and be like Paul—sons of Abraham according to the flesh and the spirit. We call this True Israel.

If JD was going after political zionism that placed the current geo-political state of Israel’s interests above that of American interests, then we wouldn’t need to have a response. Sure, dispensational distinctives have been used by politicians to justify geopolitics. This doesn’t mean you are justified to reduce dispensationalism down to political zionism understood in the worst way—understood to be totally ignorant of the gospel of Christ. He attributed the gospel to only covenant theology in contradistinction to classical and leaky dispensationalism. Apparently THE leaky dispensationalist himself—John MacArthur—was a political zionist without the gospel who was so fixated on the Jews that he forgot Christ’s sacrifice was for all people who would accept it by faith. That’s not me putting words in JD’s mouth, that’s the conclusion of his assertions when carried out. And this doesn’t exhaust the slander he brought against dispensationalists.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to call Charles Ryrie a heretic. I’m not ready to call Darrel Bock, Craig Blaising and Robert Saucy heretics. I’m not ready to call S. Lewis Johnson a heretic. Nor Michael Vlach. Nor Peter Goeman. Nor any of my brothers at The Master’s Seminary and Grace Community Church, nor the Dispensational Federalists in New Zealand.

JD, Tucker, Webbon, the Ogden Boys, etc. all need to do the reading. If you are someone that has been inundated with the assertions made against dispensationalism, like was discussed in this article, you should consider doing the reading. Start with Michael Vlach’s Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Read the articles on this publication tagged with “dispensationalism.” Start with my short piece on what Dispensationalism is:

This conversation needs careful reasoning, it needs knowledge.

We can’t afford to be Les Incompétents.

1

Socratic State of Mind

Why All Roads Lead to Porn and Pyramid Schemes

A client once told me she blended vegetables into sugary milkshakes and fed them to her kids. “It’s the only way I can get them to eat their veggies!” she said. She didn’t want to, but she was at wits’ end…

Read more

3 months ago · 234 likes · 31 comments · Andrew Perlot

I have found that the active obedience of Christ doctrine depends on understanding righteousness, the Law, and imputations rightly. I will do the best I can to show that exegetically, righteousness has to be understood in legal terms. As a consequence, this requires understanding God’s law, and the demands it places upon us. Finally, the righteousness which meets the demands of the law—which Christ provides—is what is charged to the account of a believer such that he or she is considered to be justified. Therefore, it will be seen that a believer covered in the righteousness of Christ is covered with the merit of Christ’s work, vis His vicarious fulfilling the law’s double demands of perfection and death.

Righteous: in right legal standing

The Greek for righteous/righteousness refers to something measuring up to a standard. This could be conceived of as a social expectation, a moral obligation, or a divine expectation, but the point here is that it refers to being found to measure up to a standard.1 Aristotle says the just one (the righteous [δίκαιος] our word in Greek) “is the lawful and the fair.”2

The Septuagint uses forms of this Greek word to translate ‎the Hebrew for just or righteous, most notably for our purposes in Exodus 23:7 “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous (BHS: צַדִּיק, [LXX: δίκαιος]), for I will not justify the guilty.” In this verse, the righteous are those who are in right standing according to the law such that the law has no claim to penalize these who are righteous. This is the intent of the Hebrew word, it refers to something conforming to the right standard.

This Hebrew word, צַדִּיק (tsadek), is used with those who are right in standing before God’s moral standard. One example makes this clear. Abraham appeals to God’s justice (a synonym to our word) to argue that Yahweh cannot deal with the wicked and righteous (our word) alike so as to judge each the same in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Then Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put to death the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?”

— Genesis 18:23-25

Abraham argues rightly, and Yahweh confirms this in the following dialogue, that those who are righteous do not deserve God’s judgment, they deserve to live. Indeed, the only righteous one in the cities of the valley was Lot, who was forcibly removed by the angels so that the judgment of Yahweh would not fall on him or his family.

Paul uses the term the same way, declaring that those who are doers of the law are the ones who are justified, or the ones who are considered righteous (δικαιόω, “declared righteous”) (Rom 2:13). The one who is righteous is the one who conforms to the law. Righteous is the one who meets the standard. Righteousness is a legal term. You can also see this concept in 1 John 3:4, “sin is lawlessness.” The inverse ought to be true as well. The opposite of sin is righteousness, and the opposite of lawlessness is lawfulness. Righteousness is lawfulness.

The Law: God’s Holy Standard

“The law of God is good and wise, and sets His will before our eyes” so the hymn goes.3 The standard that either declares men righteous or wicked is the moral law of God;

Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am Yahweh your God. You shall not do according to what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do according to what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to do My judgments and keep My statutes, to walk in them; I am Yahweh your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does them, he shall live by them; I am Yahweh.

— Leviticus 18:1-5

Bear with me in a little theologizin’. Yahweh states in this context that the reason the nations in Canaan are being driven out is because they have violated His statutes and judgments. I’m used to understanding law in the Bible to mean Mosaic law, including everything from the Ten Commandments to the dietary restrictions. No one would argue that the dietary restrictions are the universal standard which was violated by these pagan nations such that they merited God’s wrath. The context of Leviticus 18 makes it clear that what is in view is not violations of positive law4 given to Israel as a covenant nation—what the Reformed would call ceremonial and civil law—but the universal moral principles built into creation—what the Reformed call moral law. See the moral law principle God appeals to in the following context:

‘So do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. So the land has become defiled, and I have brought its punishment upon it. And the land has vomited out its inhabitants. But as for you, you shall keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native nor the sojourner who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not vomit you out, should you defile it, as it has vomited out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not do any of the abominable statutes which have been done before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am Yahweh your God.’”

— Leviticus 18:24-30 (emphasis added)

This is the law, the moral or natural law, that Paul is appealing to in Romans 2 when he states that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts (Rom 2:14–16). Peter Goeman has pointed out that what is contained in the Ten Commandments are applications to Israel of universal or creation moral law principles.5 This moral law—or creational law if you will—is what is binding on all men, and is the standard by which they are either justified or condemned. For Israel to continue living, the law must be kept. For anyone to live, to be considered just or righteous, he must keep the judgments and statutes by which a man may live if he does them (Lev 18:5).

The Law as Standard of Life

This is where we need to build off of the evidence seen so far and show that the law is for us who are in Adam a condemning standard, but—if it could be followed perfectly—would be a standard warranting life. Our Lord himself shows this to be the case:

And behold, someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

— Matthew 19:16-17

I remember this troubling me in Sunday School classes when I was in Junior High and High School. The Lord doesn’t tell this young man to repent and believe, instead He just throws the law on him. This is immensely important theology. The law, if perfectly kept, leads to life. Again, the words of Paul: “The doers of the Law will be justified” (Rom 2:13). Jesus is not deceiving this man by presenting the law to him, He is presenting the perfect standard of the law as what needs to be met in order for one to be considered just (righteous) in the sight of God.

Obviously, Jesus is also using the law to bring this man to an awareness of his own sinfulness and pride. Jesus may be presenting the law as a standard that must be kept, with the implication that if it could be kept perfectly one would inherit eternal life, but He is not by this insinuating that any sinner can meet the law’s demands. He is just presenting objective reality: perfect law keeping yields eternal life.6

This is the same standard that was present in the Garden. Adam was beholden to God to keep His law—natural and positive—and upon the obeying of God’s will (the keeping of God’s law) he would have inherited eternal life. This doesn’t need to be conceived of as glorification. It is enough to note that he and Eve would have at least remained in the state wherein they were created if they continued to obey. No violation of the law means the law rewards you with continued life (Lev 18:5). No violation means the law has no penal power upon you.

When Paul says that by works of the law no man will be justified (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16) the point he is making is not that the law is deficient to declare one righteous but that the sinner has no ability to meet the law’s demands and so be declared righteous. The law is a standard that makes a declaration, it is not a source for sinners to use as a means to justification. It’s not the law that is deficient, the deficiency lies in the sinner. Therefore, to the sinner, the law comes with its penal power, it declares him or her to be a sinner, to be lawless; “through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20).

The Law’s Demands

The law of God makes two demands upon us: first, as creatures it demands total and perfect obedience. This has been seen in the discussion above. Secondly, This demand for total and complete obedience is demanded upon pain of death. From the very beginning this has been the case. Adam was required to keep the law of God and in so doing expected life (whether you consider that as meriting eternal life or a continual existence in his created state, the point is that obedience would have yielded life). The penalty prescribed to Adam upon violating God’s law is explicit: “in the day you eat you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). We are dead in Adam, and so the law demands from us what is proper for creatures—perfect obedience—and what is due to sinners—death.

The need of the sinner is double: a solution to the positive requirement of God’s law, namely righteousness, and satisfaction of the penal demand of God’s law. Christ Jesus provides both. Christ told us that He came to fulfill these demands of God’s law. It’s clear from Matthew 3:15 where He tells John that it is fitting for them “to fulfill all righteousness.” It’s clear from Matthew 5:17–20 where He tells His followers that they need a righteousness better than what the Pharisees’ have, which in context refers back to His own righteousness in fulfilling “the Law and the Prophets.”

Imputed Righteousness: Legally Measuring up on account of Another’s Work

Romans 5 shows that Christ is the federal head of all those who are in him. Those who believe in him are found to be recipient of the benefit of His work. I wrote about this in a recent post.

The reality that Christ’s work is applied to the accounts of believers requires us to answer the question: what is contained in Christ’s work? The previous discussion has shown that Christ’s work is composed of His keeping the will of His Father, the perfect Law of God. This means that you and I, as believers in Christ, are considered to be righteous before God’s law—considered to have met the demand of the law—perfect obedience and satisfaction of the penalty due to us on account of our sin—because Christ did these things. This is what is imputed to us. “God himself met the obligations of his own law by making ‘him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor 5:21).”7

If righteousness refers to legal perfection—conceived as perfectly meeting the requirements of the law—then what we receive from Christ when His work is imputed to us on account of our faith is His perfect meeting of the demands of the law. This is definitional, it can’t be avoided. I’ve spent eight years of off again, on again study trying to figure out how to understand the imputed righteousness of Christ to not include His lawful obedience. There just isn’t another way to understand it that satisfies the lexical and exegetical data. If you are standing in Christ, you are both considered to be a perfect adherent to the law’s demands, and considered to have the law’s penalty against your sin satisfied by the death of Christ. If you are standing in Christ, you are a recipient of this work.

Conclusion

As I referenced in my introductory paragraph, I am a bit of a resistant affirmer to this doctrine of the Active Obedience of Christ. I came into it thinking it was novel, and now I have been forced, because of my study, to concede that this is the theology which arises from Scripture. And it is good news. Christ Jesus fully accomplished the salvation of His people. That is glorious. That’s news worth believing.

Agree? Don’t agree? Troubled? Have more to add? Please leave a comment to keep the conversation moving forward. Also please like and share this article with those who will benefit from it.

Leave a comment

Dunk or Drip?

We should start with a discussion of the mode of baptism. How should baptism be administered? The exegesis of the biblical data seems to require that baptism be thought of first and foremost as immersion. Though, it will be seen, that this immersive practice contains the concept of cleansing and washing, which is the main theological truth being communicated.

βαπτω/βαπτίζω: To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge

The lexical data argue quite definitively that “to baptize” means to immerse something in something else, usually to wash for cleanliness or as part of a ritual. This was the case in the classic usage of the term (So Homer in The Odyssey, where it used of “a smith dipping an ax in cold water”).2 The Jewish usage of the greek term is consistent with the classical. In the Septuagint of 2 Kings 5:14, Naaman is said to baptize (βαπτω, baptō) himself in the Jordan.3 Also in the Septuagint of Exodus 12:22, hyssop is dipped (βαπτω, baptō) in the blood of the Passover lamb and then spread on the doorpost. In the New Testament this is consistent with John the Baptist’s (the dipper’s?) baptism of repentance. When Jesus comes to him and is dipped (βαπτίζω, baptizō), upon rising out of the water (presumably coming up after being immersed), the spirit descends on him, etc. Even when the term was not used in this literal sense, but indicates washing, the literal idea is still present behind the usage, such as Jesus speaking of the Pharisees washing their hands and their pots and such before using them to eat (Mark 7:4). The washing here brings to mind immersing your hands into a basin of water (since they didn’t have indoor plumbing, running water would have been scarce for such ritual purposes). From this lexical data, dipping or immersing is the literal idea.

But what is theologically being communicated by the dipping is the cleansing of impurity. The Pharisaical practice of baptizing their hands and the ministry of John baptizing for the forgiveness of sins speaks to this reality. So too does Paul’s use of the term in Romans 6:1–10, where believers are said to be baptized into Christ’s death so that they are raised in His resurrection and thus live new lives, lives marked by holiness. The picture is of being submerged in a thing and that thing cleansing you. Just as Pharisees’ hands were literally cleaned by removing dirt from their hand “baptizing” so too are Christians truly cleansed of sin when spiritually washed by the Spirit applying the work of Christ to them (cf. Titus 3:5). Thus, baptism now saves us, because it is an appeal to God of a good conscience (i.e. one having been washed by the Spirit baptizing us into Christ), not by the removal of dirt from us which naturally occurs if we are immersed in water (1 Peter 3:21). My point here is that the mode is important, but the mode is also communicating a theological truth: that in Christ we are cleansed or washed. Therefore, the truth that should be emphasized is not that the early church dunked their new converts (though they did, so we should endeavor to emulate that practice too) but that they dunked their new converts because those converts had been cleansed by Christ on account of their faith.

Subscribe now

History agrees

Early church history put the emphasis on immersion, but allowed for sprinkling or pouring in extenuating circumstances. From the end of the first century it is clear that the church allowed for sprinkling if running water was not readily available or if the catechumen seeking baptism was unable to get into running water (if someone was infirm or handicapped in some way);

Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things [the basic gospel and duties to be believed and observed by a believer], baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.4

The Didache, which that quote is from, is probably from the late 1st century, even if it was compiled later in the mid 2nd.5 That means that this is a witness from just after or at the end of the Apostolic period of the New Testament church. That’s very significant. This means that if pouring water over a catechumen (someone seeking baptism) was a justifiable practice in some circumstances, then we can’t say that it is either the sole method to be used nor that it is a method which must be eschewed, in terms of the witness of church history. This document leads me to believe that the Baptist argument for giving Baptism to believers by immersing them is the preferred practice. It would only be in extenuating circumstances that one would choose an alternative to immersion. With today’s technology, I’m not sure of many extenuating circumstances that would require the catechumen to submit to a different mode.

Geerhardus Vos, the somewhat legendary theologian and exegete from early 20th century Princeton Seminary whom B.B. Warfield said was “probably the best exegete Princeton ever had,”6 makes the point that the Baptist view of immersion “can be used with richer symbolic significance than by sprinkling, but that the latter also is a complete baptism.”7 While I certainly don’t follow Vos to his conclusions which justify infant baptism, his point is well taken, which he also states in the next sentence: “Paul used immersion [in Romans 6:1–10] in a meaning-filled way to express a profound thought, but nowhere did he say that he thereby indicated or explained the mode of baptism.”8 The mode is important, we should admit this, and immersion should be sought as of great importance precisely because of its symbolic significance. But does this disqualify someone who was sprinkled from legitimately being considered to have been baptized? I do not think so, so long as said person was baptized consequent to exercising faith. Believers are baptized, unbelievers are not.

Who should be baptized?

This brings us to the question of who should be admitted to the waters of baptism. Scripture makes the case that it is believers who are baptized. Acts 2:39–41 is sufficient for this point: Peter proclaims that the promise is for those who are hearing his message, and for their children, and for everyone. This has led some to argue that since the children are included, then infants are permitted to be baptized.9 But verse 41 militates against this, since it clarifies that “those who had received his word were baptized.” It was not the familial connection which qualified them to come to baptism, but their reception of Peter’s message—in other words, their faith.10

The Particular Baptist Case for Credobaptism

The most irenic and clear presentation of credobaptism against the arguments made for paedobaptism come from the Particular Baptists who wrote the Second London Confession of Faith (often referred to in short hand as the 2LCF or the 1689).

The particular baptists argued for believers’ baptism in 4 ways

1. Against paedobaptists that agree faith is to be present at baptism and so had adults be sponsors of the infant’s faith at the baptism, the writers of the 2LCF appeal to Scripture’s witness as not reasonably showing this practice, either explicitly or by inference.11 In their words, “We cannot for our own parts be persuaded in our own minds, to build such a practice as this, upon an unwritten tradition.”12

2. To those who argue that infants are covenant members in the church and so should receive the sign of the covenant, baptism, the writers of the 2LCF argue that covenant membership isn’t dependent on the sign (female babies in the Old Covenant were as much a part of the community as males, and males were from birth even before being circumcised on the 8th day) and further, they argue that the sign of the New Covenant is not baptism but circumcision of the heart.13 They write, “We conceive the seal of that Covenant [the New Covenant] is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else.”14

3. Against the argument that 1 Corinthians 7:12 and following teach that believers’ children are holy so should be baptized, the writers of the 2LCF argue that this logic would mean that the unbelieving spouse (in context the family is considered as having one believing spouse and one unbelieving) would also be considered holy and so have a right to baptism, and they argue that if children are holy so as to receive baptism, they should receive the other sacrament as well, the Lord’s Supper. They write, “It will be found that the same qualities which to entitle any person to baptism do so also for the participation of all the Ordinances, and privileges of the house of God, that are common to all believers.”15

4. Against the argument that since whole households were baptized, infants must have been baptized as well, the writers argue that there are other ways to conceive of household that are equally justifiable on the grounds of the biblical evidence.16

   It is neither our concern nor our interest to confine the mercies, and promises of God, to a more narrow, or lease compass than he is pleased gratiously to offer and intend them; nor to have a light esteem of them, but are obliged in duty to God, and affection to our children, to plead earnestly with God and use our utmost endeavors that both our selves and our offspring may be partakers of his mercies and gracious promises: yet we cannot from either of these texts [Matt 19:14 and Acts 2:39] collect a sufficient warrant for us to baptize our children before they are instructed in the principle of the Christian Religion.17

These are the responses of the Particular Baptists, and they are good responses to the same arguments which are common today. Indeed, they are sufficient to be the final word on the matter in this article.

Conclusion

It has been the goal of this writer to argue for believer’s baptism simply and clearly. The conclusion is that baptism is to be offered to believers upon condition of their faith. The mode of baptism ought to be immersion, though in extenuating circumstances, pouring or sprinkling may be permitted if immersion is for some reason not feasible. Despite this concession, infants are not justifiably said to be baptized even though they are sprinkled, because they do not have the faith in the gospel which is requisite to receiving baptism. It is not babies who are members in the New Covenant community, but those who enter through faith; these receive the sign of the New Covenant which is circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29; Colossians 2:11).

If this article was of benefit to you, please consider liking, commenting, and/or sharing it with a friend.

9

The Compass

A Defense of the Biblical Doctrine of Paedobaptism

This was my midterm paper for Humanities III. In it, I explain and defend one specific argument for paedobaptism (the Christian practice of baptizing children on the basis of their inclusion in God’s covenant). This is by no means an exhaustive defense of paedobaptism…

Read more

2 months ago · 19 likes · 18 comments · Carson Wagner

On the Goal—Christlikeness

The goal of the Christian is to become like Jesus. I think everyone in the spiritual formation world would agree with that statement. But it means something different to different people. Comer, in Practicing the Way, is after a therapeutic sense of well being drawn from modeling one’s life after the pattern he sees Jesus living (see the article below).

Bingham calls this “the cafeteria approach” to spiritual formation, since it has as its goal picking and choosing from a host of practices whatever seems right and good to you—whatever you find helpful in giving you a sense of drawing near to God.1 This is not what I mean by the term Christlikeness.

What I mean by becoming like Jesus is becoming like him in moral terms. I think this is the emphasis of Scripture when it lifts of Christ as an example to follow. His life of faithfulness to God is the epitome of what a moral or virtuous life looks like. This is godliness. This is faithfulness. This is a life well lived. And this is a life which reaches the goal for humanity, life with God.

The question which needs to be answered is: how do you get there? How do you live with God? How do you live a life marked by the kind of moral quality which is Christ’s?

Scripture is the appointed means

Two passages stand out in my mind as clearly showing that by the word of God we “grow up in respect to salvation” (1 Pet 2:2). These are Psalm 1:1–3 and 2 Corinthians 3:12–18. I want to keep this article brief so I will just make a few points from these texts.

Psalm 1:1–3

This psalm contrasts the man of God (the believer considered in the abstract) with the wicked man (the unbeliever considered in the abstract). Note that the believer is marked by moral life which flows out of a mind saturated in Scripture.

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,

Nor stand in the way of sinners,

Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

But his delight is in the law of Yahweh,

And in His law he meditates day and night.

— Psalm 1:1-2

His attention is clearly not on the temporal stuff of this world, he avoids living a life marked by the stuff of the wicked by delighting in and meditating on God’s word. As a result of fixing his mind on the things which are above (Col 3:2), the man’s life abounds in real life (Psalm 1:3). He thrives and is like a tree which is bountiful. This is what comes from a life which consumes Scripture.

2 Corinthians 3:12–18

The logic of this passage is less straightforward than that of Psalm 1, but it is still clear. Paul makes the point that as Moses hid the glory of the Lord’s presence from Israel with a veil over his face, so the people of Israel in the synagogues (contrasted with believing Jews and Gentiles in the churches) have the glory of the Lord hidden from them because a spiritual veil lies over their hearts. So when the word of God is read they are not changed by it, because it is hidden from their hearts. But Christians, in contrast, have this veil removed, resulting in transformation. When Christians read Scripture they behold the Lord in it “as in a mirror” and are subsequently “transformed into the same image [christlikeness]” (verse 18).

We could amass many more texts to prove this point, most notably perhaps would be 2 Timothy 3:16–17. Scripture is the appointed means by which God changes His people such that they become like Christ, meaning: they have more and more of the moral quality of Jesus.

Therapy is ancillary, not central

The result of being shaped morally by God’s Spirit using His word is practical righteousness. God makes us righteous. He makes us law keepers (in the third use of the law sense). What comes with this righteousness is in fact a sense of well-being (Prov 11:18–19). But notice the order, being made right with God (justification) which occurs when one believes savingly, then the moral work of the Spirit in sanctifying you through his appointed means (chief among them being the word of God). The result of this is knowing that you are right with God because of Christ’ work (Rom 5:8) and you can draw near to God relationally in Christ (Heb 10:21–22). The sense of wholeness so many seek is a result of Christ’s work being applied to us through the means God has given—chief among them being the word of God.

David F. Wells has noted that the American church is “more interested in wholeness than we are in holiness.”2 While he said that more than 20 years ago, this is still the case today. The previous generation used consumption to create meaning for itself,3 but from my view of things, the current generation is using minimalism to try to accomplish the same. Instead of accumulating stuff (which, admittedly, we still do), we try to find our sense of well-being in certain therapeutic practices. My Spotify is filled with ads for online therapy. My App Store recommendations have to do with mindfulness. And the spiritual formation literature advocates a cafeteria of practices which you can try to see what enables you to feel the way you want—spiritually speaking. What all of these attempts at providing wholeness are missing is that wholeness—a therapeutic sense of well-being—is not the goal of life. The goal of life is living with God, whether we conceive of that as what to pursue (1 John 1:3) or where life is heading (Rev 21:3). Interestingly enough, it’s in the pursuit of holiness, of righteousness, that results in the sense of being so many are desperately seeking.

Whither shall you go?

This slightly rambly excursis on spiritual formation aims at making the following point: God has given us His word, which is Spiritually powerful to transform us, so that we can become like His Son. We don’t need to look for other means, we can draw near to God through Scripture, hear Him speak to us through His word, behold His glory as it is reflected in each page, and in doing so, we will be changed to be like Christ. As a result, we will find what we have been looking for, that sense of being right, whole, what we are supposed to be. God is near to you, He has revealed Himself in His word. Take up and read. The results may surprise you.

I’d love to hear from you! Please leave a comment below and add to the conversation.

Leave a comment

In a previous article I discussed dispensationalism’s development, which is marked by a commitment to applying a consistent hermeneutic to scripture to build one’s theology. The dispy side of the equation has been considered, so to round out the foundational posts of this publication, I need to discuss the other side, vis. federalism. This article will make a case for federal theology, namely, that God considers humanity under representative heads. For our purposes here, I’ll confine my discussion to Adam and Christ.

Subscribe now

Presuppositions and Exegesis

Before getting into the text, I want to note that federal theology is often rejected by those in Bible churches because they don’t subscribe to covenant theology (usually conceived of in a Westminsterian variety). This is probably the experience of many: whenever Genesis 3 is mentioned, there is an almost obligatory statement of some form of “we aren’t covenantalists, so we know there wasn’t a covenant in the garden.” I think most often this kind of statement is representative of the milieu in which the teacher lives and ministers rather than the result of personal bible interpretation.

On the other hand, in the Reformed world—especially the Presbyterian branches—covenant theology is assumed, and dispensationalism is treated as an aberration of sound theology and therefore rejected out of hand. It’s quite rare, in my experience, to find a popular level Reformed critique of dispensationalism that interacts with current dispensational scholarship.1

The correct response to interpretive claims is to bring them against the witness of Scripture, which often times involves a laborious, painstaking exegetical process. Scripture commends the Bereans for this (Acts 17:10–11), in fact, the word for the Berean’s examination, ανακρίνω, speaks of a forensic study or a careful investigation. This is the kind of study we must exercise when examining the legitimacy of federal theology. We have to go where Scripture takes us—that’s a reformation principle. It’s the commitment of every expositor and theologian who comes after and builds on the foundation laid by the magisterial reformation.

The Key Text

Romans 5:12–19 is the go to text for defending this theology, so it is where we will go as well.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

—Romans 5:12 (LSB)

This verse presents a theology of original sin. It teaches that all people, as descendants of Adam, are recipients of the consequences of his work, these consequences being most notably death. Kevin Zuber, in his excellent book The Essential Scriptures: A Handbook of the Biblical Texts for Key Doctrines, presents three views of how “all sinned” in Adam. You should read his book.

The “everyone sinned on their own” view

Zuber writes, “Some have suggested that Paul means ‘all have committed sins’ so that ‘the death of each person is directly caused by that person’s own, individual sinning.”2 This view fails to satisfy the implications of the text because it does not take into account the implications of Adam’s sin which is repeatedly referred to;

This phrase has to have something to do with Adam. The “death [that] spread to all men” is not the result of a string of individual sins but expressly “by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one” (see Rom 5:17a). Five times (Rom 5:15, 16, 17, 18, 19) Paul makes the point that for “one man’s sin” death reigned, and that “one man” can be none other than Adam.3

So the idea that everyone only dies because they sin fails to take into account the teaching of the text which presents Adam’s sin as having some consequence on everyone.

The “Seminal view”

The second view Zuber mentions is called “‘the realistic view’ or ‘the seminal view.’”4 This view is stronger than the previous because it is able to make appeal to other scripture. The seminal view argues that everyone was genetically located within Adam, in the same sort of way that Levi was genetically located within Abraham when he paid tithes to Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:9–10).5

What’s the problem here? Namely that it breaks the parallelism between Adam and Christ in the following context. Paul is arguing that Adam’s sin had consequences on everyone, and Christ’s work similarly has consequences for those belonging to Him. If the way to understand Adam’s sin corrupting all is through genetic procreation, then we should understand Christ’s work benefiting those who can claim him as their father by natural generation. This would neuter the good news entirely.

The Federal View

This is the preferred view. Zuber writes,

The preferable view, called the “representative view” by many, understands Paul to be teaching the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity. That is, he stood as a representative of all those born of and after him and when he fell, his act of sin was “imputed” or “reckoned” to all.6

This is different than the seminal view because it is conceives of a legal system. Adam acted as a federal head or representative of those whom he represented—in his case those who would come from him by natural generation. It is legal because the parallel representative—Christ (the last Adam, 1 Cor 15:45)—is the federal head of those whom he represented. Matthew Henry helps show this parallelism:

In this Adam was a type of Christ, that in the covenant-transactions that were between God and him, and in the consequent events of those transactions, Adam was a public person. God dealt with Adam and Adam acted as such a one, as a common father and factor, root and representative, of and for all his posterity; so that what he did in that station, as agent for us, we may be said to have done in him, and what was done to him may be said to have been done to us in him. Thus Jesus Christ, the Mediator, acted as a public person, the head of all the elect, dealt with God for them, as their father, factor, root, and representative—died for them, rose for them, entered within the veil for them, did all for them. When Adam failed, we failed with him; when Christ performed, he performed for us.7

This is the teaching of Scripture, that “by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor 15:21–22). The work of the representative is imputed to the account of the one represented. S. Lewis Johnson states,

We are shut up to believe that just as the Lord Jesus Christ was our federal head, our representative, so Adam was our federal head. And the explanation of that last clause [of Romans 5:12] is that all men have sinned by immediate federal imputation of Adam’s sin to every member of the human race. […] He was our biological head, our natural covenantal representative. His act is deemed our act because he acted for us.8

Federalism’s Consequences

Federal headship is covenant headship, a recognition we are forced to make. Muller, in his dictionary, defines foedus (from which we derive our term federal) as “covenant; synonymous with pactum.” But it should also be noted that “covenant theology” so called is not monolithic. In recognizing that Adam and Christ are federal—or covenantal—heads, we are not forced to subscribe to the three forms of unity, the Westminster standards, or the London baptist confessions. Those who have resisted seeing Christ and Adam as federal heads for the reason that it is the foundation of fully developed covenantal theology have made a fallacious assumption that to see Adam in covenantal terms is necessarily to drink in the whole system of covenant theology.

Seeing that Christ and Adam are both federal heads over those whom they represent presents us with the question of how far to develop a federal theology. Does seeing Christ and Adam in this way require that we become full blown Westminsterian Federalists (i.e. Presbyterian paedobaptists of a PCA or OPC stripe)?

The answer is quite simple, actually; though its application may not be. We have to go as far as Scripture—interpreted rightly—compels us to go. In the case of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, we have to at least recognize Adam and Christ in federal terms. This means that in the garden of Eden, there was a formal arrangement whereby Adam acted on behalf of those whom he represented, which according to the terms of this arrangement are those who would proceed from him according to natural generation. How can we say this? Because the arrangement with Christ—the head of the New Covenant—is that those whom he represents are recipients of his work.9 This is the parallelism of Rom 5:18–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22. This is the type/anti-type relationship between Adam and Christ. If Christ is a federal head over the elect (those in the New Covenant) then Adam is a federal head over his posterity.

Conclusion

The federal headship of Christ and Adam is a thoroughly biblical doctrine. As such, we are forced to formulate a theological system that includes federalism. This is the reason dispensational federalism has developed. For future articles we reserve discussions on the covenant of works, the pactum salutis, the active obedience of Christ, and other doctrines which naturally arise from the foundation we have laid here. Let this suffice for now, that Christ Jesus is the head of the New Covenant, in which there is made provision through his blood for the forgiveness of sins—the remediation of the work of Adam in whom we all stand as guilty sinners.

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

—1 Corinthians 15:57

You can imagine my surprise when I recently rediscovered Comer through a Reformed podcast. (You read that right). I was listening to Matthew Bingham talk about his book A Heart Aflame for God, which is subtitled A Reformed Approach to Spiritual Formation, and in that conversation Bingham noted that everyone interested in spiritual formation—how to grow as a Christian—was reading and talking about Comer. Apparently, Comer isn’t fringe. He’s not just a Portland Coava Coffee connoisseur.2 He’s a big deal. So let me express a few cautions about his Way, because chances are, you are going to be coming across it if you haven’t already.

Where I am coming from

Allow me to briefly state the background of this article. At the request of some in my church, I recently began taking a closer look at Comer by reading his book Practicing the Way. This book is something of THE go to for spiritual formation. I have not finished it, but it’s quite clear from the early chapters that Comer’s approach to Christianity is not what we would consider the normal church based model of yore. While Comer and I share geographical locales, we are from very different theological traditions—I was raised in Dispensational Calvinism, I can remember Comer telling Bridgetown in one sermon that he “didn’t have a Calvinist bone in [his] body.” These differences should be acknowledged from the outset, but my cautions in this article strike at the core of the Christian life, because I believe what Comer is advancing isn’t biblical Christianity.

Caution 1: It’s Therapeutic

Comer’s goal is therapy, not Christlikeness. That statement may seem a bit bold since his whole thesis circles around following Christ’s example. What could be more like Christ than living like him? The issue is that the kind of things he suggests aren’t the kind of things commanded in the New Testament. One example will suffice.

Comer discusses abiding in his early section on being with Jesus. He interprets the Greek word for abide, “μένω,” as “make my home in” and so you need “to let your body become God’s temple” (39). He states that we are changed when we “contemplate” God. He describes this as “sitting in the quiet and letting God love [you]” (47); or “to direct the inner gaze of your heart at the Trinitarian community of love” (48). It’s clear from the context that Comer has in mind some sort of mystical, meditative experience, not thinking carefully about Scripture.

“I go to a little room in my house, close the door, sit cross-legged on the floor, and pray. I usually pray the psalms (note: not read the psalms), meditate on a passage of Scripture, talk to God about my life, listen for His voice, and attempt to just let go. But most of the time, I just sit there. I breathe. And I look at what my eyes can’t see” (53).

Psalms? Love it. Meditating on Scripture? If understood properly, I love it. Talking to God? Love it. But most often he sits there and breathes and looks at what his eyes can’t see. That’s not the biblical way. The biblical way is to fill your mind with God’s truth so that your life is abundant with God’s life (see Psalm 1 for example, but 119 would also suffice). Should we calmly breathe and take time to stop and settle our minds? Absolutely, but it’s not prayer to do so, it’s not communing with God. Communing with God is a focused act wherein we read scripture to hear from God and speak to him in prayer. It is fundamentally not a mind emptying experience. This vacuous model of meditating has more in common with eastern paganism than biblical spirituality.

Biblical spirituality is Word centered, because it is through the Word of God that God’s spirit transforms you into Christlikeness, by which I mean into having and exhibiting the same moral quality as Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:15–18; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Peter 1:19; 1 Timothy 4:13–16; 2 Timothy 3:16–17).

Caution 2: It’s Ecumenical

Comer’s plethora of citations is drawn from Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic mystics, along with a few Protestants. It’s not so much who he is citing, it’s that he is citing all of these as positive examples to follow or as those with helpful advice for how to be with Jesus. This should strike you as odd if you are a protestant—if you are a biblical Christian—because you know that the Eastern church and the Roman church do not have the gospel and therefore they are, categorically, not capable of bringing you near to God.3

To draw near to Christ you have to draw near to Him on His terms. These he outlines clearly. You come to God through Christ (John 14:6). You are brought into a right relationship with God by having your sins paid for by Christ at the cross (Matt 20:28; 1 John 2:2). These systems which present Christ as insufficient in himself for salvation are not able to provide wisdom for walking with God.

Caution 3: It’s all Law, no Gospel

This is the most significant shortcoming, but it is clear from the very beginning. Take this quote for example:

Jesus did not invite people to convert to Christianity. He didn’t even call people to become Christians (keep reading…); he invited people to apprentice under him into a whole new way of living. To be transformed (xvi).

Notice that he isn’t arguing for an understanding of sanctification at this point. We may be tempted to give him that understanding, but from what he wrote, he is making a case for your foundation of living. He is saying that Jesus called people to live differently. This is clear from the paragraph which immediately follows that quote:

My thesis is simple: Transformation is possible if we are willing to arrange our lives around the practices, rhythms, and truths that Jesus himself did, which will open our lives to God’s power to change. Said another way, we can be transformed if we are willing to apprentice ourselves to Jesus (xvi–xvii).

Comer is looking for transforming power not in regeneration (John 3 style), but in doing what Christ did. Now, Christ did leave us an example to follow, that shouldn’t be forgot (1 Peter 2:21). But Comer doesn’t appear to be encouraging us to Christ’s pattern of faith, but to his understanding of Christ’s lifestyle. It’s law without grace. It may be articulated in hopeful language, in caring language, but it’s law.

The hope of Christ is not in his coming to leave us a pattern to model our lifestyle after. He came to accomplish our salvation (Matt 5:17; 20:28), to give us eternal life (John 3:14–16), and to call us to place our hope in him (John 6:40). It is the finished work of Christ—His accomplishing once for all time the salvation of all those who will trust in Him—that is conspicuously absent in Comer’s work. I am not saying that he needed to double his book length and make the first part pure salvation doctrine. I am saying that if he was attempting to be faithful to Scripture he should have grounded his arguments for spiritual growth in the work of Christ (1 Timothy 4:13–16 forecited). The Christian life is hopeless if it is only founded on law. It begins with the gospel and derives its power from the gospel. This is the biblical way.

Side note: You may be asking whether I am antinomian at this point. The law does have bearing on a Christian’s life, this is the third use of the law. What Comer is presenting isn’t a third use of the law kind of living, it comes across as looking to a different foundation than the work of Christ—which he calls the way of Christ. The issue isn’t whether lawful living is good or bad, but whether we have the right foundation for building our Christian life. From this book (and other things I have read and hear from him), I am not sure Comer does.4

Conclusion

After taking a look at Comer afresh through his book Practicing the Way, I do not think we should follow Comer. His way may feel good and give you the sense that you are being like Jesus, but it is a way that won’t actually bring you close to Jesus. Instead, you should practice the ordinary means of grace: be faithful in church, both in corporate worship and regular body life; be faithful in your Bible study and your prayer—spend long periods of time regularly in these; partake of the Lord’s Supper regularly and use it as an opportunity to turn your mind to the gospel represented by its elements. It is through these means, especially through regular participation in church life, that the Lord give your spiritual life growth (Eph 4:15–16).

If this article was of value to you, please consider sharing it with others, and let me know what you think in the comments.

Share

The Supercessionist Argument

I want to start by simply laying out the argument which is represented by a Right Response Ministries recent article (No, I don’t see Right Response as the spokesman for a Reformed view, but I found this articulation to be in keeping with the popular view I see in my feed).2

First off, the claim about Dispensationalism which that article makes is that Dispensationalism teaches that unbelieving Jews are promised a covenantal future. That’s a straw man, and does not need to be dealt with more than dismissing it out of hand. Any reading of dispensationalism that sees covenantal blessings to those who reject the covenant in unbelief is not an accurate or careful reading of dispensationalism.

Secondly, and primary for this article, a claim is made that believing Jews and Gentiles together comprise true Israel. this is the claim I want to refute. I will argue that true Israel is believing Jews only and not unbelieving Jews. I will also argue that the Olive Tree is not Israel, and so Gentiles being grafted in are not grafted into Israel; they are grafted into the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore these two groups are sharers in the New Covenant and together comprise the people of God (alongside believers of all ages, past, present, and future).

Subscribe now

Getting the Olive Tree Right

Let’s start by looking at the text.

If the root is holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast against them, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right! They were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be haughty, but fear, for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

— Romans 11:16-24

The Context: Unbelieving Israel rejected, a remnant preserved

There are a few things to note. First the context of this passage has to do with what God is doing with Israel since it, by and large, has rejected Christ (11:1). Paul presents himself as an answer—there is always a remnant of believers who follow God despite the larger apostasy which may be in vogue (11:1b–4). So there is a remnant that is true Israel—believing Israel—while the unbelieving of Israel are hardened (11:5–10). What is the purpose of this? It results in the Gospel going to those outside of the proper recipients of it, to the Gentiles (11:11). The result of the Gentile inclusion in salvation is that unbelieving Israel will eventually be turned to their Messiah in faith (11:12–15).

The Branches and the Root

Now we come to the actual analogy in Paul’s argument. He presents several parts of the olive tree as analogies for different groups and concepts.

The relationship of Jews and Gentiles is what Paul is keen to explain. He wants to explain why unbelieving Israel—to whom the promises naturally belong—are not recipients while Gentiles—to whom God’s covenant promises do not naturally belong—are recipients.

To explain what is happening, Paul says that unbelieving Jews (natural branches) are broken off (v17) while believing Gentiles (wild branches from a different tree entirely) are grafted in. The natural branches which remain are believing Jews, and they partake in the “rich root of the olive tree” alongside the grafted in branches (v17b).

This is where interpreters insert their presuppositions. Is the root Israel? Is the tree Israel? If so, then Gentiles are grafted into Israel and should be thought of as part of true Israel.3 This interpretation requires seeing the root and the branches as the same.

The issue with this interpretation is that the root isn’t Israel, it’s the Abrahamic Covenant.4 This is in keeping with what Paul mentioned as Israel’s natural “heritage”5 in Romans 9:4–5 and in 15:8. It is the promises given to the fathers, which began with Abraham, and were passed down to each patriarch. Israel enjoys these promises as natural heir. Paul has spent tons of ink in Romans arguing that those promises—salvation in the New Covenant—come through faith (Romans 4). What unbelieving Israel should have enjoyed was the realization of the promises given to Abraham, but they didn’t “because of unbelief” (11:20).

Share The Dispensational Federalist

The root must be kept distinct from the branches. The promises of worldwide blessing given to Abraham are enjoyed by true Israel (believing Israel, the natural branches which are not broken off) and gentile believers. The gentile believers are grafted into the people of God who experience the blessings promised to the patriarchs, they are not grafted into Israel, properly speaking.

Conclusion

Contrary to a supercessionist interpretation, the olive tree analogy does not support a view of Jew and Gentile becoming a new spiritual Israel—a true Israel. Certainly, all believers enjoy access to the New Covenant, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. This should be fiercely defended. There are not two peoples of God, there is one people of God and those who comprise it are united to Christ and receive full access to New Covenant blessings. The olive tree analogy makes this abundantly clear. But it cannot be pressed to remove distinction between believing Gentiles and believing Jews. Some distinction remains, even within the New Covenant people of God.

Please let me know what you think and move the conversation forward by posting a comment below. If you found this valuable, subscribe and share it with your friends.

Subscribe now

2

Right Response Ministries

Understanding Romans 11, and Why Jews Are Cut Off From God

The most misused passage in the Israel debate is likely Romans 11. When Dispensational Zionists declare, “READ ROMANS 11,” one wonders if they’ve fully read it themselves. Romans 11 does not guarantee unbelieving Jews a covenant apart from Christ. It documents their removal from one. In fact, Romans 11 is likely the clearest passage of Scripture that ve…

Read more

5 months ago · 64 likes · Right Response Ministries

There is one people of God

This is where I part ways with classic or traditional dispensationalists. I want to clarify from the outset that there are not two New Covenants, the church is not an afterthought, nor a side step from the real plan of God, I wrote about the development of dispensationalism in another article. Before arguing for a functional distinction between Israel and the church in the New Covenant, I want to show that believers in the New Covenant are equal in their standing before the law of God––in their justification. Passages in Ephesians and Colossians which speak of the mystery now revealed make this transparently clear.

Subscribe now

The Mystery: Jew and Gentile equal in Christ

Ephesians and Colossians make it clear that anyone saved in the present dispensation (the period of the New Covenant) are united to Christ and therefore of equal standing; they are full partakers of the New Covenant promises. In Ephesians 3:1, Paul says that he is a prisoner on “behalf of you Gentiles” and then a few verses later says that a mystery had been revealed to him (v3) that Gentiles are “fellow heirs and fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (v6). Gentiles are fellow members with whom? With the Jews to whom Christ naturally (biologically, I mean) belongs. Why? Because we are united to Christ by faith, not by ethnic commonality (v12). This squares with what Paul teaches elsewhere, that unbelieving Jews are not considered sons, meaning they aren’t justified and united to Christ (Rom 9:6, more on this passage below).

Colossians, also a prison epistle and written very closely to Ephesians, also speaks about being united to Christ. Paul wrote in Colossians 1:25–27 that he “was made a minister according to the stewardship of God” in order to preach “the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations” that he is preaching “among you Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”2 Notice that the mystery concerns union with Christ and that this mystery is proclaimed to the Gentiles––exactly the same mystery and content that he wrote about to the Ephesians. Colossians 3:9–11 makes this even more explicit, that anyone who is in Christ is equal in standing before God:

Do not lie to one another, since you put off the old man with its evil practices, and have put on the new man who is being renewed to a full knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, and freeman, but Christ is all and in all.

It’s quite clear that in the church one’s demographic is still recognized, but not in terms of one’s justification before God. While a slave and his master, assuming both are Christians, are equal in their standing before Christ, they are still to behave properly toward each other in the socio-economic relationship which they inhabit (Col 3:22–4:1).

We should therefore conclude that those in the New Covenant should be thought of as one people in terms of their standing in Christ. Neither believing Jews nor believing Gentiles are first or second class citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. All who are saved are saved in Christ and being in Christ, they fully partake in the New Covenant promises.

Share The Dispensational Federalist

Is There a Distinction?

I’ll argue below that while all believers are the same in Christ (in terms of standing), there is a functional difference between Israel and the Church. Before this, we need to deal with how the NT uses the term Israel. There are two passages which are appealed to as the strongest case for seeing Scripture apply the term Israel to the church, namely Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16.3

Romans 9:6

In this passage (and the section of Romans it is in, namely chapters 9–11) Paul is speaking primarily about Israel as an ethnic/national group. He brings himself up as part of this number (“my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” [v3]) and these he calls “Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh…” (vv4–5). This phrase “according to the flesh” is used to make it obvious that Paul is referring to the ethnic/national Israel he belongs to––indeed, to whom all the promises in the Old Testament were made!

This brings us to verse 6, where Paul informs us that “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” The following verses refer to ethnic Israel as a group, noting that some in that group are not saved because they pursued establishing their own righteousness through their works and not through faith (vv31–32). He is making a distinction between the righteous and unrighteous within ethnic Israel. In contrast, the Gentiles are considered as a group distinct from Israel that have found righteousness by faith (v30). But Paul does not indicate that Israel as a group absorbs those Gentiles, the term Israel still refers to ethnic Jews, whether believers or unbelievers, in the following chapters.

When considered within its context, Israel in Romans 9:6 must be understood to refer to ethnic Israel.4

Galatians 6:16

It is not uncommon to hear Reformed writers speak of the church as “The Israel of God.” This phrase is from Galatians 6:16. While it is a debated passage, the weight of the evidence supports seeing this use of the term Israel as referring to ethnic Israel.

Robert L. Saucy makes this case ably.5 He asserts three points related to the understanding of this text. Here is Galatians 6:16 in English and Greek.

And those who will walk in step with this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16, LSB)

καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ. (Galatians 6:16, UBS5)

First, the και before the last phrase is most likely functioning as a copulative (“and”) not as an explicative (“even”); this is preferred because Paul does not use an explicative sense like this elsewhere.6 Building on Saucy’s line of thought, this means that Paul has two distinct groups in mind, those who are “them” and those who are “the Israel of God.” To make this refer to one entity is exegetically difficult (if και is “even”) or logically redundant (if και is “and”).7 Second, Saucy argues that no where else does Paul assign the label Israel to the church, which is surprising given how much space he gives to teaching about Israel in Romans 9–11.8 Thirdly, Saucy contends that given the Galatian letter is a polemic against a view of salvation that required Gentiles becoming Jewish then seeing Israel refer to Gentiles at all is precluded, he is distancing Gentiles from Jewishness by showing that Gentiles have salvation through faith alone, not faith and merging into a Jewish or Israelite way of life: “Far from seeking to merge the Gentiles into some sort of ‘new Israel’ by calling them ‘the Israel of God,’ Paul is asserting their equal participation along with the Jews in the new messianic salvation in Christ.”9

While Saucy’s reasoning may not be convincing for everyone, it is sound and hard to make a case against. As a consequence, it is best to see Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 as not supporting a use of the term Israel as a designation of the Church.

What Kind of Distinction?

Thus far we have noted a unity between believing ethnic Israel and believing Gentiles in the one people of God––the New Covenant people of God––while at the same time noting that there is nevertheless some distinction between these two groups in the plan of God. What is this distinction, if it is not one in salvific terms?

It is best to see this as a functional distinction.10 Israel was always conceived of as “[enjoying] a special relation to God as a nation among the nations.”11 It served an evangelistic purpose in being a people ruled by God through His law, His prophets, His king, and His presence. He was in the midst of His people and provided the means to not only worship Him but to approach Him. The Queen of Sheba coming to see Solomon after she has heard of his wisdom and his God (1 Kings 10:1) shows when this occurred as it should have. Israel will once again serve this kind of purpose when reformed under the rule of Christ in the coming Millennium (Zechariah 14:16ff).

In contrast, the church is not a political, national, or ethnic body, but a spiritual body. The church is the present people of God through which and into which God is calling people. “That many aspects of Israel are applicable to the ‘people of God’ in the church cannot be denied. The salvation purpose of God is presently being carried out through the church. In its witness to ‘the excellencies of him’ it can rightly be seen as performing a priestly service to the world which belonged originally to the nation of Israel.”12

Conclusion

We conclude the matter by noting that Israel and the Church are both together the People of God, equal in standing within the New Covenant. Yet this does not remove all recognizable distinction between them. The distinction is best seen as functional. God is working out His Kingdom plan and this includes the distinctive roles that both Israel (in the past and in the future) and the Church (in the present and future) have to play.

Please let me know what you think in the comments and please also consider sharing this post and this publication so that more people can receive biblical and theological clarity in this confused age.

Leave a comment

I recently came across the Third Adam documentary series by Spencer Smith on YouTube, after listening to a podcast interview of Smith from Will Spencer.

Will Spencer

Spencer Smith - The Occult in Your Church

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern Christianity, the intricate dance between traditional doctrine and new-age ideologies presents an ongoing challenge for believers. In the latest episode of the post, I host a discussion about the pervasive influence of mysticism and the occult in contemporary worship, with guest Spencer Smith, a fundamentalist Baptist pastor renowned for his "Third Adam" documentary series…

Listen now

a year ago · Will Spencer

This is a fascinating discussion that I discovered, providentially, at the same time I was preparing to teach Revelation 17 and 18 in my church’s adult Sunday School class.1 Spencer Smith got me thinking about Babylon and the occult and the international culture that seems to feature in Revelation 17 which is localized in what the angel tells John is named “The Great City.”

This post will be a brief look at what Revelation 17 and 18 reveal about this harlot/city/culture. I’m convinced that the biblical account reveals that this is a future, ecumenical, theosophical occult like worldwide religion which will be present in the early years of the Antichrist’s kingdom. This religion is localized in Babylon––rebuilt in Iraq and a center of worldwide influence and commerce––which is destroyed by the Antichrist and his lackeys probably in the middle of the tribulation around the same time that he is declaring himself to be God in the 3rd Temple. Let me walk you through how I come to this conclusion.

Who is Babylon?

The first thing to note from the text is that Babylon is pictured as a harlot with whom the nations commit “sexual immorality” (Rev 17:2, 4). Revelation is prophetic literature, and should be interpreted as such.2 In the prophets, sexual immorality is used to represent religious idolatry (Isaiah 57:1ff; Hosea 9:1ff). Those Israelite kings who had turned to idolatry often fiercely persecuted the righteous (cf. 1 Kings 19), and we see the woman having done the same in Revelation 17:6. In the woman’s hand, she is holding a cup “full of the abominations of the unclean things of her sexual immorality” (17:4). “‘Abominations’ was a characteristic term for idols in the OT, where it denotes ceremonial and moral impurity, but especially idolatrous rites.”3 This woman is also named “Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth” (Rev 17:5). Her name is a mystery (v5), meaning that it must be revealed to us by God (Rev 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 15:51; Eph 3:3, 4; Col 1:26, 27). This mystery gets explained to John in verses 7–18. It’s explained that she sits upon seven mountains, which are kings (and kingdoms) (vv9–10)4 and that she “has a kingdom over the kings of the earth” (v18). These seven kingdoms are probably Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome (of John’s day) with the final being the yet to come empire of Antichrist, which I’ll call nova Roma.5 Her name being Babylon, and the fact of her reigning over the kings of the earth, including these historic kingdoms, connects well with the scriptural theme of Babylon as the origin of all false religion (Gen 10:10, 11:1ff).6

Subscribe now

Put all this together, and you arrive a conclusion that this woman pictures a future expression of the pagan world culture which was scattered at Babel into separate religions but will all “come home to mother.”7 The pagan cultures of the world, including false churches, are united in a world religious culture that finds great expression and some sort of centralized presence in a future Babylon.

A city or a system? Both.

The question remains, what exactly is Babylon, a system or a city? Certain dispensational scholars will argue for two Babylons.8 In the context though, there is always one Babylon, called the Harlot and the Great City. The two aspects are localized in the same place. The system, or religious culture, becomes centralized or especially noteworthy in the city. An example is probably helpful here; Portland, Oregon, where I minister, can be described in terms of its politics, its verdant scenery, its hipster culture, its craft breweries and (especially for this Portland native) its speciality coffee houses. All of these are aspects of the city that describe to some extent its character. This is what is happening in Revelation 17 and 18. Chapter 17 describes Babylon in terms of its spiritual/cultural/religious aspect. In chapter 18, the same city is described in terms of its economic aspect, strikingly seen in the great devastation of its fall. There are not two Babylons, there are two aspects which John’s vision show about this Babylon, in order to provide information on what has thus far in Revelation been only passing reference (cf. 14:8; 16:19).

What City is Babylon?

If this is a city, we should wonder what city it is. Many have tried to make these chapters a reference to Rome. I do not see that as the best option.

The Babylon described in Revelation makes frequent allusion back to the Old Testament prophecies of Babylon’s destruction. Revelation 14:8 and 18:2 are direct quotations of Isaiah 21:9, “Fallen, Fallen is Babylon the Great.” In and of itself, this would not be enough to identify the future Babylon as a rebuilt Babylon on the Euphrates river in modern day Iraq. But bear with me.

Historic Babylon was not made a wasteland

Commentators note that Babylon of Daniel’s day was not conquered in a brutal, devastating, wholesale destruction, but was remarkably bloodless.9 Note how the fall of Babylon is described by Wikipedia:

Both the Babylonian Chronicles and the Cyrus Cylinder describe Babylon being taken “without battle”, whereas the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon report that the city was besieged. The biblical Book of Daniel notes that Belshazzar was killed, albeit without specifying the circumstances.

According to Xenophon, Belshazzar was killed in this conflict, but his account is not widely accepted. Nabonidus surrendered and was deported. Gutian guards were placed at the gates of the great temple of Bel, where the services continued without interruption.10

Now see how the Prophets describe Babylon’s fall:

For a nation has come up against her out of the north; it will make her land an object of horror, and there will be no inhabitant in it. Both man and beast have wandered off; they have gone away!— Jeremiah 50:3

and

And it will be that Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the honor of the Chaldeans’ pride, / Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

It will never be inhabited or dwelt in from generation to generation; / Nor will the Arab pitch his tent there, / Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.

But desert creatures will lie down there, / And their houses will be full of owls; / Ostriches also will dwell there, and shaggy goats will leap there.

And hyenas will howl in their fortified towers / And jackals in their luxurious palaces.

Her fateful time also will soon come / And her days will not be prolonged. — Isaiah 13:19-22

These are either inaccurate descriptions of Babylon’s fall (impossible since God does not lie), rhetorical exaggerations of Babylon’s fall,11 or prophecies yet to be fulfilled of Babylon’s fall.12 One might object that the Isaiah passage is from a context which mentions the Medes and Persians coming against the city, clearly locking the section into history. I would reply that since the history didn’t show the destruction of Babylon according to the Word of the Lord (according to the degree it states quite clearly and repeatedly), then there is prophecy yet to be fulfilled. The Medes and Persians conquered Babylon previously, a future army will come and conquer a future Babylon and leave it a wasteland, to be inhabited not by people, but by wild animals and demons.13

This becomes more certain when you compare the words of those prophecies quoted above to the words of Revelation 18. 18:2 states that Babylon will “become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit and hateful beast.” Thomas notes that the LXX has this terminology in Isaiah 13:21.14 Jeremiah 50:15 says that Babylon is paid back in measure for her sins (the same meaning as paying her back double for her sins [Rev 18:6]) and 51:6 calls God’s people to come out of her (Rev 18:4). It’s not a stretch to interpret this text as teaching that the future city of Babylon is destroyed in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of Babylon’s fall which were not fulfilled in the 539 BC conquering of Babylon by the Medes and Persians.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence examined, we should expect that the historic city of Babylon will be rebuilt sometime in the future. That it will become a major city in the world for commerce and include a decadent, pluralistic, antichristian religious culture, after which time it will meet a sudden, violent end at the hands of Antichrist’s army, thus finishing “the words of God” which concern it (Rev 17:17c). That is what Babylon is. We see the pieces of this pluralistic, occult like, antichristian religion forming all around us now. It will coalesce in a rebuilt Babylon, but will meet its violent and bloody end according to the plan and purpose of God.

Please like, comment, and share this article with others so that more people can have biblical clarity in this very confused age.

Share

Iterations

Dispensationalism is not monolithic, nor has it remained fixed since first articulated by Darby or Scofield. Below is a brief run through the history of this system.3

Classical or Traditional Dispensationalism

This is the period of time “between the writings of John Nelson Darby [1800–1882] and Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology (1947). The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917) are often seen as the key representation of classical dispensationalism.”4 Vlach notes that this period was marked by a belief in “dualistic purposes for the peoples of God;” the oft referenced two-ways of salvation.5 Notice the plural for “peoples.” In traditional dispensationalism, the sharp distinction between Israel and the Church requires that they be thought of in totally separate terms, as two different peoples in the plan of God. The church becomes the parenthesis in the plan of God for Israel, and when it serves its purpose, it will be taken away so things can get back on track with Israel. Therefore, there are two new covenants for the two people of God. If the reformed theo bro you’re reading makes his case against dispensationalism upon the evidence of the Scofield Reference Bible, then this is the dispensationalism he is attempting to put to rest.

Subscribe now

Revised Dispensationalism

This is the period defined by the writings and ministries of “John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, and Alva J. McClain.”6 I'd assume that most of the pastors and leaders who marked your growing up—if you grew up in American evangelicalism—are likely in this camp. Vlach dates this period from 1950–1985, and notes that it is marked by “a loosening of some of the sharper distinctions between Israel and the church.”7 However, there was not a bringing of these groups in to one people of God, even though “The salvation they receive and their destination is the same.”

Progressive Dispensationalism

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, dispensationalism was further refined and modified by dispensationalists, among whom three are significant: Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy.8 This iteration is marked by a closer merging of Israel and the Church, though retaining their distinction to some degree. Saucy articulates this transparently:

Believing Israel and the members of the church are one in their participation in the eschatological salvation of the new covenant. Because of the relationship to God that this entails, they are equally and together the “people of God.”

Their difference lies not on the spiritual plane in their relationship to God, but in their specific identity and corresponding function in God’s historical kingdom program. In both Testaments, the identity of “Israel” is always that historical people descended from Abraham through Jacob that became a nation. […] The church, by contrast, is identified in the New Testament as a people called out of all nations. In distinction to Israel in her being a witness as a “nation,” the church is called to proclaim the kingdom salvation as individuals and as a community living in the midst of the nations, but not yet in the totality of a “nation.”9

Notice that Saucy is able to refer to all believers in the New Covenant as the singular “people of God,” yet retain an administrative distinction between the elect national ethnic people of Israel and the church. This marks a distinction between Revised and Progressive Dispensationalism. Revised saw the church not as a sub-category of the people of God, but as a separate anthropological entity. Progressives see the church simply as the people of God in the present period of time.10

Key to Progressive Dispensationalism is the idea that the spiritual Kingdom promises of the New Covenant are currently being enjoyed by believers in the Church, while the physical promises (think the land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant for example) are yet to come. This is their version of what is often called the “already-not-yet” fulfillment of the biblical promises and prophecies. In the same way, Jesus is conceived by some to be reigning from David’s throne now in a certain sense, while in another sense He will reign from David’s literal throne in Jerusalem in the Millennial Kingdom.11 Progressive Dispensationalism has been critiqued for not having a grammatical-historical hermeneutic.12

Dispensational Federalism (or Reformed Dispensationalism)

Arising from a conversation between alumni and professors at The Master’s Seminary in 2021 is the latest player for team Dispensationalism: Dispensational Federalism, or Reformed Dispensationalism.13 (In case it requires mentioning, this is the theological position of this publication and of the present author/creator of The Dispensational Federalist).14 In short, using a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, those who adhere to Dispensational Federalism see much in Reformed theology that is biblically faithful and sound and should be embraced. Using the same hermeneutic, the distinctions that mark all Dispensationalism are also seen to be exegetically sound and worthy of being embraced. What results is a hermeneutically driven, exegetically derived version of Dispensationalism. Nathan Busenitz states it clearly: “it’s our exegesis and our commitment to that consistent literal hermeneutic that produces these distinctives,––these theological conclusions––some of which fit, broadly speaking, under the category of reformed theology and others of which fit, broadly speaking, under the category of dispensationalism.”15

Core Tenets

What should be clear is that these iterations of Dispensationalism are not rigid systems imposed on Scripture, but are systems hermeneutically drawn from the Bible. Whether or not one agrees with the hermeneutical decisions or the final interpretation of Dispensationalism (broadly considered) doesn’t take away this fact. Despite this, noticeable differences across the history of the system can be seen. This means that no iteration has the right to claim its version as the defining version of the system.16 The definition of dispensationalism is somewhere at the intersection of all these articulations.

Peter Goeman, a dispensational professor at Shepherd’s Theological Seminary, articulated the basic tenets of Dispensationalism as:17

1. Passage Priority: the meaning of any text is in its own context. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament have priority over the others, but are equal and cohesive.

2. A distinction between Israel and the church

3. A future for ethnic Israel

4. Premillennialism

Nathan Busenitz at The Master’s Seminary articulated a similar list of core dispensational distinctives:18

1. A commitment to a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic

2. A distinction between Israel and the Church

3. Progressive Revelation contra sensus plenior

4. Premillennialism

Michael Vlach, who puts himself between the revised and progressive dispensational views, lists six essentials of dispensationalism as a system, which I quote verbatim:19

1. The primary meaning of any Bible passage is found in that passage. The New Testament does not reinterpret or transcend Old Testament passages in a way that overrides or cancels the original authorial intent of the Old Testament writers.20

2. Types exist but national Israel is not an inferior type that is superseded by the church.

3. Israel and the church are distinct; thus, the church cannot be identified as the new and/or true Israel.

4. Spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles is compatible with a future functional role for Israel as a nation.

5. The nation Israel will be both saved and restored with a unique functional role in a future earthly millennial kingdom.

6. There are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham,” thus the church’s identification as “seed of Abraham” does not cancel God’s promises to believing Jewish “seed of Abraham.”

Vlach’s six could be compressed down into a similar list to Goeman and Busenitz while still remaining faithful and including the elements he lists. We could combine and reduce all these articulations to these three basic elements:

1. A consistently applied grammatical-historical hermeneutic as the foundation for the system that does not allow for NT priority over the Old or sensus plenior (fuller meanings) hidden in the Old Testament.

2. Some distinction between Israel and the church, including a future hope for ethnic Israel

3. A premillennial reign of Christ from Jerusalem for 1000 years.

A Concluding Definition

Based on the evidence so far, we can form a definition of dispensationalism and dispensationalists that is consistent across all the iterations:

Dispensationalism is a system of Bible interpretation that applies a grammatical-historical hermeneutic to the whole Bible with the principle of passage priority, recognizing the reality of progressive revelation; consequently, dispensationalists hold to three core tenets: a distinction between Israel and the church, a future for national/ethnic Israel in the plan of God, and a future millennial reign of Christ (premillennialism).

This definition shows that Dispensationalism, contrary to the arguments (if they can be labeled as such) you may be seeing online, is not a wild innovation that just wants to baptize Jews into the Kingdom without requiring they come through Christ Jesus. It is a system hermeneutically and exegetically derived from Scripture, the highest authority over all doctrine, institutions, and men. You are free to argue against this system, just make sure that you are critiquing it as it represents itself and as it appeals to biblical evidence. In future posts we will lay out some evidence from Scripture for the distinctions of dispensationalism. We will also have an article devoted to addressing the federal side of Dispensational Federalism. In the end, it needs to be recognized that at its most basic, dispensationalism is about hermeneutics, it’s about how you interpret the Bible.

Please comment and share this article and publication so more people can be encouraged by the content.

Share The Dispensational Federalist

The question we are seeking to answer when interpreting the Bible is “What is the author intending to communicate?” This is the quest for authorial intent. This is discovered, unsurprisingly, by looking at the text. After all, reading a text presupposes that it is an articulation of a message from the author to the reader that is understandable and able to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish.1 By Literal is meant what the author originally wrote and intended to communicate. This is not a literalism that rejects normal conventions of human language (which would require that God have literal eyes, and hearts of stone be actual rock). This is a focus on accessing what the author meant to communicate to his audience.2

Which Author?

Some critics of the literal interpretation of Scripture argue that while the human author certainly wrote what he wanted to write, the greater author is God and we should be concerned with trying to understand what God says primarily3—this is sometimes articulated in such a way that it leaves the Old Testament deficient without the New Testament.4 But Scripture makes no distinction between these dual-authors.

Second Peter 1:21 reminds us God moved certain men to speak, such that their message is actually from God. Man’s words precisely communicate God’s own ideas. The way the apostles quote Scripture affirms that alone is the meaning of the text. They interchangeably discuss what the “prophet” spoke (Rom. 10:16) with what “God spoke through the prophet” (Acts 28:25) with what the “Scripture spoke” (Gal. 3:8). This affirms human intent is God’s intent and this unified intent is the legitimate meaning of Scripture.5

When seeking the author’s intent, we need not worry about finding God’s intent as opposed to the human author’s intent. They are one and the same. This is good news for us, since it means that the meaning of the text is communicated through human language and therefore discoverable.

Subscribe now

How do we find Authorial Intent?

Presupposing that the text is understandable and sufficient to communicate truth accurately, presupposing that the human author and the divine author share the same intent, we are left with wondering what steps to take to discover the meaning. Thankfully, we have the text of the author, and since it is communicated through human language, the normal rules of human language apply to help us discover the writer’s intended meaning. Here are some questions to answer when approaching any text of Scripture:6

1. Grammatical Analysis: What does the passage say (who/what is the subject, what are they doing, to whom, for what purpose, etc)?

2. Genre: What kind of writing is the book or passage? It should be interpreted according to the normal conventions of that style.

3. Historical Context: Who is writing? When? To Whom? Why?

4. Literary Context: What came before this passage in the earlier paragraphs or chapters of the book?

5. Intertextual Context: What prior Scripture is being alluded to or quoted in the passage in question?

   1. What do the quoted or alluded to passages mean in their contexts?

   2. Is there a timeless moral or theological principle being appealed to?

Once you have answered these questions, you are able to draw conclusions about what the author is intending to communicate. This is where you discover the doctrine of the text and from that you are able to extrapolate implications and applications.7

A Brief Example

A helpful example is provided in Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1. The natural question that arises when reading this citation is “How can Matthew say that this verse refers to Jesus when it seems to refer to Israel corporately?” One tentative solution is to just say that all of Israel’s experiences were typologically pointing to Christ. Therefore, Christ is the true Israel by recapitulating Israel’s experiences.8

A better solution notes that Hosea uses the exodus as a picture of the future deliverance of Israel through the ministry of the Messiah. Writing in the late 8th century BC—during the reign of Jeroboam II—he accuses Israel of covenantal unfaithfulness to the Lord (Hosea 2:1ff). But intermixed into his argument are notes of messianic hope, especially in chapter 11 where Matthew quotes. Abner Chour notes that “Hosea 11:1 uses the Exodus to show how God’s love in the first exodus will drive a second one led by Messiah who functions like a new Moses.”9 Matthew quotes Hosea, and not the book of Exodus, because Hosea––in Hosea––is already directing us to think of Yahweh’s coming salvation. Matthew’s use is contextually in sync with Hosea––we need no appeal to typology or a redemptive-historical hermeneutic that says Matthew uses Hosea in a new way in order to make the connection from Hosea 11:1 to Christ.10

How did we arrive at this conclusion? By seeking the literal sense of the text. Matthew appears to not use Hosea literally—by which is meant in keeping with Hosea’s intent in Hosea’s own context. But when we examine Hosea’s context, we see that the theological implications of his book, and especially the immediate context around 11:1, point us to look for the Lord to bring about a future salvation like the first Exodus out of Egypt. Matthew informs us that Jesus is the fulfillment of that hope.

Conclusion

While this article is brief, so brief as to barely present the concept of the literal sense of scripture, I trust that it has at least helped to form that concept in your mind. God gave us scripture to instruct us about Himself and about His salvation. That knowledge is accessible, understandable, believable, and able to do what it claims to do.

If this article was of help to you, please let me know in the comments below and share this with someone who would also enjoy reading The Dispensational Federalist.

Share The Dispensational Federalist

Edit 7.22.2026. Previously, I wrote that I used the Notebook LM for research help. I have found this tool to be entirely underwhelming and not as useful as old school, slow, careful research. To that end, I am revising my anti-AI commitment to include the entire writing process, not just the drafting of the articles.

In pursuit of clarity

“There is no future for Israel.”

“We need to recover a pre-enlightenment hermeneutic.”

“Dispensationalism is a Zionist conspiracy.”

Employing a careful grammatical–historical hermeneutic (the so-called literal interpretation of Scripture) this publication is an attempt to bring clarity to the theological and biblical issues that are often times extremely confusing. I will be dealing with issues from the distinction between Israel and the Church within the one people of God, to the biblical—and theological—covenants, to the work of Christ in His vicarious life and death, and at the risk of appearing like a dispensational sensationalist, I may even dig into some Biblical prophecy. Anything that needs Biblical clarity will be fair game. I don’t promise that you will agree with my conclusions, I do promise that you will see me get to my conclusions from careful Bible interpretation and theological reasoning.

Who is this for?

I am primarily writing this for the congregants in my church who need clarity on Biblical, theological, and cultural issues. This publication is serving a pastoral need.

This is also for the interested layman in any church who wants to go deeper than his sermon notes to deal with theology through careful logic and sound Bible interpretation. If you are in a Bible church, love expositional preaching, and want to know what the Bible says, this is for you. I hope you subscribe, share, and interact with me in the comments.

Subscribe now

Managing Expectations

Expect an academic tone, carefully structured argumentation, and seminary style citations delivered to the layperson in the pew who wants substance and theological rigor from one who aspires to be a pastor-scholar through whom the church is strengthened.

Let me make some commitments out front:

1. I won’t put my content behind a paywall. Christ has freely given me the knowledge I have, I am freely giving that knowledge away. I will enable monetization and hope you will consider supporting my efforts to produce helpful content for the church. But paying won’t enable special access to anything.

2. I won’t use AI to write, research, or to create images for me. I do utilize the Gemini Notebook LM for help in research. It is too valuable a tool not to use. However, every word that is written is from my mind, with my “voice.” This is important because the issues I am writing about require the Spirit’s illuminating ministry. Producing helpful, edifying, and biblically faithful content is not accomplished through a machine, but through careful, dependent study. Similarly, I value human created content and want to use images from the real world. As such, any post images will be from human photographers and creators.

3. I will have a regular posting schedule of one post each week. This will certainly be difficult at times but I trust it will be possible. Deo Volente

Subscribe and Join Me in This Effort

If you find this publication valuable, please subscribe to get each new post delivered to your email inbox. Please share it with your friends who will be interested. Let me know in the comments of each post what you thought and what other questions or topics need the same kind of careful treatment.

Subscribe now

But […] pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, gentleness. Fight the good fight of faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal might! Amen.

— 1 Timothy 6:11-16 (LSB)