After Church Discipline: Comfort After Removing a Loved One from Membership

By / Sep 1

With a heavy heart, I walked into the church building knowing what was about to take place. As a church, we were gathering together to exercise the final step of church discipline: removal from membership. When the call to vote came, I cast my head down and raised my hand to vote for removal.

Some of the hardest moments in my Christian life have been removing someone from fellowship because of their unrepentant sin. Just hearing about removing someone from membership is discouraging and knowing that someone is living in disobedience towards God and pursuing their sin can discourage us in our faith. Having close friends, family, and pastors pursuing their sin brings despair that hits even harder. But through this heaviness of heart, we must fulfill the biblical command to practice church discipline. Our goal in discipline is not to condemn, but to restore. Thus, we don’t forsake church discipline just because it grieves us.

The first time I voted to remove someone from fellowship was a good friend of mine and it was devastating. Questions flooded my mind. Was there more I could have done? Are they lost forever? How do I speak to them? Will we ever have the same relationship? Why am I so burdened by this? Why haven’t I reached out since we removed them from fellowship? I asked myself many more questions that brought out shame, guilt, and further despair.

My desire in writing this is for the sake of anyone facing these same questions and feelings. We can take great comfort in God and His Word, trusting in His sovereignty over these circumstances. Here are some points of comfort for those who have, along with their local church, fulfilled their duty in removing individuals from fellowship with the church.

  1. They are not too far gone

My wife and I voted to remove a family member from our church a few years ago. The days that followed were heavy for us, but I’ll never forget what one of our pastors said, “They are not too far gone.” A burden was lifted from us by this statement alone. We were preparing to live the rest of our lives as if they would never return to the Lord. We wondered what this looked like as supporters of their disfellowship with the church when we were to see them at holidays, family gatherings, or even when we spoke about our faith. Would they be bitter toward us? Would they resent our decision to support Scripture, despite them being family? Yet, we were reminded of the fact that they are not too far gone. When pondering on those you’ve recently removed from fellowship, remember that though they are far from God now, we shouldn’t assume God isn’t working to bring them back. Take comfort in the fact that God brings his lost sheep back to himself.

  1. You’re probably not guilty of doing too little

Perhaps you’re in a position like the one that I have faced. You blame yourself for not doing enough; you could have met with them more, prayed for them more frequently and sincerely, or even rebuked and corrected them in the hope of their restoration prior to disfellowship. Although these efforts are commendable, doing more doesn’t guarantee you’ll be successful in your efforts. Rather, if you’ve been a faithful church member to them and if you’ve followed what is outlined in Scripture concerning church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:9-13), then you needn’t worry about having done too little. If by your witness they don’t repent, you are not guilty. If after confronting them with 2-3 witnesses they don’t repent, you are not guilty. If after bringing them before the church and they don’t repent, you are not guilty. You’ve been faithful to do what God has instructed you to do. Their unrepentance is not your guilt to bear. Take comfort in your obedience to the Lord.

  1. You are not alone

There are two comforts that exist for you to consider in helping you ease the burden of church discipline: the Church and prayer. The Church is a great comfort because you know that you are not alone in pleading to the Lord for their repentance. Because of the Church you are not alone in reaching out to those who are removed from fellowship. And when it feels overwhelming, you have the Church to lean onto for comfort. Ultimately, you are led to prayer personally and corporately. 1 Peter 5:7 reminds us that we can cast all our burdens on God because he cares for us. Take comfort because you have the Church to lean on and God to rest in.

  1. Discipline comes from the Lord

The first question of the Heidelberg Catechism asks, “What is your only comfort in life and death?” One line of the answer has provided immense comfort for my own personal life, and I believe it applies here. “[Jesus] also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.” How comforting is it to know that the Father’s will is actively engaged in working all things for our salvation? In purging the evil from among us (1 Cor. 5:13), our goal is not to cast someone aside for the final judgment.
Rather, our aim is to be the ones used by the Lord to ensure that all things are working together for their salvation. Personally, I see disfellowshipping a member not as a judgment on their salvation (though this act does remove those who clearly had a false confession of faith), but rather as a statement of discipline. Think of the relationship of a parent and a child. A child who is rebellious against their parents doesn’t lose the status of child. No, the parents discipline the child, and the child remains a child. In the same way, the Father uses the Church to discipline his children (See Heb. 12:3-13). Take comfort that the Lord disciplines those whom he loves (Prov. 3:12; Heb. 12:6).

  1. Restoration does happen

Here’s the best news of all, God does restore those whom he is disciplining. A friend recently commented on 1 John 2:1, “John is more sure that Christ is forgiving than he is that you won’t sin.” Our forgiving God is restoring those who are his and forgiving them of their sin. Don’t be dismayed that all don’t return to the Lord, but take great comfort in the fact that the Lord is restoring his sheep to the flock. Find peace in the gospel, which leads us to trust that even the worst of sinners who repent and have faith in our Triune God are being sanctified (Phil. 1:6).
As time has passed, the Lord has used his Word and the Church to remind me that those who fulfill their duty of church discipline have great comfort in their time of lament. Whether we struggle with guilt, feeling alone, or doubt, we can have hope in the comforting, restoring God who is making sinners whole.



Episode 175: Geoff Chang on Spurgeon the Pastor

By / Aug 31

On this episode of the FTC Podcast, Jared Wilson talks with his MBTS colleague Dr. Geoff Chang, professor of church history and curator of the Spurgeon Library, about his new book on Spurgeon’s pastoral ministry, implications for megachurches, and more.



How to Understand and Apply the Old Testament: Step 10––Biblical Theology

By / Aug 31

Text (Genre, Literary units and text hierarchy, Text-criticism)
Observation (Clause and text grammar, Argument-tracing, Word and concept studies)
Context (Historical and Literary context)
Meaning (Biblical and Systematic theology)
Application (Practical theology)

Once you have established your text, made accurate observations, and discerned your passage’s contexts, it is time to determine your text’s meaning. To do this, it is critical to understand biblical theology, the discipline that considers how the whole Bible progresses, integrates, and climaxes in Jesus. Here you ask, “How does my passage connect to the Bible’s overall storyline and point to Christ?”

Four Guiding Presuppositions

The discipline of biblical theology assumes at least four key principles about the Bible:

1. The Bible is the locus of God’s special revelation.

Every line, word, phrase, clause, and paragraph in Scripture is God’s word. No other book is like the Bible, for it alone is God’s special revelation. Therefore, biblical theology is a textual discipline, such that the author’s intent guides the connections we make both backward and forward within every text. Historical context informs and supports the study but never trumps it.

2. The Bible demands that we submit to it and engage it in constructive ways.

We must see God’s word in its final canonical form as our primary and decisive authority in all matters of faith and practice. Furthermore, our interpretation should never deconstruct the biblical text, misinterpret the text, contradict the biblical author’s intentions, or fail to evaluate fairly the claims of the text in accordance with its nature.

3. The Bible is prescriptive.

Because the Bible is God’s word, it has the authority to prescribe a certain lifestyle and worldview for its readers and to confront alternatives. God’s purpose in having us grasp his purposes in salvation history is to move us to worship and surrender to the living God through Christ.

4. The Bible expresses a coherent, unified theology.

God is the ultimate author of Scripture, and he is the ultimate unified and coherent thinker. Thus, we must push to grasp the unified theology of the whole Bible. Every passage contributes in some way to the whole.

Definition and Nature of Biblical Theology

 The whole Bible progresses, integrates, and climaxes in Christ, and every passage contributes in some way to Scripture’s message that God reigns, saves, and satisfies through covenant for his glory in Jesus. Central to determining a passage’s meaning is not only considering what it proclaims but how this message relates to and informs the greater message of Scripture culminating in Christ.

Biblical theology is a way of analyzing and synthesizing what the Bible reveals about God and his relations with the world that makes organic salvation-historical and literary-canonical connections with the whole of Scripture on its own terms, especially with respect to how the Old and New Testaments progress, integrate, and climax in Christ. Let me unpack this extended definition under six headings.

  1. The Task, Part 1: Biblical theology analyzes and synthesizes what the Old and New Testaments reveal about God and his relations with the world.

Biblical theology seeks to interpret the final form of the Christian Bible––to analyze and synthesize God’s special revelation embodied in the Old and New Testaments. That God’s special revelation comes through Old and New Testaments highlights both Scripture’s unity and diversity. The one Bible has two necessary parts, each of which we must read in view of the other. The Old Testament provides foundation for what Jesus fulfills in the New Testament.

  1. The Task, Part 2: Biblical theology makes organic connections with the whole of Scripture on its own terms.

Biblical theology is about making natural, unforced connections within Scripture. In the process, it recognizes growth or progress in a thought or concept and lets the Bible speak in accordance with its own contours, structures, language, and flow.

  1. Salvation-Historical Connections: Biblical theology makes salvation-historical connections with the whole of Scripture on its own terms.

Salvation history is the progressive narrative unfolding of God’s kingdom plan through the various covenants, events, people, and institutions, all climaxing in the person and work of Jesus. Redemptive history moves from creation to the fall to redemption to consummation. It’s the true story of God’s purposes climaxing in Christ that frames all of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. One way to summarize his-story is through the acronym KINGDOM, as represented in the following chart:

Scripture declares the story of God’s glory in Christ. Within this framework, we can make salvation-historical connections in at least five different ways:

  • Thematic developments: We can trace a theme through the story of salvation, noting how it culminates in Christ. Some of the main themes are kingdom, law, temple, people of God, exile and exodus, atonement, holiness, and missions.
  • Covenantal continuity and discontinuity: We should consider how the progress of the biblical covenants maintains, transforms, alters, or escalates various elements in God’s relations with his people and the world.
  • Type and anti-type: Both Old and New Testament authors regularly identify predictive thematic anticipations or types rooted in the progressive development of Scripture’s historical record (e.g., Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Col. 2:16–17). By God’s design, specific persons (e.g., Adam, Moses), events (e.g., creation, exodus), and institutions (e.g., temple, sacrifice) establish patterns that culminate in the life and work of Christ Jesus. These types are prophetic and prospective from their inception, even when interpreters only discover them retrospectively.
  • Promise and fulfillment: We must track specific promises and then identify their partial, progressive, and/or ultimate fulfillment at various stages in salvation history, ever remembering Paul’s declaration that “all the promises of God find their Yes in [Christ]” (2 Cor. 1:20). An example here would be how Micah 5:2 declares that the royal deliver would rise out of Bethlehem, and Matthew declares this fulfilled (Matt. 2:5–6).
  • Use of the Old Testament in the Old and New Testaments: Here, we assess how later biblical writers interpret and/or apply earlier canonical revelation, especially with a view to understanding Christ Jesus.

  1. Literary-Canonical Connections: Biblical theology makes organize literary-canonical connections with the whole of Scripture on its own terms.

Biblical theology arises out of the narrative framework of salvation history, but we cannot restrict the discipline to redemptive historical connections because the Bible includes more than the story of God’s glory in Christ. As seen below, Scripture includes groupings of narrative books that frame commentary books. We must consider every passage in light of its placement and role within the canon as a whole, which contains two Testaments, each with corresponding narrative and commentary sections and each with a potentially-corresponding three-part structure. The chart arranges the Old Testament in alignment with the order in Jesus’s Bible (see Luke 24:44) and the New Testament in accordance with the earliest canonical evidence.

Along with final-form composition and structure, literary-canonical connections include the historical details that tie the canon together. Here I refer to information regarding authorship, date, or provenance of a given passage. Where God reveals such information, it is fair and appropriate to use it to consider how books or passages that are united historically address various themes or contribute to our knowledge of a given topic. Because Moses was the substantial author of both Exodus and Leviticus, we can use each book as an interpretive lens for the other. Because Samuel–Kings and Chronicles address similar time-periods from different perspectives, we can compare the two to help clarify the distinctive theology of each corpus.

Finally, literary-canonical connections also include accounting for our passage’s biblical corpus or genre. Studying the teaching in Ecclesiastes should naturally be related to that of Proverbs not only because Solomon is likely the same author but also because both are wisdom books. Similarly, one should interpret Zephaniah in view of its placement in and contribution to both the Book of the Twelve and the Latter Prophets as a whole.

  1. Relationship of the Testaments: Biblical theology wrestles with how the Old and New Testaments progress and integrate.

The relationship of the Testaments is perhaps the biggest question faced in biblical theology. Scripture was not shaped in a day. God produced it over time, progressively disclosing his kingdom purposes climaxing in Christ and pointing ultimately to the consummation. Biblical theology gives significant effort to tracking this progression and to considering how the various covenants and Testaments integrate in God’s overarching kingdom plan.

  1. The Centrality of Christ: Biblical theology wrestles with how the Old and New Testaments climax in Christ.

The ultimate end of biblical theology is Jesus. The salvation history that frames Scripture all points and progresses to Christ, and all fulfillment flows from and through him. All laws, history, laws, prophecy, and promises find their end-times realization in Jesus (Matt 5:17–18; Mark 1:15; Acts 3:18; 2 Cor. 1:20). Therefore, we can rightly assert that the Old Testament is a messianic document written to instill messianic hope (see Rom. 1:1–3; 3:21; 10:4). Indeed, the apostles recognized that Yahweh foretold by the mouth of all the prophets from Moses forward the tribulation and triumph of the Christ and the subsequent glories (Acts 3:18, 24; 10:43; 1 Peter 1:10–11), and God revealed to those prophets that “they were serving not themselves but you” when they wrote their words (1 Peter 1:12). If we fail to appreciate that the Old Testament is Christian Scripture, we do not approach it like Jesus and his apostles, and we have no basis to call our interpretation “Christian.” 

The Bible’s Frame, Form, Focus, and Fulcrum

Thus far, we have learned something about what the Bible is about, how it is transmitted, why it was given, and around whom it is centered. That is, the Bible has a frame, a form, a focus, and a fulcrum.

  1. The Frame = The Content: What?

The Bible is the revelation of God, who reigns over all and who saves and satisfies all who look to him. In short, Scripture is about his kingdom and how he builds it through covenant for his glory in Christ. We could say that Scripture’s content relates to God’s reign over God’s people in God’s land for God’s glory (Luke 4:43; Acts 1:3; 20:25; 28:23, 31).

  1. The Form = The Means: How?

Throughout salvation history, God has maintained his relationship with the world through a series of covenants. The most dominant of these are the Mosaic (old) covenant and the new covenant in Christ. The old covenant bore a ministry of condemnation and brought forth an age of death; the new covenant bore a ministry of righteousness and brought with it life (2 Cor. 3:9). Moses recognized Israel’s stubbornness and predicted the old covenant’s failure (Deut. 9:6–7; 31:16–18, 27–29). But he also envisioned that God would mercifully overcome the curse with restoration blessing (4:30–31) in what we now know as the new covenant (Jer. 31:31). A prophetic, new covenant mediator would facilitate this era of blessing (Deut. 18:15), which would include God’s transforming the hearts of covenant members in a way that would generate love and obedience (30:6, 8–14). God would curse all his enemies (30:7) and broaden the makeup of his people to include some from the nations (32:21, 43; cf. Gen. 17:4–5). Christ is the mediator of the new covenant (Gen. 22:17–18; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 9:15; 12:24), which has superseded the old (Gal. 3:24–25; Rom. 10:4), made every promise “Yes” (2 Cor. 1:20), and secured for us every spiritual blessing (Eph. 1:3) and “an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading” (1 Peter 1:4).

  1. The Focus = The Purpose: Why?

The chief goal of all God’s actions is the preservation and display of his glory, and it is to this end that all Scripture points. Because all things are from him, through him, and to him, God’s glory is exalted over all things (Rom. 11:36) and should be the goal of our lives (1 Cor. 10:31).

  1. The Fulcrum = Sphere: Whom?

Jesus Christ is the one to whom all salvation history points, and the one who fulfills all the Old Testament anticipates. The entire Bible centers on this promised messianic Deliverer who secures reconciliation with God for all who believe in him as the divine, crucified, resurrected Messiah. His ministry produces a universal call to repentance and whole-life surrender to him as King.

We can synthesis Scripture’s as God reigns, saves, and satisfies through covenant for his glory in Christ. Put another way, the Bible calls Jews and Gentiles alike to magnify God as the supreme Sovereign, Savior, and Satisfier of the world through Messiah Jesus. The Old Testament provides the foundation for this message; the New Testament fulfills all Old Testament hopes.[1] 

Conclusion

Scripture is self-interpreting, for the God who never changes is the author of it all. To determine the full meaning of a passage, we must always ponder how your passage contributes and relates to the rest of Scripture culminating in Christ. The whole Bible progresses, integrates, and climaxes in Jesus, so we must consider how every passage in the Old Testament relates to this overarching flow and message.

[1]  For two examples of biblical theology at work, see Jason S. DeRouchie, “Why the Third Day?: The Promise of Resurrection in All of Scripture,” Desiring God, 11 June 2019, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-the-third-day; Jason S. DeRouchie, “God Always Wanted the Whole World: Global Mission from Genesis to Revelation,” Desiring God, 5 December 2019, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/god-always-wanted-the-whole-world.



Though My Flesh May Fail: Reflections on Chronic Suffering from the Hospital Bed

By / Aug 30

“You have dysentery.” My common fate on the old Oregon Trail computer game became reality three years ago in Madagascar when my doctor spoke these words to me. As much as I wanted to laugh at how ironic it was to struggle with such an old disease as dysentery, I was in pain.

Little did I know then that this illness would set me on a trajectory of doctors’ visits, medical diagnoses, and hospital stays for the next three years, leading up to this very day where I sit once again in isolation at St. Luke’s East Hospital, missing my family and wondering why they can’t design hospital beds to be more comfortable.

I’m a firm believer in the sovereignty of God’s grace. I believe everything that happens to the believer is for good. After receiving an autoimmune diagnosis and seeing the subsequent bills roll in, though, this conviction has been put to the test.

Amidst temptations to doubt, God continues to reveal His good purposes for me in my affliction. As I sit in my hospital bed today, three lessons stand out among the rest as reminders of the sovereignty of God’s grace and His goodness in my life.

1. Your present trajectory does not determine your eternal reality.

Beginning in the fall of 2020, my life seemed to be on a negative trajectory. A house fire displacing our family for six months, the loss of my job and financial stability, and an autoimmune diagnosis hit us all in the span of a few months. Health, home, career, and finances- all taken away before we knew what hit us.

Any onlooker to the situation would quickly—and rightly—surmise that we were in a tough spot, in all senses of the phrase- emotionally, physically, and spiritually.

And in that season, Psalm 73 became my refrain.

“My feet had almost stumbled… For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked…For they have no pangs until death…They are not in trouble as others are…Behold, these are the wicked; always as ease.”

Why do the wicked prosper? So often, prosperity seems to attend the wicked while the Christian seems to go from bad to worse. I often wonder, “How can this be?” Anticipating my question, God answers…

“But when I thought how to understand this; it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end… Truly you set them in slippery places.”

For the Christian, God saves us not only from our sin, but He also saves us from all other saviors. During this season, I began to see that I found more comfort, identity, and satisfaction in my home, health, and finances than I had previously realized.

As Thomas Brooks said in The Crook in the Lot, “If there’s any part of my portion in this life where, in the midst of all others, one is disposed to nestle in, the thorn will readily be laid there. There the trial will be taken for there is the grand competition with Christ. We find our greatest cross where we expected our greatest comfort.”

In other words, God will have no rivals for worship in our hearts. Our thorns are God’s means of keeping us in Christ.

These earthly possessions proved to be terrible saviors, possessing no power to give what they promise. They never satisfy. The rich never have enough. The home never comforts enough. The healthy still get sick. Ease is a wicked temptress and an empty savior. The wicked may prosper, but the Psalmist teaches how I can respond.

“Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.”

Take heart, Christian. Though it may seem as if life is headed in the wrong direction, rest in the wisdom of God. While affluence may grow for the wicked, they are in slippery places. In His grace, God keeps us from great temptations. We may actually be closer to where we need to be than if the affliction were simply removed.

2. God has no aimless thorns.

“Though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trails.” (1 Peter 1:6, emphasis mine)

God will not unnecessarily keep you in humbling circumstances. When the end purpose for the affliction is attained, we can be sure the affliction will be taken away.

And while He may have 10,000 purposes for a single affliction, we can rest assured that His purposes are good. Again, our thorns are His means of keeping us.

Just as a fence around a playground frees children to run fast with no fear of the cars on the street, our thorns enable us to enjoy Jesus more than anything else we could find in this life.

And since I still struggle with my chronic illness, I can be sure that God is still at work— removing heart idols in me and possibly working something outside of myself that I’m completely unaware of.

Let this be your confidence, Christian— God is more committed to your Christlikeness than you are. “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion on that day.” No matter what. He will do whatever it takes to ensure your conformity to Christ and your dwelling with Him for eternity. No matter how painful.

As C.S. Lewis said so profoundly, “We don’t doubt God’s goodness, we just don’t realize how painful it might be.”

So, in the midst of your chronic suffering, remember that God has no aimless thorns. Each thorn perfectly meets its mark exactly as He intends for the duration He determines. Each one will accomplish all He desires. Learn to seek God in the struggle with the thorn. See how He might be using it to conform you to the image of Christ and prepare you for eternity with Him.

3. Chronic suffering gives opportunity for resurrection living.

“We who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.” (2 Corinthians 4:11)

At the hospital, a friend asked, “How are you not frustrated right now? I feel like everyone else in your situation would be angry that the doctors can’t find a solution.”

I believe there’s great opportunity for gospel witness through resurrection living. Time and time again in Scripture, God chooses the weak in the world to shame the strong. A life of suffering with joy gives a great testimony to the beauty of the gospel of Jesus.

And in this way, there is great purpose in affliction. Life springing forth out of death in my life is but a small window into the good news of Jesus – the One who became the only true source of life by His death.

So, in my suffering, God has been kind to quickly remind me that the place of dependence on Him is the best place to be. Sickness keeps me close to Christ. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve asked to be humbled by a different set of circumstances, but I’m learning to trust that His ways are better than mine.

As my flesh fails me, God has promised to renew my spirit day by day. And in this way—life out of death—the gospel is proclaimed. And in that, I rejoice.



How Dangerous Hermeneutics Can Inform False Teachers

By / Aug 25

One sign of a false prophet is when a religious leader invents novel and fanciful interpretations of Scripture, interpretations completely divorced from the original context. Religious charlatans usually engage in such hermeneutical gymnastics in order to bolster their own power. An example of such scripture-twisting is seen in LDS Church’s slanted take on Isaiah 29:11 – 12, a passage they improperly handle in an attempt to bolster the authenticity of both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. 

To understand why the LDS Church is wrong about Isaiah 29:11 – 12, we first must examine what the passage does mean. In a discussion about theological and ethical error, Isaiah stresses that sin leads to spiritual dullness. When sin takes control, it deadens our ability to think correctly about God and how we should live.  Sin cauterizes the conscience and disables it from working properly. Subsequently, it becomes unusually difficult to understand God’s word or what God would have us to do. That’s the point of Isaiah 29:11 – 12:

The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read.”

Because sin dulls the conscience, Isaiah 29:11 – 12 describes a sort of self-inflicted spiritual illiteracy that ensues. People are given God’s word, but they can’t understand it because sin has negatively affected the intellect. In Isaiah 6:9 – 10, God had already warned Isaiah of such a response to his preaching. Isaiah 29:11 – 12 gives forceful and cautionary advice that sin inhibits our ability to think rightly about God and ethics. 

The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction invented from Joseph Smith’s furtive imagination. Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was translated from golden plates buried in upstate New York, an ancient record of a Jewish-Christian civilization which once thrived in the Western Hemisphere prior to European contact. To make his story sound more exotic, Smith claimed the account on the golden plates was written in “reformed Egyptian.” When the Book of Mormon was completed, Smith conveniently claimed to have returned the golden plates to an angelic being. 

A rational question is, “What is reformed Egyptian?” Martin Harris, one of Smith’s scribes and a financial backer, asked the same thing. Though Harris was one of the “three witnesses” to the Book of Mormon, Smith never actually showed Harris the ancient writing he was purportedly translating. Usually, Smith translated by placing a “seer stone” in a hat and then burying his face in the hat and repeating out loud to an amanuensis what God was supposedly telling him. 

Harris was eager for proof Smith was a true prophet, so he asked Smith to reproduce the “reformed Egyptian.” One is left to wonder why Harris could be a witness to the Book of Mormon, and yet not be allowed to look upon the pages. Nonetheless, Smith scribbled out some “reformed Egyptian” characters on a piece of paper. In February 1828, Harris took the sheet of paper containing Smith’s reproduction of the mysterious alphabet to Charles Anthon, a professor of classical literature at Columbia University.  Harris, for some reason, left the meeting thinking to himself, “Joseph Smith is a true prophet!” Meanwhile, Charles Anthon spent the rest of his life saying, “I claimed no such thing!” When Anthon recounted the meeting, he said he tried to warn Harris that he was being tricked by Smith.   

But Martin Harris claimed Anthon’s initial response to the list of characters from Smith was positive, with Harris insisting that Charles Anthon wrote out a brief note affirming the authenticity of the characters and their translation. But, according to Harris, when Anthon asked where Smith got the plates and was told they came from an angel, Anthon ripped up his endorsement and then purportedly told Harris something to the effect, “Bring me the plates and I’ll translate them myself.” Harris responded he could not bring them because they were “sealed.” To which Anthon rejoined, “I cannot read a sealed book.”

What do gullible Martin Harris, the deceptive Joseph Smith, and the frustrated Professor Anthon have to do with Isaiah 29:11 – 12? Joseph Smith seized on Anthon’s purported comment about being unable to read a “sealed” book, and using some fast and loose word association, claimed the entire event was a fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11 – 12, and LDS interpreters to this day insist this prophecy was fulfilled in the Harris / Anthon incident. The claim is that Anthon is the “literate” or educated person in Isaiah 29:11 who can’t read a sealed book. In other words, Anthon couldn’t understand the characters Smith had scrawled out. Then, LDS teachers claim Joseph Smith is the “illiterate” or uneducated person mentioned in Isaiah 29:12 to whom the book is given and who is apparently blessed by God. 

Isaiah 29:11 – 12 cannot mean what the LDS church claims. The point of these verses is not that the literate man cannot read the book while the illiterate man can read it. The point of Isaiah 29:11 – 12 is that no one can read what Isaiah is discussing! No matter to whom you take the book, it is unreadable. Like men running around with a book they could not read, Israel would have God’s words but not understand them. Why? Because their own sin had blunted their ability to grasp the meaning. 

The Community of Christ, a smaller LDS group, owns a sheet of paper they think contains copies of the characters Joseph Smith gave to Martin Harris. Now known as the “Anthon Manuscript,” the artifact was passed down to the Community of Christ by David Whitmer, another witness to the Book of Mormon and a very important person in the early history of the LDS Church. Though some scholars think the Anthon Manuscript may not be the exact document Harris took to Anthon, by any standard, it contains several lines of nonsense; the characters Smith scrawled out are so fanciful that calling them gibberish would be a complement. There is no such thing as reformed Egyptian. It is just one more part of Joseph Smith’s religious scam.  

False teachers abuse God’s word to build their own kingdom, not Christ’s church. A sure sign of trouble is when a preacher abandons careful handling of the text and fails to determine what a passage meant to the original audience. A time-tested rule of biblical interpretation is this: The text can’t mean now what it didn’t mean then. Isaiah 29:11 – 12 was not referring to nonsense like “reformed Egyptian” when Isaiah wrote it and it’s not referring to Joseph Smith today. 



A Prayer at the Dawn of a Theological School Year

By / Aug 24

O Lord, as light dawns on the first few days of the school year for seminary and bible college students, light our path as we journey through theological education.

Show the cracks and crannies of our beliefs that need to be filled with deeper or clearer understanding of your truth. Don’t let us believe the lie that we know everything about life and godliness before we’ve taken a seat in the classroom.

We can never predict what you’ll teach us in an academic year. We can’t guess our areas of ignorance, faulty theological structures, or relational strengths and weaknesses until they’re revealed by a conversation, or comments on a returned paper, or confrontation with your Word. We are always, ever learning, inside and outside the classroom.

Give us eyes to see and ears to hear what you wish to teach us, but also don’t trap us in the hamster wheel of trying to learn everything about you and your church in our finitude.

We confess, Lord, that we are not omniscient. Thank you for teachers who remind us that a miserly four or five years of study cannot completely comprehend divine truth. They can only give us the tools for a lifetime, mining your truth in your Word with your people.

O God, let us not forget your people. As seminary and bible college students, we are training to serve your people, and yet we so easily serve ourselves through the praise of pastors and professors or the pride of what we know. Keep us from using the privilege of theological education as an excuse to distance ourselves from those who seem difficult or uneducated or unimportant, thinking our credit hours make us more special than the rest of God’s family (Ephesians 2:19).

Remind us that before we sat in a theology class, we sat outside your love, “having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). Now, we have you, as well as your people. We are together chosen and accepted primarily by you, not merely our theological institutions.

We are unified with you, as well as unified in our mission (Matthew 28:19), whether from an American church building, dusty road on the other side of the world, or the desk of a parachurch ministry. May we be amazed at the tapestry of ministries and gifts among us in this season of training. Some of us will be pastors, associate pastors, professors, youth leaders, writers, or staff of countless kinds. Some will stay in vocational ministry, while others will use their education elsewhere. Keep us from pointing fingers at our brothers and sisters like Peter pointed at John (John 21:20-23), preoccupied with asking you about someone else’s future compared to ours. We are all different, yet equally called to follow you.

We are called to follow you not only in word or talk, but in deed and truth (1 John 3:18). Forbid our studies from masking who we really are. We are sinners and students, and Christian academia was never meant to be the drug to cure or cover up sin. How easily we can abuse its environment and equipment to be confident before you, when Christ alone condemns or justifies and sanctifies, with or without our bible college or seminary classes (Romans 8:33, Galatians 5:25). You told us to abide in you, not in theological education (John 15:4). Break the leaky cisterns in our studies that we trust could hold or attain any righteousness apart from you.

Before and after our diplomas, Lord, we are yours, and your people are not ours. “For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5).

May our “lightbulb moments” and limits to our understanding, love and labor for your people, honesty and humility with your Word and ourselves this year be for your glory forever.

Amen.



Sometimes I Struggle With the Bible

By / Aug 24

Sometimes I struggle with the Bible.

When I read Scripture, potential distractions abound. So many things seem more urgent and alluring—things like email, text messages, social media, the day’s news cycle, to-do lists, the latest Netflix series or music release, or opportunities to connect with actual, in the flesh human beings.

Boredom can set in. True, it is all God’s Word—what an amazing gift! But when it comes time to plod through Leviticus, or those long lists of who begat whom and who is in this tribe or that tribe, or trying to make sense of laws that feel more dated than relevant, or engaging the darker parts—rape, incest, family dysfunction, bloody wars, lying and stealing, backbiting, pettiness, and frustrated prayers—natural instinct says there might be a better use of time.

I also find the Bible perplexing. Children die for the sins of their parents. Entire people groups are oppressed and abused and enslaved by people in power. Weak and innocent people suffer while ugly-hearted people prosper. God saves some and passes over others. Two well-meaning men get struck dead for touching the ark of God. And the list goes on. These and other unnerving depictions can feel less like inspiration and more like cable news.

I relate to what Mark Twain allegedly said, that “it ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts that I do understand.”

It is comforting to know that one of my personal heroes, C.S. Lewis, shared similar feelings about the more perplexing parts of the Bible. Reflecting on Psalm 19:10, where King David compares Scripture to a treasure of fine gold and a taste sweeter than honey, Lewis wrote:

“This was to me at first very mysterious. ‘Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery’—I can understand that a man can, and must, respect these ‘statutes,’ and try to obey them, and assent to them in his heart. But it is very hard to find how they could be, so to speak, delicious, how they exhilarate…they may obey, they may still respect the statute. But surely it could be more aptly compared to the dentist’s forceps or the front line than to anything enjoyable and sweet.”

Indeed, honest Bible readers—even skilled teachers of the Bible like C.S. Lewis—have found parts of it difficult, puzzling, mystifying, and even offensive. As much as we can rejoice in, get inspired by, and find comfort in certain parts of the Bible, other parts will disturb us—namely, the parts that contradict our feelings, instincts, hopes, dreams, traditions, and cultural values. I recently saw a quote that said, “Men do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself. They reject it because it contradicts them.”

The Apostle Paul, whose life completely upended when the Word of God came to him on the road to Damascus, wrote things such as:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2)

Jesus, too, emphasized the centrality of God’s Word in the lives of believers when he said that we are to love God not only with our hearts, but also with our minds (Luke 10:27). He described the revealed will of his Father as his food and drink (John 4:34), resisted Satan’s temptations by quoting Scripture, saying, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:1-11), quoted the Psalms from the cross (Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:46), and emphasized to his followers that abiding in him and abiding in Scripture are one and the same (John 15:7-10).

To put it another way, we simply cannot separate life in Christ from a life that is utterly saturated with and dominated by Scripture. Fulfilling our calling to love and enjoy God with everything that we are, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, stands or falls on whether (or not) we become people of The Book.

Editor’s Note: This article originally was originally published at scottsauls.com. 



Episode 174: FTC Mailbag Episode

By / Aug 24

On this episode of the FTC Podcast, Jared Wilson and Ross Ferguson open up the mailbag for another round of listener-submitted topics and questions, including: whether pastors are held to a higher standard, whether should disqualified leaders have their books removed, finding a rhythm for pastoral visitation, and more.



Who are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?

By / Aug 23

In Genesis 6 Moses paints a picture of the human race falling into sin to such a significant degree that God is said to have “regretted” making mankind (Gen 6:6). The depths of sin that God witnessed among those who were created to bear his image (Gen 1:26–27) had “grieved him to his heart” (6:6). This picture of the sinfulness of mankind sets the stage for one of the most well-known stories in the Bible: the flood narrative.

As with most biblical stories, however, the various details are often debated. The particular debate I’m interested in here is concerned with how we identify the “sons of God” in Genesis 6.

Here is the passage:

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (Gen 6:1–4).

In this text Moses describes the multiplication of mankind on the face of the earth. This, after all, was the imperative given to Adam and Eve (cf. Gen 1:28). As humanity increases, there is a strange story of “sons of God” being attracted to the “daughters of man” (6:2). The situation (“sons of God” finding the women “attractive”) results in marriages (“they took as their wives”). But the question is, who are the “sons of God” that find these women “attractive” and then marry them?

There have been several answers provided in the history of interpretation. The two answers that I’m most interested in are the (a) Sethite view and (b) the Fallen Angels view.

The Sethite view understands the “sons of God” to be the descendants of Seth. The women (i.e. “daughters of man”) were not women in general but the offspring of Cain. The overarching point, then, is that the line of Seth is intermarrying with the line of Cain, the murderer of Abel. This, it is argued, helps explain the downfall of the human race into such degrees of sin that God is grieved and eventually unleashes the rains of judgment.

Another view understands the “sons of God” as angelic beings that have become sexually involved with women. These fallen angels are perhaps who Peter and Jude have in mind in various places (cf. 1 Pet 3:18–22; 2 Pet 2:4–10; Jude 5–7). Again, the overarching story aims to show the depth of sin that the human race had fallen into. Here, fallen angels, like their father the Devil before them (cf. Gen 3:1-7), helped lead all of mankind away from their Lord.

Admittedly, this position is not without problems and there are reputable biblical interpreters who take a different view (e.g. John Calvin). However, there are a number of persuasive arguments in favor of the fallen angel view:

  1. Though not determinative, this view seems to be the majority view of Christian history.
  2. Second Temple Judaism writers understood the passage as referring to angels.
  3. “Sons of God” is used to reference angelic beings in other parts of the Bible (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
  4. The specific phrase “sons of God” is not employed to reference God’s people in the Bible, though God’s people are called God’s sons in various places (e.g. Jer 3:19).
  5. Angelic beings are perhaps in view in Gen 6 according to NT passages (cf. 1 Pet 3:18–22; 2 Pet 2:4–10; Jude 5–7).
  6. In this view, the use of “man” (אָדָם) is employed consistently to reference the totality of mankind.

In my view, the fallen angel position makes the most sense of the flow of the narrative and the grammar of the text. It is the grammar of the text that has caught my eye most recently and is one reason I hesitate to take the Sethite view. Namely, Moses references “man” or “humankind” (אָדָם) eight different times in 6:1–7. The usage consistently aims to describe the entire human race, not one narrow slice of humanity.

Now, why does this present a problem for the Sethite view? Those who understand the “sons of God” to be descendants of Seth believe these men are marrying women who are in the line of Cain (“daughters of man”). Moses, according to this view, is showing what happens when the line of promise mixes with Cain’s line. Furthermore, this view means the usage of אָדָם in 6:2 and 6:4 is not a reference to all of humanity but narrows in on the line of Cain only.

Again, why is that a problem? I believe one reason this is a problematic reading is because Moses consistently used אָדָם (“man”) to refer to universal humanity in Genesis 6. His point is to show the universality of sin and therefore help readers make sense of the universal judgment of God that comes via the flood. To see, then, the use of אָדָם (“man”) in this flow of thought as limited to one slice of humanity (i.e., the descendants of Cain) would introduce an idea that seems out of place. It would require us to read the text this way: 

When [all of humanity] began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the [daughters of Cain] were attractive. And they took as their wives any [of the daughters of Cain] they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in [all of humanity] forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the [daughters of Cain] and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. The Lord saw that the wickedness of [all of humanity] was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made [all of humanity] on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out [all of humanity] whom I have created from the face of the land, [all of humanity] and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (Gen 6:1–8).

Perhaps Moses is trying to show his readers that the intermarrying of the descendants of Seth and Cain led to a spiral downwards into such levels of sin that warranted the flood of God’s judgement. Yet, what clues would cause us to read אָדָם as narrowing in on the line of Cain when the passage consistently uses אָדָם to paint a picture of universal humanity? And universal human sin is the particular problem Moses is highlighting and the coming flood will deal with. It seems we would need more, or at least clearer, grammatical warrant to adopt a reading that understands two uses of אָדָם (“man”) in the middle of a narrative (6:2, 4) to move from universal (mankind) to a more narrow referent (line of Cain). Despite the biblical-theological reading that argues for the Sethite view, as theologically interesting as that reading may be, we must not jettison commitment to the grammar of a text.

Instead, it seems to me the best reading sees every use of אָדָם (“man”) as a reference to the totality of humankind. Thus, all the families of the earth are multiplying. The “sons of God” found women attractive and married them. These demonic forces (fallen angels) are involved in leading the totality of humanity away from God, just as the Serpent had led Adam and Eve to rebel. The whole human race has spiraled downward. Sin abounds. God is grieved. Judgment is coming. And it is coming to every slice of the human race for all have sinned (cf. Gen 6:7; Rom 3:23). Only God’s mercy allows Noah to escape via the ark he is commanded to prepare.

Admittedly, these questions are complex and the Sethite view is a plausible (and faithful) reading of the Genesis account. In the end, whether you see “sons of God” as descendants of Seth, fallen angels, or you take some other view, the overall point seems clear. Southern Seminary professor, Dr. Bill Cook, states the matter succinctly:

Of course, I may be wrong, and the Sethite interpretation may be correct after all. I certainly grant that the ancient view seems strange to our modern ears. But since Peter and Jude both appear to have held it, it seems to me the best interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4. Regardless of which interpretation is correct, though, the main point is plain: humanity was falling deeper and deeper into sin and running farther and farther away from God.

In light of the pervasiveness of human sin, the text sends us to our knees. We all, like mankind before us, have turned aside and gone our own way (Rom 3:12, 23). Therefore, we are humbled to the dust. 

And yet, Genesis 6 reminds us that though sin abounds, the grace of God abounds all the more. Noah builds an ark that saves all who take refuge within. Thousands of years later, God provides another ark of salvation. That latter ark is not a boat made of wood but a person who carries a wooden cross and dies a substitutionary-atoning death for all those who would turn from sin and trust in him. Thus, like those who found refuge in Noah’s ark and were saved from the waters of judgment, those who come to Jesus are brought through the waters of judgment and saved from wrath of God (cf. 1 Pet 3:18–22). 



Yes, the Devil is Real

By / Aug 22

A couple of years ago, when I was doing a round of interviews for my book The Gospel According to Satan, one question I repeatedly encountered took be aback: “Do you really believe in the devil?”

In our post-Christian, largely irreligious age, it certainly doesn’t go without saying. Plenty of people do believe there’s such a thing as evil, that there are indeed actions that are morally wrong, but fewer and fewer believe there’s any kind of personality behind this evil. Even among professing Christians, the idea is growing that “Satan” is more a force than an actual being.

So do I believe there’s an actual devil? You bet I do. And here are a few reasons why:

First, given the biblical explanation for the origin of existence, only evil persons explain the presence of evil in the world. In other words, to believe that evil is only a force —- some ethereal wickedness or antagonistic but impersonal power —- is to identify God, who is the Creator of all things, as the author of evil. But the idea that evil only exists as a force in opposition to God and his holiness is more akin to Eastern religious views than to a Judeo-Christian worldview. Satan is no yin to the Lord’s yang.

The Bible explains that God created all things good but that he endowed his sentient creation —- both angels and humans -— with the freedom to will good or evil. Some angels rebelled, which explains the origin of evil as a personal, intentional insurrection. When Adam and Eve succumbed to temptation, they brought sin to all humanity in what is known as the Fall. Thus, while the power of sin is a pernicious spiritual force in the world, it is always manifested in either spiritual beings or human beings. The Bible explains that one of these fallen angels is a chief leader in this wickedness.

Secondly, the Bible also depicts the devil as a real being, not as an impersonal force. Even through the poetic language of Genesis 3 or the early chapters of Job, the narratives depicting Satan are thoroughly historical in nature. Just as Adam and Eve were real persons, so the serpent was a real serpent, really speaking. The dialogue between God and the devil concerning Job is also indicative of a real being. In other words, God wasn’t talking to himself! Nor was he interacting with some impersonal force.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the New Testament writers undeniably believed the devil was a real being. An impersonal force cannot “scheme” (Eph. 6:11). An impersonal force does not have a “will” (2 Tim. 2:26). An impersonal force cannot “prowl” (1 Pet. 5:8). Most notably, Jesus himself dialogues with the devil during his wilderness temptation (Matt. 4).

So, yes, I do believe there is a real devil who commands real demons. He really does want to destroy God’s good creation, and he really does tempt and try real Christians.

None of this, of course, means we ought to resign ourselves to fear. While the devil and his power are real, we know that Christ has sealed his doom on the cross and at the resurrection. And we know that as powerful as the devil may be, he is, as Martin Luther says, “the Lord’s devil,” which is to say, he cannot exceed the sovereignty of his Creator. The devil’s days are numbered, and on the day of Christ’s return, he will finally and fully be vanquished forever — and his power and all sin with him. Through the gospel, you can partake of this devil-defeating power. Even now. For as real as Satan is, Christ is realer still.