G

SOUND OF

E
In This Issue
New Covenant Theology and ProphecyPart 2 John G. Reisinger Cruciform Love: Philippians 2:1-11, Part I A. Blake White Imitating the Incarnation: 1 1

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

New Covenant Theology and Prophecy Part 2

John G. Reisinger

In our previous article on this subject, we looked at how Abraham understood B.B. Wareld on Following Christ 3 the promise of the land described in Genesis 15:18-21. In this article, we want to Fred Zaspel look at how David understood the covenant that God made with him concerning New Covenant Theology: Is There his son, an eternal kingdom, and a dwelling place for God. Our sources of infor- Still a Role for the Imperatives? 5 mation include both the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. Our hermeneutic Dr. J. David Gilliland privileges the Newwe are examining how the writers of the New Testament Scriptures interpret the kingdom promises of the Old Testament Scriptures. This The Allegory of the Cave 7 Steve Carpenter examination functions as a case study within an attempt to establish hermeneutical 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
ReisingerContinued on page 2

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

A. Blake White
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 sacrice 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 nd both the provision for salvation as well as the pattern for life. We nd the source of salvation as well as the shape of Christian living. We 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 Pauls master story. This is love according to Paul. It is what he elsewhere calls the law of the Messiah (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 disunity. We are not sure why, but Paul calls them to unity in love. We also know they were suffering (Phil. 1:29). Lets 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 compassion, 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 selsh ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking WhiteContinued on page 12

Page 2
ReisingerContinued from page 1

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Issue 183
Sound 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 Gods sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us 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)3963385; e-mail: reisingerjohn@gmail.com. General Manager: Jacob Moseley: info@newcovenantmedia.com 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 Permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. 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.

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 oggings inicted 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)

nent homeland and security from all their enemies 3) to build a house for David2 4) to raise up one of Davids sons to succeed him 5) to allow that son to build Gods house 6) to establish Davids house, throne, and kingdom forever David responds to these promises with gratitude, humility, and assurance (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 David? Did God raise up one of Davids sons to sit on Davids throne? Did that son build God a house? Is some son of David presently seated on that throne and will he and his descendants continue forever to rule their kingdom? To how many of these details can we answer afrmatively (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 fullled and therefore we conclude that its fulllment is future)? These questions are similar to those we asked concerning Gods 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 questions, we need to be aware of the trap of creating a false dichotomy. Sometimes, answers are not a straightforward yea or nay. Sometimes, answers are both. We may nd that, as we investigate these questions, their scriptural answers fall into the category of double fulllment. Some of the promises concerning offspring are
2 House can mean physical building or it can mean family or posterity.
ReisingerContinued on page 4

In this revelation, God promises:1 1) to make David famous 2) to give Israel their own perma1 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 Davids sons to succeed him; to allow that son to build Gods house; and to establish Davids house, throne, and kingdom forever.

Contributions Orders Discover, MasterCard or VISA If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribution 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 nd the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to continue$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a pdf le emailed, that is available 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.

Issue 183

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Page 3

Imitating the Incarnation: B. B. Wareld on Following Christ

Fred G. Zaspel
Benjamin Breckinridge Wareld (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. Wareld was a Christologian. His day was marked by a convinced anti-supernaturalism. The advance in the sciences and technology had made its impact, leaving western society with a distinct sense of self-sufciency 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 invade 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 person of Jesus Christ was held under question also. And just as he did with the doctrine of inspiration, Wareld 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 signicantly 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 specic 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 becoming man leave his deity behind him? At stake in this question, for Wareld, was the gospel itself. Within this context, Philippians 2:5-8 became the subject of endless discussion. Wareld treats the passage in many places in his published works but perhaps most famously in his sermon, Imitating the Incarnation,11 in which he both expounds the doctrine of the incarnation with great theological precision and applies this doctrine to Christian living. Let us keep the passage rmly in mind as we trace out Warelds 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).

was rich became poor for our sakes stands as our model. Wareld begins his exposition noting that the force of the apostles exhortation 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 phrasesof who Christ was and the lengths he went for our salvation. Only with this xed in our minds does his exhortation gain its force. His purpose here is ethical, but his exhortation is given weight by a consideration of a rather robust summary of the doctrine of our Lords person. It is our Lords example we are called to follow. But just who is this Lord Jesus Christ? First, Wareld 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 afrming his full deity. He was in specic character none other than God. The apostles afrmation 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 appreciation of the action he took in his incarnation. 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.
ZaspelContinued on page 10

The apostles intent is to exhort us to Christlikeness. Specically, 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. Wareld, The Saviour of the World (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1991), 245-70.

Page 4
ReisingerContinued from page 2

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Issue 183

fullled by Solomon alone, some by Jesus alone, and some by both Solomon 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 understand 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 David had knowledge of this particular offspring. But although our hermeneutical 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 inform 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 Gods promises to David. Davids understanding of Gods promises included a messianic fulllment, even though he did not know the specic 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 fullled by Davids offspring, Solomon, which by Davids 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 Gods 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 conation of two promises (to raise up one of Davids sons to succeed him and to establish Davids house, throne, and kingdom forever), we have the testimony of Peter in Acts 2. Peter, in his sermon, alludes explicitly to the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12 and equates Davids descendant with Messiah, whom he identies as Jesus. Notice that the son, whom God promised in the Old Testament Scriptures to raise up and whose kingdom he would establish, becomes, in the New Testament Scriptures, Christ (Messiah Jesus) who is resurrected.
And when thy days be fullled, 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 David, 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 esh, he would raise up CHRIST to sit on his throne (Acts 2:29, 30, KJV, emphasis added)

aspect 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 Davids greater son, the kingdom that he had promised David. God did this while David slept with the fathers.
And when thy days be fullled, 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 establishes the Davidic kingdom prior to the resurrection of the deadwhile 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)

According to Peter, David understood 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 Testament Scriptures. When God promised to establish an everlasting kingdom and to raise up one of Davids sons to sit on the throne of that kingdom, he was talking in one sense about Solomon and his immediate descendants, and in another sense, about the resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Messiah. David was a prophet to whom God revealed these things; thus, he understood the double fulllment

The Holy Spirit is explicit about the timing of the kingdoms establishment. It happens while David is sleeping in the grave. Why else would Peter call attention to the fact that David was dead and in a tomb at that very moment? It is because the establishing 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, Davids greater son, has been raised upresurrectedand is right now seated on the promised throne at Gods right hand reigning over his newly established kingdom.
Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, 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

ReisingerContinued on page 6

Issue 183

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Page 5

NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Is There Still a Role for the Imperatives? Part 1 of 2
Dr. J. David Gilliland
(Presented at the Providence Theological Seminary Doctrinal Conference, 2011. Also availalbe on the PTS website: www.ptsco.org) There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between 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 difculties associated with this subject. Generally speaking, 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 Implications for the Christian Life, a perspective that I would place to the side of discontinuity. So let me suggest that at some point these two presentations be considered as a unit. The doctrine of sanctication 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 Pauls 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 briey put this issue into its contemporary theological context, especially as it applies to New Covenant Theology (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 justication by blurring or ignoring the distinction between it and sanctication. At the other end of the spectrum are those who confuse sanctication with justicationtreating sanctication solely as an accomplished reality, or at least separating the believer from the process 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 reductionist approach, seeing the ethical imperatives as merely a description of the Spirits activity. (3) And third, but not least, it is important to recognize the part that this issue plays in the broader discussion of the authority and the sufciency 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 problem lies in our rhetoric. It seems that evangelicalism has developed a set of poignant summary phrases that may be partly true, but are sometimes presented and increasingly accepted as the whole truth. Statements like these fall into the category of things that preach, but will not teach: The Christian life is not about doing 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 commandments. For after all, didnt 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 justication 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 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 theological stepchild that is best reected in an example from the contemporaneous 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
GillilandContinued on page 14

Page 6
ReisingerContinued from page 4

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

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. According to Peter, when David contemplated Gods 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 fulllment 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 Davids son and the establishment of the kingdom promised in Joel. All of this takes place pre-general resurrection, 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 fulllment; it has been established. What of the other promises? God promised that Davids 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 architecture. 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 fulllment,

with both Solomon and Jesus fullling the promise. How are we to understand Gods promise to build David a house? David 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 Davids greater son was going to build for God. Here, too, we have the blending of two promises into one fulllment. Davids house is the temple that God the Holy Spirit built for Davids greater son. It was the churchthe 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 sacrice before him? (2 Chron. 2:6, KJV)

Issue 183 share in the heavenly calling, 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 Gods 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 Gods house, testifying to what would be said in the future. But Christ is faithful as a son over Gods 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)

Both Stephen and Paul echoed this same truth. They knew that the physical temple was not Gods ultimate fulllment; it was only a type of Gods true and 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 specically calls the churchredeemed sinners Gods 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 mortar; he builds with redeemed men and women. He uses living stones.
Therefore, holy brothers, who

Some may ask if double fulllment could apply to Gods promise to build David a house. In such a scenario, the church would serve as the true temple, spiritually fullling the promises made to David, with the physical temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 functioning as the natural, literal fulllment. Included in that literal fulllment are animal sacrices. Scoeld provides a heading at Ezekiel 40:5 Vision of the millennial Temple that indicates his belief that Gods house promise to David awaits future fulllment. In a note, Scoeld comments, The last nine chapters of Ezekiel have posed numerous problems 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 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 Israels regathering and conversion) and the testimony of other Scriptures (Isa. 66; Ezek. 6; 14), this interpretation is in keeping with Gods prophetic program for the millennium. The Church is not in view here, but rather it is a prophecy for the
ReisingerContinued on page 8

Issue 183

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

The Allegory of the Cave

Steve Carpenter
Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. Luke 9:4

Allegory of the Cave.

Page 7

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 perception 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 darkness, and he can no longer engage in the prisoners empty game of receiving 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 rst place? He would see his eyes as having been corrupted for a season only, and it wouldnt have been worth his going up in the 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

The Allegory of the Cave in Book VII of Platos Republic is one of the most famous analogies in all of Platos works. In the allegory, Socrates describes a mythical scenario in which what people take to be real is, in fact, only an illusion. He imagines 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 xed, compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous re, and between the re and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads including gures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials. 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 reections of reality, but reality itself, since thats 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 shadows, he doesnt recognize the real things for what they are and cannot

1. There is a striking pictorial likeness 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 everything 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 darkness 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 messianic 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
CarpenterContinued on page 9

Page 8
ReisingerContinued from page 6

consummation of Israels history on earth.3

A bit further into the section, at Ezekiel 43:19, Scoeld provides another headingThe offeringsand another note. This note addresses the verse that prescribes a sin offering as part of the temple ritual, and in it, Scoeld comments on the problem of animal sacrices in the millennial temple:
A problem is posed by this paragraph (vv. 19-27). Since the N.T. clearly teaches that animal sacrices do not in themselves cleanse away sin (Heb. 10:4) and that the one sacrice 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 fulllment of such a prophecy? Two answers have been suggested: (1) Such sacrices, if actually offered, will be memorial in character. They will, according to this view, look back to our Lords work on the cross, as the offerings of the old covenant anticipated His sacrice. They would, of course, have no expiatory value. And (2) The reference to sacrices 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 Ezekiels day.4

Dec 2011 Jan 2012 its blessings in this age. This view does not explain the symbolism, nor why large areas of Christian doctrine are omitted.5

Issue 183

enant Media. The temple, as the dwelling place of God, occupies a signicant place in Old Testament revelation. God met with man there. It was the only place where the sinner could nd forgiveness through blood offerings. Geerhardus Vos, in his excellent work, Biblical Theology, has some insightful comments on how the temple functions 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 dwelling 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 nal embodiment of salvation in the Christian state.That its main purpose is to realize the indwelling of Jehovah is afrmed in so many words [Ex. 25:8; 29:44, 45].6

It seems to me that if we can explain a part of the whole as gura ve and couched in vocabulary familiar to the audience, then we can legi mately explain all of it in the same manner. It also seems to me that Scoelds rst optionanimal sacrices as memorials of Christs sacricemisuses the theory of double fulllment. Theoretically, the natural precedes the spiritual. This is the way Paul uses the theory in 1 Corinthians 15:46. Double fulllment proceeds from natural to spiritual, but not the other way round. You do not rst fulll the land promise by inheriting heaven and then inherit an earthly piece of dirt as a type of heaven. God does not have Davids greater son build a spiritual temple to fulll Gods covenant with him and then have Israel build a physical memorial temple to fulll the same promise. Furthermore, once a promise has been fullled, we cannot posit with certainty a double fulllment unless later revelation specically states that there will be double fulllment. Scripture clearly presents the promise to David that one of his sons will build a temple for God to dwell in as doubly fullled: rst by Solomon, then by the church. If we are going to claim that Ezekiels temple is to be built in the future (a triple fulllment, from physical to spiritual and back to physical), we need to support that claim with New Testament evidence. We can suggest that in Gods 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 Georges excellent booklet Prophetic Fulllment: Double, Natural, or Spiritual available from New Cov5 Ibid. Note at Ezek. 40:5.

I copied the following some time ago and did not record the source. The 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 signicance, the temple was a shadow or type of the reality of the Lords dwelling with his people. According to the New Testament, this reality is now found in Christ himself (John 1:14; 2:1922; Col. 2:9) and in the church as the place of Gods dwelling by the Spirit (Eph. 2:2122; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6; 10:21; 1 Pet. 2:5). Christ and the church are the fulllment of the symbolical and typical signicance of the temple. Moreover, in the 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.
ReisingerContinued on page 11

These two notes seem hermeneutically incompatible with each other. If his second option for understanding the animal sacrices as gurative is valid, then why not adopt the same view for the temple? Scoeld 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 Scoeld Reference Bible, copyright 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.

Issue 183
CarpenterContinued from page 7

Christ. His exposure to the light did not 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 exposure to the light moved him to want to kill him. So there is in Platos 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 shadows. 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 substance 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 sacrices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfectFor it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Hebrews 10:1, 4

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 atonement 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 religious authorities, because only one could forgive sinsGod! And there was a set ritual in a set place with set sacrices that were required to receive the divine verdict of forgiven. Jesus was setting himself up as competition 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 Johns gospel. The Jews challenged Jesus to give them some sign authenticating 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 speaking of the massive stone and marble structure that had taken the Herods 46 years to renovate, expand, and beautify, 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 launchedthe

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Page 9

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 fullled (I will raise it up!), which becomes the sign that he had the authority to do what he did in the earthly temple! More importantly, 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 nal destruction, which occurred 40 years later. That temple has never been rebuilt as the place of Gods 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 nal revelation of God in his Son. It would be anything but a restored dwelling of Gods presence! Gods nal temple has already been rebuilt in the resurrection of his Son! So the resurrection of Christ has cursed every attempt of man to rebuild a temple for Gods habitation. Furthermore, Gods 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 Gods Spirit. The temple has been universalized to embrace every nation, people, tribe, and tongue on earth. While each of us individually are
CarpenterContinued on page 15

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

Page 10
ZaspelContinued from page 3

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Issue 183

Wareld 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, pretending 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 Wareld describes 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 humanity. Remaining God all the while, he assumed humanity also. Moreover, having taken the form of a servant, as a man, Wareld says, he became subject to obedience,an obedience pressed so far in its humiliation 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 manindeed, a man subject to obedience until death, even the death of the cross. This, Wareld 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 eagerly retained, but made no account of Himself, taking the form of a servant. As Wareld graphically describes it, it was in a spirit of pure unselsh-

ness and self-sacrice, 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 apostles 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 before in the form of God took the form of a servant. This was the spirit that animated our Lord in his innite condescension. He was not forced. Nor did he act for personal gain. Nor out of fear of loss. It was pure, seless, self-sacricing love. At this point Wareld pauses to emphasize that God is not woodenly impassible as some have described him. He is not unmoved by considerations outside himself. He is touched by our need, and out of love gave himself for us. Making nothing of himself and surrendering self-interest, he came to our rescue. This is our God, and this self-sacricing condescension is part of his glory. This, in turn, is the apostles point of exhortation, and Wareld expounds it famously:
a life of self-sacricing unselfishness 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-sacricing unselshness. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, is the apostles pleading.

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-sacrice for othersthis 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 possession 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 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 Lords example tells us that we surely can. Indeed, following our Lords 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 Lords condescensionGod 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 possible limits could we set, when we see another in need? Our Lords condescension was innite. Wareld carefully emphasizes that this self-abnegation to which we are called is not for its own sake. Our Lords 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 specically to self-sacrice: not to unselng ourselves, but to unselshing ourselves. The apostle Paul here makes no virtue

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 Wareld 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

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 Wareld expands,
Self-sacrice brought Christ into the world. And self-sacrice 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-sacrice means not indifference to our times and our fellows: it means absorption in them. It means forgetfulness of self in others. It means entering into every mans hopes and fears, longings and despairs: it means manysidedness of spirit, multiform activity, multiplicity of sympathies.

Issue 183

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

ReisingerContinued from page 8

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 signicance in biblical revelation. The idea that the temple would be literally 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, dispensationalism turns back the clock of redemptive history.

Ezekiels temple and restores the priesthood and the animal sacrices, so be it. However, without clear New Testament evidence, no one has a reason 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 invalidate 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 Satans 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, Abrahams Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998). Available from New Covenant Media, 5317 Wye Creek Dr, Frederick, MD. 217036938.

Page 11

And yet, Wareld reminds us, this life of self-sacrice we will not nd morbid and distasteful. Rather, here we will nd the promise true, that he who loses his life shall nd it. Only, when, like Christ, and in loving obedience to His call and example, we take no account of ourselves, but freely give ourselves to others, we shall nd each in his measure, the saying true of himself also: Wherefore also God hath highly exalted him. The path of self-sacrice is the path to glory. Jesus Christthe Lord from heaven, come to our rescue. At great cost to himself he has redeemed us. Ironically, then, in his condescension we 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. Wareld: A Systematic Summary.

Regardless of what millennial view we hold, we can acknowledge the following about Gods promises to David. God built a house for David. It is the church. (Heb. 3:1-6) God raised Davids greater son from the dead, and in so doing, established the promised kingdom. Davids son, Messiah Jesus, presently sits on the throne of that kingdom. If God, in his sovereign purposes and power, causes the building of

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 Lordship Salvation, Sola fides iustificat (faith alone justifies), sed non fides quae est sola (but not the faith which is alone). Sam Storms

Page 12
WhiteContinued from page 1

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Issue 183

to 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 something 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 acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This passage breaks down easily 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 exhortation. Paul writes, 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 compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having 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 exhortation. Paul lists those things that war against unity. Selsh ambition is self-seeking, rivalry, self-interest, and self-centeredness. Vain conceit is a vain or exaggerated self-evaluation, vanity, conceit, vain pride. Paul is simply saying, do nothing out of selshness. Do nothing when only thinking about

yourself. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves. In other words, be seless. Humility was a short-coming in Greco-Roman society. It is a uniquely Christian virtue. Fundamental to humility is having a proper self-perception, a proper estimation of yourself. Paul is simply calling us to seless living here. How can we seek to eradicate selsh 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 Gods sight by his grace; Listen long and patiently so that they will understand their fellow Christians 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 preserving their freedom and by forgiving their sinful abuse of that freedom; Declare Gods word to their fellow believers when they need to hear it; Understand that Christian authority is characterized by service and does not call attention to the person who performs the service. We can also eradicate selsh ambition and vain conceit by looking at the perfect example of seless living: Example (vv. 5b-8) Paul has given the exhortation; now he wants to motivate us by pointing us to the One who truly lived selflessly. Jesus is our how to manual. We are to fulll the law of the Mes-

siah. We are to behave incarnationally. 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 phronte) 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 seless 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 consensus that this word (harpagmos) has the idea of using something for ones own advantage (NIV, NRSV, HCSB). There is probably an allusion to Adam in these verses. The phrase being in very nature God (en morph 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 (ekensen). Some translations 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 positive. We could paraphrase it this way: Do not be selsh, rather be seless because Jesus was not selsh, rather he was seless. This is Pauls master story. Notice the pattern, the law of the Messiah in the following verses:

Ephesians 5:2 - Follow Gods example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrice to God. John 13:14-15 - Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one anothers 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

Issue 183

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

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 nothing and he humbled himself. It is self-sacrice for the sake of others. Yet for your sake, Jesus refrains from any acts of selshness or self-interest but rather acts for the benet 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. Gods love expresses itself in selfsacrice, and specically, there are two steps of self-denial: becoming human and dying on a cross. Crucixion was reserved by the Romans for insurrectionists (those who rebel against Roman rule) or recalcitrant slaves. Only for high treason could a Roman citizen be crucied. That is why Paul says the message of a crucied Messiah 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, 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 decreased 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.

Page 13

It was excruciating (Latin, excruciatus, or "out of the cross"). Cicero described crucixion as "a most cruel and disgusting punishment" and suggested that "the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizens body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears." He did this for us willingly. Christian, be amazed. But why does Paul bring this up here? He is holding up Jesus as an example of seless living. He is grounding his exhortation in the example of Jesus. Fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, siblings, employees, 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 others. We must do the same. Christians give, not get. Like our Lord, we serve, not be served. Next time we will look at the 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, And special guest speaker DR. Thomas R. Schreiner of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Page 14
GillilandContinued from page 5

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Issue 183

Caught up, called out, come take a look at me now Give me words, Ill misuse them. Obligations, Ill 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 typically 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 writers 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 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 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 devote 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 brothers, 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 Corinthians 3, he is not denying the authority of Gods inspired written Word but is developing the salvation-history

use or principle of law, commandment, or precept that refers to the revealed will of God more generally, either as it applies specically to the New Covenant believer or for all menthe distinction between covenantal and transcovenantal law or the absolute law of God. We know that And nally, the concept of spirituall men, everywhere, and at all times al existence without rules is certainly are under law, for all men die. For a one that must have escaped the awarecomplete discussion of this distincness of the apostle Paul, for it would tion, let me suggest Dr. Gary Longs otherwise be hard to understand why book, Biblical Law and Ethics: Absohe would write to Timothy in 1 Timolute and Covenantal . thy 5:21, In the presence of God and (2) Second, while there may be of Christ Jesus and the elect angels I distinguishing nuances, I consider charge you to keep these rules. the terms circumcision of the heart, To some degreeagain unwitregeneration, Gods law in the heart, tingly in most caseswe have and what they represent as essentially become complicit in a different synonymous. The new heart and the form of hyper-Calvinism. If we internalization of Gods law are not were discussing Pelagianism and the unique to the NC believer. Many OT doctrine of justication, we would texts allude to this reality; for exrecognize the problem more readily. ample, Psalm 119:11: Thy word have In that scenario, we are dealing with I hid in my heart that I might not sin an unbiblical focus on the decrees and against Thee. Isaiah spoke more disovereignty of God in election and rectly to the issue in Isaiah 51: Listen regeneration, one that minimizes the to me, you who pursue righteousness, responsibility of the sinner to repent you who seek the LORD: look to and believe for fear of making faith the rock from which you were hewn a work. Similarly, it seems that in (v.1)Listen to me, you who know our reaction to the dangers of moralrighteousness, the people in whose ism, we have forgotten that the Great heart is my law (v. 7). Commission has two parts to it. New As B.B. Wareld wrote regarding Covenant Theology seems to excel in the OT saints, From the very beginthe rst partGo and make disciples. But we are struggling with the ning, in narrative, precept, and prosecondteaching them to do all that phetic declaration alike, it is in trust in I have commanded you. A warning the unmerited love of Jehovah alone that the hearts of men are represented from Thomas Schreiner is pertinent here, It is imperative to avoid reduc- as nding peace. tionism, as if justication were the However, what is unique to the only part of Pauline theology. At the New Covenantand one of the censame time, justication is not severed tral points of Jeremiahs prophecyis from the ethical life. the reality that the new heart will no argument that contrasts the Mosaic code and the culture of law that dened the Old Covenant people of God (predominantly non-believers) with the reign of Christ and the Spirit that denes the New Covenant people of God (believers). longer be conned to the believing remnant within the covenant comBefore considering the doctrine of munity but will be a characteristic of sanctication more specically, a few every member of the NC. comments on my general presupposiThe Old Covenant stood in contions are in order: nection with a typological and geo(1) The denition of law. I make political community, where Gods a distinction between o nomos, the holy people were ruled in Gods holy law, which typically in the NT refers to the Mosaic code, and the broader GillilandContinued on page 16 PRESUPPOSITIONS

Issue 183
CarpenterContinued from page 9

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

now miniaturizations of the temple with the indwelling Holy Spirit replicating the glory cloud of Gods presence (cf. the tongues of 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 kingdombuilding purposes of God. The shape of the new living temple under the NC ratied 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 characterize houses under the NC. We have shown in this study that there is a house-shape to the dwelling of Gods presence under the OC, with the label house being the most common term used to describe the temple of the OT. We have seen the multiplied 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 fullled reality in the universalized houses of Gods dwelling under the NC. What were the things that characterized and took place in the temple, the house of God under the OC, that are to be replicated and fullled 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 dwelling 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. Israels 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 Solomons temple, Sinais law became Zions law. In the NT, our salvation is reckoned as a coming to Mount Zion (Heb 12:22-24), suggesting that Sinais law that became Zions law has now become our law as well. The promise of the NC in Jeremiah was that when God ratied 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 identies 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 Gods presence with Gods law supernaturally written upon their hearts. Every believer under the NC has become the ark of Gods 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 Christied, 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 individual epistles describing what the righteousness 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 fulllment in Christ!

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

Page 15

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 deling 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 sacrices 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 priesthoodno 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 Levites 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 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 include 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 sacrice. When Solomon prayed and dedicated the temple to the Lord, the response of the Lord was, I have
CarpenterCont. on page 18

Page 16
GillilandContinued from page 14

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Issue 183

land by Gods holy kingits sociologic 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 Gods law (my law) written on the heart in fulllment of Jeremiah 31:34: For they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. Jeremiah was not referring 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 relationship rather than a legal document or codied list. It is noteworthy that the result of Gods action in the hearts of his people is framed in the words, They shall know me rather than They shall obey methe latter, of course, being our Lords expected consequence: If you love me, keep my commandments. It is a relationship 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 reality of the indwelling Spiritsomething 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 sufce 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, Gods Indwelling Presence:

The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments. THE DOCTRINE OF SANCTIFICATION: THE INDICATIVEIMPERATIVE DYNAMIC When thinking about the doctrine of sanctication 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 historycomparing 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 between 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 sancticationespecially with regard to the relationship between the indicative and the imperativeremains 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 believers walk with God, is the same in both the Old and New Testaments. Consider Psalm 50:23, The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrice glories me; to one who orders his way rightly I will show the deliverance of God. In this verse, we have set out before us the two categories of the doctrine of sanctication. In the rst phrase, the one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrice glories 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 heartthankfulness. 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 Korahs 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 ultimately 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 holybased on Gods choosing and a relationship with himand doing righteousnessmans response 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 heavenas evidenced 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 sanctication 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 interpreted 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 Numbers 16The Lord knows those who are histo reinforce the continuity of the indicative/imperative dynamic. Just as in Numbers 16, note how

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 rst like to look at how this dynamic applies more specically to the doctrine of sanctication, and especially the ministry of the Holy Spirit. THE DOCTRINE OF SANCTIFICATIONSUBCATEGORIES Classically, a clear distinction is made between the doctrines of justication and sancticationand for good reasonjustication being related to our forensic standing and sanctication being related to conduct and ethical process. However, what we have not emphasized enough are the categorical distinctives within sanctication. The categories I would like use are: (1) positional sancticationor the realm of the sacred or holy, and (2) progressive sanctication, what I refer to as representational or reective sancticationthe realm of ethics. The realm of the sacred or holy is positional or denitive, 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 sanctied, you were justied in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. It is grounded in our justication but dened or characterized by Gods presence. This is the realm of the indicativeswho 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

Issue 183

process that effects a change in our character, its purpose is primarily reective or representationalpointing to the attributes and work of Christ. A good example is 2 Corinthians 7:1, Since we have these promises (the indicatives), beloved (standing and identity), let us (the imperatives) cleanse ourselves from every delement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. THE REALM OF THE SACRED IN THE OLD AND NEW COVENANT In the OT, the ontological aspect the reality of Gods presencewas experienced in the temple environment 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 (sanctied) in faith by Gods covenant presence with the nation in the temple. The Mosaic code and the culture of law was taken as a whole but had both an ontological and a teleological aspectthe 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 lawor doing Torahbut the indwelling presence of the Holy Spiritin Pauls words, You are the temple of the living God. The proclivity of the

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

NT Jewish converts to return to the Mosaic law was not simply an inherent moralism or a desire to be justied by the lawalthough certainly a part of Pauls argumentbut a concern for this ontological aspect; they were used to experiencing their standing and identity in the temple environment. Part of Pauls argument, in both Romans and Galatians, is that to return to the law to experience the presence of Godthe temple experienceis 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.

Page 17

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-historical 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 cooperationGod has done his part so now we do our partfor that typically connotes a co-meritorious arrangement, 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 workingboth aspects dependent on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. m

New Covenant Media public ations may be ordered from: W W W.N E WCOV EN A NTM EDI A .CO M

Page 18
CarpenterContinued from page 15

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

Issue 183

heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrice (II Chron 7:12). It was true that prayer took place in the temple of the OT, but only after sacrices had been offered. But under the NC, the one sacrice of Christ perpetually avails for all who come to God, and therefore prayers may commence immediately! Now that no more sacrice for sins is offered, we instead present our bodies as a living sacrice to God, which is our reasonable service, and we bring the sacrice of praise to God, which is the fruit of lips giving thanks to his name. In other words, our sacrice now marks life not death! The one death of Christ has sufced! We see the foreshadowing of this new house of prayer in Solomons 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 Discourse. Solomon repeatedly describes praying towards the house where God had set his name or where Gods name dwelled. Prayer is directionally oriented toward the temple or

is positioned in the temple where Gods name dwelled. Jesus transforms this directional orientation of prayer into asking in his name (John 14:1314; 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 presupposes that we know him, and we know him through the sacrice by which he purchased us and made us his possession. So, because we belong to Christ, because we are the reward of his sacrice and his eternal possession, it is fair to say that in my name Jesus lived a life of perfect holiness and obedience; 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 benet 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 blessedness that we are appointed to experience in the intimacy of the NC house of prayer. Three. Like the tabernacle of David 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, signicant 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 Israels worship. He set apart the astonishing number of 4,000 Levites for the exclusive task of playing instruments, singing, and prophesying 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 therefore 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 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 CLEARLYTHANK YOU Name: ______________________________________________ Street Address: ________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: _____ Zip: __________

Email address: ___________________@____________________ Phone number: _______________________________________

Issue 183

and worship central. So he designated specic levitical families to give their time and energy exclusively to worship 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 Davids military ofcers 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 24:719) 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 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 Gods kingdom are to be celebrated as miniature likenesses of the temple
Hi Brothers,

under the OC. Consequently, everything 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 Gods Word central in regulating our hearts, actions, and decisions; we must embrace Davids vision and adorn our obedience with worship and praise; and, we must attend to Solomons and Isaiahs vision of making our houses into houses of prayer and intercession. Collectively, Gods 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.

Dec 2011 Jan 2012

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 ll the earth with temples of God by causing houses to be transformed 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 domiciles of kingdom light in our neighborhoods 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.

Page 19

Two. This portrait of the house calls forth the role of godly men in leading their homes. Household salvation 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

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 nd their way between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology by keeping their eyes on Jesus as the fulllment 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

SOVER EIGN GR ACE NEW COVENANT MI NISTR IES 5317 W YE CR EEK DR IVE FR EDER ICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938 FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

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

NON-PROF I T ORGA N I Z AT ION U.S. POSTAGE PA I D PER M I T NO. 45 F R EDER IC K , M D 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 attendant 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 faceand 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 lled with His felicity! "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him!" (1 Corinthians 2:9) O stand amazed at His free graceand render all the glory to God!
Courtesy of Grace Gems: WWW.GraceGems.org