Free Customizable Vector Images

So I decided to revive the old blog. I don't think I'll do much philosophizing or theologizing on here. That would be better suited to the other blog. I think I'll use this site for a little dabbling in hobbies. Lately, I've been working on some graphic design stuff. There are tons of cool buttons and things available online. Some are free. Some are not. But when you get a cool button, you might want to customize it. So, I recently made a few neat things on Adobe Illustrator, and I thought I'd share the files with the world. If you want to customize them, just go into the layer, find my text or my picture, replace it with your own and voila, instant stuff ... only yours. I hope you find them useful. Now I just have to figure out how to attach them in Blogger. Okay ... That was quick. I may have to find another place to host the files if I get too hobby-happy. But here is an image I made for my sermon series on Luke. I made it for a slider image that is 980 x 330px. Of course, this is vector, so that's irrelevant, but it gives you some idea of the height-width ratio. I also made a medallion-looking thing for the slider with our church name and motto or vision statement. That's here. To download from google docs, click the arrow to the right and choose download. So ... to customize the files, expand the layer, find what you want to replace and replace it in the same spot. That way the lighting effect stays the same. Here is what the files look like:

I've Moved

This is an old blog. Find me now at livinghopepres.org

Colossians 2, Circumcision and Baptism

This was written in answer to a post on the Puritan Board's "Wading Pool." The thread asked for a "Reader's Digest version" of "how it is seen that 'baptism' replaced 'circumcision'."

I think we ought to begin with Col. 1.21-23. I think it gives us a sense of one of the issues lying behind the baptism/circumcision passage. This was not an essentially Jewish congregation. It was primarily Gentile converts. These are those who have been grafted in (cf. Rom 11:17).

NAU Colossians 1:21-23 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

This is going to be significant when we come to discuss circumcision. So, for now bear in mind that the Colossians were Gentile believers who had been brought into covenant with God from outside. Col 2:8-11 is one of the those enigmatic sections within Paul’s writings. To deal with it, we have to discuss four things:

1. The meaning of “elementary principles”, 2. one grammatical point, 3. the meaning of circumcision, 4. and the meaning of baptism.

1. Elementary principles Col 2.8: See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

The translation “elementary principles” is about as good as we can hope for. It is a technical term, but it is useful in many different fields. In terms of grammar, it was used to designate “letters”, like ABC’s. It also had uses in philosophy, especially Stoic philosophy, which might appear to be significant here, but I’m going to argue that, by looking at Galatians and some of the things Paul says in Colossians, that Paul is talking about legal rules – the basics of the JEWISH faith.

When you teach children to read, you might use rules like, “when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking” but when the child begins to develop some maturity in reading, he’s going to find words like “break”, which seems to have the “a” doing the talking. I think this is a pretty good illustration of what is meant by “elementary principles.” They are the things that form a foundation upon which further development is facilitated.

I think the Colossians are facing Judaisers, people arguing that they have to be circumcised and obey the Jewish law to be real Christians. Most commentaries make it a bit more complicated than that – making it some sort of Judaistic Gnosticism or something. But I think my assessment is valid or has enough precision for our purposes.

I say that because Paul says things like

16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Paul says these things are a shadow of things to come, the substance of which is Christ. This is akin, I think, to something he said in Galatians:

NAU Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Right after that, he says,

NAU Galatians 4:1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.

Not only do we get the use of the term stoicheia (elementary principles) in this passage, its use is somewhat like that in my illustration (child learning to read) and therefore like my definition (things that form a foundation upon which further development is facilitated).

Galatians is unquestionably dealing with a group of people claiming that Gentile believers have to be circumcised before they can be full-fledged Christians. I think that is especially illuminating when we come to our verse, which speaks of circumcision, as we will see in a minute.

SUMMARY SO FAR: So what we have is a church made up of mostly Gentile converts. This will bring up issues of relation to covenant, etc. Furthermore, these gentile converts are being urged to be “good Jews” first (circumcision, law-keeping), then Christians. This, too, brings up issues of relation to covenant.

2. One grammatical issue: Finite verb vs. Participle (My very “wooden” translation) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him Who is the Head of all rule and authority you have been made complete. In Whom also you were circumcised by a not-done-with-hands circumcision, in the putting off (like clothes) of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.

• “You were circumcised” is a finite verb, like “you ran” or “you were convicted” • “having been buried . . .” is a participle. It is used to coordinate two actions.

Imagine I said, having eaten, you got a cramp. Which came first? Eating.

It’s the same here. Having been baptized, you were circumcised.

It’s not quite so definite as my eating/cramp example, since being baptized and being circumcised could have taken place at the same time in our passage.

A better example might be, “having overslept, he was late to work.” He might have slept past the start of work, or his oversleeping might have preceded his being late, but was certainly associated with it.

What is important is that it CANNOT indicate subsequent action (like “you were late, and then overslept” or “you were circumcised and then baptized”).

Let’s lay out the verses a little differently, so that we can see a little of the grammatical associations

In Whom also you were circumcised by a not-done-with-hands circumcision, in the putting off of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.

So what? Well . . . now we need to consider the association between circumcision and baptism.

SUMMARY SO FAR: We noted that the issue of covenant-membership or belonging will be central to the discussion, as this is a primarily Gentile church that is facing challenges to their membership on the basis of their non-circumcision and non-law-keeping. Now we see that in this crucial passage, Paul conceives of the baptism they have undergone as prior to (or at least not subsequent to) their circumcision. The circumcision in view is not a physical circumcision of their foreskins. Rather, it is the renunciation of fleshly lusts. It is the work of the Spirit (Rom. 2:29), in which we (by the enabling power of the Spirit) participate by actually renouncing and turning away from fleshly lusts. The fact that circumcision does not precede baptism may be very significant. But let’s hold off on drawing conclusions yet.

3. Circumcision

In this section, I go into the nature and meaning of circumcision, because Paul’s use of it has to be grounded in this. While other cultures practiced circumcision, Paul’s use of circumcision in this crucial passage about covenant and baptism and repentance has to carry Old Testament or at least first century Jewish significance.

What it is: Removal of the foreskin of the penis When it was established: Genesis 17: 9-14 Who received it: All of Abraham’s household males (vv. 12-13) What it meant: It marked inclusion in the covenant (v. 11) When received: 8 days old or, if a convert, on the date of inclusion in covenant (v. 12)

NAU Genesis 17:9 God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

Circumcision is called a “sign of the covenant”. God gave a sign of a covenant after the flood:

NAU Genesis 9:11 "I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."

Who is the sign for?

On the one hand it is for God – “I will remember . . . I will look on it, to remember” On the other hand it is for Men – after all, God doesn’t need a reminder That is, when we see the bow, we remember that God promised, and that he promised to remember. Our confidence is bolstered by the sign.

We get the same sort of thing when the Israelites crossed the Jordan

Josh 4.3-9 NAU Joshua 4:3 and command them, saying, 'Take up for yourselves twelve stones from here out of the middle of the Jordan, from the place where the priests' feet are standing firm, and carry them over with you and lay them down in the lodging place where you will lodge tonight.'" 4 So Joshua called the twelve men whom he had appointed from the sons of Israel, one man from each tribe; 5 and Joshua said to them, "Cross again to the ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan, and each of you take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Israel. 6 "Let this be a sign among you, so that when your children ask later, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?' 7 then you shall say to them, 'Because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off.' So these stones shall become a memorial to the sons of Israel forever." 8 Thus the sons of Israel did as Joshua commanded, and took up twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan, just as the LORD spoke to Joshua, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Israel; and they carried them over with them to the lodging place and put them down there. 9 Then Joshua set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan at the place where the feet of the priests who carried the ark of the covenant were standing, and they are there to this day.

One set of stones are set up at Gilgal. These were to be a memorial for the people. But what about the stones at verse 9. The Jordan was at flood stage, but even when it is not at flood stage, you aren’t likely to see 12 stones standing in the middle. The stones of verse 9 are not for men, but for God. Well, they are for men, but they remind men that God has signs in place, so he won’t forget either – just like the rainbow.

And, it seems, just like circumcision. Yes, you could look down and see that you were circumcised, but it is just as powerful a sign for God. It certainly wasn’t a sign for others to see.

SUMMARY AND SIGNIFICANCE SO FAR:

We have in the Colossians a church that is having an identity crisis over their belonging to the covenant, as they are being urged to become circumcised and follow the Jewish law first and only then to add Jesus.

In this crucial passage, Paul views baptism as prior to or concurrent with, but not subsequent to circumcision.

Circumcision: Circumcision is a sign of the covenant. Sometimes signs are there for God to see. It marked inclusion in the covenant (Gen 17.11). Circumcision was the removal of the flesh (in more ways than one). It involved the literal removal of skin. But it was removed right where fleshly lusts are all-too-often concentrated. The sign is multi-faceted; I don’t mean to oversimplify it. It also pointed to descendants, and that from a man who couldn’t have any – a giving up of natural processes in hope of God supervening the natural. But I think we should not fail to see the removal of the (metaphorical) flesh in circumcision. Especially in light of Deut. 10:16 and 30:6.

So now we should look at baptism, so that we can understand the relation between circumcision and baptism in this passage, and how that relates to the Colossian situation particularly. Then we should be in a position to appreciate this passage more fully as it participates in the baptism question (paedo/credo).

4. Baptism Three Old Testament events are considered types of New Testament baptism. That is, they are events whose significance is fulfilled in the work of Christ:

The first of these OT baptisms is the flood

a) Flood (1Pe 3.18-22)
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

This passage is not easy. On the one hand, we cannot see our rite of baptism as the fulfillment of the type, since water baptism DOES NOT SAVE YOU. Rather, as I will emphasize below, it is the REAL baptism, the baptism that our rite of water baptism symbolizes and points to, the baptism of the Holy Spirit in which we are united with Christ -- it is this baptism that saves you. Failure to appreciate the distinction between the rite and what the rite symbolizes is very dangerous, and at the least very detrimental to any effort to sort through theological issues like paedo- vs. credo-baptism.

The second OT type is the Red Sea crossing during the exodus from Egypt.

b) Red Sea (1Co 10.1-12)
NAU 1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well- pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. 6 Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY." 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

While the cloud and the sea can properly be called types here, the real use of baptism here is as an example. This is akin to when John tells the Pharisees and Sadducees not to take solace in the fact that they are children of Abraham. The fact that you belong to the covenant community is no guarantee of your election. Many who came out of Egypt, having experienced deliverance from slavery and inclusion in the chosen covenant people of God then turned away from Him. Similarly, many later Jews who were raised with a knowledge of the scriptures and of the temple were not true Jews (Romans 2). It stands to reason, then, especially given that this passage is written to the church, that the same danger holds for the Christian. We cannot take solace in the fact that we have been baptized, or that we were born into a Christian home, or that we go to church every Sunday. Let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. Any theology that waters this warning down is a misunderstanding. Careful Reformed theology recognizes that we can never climb over God’s shoulder and see our name written in the book. We walk by faith -- moment by moment. I have confidence that He who began a good work in me will bring it to completion. But that good work involves my transformation. Should I cease to be being transformed, Reformed theology will simply see that as God demonstrating that, unless he carries us through the whole process, we will fall away.

And finally, the third type of OT baptism is the one in our passage,

c) Circumcision (Col 2.9-12)
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The people’s baptism in the Red Sea can be seen as deliverance. In this way it corresponds to the ark as a type of baptism. On the other hand, the use of that type in 1 Corinthians suggests that it also be associated with belonging to the people of God. In this way it corresponds to circumcision.

In addition to the typological precursors of baptism, there are a number of images associated with baptism, images which should give us some insight into the meaning of baptism.

2. Images a) Washing (Tit 3.5) -- The washing is associated with regeneration

NAU Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

b) Initiation/adoption/regeneration (John 3.5) -- Here regeneration is associated with initiation or entry.

NAU John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This one is very enigmatic. While it is not certain that the “born of water” refers to baptism, there is no question that the spirit birth refers to the regeneration which is the real Spirit baptism, in which we are united with Christ. It doesn’t matter what the born of water refers to. What matters is that the passage talks about initiation or entry into the Christian life -- an initiation that begins with baptism (whether or not a reference to the rite of water baptism is in view).

c) Death and Resurrection (Rom 6.3-4) – Here, baptism is associated with entry and transformation
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

In addition to three OT types and three images, baptism is also associated with 3 responses.

3. Actions (see contexts for association with baptism)

a) Initial response: Repentance and faith (Rom 6.6, 11) -- see vv. 3-4

NAU Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

b) Ongoing process: Mortification and renewal (Eph 4:20-24) -- see v. 5

20 But you did not learn Christ in this way, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, 22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, 23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

c) Final hope: Dissolution and resurrection of the body (1Co 15)

SUMMARY SO FAR: The Colossian church is having an identity crisis -- they are questioning their affiliation because they are being told they have to be circumcised first, and add Christ second. Paul associates baptism and circumcision, placing baptism prior to or concurrent with, but not subsequent to circumcision. Circumcision was the mark of belonging to the covenant people. It was a rite of initiation into the covenant. Hence, it is a very useful rite or sign to bring up as he addresses the Colossian problem. Baptism is multifaceted in its associations. It is a picture of deliverance (Flood, Red Sea) and of belonging or initiation (Red Sea, Circumcision). It is a picture of washing, which is closely associated with regeneration. It is a picture of rebirth (Regeneration), which has to do with entry into the kingdom. It is a picture of death and resurrection, which urges us toward transformation. Here again, the issue of entry (baptized INTO Christ Jesus) is at the forefront. So there are really two things to which baptism points. First, baptism points to redemption or deliverance. It is life from the dead. It is deliverance from slavery. It is a fresh start. Second, baptism, as a fresh start, and as a new life, points to a belonging. We are not just delivered from, we are delivered to . . . to the people of God. We are reborn into a community, the church. We are brought into the covenant.

Now I want to make one point with regard to baptism, and then two caveats.

One Point: This personal acceptance or entry is not independent of the once for all and substitutionary work of Christ, which is the true baptism.

In other words, whether we are credo- or paedo-, the fact remains that the rite is not constitutive of anything by itself. It is signifies and seals the true cleansing, the true burial and rebirth, the true deliverance and initiation that is provided in the work of Christ. The real baptism is the baptism into Christ, done by the Spirit. The rite only points to this real baptism in a symbolic way.

It is forgetfulness of this point which leads to misunderstanding of the so-called grace of baptism (my two caveats)

Two Caveats: There are two positions that should be avoided when we talk about baptism conveying grace:

The first is that no grace is conveyed in baptism. According to this position (which is a common evangelical error), baptism is primarily a sign of something we do -- I am testifying that I have recognized that I am a sinner, and I have given my life over to God, and I am willing to receive his forgiveness. (Yes, I know I over-did the “I” thing, I know many credo-baptists place much more emphasis on the work of Christ . . . but the no- grace guys make the rite a commemoration of our repentance, rather than a symbol of Christ’s work.)

The second position to be avoided is that of the Roman Catholic Church (and many others -- especially those that require baptism as necessary for salvation). In this position there is an exaggeration of the grace of baptism. In this position, baptism is constitutive of salvation. The rite itself accomplishes something necessary for salvation.

We must remember that behind the external action there lies the true baptism which is that of participation in the shed blood of Christ. Baptism is a means of grace, much like preaching or the Lord’s Supper. It is a visible sermon. It conveys by participation in the act, the truth that Christ’s death cleanses us, that we have died and now live a new life in Christ, that we are members of his family, heirs of his inheritance.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him Who is the Head of all rule and authority you have been made complete. In Whom also you were circumcised by a not-done-with-hands circumcision, in the putting off (like clothes) of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.

And now, we can begin to bring together circumcision and baptism as they are presented to us in verses 11 and 12 of Colossians 2. A paraphrase might be helpful at this point, to show my thinking on Colossians 2. As you read the paraphrase, bear in mind that both baptism and circumcision speak to the issue of inclusion in the covenant, an issue very pertinent to the Colossian situation.

Interpretive Paraphrase: For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him Who is the Head of all rule and authority you have been made complete. In Whom also you were brought into the community of the covenant people by the spiritual circumcision -- the one that matters -- the crucifixion of your fleshly body -- after all, Christ’s work is what the Old Testament circumcision pointed to anyway. Hand-done circumcision does not compare to the work that has actually been done in you, and therefore you don’t have to doubt your inclusion in the covenant -- this putting to death of your flesh was done in your baptism -- the real baptism by the spirit, not the rite which merely symbolized it (see note below paraphrase), in which Spirit-baptism you were also raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.

Aforementioned note: Here I think Paul is, however, establishing the link between baptism and circumcision, so that the significance of the one rite is associated with the significance of the other rite, just as the anti-type of the rite of circumcision is the death of Christ, so the anti-type of baptism is the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ

Note that the distinction between the rite and the thing symbolized by it is very significant. We are raised through faith. But the rite doesn’t symbolize the faith. The rite symbolizes the work of Christ, applied by the Spirit. Having been baptized, we were brought into membership or covenantal care. We symbolize that Spirit baptism with water baptism. Baptism, then, takes over the role that circumcision played in the OT. Perhaps it means more than circumcision, but it certainly includes the meaning of circumcision. And given the Colossian situation, and the association of baptism with circumcision in our passage, I believe it is very clear that this inclusion in the covenant is what is in view here.

But this connection leads to a controversy among faithful evangelical believers. Now I’m not talking about Roman Catholic doctrine, which makes the error that baptism is constitutive of salvation, that it washes away original sin, and then you’re on your own. There are faithful, earnest studiers of the Bible who come to two different positions on baptism. One of those views is that, since baptism replaces circumcision, we ought to baptize infants of believers.

A. Paedo-Baptism Those believers would ask, why was Abraham’s whole house (servants, etc.) circumcised? Why not just the sons? The answer, in this view, is to be found in the evangelistic impulse of redemptive history. The promise was for Abraham, but in him the whole world would be blessed. The servants of Abraham’s household would be blessed by their proximity to Abraham. They would, by this proximity, come to know the terms of the covenant, and its promises.

Similarly, the Temple of Solomon was for Hebrew worship, but Solomon’s prayer clearly points to an evangelistic function of the temple.

NAU 1 Kings 8:41 "Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name's sake 42 (for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, 43 hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name.

Abraham is unique in all the world. God chose one man, out of all the nations of the world to accomplish a two-fold purpose. One, to bring about the family line that would lead to the Messiah, and two, to provide instruction and guidance about the salvation God was bringing.

The servants and sons of Abraham’s household had already been shown a measure of grace that was not extended to the servants of Nebuchadnezzar or Pharaoh. They were in close contact with Truth. They had access to salvific knowledge. They were included in the covenant community, which means that the promises of the covenant were held out to them, and they were EXPECTED to be obedient to the terms of the covenant.

That’s why it was so despicable when Simeon and Levi massacred the town of Shechem after persuading them to be circumcised. Circumcision was to be a sign of God’s blessing. They had been invited to share in the promises of God, only to be cut off before they could be led to the Lord. It would be like inviting the townsfolk of your town to a revival, only to slaughter them before preaching the gospel.

Paedobaptists also point out that the circumcised Israelite who did not enter the inner circle (heart circumcision) was considered a covenant breaker. He is not considered a heathen. Similarly, though 90% of Texans are baptized (or so I’ve been told), they aren’t all inner-circle believers. And though not every child of a faithful Presbyterian will be saved, every faithful Presbyterian parent has both the responsibility for evangelizing his child and the reasonable expectation that the Lord will bring his child into the inner circle – after all, God has already shown him a measure of grace by having him born to a believing home.

B. Credo-Baptism Those who would disagree with infant baptism, those who would insist that baptism is a rite that must follow a profession of faith, point to the fact that the removal of the flesh (circumcision) spoken of in this passage, seems to be salvation – on the order of Romans 2:28-29, not mere inclusion in an outer community of faith.

NAU Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

They would also point out that prior to circumcision, which marks inclusion in the family, you get language of resurrection with Christ. It is difficult to see this as indicating anything other than rebirth. The credo-baptist seizes, then upon the grammatical point noted above. Circumcision (inclusion in the covenant) follows or is at least correlated with baptism.

Before you jump on either bandwagon, though, you should recognize that what sounds definitive to you will certainly have a rebuttal. Let me emphasize again that the real baptism is that of Christ. Our activity with water is only a symbol of the real thing. And while, for example this last objection, about resurrection language, seems definitive, you should consider that Israelites were circumcised in the flesh as a symbol of what Christ would do in the future – whether or not they as individuals wound up participating in it. Similarly, the paedo-baptist will say that a child’s baptism speaks and testifies of the real baptism of Christ, whether or not the individual child becomes a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker.

While this is a very difficult issue, I have come down on the side of the paedo-baptist for a number of reasons.

First, it is inconceiveable to me that Abraham’s servants are part of the community of believers, but that my children aren’t. I think, too, that this would fly in the face of 1 Cor. 7:14. God has always worked with families and communities. While over the course of redemptive history, there seems to be an increasing interest in the internal life of the believer (culminating in the Sermon on the Mount), this increasing interest does not come at the expense of the corporate interest. We are still called to care for and manage our families as an extension of our faith. How can an elder be held accountable for his children’s behavior (1 Tim. 3:5), if his children are not seen to be impacted by the gospel? That is, if my children are simply wicked unbelievers until they come to an understanding of the gospel and their need of it, and until they accept it, how can I be held accountable for their actions? If I can expect nothing from them but selfishness, if I have no hope of eliciting from them the fruits of the spirit, then I had better not have children if I plan to be an elder. Surely the would-be elder is not at the mercy of common grace. Also, since baptism at least takes over circumcision (this much, I am convinced, is established by the passage we have been discussing) and since, even in the Old Testament, membership within the community did not necessarily indicate elect status, but only pointed to responsibility and expectation, I think the paedobaptistic view is a natural extension of the Old Testament. I am concerned about the risk the credobaptist runs of seeing baptism as an act of obedience or a celebration of our repentance, rather than a symbolic representation of Christ’s work on our behalf. I believe that a proper symbolic representation is relevant and poignant whether or not we become covenant keepers or covenant breakers. It’s a difficult issue. Whether or not I have convinced you of paedobaptism, I hope you will consider my treatment of both sides fair. And I hope you take away an attitude of charity toward those who come to different interpretations. They aren’t dumb or mischievous in their reading. The Spirit is the interpreter, and the Spirit has opted to have some understand the matter one way and others understand the matter differently. I think your approach will determine your answer. If you look to the flow of redemptive history, and to the covenantal approach of God’s redemptive work, you will probably come down on the side of infant baptism. That is, if you expect continuity, and only accept discontinuity when there is a clear indicator, you will probably be paedobaptistic. On the other hand, if you look at individual verses, with a smaller block of context in view for each, you may be persuaded to the credo-baptistic position. (This is, I hope, the first time I’ve presented a straw man ☺). Either way, I just hope the struggle gives you an appreciation for the complexity of the issue, and a charity toward others. It makes sense to worship among those who share your view of baptism, after all, it affects how they see your kids, but the division must stop there. If Jesus is your Lord and Savior, you are my brother -- even if you are wrong about baptism ☺.

The Significance of Pentecost

I was recently working through my Seminary notes in preparation for our Session instructional time. I have reworked it considerably, but most of the content is attributable to Dr. Richard B. Gaffin. He has been more influential in structuring my thinking than any other scholar. I only hope that I have not lost or corrupted his teaching in what follows.

Luke structures the Acts narrative in terms of the promise Jesus gives in 1:8. The narrative has to do with the witness-bearing of the apostles, a witness activity that begins in Jerusalem, and expanding outwards from there. He documents the apostolic spread of the Gospel (and therefore the church) from Israel to the nations. So Luke is concerned to document the spread of the apostolic church from Jew to Gentile. This spread, geographically is to be understood ethnically. It has an ethnic qualification. It is a movement from Jew to the half-Jew (the Samaritan) to the non-Jew (the Gentiles). A sub-theme is the Jewish unbelief and rejection that contributes to this movement of the gospel to the nations. See 13:46-47.

1:8 is not a task given to the church indiscriminately, but one give to the apostles. And they completed the task. Now the completion, I think is on the order of the conquest under Joshua. Sure, there is still some mopping up to do. But the gospel has gone forth to the ends of the earth. I’m not suggesting that we stop missionary activity. Quite the contrary. But Col. 1:6, 23 clearly indicate that the program of Acts 1:8 is completed. Missions are not an extension of the apostolic task, but a filling in of the circle already established by the apostles. In terms of Redemptive History, Christ could have returned at any point following the completion of Acts. Why didn’t he? The only thing we are told is that the delay is related to his electing purpose. When all His elect are gathered, then the final end will come.

Acts 1:1 makes it evident that, whereas Luke was about what Jesus “began to do and teach”, Acts is about what the exalted Christ continued to do and teach. Pentecost is the hinge between the two. To see this, a little discussion of the Kingdom of God is in order. The kingdom proclaimed by jesus, is both present and future. We see it presented as the remote future in Matt. 8:11,12. This correlates with the final judgment (see Matt. 13:37-42; 49-50). It is difficult to reconcile the preterist position (correlating this only with A.D. 70) with this. The weeping and gnashing of teeth here are at the final judgment. (cf. Matt. 25:31-34; 41). It is presented as the near or immediate future in Matt. 16:28. The transfituration is a preview of the resurrection glory of Christ. For the time being it was secret (17:9), but after the resurrection, it will be the content of the gospel proclamation. There is also a present aspect to the kingdom in Jesus’ teaching. In Matt. 13:10-17, we see that the disciples have been privileged to experience the revelation of kingdom mystery. The contrast with the Old Testament prophets demonstrates the present reality of the kingdom. However we understand the difficult language of Matt 11:11-13, we can see that Jesus refers to a time subsequent to John the Baptist (the greatest of those outside, as in prior to, the kingdom) and including the present, the Kingdom is forcefully present. John represents the end of the Old Covenant, but they are included in the Kingdom. The least one presently in the Kingdom is in that respect greater than John, because John is outside of the Kingdom. Even though no one greater has been born than John. John has been granted the highest Redemptive Historical function a person can exercise -- he has the privilege of serving as the forerunner to the Messiah. That is his greatness. But in the exercise of that function, John is outside and prior to the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus is not saying that John is unsaved. He’s making a Redemptive Historical point. Probably the clearest indication of the presence of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus is found in Matt. 12:28. More importantly, it links the kingdom with the Holy Spirit, the dynamic power of it.

So we have to see that the kingdom comes in installments. There are three stages: 1) The period culminating in His death and resurrection,
2) The period after -- between ascension and Pentecost and the parousia, 3) The period after the parousia.

The important thing to see is that the era in which we live is not in any sense a postponement of eschatological considerations, but is a distinct phase of the eschatology. (Mt. 16:18, 19; 28:18-20). “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me.” We so focus on imperative here that we miss the indicative – our focus should be on the “therefore”.

With this background, let’s explore further the connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom (a connection introduced at Matt. 12:28). We want to bring out here the connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom, particularly as seen in Luke. We’ve already seen that connection in Mt. 12:28. Already in Luke 1:32-35, we see a strong connection between the Holy Spirit and the King(dom). We see it, too, in the baptism scene (Luk. 3:21-22). At the affirmation and appointment of Jesus to this kingdom task, he is given the Holy Spirit as his equipping endowment.

After the temptation – itself very much concerned with the kingdom, we see the beginning of Jesus’ ministry introduced with these words, “Jesus returned in the power of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord was upon him. So what did he teach? The present reality of the kingdom (Luk 4:14, 15, 18).

A comparison of Luk 11:13 and 12:32 will show that Jesus identifies, or at least correlates the kingdom and the giving of the Spirit. “The promise of the Father” (Luk 24:49; Acts 1:4) further demonstrates that Pentecost is a Kingdom installment. Being given the Spirit is the same as being in the Kingdom. In this sense, John the Baptist was not given the Spirit. We’re considering this from the perspective of historia salutis, not ordo salutis.

What happens between the resurrection and the ascension is a 40 day period of transition, an unstable period, redemptive historically (hence John 20:17). It is an important period, though. It is a period of teaching. (Luk 24:43-47). And the content of that instruction is the kingdom (v. 44 – what he taught while he was with them can be nothing else, as I hope we’ve seen). Explicit confirmation of this is found in Acts 1:3. What Jesus teaches them is that, if they are to understand their Bibles (our OT) correctly, they’ll have to see in it (“it is written”, v. 46) three things: Death, resurrection and church. The preaching of the Gospel to the nations is a kingdom phenomenon. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is to be seen as the manifestation of the Kingdom. Pentecost is a decisive juncture in the coming of the kingdom of God. Acts 1:4 refers to what we saw in Luk 24:49. Here, we have an explicit association of the Spirit and the Kingdom.

In Acts 1:6-8, Jesus doesn’t ignore their question. He does refocus it. They asked a question of “when”, and he gave them an answer of “what”. It is not as if the apostles ask a legitimate question about a future millennium, which Jesus implicitly affirms, but then goes on to talk about the church. This is not what is happening; He is not evading or changing the subject but is answering the question. What the disciples need is a present focus. If they are concerned about the kingdom, then they are to be interested in their task of world-wide gospel witness. And we can see that that is precisely what Paul was about (see Acts 28:23,31 as a summary of Paul’s preaching the whole counsel of God). Notice that he’s preaching the kingdom and teaching Jesus/gospel. He’s not preaching Jesus and giving eschatological lectures on the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the subject matter of preaching, and that involves teaching the things of Jesus.

As we continue to consider the significance of Pentecost, we should step back to the Jordan River. Acts 1:5 points forward to Pentecost by looking back to the ministry of John the Baptist (Luk 3:15-17). The crowd wants to know if John is the Christ. John’s answer is in effect a summary in one sentence of the Kingdom significance of himself and Jesus. It provides a contrast between himself and Jesus, capturing the respective significance of each for the Kingdom. To draw that summary comparison, John makes a contrast in which baptism is the common element. John sees baptizing activity to be central to each ministry; baptism is a basic index, and indicator, for the ministry of each. (cf. Luk 20:4 – assess John’s baptism and you assess his whole miistry). His baptism, with water, is anticipatory. But the messiah will come with Holy Spirit and fire baptism. Just as John’s baptism summarized his ministry, so he summarizes the ministry of the Christ in terms of Holy Spirit and fire baptism. John’s sign pointed to the reality of judgment. The crowds submitted to John’s baptism in hopes of having a favorable outcome at the judicial ordeal that is Christ-baptism.

So, as Acts 1:5 points to Pentecost as the fulfillment of this judicial, harvest baptism of Jesus, we can see that, whatever may be the full significance of Pentecost, what we must recognize is that Pentecost is basically a matter of judgment, a forensic reality. Pentecost is a part of God’s eschatological adjudication. Holy Spirit and fire do not refer to two different things, but to one and the same baptism. Luk 3:17 gives us a metaphor that illustrates v. 16. There is one threshing floor. There are two possible outcomes, grain and chaff. It is one harvesting activity. The same group is subject to both (“you”). Mark 1:8 omits “fire”. There is one messianic judgment that is experienced as blessing or destruction. It saves and destroys. In the prophets, fire is about judgment, but it purifies as well as destroys. Similarly, Isa. 11:4 shows that the Spirit is not always about blessing.

So we’ve been pointed back to the baptism scene. But why was Jesus baptized? It was not personal. He had no need of repentance. His baptism, rather, was an ordination, so to speak. We see that this is the case in the words from heaven (Luk 3:21-22). As the representative sin-bearer, Jesus’ baptism is an identification with those for whom he is the Christ. But it was also his commissioning, and so he is endowed with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:38 provides a lens for viewing Jesus’ ministry: As anointed by the Holy Spirit with power, so He went about opposing Satan because God was with Him. That is what the anointing of the Holy Spirit means. For the Messianic Spirit and fire baptism to be a saving baptism, the Messiah must first be endowed with the Spirit in order to bear away the wrath and condemnation that their sins deserve. Luke is wanting to make clear that if they, the Messianic people, are going to receive the Spirit as gift, as blessing, then the Messiah Himself must receive it first in order to remove their just condemnation from the curse.

This is a coming together at the Jordan of the Incarnate Christ and the Holy Spirit. And so the eschatological climax of history begins. Here the Messiah begins that final Kingdom struggle. He officially and publicly steps forward. He is to pass through the ordeal of eschatological judgment and wrath. A baptism of fire that will eventually bring Him to the Cross and to His death. That is an ordeal from which He will emerge in His resurrection, vindicated and in eschatological triumph. (cf. Luk 12:49-51; Mark 10:36-40, among other things, these references reinforce the fact that baptisms are about judgment).
Lk. 12:50 connects the Jordan baptism at the beginning with the Cross baptism at the end. This brackets the entire ministry of Jesus. His entire ministry from baptism to resurrection is to be understood as a trial ordeal. In that sense it is a judgment, a baptism.

This point has been picked up within the Confessional tradition of the Church. See Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 37 Consider also Calvin’s Inst. (3:8:1), “His whole life was nothing but a sort of perpetual cross.”

According to Luke then, what John prophecies, what he intimates, is nothing less than the sum and substance of the manifestation of the coming of the Kingdom. What John intimated in his prophecy is all realized in the out-pouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. As Luke sees things, nothing less than the central redemptive purpose of the Messiah’s activity is realized in the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The heart, the core of the Redemptive purpose in the Messianic activity of Jesus -- that is what is realized in Holy Spirit baptism at Pentecost.

Dispensationalism

Introduction: The Heart of the Issue

Dispensationalism’s core claim is that Israel and the Church must be carefully distinguished. In essence, it claims that God has two peoples with parallel but separate destinies. It is this distinction that drives Dispensationalism’s eschatological distinctives, viz. pretribulational premillennialism. Therefore, if it can be shown that Israel and the Church are not separate peoples of God, but together form the one people of God and are heirs according to the promises of God, then the impetus for dividing Christ’s coming into two parts falls away. What I am saying is this: a seven year period intervening between the rapture and the visible coming of Christ meets a theological necessity that only arises because of Dispensationalism’s commitment to see the Church and Israel as very distinct entities. More particularly, Dispensationalism believes that the land promises, a crucial element of the Abrahamic covenant, has yet to find fulfillment. In Gen. 12:7 and 17:8 God promises to give to Abraham and to his seed the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance.{[i]} Since God’s promises will most certainly be fulfilled, and since the Church cannot be heir of those promises (because of Dispensationalism’s core claim) Dispensationalism is forced to find an opportunity for the fulfillment of the land promises in the future. By rapturing the church prior to the tribulation, the Dispensationalist provides himself with a new box into which he can fit difficult texts. One must admire the theological ingenuity of the system, but ultimately, the entire house of cards rests on the precarious position that the Church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption, in no way fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant. As we shall see, this position cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny.

Who is Israel?

But who is Israel? According to Romans 2:28-29, “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” Dispensationalism is vehement that there is a future for national Israel in God’s plan of redemption. So, before examining whether or not the Gentile Church has a part within this people of God, we ought to consider who the recipient of the promises was.{[ii]} What does physical descent from Abraham secure in terms of the promises? Nothing. One need only think of Ishmael or of Esau to see that not every descendent of Abraham (even through Isaac) was included in the promises. Then, when we read John 8:39-47{[iii]}, we begin to see more clearly that the Bible reckons descent and inheritance spiritually, rather than as a mere matter of genetics. If any doubt remains on this point, Paul removes it in Rom. 9:6-8: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: ‘THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED{[iv]}.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”

The significance of recognizing that it is Spiritual Israel, and not merely natural or national Israel that is heir to the promises becomes clear as we look at Galatians 3. In vv. 6-9, Paul says, “Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.” So Gentiles who have received Christ are blessed with Abraham. Gentiles who have their hope in Christ are in fact sons of Abraham. That is, we are Jews. And if we are children of Abraham, then we have as much share in the inheritance promised to Abraham as does any Jew. “If the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.” (v. 18). “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” (v. 22). Now I need to nuance a bit my claim that we have as much right to the inheritance as does the Jew. We have no right to that inheritance outside of Christ. It is only by virtue of our union with Christ that we have a right to the inheritance. But neither has the natural Jew any right to the inheritance outside of Christ. “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” (v. 16) In fact, Jesus, as the only true Jew, is the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. I think this is why Paul says in Gal 2:15-16 “even we” (natural Jews, and not Gentiles) seek justification through faith in Christ. What I mean is this: a Jew must confess that he is not heir by virtue of his genealogy, inasmuch as he is not really a (faithful) Jew, in order to receive his inheritance on the basis of his union with Christ.

So who is the Jew? We are. “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Gal. 3:26-29). “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision ‘ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Eph 2:11-22)

This fact, that the Gentiles are included in the promises to Abraham by virtue of union with Christ, is the content of the “mystery” so often mentioned by Paul. “By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.” (Eph. 3:4-7) Though I cannot imagine how there could remain any doubt that we are heirs with Israel of the promises to Abraham, if doubt remains, we might also mention Rom. 8:16-17: “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” Or Phil. 3:3 “[W]e are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”

The Land Promises

Now if the Church is Israel, the people of God, then the need for a period of time when God works with Israel again disappears. Wait, you might argue, what about the land promises? These are specifically mentioned in Rom. 4.13-16. “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” There is always expansion of the promises in their fulfillment. This promise is no different. Surely Canaan is included in “the world”. And it is clear that it is those who are of faith that are heirs. It is difficult to limit the scope of 2 Cor. 1:20. “For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.” So I am unable to agree that there remain unfulfilled promises of God, save those that, having been initiated or inaugurated, await final and ultimate fulfillment at the return of Christ.

Who are the Theological Innovators Here? (And who are the Conservatives?)

Dispensationalists are keen to point to themselves as the defenders of conservative theology, and not without reason. It is true that some of the founders of Dispensationalism did, in fact, bear the torch of orthodoxy during a period when the mainline churches were becoming progressively liberal. They were not alone in this, however. There were many others, outside of Dispensationalist circles, such as J. Greshem Machen and Cornelius Van Til, to name only a couple, who held firmly to the inspiration, authority and inerrancy of the text. And these did not have to create a completely new way of interpreting the text of the Bible to do so. Make no mistake, Dispensationalism is new. It was invented less than two hundred years ago. While Dispensationalists should be commended for their commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, it is not logical to argue that because Dispensationalists, unlike others, have not gone liberal, all of their eschatological conclusions should therefore be adopted by any who want to remain faithful to the text.{[v]}

An illustration may help here. Suppose nobody for 2000 years had worn hats. Then, all of a sudden, people started contracting lice. One person who did not have lice suddenly made himself a hat. He drew thousands of people to him, and they all quarantined themselves. Incidentally, they also wore hats. And despite the fact that they had quarantined themselves, they attributed the fact that they never got lice to the hats they wore. Now it’s not as though everyone else got lice. Many others, who never donned a hat, likewise quarrantined themselves and avoided the scourge. Nevertheless, the hat-wearers never trusted those who, though they had quarrantined themselves, refused to wear a hat. I believe the situation we face is similar. The fact of the matter is, Dispensational theology was invented in the midst of the liberal slide, and it happened to be invented by some of those opposed to that slide. It stands to reason, then, that it would be the one theological system that did not fall into liberalism’s grasp. After all, liberalism has nothing to do with eschatology. It has to do with epistemology and the doctrine of scripture. Of course other theological systems, ancient theological systems, all experienced some of their number moving toward liberalism. But the system and keeping the faith are not logically related to one another.

Literal Interpretation

Dispensationalism also adamantly claims to interpret the text of scripture “literally”. In doing so, they claim to seek the “plain sense” of the text. It is not so much that there are no figures of speech in the text, they will maintain, only that the grammar and words should be taken as they would be in normal communication. We are not to look for codes or allegories. But again, this approach is not exclusive to Dispensationalism. In my arguments against cutting the Church out of the Abrahamic promises, I have pretty much allowed the text to speak for itself. To make these texts say anything different would require seeing subtle distinctions – perhaps as subtle as the distinctions between the two second comings of Christ (i.e., so subtle that there is absolutely no linguistic or textual basis for the distinction—it arises from theological necessity, not exegesis). Lately, many dispensationalists have begun to recognize that language is more than words and syntax, that context, genre and canon play a role in interpretation. These are to be commended. Such an enlightened Dispensationalist might consider being more charitable to those who see the 1000 years of Revelation 20 as a figure of speech for a long period of time. After all, it appears in a book that clearly attaches symbolic significance to numbers, and uses symbolic imagery extensively. Nobody expects to see a literal whore riding a literal dragon! The genre of apocalyptic literature is not exclusive to the Bible. And as it was written to a particular people at a particular time, using conventions of a particular, not-exclusively-scriptural genre, we should be careful about how adamantly we insist that a particular number must be read according to what is most natural to us. What I am saying is that the Dispensationalist is dangerously close to a Reader Response hermeneutic. But they are inconsistent in the application of their hermeneutic. Do women speak in Dispensationalist churches? Such would not be the practice of those who read 1 Co. 14:34 in its most natural sense! Nor are they always consistent with their “dividing” of the Word. Many Dispensational churches use the phrase “God’s tithes and our offerings” in reference to what is given when the plate is passed. This is clearly intended to bind the consciences of the congregation under the dictates of the Law, which with the other fork in their tongue they are claiming has no reference to the church. So I hope the reader will pardon my obvious impatience with those who write the amillennial position off as “spiritualizing” Rev. 20:1-6. We are doing no such thing. We are taking “thousand years” as it is intended everywhere else it appears in Scripture. A thousand years usually refers to an extremely long time, a time so long that it is beyond any human reckoning (even that of Methuselah). The reader can quickly verify this fact by looking at Psa. 90:4; Eccl. 6:6; 2 and Pet. 3:8. He might also consider Ex. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 7:9; and 1 Chr. 16:15 where thousand modifies generations, but the meaning is indefiniteness, perpetuity, or Ps. 50:10 where surely we are not intended to limit God’s ownership by a “literal” interpretation of the number! Or should we be willing, on the basis of Ps. 84:10 to trade one day in God’s courts for 1000 + 1 days elsewhere?! Are we supposed to reckon God’s experience of time as 365,000 times slower than our own, on the basis of Ps. 90:4?! The whole point is that God is outside of time. Our creaturely and not creatorly minds can only approach this notion by way of such an analogy.

I cannot help my umbrage at one who condemns me for not taking 1000 literally in Revelation 20, but – as the pot calling the kettle black – refuses to understand “last” in 1 Cor. 15:51 as literally the last?!: “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” And if I might go on the offensive myself, I’d like to know how the Dispensationalists escapes the charge of making the text say what he wants it to say if he also ignores the temporal markers in Matt 24:29-31? "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” Clearly, the trumpet and the rapture take place after the tribulation. But the Dispensationalist is skilled at seeing a difference where none exists, as between saints and saints, or between trumpet and trumpet, or between day and day. Who, then, should answer the charge of twisting the text to mean what he wants or needs it to mean? I do hope the reader will pardon my tone. It is the hypocrasy that rankles me.

Amillenialism

There is a certain deficiency in the name with which amillennialism is saddled. There is a sense in which we do not deny that there is a millennium. We maintain that the millennium, like everything else in our experience of the gospel is already and not yet We see this principle at work in our whole experience of grace.

Already: Mat 12:28; Luk 4:21; 11:20; 17:20-21; Acts 2:16-17; Gal 4:4; 1Co 10:11; Heb 9:26; 1John 2:18; 2Co 5:17; Col 3:1; Eph 2:6; 1Co 4:19-20; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13-14

Not Yet: Mat 7:21-23; 8:11-12; Heb 6:5; Eph 2:7; 2Tim 4:18; 1Co 6:9; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1Co 15:50 – Both: Mat 12:32; Luk 18:29-30; 20:34-35 – Already is guarantee of Not Yet: Acts 1:11; Heb 9:27-28; Tit 2:11-13.

There is a sense in which the millennium is “not yet”, since we will never be without tribulation this side of Christ’s return (2 Tim. 3:12). So from one perspective (the not yet) we are premillennial: The kingdom will come in its fulness, and only then will we have perfect peace. From another perspective we are postmillennial: The kingdom is a present reality (though only in an inaugurated form). We have access to all the benefits of Christ’s work. We are indwelt with the spirit of the enthroned Christ. Satan is bound now (Mat. 12:22-32), and we are robbing his house by evangelizing the world. But we are not really postmillennial, nor premillennial for the same reasons. We can’t be postmillennial since the kingdom of evil grows right alongside the kingdom of God until the judgment (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43). We can’t be premillennial, since evil cannot persist after Christ’s return in glory (Isa. 35:10; 60:20 – does the Lord cease to be our light at the end of the 1000 years in the premillennial understanding? Of course not. So how can this verse not find fulfillment at the return of Christ?; John 16:22). The ‘thousand year’ imagery does double duty (already/not yet) in the amillennial reading. On the one hand, it refers to our present experience where we take hold of that which is “not yet” in a hope that is based on that which is “already”. And once Christ comes, the “not yet” passes into the “already” and we enter the consummation of all things – after all, if Christ is physically present in glory, how could things get better?

That being said, there should be some degree of tolerance for each of the three views. Postmillennialism is optimistic about the power of the Spirit to win converts and transform culture. Premillennialism, however, better preserves the imminence of Christ’s return. Each has its pros and cons, and each has its textual supports and stumbling blocks. Amillennialism is no different in this regard, I suppose. I believe my interpretation does the most justice to the text. But I can understand someone placing more emphasis here or less emphasis there, focussing and demanding consistency with this verse, but putting that verse on a shelf to be dealt with later. Such is the nature of our theology generally, but it is most pronounced in matters of eschatology. And that is why I do not think eschatology is an issue that should divide the Church. None of the faithful approach the scripture intending to get it wrong. Lorraine Boettner (a postmillennialist) stated so well what I am trying to convey:

It should be added that while the Church has debated and reached conclusions and has embodied these conclusions in her creeds as regards all of the other great doctrines of the faith, the subject of Eschatology still remains in dispute as to the manner of Christ's return and the kind of kingdom that He is setting up or will set up in this world. For this reason the Church in practically all of her branches has refused to make any one of the millennial interpretations an article of the creed, and has preferred rather to accept as Christian brethren all those who believe in the fact of Christ's Coming. Hence, while personally we may have very definite views concerning the manner and time of His coming, it would seem that our motto should be: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

There are earnest believers on both sides of the issue, who simply come to different conclusions based on the same text. It is one thing for a local church to take a position. It is another thing entirely for them to arrogantly condemn those who disagree.

Eschatologi-Mania

Why is it that Dispensationalists are fanatically interested in eschatology, when none of their eschatology is relevant to the Church? Dispensationalists flock to studies of Daniel or Revelation, even though the believe these books to describe events that take place after the Church is raptured. Why? Are they hoping to watch things unfold from heaven like one who watches a movie but knows the plot ahead of time? I wonder if they would get upset were I to spoil the ending of the next great movie they want to see by telling them how it ends? That’s tongue-in-cheek, of course. But I do wonder why Dispensationalists are so Tribulation-focussed, given that they think the Church is spared the Tribulation. As for me, I believe that anyone who seeks to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Tribulation is where the church lives. The book of Revelation is very meaningful to me, because it tells me that Christ will have the victory, that my sufferings have a role to play in the unfolding drama, but that I am on the right side. How is the Dispensationalist edified by the book?

The I Don’t Knows

Dispensationalism – or rather, the eschatological distinctives of Dispensationalism are extremely widespread in North America and where North American missionaries have taken it (It is a rarity elsewhere). Words like rapture, tribulation, and millennium have been popularized by men like Darby, Schofield and Hal Lindsay. What is not so familiar, however, is the theological starting point of Dispensationalism. Without the Church/Israel distinction, there is no Dispensationalism. The eschatological distinctives are driven by this division between the Church and Israel, not by a pure exegesis of the text. Since I don’t believe a division between the Church and Israel is scripturally sustainable, I cannot accept Dispensationalism’s eschatological distinctives, either. I can understand premillennialism, just not pre-tribulational premillennialism. I can understand and countenance any of the major eschatological perspectives (Pre-, Post-, and Amillennialism), but I cannot find a division between Christ’s coming for the Church and his coming in glory. I don’t have the theological necessity that creates such a division.

I am Amillennial. There are many things I don’t know. I believe the scripture speaks of the Antichrist. But 1 John 2:18 says “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” Four verses later he says, “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-- he denies the Father and the Son.” Am I to look forward to one great Antichrist? I don’t know. Perhaps. But I am reluctant to discard the imminent return of Christ. 1 John 4:3 says, “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” 2 John 1:7 says, “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” These are the only four verse that refer to Antichrist by title. Perhaps I am to understand Revelation’s “beast” as a personification. I just don’t know. But that’s okay. If a single great Antichrist arises, it does not undo my theology, and if Christ comes today and says, “the Antichrist was all around you”, I won’t be surprised, either.

Will Christ usher in the Millennium? Perhaps. That would be the Premillennial position. If so, however, I don’t believe the Millennium will ever end. If I am Premillennial, I understand the Millennium as heaven. Does the Millennium usher Christ’s return in? I doubt it. I can understand the optimism of this perspective, and the hope in the power that indwells the Church. But I believe the imminent return is a certain doctrine. The notion that the world will get better and better until Christ comes is, I think, contrary to the wheat and tares parable among many other scriptures and is, I think, naïve.

Amillennialism holds to the imminent return of Christ. Amillennialism also holds to the coexistence of evil throughout the Church age. Amillennialism, though, is not pessimistic. It believes in the conquering power of the Holy Spirit. It believes that we should throw our weight against the culture, while we try to win the culture with our message. Amillennialism, for instance, would be in favor of getting involved in government to outlaw abortion, to rectify slavery, to prosecute injustice, etc. But Amillennialism would not mistake the inroads it makes politically for expansion of the church (a mistake Postmillennialism is known to make on occasion). It would understand the persecution it endures in its stand against injustice as part and parcel of its lot in this age.

The already/not yet structure of New Testament revelation has persuaded me that Amillennialism stands on the firmest ground scripturally, but I rest on 1 Cor. 8:2-3:

“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. ³ But the man who loves God is known by God.”

I hope the reader has not been bored. Much remains to be said in favor of my position. But I took as my starting point the refutation of Dispensationalism, so I’ll leave it to the reader to research further the pros and cons of Amillennialism.

---

[i] It should be noted that Abraham himself never owned more than a grave site within the land.

[ii] I use the singular advisedly.

[iii] They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

[iv] All capital letters marks an OT quotation. Underlining marks my own emphasis.

[v] Incidentally, Dispensationlists who employ such illogical arguments ought to deal with the fact that the non-lordship heresy arose within their circles.

Divorce

This post arises from discussions that I had with my brother. In fact, it is a slight reformatting of the case for my position on divorce, which I laid out for him in a letter. The position outlined below arose in response to my brother’s (former) position that divorce is never permissible. I argued this case as a sort of theodicy (see conclusion). Therefore, this post does not treat every aspect of the topic of divorce. It merely addresses the issues of what marriage and divorce are, and under what circumstances can the marital bond be legitimately broken. Because of its limited scope, you will not find the post broken down into various topics. Rather, the biblical evidence is discussed text-by-text, right from the beginning, with a concluding summary of my findings at the end.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 assumes the possibility of divorce, and gives us a law to regulate it.

If a man takes a wife and marries her and if it happens that she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds in her a matter of nakedness and he writes her a bill of divorcement and gives [it] into her hand and sends her from her house and she leaves his house and goes and becomes the wife of another[1], and the latter husband hates her and writes her a bill of divorcement and gives [it] into her hand and sends her from his house (or if the latter husband who took her to wife dies,) the first husband[2] who sent her away is not allowed to return to take her (who has been defiled[3]) afterwards to be his wife, because this [is/would be] an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not cause the land which the lord your god is giving you as an inheritance to sin.

The principal exegetical question with which we must here concern ourselves is the meaning of a “matter of nakedness” (ערות דבר). While the meaning of this phrase is a bit obscure, we can say with some certainty that it is not adultery. It cannot be a proven case of adultery, since we know the punishment for that would be death (Lev. 20:10; Deut 22:22). Nor can it be a case of suspected adultery, since there was a procedure that adjudicated such a suspicion (Num. 5:11-31). Therefore, while we are still somewhat uncertain what is meant by a “matter of nakedness”, we can definitively say that it is not adultery.
As noted above, Deuteronomy 24 assumes the existence of divorce. It does not address the appropriateness of divorce itself. Rather, it provides social protection for the woman, by providing her with documentation of her release from the marital bond. Further, it determines that once the divorce is consummated by a new marriage, the original marriage may not be renewed.
With some appreciation of the legislation regarding divorce under the Old Covenant, we are in a place to consider the the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9 and its parallel in Mark 10:2-12, as well as Luke 16:18.
A comparison of the texts regarding adultery can get quite complicated. In Matthew 5:31-32, there are three characters being considered, the first husband, the wife and the second husband. Only the wife and the second husband are specifically said to commit adultery, but the first husband is implicated, since his action, divorcing his wife, encouraged (or perhaps in the culture of Jesus’ day forced) the adultery. But the observation that promises to open up the meaning of biblical legislation on divorce is that, against the common conception that divorce completely severs a couple’s relationship, this texts indicates that the marriage continues to be binding in spite of the divorce. That is, one can only explain how remarriage constitutes adultery if the exclusive conjugal rights of the first husband were not actually eliminated by the divorce. It will be recalled that the Mosaic reasons for divorce were not adultery. Here, Jesus’ exception clause (“except for a matter of fornication”) makes adultery the only exception (the significance of which is the subject of our ongoing inquiry). Therefore, whatever the import of Jesus’ exception clause, it is clear that any reason covered by Deuteronomy 24 (even if it were thought to excuse the divorce) is de-legitimated. That is, since adultery wasn’t in view in the Mosaic legislation, and adultery is the only exception envisioned here, no Mosaic divorces would fall under the exception clause.

No Mosaic reasons for divorce are adultery
All reasons for divorce that fall within the exception clause are adultery
No reasons for divorce that fall within the exception clause are Mosaic reasons for divorce

There is an enigma in this text, however. If the wife committed adultery (leading to the divorce), she is already an adultress by definition. The second husband is an adulterer because he is sleeping with another man’s wife, inasmuch as the exclusive sexual rights of the first husband are still in place. The first husband, however, presents an enigma. The exception clause excuses him from his compliance with adultery. That is, if there were no adultery and he divorced her, he would cause her to be an adulteress, but if there is adultery already and he divorces her, he does not cause her to be an adulteress – since she already is one. But the verse does not mention the contingency of his remarriage. Were this the only text we had to go on, the most reasonable conclusion would be that since the divorce did not remove the exclusive conjugal rights in the case of the woman or her second husband, neither would it remove it in the case of the first husband. That is, if this were our only passage, we would almost certainly conclude that a man who divorced his wife – even if it were for marital unfaithfulness, is not allowed to remarry, since that would force him to be unfaithful to his first wife (who, despite the divorce, is united to him by exclusive conjugal rights). If this were our only passage, we might reasonably conclude that divorce is merely a human formality, but that it has no real spiritual efficacy; it doesn’t change the marriage rights at all. . . . but this is not the only verse we have.
Matt. 19:3-9 excludes such a conclusion. Here, too, were we only to read the first eight verses, we might be left to conclude that the first husband cannot remarry, that exclusive conjugal rights are never disolved. After all, since Jesus gives us the categorical “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate,” we could assume that no marriage is dissolved by the human institution of divorce. The spiritual reality of the marriage continues. Incidentally, this passage also confirms Jesus’ rejection of “matter of nakedness” excuse for divorce. Verse 9, however, prevents us from concluding that divorce is never spiritually efficacious. The characters change a bit here. There is a different third character. Instead of a second husband to the divorced wife, we have a second wife of the divorcing husband. This verse plainly says that a man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery -- just as we reasonably concluded he would, since the divorce is not effective (for removing exclusive conjugal rights) in God’s eyes. That is, while a man who divorces his wife encourages or causes adultery in Matt. 5:31-32, if he himself remarries, according to Matt. 19:9, he actually commits adultery.
However, this verse is unique in that it is the only verse that both contains a reference to the divorcing party remarrying and the exception clause. In other words, while there are other passages that refer to a divorcing party remarrying (all of them condemning it), this is the only one of those passages which makes a distinction between what we might call a guilty divorcer and an innocent divorcer. Those terms do not prejudice the discussion, since it is clear that a husband who divorces his wife for any reason besides adultery is guilty of causing his wife to commit adultery on the one hand, but if he remarries, he is guilty of adultery himself. Implicit, then, is the fact that the husband who divorces his wife for adultery is neither guilty of causing her to be an adulteress (since she did that to herself already), nor is he guilty of adultery if he remarries. Hence, on the one hand we have an innocent divorcer (whose wife committed adultery) and a guilty one (whose wife did no such thing).
We cannot take the exception clause as only referring to the first verb (divorces), not the second (marries) as the Roman Catholics do. The reason is obvious. If you delete the second phrase, you will see that it is intimately bound up with the first. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, commits adultery.” This statement would make no sense, and it would contradict Matt. 5:31-32. The exception clause has to refer not only to the divorcer, but to the remarrying divorcer. A comparison with Matt. 5:31-32 demonstrates that it is the remarriage which makes this man an actual adulterer. The divorce only made him an accessory to the adultery. The exceptive clause in Matt. 19.9 does not oblige the husband to divorce his adulterous wife, but it does appear to release the exclusive conjugal arrangement, since he is apparently free to remarry without committing adultery.[4]
The significance of Mark 10:2-12 is most clearly seen if placed in parallel with the Matthew account. This is beyond my skill with html, so I'll just lay them out in series.

Mark

Some pharisees came up to jesus, testing him, and began to question him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 and he answered and said to them, "what did moses command you?" 4 they said, "moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 but jesus said to them, "because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "but from the beginning of creation, god made them male and female. 7 "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "what therefore god has joined together, let no man separate." 10 in the house the disciples began questioning him about this again. 11 and he said to them, "whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Matthew

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, And said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh '? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

The fact that the terms are reversed in the two passages, that in one Jesus speaks of Moses’ legislation as command, and the scribes as permission, and in the other it is the other way around, is not very significant for our discussion. The lack of the exceptive clause in Mark 10:11 is important, however. Luke 16.18 is similar in this regard. Leaving aside the options offered by source criticism, some may appeal to a textual variant in Matt. 19.9, which would remove the difficulty. The variant is not represented as well in the manuscript tradition, however, and should be discounted in favor of the more difficult reading. That is, I can explain a scribe smoothing out a difficulty more easily that I can explain his introducing one.
It seems that Mark and Luke are not envisioning divorce for adultery. Otherwise, we have to pit Mark and Luke against Matthew. If we regard Mark and Luke to contain the general rule, without reference to an exceptional circumstance, we may conclude that the exceptive clause allows divorce to dissolve the marriage bond in a very specific situation. To illustrate my point, suppose we had two laws on the books:
1) Anyone who willingly causes the death of another human must be executed.
2) Anyone who willingly causes the death of another human being (unless his own life is threatened by said human) must be executed.
Assuming that the two laws are otherwise equal (date, etc) we would respect the exceptive clause in 2, and assume that the framers of 1 did not have such an exceptional situation in mind. We would not assume that, having considered the exceptional situation, they denied its applicability. If this is the case with secular legislation, how much more with the word of God which, though we may not always discern its harmony, is ultimately in harmony with itself.
Mark 10:12 is also interesting in that the same law applies to the woman as applies to the man if she takes the initiative in a divorce suit. And while it does not speak to her as an innocent party (one whose spouse committed adultery), it would be reasonable to assume that the conclusions with regard to an innocent husband would likewise be applicable to her (at least until another text denies this reasonable deduction).
Paul, in 1 Cor 7:10-15, adds considerably to our understanding of the issue. First, he teaches that believers (the audience of his letter) should not divorce. Adultery is not considered in his instruction, however. Paul has just been speaking to the sanctity of the marital union. He does not expect adultery among believers, and so does not speak to it. Second, he instructs that the divorced are not to remarry. Third, that believers are not permitted to initiate a separation from unbelieving spouses, and fourth, if deserted by non-believing spouses, the deserted are not bound by their marriage. This is difficult. What is the nature of their non-bondage? The preceding clause says “let him leave”. The following clause says “God has called us to peace”. So, one could take this to indicate that the believer is not bound to insist upon the continued union. I think, however, that this indicates the dissolution of the marriage bond, freeing the believer to remarry. Admittedly, “God has called us to peace” is not easily explained by my reading. My reading finds some support, however in Romans 7:1-3.
Having discussed each of the biblical texts in turn, we can synthesize our findings as follows: There are three occasions where the marital union of exclusive conjugal rights are (or can be) dissolved:
1. Death
2. A spouse who commits adultery
3. An unbelieving spouse who initiates divorce proceedings
We must note, however, that God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), and occasion 2 is merely justified, not encouraged. It is important for us to recognize that divorce is justified in occasion 2, though. God’s covenantal relation is frequently described in marrital terms. God had every right to divorce Israel, as she was an adultress. This observation makes counsel of a party offended by adultery complex. On the one hand, we must respect the right of divorce, on the other, striving to emulate the character of God suggests that forgiveness is the better course of action.
This topic is by no means exhausted by this investigation. We ought, for instance, to further establish whether the union is actually dissolved in the case of 2, and whether it must be therefore be renewed, or whether the bond is only subject to dissolution, depending upon the will of the offended party. We might also consider whether a husband may forgive his wife without continuing the marital bond. That is, if he forgives her, does he therefore remain married to her? If he forgives her, but divorces her, has he sinned? As I have not given these questions adequate study and meditation, I will have to leave them for a later discourse.

___________________

[1] The rule does not apply if she does not remarry.
[2] The law does not prohibit her from marrying yet a third husband. It only says that she can’t go back to her first husband.
[3] By virtue of having remarried? Or does it mean that she is ‘defiled with respect to him’, since she has slept with someone besides him after him? This is a very important distinction—one which requires justification of choice, not simply assertion of it. Note that the second couple was not dealt with as adultererous (death).
[4] It is worth noting, though it is not directly relevant to the narrow subject of this paper, that Jesus appears to abbrogate the Mosaic penalty for adultery, death, since he permits divorce instead.