Drippings from the Honeycomb
More to be desired are [the rules of the Lord] than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. (Psalm 19:10)
What did Paul mean when he wrote to the Galatians about the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2)?
For starters he was contrasting it with the Law of Moses, which because of the New Covenant, was no longer binding (Gal 3:15–29; 1 Cor 9:20). We never were saved by the Law (as many Jews had confused) but anticipating the Messiah, just as today one is justified through retroactive faith in Him. Was he or the Christian without a moral compass then if the Law of Moses had been fulfilled—certainly not (i.e. Gal 5:18 is not saying we can do whatever we’d like). Because the Mosaic Covenant is no more, how then shall we live? In the Bible “law” can mean a number of things (which can make it confusing). It can mean: The Bible, God’s commands, the Mosaic Covenant or Law of Moses or the moral law. Some have suggested antinomianism (there is no law) while others have opted for the other extreme of legalism (try to be saved by keeping the law). In the middle there are those who no longer see the Law of Moses as binding (Calvin- it is useful for wisdom) and those who see only those laws reinforced in the New Testament as binding (but some obviously sinful practices found in the OT are not found in the NT, like necromancy). Others see the moral law found in the Law of Moses still binding. Enter the Law of Christ, or the royal law (Ja 2:8). In 1 Cor 9:21b Paul said, “not being outside of the law of God but under the law of Christ.” Though the Law of Moses is no more that does not mean the New Covenant believer (Jew or Gentile) is left without a guide to pleasing God through obedient and right living. Christ is the King (or Lord). The King has a law. His law is binding on His citizens and non-citizens, though only His citizens fully seek to keep it with the help of the Holy Spirit. There are some elements to this law that are unique to this Covenant (e.g. baptism), however, most of it is an encapsulation of the moral law. Classically, Christians have understood the tri-partite (threefold) division of the Law of Moses: ceremonial (pointed to and fulfilled in Christ and useful in understanding the Gospel), legal (again, fulfilled in Christ, useful for wisdom and principles for civil governments—like Western society) and the moral law, which is universally binding on all people in all times. Christ fulfilled the whole law, ceremonially, legally and morally, and yet the moral law remains. We get a sense of this before and after the Law of Moses. In Gen 26:5 it says, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws”—in other words the moral law. In Galatians Paul upholds the second half of the Great Commandment (Gal 5:14a), itself a summation of the 10 Commandments, which the New Testament cites in its entirety. The Law of Christ are those commands unique to the New Covenant + the moral law. May we seek to be obedient to the Law of Christ for our good and Christ’s glory. To read more about the moral law see the 1689 Baptist Confession ch.19 and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession 1833.12. The Lord’s Day (LD) is one of the most vital means of grace the Lord has given to His people. A Lord’s Day well spent is therefore essential for spiritual vitality. To this end, and also to learn how a pastor spends the LD, allow me to share how I spend the LD.
Firstly, my week looks forward to the LD and each week begins with the LD. This is the major rhythm in my life, not because I’m a pastor but because I’m a Christian. Essential to a profitable LD is preparing for the LD by planning your week. I very seldom try to plan much of anything for a Saturday night. I want to make sure I’m well rested to spend the day well. (This includes sermon preparation, which I generally have completed during the week. Only occasionally am I writing vs. reviewing a sermon on Saturday night. I always appreciate God’s people’s prayers for me on this night). I wake grateful that the Lord has given a day of rest and worship and family. I look forward to the morning and evening worship services that will prove an integral part in spending the LD well, of our corporate worship and discipleship. There is nothing planned for the day apart from rest, worship and family. No shopping (online or otherwise), no special events, no projects, no recreational activities, no travel, etc. The Lord’s Day is His appointment with me and so I give the day wholly to the Lord; it is His. While I do seek to usually take Monday as a day off for projects, family or writing the LD is my/the Sabbath. My service is part of my worship. I’m usually up before anyone else in my home on the LD. After a time of general prayer I review my message and pray for the services and the day. We have breakfast and do my son’s devotional and then get ready to go to church. I try to make this as hassle free as possible so going to church doesn’t become a stressful affair. As a pastoral family we’re normally there early (often first to arrive and last to leave). I don’t count the very act of being at church on the LD as contributing to ‘my week’s work’—I’m a Christian first, I’d be there anyway. However, I do try to take the extra time into consideration of my wider week’s ministry. After getting any last minute things ready (missing music pages, anything for the sermon) and helping ‘open things up’ those involved in the morning service meet together for prayer. We then fellowship and welcome people to the service (As we don’t presently have greeters I try to do this). One sacrifice in the service, since I often assist with the leading of singing is that I’m not able to help parent in the pew like other fathers. After the service I usually greet people and hopefully engage in relevant ministry conversations. On the way home we usually take a short scenic drive and then have a light lunch. Occasionally we’ll have guest speakers or members/visitors over for a meal, though my wife’s health doesn’t always allow for this. In the afternoon there will quite likely be a nap, some p.m. sermon review, reading a Christian book, taking some quiet time to pray, a short family walk, etc. We often will have a small snack before heading off the evening service. This service is the true highlight of my week. I love beginning the week on the Lord’s Day in worship but I love crowning the day with the p.m. service. With minimal set up we look forward to an informal service. After the service we have refreshments, which is a great time to catch up with people and speak about the things of the Lord. After the p.m. service, which has been part of my life now for a decade, we return home for a tradition of crackers, cheese and jelly. Following this we call some family members to check in. Then we retire for the evening with a story, a devotional reading and a reading from the Bible followed by prayers. After a busy yet restful day we all seek to get a good night’s sleep. Many ask how I can do as much as I do. The simple answer is by seeking to spend the LD well. I still have room to grow in spending the day well and hope you will likewise contemplate how you will grow in spending a profitable Lord’s Day. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Ro 2:28–29)
Transitioning from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant can be disorientating, especially when it comes to language. Take for example “Jew.” This word can be very confusing to understand as it has multiple meanings[1] and ways in which it is used. Most [ethnic/religious] Jews in Jesus’ day were nominal, i.e. they were outwardly conforming to the Old Covenant (+ their added traditions, Mk 7:7). However, they were not inwardly hoping in the Messiah or abiding by the Old Covenant in faith. Though many sat under John’s preparatory ministry it is difficult to know the depth of their repentance and faith; especially when Jesus often called them “an evil generation.” The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed covenant of the visible and invisible, unbelievers and believers. In Jesus day there were few true Jews. Yet during His ministry, slowly, many began to believe in Him as the promised Messiah/King (or be positively inclined toward Him). Some overtly followed Him (11/12 disciples) and some secretly (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea). The best phrase to describe this group would be “the faithful remnant.” (Mal 3:16–18). As the New Covenant was fully inaugurated through Jesus’ life/death/resurrection/ascension/Pentecost the Jews of the faithful remnant were the ones who embraced Jesus as their Messiah/King. It began with the 120, grew by 3000 at Pentecost, then by others (Acts 2:47), five thousand (Acts 4:4), etc (this continues with the later missionary journeys). Until Acts 8–11:19 the New Covenant community was exclusively ethnically Jewish. It was made up of ethnic Jews who were true Jews through faith. As time progressed, and as Gentiles were added to this body, various names developed: disciples, believers, followers of the Way, Christians, etc. It was becoming clear that the New Covenant community was different from that of the Old Covenant community. The linguistic challenge is Paul was a Jew ethnically but not a Jew [in the old covenant sens] religiously or spiritually, yet was a true Jew because he believed! He was a Jew but not an “unbelieving Jew” (Acts 14:2). In Ro 2, to show the ethnic-religious Jews were lost and in need of saving, Paul said those who trust in Jesus, Jew and Gentile, are the true Jews. Thus, while we may speak of ethnic or religious Jews or members of Judaism today the true Jews are all those who follow Jesus and are part of the people of God, the New Covenant community. A similar article is titled, Galatians & Israel [1] Jew can mean: of the tribe of Judah, resident of Judea, a synonymn for Israel, ethnic descendants of Abraham, those who practice Judaism or God’s people. In the wider Christian world you will find varied views on Creation ranging from an historic six day creation to theistic evolution and everything in between. Certainly God as creator, creation ex nilo (out of nothing), the existence of Adam and Eve, a Fall, etc, are all primary views. “I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth” the Apostles Creed says. However, is the how as important? How did God create the world? This—in my view, strictly speaking—is a secondary matter; yet nevertheless so indispensable to the Gospel that it borders on being a primary matter and hence worthy of our attention.
The absence of an historic six-day creation has at least 5 implications for the Gospel: 1. Is it reliable? Many treat Gen 1–11 as if it were pre-history, somehow in a different category to the rest of Genesis and in this way able to reckon Genesis with science. (Even though literarily those chapters are written in the same Hebrew narrative style; it’s all meant to be viewed as history). When Jesus spoke about creation in relation to His teaching on divorce He (the Creator) cited it as if the narrative were true, “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…” (Mt 19:4). If we want people to believe the rest of the Bible, including the Gospel, we must remain committed to the trustworthiness of its foundation. 2. The basis of the Gospel’s backbone (a biblical worldview). Every story stands or falls upon the story that came before it. Genesis answers questions of origins and lays the foundation for biblical doctrines. If you remove the story’s foundation you jeopardize the story itself. For example the 9 Cs have often been used to simplify the overarching story of the Bible: Creation/Corruption/Curse/Catastrophe/Confusion/Covenant/Christ/Cross/Consummation However if Gen 1–11 (even 12) are not real events in some meaningful way then this is all you are left with: Christ/Cross/Consummation The Gospel story then stands on shaking ground. 3. The impact on other fundamental beliefs. The Creation account, as we’re seeing more and more in our culture, matters for other fundamental Christian beliefs, most notably gender and sexuality. Both Jesus and Paul root their theology of gender and sexuality in Genesis. Churches most impacted by cultural views on these subjects also tend to have the most fluidity when it comes to their views of Genesis. 4. The origin of death. This is crucial. The Bible clearly says in multiple places that death came as a result of sin (e.g. Ro 6:23a). That can only be true if the narrative in Genesis is true. The moment you allow for an old earth you admit death before the Fall. The whole Gospel revolves around Jesus being the solution to death that resulted from the Fall that didn’t exist beforehand. 5. The first and second Adam. There are other theories as to how Adam was really the first man, however, how is Paul to be taken at His word that Adam was the father of all peoples (Acts 17:26) if in fact he wasn’t. Add to this Christ as the second Adam (1 Cor 15:45, c.f. v. 21–22) who through faith becomes our federal head so we no longer suffer from the effects of the first Adam. *** So questions of Creation are not simply a peripheral issue to be avoided because in our culture it happens to be controversial; with gentleness and respect we must insist upon its great Gospel significance. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17, Sermon on the Mount)What did Jesus mean here? How did Christ fulfil the Law? What does that mean for the Law itself?
Christ Fulfilled the Law The Law can mean: a) God’s decrees, b) Scripture, c) a Covenant, d) the Mosaic Covenant (or Covenant with Israel at Sinai), or e) God’s moral law. Given the context in the Sermon on the Mount it is almost certainly “d,” the Mosaic Law; yet with a twist. To abolish means to unyoke, as in unyoking an animal from a cart. As such it means to break or destroy what was. To fulfil means is to be full or to meet. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day feared He was a religious revolutionary who would upset their cherished possession, or rather their misinterpretations and additions (Mt 23:4; Mk 7:7), for Jesus, being perfect, never broke God’s Law. He would be much more radical and still more conservative than they thought. Christ fulfilled the Law by doing what Adam, doing what the descendants of Abraham, and of Israel and the Kings could not do—be that perfect covenant partner. No human can by their works “fulfil the Laws demands” (“Rock of Ages”). Christ could fulfil the Law, as Matthew is keen to point out, because He was the lawgiver greater than Moses. The New Covenant In fulfilling, or meeting, the demands of previous covenants, Jesus inaugurated the promised New Covenant (Jer 31:31; Ezk 36; Heb 8 et al).Jesus’ life and ministry marked a watershed or transition period between the covenants (it was inter-covenantal). When He died the veil was torn. After He ascended the Spirit was given. There is a newness in the New Covenant. New (kainos) means something new in kind, like a new invention; it isn’t new (neos) as in a new type of car but a new form of travel like a teleporter. (The NC doesn’t abolish, replace or succeed the Old, it fulfils the promises of the Law and Prophets. It is the direct continuation of God’s plans). According to Gal 3:15–29 the Law of Moses was temporary and served the purpose of exposing our sin and making the promise to Abraham essential. It also has a guiding quality. As such certain aspects of the Law of Moses were no longer necessary. Since Christ was the sacrifice for sin and the Holy Spirit now made believers the living temple of His presence the Temple was obsolete and hence the ceremonial system. The dietary laws (an external sign of holiness) were no longer necessary for Christ taught that holiness flowed from Christ’s imputation and through a new heart cleansed from within by the Spirit. (Scripture emphatically declares this in Mk 7:19b, “Thus He declared all foods clean,” c.f. Acts 10). Circumcision as the covenant sign gave way to baptism, the Passover to the Lord’s Supper (Lk 22:20), and so the list could go on. A Law Remains (The Law of Christ or Moral Law) How then could Jesus say in Mt 5:18, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Likewise, how could he commend the “scribes and Pharisees” pursuit of righteousness, or holiness, (v. 19), and state this legal righteousness was needed to enter the Kingdom? (Truly, Christ is our righteousness and the Spirit enables us to live righteously, thus guaranteeing our place in the Kingdom, both present and eternal). In saying that He would fulfil the Law of Moses and yet the law would never pass away Jesus is commending to us the Law of Christ, or the Moral Law (Gal 5:14, 6:2). While the Law of Moses as a whole has been fulfilled in Christ, a law remains which is the moral law found within it (see 2nd London Baptist Confession, ch. 19, for the classic Christian understanding of the threefold division of the Law). This is binding upon all believers to follow as our guide to holiness by the Spirit. Being a Christian I’ve always been a Creationist in a general sense. Without very robust discipleship when I was young I was exposed to everything from Young Earth Creationism to forms of Old Earth Creationism and everything that exists in between within contemporary Christian culture. I grew up in an age where evolution was mildly present in the education system and so felt a tension between the Bible and prevailing beliefs. By default I affirmed some basics of Creation but also was willing to settle upon aspects of an older earth viewpoint. However, I had other more pressing questions in my discipleship and so this question was left for another day.
Fast forward to 2017–2018 and this still described my position, though I was continually bumping up against the subject and knew—not in any way avoiding it—that it was a subject I really needed to get a more decided view of. Then I became what I like to call a Classic, or Younger Earth, Creationist (Classic because some forms of Young Earth Creationism can still bear some peculiarities). As I’m not a scientist, though certainly scientific, most of the arguments that unhinged my view were biblical-philosophical, etc, rather than science based. Here are the key points that led to me becoming a Creationist:
*Since then other blocks have been laid that have reinforced my view (such as the distinction between observational science and speculative science- science is not history or religion, there are questions it cannot answer). As we see the negative fallout of evolutionary thought in our world (e.g. hopelessness and immorality) I hope many Christians who aren’t Creationists in the strict sense will see the value of reconsidering these matters and that this testimony has given you cause for consideration (or encouragement if I’ve been preaching to the choir). On a recent visit of our area nursing home a thoughtful resident said to me after the chapel service, “I can tell that your church isn’t a slack church. There are too many slack churches these days!” I perceived this lady had attended a mainline church in her day and witnessed it, and others like it, steadily decline due to slackness. (The tragedy is they had not always been slack). By slackness she meant faithful, true, devoted, committed to the Faith.
Many dying (and dead) churches are:
Healthy churches are:
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations... Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. We can over and under shoot in sports, hunting and when driving. All of these can be detrimental. What is more detrimental is when we over or undershoot in the presentation of the Gospel. What I mean is when we diminish the Gospel by limiting it or when we embellish it and so enlarge it; when we bring the question of the extent of the atonement into its proclamation. The Gospel is neither "Christ died for you," nor "Christ may have died for you." The Gospel is the Gospel, it does not depend upon the extent of the atonement. When this over/under happens, I confess, my neck twitches because of the biblical and theological imprecision involved, not to mention the unnecessary insensitivity it shows to Christians of differing beliefs (General and Particular)- can't we simply agree in the Gospel? Before we get the Gospel out, we must first get it right. Gospel agreement is foundational to salvation and Christian fellowship. Limiting It I have met and heard (both historically and present day) of those who only preach the Gospel to God’s elect, or refrain from offering the Gospel or calling sinner’s to repent for fear of preaching to the unelect. (Yet we show we are among the elect by believing the Gospel!). This paralyzes hearers from believing the Gospel because they are left wondering… It also reduces faith to a mere passive acceptance or realization that you are among the elect. Though the Bible speaks about election, NO WHERE does it tie it to the Gospel's proclamation. Enlarging It I have met and heard (both historically and present day) of those who preach the Gospel and insist, even base it solely or rest it heavily upon, the claim that Christ died for everyone (in a specific sense) or that Christ died for you (in a specific sense), and that all you need to do to be saved is to realize this. (Certainly there is universal value in Christ’s death and the Gospel is to be published to everyone). This often immunizes hearers from truly believing the Gospel because they think they’re ok because of Christ’s death or have an interest in Christ or passively "accept" Him vs actively trusting in the Gospel or think that belief is the same as mental assent (e.g. if you believe Christ died for you, you will be saved). Though the Bible speaks about the extent of the atonement, NO WHERE does it specifically tie it to the Gospel's proclamation. What then is the Gospel? Gospel (original god spell, or good news in old English) comes from the Greek word euaggelion. In the ancient world this was the announcement of a king’s victory. It was good news! Jesus is that King who through his life, death and resurrection won a spiritual victory over sin and death and hell. Trusting in His Gospel brings to the believer all of the benefits the King won. Its proclamation doesn't depend on the extent of the atonement and may be described as: What is the difference between these two sins?
A variety of Greek words are rendered in English translations as gossip or slander. Two examples can both be conveniently found in one location: 2 Cor 12:20: “For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarrelling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.” Slander: to speak down to in a hostile way, to speak evil, defaming talk (here); or abusive language, slow in calling good good, litt. blasphemy (here). To make a false or damaging statement about someone. If from the pulpit I spoke militantly and poorly of someone then that is slander. Gossip: secret whisperings (like a snake charmer) (here); or sometimes foolish talk (literally bubbling talk (here). Sharing casual or unconstrained reports about someone, without their consent, which may or may not be confirmed as true. If in my visitation I shared titbits about someone that was private knowledge that would be gossip. Both may be true or false, however, slander tends to be more open/public whereas gossip tends to be private/covert. Hence why they are easily confused. Each sin flows from our heart, or our nature (Mt 15:19); and speech sin is no small matter for through it our world is set ablaze (Ja 3:6). If we persist in our sinfulness then speech sin is included in the list of sins that will prevent us from entering heaven (1 Cor 6:10, revilers, litt. verbal abusers). This is not because of the sin itself but because persistent sin shows that the Holy Spirit does not indwell us and that means we’ve never repented of our sin and received forgiveness and the gift of eternal life. Oh may we repent of slander and gossip and so receive forgiveness to walk in freedom and the Spirit to help us to do so. |
Featured BlogsLearn about Jesus Author:
|
LocationPO Box 73,
144 Lorne Street, Markdale N0C 1H0 |
Join by zoom |
Contact us |
Donate |
|