What's the Point of Christmas: Calvin on the Incarnation?

Calvin on the Incarnation

In Reformed Baptist Fellowship  



IT deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father determined. Our iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person reaching to him could be the medium of restoring peace. But who could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them, with their parents, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God behoved to become our Emmanuel, the God with us; and in such a way, that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined; otherwise, neither was the proximity near enough, nor the affinity strong enough, to give us hope that God would dwell with us; so great was the repugnance between our pollution and the spotless purity of God. Had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator. What, then, must it have been, when by fatal ruin he was plunged into death and hell, defiled by so many stains, made loathsome by corruption; in fine, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without cause, therefore, that Paul, when he would set forth Christ as the Mediator, distinctly declares him to be man. There is, says he, “one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Tim. 2:5). He might have called him God, or at least, omitting to call him God he might also have omitted to call him man; but because the Spirit, speaking by his mouth, knew our infirmity, he opportunely provides for it by the most appropriate remedy, setting the Son of God familiarly before us as one of ourselves. That no one, therefore, may feel perplexed where to seek the Mediator, or by what means to reach him, the Spirit, by calling him man, reminds us that he is near, nay, contiguous to us, inasmuch as he is our flesh. And, indeed, he intimates the same thing in another place, where he explains at greater length that he is not a high priest who “cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” (Heb. 4:15).

John Calvin’s Institutes, Book II, chapter 12, section 1

Getting into Covenant Theology?

Review of “Recovering a Covenantal Heritage”

Posted by: Brandon Adams  

 

Editor’s Note: Recovering a Covenantal Heritage is a collection of essays on Covenant Theology from a Confessionally Reformed Baptist perspective. It was published in December, 2014 by Reformed Baptist Associated Press. 527 pages. Edited by Richard C. Barcellos.
Reading the book stirred up a love for and worship of the Lord. It thoroughly developed in me a desire to see the church reformed according to the Word of God (Ch. 4) because, as Michael T. Renihan notes in Chapter 6 “The recovery of right baptism was Tombes’ personal, yet godly, obsession. He was concerned with the right practice of this ordinance for the good of man’s soul, not to win a theological point. The debate that raged in the seventeenth century was more than the mere academic production of print on paper. Tombes really believed that the right doctrine would have major repercussions in the church-at-large. I believe that Tombes was right on target. These ripples still affect the churches of our day.”

James Renihan’s very helpful Introduction helps readers to understand how this rich covenantal heritage was lost to baptists in the 20th century through the combination of revivalism, modernism, fundamentalism, and dispensationalism.

Chapter 1 “A Brief Overview of Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodox Federalism” places particular baptist covenant theology directly in that stream by demonstrating that throughout the seventeenth century, covenant theologians built upon one another while refining various points. Coxe retained these orthodox advancements while refining them through his understanding that revelation was “progressive and Christo-climactic.”

Chapter 2 (“Covenant Theology in the First and Second London Baptist Confessions”) does a marvelous job of showing how central covenant theology was to both confessions as a whole, rather than simply the focus of one or two paragraphs. James Renihan also demonstrates that these confessions were reluctantly accepted as orthodox even by those looking for any excuse to persecute the baptists. A hidden gem in this chapter is footnote 21, which states “21 Much of the following material is taken from or based upon my yet unnamed, forthcoming exposition of the 2LCF.” This work will be a blessing.

I did take exception to Renihan’s brief comment on LBCF 7.1 (69). I do not believe the Confession is stating that God’s condescension in establishing the covenant of works was rooted in God’s incomprehensibility. I did not find this explanation in Coxe. Rather, I believe the Confession is simply pointing out, per it’s proof text, that man owed obedience to God as image bearers and could not expect any reward for that obedience. Thus the reward of eternal rest/life for perfect obedience was a benevolent, or “condescending” (that is, something God was not obligated to do) offer to man. Coxe: “It implies a free and Sovereign Act of the Divine Will, exerted in condescending Love and Goodness; it is not from any necessity of nature that God enters into covenant with men, but of his own good pleasure.”

Chapter 3 (“By Farther Steps: A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology”) is a very encouraging chapter. When baptists today have struggled to work out all the knots of covenant theology, mostly unaware of historic formulations, it is exciting to work through this chapter and see how seventeenth century baptists had already thought through and answered these difficulties. The distinction between revealed and concluded, or “promise and promulgation” does not simply help baptist covenant theology make sense, it helps Scripture make sense. Much of the New Testament’s commentary on the Old Covenant, which continues to puzzle many covenant theologians, becomes rather crystal clear.

That said, make sure to take note of Richard Barcellos’ note in the preface: “It in no way pretends to be a fully worked-out Baptist covenant theology. It contains essays by thirteen different authors who do not necessarily advocate the fine details of every contribution, something that is quite common with multiple-author works.”

For example, in Chapter 3 (“By Farther Steps: A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology”) Pascal Denault explains “Samuel Petto considered that the Old Covenant did not have the same function for Israel as for Christ. For Israel it was a national covenant by whose conditions she received blessings and curses in its land (Deut. 28). For Christ, it was a covenant of works for which he had to accomplish righteousness actively and passively (Rom. 5:18-20; 8:3-4; Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5).” And goes on to note “This explanation from Petto demonstrates how he himself, and most of the Particular Baptists, considered that the covenant of works was reaffirmed with a different goal than at its first promulgation.”

While on the other hand, in Chapter 16 (“Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology”) Micah and Samuel Renihan are clear that “tenure in the land was what was in view in the Mosaic law [and all of the Old Covenant]” (not eternal life). And in Chapter 7 (“John Owen on the Mosaic Covenant”), Thomas E. Hicks, Jr. clarifies that Owen “did not believe that the Mosaic Covenant extended the promise of spiritual or eternal life at all… The Mosaic Covenant contained a reminder of the covenant of works, announcing the terms that belonged not to itself, but to the original covenant of works with Adam… what was promised to the Israelites for their faith, love, and obedience under the Mosaic Covenant was not eternal life (spiritual reality), but temporal, earthly blessings, including land and physical prosperity (physical picture).” And thus, Christ did not fulfill the terms of the Old Covenant for believers. Christ fulfilled his own covenant of works, the Covenant of Redemption.

[Note: Most particular baptists expressed agreement with Owen on this point, rather than Petto. Pascal Denault has since changed his stance on this. See the Q&A session of his recent lectures on 1689 Federalism for the Reformed Baptist Seminary.]

Jeffery D. Johnson holds to Petto’s view, yet his excellent Chapter 9 (“The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant”) is written broadly enough to be interpreted in light of either view, depending on how one views the typology of the Abrahamic Covenant.
For more on this point, google Republication, the Mosaic Covenant, and Eternal Life 1689 Federalism.
In Chapter 4 (“The Puritan Argument for the Immersion of Believers: How Seventeenth-Century Baptists Utilized the Regulative Principle of Worship”), G. Steve Weaver, Jr. helpfully places the particular baptists within their proper context as Puritans, not Anabaptists (see Chapter 5 fn 54 “It also shows some adaptation on the part of the author to antipaedobaptist concerns. Therein is found a repudiation of the prejudicial use of alleged connections between Continental Anabaptists and Antipaedobaptists”). As Weaver notes “These Baptist pastors sought to apply the regulative principle more thoroughly than had Calvin or Burroughs and the Reformed/ Puritan tradition which they represented.”

An interesting note not mentioned by Weaver is that the Westminster Assembly voted 25-24 in opposition to requiring immersion. Wright, D. F. (2007). Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective (250–252) notes the debate that ensued for 3 days, with comments such as “if we say dipping is necessary, ‘we shall further anabaptisme’ (John Ley, and John Lightfoot).” Again, Puritan baptists were operating within the stream of theological discourse of their day, not outside of it.
Chapter 5 (“The Antipaedobaptism of John Tombes”) from Michael T. Renihan presents a very interesting history of figure I knew nothing about. Renihan notes that “The recovery of right baptism was Tombes’ personal, yet godly, obsession. He was concerned with the right practice of this ordinance for the good of man’s soul, not to win a theological point.” What is interesting is that Tombes remained a non-separating Purtian his whole life, while urging the Church of England to abandon the practice of infant baptism through the publication of thousands of pages of argument and response, which nearly cost him his livelihood, save for God’s providence. He responded to every objection he was given, going to great lengths to find answers, including moving to London specifically to have access to people and books that could help answer his quest for the practice of true baptism. The result was that he laid much of the theological foundation for particular baptists to build upon.

Chapter 6 (“The Abrahamic Covenant in the Thought of John Tombes”) summarizes Tombes’ voluminous work under the foundational argument expressed in syllogism:
Major premise: That which hath no testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtfull.
Minor premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtfull.

Chapter 7 (“John Owen on the Mosaic Covenant”) from Thomas E. Hicks, Jr. demonstrates that Owen does not easily fit into existing categories of covenant theology, and certainly not into Ernest Kevan’s claim that all covenant theology fits into two groups: those who affirmed the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works and those who affirmed it was a covenant of grace. Owen denied the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life, and thus it was neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but was a separate covenant concerning tenure in the land of Canaan – rejecting Calvin and the Westminster formulation of the Mosaic Covenant as of the same substance as the covenant of grace.

Hicks is right on the money when he notes that “In systematic theology, the nature of the Mosaic Covenant is relevant to the doctrine of justification. If the Mosaic Covenant is strictly a covenant of grace and if justification is a verdict rendered on the basis of one’s conformity to the terms of the covenant of grace, then theologians may find sufficient warrant to conclude that it is reasonable to include good works in the verdict of justification. On the other hand, if the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works, and if Paul and others are arguing against justification by obedience to that covenant, then an argument against justification by good works clearly emerges in the scriptural corpus.”

I would also love to see another of his comments teased out: “Careful study of Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant could be useful in clearly delineating his political theory and explaining some of the theological motivation for his political action.” Though I am not certain this would be the case because Owen’s defense of certain political views appear to be refuted by his more mature views on the Mosaic Covenant.

In Chapter 8 (“A ‘Novel’ Approach to Credobaptist and Paedobaptist Polemics”), Jeffrey A. Massey recounts the history of the nineteenth century use of fiction as a polemic in the debate over baptism. As a filmmaker myself, his account of the debate over the proper use of fiction to advance biblical truth was particularly relevant to me. However, upon reading his summary of the novels written to defend various views of baptism, I can say I am thankful that none of the authors of this volume resorted to such methods.

Chapter 9 (“The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant”) by Jeffrey D. Johnson helpfully presents the biblical data showing that the Abrahamic Covenant was a single covenant with two dimensions. This is similar to, yet different from Kline’s Two Level Fulfillment, and was articulated by seventeenth century particular baptists. His comments regarding circumcision symbolizing full obedience of the law from the heart (Deut 30:6) was particularly helpful.

He correctly notes “Importantly, the Mosaic Covenant did not replace, alter, or add to the condition placed upon the physical seed of Abraham in Genesis 17. It merely gave clarity to what was already required by circumcision. In other words, the Mosaic Covenant grew out of and codified the conditional side of the Abrahamic Covenant.” This is a point that is ignored by modern paedobaptist proponents of republication. On the other hand, John Murray (note mentioned in the chapter) recognized that “The obedience of Abraham is represented as the condition upon which the fulfilment of the promise given to him was contingent and the obedience of Abraham’s seed is represented as the means through which the promise given to Abraham would be accomplished. There is undoubtedly the fulfilment of certain conditions… the idea of conditional fulfilment is not something peculiar to the Mosaic covenant. We have been faced quite poignantly with this very question in connection with the Abrahamic covenant. And since this feature is there patent, it does not of itself provide us with any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray greatly erred in transferring this principle to the New Covenant, yet he was faithful to the Old Testament text.

As mentioned above, I would take issue with Johnson’s statement that “the gospel that was promised in the Abrahamic Covenant was contingent upon the fulfillment of the law of the Mosaic Covenant,” depending on how it is interpreted. I do not believe Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, but rather the Covenant of Redemption. The moral law was foundational to both covenants, but I do not believe the Mosaic Covenant itself offered the reward of eternal life for obedience.

Chapter 10 (“The Difference Between the Two Covenants”) from John Owen is a helpful addition to this volume. Though it can be found in the Coxe/Owen volume, placing it here may force people to deal with his presentation within the context offered by the other chapters. I still have not seen any paedobaptists actually deal with Owen’s argument. Most seem to be entirely unaware of his unique contribution.

Chapters 11 and 12 (“The Newness of the New Covenant”) from James White is a cutting analysis of paedobaptist attempts to deal with the force of the book of Hebrews. The attempt to relegate the newness of the New Covenant to a difference in outward appearance, following Calvin, is simply untenable. White’s essay, at a couple of points portrays a slight “20th Century Reformed Baptist” view which may stand out to the careful reader (his comments regarding “extensiveness”). However, this does not detract from his superb polemic, which sufficiently demonstrates Westminster Federalism’s inability to deal with the text of Hebrews.

I thoroughly enjoyed Jamin Hubner’s two chapters (13 and 14) on Acts 2:39. He successfully demonstrates that the history of reformed exegesis of this passage has simply been loyalty to Calvin’s eisegesis, driven by a desire to defend infant baptism. I agree when he says “As a result, the Abrahamic Covenant and its features such as the recipients of circumcision are imported entirely into Acts 2:39 without any consideration as to what promise is being talked about in Acts 2:39, what the fulfillment of that promise looks like in the New Covenant, and what argument is being made in Acts 2 and how that argument is not altogether the same as Acts 3, and so on and so forth. In short, “The Paedobaptist ear is so attuned to the Old Testament echo in this text that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo.”77 The attitude is “promise of the Spirit, Abrahamic Covenant, covenant of grace, it is all the same thing,” and “children, seed, same idea” when it comes to interpreting Acts 2:39.” In sum “An interpreter’s interest in hearing Old Testament overtones should not overthrow exegesis of the actual text.”

[Note, Hubner interacts with Owen’s exegesis of this passage at one point. It should be noted that the work quoted was written by Owen in 1644 - more than 30 years before he wrote his commentary on Hebrews 8.] [Note again: A quote from Sam Waldron that Hubner references includes a comment that Paul did not believe the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works. Obviously this is in disagreement with the rest of the volume. That was not particularly the part of the quote Hubner was referencing.] Richard Barcellos’ Chapter 15 (“An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12”) was extremely helpful in making sense of the passage. He clarifies that the fulfillment of physical circumcision is circumcision of the heart, that is, regeneration. However, he then demonstrates that the baptism mentioned here is not water baptism, but spiritual baptism, which we access through faith. This spiritual baptism (vital union with Christ) is distinct from regeneration. “Baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. We have seen clearly that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, replaces (better, fulfills) physical circumcision. Baptism in Colossians 2:12 (i.e., vital union with Christ) is a result of spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration)… Paul does not say or imply that the sign and seal of the covenant is baptism… If it implies anything about water baptism, it implies that it ought to be administered to those who have been circumcised of heart and vitally united to Christ through faith as a sign of these spiritual blessings.”

Finally, Micah and Samuel Renihan’s Chapter 16 (“Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology”) is a fitting way to end the volume. The brothers cogently summarize the particular baptist covenant theology of the volume by interacting with more modern works, appropriating their insights where valid and drawing them to the correct conclusions. “The New Covenant is the final and full accomplishment of the covenant of redemption in history” and “The covenant of grace is the in-breaking of the covenant of redemption into history through the progressive revelation and retro-active application of the New Covenant” while “The Old Covenant is coextensive with and collectively representative of theocratic Israel, defined by the Abrahamic, conditioned by the Mosaic, and focused by the Davidic Covenants. The Old Covenant, and thus each of these three covenants, differs from the New Covenant not merely in administration, but also in substance.”

And there you have it. I recommend that you purchase the book, and read it too.

THE FOURTH SUNDAY IN ADVENT

THE FOURTH SUNDAY IN ADVENT

The Advent wreath is a circle with no beginning and no end. It is a symbol of endless love and faithfulness. Out of darkness light shines, pointing us in hope to the One who came to overcome the darkness of this world and to be our light in the world to come.

Three weeks ago we lit the Prophecy candle and remembered those who first spoke the promise of the coming Christ child. [Light the blue candle that was lit three weeks ago.]

Two weeks ago we lit the Bethlehem candle, a symbol of the preparations being made to receive and cradle the Christ child. [Light the blue candle that was lit two weeks ago.]

Last week we lit the Shepherds' candle, remembering the first in a long line of people who joyfully shared the good news of the Savior's birth. [Light the pink candle.]

The fourth candle on the Advent wreath is called the Angels' candle. It reminds us of the hope fulfilled in the first coming of our Savior and of our continuing hope as we anticipate his coming again.  [Light the last blue candle]

Four candles, burning bright, Chasing away the darkness with light.

Four candles, glowing bright, The blessing of God, giving new sight.

From the Psalms
 
Psalm 24 extols God as the great Lord who founded the earth and whose victorious rule governs history. The earth is the Lord's. He is the King of glory.

Scripture: Psalm 24

The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,
² for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers. ³ Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? ⁴ He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false    and does not swear deceitfully. ⁵ He will receive blessing from the Lord and righteousness from the God of his salvation. ⁶ Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.^[b]

Prayer
Dear strong and mighty God, by the power of the Spirit who created the earth and everything in it, create in us pure hearts and renew within us steadfast spirits that the hope fulfilled in Bethlehem may more and more permeate our lives until we share fully in your glory. In the name of the King who comes and comes again we pray. Amen.

THE THIRD SUNDAY IN ADVENT

THE THIRD SUNDAY IN ADVENT

Jesus is coming, shout for joy! Joy is a word we see and hear everywhere at Christmas. Joy to the world is the message of the season. Joy is the theme of this day.

Two weeks ago we lit the Prophecy candle and remembered those who first spoke the promise of the coming Christ child. [Light the blue candle that was Hi on the fust week]

Last week we lit the Bethlehem candle, a symbol of the preparations being made to receive and cradle the Christ child. [Light the blue candle that was lit last week]

The third candle on the Advent wreath is called the Shepherds' candle. It remembers the first in a long line of people who joyfully shared the good news of the Savior's birth. The candle is a different color, reminding us that our period of waiting is half over. [Light the pink candle]

Three candles, burning bright, Chasing away the darkness from light.
Three candles, glowing bright, The blessing of God, giving new sight.

From the Psalms
Psalm 146 praises the Lord as the Creator of the world and the Provider for his people. The psalm contains a wonderful "catalog" of the loving deeds of God, who gives food to the hungry and raises up those who are bowed down. The words remind us of the answer Jesus gave when John the Baptist asked him if he was the Messiah.

Scripture: Psalm 146: 5-10 –
⁵ Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
    whose hope is in the Lord his God,
⁶ who made heaven and earth,
    the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
⁷     who executes justice for the oppressed,
    who gives food to the hungry.

The Lord sets the prisoners free;
⁸     the Lord opens the eyes of the blind.
The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down;
    the Lord loves the righteous.
⁹ The Lord watches over the sojourners;
    he upholds the widow and the fatherless,
    but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

¹⁰ The Lord will reign forever,
    your God, O Zion, to all generations.
Praise the Lord!

Prayer - Dear God, with joy we acknowledge your care and love for us. With joy we acknowledge that our help is in you, the Maker of heaven and earth, our Maker and our re-Maker through the life and death of the One born in Bethlehem. Through faith in him, grant us solid joy that lasts long beyond this Christmas season and that equips us to face the adversities of life. Amen.

THE SECOND SUNDAY IN ADVENT

THE SECOND SUNDAY IN ADVENT

Waiting is hard in a fast-paced society. We want the stoplight to change quickly, the grocery line to move fast, and Christmas morning to arrive soon. We forget that before good things happen, preparations must be made.

Last week we lit the Prophecy candle and remembered those who first spoke the promise of the coming Christ child.

[Light the blue candle that was lit last week.]

The second candle on the Advent Wreath is called the Bethlehem candle. It is a symbol of the preparations being made to receive and cradle the Christ child.

[Light another blue candle]
 
Two candles, burning bright,
chasing away the darkness from light.
Two candles, glowing light,
The blessing of God, giving new sight.

From the Old Testament
Scripture: Isaiah 11:1-10
Prayer
Come, Holy God, come and save us. Come, Holy Christ, come and touch us. Come, Holy Spirit, come and revive us. Come and turn us around, and point us to your kingdom. Amen.

From the Psalms
Psalm 72 is one of the "royal psalms," sung at the coronation of a new king. Central to this prayer is the expectation that the king will be just and compassionate and that he will especially protect the needy. The church has traditionally seen this as a messianic psalm since the ideal of the compassionate ruler finds its ultimate expression in Christ.
Scripture: Psalm 72:1-8
Prayer
Dear God, as the kings and rulers of our world are enthroned, we have witnessed the elaborate preparations made for those events. By the power of your Spirit, move us to make the preparations needed to welcome you, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Soften our hearts, break down our resistance. Open us anew to your life and love that we may be transformed and may be agents of transformation in the lives of others. For Jesus' sake. Amen.

From the New Testament
Scripture: Matthew 3:1-12
Prayer
Dear God, in this very busy season with so many things to do, help us to hear anew your voice calling us to prepare the way for our Lord and Savior Jesus. Call us to repentance. Live in us by your Spirit that our lives will produce good fruit to the praise and honor of your name. Amen.

History of the Theory of the Relationship of Church and State (Sam Waldron)

History of the Theory of the Relationship of Church and State (Waldron)

Pastor Sam Waldron

[Note: The diagrams are my own interpretation of Waldron's lectures]
Pastor Samuel E. Waldron, Ph.D. – Dean Resident Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary has made 6 lectures available on the Relationship of Church and State. Here is an attempted summary of his lectures:

Early Church Developments

Magistrates Bound by Scripture.
Justin Martyr, Irenaes, and Tertullian rightly held that the civil magistrate must rule righteously or they will be personally punished eternally.

Whatsoever they do to the subversion of justice, in these things they shall also perish. For the just judgment of God equally comes upon all and is in no wise defective.
(Irenaeus)

Civil Government established Post-Fall.
In response to those who believed the state was demonic, Irenaeus taught that it was instituted by God.

For since man, by departing from God, reached such a pitch of fury as even to look upon his brother as his enemy, and engaged without fear in every kind of restless conduct, and murder, and avarice; God imposed upon mankind the fear of man, as they did not acknowledge the fear of God, in order that, being subjected to the authority of men, and kept under restraint by their laws, they might attain to some degree of justice, and exercise mutual forbearance through dread of the sword suspended full in their view…
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103524.htm

Waldron notes “In this amazing statement Irenaeus distinguishes the nature of the state very clearly. It’s not demonic, but neither on the other hand is it creational or redemptive in origin. It’s rather a divine institution occasioned by the fall with specific and limited objectives.”

Rulers appointed by God.
Irenaeus “We respect in the emperor the ordinance of God” and “Caesar is more ours than yours.”

Religious Liberty.
Tertullian: “You think that others too, are gods, whom we know to be devils. However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature that every man should worship according to his own convictions.”

Distinction between religious and temporal authority.
Luke 20:25. Neither is subservient or subject to the other, therefore they were both limited.

Medieval Church Developments

The clear distinction in church and state among the early church is abandoned when Constantine became the first “Christian” emperor.

Sacral Society. 
(A Sacral Society is a monolithic society centered around one unanimously embraced religion.) Church and state are one. Who is supreme? Who rules over the other?

Dualistic Perspective.
Pope and king are distinct, which causes tension for a sacral society.

Hierocracy.
Gives supreme power in both the church and the state to the priests (Pope). To be an emperor is beneath papal dignity because he is supreme over the emperor. The universal church contains both the secular/royal authority and the authority of the Pope (sacral assumption) because he represents him to whom the whole earth and its dominion, the earth and all that is on it, belongs. The Pope is lord and master of all things because his office commands him to show justice to sinners and to punish their sins. Thus he becomes, by reason of his spiritual power judge over rulers and lord of the world, bishop and emperor in a single person – the one who wears the crown as well as the meiter.¹

This claim is astounding enough by itself. But we must remember that it’s context was a society which was not acustomed to differentiating between church and state. Repeatedly statements are made medieval literature which simply equate Western European society with the church.
We are not to be surprised at this theocratic view of society. It is, as Tierny has commented, the most common and original viewpoint in the history of human thought. The entire history of the world was sacral before the coming of Christianity. The surprising viewpoint is not the uniting of church and state, a sacral society. The surprising viewpoint in the history of the world is the idea of the separation of church and state.
(Waldron)

High Medieval Period 1000-1300 A.D.
To whatever degree our present culture reflects the biblical ideal of the separation of church and state, this is due to the defeat of both royal theocracy and papal hierocracy in this period. The seeds of this defeat were sown by the pervasive influence the words of Jesus had exercised on Western Europe “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” Matt 22:21.

Reformation Period

Luther.
1520, “Christian Nobility of the German Nation” rejects Papal suzerainty. Argues that if they are the vicar of Christ, then it is of Christ crucified, not glorified.
But Luther continued to assume the sacral assumptions of medieval society. He assumes the church is one great body of Christ that has in it both church and state. Which is supreme? Luther subjected the church to the German nobility, arguing that the nobility should assume Jesus’ position of driving the money changers out of the temple.

Inasmuch as the temporal power has become a member of the Christian body it is a spiritual estate even though it’s work is physical. (Luther)

Luther placed a strong emphasis on the civil government as the father of society (paternalistic). It was derived from creation.
Two offices (secular/spiritual governments). 
Not the same thing as the separation of church and state.
His resolution of Matt 5:39 & Romans 13. Matt 5 = church & individual Christians (spiritual kingdom). Romans 13 = civil ruler (physical kingdom).
[For more, see here]

Calvin.
On Civl Government

• Taught that civil authority was limited by rejecting medieval hierarchy.
  • Calvin stood against church absolutism of the papacy and the rising state absolutism of the European monarchies. Thus took the historic step of coordinating church and state by limiting the authority of each over the other. Thus he coordinated them instead of subordinating them – that is, sphere sovereignty rather than sphere subsidarity in the mold of medieval catholicism.
    • Against state absolutism: fought with Genevan order over control of the Lord’s Table. Calvin drew the boundary lines between church and state clearly and sharply, but he drew them differently than we do. Thus rejected Luther’s view (comments on Amos 7:10-13).
    • Against church absolutism: Institutes 4.8.1 “The power of the therefore church is not to be depreciated yet it must be circumscribed by certain limits that it may not be extended in every direction according to the caprice of men.“
    • For limitation of church and state: Institutes 3.19.15 “To prevent anyone from falling into this error, let us therefore consider in the first place that man is under two kinds of government, one spiritual by which the conscience is formed to piety in the service of God and the other political by which a man is instructed in the duties of humanity and civility, which are to be observed in an intercourse with mankind. They are generally and not improperly denominated the spiritual and the temporal jurisdiction, indicating that the former species of government pertains to the life of the soul and that the latter relates to the concerns of the present state, not only to the provision of food and clothing, but to the enactment of laws to regulate a man’s life among his neighbors by the rules of holiness, integrity, and sobriety. For the former has its seat in the interior of the mind whilst the latter only directs the external conduct. One may be termed a spiritual kingdom and the other a political one. But these two, as we have distinguished them, always require to be considered separately; and while the one is under discussion, the mind must be abstracted from all consideration of the other. For man contains, as it were, two worlds, capable of being governed by various rulers and various laws.“
• Church & state united
  • Two interdependent entities each receiving its authority from God, but the state is never secular, nor is it separated from the church in the modern sense.
  • His use of the soul and body analogy is stock image of medieval scholasticism for the relation of church and state and marks the medieval character of his thought and his assumption of the medieval synthesis of society.
    • “But he who knows how to distinguish between the body and the soul will find no difficulty…
      • applied this medieval analogy for a very non-medieval purpose
  • Assumed corpus christianum (society is body of Christianity): insistence that it is the business of the state to enforce conformity to the true religion

[For an alternative interpretation of Calvin’s two kingdoms, see the commentary at the end of this article]

Calvin vs Calvinism: Just Revolution

Calvinism adopted the social contract theory (represented by Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex, 1644).

Rutherford argues that the power of government rests in the people who may choose to appoint one or more to rule over the nation. Although God ordains all rulers in his providence it nevertheless lies with the people to elect or make the king. On this basis, Rutherford then asserts that the basis between king and people is one of covenant. According to the law of nature, the people cannot give away their rights absolutely and unconditionally the safety of the people is the supreme rule and this is why they appointed king. The practical implication is clear: what the people give, the people can take away.

“If I give my sword to my fellow to defend me from a murderer, if he shall fall to murder me with my own sword, I may, if I have the strength, take my sword back from him. If the ruler breaks his covenant, he forfeits his rights and may be deposed.” (Rutherford)
Although this would usually be the task of inferior rulers, Rutherford does not limit it to them.

Since rulers are God’s ministers appointed through men, they must rule according to God’s will for the benefit of the people. When they fail to do so, they may and must be resisted by disobedience, protest, flight, and in the end, force. If the rulers persist in such failure so that their whole rule becomes a tyranny, they may be deposed either by inferior magistrates or by the people if they have the necessary strength.
Calvin rejected the social contract theory.

1. Political righteousness is not the condition of legitimacy for any political entity. Civil authorities are to retain our subjection, if not our obedience, whether or not it is, in our estimation, measuring up to our standards of political righteousness. Christianity, then, never permits terrorism or revolution in the proper sense of those terms.
   1. Political force and resistance to tyranny may only be used by civil authorities charged to protect our freedom as a people. Theologies of liberation which do not recognize the peculiar providential legitimation of any existing government would meet Calvin’s unalloyed rejection.
2. All kings and civil magistrates are subject to God and His Word as the norm for their official duties. Never, however, did he infer from this the doctrine of just revolution. Always he rejected any and all theories of just revolution. The position which thinks of the doctrine of just revolution as unqualifiedly reformed must ignore Calvin to do so. The logic that deduces just revolution from the sovereignty of God’s Word must find Calvin illogical.

We may not equate American government with ideal biblical forms.
Two distinct movement are allied in modern democracy. The Calvinistic teaching of limited government and the humanistic teaching of the social contract theory. When revolutionary theory and limited government are made the pillars of modern democracy, it is impossible to give a simple answer to the question “Was Calvin the founder of modern democracy?” For while Calvin was arguably the one who gave Western civilization the gift of limited government, he opposed with his whole might the revolutionary tendencies of the social contract theory.

Summary of Christian Viewpoints of Church and State

1. Erastianism/Saceral Papism. Hierachal system with God delegating to the state and the state then having authority over the church
   1. “Saceral Papism” in the Byzantine Empire where the Emperor appointed the patriarch of Constantinople
   2. “Erastianism” after Thomas Erastus, follower of Zwingli
   3. Practiced in Luther’s Germany and Henry VIII of England
2. Papalism. Hierarchal system with God delegating to the church and in some sense the church is the overlord of the state.
   1. Church absolutism
3. Dualism. State was not the creature of God. It was inherently evil (Anabaptist)
4. Presbyterianism (Calvin). Union of church and state. Not Erastian. Church and state were co-ordinate spheres under God. Neither derived it’s authority from the other. Yet church and state insolubly connected and given certain responsibilities together. (Original WCF Ch. 24). Constantinian view that church and state must be united in any given state was assumed and maintained. Thus this system rejected the separation of church and state and taught instead the union of church and state.

Free Churchism (Separation of Church and State)

Refined Presbyterianism: co-ordinate spheres, but separated, not united.
Savoy (Independent/Congregational) 24.3 promoted denominational (Christian) liberty.

2nd LBCF 24.3 is deleted, thus promoting religious (non-Christian) liberty of conscience.

The silence of the Second London Baptist Confession on the issue of the magistrate’s duty with regard to religion is a very loud silence indeed. Since the SLBC is most directly an edited version of the Savoy, it is very significant the baptist framers decided to entirely ignore the parallel statement not only in the WCF but even in the Savoy. The reason, it seems to me, is plain: the baptists certainly would have rejected the way in which the Westminster infringed the religious freedom of the individual and intruded the power of the state into the church. In these ways, no doubt, they appreciated the extension of religious freedom to various denominations of orthodox Christians found in the Savoy. Yet the failure of the baptists to include this statement in their own confession and the silence of the SLBC with regard to the power of the civil magistrate in regards to religion seems clearly to indicate that the baptists felt that even the Savoy did not go far enough in the direction of affirming the separation of church and state and religious freedom.
Perhaps it also indicates the difficulty that was felt in exactly stating the role of the state with regard to religion. The two major concerns of baptists and their confessions were here to be carefully balanced. You can see these concerns both in the Second London and in the First London Confession, both in the preface and paragraphs 48-50 in the First London Baptist. On the one hand, the baptists wanted to make clear they were not anabaptists holding that the state was evil, thus they had to make clear that the state had an important role to play in society in which Christians might play a part, and also in which Christians had to submit. On the other hand, it was crucial to make clear they rejected the infringement of religious freedom and intrusion of authority the state embodied in the original Westminster Confession.

Separation of God and State

Humanism went further and tried to separate God and state, not merely church and state. They felt that the idea of the state was independent of God and that God and religion should be relegated to the private sphere of life.

Commentary

[Important] There is debate over the proper interpretation of Calvin’s use of the two kingdoms. Waldron stated that Calvin modified Luther’s medieval two kingdom view of body and soul to argue for limitations on both church and state. However, it appears that a better way to understand Calvin is that he agreed with Luther’s two kingdom view, placing both the church (as ecclesiastical institution) and the state within the temporal/external kingdom.

This makes more sense of Calvin’s retention of the sacral assumptions of corpus christianum. Thus “the concept of sphere sovereignty is a sociological concept that is consistent with but different from the two kingdoms doctrine.” (Tuininga) Calvin still challenged the medieval hierarchy, but he did not use the two kingdoms doctrine to do so. Peter Escalante summarizes

The corpus christianorum, which Kuyper called “the organic church,” is the visibility of the mystical body, the invisible church, that it is a multitude, and it underlies, in a Christian commonwealth, all callings and offices alike. Since the essence of this temporal multitude is revealed most eminently in the act of assembled worship, that act is especially called “church,” but really the multitude is already the church wherever it is and whatever it’s doing, and thus “church” in this sense, the corpus christianorum, underlies both State and ministerium, and all the callings and forms of civil society too. Therefore there is one church-commonwealth, whose two directive and preeminently representative offices are Magistracy and Ministerium.
THE CONSISTENT AND THE CONFUSED: TWO KINDS OF TWO-KINGDOMS

Calvin limited the sphere of the state in Geneva by arguing that the ecclesiastical office was ministerial in that it proclaimed the Word (spiritual/inward kingdom). Excommunication was first and foremost a proclamation of the gospel, and thus it was in the jurisdiction of the visible church, not the state, though both are part of the temporal kingdom. To fully understand just how intertwined these institutions were, see here.

Calvin very decidedly wishes to restrict excommunication to the ministers of the Church, but he says that it is actually not an external act of force, but rather an aspect of proclaiming the Word.[41]  It is precisely its non-coercive character which makes it unfit for the civil magistrate’s jurisdiction… Regarding Matthew 16:19, Calvin says that the keys are “the office of teaching.”[43]  He also says that “binding and loosing” is nothing other than proclaiming the gospel
JOHN CALVIN AND THE TWO KINGDOMS, PART 2

But this coordination of the spheres remained in tension, with church and state constantly fighting for control, so long as the sacral assumption continued. And thus the final separation of church and state was accomplished by the baptists when they abandoned the sacral assumption in favor of the concept of a church of “visible saints” gathered out of the world. They were therefore able to identify the visible church more closely with the invisible church by placing it in the spiritual kingdom. This had to do with much more than who is baptized. It had to do with the very nature of the church. It started with Calvin’s attempt to guard the Lord’s Table from profanation, continued further with the Puritans’ battle to exercise church discipline, resulting in the Separatist movement’s concept of the gathered church able to exercise it’s own discipline. This then developed into a gathered assembly of those professing saving, not simply historical faith. This logically entailed the baptist position. Lord willing, I will explain this progress soon in a detailed summary of Edmund S. Morgan’s Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea. As Littlejohn explains:

Even better was the idea that the church, conceived in terms of the ordained clergy, could autonomously govern its own affairs—a concept derived not only from Beza, but even more so from the paradigm of the “stranger churches,” which many English Protestants had experienced during their exile under Bloody Mary. Such an independent body, moreover, could ensure a much purer and more disciplined membership than the “mixed multitude” of the national Protestant churches—in short, the visible church could approximate the invisible.
Taken together, these concepts—a detailed Scriptural blueprint for the church, Presbyterian ministers as the authorized interpreters of the same, and the ideal of a pure and disciplined body of “visible saints”—provided the building blocks for a new mutation of the two-kingdoms doctrine. In England, this received its fullest expression in the works of Thomas Cartwright and Walter Travers in the 1570s and 1580s, although Andrew Melville was simultaneously advancing a similar paradigm in Scotland, where it would leave a lasting stamp. For these men, as for VanDrunen, the two kingdoms represent two external manifestations of God’s rule—the one through ministers and their disciplinary regime; the other through magistrates and their disciplinary regime. Each presided over a distinct society with distinct ends, and strictly defined responsibilities.
The Two Kingdoms: A Guide for the Perplexed—Pt. 3: From Calvin to Hooker

In sum, the separation of church and state was not accomplished until the medieval assumption of all of society as the body of Christ was rejected in favor of a church called out of the world.
To fully understand Calvin’s view of the two kingdoms, I highly recommend slogging through this material (exercise extra diligence as the men writing for the Calvinist International are associated with the Federal Vision. I do not endorse their opinions, merely their historical analysis):

• JOHN CALVIN AND THE TWO KINGDOMS- PART 1
• JOHN CALVIN AND THE TWO KINGDOMS, PART 2
• The Two Kingdoms: A Guide for the Perplexed
• WILL THE REAL GENEVA PLEASE STAND UP?
• THE CONSISTENT AND THE CONFUSED: TWO KINDS OF TWO-KINGDOMS
• TO WHICH KINGDOM DOES WESTMINSTER SEMINARY BELONG?

---

1. Innocent III: Vicar of Christ Or Lord of the World? p. 80 ↩

Isaiah 53 Sermon Audio Giving thanks to the Sin-bearer

Isaiah 53 Sermon Audio Giving thanks to the Sin-bearer

THE FIRST SUNDAY IN ADVENT (Psalms)

THE FIRST SUNDAY IN ADVENT

Lighting a candle is a simple yet profound act. It is a testimony to the power of light over darkness. Even the light of one candle can reveal our faces as we stand near the candle. As we light the candle, we begin our journey to Christmas, a day of joy and celebration.

The first candle on the Advent wreath is called the Prophecy candle, it opens the period that anticipates Christmas and remembers those who first spoke the promise of the coming Christ child.

[Light one of the blue candles.]

One candle, burning bright,
Chasing away the darkness from light.
One candle, glowing light,
The blessing of God, giving new sight.

From the Psalms

In Psalm 122 we see religious people approaching the holy city of Jerusalem. They are filled with joyous anticipation of worship. Soon they will be in the city and in the temple. Soon they will be in the presence of the Lord. In that context, the psalmist prays for the peace of Jerusalem.

Scripture: Psalm 122

Prayer
Dear God, on this first Sunday in Advent we begin a spiritual pilgrimage as we joyously anticipate Christmas day, a reminder of the birth of our Savior. As we come to this place of worship, we know that we are in your presence. Give us your peace that through us all may know the peace that Christ brings. In his name we pray. Amen.

Giving thanks to the Sin-bearer - Isaiah 53 (Sermon #5)

Isaiah 53 English Standard Version (ESV) Who has believed what he has heard from us?  And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?  ² For he grew up before Him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. ³ He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

⁴ Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. ⁵ But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. ⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

⁷ He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. ⁸ By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who has considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? ⁹ And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

¹⁰ Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; He (God!) has put him to grief; and when his soul makes an offering for guilt, this God shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; and the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. ¹¹ Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. ¹² Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered along with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and even today makes intercession for the transgressors.

Opening Prayer – Great God, in public & in private, at church & at home, may our lives be steeped in prayer, filled with grace, each prayer perfumed with the atonement of our Lord.  Help us, defend us, urged by our need, invited by your promise, called by your Spirit, we enter your presence, we worship you, awed by your majesty, your greatness and glory and we are encouraged by your love.

On our own we are all poverty & guilt, having nothing of our own to repay you with, but we bring Jesus.  We bring Jesus in armfuls of faith, pleading his righteousness to offset our iniquities, rejoicing that He will weigh down the scales of justice for us.  We bless you when great sin is outdone by great grace, that although the least sin deserves infinite punishment yet there is mercy for us, for where guilt is most terrible; there your mercy is free & deep.  Bless us by giving us more of you.  Give us every rest when Christ reigns with in us in every thought, word & deed.  Purify our hearts, Spirit, overcome the world, fasten us to you and ever cling us to that cross.

O Son of God, Son of Man, You were incarnate, suffered, rose & ascended for our sakes.  Your departure was not a token of separation but a pledge of your return; your Word, promises, and sacraments carry us on until your return.  Yet that future Day of Judgment holds no horror to me, your death has redeemed me, your Spirit fills me, and your Love & Word sustain & guide me.  I have trusted you and you have not betrayed that trust; we wait on you, but not in vain.  These corruptible bodies will one day put on the incorruptible; this mortal – immortality; this sick, weak & frail body – a glorified body.  For now we cling to your promises & your words, but beyond the grave is resurrection, judgment, acquittal, and peace.  Every event & circumstance of our lives will be dealt with – from secret sins to disobeying your Word, sins of neglect & violations of conscience – all will be judged.  But for your Elect after judgment, will come peace, rest, life & service.  O God, keep us in this faith, and ever looking for Christ’s return.  And all of God’s children said, “Amen.”

Intro

My sermon is entitled: Giving thanks to the Sin-bearer (Isaiah 53)

Good morning, Calvary.  I am happy to be with you today.  By my reckoning, this is about the 4^th time I’ve preached here.  For me one of the benefits of not being the regular pastor at the church is unlike Brian who regularly preaches through a book of the Bible; I get to be a highligher to jump around with you and review, what I feel, are the best passages from the whole of Scripture.  Thinking back to those sermons I’ve already done before, we’ve already looked at John 1 - where evangelism was described as John the Baptist pointing others to the Savior, we looked at Ephesians 1 – where we discussed the generous doctrine of Adoption into God’s family and we’ve looked at Psalm 51 with King David’s repentance & faith & restoration after his affair with Bathsheba and the murder of his lover’s husband.  Today we get to spend a little time in what I find to be one of the single best descriptions of the Purpose & Work of Christ in the whole of Scripture and yes its even in the OT.  Today we’ll be looking at Christ in 3 aspects.  First, will be from the OT’s perspective and looking forward to the coming Savior.  Second, will be focused on our passage and what it says about the purpose & work of Christ.  And finally we’ll jump to that scary book at the end of the Bible and briefly look at how Christ’s work and our particular salvation come together in true worship. 

@@@

As we are now transitioning into the Advent season I picked this particular passage as a reminder of the point of Advent.  Advent or “the coming”, for Christians, is a season that is meant to anticipate the 2 comings of Christ from two slightly different perspectives.  This season offers you 1^st the opportunity to share in the ancient Jewish longing for the coming of the Messiah, while 2^nd also being alert for his Second Coming.

@@@

One of the things that originally sparked my interest in doctrine and church practice was some issues I was having at my old church.  While often these people where very nice, moral, friendly people the more time I personally spent reading the Bible the more often I would get upset by what was being done there and what was being taught there.  One of the seven beliefs they had in their brief belief statement was an emphasis on the NT, nearly to exclusion of the OT completely.  This emphasis is to such an extent that I personally don’t remember a single sermon on or regarding the Old Testament at all.  Today as someone who better understands the NT, which is absolutely jam packed with OT references and illusions and metaphors and having read the Early Church Fathers who also made great use of the OT in teaching Christ.  I became concerned if other Christians were likewise ignoring 2/3rds of their Bibles.  It was in studying the OT from Church Fathers that I was introduced to a whole new world of Christianity that I’d been previously deprived of.  It was like growing up your whole life only knowing of the AM channels on the car radio and then suddenly being introduced to not only FM but also Sirius Satellite Radio or Pandora. 

One of the reasons that I picked this OT passage was to emphasize how fulfilling studying the OT can be and to warn against this impulse some have in ignoring the majority of the Bible simply because it’s old or because their culture was so dis-similar to ours today.  So that is my first admonition to you, read the bible & don’t skip the OT.

Section #1 – Jesus as seen in the OT

As I said the Apostles in the NT and the Early Church Fathers seemed to find Christ hidden behind every burning bush, wooden ark & sacrificial lamb in the OT.  Often the way they did this was in 3 different aspects and I won’t go into great detail on each of them but my hope is just being introduced to these it will give you a whole new avenue in which you can read and study the Bible.  So these 3 aspects were: by Christophany, by theme, & by Messianic prophecy.

So what’s a Christophany?

A funny thing when studying diverse modern religions is that all religions seem to make a big deal about Jesus.  It’s as if Jesus were actually true & to hold to their particular beliefs they have to justify their view of Jesus.  Muslims honor him as an exalted prophet.  Mormons, Hindus & ancient Romans often saw him as just one of many gods.  Even atheists see him as some grand teacher of morality combined with myths of the supernatural.  But Paul & John in Scripture spend a lot of time in describing him as the very God of Heaven himself, made flesh & come among us.  So a Christophany is a term that describes a meeting with Jesus prior to his birth in Bethlehem.  That might sound like an odd sentence; meeting someone before they are born but remember that Christianity teaches that Jesus is God himself made Man, an eternal being not someone who only existed as of roughly 5 BC to AD.  You might call it a pre-existent appearance of Christ.  Many theologians even argue that when the term The Angel of the Lord appeared in the OT was also an example of a Christophany.  As the term angel really only means a messenger of God’s Word.  A few examples of a Christophany are: God walking with Adam in the Garden of Eden (Gen 1-3); Abram meeting with the Lord (Gen 12 & 18); Jacob wrestling with God (Gen 32); the 4^th man in the fiery furnace protecting Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego (Daniel 3); and the Commander of the Army of the Lord from the Battle of Jericho (Joshua 5).  And all of these images were used to describe to believers that the very point of Scripture was the person & work of Christ.

Theme

The Apostles and Church Fathers also taught Christ from the OT in themes, symbols & types.  You might say in the same way that Adam was Man’s representative before God in sin, Jesus now becomes a Christian’s representative before God in salvation or the work of the wooden cross in salvation is prefigured in Noah’s salvation from the raging waters of God’s judgment in his wooden ark.  And on and on they would go breathing new life into old stories and finding deeper and richer meanings for OT passages that continually pointed forward to a better & more righteous leader - a king, a Savior who was to come.

And that brings us to Messianic prophecies.  The NT frequently cites OT scriptures to support the Early Churches claims that Jesus of Nazareth was the ultimate Messiah “or the anointed one” that the Jews were foretold to expect.

Messianic Prophecy

There are many Old Testament prophecies about Jesus Christ.  Some interpreters place the number of Messianic prophecies in the hundreds.  A few which are considered the clearest and most important are… Isaiah 7:14: the virgin birth, Isaiah 9:6 God becomes a man, Micah 5:2 the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, Isaiah 40 the ministries of John the Baptist & Jesus are prophesied, Isaiah 50:6 accurately describes the beating that Jesus would endure, Zechariah 12:10 predicts the “piercing” of the Messiah, Zechariah 9:9: says, “See, your king comes to you, O Jerusalem, having righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey,” Psalm 22:16-18 says, “a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.  Yet I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.  They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing,” and our passage Isaiah 53:9 even describes Jesus as occupying a rich man’s tomb (think Joseph of Arimathea) & that he was killed even though he was neither violent nor a liar.

Now to be perfectly honest, individually they are defiantly vague & often disputed but I find from the mass of them, as a whole, they create a collage (if you can imagine an art collage) of bits & pieces of information that all taken together form an elaborate picture to the person and work of Christ, who he is and what he came to do.  

@@@

Its interesting that many of these Messianic Prophecies come from the book of Isaiah which has been immensely influential in the expression of Christianity.  The regard in which Isaiah has been held is so high that the book is frequently called "the Fifth Gospel".  In effect we’d have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John & Isaiah.  Isaiah was the one prophet who spoke the most clearly of Christ and the Church than any other OT prophet.  

Section # 2

Before we look at the ministry of Christ I want to tell you a quick story- Its probably no surprise to you that before Sandra & I had 3 kids we had a bit more money to spend on ourselves & we went on a few tropical cruises.  It was a great time.  Cruising is fun: people dress up in eveningwear, there are fancy dinners, drinks, gambling, Las Vegas style entertainment, a bedroom that travels with you and lots and lots of food.

Now picture all of that & then imagine the exact opposite of a vacation.  Instead of clean it was dirty; instead of a nice wait staff people wanted to kill you; instead of stuffed you were hungry; instead of a place to stay you were homeless; instead of fun you were beaten, lied about, mocked, spat on & worst.  That is what the ministry of our Lord was like & not for a short week’s vacation but for a 33-year…I don’t know, let’s call it an “anti-vacation”.

Maybe nowhere in all the OT is it so plainly & fully prophesied what Christ must come & suffer, before he would enter into his glory than this chapter.  Friends it would take a year to do justice to this passage.  A year to point out every parallel from this OT passage to the NT fulfillment in the life & especially the Passion of Christ & he fulfills all of this for you because you (no matter how great you think you are) you are not righteous enough for His heaven.  It is this realization of personal unworthiness and his work to earn that righteousness for you that leads sinners to repentance and calls beggars to God’s table where he sets a banquet before the unworthy.  

If I had to condense all of this passage to a FB post, to distill its gospel it would have to be vs. 4-6, which state this “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace [with God], and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

@@@

So few people today concern themselves with this most authentic & important report – that Salvation has come for Sinners, through the Son of God.

The low condition he submitted to and his appearance were not what the Jews were looking for in the Messiah, he should have come from good stock, be handsome, proud, regale, wealthy, a warrior, a king.  Instead he was mocked as the bastard child of a Roman soldier, the spawn of a knocked-up teen-mom.

In this section are the accounts of his suffering and the design for his suffering.  It was for our sins (vs. 5), in our place (vs. 11) that the Prince of Heaven had to descend to earth.  We have all sinned, come short of the righteousness God requires (vs. 6).  These sins deserve all grief and sorrow that come our way, probably even worst than we get.  But we are saved from ruin, by laying our sin on Christ and receiving from him his righteousness (vs. 11).  This is the only way of Salvation.  Our sins were the thorns in his head, the nails in his hands & feet, the spear that pierced his side.  He was delivered to death for our offense (vs. 12).  And from this we’ve been taught to love him who first showed his love for us.

Come & see how he loved us!  We could not drag him down out of heaven so he came on his own.  We could not force him to obey the Law for us so he did it out of love.  We could not make him die for us so he showed his compassion in acts of self-sacrifice.

And note that he did not send another, no angel took his place, and no devoted disciple fulfilled his task.  He will not commit the care of His family to another, no God does it all himself by putting on flesh & doing what we did not and could not.  God’s purposes take effect, so he shall see the conversion & the salvation of sinners.  There are many he gave his life for, many still he intends to draw along this path of salvation.  By his work & by his free grace, we are saved through faith & repentance.  Through gifts and reminders like baptism and the Lord’s Supper we are sanctified, soon glorified.  But we must know him, believe on him.  We must repent to him, trust him, as the one who bore our sins and saved us from sinking under the load, by taking our burden from off our backs and taking it upon his own.

As we survey these sufferings designed for the Son of God, let us remember our own catalogue of transgressions and consider him as suffering under the load of our guilt. Here he has laid the firm foundation for the trembling sinner & rest for the weary soul. We Calvary are the purchase of his blood; we are the prizes of his grace as he continually pleads & intercedes for us before the Father.

@@@

Despite the fact that many modern Jews teach this passage as referring to their own perseverance in the face of anti-Semite persecution, many from Jewish history taught otherwise:

So pretend you are a Jew from ancient times for a moment and listen to these words about this passage, that we’ve already read.  This is from Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: who described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring merely to Israel as those who quote "have forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion.  I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, as the prophecy of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver God’s people, and his life from the day when he arrives until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so."

Now I’m not a Jew I’m one of the goyim (a gentile) but that may be the best Gospel call I’ve ever heard so let me say that to you.  Here is my 2^nd admonishion.  For you who know you are saved if Jesus sounds like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 then believe on him as your Savior & your righteousness & worship Him….and for you who know you are not saved Jesus said it even clearer, “Repent & believe the Gospel.”  This is the gospel.  And for you who fall somewhere in the gray (in between) not sure if you are saved or not.  For you I say, give some time to be reminded of our Lord, his life and his message of redemption.  Read Isaiah 53 again before Christmas & the Gospel of John for the New Years and see if getting more of Christ makes your heart swell for joy or you really couldn’t care less about him, that’ll tell you better than I could if your really saved or not.

Section # 3

Having looked at one of my favorite OT passages regarding the coming (or advent) of Christ I’d like to move on to one of my favorite NT passages – Revelation 5.  After all that we’ve reviewed from thousands of years of OT prophecies & promises of the Messiah to come, to the very Gospel of the Salvation of sinners, done by the Son of God described in Isaiah 53, we now see what all of that is intended to culminate in, True Worship. 

These are the words of thanksgiving for our Sin-bearer from Revelation 5.  The assembled masses of heaven cry out: “Worthy are you…for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them into a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.  Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing! To him who sits on the throne and unto the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever and ever!”

Now when I say worship I don’t merely mean to sing or clap or raise your hands in the air, although those things are fine.  What worship is, especially for Baptists, begins with attitude.  Is your heart in the right place?  Are we worshiping according to what the Lord has revealed in Scripture?  But if worship is not just a type of music, then what does it involve?  For Christians its setting aside a day of the week in honor of Christ, the Son’s Day.  It’s Communion, commemorating Christ’s life, death and resurrection until his return.  It’s prayer, which should be directed only to God, not to angels, or dead saints, popes or even to Mary.  It includes singing and making music from your heart to the Lord, which is giving thanks to the Father for everything!  It’s offerings, giving back to the Lord with a thankful heart.  At Christmas time we find it not odd thing to give gifts to our loved ones.  Offerings are like that to God, except they have the added benefit of carrying on the mission of the Church & caring for the poor.  Worship is preaching & teaching, learning more about God & his Word from men and women dedicated to imparting what they know to others.

The author of Hebrews has this to say, “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe.”  True worship is not confined to what we do in church.  True worship is the acknowledgment of God and all His power and glory in everything we do. When we eat, sleep, work, serve, and live from sunup to sundown, all that we do is to be in a spirit of worship & thanksgiving to God.  True worship is offered to God from the depths of our inner being in praise and prayer, in song, in giving, in learning and in living, but always based upon His revealed truth.  So that is my final admonition to you, to review your life to see if it is one of worship of God or yourself or anything else that you need to repent of?

As I wrap us up this morning I’d like to recommend a book to you – David Murray’s Jesus on Every Page.  Its only $5 used on Amazon & this book will walk you through 10 simple ways to seek & find Christ in the OT.  Secondly, even though my sermon’s focus was on the gospel, one of the most amazing miracles in all of Scripture is the incarnation.  There is no more apt title for Christ between Thanksgiving & Christmas, this Advent season, than Immanuel “God with us.”  And finally there was 1 last point of Worship that I left out, service.  Much like thanksgiving, there isn’t a more “Christian” thing to do that reflects the service & self-sacrifice of our Lord than to serve others.  If it’s a soup kitchen, an assisted living facility, or an orphanage I’d like to challenge every one of you to find an area in which you can show love & serve the sinners of this world, as an act of Worship to our Lord.  This advent season; take the time to give thanks to the Sin-bearer.  Thank you.