Sound of Grace, Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan2012.

to Paul. It is what he elsewhere calls “the ‘law’ of the Mes-siah” (Gal. 6:2).

We do not know a lot about the situation in Philippi, but from the content of the letter, we do know there was dis-unity. We are not sure why, but Paul calls them to unity in love. We also know they were suffering (Phil. 1:29). Let’s look at the passage:

Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and com-passion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfi sh ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking

In our previous article on this subject, we looked at how Abraham understood the promise of the land described in Genesis 15:18-21. In this article, we want to look at how David understood the covenant that God made with him concerning his son, an eternal kingdom, and a dwelling place for God. Our sources of infor-mation include both the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. Our hermeneutic privileges the New—we are examining how the writers of the New Testament Scriptures interpret the kingdom promises of the Old Testament Scriptures. This examination functions as a case study within an attempt to establish hermeneuti-cal principles that will help us understand biblical prophecy. Thus far, we have established three principles: First, we consider the promise/prophecy as stated in its Old Testament text. Next, we ask questions of that text. Finally, we turn to the New Testament for answers to those questions.

First, let us discover exactly what God promised in the covenant he made with David, which is described in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17.

In 2 Samuel 7:1-7, we read that David, after achieving peace for Israel, told the

… It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace … Hebrews 13:9

New Covenant Theology andProphecy ― Part 2

John G. Reisinger

G RS O U N D O F

A EC

Do you have a Jesus mindset? Another way to ask this is: are you a loving person? Or are you a Christ-like person? The content of this article can be summed up by 1 John 4:10-11, which reads, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifi ce for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”

God has loved us in and through Jesus, and we are called to imitate his loving action. We will see that in the cross of Christ, we fi nd both the provision for salvation as well as the pattern for life. We fi nd the source of salvation as well as the shape of Christian living. We fi nd the power to live a new life and the paradigm for how to live it.

New Testament scholar Michael Gorman has called Philippians 2 Paul’s “master story.” This is love according

Cruciform Love: Philippians 2:1-11, Part IA. Blake White

Reisinger—Continued on page 2

White—Continued on page 12

In This IssueNew Covenant Theology and Prophecy―Part 2

John G. Reisinger1

Cruciform Love: Philippians 2:1-11, Part I

A. Blake White1

Imitating the Incarnation: B.B. Warfi eld on Following Christ

Fred Zaspel3

New Covenant Theology: Is There Still a Role for the Imperatives?

Dr. J. David Gilliland5

The Allegory of the CaveSteve Carpenter

7

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound of Grace are deductible under section 170 of the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The subscription price is shown below. This is a paper unashamedly committed to the truth of God’s sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us fi nancially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person is not an endorsement of all that person believes, but it merely means that we thought that a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden and Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: [email protected].

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 – Phone 800-376-4146 or 301-473-8781 Fax 240-206-0373. Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions to: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16, Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permis-sion. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permis-sion. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ContributionsOrders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribu-tion to Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to fi nd the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to con-tinue—$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a pdf fi le emailed, that is avail-able for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this time, please call or drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to continue sending Sound of Grace free of charge.

Reisinger—Continued from page 1


prophet Nathan that he wanted to build a house for God to replace the tabernacle. Nathan agreed, and was sure that God would bless the idea. That night, God told Nathan that he, God, did not want David to build him a house. Instead, God wanted Nathan to inform David that, he, God, was going to build a house for Israel and for David (vv 9b-17):

‘Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men on earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.

‘The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with fl oggings infl icted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation. (NIV)

In this revelation, God promises:1

1) to make David famous

2) to give Israel their own perma-

1 In this article, we will have space to focus only on part of the list we glean from 2 Samuel 7:1-7. We will examine promises 3-6: to build David a house; to raise up one of David’s sons to succeed him; to allow that son to build God’s house; and to establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever.

nent homeland and security from all their enemies

3) to build a house for David2

4) to raise up one of David’s sons to succeed him

5) to allow that son to build God’s house

6) to establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever

David responds to these promises with gratitude, humility, and assur-ance (2 Samuel 7:18-29).

Next, let us ask questions of the text. Did God keep those promises to David? Did God build a house for Da-vid? Did God raise up one of David’s sons to sit on David’s throne? Did that son build God a house? Is some son of David presently seated on that throne and will he and his descendants con-tinue forever to rule their kingdom? To how many of these details can we answer affi rmatively (yes, God has done this, and here is the biblical evidence), and to how many must we answer negatively (no, we have no biblical evidence that this promise has been fulfi lled and therefore we con-clude that its fulfi llment is future)?

These questions are similar to those we asked concerning God’s covenant with Abraham and his seed. How did David understand the promises that God made to him? Did he literalize them or spiritualize them? How are we, who live at a time so greatly removed from David, to understand these promises?

As we seek to answer these ques-tions, we need to be aware of the trap of creating a false dichotomy. Some-times, answers are not a straightfor-ward yea or nay. Sometimes, answers are both. We may fi nd that, as we investigate these questions, their scriptural answers fall into the cat-egory of double fulfi llment. Some of the promises concerning offspring are

2 House can mean physical building or it can mean family or posterity.

Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan 2012

was rich became poor for our sakes stands as our model.

Warfi eld begins his exposition not-ing that the force of the apostle’s ex-hortation stems from a consideration of the deity of Christ and the nature of his condescension, reminding us somewhat fully — even if in only a few quick and lively yet compressed phrases—of who Christ was and the lengths he went for our salvation. Only with this fi xed in our minds does his exhortation gain its force. His purpose here is ethical, but his exhor-tation is given weight by a consider-ation of a rather robust summary of the doctrine of our Lord’s person. It is our Lord’s example we are called to follow. But just who is this Lord Jesus Christ?

First, Warfi eld carefully notes that the apostle declares that Jesus is no other than God Himself. “Who was before in the form of God,” are his words, unmistakably affi rming his full deity. He was “in specifi c character” none other than God. The apostle’s affi rmation is that Jesus “had all those characterizing qualities which make God God, the presence of which constitutes God, and in the absence of which God does not exist. He who is “in the form of God,” is God.

A clear understanding of the deity of Christ is essential to an apprecia-tion of the action he took in his incar-nation. “He took the form of a servant by coming into the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming subject even unto death, and that the death of the cross.”

Zaspel—Continued on page 10

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfi eld (1851-1921) of Old Princeton is best known for his massive defense of the doctrine of inspiration. This truly is his legacy to the church. And so it is surprising to many to learn that this was not the center of his attention in his theological writings. It was a leading area of attention, to be sure, for it was in many respects the issue of the day. And he devoted well over a thousand published pages to the theme. But his center of attention is found, rather, in the person and work of Christ. First and foremost, B. B. Warfi eld was a Christologian.

His day was marked by a con-vinced anti-supernaturalism. The advance in the sciences and technol-ogy had made its impact, leaving western society with a distinct sense of self-suffi ciency and optimism. And in such an atmosphere, men began to question what involvement God really had in human affairs. Did God create? Did he supernaturally inspire men to write His Word? And did he really in-vade humanity? Did he truly become incarnate? Is Jesus really God? And if so, in what sense?

This anti-supernatural atmosphere had made its way into professing Christianity, and now the very per-son of Jesus Christ was held under question also. And just as he did with the doctrine of inspiration, Warfi eld stood up to meet the attack and left the church with a massive defense of the historical Christian doctrine of the person of Christ also. Indeed, his writings on the person and work of Christ signifi cantly surpass (in volume at least) his work on the doctrine of inspiration. Both were fundamental

issues. But here we reach the heart of the heart of Christianity: the incarnate savior, the Lord from heaven come to the rescue of his people.

The specifi c question at issue is whether Jesus was both God and man. And if we speak of him as God incarnate, did he retain his deity in his incarnate state? Or did he in becom-ing man leave his deity behind him? At stake in this question, for Warfi eld, was the gospel itself.

Within this context, Philippians 2:5-8 became the subject of endless discussion. Warfi eld treats the passage in many places in his published works but perhaps most famously in his ser-mon, “Imitating the Incarnation,”11 in which he both expounds the doctrine of the incarnation with great theologi-cal precision and applies this doctrine to Christian living.

Let us keep the passage fi rmly in mind as we trace out Warfi eld’s famous exposition.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:5-8).

The apostle’s intent is to exhort us to Christlikeness. Specifi cally, he would have us imitate the spirit that animated our Lord in the act of his incarnation. This one who though he 1 B. B. Warfi eld, The Saviour of the

World (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1991), 245-70.

Imitating the Incarnation:B. B. Warfi eld on Following Christ

Fred G. Zaspel

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183aspect of the promise.

Let us examine this kingdom in a bit more detail. Look at the timing of the establishment of the kingdom promised to David. It is to take place while “David sleeps with the fathers,” or before the general resurrection that takes place at the second coming. On the day of Pentecost, God established, through David’s greater son, the kingdom that he had promised David. God did this “while David slept with the fathers.”

And when thy days be fulfi lled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (2 Sam. 7:12, KJV, emphasis added)

First Chronicles 17:11 also estab-lishes the Davidic kingdom prior to the resurrection of the dead—while David is in the grave.

And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go [to be] with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. (KJV, emphasis added)

The Holy Spirit is explicit about the timing of the kingdom’s establish-ment. It happens while David is sleep-ing in the grave. Why else would Pe-ter call attention to the fact that David was dead and in a tomb at that very moment? It is because the establish-ing of the kingdom was to take place while David slept with the fathers. In Acts 2, Peter is saying, “The kingdom is right on schedule. David is in that tomb, as you can see, just as God told David, and Christ, David’s greater son, has been raised up—resur-rected—and is right now seated on the promised throne at God’s right hand reigning over his newly established kingdom.”

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch Da-vid, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. (Acts 2:29, KJV)

Peter tells us that David was


fulfi lled by Solomon alone, some by Jesus alone, and some by both Solo-mon and Jesus.

Before we proceed further, let us establish the legitimacy of reading Jesus back into this passage. If one of our hermeneutical tasks is to under-stand the text as David understood it, how can we possibly place Jesus in it? David lived roughly one thousand years before Jesus was born. Our answer is that we have no indication from this Old Testament text that Da-vid had knowledge of this particular offspring. But although our herme-neutical task begins with David in this text, it does not end there. We have the inspired testimony of the writers of the New Testament, and they in-form us that David, knowing that God would place one of his descendents on his throne, spoke of the resurrection and exaltation of Messiah (Acts 2:30, 31, 34, 35).

The writers of the New Testament believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah; therefore, they read him into God’s promises to David. David’s understanding of God’s promises included a messianic fulfi llment, even though he did not know the specifi c identity of Messiah (i.e., David did not know that Messiah would be Jesus of Nazareth). So which of the promises may we view as fulfi lled by David’s offspring, Solomon, which by David’s offspring, Messiah Jesus, and which by both?

God raised up Solomon, who succeeded David as King of Israel. We have the testimony of 1 Kings that David understood Solomon as his successor in keeping with God’s promise (1 Kings 1:48): “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who has granted someone to sit on my throne this day, my own eyes seeing it.” We know, also from 1 Kings 2:4, that David envisioned Solomon as the beginning of a provisional, continuous line of successors: “[t]hat the LORD may establish his word that he spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons

pay close attention to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel’” (NIV).

With regard to this promise, or rather, to this confl ation of two prom-ises (to raise up one of David’s sons to succeed him and to establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever), we have the testimony of Peter in Acts 2. Peter, in his sermon, alludes explic-itly to the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12 and equates David’s descendant with Messiah, whom he identifi es as Jesus. Notice that the son, whom God prom-ised in the Old Testament Scriptures to “raise up” and whose kingdom he would establish, becomes, in the New Testament Scriptures, Christ (Mes-siah Jesus) who is “resurrected.”

And when thy days be fulfi lled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up THY SEED after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (2 Sam. 7:12, KJV, emphasis added)

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch Da-vid, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the fl esh, he would raise up CHRIST to sit on his throne… (Acts 2:29, 30, KJV, empha-sis added)

According to Peter, David un-derstood this (he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ [Acts 2:31]). As I mentioned earlier, we learn this only from the New Tes-tament Scriptures.

When God promised to establish an everlasting kingdom and to raise up one of David’s sons to sit on the throne of that kingdom, he was talk-ing in one sense about Solomon and his immediate descendants, and in another sense, about the resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Mes-siah. David was a prophet to whom God revealed these things; thus, he understood the double fulfi llment Reisinger—Continued on page 6


preach, but will not teach”:

“The Christian life is not about do-ing but being.”

“The Christian life is not about what you do, but what God has done for you and is doing in you.”

“The Christian life is not about obedience to rules and written com-mandments. For after all, didn’t Paul say, “When the commandment came, I died,” and “The letter kills”?

Many will likely object to the way in which I am characterizing these contemporary statements, insisting that they refer to the doctrine of jus-tifi cation or to the fact that God is the ultimate cause of every aspect of our salvation. There is no doubt that what is meant by many is nothing more than the fact that “salvation is of the Lord,” or in the words of the apostle John, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the fl esh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12, 13) Perhaps that is what is intended, but unfortunately, our rhetoric has produced a theologi-cal stepchild that is best refl ected in an example from the contemporane-ous Christian music scene:

Give me rules, I will break them

Give me lines, I will cross them

I need more than a truth to believe, I need truth that lives, moves, and breathes

More like falling in love than something to believe in

More like losing my heart than giving my allegiance

briefl y put this issue into its contem-porary theological context, especially as it applies to New Covenant Theol-ogy (NCT).

(1) With respect to soteriology in general, on one extreme is the New Perspective on Paul, a theology that I believe obscures or undermines the doctrine of justifi cation by blurring or ignoring the distinction between it and sanctifi cation. At the other end of the spectrum are those who confuse sanctifi cation with justifi ca-tion—treating sanctifi cation solely as an accomplished reality, or at least separating the believer from the pro-cess in terms of willful obedience to the written Word.

(2) With respect to the concept of the written Word and commandment, on one extreme are those who hold to the classic reformed view of tertius usus legis (the third use of the law), and those who take a highly reduc-tionist approach, seeing the ethical imperatives as merely a description of the Spirit’s activity.

(3) And third, but not least, it is important to recognize the part that this issue plays in the broader discus-sion of the authority and the suffi -ciency of Scripture. It is part of our “battle for the Bible,” a battle being fought not with traditional skeptics or higher critics but within the context of evangelicalism.

Unfortunately, part of the prob-lem lies in our rhetoric. It seems that evangelicalism has developed a set of poignant summary phrases that may be partly true, but are sometimes pre-sented and increasingly accepted as the whole truth. Statements like these fall into the category of “things that

Gilliland—Continued on page 14

NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Is There Still a Role for the Imperatives?

Part 1 of 2Dr. J. David Gilliland

(Presented at the Providence Theo-logical Seminary Doctrinal Confer-ence, 2011. Also availalbe on the PTS website: www.ptsco.org)

“There is perhaps no part of divin-ity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as the stating of the precise agreement and difference be-tween the two dispensations of Moses and Christ.” (Jonathan Edwards )

I begin this presentation with the acknowledgement that not much has changed in this regard since Edwards’ day. But I trust, that even in a small way, this study will help bring some clarity to the diffi culties associated with this subject. Generally speak-ing, this message will fall to the side of continuity with respect to the New and Old Testaments. Last year at this conference, I gave a message entitled “The New Covenant and the Implica-tions for the Christian Life,” a per-spective that I would place to the side of discontinuity. So let me suggest that at some point these two presenta-tions be considered as a unit.

The doctrine of sanctifi cation in the New Covenant is a dynamic relationship between the Spirit, Word, and conscience within the context of the local body, a relationship apparent in one of Paul’s fi rst letters, “because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction” (I Thess. 1:5). In this paper I would like to focus predominantly on the relationship between the Spirit and the Word, especially with regard to the commandments and imperatives and the role they play in the Christian life.

First, I believe it will be helpful to

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183


fully aware of what would take place. Christ would be “raised from the dead and sit on his throne” (Acts 2:30). The “seated on the throne” immediately follows the “raising up” or resurrection of Christ. Peter gives no indication that either he or David anticipated a thousand year period between the resurrection of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom. Ac-cording to Peter, when David contem-plated God’s promise, he included in it the resurrection of Messiah, which necessarily entailed the establishment of the promised kingdom.

David understood what was going to happen. He was going to die and he would be buried. While he was dead in the grave, God was going to raise up one of his sons, Christ, to sit on his throne. David saw that resurrection and enthronement as the fulfi llment of the covenant promise that God made to him in 2 Samuel 7. Peter views the day of Pentecost as evidence of the ascension to the throne promised to David’s son and the establishment of the kingdom promised in Joel. All of this takes place pre-general resurrec-tion, while “David is sleeping with the fathers.” As I write this, David is still sleeping in the grave, awaiting the second coming, and his greater son, Christ, currently sits on the throne of the eternal kingdom he established at his resurrection and ascension. As far as David and Peter are concerned, the kingdom God promised to David is not awaiting fulfi llment; it has been established.

What of the other promises? God promised that David’s son would build a house for God. Solomon built a great house for God (2 Chron. 2:6). This was a physical temple made with stone and wood. It must have been a beautiful piece of architec-ture. Messiah Jesus also built a great and beautiful house for God. This is a spiritual temple made with living stones. The church is the “temple of God,” the location where God dwells. Again, we have a double fulfi llment,

with both Solomon and Jesus fulfi ll-ing the promise.

How are we to understand God’s promise to build David a house? Da-vid wanted to build a house for God, but God said he would build David a house. The house that God promised to build for David is the same house that David’s greater son was going to build for God. Here, too, we have the blending of two promises into one fulfi llment. David’s house is the temple that God the Holy Spirit built for David’s greater son. It was the church—the temple described in the New Testament Scriptures. Solomon understood this.

But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who [am] I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifi ce before him? (2 Chron. 2:6, KJV)

Both Stephen and Paul echoed this same truth. They knew that the physical temple was not God’s ulti-mate fulfi llment; it was only a type of God’s true and fi nal temple.

…Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet. (Acts 7:47, 48, KJV)

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. (Acts 17:24, KJV)

The book of Hebrews gives us clear New Testament evidence as to the ultimate intent in the promise of God to build a house for David. The author of this text specifi cally calls the church—redeemed sinners—“God’s house” and “his house.” We, the church, are the temple, or house, where God dwells. We are the “house of David.” The church is the dwelling place for God where he would be, not just with us, but actually in us. This is the ultimate goal of redemption. God does not build with bricks and mor-tar; he builds with redeemed men and women. He uses living stones.

Therefore, holy brothers, who

share in the heavenly calling, fi x your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast. (Hebrews 3:1-6, NIV)

Some may ask if double fulfi llment could apply to God’s promise to build David a house. In such a scenario, the church would serve as the true temple, spiritually fulfi lling the promises made to David, with the physical temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 functioning as the natural, literal fulfi llment. Included in that literal ful-fi llment are animal sacrifi ces. Scofi eld provides a heading at Ezekiel 40:5—Vision of the millennial Temple—that indicates his belief that God’s “house” promise to David awaits future fulfi llment. In a note, Scofi eld comments, “The last nine chapters of Ezekiel have posed numerous prob-lems for expositors. Five explanations have been offered.” The problem to which he refers is the identity of the temple. He lists four explanations and explains why he thinks that they are untenable. He then lists the fi fth option, which is the one he holds. He understands the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 as a material building, yet to be constructed:

(5) The preferable interpretation is that Ezekiel gives a picture of the millennial Temple. Judging from the broad context of the prophecy (the time subsequent to Israel’s regathering and conversion) and the testimony of other Scriptures (Isa. 66; Ezek. 6; 14), this interpretation is in keeping with God’s prophetic program for the mil-lennium. The Church is not in view here, but rather it is a prophecy for the



Carpenter—Continued on page 9

“Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart.” Luke 9:4

“The Allegory of the Cave” in Book VII of Plato’s Republic is one of the most famous analogies in all of Plato’s works. In the allegory, Socrates describes a mythical scenario in which what people take to be real is, in fact, only an illusion. He imag-ines a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their arms and legs held in place, but their heads are also fi xed, compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fi re, and between the fi re and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads “including fi gures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materi-als.” The prisoners watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are only shadows. The prisoners become familiar with the shadows recognizing their familiar shapes, and they assign names to them. They even create a game where they attempt to guess what shadows will appear next, and the one with the most accurate guesses during the game receives great praise and a prize when it is over.

Because it is the only reality they have ever known, the prisoners take the shadows to be real things, not just refl ections of reality, but reality itself, since that’s all they have ever seen. So, reality for these prisoners consists of nothing but shadows on the wall.

Socrates then imagines that one of these prisoners is freed, permitted to stand up, and is shown the things that had cast the shadows. But, knowing only the partial images of the shad-ows, he doesn’t recognize the real things for what they are and cannot

name them. He still believes the world of shadows on the wall to be more real than what he actually sees.

Then he imagines that this freed prisoner is forcibly dragged out of the cave into the blinding light of the sun. He portrays him now as completely distressed, because he is unable to see even one of the things that he has imagined as the true reality, namely the shadows on the wall.

After some time on the surface, however, the freed prisoner adjusts to his new setting. He sees more and more things around him, and his per-ception of reality begins to undergo a gradual transformation.

Following this, Socrates imagines a return to the cave. But the former prisoner is no longer used to the dark-ness, and he can no longer engage in the prisoners’ empty game of receiv-ing honors, praises and prizes for best guessing which shadows follow which on the wall. However, if that prisoner, who was permitted for a season to see the true reality, nevertheless had a permanent destiny to be imprisoned in the cave, when he is returned to the cave, Socrates poses a question. Would he not be infuriated toward the one who had temporarily freed him in the fi rst place? He would see his eyes as having been corrupted for a season only, and it wouldn’t have been worth his going up in the fi rst place! And, if he were somehow able to get his hands on the one who had given him temporary release, would he not kill him?

Socrates takes this allegory in directions that it is not our quest to pursue here, but I wanted to cite it because it has some striking images in it that will bear upon our study. I want to make two observations from the

“Allegory of the Cave.”

1. There is a striking pictorial like-ness in the allegory to the story of our salvation. Our lost estate in Adam has left us prisoners in a dark cave. In our darkness, we falsely construe every-thing around us, constructing illusions as reality. Then, we are set free from the dark cave and are brought into the light where we see things as they really are. Our salvation from dark-ness opens our eyes to eternal realities otherwise unknowable, and our new life of freedom from the darkness of the cave is lived in grateful praise to the one who freed us.

But, there are some who are permitted to see the light without a transformation of the heart and they inevitably return to the cave, only to be infuriated toward the one who gave them a glimpse of a different reality. They return to their former darkness full of its games and its illusions, angry that they were ever troubled with the blinding sunlight and the revelation of things that they end up seeing as inconsequential to their lives and interests. Their hatred of the one who gave them temporary exposure to the light moves them to want to kill him or at least blot him from their memory.

Who can this possibly describe? Is there a biblical example of this kind of person? I think there is. His name is Judas Iscariot. He saw the light and experienced it for a season, but his heart was not transformed by it, and in the end he returned to his darkness. He never broke free of the dark cave of Galilean zealotry, worldly politics and power. He was imprisoned by a utopian vision that required a mes-sianic deliverer who would lead a military overthrow of Roman tyranny. His life and values were of this world only, the world of shadows and not the substance which is only entered fully through saving faith in the living

The Allegory of the CaveSteve Carpenter

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183Reisinger—Continued from page 6


enant Media.

The temple, as the dwelling place of God, occupies a signifi cant place in Old Testament revelation. God met with man there. It was the only place where the sinner could fi nd forgive-ness through blood offerings. Geer-hardus Vos, in his excellent work, Biblical Theology, has some insightful comments on how the temple func-tions symbolically and typically.

The tabernacle affords a clear instance of the coexistence of the symbolical and the typical in one of the principal institutions of the Old Testament religion. It embodies the eminently religious idea of the dwell-ing of God with His people. This it expresses symbolically so far as the Old Testament state of religion is concerned, and typically as regards the fi nal embodiment of salvation in the Christian state.…That its main purpose is to realize the indwelling of Jehovah is affi rmed in so many words [Ex. 25:8; 29:44, 45].6

I copied the following some time ago and did not record the source. The fi rst quotation is similar in content to Vos (pp. 154-155), but it does not match verbatim. I cannot remember the source for the second quotation. If anyone knows, please inform me so that I can give credit where credit is due.

In its typical signifi cance, the temple was a shadow or type of the reality of the Lord’s dwelling with his people. According to the New Testament, this reality is now found in Christ himself (John 1:14; 2:19—22; Col. 2:9) and in the church as the place of God’s dwelling by the Spirit (Eph. 2:21—22; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6; 10:21; 1 Pet. 2:5). Christ and the church are the fulfi llment of the symbolical and typical signifi cance of the temple. Moreover, in the fi nal state of consummation, when the Lord dwells forever in the presence of his people in the new heavens and earth,

6 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948. Reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 148.

consummation of Israel’s history on earth.3

A bit further into the section, at Ezekiel 43:19, Scofi eld provides another heading—The offerings—and another note. This note addresses the verse that prescribes a sin offering as part of the temple ritual, and in it, Scofi eld comments on the problem of animal sacrifi ces in the millennial temple:

A problem is posed by this paragraph (vv. 19-27). Since the N.T. clearly teaches that animal sacrifi ces do not in themselves cleanse away sin (Heb. 10:4) and that the one sacrifi ce of the Lord Jesus Christ that was made at Calvary completely provides for such expiation (cp. Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14), how can there be a fulfi llment of such a prophecy? Two answers have been suggested: (1) Such sacrifi ces, if actually offered, will be memorial in character. They will, according to this view, look back to our Lord’s work on the cross, as the offerings of the old covenant anticipated His sacrifi ce. They would, of course, have no expiatory value. And (2) The reference to sacrifi ces is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial Temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day.4

These two notes seem hermeneuti-cally incompatible with each other. If his second option for understand-ing the animal sacrifi ces as fi gura-tive is valid, then why not adopt the same view for the temple? Scofi eld acknowledges that one view of the temple is to see it as the church, but he rejects it on the ground of inadequacy.

Still another view is the claim that the picture is one of the Church and

3 Scofi eld Reference Bible, copyright Ó 1967, Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10098. Copyright 1909, 1917, renewed, 1937, 1945.

4 Ibid. Note at Ezek. 43:19.

its blessings in this age. This view does not explain the symbolism, nor why large areas of Christian doctrine are omitted.5

It seems to me that if we can ex-plain a part of the whole as fi gura ve and couched in vocabulary familiar to the audience, then we can legi mate-ly explain all of it in the same manner.

It also seems to me that Scofi eld’s fi rst option—animal sacrifi ces as memorials of Christ’s sacrifi ce—mis-uses the theory of double fulfi llment. Theoretically, the natural precedes the spiritual. This is the way Paul uses the theory in 1 Corinthians 15:46. Double fulfi llment proceeds from natural to spiritual, but not the other way round. You do not fi rst fulfi ll the land prom-ise by inheriting heaven and then in-herit an earthly piece of dirt as a type of heaven. God does not have David’s greater son build a spiritual temple to fulfi ll God’s covenant with him and then have Israel build a physical memorial temple to fulfi ll the same promise. Furthermore, once a promise has been fulfi lled, we cannot posit with certainty a double fulfi llment unless later revelation specifi cally states that there will be double fulfi ll-ment. Scripture clearly presents the promise to David that one of his sons will build a temple for God to dwell in as doubly fulfi lled: fi rst by Solomon, then by the church. If we are going to claim that Ezekiel’s temple is to be built in the future (a triple fulfi llment, from physical to spiritual and back to physical), we need to support that claim with New Testament evidence.

We can suggest that in God’s sovereign providence, such a scenario is possible, just as we can suggest that God may revive the gifts of the Spirit (although we see no need of that), but we need clear promises before we make such expectations into articles of faith. I strongly urge any reader who struggles with this point to read Gary George’s excellent booklet Pro-phetic Fulfi llment: Double, Natural, or Spiritual available from New Cov-

5 Ibid. Note at Ezek. 40:5.

Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Carpenter—Continued from page 7

Carpenter—Continued on page 15

Christ. His exposure to the light did not fi t with his vision and in the end he betrayed the One who showed him the light.

He saw the light, but he did not love it for what it was. He only loved it for what he might manipulate it to become in servicing his own dark vision of a military liberation from Rome and the establishment of an earthly glory for Israel like unto the halcyon days of David and Solomon. When he saw that the light could not be manipulated to his ends, he hated it and attempted to destroy it. Using Socrates’ image of the man who must return to the cave, his hatred of the one who gave him temporary expo-sure to the light moved him to want to kill him.

So there is in Plato’s allegory of the cave a picture of the gospel as both the instrument of salvation and the vindication of divine judgment. But more importantly for our present study…

2. There is in the allegory a picture of the biblical movement from the OC to the NC, because one of the terms that the NT uses to describe the whole period of the OT is the time of shad-ows. There is a world of shadows and a world of substance and reality.

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the sub-stance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifi ces, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect…For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Hebrews 10:1, 4

With the appearance of Jesus, the time of shadows was coming to a close, and the realities casting those

shadows were now becoming visible. Nothing is a clearer example of this transition than the temple. In the OT, the temple stood as the singular place where God had chosen to dwell and where fellowship with him could be entered. It was a place where atone-ment could be made for sin, where iniquities could be forgiven, where prayers could be offered, and where fellowship with God could be entered and enjoyed. But with the appearance of Jesus, this all changed.

Jesus makes his appearance and announces on repeated occasions to those who came to him, “Your sins are forgiven you!” This brought the charge of blasphemy from the reli-gious authorities, because only one could forgive sins—God! And there was a set ritual in a set place with set sacrifi ces that were required to receive the divine verdict of forgiven. Jesus was setting himself up as competi-tion with the temple and its service, which alone in the OT economy could be the place where atonement for sin was accomplished. So Jesus was declaring himself to be the new temple where sins could be forgiven! The temple was now no longer an inanimate building of wood and stone. The temple was now living. It was the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ!

Jesus drives this home when he cleanses the temple at the opening of John’s gospel. The Jews challenged Jesus to give them some sign authenti-cating his authority to do what he did in driving the moneychangers from the temple. And Jesus responds with a counter-challenge, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!” They imagined Jesus was speak-ing of the massive stone and marble structure that had taken the Herods 46 years to renovate, expand, and beauti-fy, but John informs us that Jesus was speaking of the temple of his body. In other words, Jesus is declaring that in his coming, a warfare between two temples had been launched—the

dead, stone temple of Jerusalem vs. the living temple of the incarnate Son of God. And Jesus declares that the outcome of the battle will be settled by his third-day resurrection. At the end of the gospel, Jesus’ opponents take up his challenge and they destroy his body in an unmatched display of cruelty, but in three days he rises triumphant from the grave, and Jesus’ prophetic word is fulfi lled (“I will raise it up!”), which becomes the sign that he had the authority to do what he did in the earthly temple! More impor-tantly, Jesus wanted us to understand that his resurrection was in fact the rebuilding of the temple of his body, and that resurrection doomed the dead temple standing on Mount Zion to a fi nal destruction, which occurred 40 years later.

That temple has never been rebuilt as the place of God’s dwelling, and never will be! If some structure were ever to be rebuilt on that site and called the temple, it will only stand as a sham, a monument to the folly of unbelief, and an idolatrous shrine expressing the continued rebellion of modern Hasidic Judaism against the fi nal revelation of God in his Son. It would be anything but a restored dwelling of God’s presence! God’s fi nal temple has already been rebuilt in the resurrection of his Son! So the resurrection of Christ has cursed ev-ery attempt of man to rebuild a temple for God’s habitation.

Furthermore, God’s risen Son now stands as the chief cornerstone of a new spiritual house that is being built of all those who name the name of Christ in authentic faith. They, like Christ, are living stones being built as a worldwide spiritual house and a habitation of God’s Spirit. The temple has been universalized to embrace every nation, people, tribe, and tongue on earth.

While each of us individually are

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183

Warfi eld emphasizes that the act described here was no transformation of substance. The “form of God” is not said to have been changed into the “form of a servant.” Rather, the apostle says simply that this one who was “in the form of God” took also to himself the “form of a servant.” Nor was his act a deceptive one, pretend-ing to be man when he was not. He did not take the appearance of man or the mere state and circumstances of man. He took “the form of a servant.” He took to himself, as Warfi eld de-scribes it, “all those essential qualities and attributes which belong to, and constitute a being ‘a servant.’” That is, he became what the servant is. “He took the form of a servant ‘by coming into the likeness of men.’”

And so this one who was God took also to himself a real and complete hu-manity. Remaining God all the while, he assumed humanity also.

Moreover, having taken the form of a servant, as a man, Warfi eld says, “he became subject to obedience,—an obedience pressed so far in its humili-ation that it extended even unto death, and that the shameful death of the cross.” How can words adequately convey the depth of such humiliation? God has become man—indeed, a man subject to obedience until death, even the death of the cross. This, Warfi eld worshipfully reminds us, is what our Lord, “who was by nature in the form of God,—in the full possession and use of all the divine attributes and qualities, powers and prerogatives,—was willing to do for us.”

Next, the inspired apostle describes for us the spirit in which our Lord performed this great act. “Although He was in the form of God, He yet did not consider His being on an equality with God a precious prize to be ea-gerly retained, but made no account of Himself, taking the form of a servant.” As Warfi eld graphically describes it, it was “in a spirit of pure unselfi sh-

ness and self-sacrifi ce, that looked not on its own things but on the things of others, that under the force of love esteemed others more than Himself,—it was in this mind: or, in the apostle’s own words, it was as not considering His essential equality with God as a precious possession, but making no account of Himself,—it was in this mind, that Christ Jesus who was be-fore in the form of God took the form of a servant.”

This was the spirit that animated our Lord in his infi nite condescension. He was not forced. Nor did he act for personal gain. Nor out of fear of loss. It was pure, selfl ess, self-sacrifi cing love.

At this point Warfi eld pauses to emphasize that God is not woodenly “impassible” as some have described him. He is not unmoved by consider-ations outside himself. He is touched by our need, and out of love gave him-self for us. Making nothing of himself and surrendering self-interest, he came to our rescue. This is our God, and this self-sacrifi cing condescension is part of his glory.

This, in turn, is the apostle’s point of exhortation, and Warfi eld expounds it famously:

… a life of self-sacrifi cing unself-ishness is the most divinely beautiful life that man can lead. He whom as our Master we have engaged to obey, whom as our Example we are pledged to imitate, is presented to us here as the great model of self-sacrifi cing un-selfi shness. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus,” is the apostle’s pleading.

To be Christlike, to imitate our Lord as we ought, we must learn from him the grace of self-abnegation for the sake of others.

And yet Warfi eld is careful to note that what the example of our Lord calls us to is not self-depreciation. It is self-abnegation that he models for us. Humility, yes. Lowliness, yes. But

not lowness. If we would follow our Lord we will “not degrade ourselves but forget ourselves, and seek every man not his own things but those of others.” Self-sacrifi ce for others—this is the model our Lord has left us.

In a world driven by arrogance, self-assertion, self-promotion, and conquest we need reminding of this ideal. The very son of God “made no account of himself.” He did not look upon His equality with God as “a pos-session to be prized when He could by forgetting self-rescue those whom He was not ashamed, amid all His glory, to call His brethren.” Surely there is great glory in this condescension. And surely here we fi nd a model of grace that we must strive to imitate.

Are there those whom we are ashamed to call our brother? Are there those we are slow to help because they do not deserve it? Would it be too great a condescension for us? Could we stoop so low? Our Lord’s example tells us that we surely can.

Indeed, following our Lord’s example, what limits can we possibly set? Is there anything too beneath us if, in doing so, we would help our brothers and sisters? Are we called to give ourselves? What is that when compared to our Lord’s condescen-sion—God from the glories of heaven to the shameful cross. Are we called to endure wrongs? Did he not endure more? Must we surrender our rights? Our Lord did not retain his. What pos-sible limits could we set, when we see another in need? Our Lord’s conde-scension was infi nite.

Warfi eld carefully emphasizes that this self-abnegation to which we are called is not for its own sake. Our Lord’s self-abnegation was not for its own sake. It is for the sake of others. “And thus it is not to mere self-denial that Christ calls us, but specifi cally to self-sacrifi ce: not to unselfi ng our-selves, but to unselfi shing ourselves.” The apostle Paul here makes no virtue

Zaspel—Continued from page 3

Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 of asceticism. He is not calling us to be monks. He is calling us to be like Christ, who taking no account of himself served the needs of others. As Warfi eld expands,

Self-sacrifi ce brought Christ into the world. And self-sacrifi ce will lead us, His followers, not away from but into the midst of men. Wherever men suffer, there will we be to comfort. Wherever men strive, there will we be to help. Wherever men fail, there will be we to uplift. Wherever men succeed, there will we be to rejoice. Self-sacrifi ce means not indifference to our times and our fellows: it means absorption in them. It means forget-fulness of self in others. It means entering into every man’s hopes and fears, longings and despairs: it means manysidedness of spirit, multiform activity, multiplicity of sympathies.

And yet, Warfi eld reminds us, this life of self-sacrifi ce we will not fi nd morbid and distasteful. Rather, here we will fi nd the promise true, that he who loses his life shall fi nd it. “Only, when, like Christ, and in loving obedi-ence to His call and example, we take no account of ourselves, but freely give ourselves to others, we shall fi nd each in his measure, the saying true of himself also: “Wherefore also God hath highly exalted him.” The path of self-sacrifi ce is the path to glory.

Jesus Christ— the Lord from heaven, come to our rescue. At great cost to himself he has redeemed us. Ironically, then, in his condescension we fi nd him all the more glorious. God to the rescue. The Lord our help, at a cost that is only his. This is the gospel. And this is the pattern we are called to follow.

Fred G. Zaspel the author of The Theology of B. B. Warfi eld: A System-atic Summary.


it is expressly taught that there will no longer be any temple for the Lord will dwell in their midst (Rev. 21:22).

The dispensationalist insistence that the temple is an institution which pertains, in its literal form, peculiarly to Israel, fails to appreciate its typical signifi cance in biblical revelation. The idea that the temple would be liter-ally rebuilt and serve as a focal point for the worship of Israel during the period of the millennium, represents, from the point of view of the progress and unfolding of biblical revelation, a reversion to Old Testament types and shadows. From this point of view, dis-pensationalism turns back the clock of redemptive history.

Regardless of what millennial view we hold, we can acknowledge the following about God’s promises to David.

God built a house for David. It is the church. (Heb. 3:1-6)

God raised David’s greater son from the dead, and in so doing, established the promised king-dom. David’s son, Messiah Jesus, presently sits on the throne of that kingdom.

If God, in his sovereign purposes and power, causes the building of

Ezekiel’s temple and restores the priesthood and the animal sacrifi ces, so be it. However, without clear New Testament evidence, no one has a rea-son to expect that to happen. I know of no such New Testament evidence. It seems to me that to insist that such an expectation is biblical is to invali-date one of the major hermeneutical principles of New Covenant theology, namely, the New Testament Scriptures must interpret the Old Testament Scriptures.

Christ is the “seed” who was promised in Genesis 3:15 as the one who would bruise Satan’s head. He is the “seed” of Abraham who would beget a great nation, inherit the Promised Land, and be the means of bringing great blessings to the world. He is the “seed” of David who would establish a kingdom of grace, defeat sin, death, and Satan, and save his people from their sin.7

Continued next month.

7 For a detailed exposition of the seed, see John G. Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998). Available from New Covenant Media, 5317 Wye Creek Dr, Frederick, MD. 21703-6938.

Grace is not simply leniency when we have sinned. Grace is the enabling gift of God not to sin. Grace is power, not just pardon. Therefore the effort we make to obey God is not an effort done in our own strength, but in the strength which God supplies.

John Piper

The doctrine of Lordship Salvation views saving faith neither as passive nor fruitless. The faith that is the product of regeneration, the faith that embraces the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross energizes a life of love and obedience and worship. The controversy is not a dispute about whether salvation is by faith only or by faith plus works. All agree that we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10). But the controversy is about the nature of the faith that saves. According to Lord-ship Salvation, Sola fides iustificat (faith alone justifies), sed non fides quae est sola (but not the faith which is alone).

Sam Storms

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183White—Continued from page 1to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God some-thing to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowl-edge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This passage breaks down eas-ily into three parts: exhortation (vv. 1-5), example (vv. 5-8), exaltation (vv. 9-11).

Exhortation (vv. 1-5)

Verse 1 is the basis of the exhorta-tion. Paul writes, “Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common shar-ing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, hav-ing the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. “ In other words, “If you are a believer, make my joy complete.”

Verse 2 contains the concern of the exhortation: unity in love. Notice the emphasis on unity: like-minded, same love, one in spirit, of one mind. Verses 3-4 contain the content of the exhorta-tion. Paul lists those things that war against unity.

Selfi sh ambition is self-seeking, rivalry, self-interest, and self-cen-teredness. Vain conceit is a vain or exaggerated self-evaluation, vanity, conceit, vain pride. Paul is simply saying, do nothing out of selfi shness. Do nothing when only thinking about

yourself. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves. In other words, be selfl ess. Humility was a short-coming in Greco-Roman soci-ety. It is a uniquely Christian virtue. Fundamental to humility is having a proper self-perception, a proper esti-mation of yourself.

Paul is simply calling us to selfl ess living here. How can we seek to eradi-cate selfi sh ambition and vain conceit from our community? In his classic book, Dietrich Bonhoeffer supplies seven principles for us. Christians should:

• Hold their tongues, refusing to speak uncharitably about a Christian brother or sister;

• Cultivate the humility that comes from understanding that they, like Paul, are the greatest of sinners and can only live in God’s sight by his grace;

• Listen “long and patiently” so that they will understand their fellow Christian’s need;

• Refuse to consider their time and calling so valuable that they cannot be interrupted to help with unexpected needs, no matter how small or menial;

• Bear the burden of their brothers and sisters in the Lord, both by pre-serving their freedom and by forgiv-ing their sinful abuse of that freedom;

• Declare God’s word to their fel-low believers when they need to hear it;

• Understand that Christian author-ity is characterized by service and does not call attention to the person who performs the service.

We can also eradicate selfi sh ambi-tion and vain conceit by looking at the perfect example of selfl ess living:

Example (vv. 5b-8)

Paul has given the exhortation; now he wants to motivate us by point-ing us to the One who truly lived self-lessly. Jesus is our “how to” manual. We are to fulfi ll the law of the Mes-

siah. We are to behave “incarnational-ly.” We are to adopt the Jesus mindset. So what is the Jesus mindset?

From the passage, we see that the mind is very important. Verse 2 exhorts us to be like-minded (auto phronēte) and to be of one mind (hen phronountes), while verse 5 exhorts us to have the same mindset (phroneite) as Christ. True love begins by right thinking. We must adopt the same selfl ess mindset that Jesus had.

Most scholars see verses 6-11 as an early Christian hymn. This provides us with a glimpse of early Christian thought and worship. The phrase, “something to be used to his own advantage” is translated in other versions as “something to be grasped” (NET), but there is growing consen-sus that this word (harpagmos) has the idea of using something for one’s own advantage (NIV, NRSV, HCSB).

There is probably an allusion to Adam in these verses. The phrase “be-ing in very nature God” (en morphē theou) has some correspondence to “the image of God” (eikona theou) in Genesis 1:27. Adam, in arrogance, sought to be like God, but the last Adam, in humility, became human.

Historically, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding verse 7, particularly the verb “made himself nothing” (ekenōsen). Some transla-tions say he “emptied himself.” He did not empty himself of anything. In fact, he added something. How did he make himself nothing? By adding a human nature and dying on the cross.

Paul is saying that the story of Christ must become the story of the community. Notice how verses 3-4 are parallel to verses 6-8. Both have a negative, then a “rather,” then a posi-tive. We could paraphrase it this way: “Do not be selfi sh, rather be selfl ess because Jesus was not selfi sh, rather he was selfl ess.”

This is Paul’s “master story.” Notice the pattern, the “law” of the Messiah in the following verses:

Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Ephesians 5:2 - Follow God’s

example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave him-self up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifi ce to God.

John 13:14-15 - Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one an-other’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

John 13:34-35 - A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Romans 15:2-3 - Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up. For even Christ did not please himself.

1 Corinthians 10:32-11:1 - Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

2 Corinthians 8:9 - For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become

rich.

Notice the similarities of this last verse with Philippians 2.The phrase “though he was rich” is parallel to “though being in very nature God,” while “for your sake he became poor” is similar to “he made himself noth-ing” and “he humbled himself.” It is self-sacrifi ce for the sake of others. Yet for your sake, Jesus refrains from any acts of selfi shness or self-interest but rather acts for the benefi t of others. God gives of himself for the good of others, and the people of God are to follow suit. Cruciform love is two-dimensional: it does not seek its own interest, but seeks the interest of others.

God’s love expresses itself in self-sacrifi ce, and specifi cally, there are two steps of self-denial: becoming hu-man and dying on a cross. Crucifi xion was reserved by the Romans for in-surrectionists (those who rebel against Roman rule) or recalcitrant slaves. Only for high treason could a Roman citizen be crucifi ed. That is why Paul says the message of a crucifi ed Mes-siah is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23).

God on a cross! The second person of the Trinity was beaten, fl ogged, nailed to a cross, with his muscles cramping, and between cramps he had to pull himself up for a breath. He would have had searing pain where tissue that was torn from his lacer-

ated back rubbed against the rough timber as he moved up and down to breath. He experienced severe blood loss and dehydration, because de-creased oxygen and increased carbon dioxide causes acidic conditions in the tissues. Fluid built up in his lungs. He suffocated. His heart stopped. He died. There would have been no cross necklaces or tattoos in Philippi.

It was excruciating (Latin, excru-ciatus, or "out of the cross"). Cicero described crucifi xion as "a most cruel and disgusting punishment" and sug-gested that "the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen’s body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears."

He did this for us willingly. Chris-tian, be amazed. But why does Paul bring this up here? He is holding up Jesus as an example of selfl ess living. He is grounding his exhortation in the example of Jesus. Fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, siblings, employ-ees, is this your posture towards each other? Jesus had certain rights. He did not take advantage of them but renounced them for the good of oth-ers. We must do the same. Christians give, not get. Like our Lord, we serve, not be served.

Next time we will look at the fi nal part of the passage: the exaltation of Jesus (2:9-11). m

Mark Your Calendar!

The 2012 John Bunyan Conference

is planned for April 23-25 at the Reformed Baptist Church in Lewisburg, PA.

The scheduled speakers are:

John G. Reisinger,Steve West, A. Blake White, Fred Zaspel,

Andspecial guest speaker

DR. Thomas R. Schreiner

of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183Gilliland—Continued from page 5

Caught up, called out, come take a look at me now

Give me words, I’ll misuse them. Obligations, I’ll misplace them

‘Cause all religion ever made of me, was just a sinner with a stone tied to my feet.

I intentionally withheld the title and name of the songwriter, as typi-cally the greater culpability lies with the teachers and theologians. For if these summary statements and lyrics are an accurate summary of the Christian life, then the reactions and statements of the biblical writ-ers should sound strange to us. If the Christian life at some level is not about “doing,” it is hard to explain why some of the fi rst words Paul hears after his conversion are, “Rise, enter the city and you will be told what to do.” Or why Jesus would characterize a spiritual brother and sister as, “one who does the will of my father.” Or why the fi rst words we hope to hear upon entrance to heaven are, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

And if good works and obedience are not conducive to the Christian experience, why would Paul write in Titus 3:8, “I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to de-vote themselves to good works”? Or why would the apostle refer to “good works” as something “which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10)?

Does it not sound strange for many today to read what Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 3:13, “As for you broth-ers, do not grow weary in doing good. If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, have nothing to do with him”?

As an aside, when Paul contrasts the letter with the Spirit in 2 Corinthi-ans 3, he is not denying the authority of God’s inspired written Word but is developing the salvation-history Gilliland—Continued on page 16

argument that contrasts the Mosaic code and the culture of law that de-fi ned the Old Covenant people of God (predominantly non-believers) with the reign of Christ and the Spirit that defi nes the New Covenant people of God (believers).

And fi nally, the concept of spiritu-al existence without rules is certainly one that must have escaped the aware-ness of the apostle Paul, for it would otherwise be hard to understand why he would write to Timothy in 1 Timo-thy 5:21, “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules.”

To some degree—again unwit-tingly in most cases—we have become complicit in a different form of “hyper-Calvinism.” If we were discussing Pelagianism and the doctrine of justifi cation, we would recognize the problem more readily. In that scenario, we are dealing with an unbiblical focus on the decrees and sovereignty of God in election and regeneration, one that minimizes the responsibility of the sinner to repent and believe for fear of making faith a work. Similarly, it seems that in our reaction to the dangers of moral-ism, we have forgotten that the Great Commission has two parts to it. New Covenant Theology seems to excel in the fi rst part—“Go and make dis-ciples.” But we are struggling with the second—“teaching them to do all that I have commanded you.” A warning from Thomas Schreiner is pertinent here, “It is imperative to avoid reduc-tionism, as if justifi cation were the only part of Pauline theology. At the same time, justifi cation is not severed from the ethical life.”

PRESUPPOSITIONS

Before considering the doctrine of sanctifi cation more specifi cally, a few comments on my general presupposi-tions are in order:

(1) The defi nition of law. I make a distinction between o nomos, “the law,” which typically in the NT refers to the Mosaic code, and the broader

use or principle of law, command-ment, or precept that refers to the revealed will of God more generally, either as it applies specifi cally to the New Covenant believer or for all men—the distinction between cov-enantal and transcovenantal law or the “absolute” law of God. We know that all men, everywhere, and at all times are under law, for all men die. For a complete discussion of this distinc-tion, let me suggest Dr. Gary Long’s book, Biblical Law and Ethics: Abso-lute and Covenantal .

(2) Second, while there may be distinguishing nuances, I consider the terms circumcision of the heart, regeneration, God’s law in the heart, and what they represent as essentially synonymous. The new heart and the internalization of God’s law are not unique to the NC believer. Many OT texts allude to this reality; for ex-ample, Psalm 119:11: “Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee.” Isaiah spoke more di-rectly to the issue in Isaiah 51: “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the LORD: look to the rock from which you were hewn (v.1)…Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law” (v. 7).

As B.B. Warfi eld wrote regarding the OT saints, “From the very begin-ning, in narrative, precept, and pro-phetic declaration alike, it is in trust in the unmerited love of Jehovah alone that the hearts of men are represented as fi nding peace.”

However, what is unique to the New Covenant—and one of the cen-tral points of Jeremiah’s prophecy—is the reality that the new heart will no longer be confi ned to the believing remnant within the covenant com-munity but will be a characteristic of every member of the NC.

The Old Covenant stood in con-nection with a typological and geo-political community, where God’s holy people were ruled in God’s holy


Carpenter—Cont. on page 18

Carpenter—Continued from page 9

now miniaturizations of the temple with the indwelling Holy Spirit replicating the glory cloud of God’s presence (cf. the tongues of fi re at Pentecost), the text in Luke 9:4 that we have used as a springboard for our current study gives us a preview of the role of houses in the kingdom-building purposes of God. The shape of the new living temple under the NC ratifi ed in Christ is houses populated with believing families all across the earth. And the things that took place in the temple of the OC were shadows pointing forward to what was to char-acterize houses under the NC.

We have shown in this study that there is a house-shape to the dwelling of God’s presence under the OC, with the label “house” being the most com-mon term used to describe the temple of the OT. We have seen the multi-plied domestic images in the temple, which conveyed the picture that God had taken up residence with his people. The OT descriptions of what took place in that temple are designed as types and shadows of what are to come forth in their fulfi lled reality in the universalized houses of God’s dwelling under the NC.

What were the things that charac-terized and took place in the temple, the house of God under the OC, that are to be replicated and fulfi lled in the NC house of the church?

One. Like the temple of old, the NC house of God is centered around the unchallenged moral authority of God as set forth in his Word.

The heart of both the tabernacle of Moses erected at Mount Sinai and the temple of Solomon built on Mount Zion was the presence of God dwell-ing as a glory cloud over the mercy seat, the lid covering the Ark of the Covenant. Inside the ark was placed, among other things, the two tablets of the law. Israel’s walk before the Lord pivoted on his moral law, and the Ten

Commandments of the tabernacle at Sinai became the Ten Commandments of the temple on Zion also. When the ark of the tabernacle of Moses with its deposited copies of the ten words became the same ark of Solomon’s temple, Sinai’s law became Zion’s law. In the NT, our salvation is reck-oned as a coming to Mount Zion (Heb 12:22-24), suggesting that Sinai’s law that became Zion’s law has now become our law as well.

The promise of the NC in Jeremiah was that when God ratifi ed the NC he would put that law within is people and write it on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:32). When Paul describes the law written on our hearts, the part of the law that he is speaking of is the Ten Commandments, because he identifi es it as the part written on stone! (2 Cor 3:2-3). So under the NC, the house of God is composed of people who have been made sanctuaries of God’s presence with God’s law supernatu-rally written upon their hearts. Every believer under the NC has become the ark of God’s presence housing his eternal law. The NC begins with the miracle of regeneration with the law written not on stone but on living tablets of the human heart.

Now the law that is written on our hearts is the ten words in their redemptively-matured form in Christ. The Ten Commandments have been “Christifi ed,” so that the story of each of our lives is now an epistle of Christ written to one another and to the world, describing what obedience to the Ten Commandments looks like among those who belong to Christ. Consequently, each of us are individu-al epistles describing what the righ-teousness called forth by the moral center of the OC was designed to look like in Christ. We tell the story of the Ten Commandments brought to living expression! The Ten Commandments are no longer a prescribed potential, but instead are a described fulfi llment in Christ!

Two. The OC temple as a house of sacrifi ce pointed forward to the NC house of God as a house of prayer.

Here is what we mean by this statement. Isaiah is the only one to use the phrase “house of prayer” in the OT.

Isaiah 56:6-7 “ Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to the LORD, to serve him (language used to describe the role of the priests and Levites at the temple), And to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants – Everyone who keeps from defi ling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant -- Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifi ces will be accepted on My altar (their priestly service will be accepted); For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

Isaiah uses the phrase “house of prayer” twice in this context where he is describing the creation of a new priesthood—no longer limited to the tribe of Levi, but now expanded to include foreigners! Everyone who now joins themselves to the Lord (renounce all idols and pagan gods to follow the Lord exclusively), to serve him (language used to describe the temple service of the priests and Lev-ites of the OC) in a new priesthood, and everyone who loves the name of the Lord, God promises to bring into his holy presence and fi ll them with joy in his house of prayer.

This title “house of prayer” is used in the setting of a prophecy of what the temple would become when its priesthood would be widened to in-clude Gentiles. So, “house of prayer” is the proleptic (forward-looking) title for the shape of the temple of God under the NC. What was the temple called under the OC? It was a “house of sacrifi ce.” When Solomon prayed and dedicated the temple to the Lord, the response of the Lord was, “I have

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183Gilliland—Continued from page 14

land by God’s holy king—its socio-logic “boundary markers” being the land and the Mosaic law. In the New Covenant, the veil has been wrent, Jerusalem has fallen, and God now reigns in the hearts of his people. The New Covenant stands in connection with a community where all of its members have God’s law (“my law”) written on the heart in fulfi llment of Jeremiah 31:34: “For they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” Jeremiah was not refer-ring to a new law, but neither was he referring to the “Decalogue” as the classic covenant theologians assert. It is a picture or description of the submission of the human soul to its sovereign creator, a picture of a rela-tionship rather than a legal document or codifi ed list. It is noteworthy that the result of God’s action in the hearts of his people is framed in the words, “They shall know me” rather than “They shall obey me”—the latter, of course, being our Lord’s expected consequence: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” It is a relation-ship revealed in the regenerate hearts of the Old and New Testament saints, one that gives a hearty “amen” to the priorities of the Spirit and the Word. It is the spiritual reality revealed by the words of the psalmist, “Teach me your way, O Lord, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name. I give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart, and I will glorify your name forever” (Ps. 86:11, 12).

(3) Third, but not least, is the real-ity of the “indwelling Spirit”—some-thing unique to the experience of the NC believer. The precise difference between the work of the Spirit in regeneration and that of “indwelling” is beyond the scope of this paper, but suffi ce it to say that in the OC, as a matter of general principle, God is represented as dwelling WITH his people as opposed to IN his people in the NC. Let me suggest the treatment of this distinction in a work by James Hamilton, God’s Indwelling Presence:

The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments.

THE DOCTRINE OF SANCTIFI-CATION: THE INDICATIVE—IM-PERATIVE DYNAMIC

When thinking about the doctrine of sanctifi cation in a general sense, it is important to recognize that when Paul and the other NT writers contrast the New and Old Covenants, they do so primarily from the perspective of redemptive history—comparing the “in Christ” experience of the NC believer with that of the unconverted Jew in Judaism. In most instances, when the issue is discontinuity, Paul is not focusing on the distinctions be-tween himself and David or Abraham, but between Paul of Tarsus and Saul of Tarsus.

However, when the comparison is made between the OT saint and NT saint, the framework of the doctrine of sanctifi cation—especially with regard to the relationship between the indica-tive and the imperative—remains one of continuity. And that is one of the central points of this paper: the nature of obedience, and the relationship between the imperatives and the be-liever’s walk with God, is the same in both the Old and New Testaments.

Consider Psalm 50:23, “The one who offers thanksgiving as his sac-rifi ce glorifi es me; to one who orders his way rightly I will show the deliv-erance of God.”

In this verse, we have set out before us the two categories of the doctrine of sanctifi cation. In the fi rst phrase, “the one who offers thanks-giving as his sacrifi ce glorifi es me,” we have the realm of the indicatives: the conscious awareness of who God is and what he has done, as well as the instinctive response of the regenerate heart—thankfulness. In the second phrase, “one who orders his way rightly,” we see the realm of ethics and the imperatives. The imperatives are always seen in the context of the outworking of the indicatives. And we can also see in this text something of

the distinction between “being holy” and “doing righteousness.”

In Numbers 16, there is a good example of this dynamic in the events surrounding Korah’s rebellion. After hearing of the sinful attitude of some of the Israelites, Moses responded, “In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him” (v. 5). There is no question here that God is the ultimate cause, the one that chooses, and that the response of his people is based ul-timately on who he is and what he has done. And yet, that does not preclude the necessity of the imperative. Notice verse 6, “Do!” God ordains the means as well as the ends. Again, we see something of the distinction between “being holy”—based on God’s choos-ing and a relationship with him—and “doing righteousness”—man’s re-sponse to that relationship.

What would you say about anyone who refused to obey at this point? Clearly, they have little concern for their own well-being or that of their family. And certainly they show little concern for the privilege they have of serving the God of heaven—as evi-denced in Moses’ statement in verse 9, “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD?” Note the emphasis on separation in this verse as well, a principle central to the doctrine of sanctifi cation in the Old and New Testaments.

One of the critical questions in our discussion, of course, is how a passage such as this would be inter-preted and applied by the NT authors. Fortunately, we have an answer to that question in 2 Timothy 2:19, “The Lord knows those who are his” and “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” In this verse, Paul uses the reference to Num-bers 16—“The Lord knows those who are his”—to reinforce the continuity of the indicative/imperative dynamic. Just as in Numbers 16, note how

Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Paul here moves seamlessly from the indicatives to the imperatives and the realm of ethics. We will come back to this text, but I would fi rst like to look at how this dynamic applies more specifi cally to the doctrine of sanctifi -cation, and especially the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

THE DOCTRINE OF SANCTIFI-CATION—SUBCATEGORIES

Classically, a clear distinction is made between the doctrines of justifi cation and sanctifi cation—and for good reason—justifi cation being related to our forensic standing and sanctifi cation being related to conduct and ethical process. However, what we have not emphasized enough are the categorical distinctives within sanctifi cation. The categories I would like use are: (1) positional sanctifi ca-tion—or the realm of the sacred or holy, and (2) progressive sanctifi ca-tion, what I refer to as representational or refl ective sanctifi cation—the realm of ethics.

The realm of the sacred or holy is positional or “defi nitive,” as some authors refer to it. It involves standing and identity, a category referred to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “But you were washed, you were sanctifi ed, you were justifi ed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” It is grounded in our justifi ca-tion but defi ned or characterized by God’s presence. This is the realm of the indicatives—who God is, what he has done, and who we are in Christ. It is a state of being, or what I will refer to as the ontological aspect.

The second category is the realm of ethics and the imperatives, the teleological aspect. And while it is a

process that effects a change in our character, its purpose is primarily re-fl ective or representational—pointing to the attributes and work of Christ. A good example is 2 Corinthians 7:1, “Since we have these promises (the in-dicatives), beloved (standing and iden-tity), let us (the imperatives) cleanse ourselves from every defi lement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”

THE REALM OF THE SACRED IN THE OLD AND NEW COV-ENANT

In the OT, the ontological aspect—the reality of God’s presence—was experienced in the temple environ-ment through activity proscribed in the Mosaic code. As James Hamilton notes, “The OC believers may be described as regenerate though not indwelt. They became believers when the Spirit of God enabled them to believe, and they were maintained (sanctifi ed) in faith by God’s covenant presence with the nation in the tem-ple.” The Mosaic code and the culture of law was taken as a whole but had both an ontological and a teleologi-cal aspect—the sanctifying effect of the temple environment as well as the expression of the will of God in the realm of ethics. The law provided for and communicated “who they were” as well as “what they should do”; it provided the structure for both “being holy” and “doing righteousness.”

In the New Covenant, the believer is maintained in a state or realm of holiness, not by a culture of law—or “doing Torah”—but the indwell-ing presence of the Holy Spirit—in Paul’s words, “You are the temple of the living God.” The proclivity of the

NT Jewish converts to return to the Mosaic law was not simply an inher-ent moralism or a desire to be justifi ed by the law—although certainly a part of Paul’s argument—but a concern for this ontological aspect; they were used to experiencing their standing and identity in the temple environ-ment. Part of Paul’s argument, in both Romans and Galatians, is that to return to the law to experience the presence of God—the temple experi-ence—is not only unnecessary but also tantamount to idolatry, for now they are led by the indwelling Spirit of God. For Paul, the issue in many of these contexts is not primarily one of ethics but an argument for the titanic shift in salvation history; a shift from the Shekinah glory to “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

Commenting on Galatians 5:18, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law,” Thomas Schreiner notes, “Paul makes a salvation-histor-ical argument here, for those who are led by the Spirit do not belong to the old era of redemptive history when the law reigned.”

Part 2 will begin by addressing the realm of ethics in the New Covenant. Rather than the concept of “coopera-tion”—God has done his part so now we do our part—for that typically connotes a co-meritorious arrange-ment, the appropriate term for the relationship between the two phrases in this verse is “coordination,” a term well suited to convey the idea of “walking” or “keeping in step” with the Spirit. God is always working, and man is always working—both aspects dependent on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. m

New Covenant Media publicat ions may be ordered from: WWW.NEWCOVENANTMEDIA.COM

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Issue 183Carpenter—Continued from page 15heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifi ce” (II Chron 7:12).

It was true that prayer took place in the temple of the OT, but only after sacrifi ces had been offered. But under the NC, the one sacrifi ce of Christ perpetually avails for all who come to God, and therefore prayers may commence immediately! Now that no more sacrifi ce for sins is offered, we instead present our bodies as a living sacrifi ce to God, which is our reason-able service, and we bring the sacri-fi ce of praise to God, which is the fruit of lips giving thanks to his name. In other words, our sacrifi ce now marks life not death! The one death of Christ has suffi ced!

We see the foreshadowing of this new “house of prayer” in Solomon’s dedicatory prayer for the temple in 2 Chronicles 6. He uses language that is pointing forward to Jesus’ instruction on prayer in the Upper Room Dis-course. Solomon repeatedly describes praying towards the house where God had “set his name” or “where God’s name dwelled.” Prayer is direction-ally oriented “toward the temple” or

is positioned “in the temple” where God’s name dwelled. Jesus transforms this directional orientation of prayer into asking in his name (John 14:13-14; 16:23-24). To pray in or towards the OT temple was to pray to or in the name of the God who dwelled there, which is the OT equivalent of prayer in the name of Jesus (Jn 14:13; Acts 2:21).

To pray in Jesus’ name presup-poses that we know him, and we know him through the sacrifi ce by which he purchased us and made us his posses-sion. So, because we belong to Christ, because we are the reward of his sac-rifi ce and his eternal possession, it is fair to say that in my name Jesus lived a life of perfect holiness and obedi-ence; in my name he fully pleased the Father; in my name he vicariously confessed my sins and submitted to the verdict of guilty; and in my name he died, rose, and ascended to the Father. Then, in my name, he entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies as my great High Priest. Therefore, if all of this is so, I now, by praying in his name, lay hold of the full blessing and benefi t of all that he has done in my name. Our praying is designed to

join us to the risen Christ in the most majestic of ways. This is the blessed-ness that we are appointed to experi-ence in the intimacy of the NC house of prayer.

Three. Like the tabernacle of Da-vid and later the temple of Solomon, the NC house of God is to be a place of unbroken praise, worship, music, and singing.

In the closing chapters of I Chronicles, signifi cant space is given to the responsibilities of singers and musicians at the tabernacle that David erected to house the ark that he brought to the summit of Mount Zion. David is the one responsible for introducing music and unbroken praise into Israel’s worship. He set apart the astonishing number of 4,000 Levites for the exclusive task of play-ing instruments, singing, and proph-esying before the Lord (I Chron 25:1, 2, 3, 6, 7). David had been given the revelation that the Lord is “enthroned on the praises of Israel,” and there-fore he made the public praise of God a central component of the worship before the ark of God. He was given eyes to see that any attempt to model the kingdom of God must make praise

I would like to help support the ministry of Sound of Grace:

A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email:

A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdf fi le (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS:

A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY—THANK YOU

Name: ______________________________________________

Street Address: ________________________________________

City: _______________________ State: _____ Zip: __________

Email address: ___________________@____________________

Phone number: _______________________________________

Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 and worship central. So he designated specifi c levitical families to give their time and energy exclusively to wor-ship and singing (1 Chron 23:3, 11, 16 and Neh 12:24, 36, 46). In fact, both David and the captains of the army set aside these levitical families (1 Chron 25:1), indicating that even David’s military offi cers understood the crucial link between worship and advancing the kingdom of God (2 Chron 20:22).

The 24 rosters of priests who performed their service night and day in the temple (1 Chron 24:7–19) were matched with 24 rosters of musicians, which meant that there was worship going on day and night during all the priestly activities in the temple (1 Chron 25:9-31). This is picked up in Revelation, where we fi nd 24 elders worshipping around the throne (Rev 4:4).

Conclusion:

What all this suggests is that our homes are to be centers from which the vision, values, and message of God’s kingdom are to be celebrated as miniature likenesses of the temple

under the OC. Consequently, every-thing that we observe as the character and actions performed at the temple of the OC were designed by God as types and shadows to point toward the substance of things that he wants to take place in the houses of all those who are drawn to faith by the gospel of Christ.

Therefore, if we are to be faithful to the paradigm of the kingdom of God as set forth in the temple,

we must make God’s Word central in regulating our hearts, actions, and decisions;

we must embrace David’s vision and adorn our obedience with worship and praise;

and, we must attend to Solo-mon’s and Isaiah’s vision of making our houses into houses of prayer and intercession.

Collectively, God’s revelation through Moses, David, Solomon, and Isaiah tell us how our houses are to be designed and adorned in order to become places where the kingdom of God is put on display.

All of this comes to a climax in Jesus’ sending of the twelve to go into houses. Their goal is to create and multiply houses of God everywhere. They are to fi ll the earth with temples of God by causing houses to be trans-formed through the gospel of Christ into replicas of the temple throughout the earth.

Two closing thoughts:

One. This portrait of the house means that our houses are to be domi-ciles of kingdom light in our neigh-borhoods and communities, places known as houses of prayer, praise, worship, and joy; places where Christ is celebrated, and places known for an uncompromising submission to the authority of Scripture over every area of life.

Two. This portrait of the house calls forth the role of godly men in leading their homes. Household salva-tion is made the natural expression of male leadership and the faith of the man, the husband and father, over the house (cf. John 4:53; Acts 16:31). m

Hi Brothers,

Enjoy it is too small a word to express how much I have learned from reading Sound of Grace. I know of no better Christian reading than what you put together.

Thank you for all your hard work. May our great God and Savior Jesus Christ continue to bless your work.

Pastor John A

Thanks for all of your help. A beautiful job on the book and CDs. May God bless all of your efforts.

Your friend in Christ,

Bill D

Hi John,

My wife and I are involved in a monthly book circle with a number of other Christian couples, and we are currently going through your book Continuity and Discontinuity. It is a great book and it has been very helpful.

Thanks again for your ministry and for taking a stand for the truth when it was not always popular to do so. Things are going well here at Toronto Baptist Seminary and we continue to teach students how to fi nd their way between Dis-pensationalism and Covenant Theology by keeping their eyes on Jesus as the fulfi llment of the law and the prophets.

I was recently in a Chinese school that is associated with TBS where all the instruction is in Chinese. In the middle of my talk I looked down and on the desk in front of me was one of your books translated into Chinese. I pointed it out to the students and told them to read everything written by you that they could get their hands on!

Every blessing in Christ,

Kirk W

SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES5317 WYE CREEK DRIVEFREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Check your label for expiration.This is Issue 183 Please renew your

subscription promptly. NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATIONU.S. POSTAGE PAID

PER MIT NO. 45FR EDER ICK, MD 21701

O Stand Amazed at His Free Grace!

Thomas Sherman, "Divine Breathings; Or, a Pious Soul Thirsting after Christ"

O precious saint! Three questions call for your answer: 1. What were you? 2. What are you? 3. What shall you be?

1. What were you?

Dead in your transgressions and sins, a rebel to your God, a prodigal to your Father, a slave to your lust, the devil's captive, on the highway to hell.

2. What are you?

Redeemed by Christ, a royal child of God, the spouse of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, the heir of a priceless eternal inheritance!

3. What shall you be?

A glorious saint, a companion of angels, a triumphant victor, a crowned king, an at-tendant on the Lamb, a participant in those soul-ravishing and ineffable excellencies that are in God! You shall behold the King of Glory face to face―and enjoy immediate communion with Jesus Christ! Nay more, you are made one with Him: clothed with His excellencies, enthroned with His glories, crowned with His eternity, and fi lled with His felicity!

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has pre-pared for those who love Him!" (1 Corinthians 2:9)

O stand amazed at His free grace―and render all the glory to God!Courtesy of Grace Gems: WWW.GraceGems.org

Sound of Grace, Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan2012.

Documents

Transcript of Sound of Grace, Issue 183 Dec 2011 Jan2012.