Category: Uncategorized

Reformation Sunday is three weeks away. I thought I would spend a little time looking at the great motifs of the Reformation in the run-up to Reformation Sunday. These Motifs constituted the faith of the Reformers and in constituting their faith these motifs made what might be called “the New Protestant man.” The embracing of these motifs created a different Christian and man from what had existed as the norm previously in the Roman Catholic world.

Because of these motifs, we will be looking at all of Europe was set on its head. This Reformed faith created a whole new understanding of reality and this new understanding of reality conquered the world.

Of course, this is always the way that worldview faith convictions work. What a people believe gets worked out in their personal lives, their family lives, and their communal lives. These motifs will give us examples of that as we explore them.

The first one we want to consider this morning is the idea of the Priesthood of all believers. Peter tells his readers that they are a royal Priesthood. The Reformers took this idea and worked out the implications of it so that a new understanding of the Christian and the Christian faith arose.

What Peter begins here in Chapter 2 is to inform the recipients of his letter of their identity as the Church of Jesus Christ. He is contrasting who they are with who unbelievers are. Peter can say;

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Of course Peter is reaching back here to

Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”

The Priests of God

A. The Israelites Are the Priests of God

Exodus 19:6

B. Disobedient Israelites Are Not the Priests of God

1 Samuel 2:28, 30/Lamentations 4:13,16/Ezekiel 44:10, 13/Hosea 4:6/Malachi 2:2, 4,

8, 9

C. The Christians Are the Priests of God

1 Peter 2:5, 9/Revelation 1:6/Revelation 5:10

The other appellations that Peter applies to the Church here you will also find in the OT as describers of Israel. Both the Peterine passage and the Exodus passage refer to God’s people being “Peculiar.”

I could spend quite a bit of time here drawing your attention to the corollary descriptors that are used both of Israel and then later applied to the Church of Jesus Christ. That will have to be another sermon because it isn’t really what I am going after this morning.

However, I have already given you enough to see that Peter by using the same descriptors for the Church as was used for Israel in the OT – Descriptors like a Royal Priesthood, and God’s peculiar possession – we are learning that the Church is a continuation of Israel. Unlike Baptists we don’t see the Church as a new thing in the New Testament. We see the Church as a continuation of what God began with His people in the OT.

This is important to note because there are those who will accuse the Reformed of practicing what is called a “Replacement theology.” By that they mean that the Reformed believe the Church has replaced Israel. We do not believe that the Church has replaced Israel but rather we believe that the Church is the fulfillment of all that Israel was intended to be. The Church is Israel come into maturity. And we believe this because of the kind of language that Peter uses in 2:9 when he describes the Church in the same exact way as God described Israel in the OT. Those who are forever complaining about the evils of replacement theology (Supersessionism) are those who believe that fleshly Israel is still prophetically and eschatologically significant as opposed to understanding that it is only the Israel of God – The Church – that is significant to God.

Next we want to consider this idea of the royal priesthood as understood by the Reformers in contrast with Medieval Rome. This came to be known as the doctrine of the Preisthood of all believers.

The Reformers understood the idea that the Church was a royal Priesthood to mean that each believer was themselves a small p Priest under the Christ as our great High Priest. Those in Christ share in Christ’s royal Priesthood.

As Priests under sovereign God, this meant that each believer had the same access to the Father through Jesus Christ. Of course this in turn meant that there existed no set aside elite class of people who alone can mediate forgiveness for the non-elite class of non-priests.

You can see how this idea alone shook all of Europe. Up until this time if forgiveness was to be had it had to be sought via the Priest. The Medieval Catholic Priest mediated the presence of God, the knowledge of God, and the forgiveness of God. Without the Priest, there could be no Christianity.

You see in the Medieval era – and still today really – the Priests rode in the front of the ecclesiastical bus and everyone else rode in the back of the bus. Martin Luther came along and said that all believers could have their Rosa Parks moment by each and all being Priests under sovereign God. Not only that but this idea of the Priesthood of all believers meant that all Christians have the authority and duty to read and understand the Scripture for themselves, There was no longer a need for the Church and the Priest class to tell everyone else what God said in the Word.

Luther offered,

There is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests . . . between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the sake of status. They are all of the spiritual estate, all are truly priests, bishops, and popes. But they do not all have the same work to do.”

The Reformation thus changed the view of the Clergy. Whereas prior to the Priesthood of all believers it was thought that the Priest was ontologically superior to the non-Priest the Reformers insisted that the clergy while functionally distinct from the laymen they were not ontologically superior. The clergy had an assigned task to be under-Shepherds of Christ in order to minister to the Saints but unlike Rome’s Preistcraft they were not automatically closer to God so that they alone could mediate the presence, knowledge, and forgiveness of God.

Well, this alone shook Rome. The Priest was no longer seen as necessary for salvation. All believers are prophets, priests, and kings under sovereign God. But what other implications were there and are there to this doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers?

Well, another implication is that this set free the laity to act towards one another as priests. We see that in the NT. With the Roman view of Priesthood, we confess our sins to the Priest but in the NT we are told to confess our faults one to another. You see … under Christ we bear one another’s burdens and we remind one another of the forgiveness we have in our alone Priest who represents us before the Father.

So, you see, the Reformation with this Doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers served as a decentralizing impulse in terms of how man viewed reality. Heretofore the Roman church was the great centralizing reality and all had to come into the Church or under the Church to be holy. But with the Doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers, the believer is a priest under sovereign God and now all he touches can be offered up as a pleasing sacrifice to God. Protestants, thus historically, have been people who are offended by centralization and centralizing Institutions. They remember – those that know their history – that centralization goes hand in glove with a denial of the Priesthood of all believers.

What a glorious doctrine this doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers. It expanded the place and scope of the layman. They no longer were in the position being acted up by some human priest but instead were actors under Christ in opening scripture themselves, in going directly to Christ for forgiveness, in seeing that their vocations were not secondary to the really important vocation of the Priesthood.

Now, I just interjected something new there. Did you catch it? I just introduced and connected the idea of vocation – calling – the work of believers with the Priesthood of all believers. How did I get there?

Well, let’s begin by noting that Luther denied that there existed a spiritual divide between priests and laity, insisting instead there is only one estate to which all baptized believers belong.

It was this view of two worlds, two realms, two estates that Luther considered unscriptural. The priesthood of all believers meant that there could only be one world, one realm, one spiritual estate—all of which belonged to God. Luther maintained (quoting):

“It is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests and monks are to be called the “spiritual estate;” princes, lords, artisans, and farmers the “temporal estate.” [On the contrary] . . . all Christians are truly of the “spiritual estate,” and there is among them no difference at all but that of office.”

Luther maintained that there is no spiritual divide between priests and laity; there is simply “one estate” to which all baptized believers belong. And if all baptized believers belong to this one estate then all the good works offered up by this royal priesthood is received by God as pleasing to him. At this point calling was given a jolt as each man in their callings were working as Priest unto sovereign God.

This is in part why we speak about a Protestant work ethic. The idea of the Priesthood of all believers made each man the equivalent of the Medieval Priest doing His Holy work as unto God. Each and all were offering up themselves and their works as sacrifices unto God. This meant bringing the very best. And the craftsmanship and quality of that which the Reformed produced became legendary, and it was legendary because they believed the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers.

This doctrine was sorely in need of being re-captured because over the course of time a gap had been created between the ordained and the non-ordained. By the time of the 16^th century, this gap was Rocky Mountain wide. The effect of this gap was to create a holy vs. non-holy realm. The Church was the holy realm and everything else was the non-holy realm with the result that the spiritual realm was exalted over the temporal realm.

That this is so is seen in how the Church operated. The Church was opened 24-7 for Matins, Lauds, and vespers as well as Terce, sext, and none. One thing the Reformation did is it shut the Church doors. People could be holy in their vocations. They did not have to be at the Church praying in order to be holy.

Well, as I have said the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers taught that all who are united to Christ by faith share in His Priesthood. As noted, as priests we pray for one another and offer up our spiritual sacrifices to God which are our works of obedience. And those works of obedience are the obedience as pursued by us as children, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, church members, business owners, accountants, farmers, citizens – whatever vocation God has called us to.

Well, we have talked about the Priesthood of all believers. We have seen the implications of this,

A.) The end of Priestcraft
B.) The end of a Centralized Church
C.) The lifting up of vocation
D.) The eliminating of the Spiritual vs. Temporal realm
E.) The privilege of being able to minister Christ one to another as priest under sovereign God.

Let’s talk about another … the effect of the Doctrine of the Priesthood of all believes upon the family. And we will do so by quoting from Bavinck,

Christianity did exclude the woman from ecclesiastical office and did not elevate her to the rank of Priestess, but it did introduce a universal priesthood of believers in which the woman shared as well, and did so in no small measure. The significance that the woman acquired in the church affected her position in society. Whereas in the Roman world she was gradually denigrated to the position of slave or an instrument of pleasure for the man, now with Christianity she again became a unique, independent personality with her own mind and will. She remained man’s helpmeet, but along with him inherited the same grace. In the Christian faith, husband and wife were restored to one another, and various sins of harlotry and unchastity, adultery and divorce, had to give way to the love that bound both of them together anew. Christianity sanctified marriage liberated it from various evils, and once again established it on the foundation of the divine commandment.

Herman Bavinck

The Christian Family — pg. 48, 50

This doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers thus impacted the Christian home. It raised the status of the weaker vessel from subjugation to co-heirs in the enterprise of expanding the Kingdom of God.

Let’s round off with some warnings about mishandling this doctrine.

The anabaptists desired to eliminate all distinctions between the clergy and the laity. They forgot that while there was no longer an Ontological distinction between clergy and laity there remained a distinction of function between Clergy and laity. The clergy have a high and holy calling to minister Christ to the saints. To break the word open. To dispense the sacraments. This is a holy occupation just as other occupations are holy and just as you don’t want a software expert performing surgery on you so you should not desire someone who is not trained to be clergy to be clergy. We must remember that God has said that Christ gave the Church ministers as gifts.

So, the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers is not a leveling doctrine per the Anabaptist but it is a doctrine that eliminates the chain of being ontological status between clergy and laity.

Another warning would be to somehow conclude that because of this doctrine we don’t need the Institutional Church. After all, if all believers are Priests, the reasoning might go, then why do we need the Church. The church is the armory of God. It is here we are equipped to think God’s thoughts after Him and make plans together to be instruments in God’s expansion of His Kingdom. The Church is the hospital of God. It is here where we receive the medicine of forgiveness and the proclamation of eternal life. The Church is the temple of God. It is here that we gather to glorify Christ together in our Worship. grows.

Let us together thank God for this stout Reformed doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers and let us seek to learn to once again be shaped in our characters by this doctrine.

Did God change his mind regarding Marriage laws?

We would have to say “yes,” since we know that brother and sister marriages would have occurred before the giving of the Mosaic law. Indeed, Abraham rightly claims more than once that Sarah (his wife) was his sister. And yet God later forbids the marriage between brothers and sisters and half-siblings in Leviticus 18:9.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.”

We see therefore that marriage laws are not eternal and immutable but can and were changed by God over the course of time. This points to the reality that polygamy likewise, once allowed, is now forbidden and we gather that from the words of Christ as He appeals to the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman;

Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Here Jesus is quoting from the monogamy description between Adam & Eve recorded in Genesis,

Then the man said, “This, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:23-25

The teaching of Christ here thus is irrefutable evidence that just as there was a change in marriage laws as applied to siblings so with the words of Christ there is a change against OT polygamous marriage in the NT. This is especially so when Christ’s words are coupled with Paul’s injunction that Church officers are to be the husband of one wife.

Finally, the Scripture suggests that God’s law touching marriage will be altered yet again in the age to come.

29Jesus answered, “You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.”

So, all this put together teaches that God has the right to change His law fitting to His desire. Of course, God’s law only changes upon God’s authority but where we find God’s authority for a change in the law there we are obliged to own that change in the law.

Scripture clearly demarcates changes in marriage laws that Christians are bound to honor. As such we can say again that polygamy is against God’s Law. This is also the testimony of the Church as seen from countless men of God through history.

[Question] Did God merely permit polygamy in the Old Testament times or was that required?

[Rushdoony] The norm we have in Leviticus 18: I believe its verse 18, yes, Leviticus 18:18: neither shalt thou take a wife, or if you look at your marginal notes if you have a reference, it literally is a wife to another, rather than a wife to her sister, in other words take more than one wife to vex her and so on. Now, what this does is to forbid polygamy but God’s law at the same time regulates polygamy because it recognizes that the sin of men is such that he is going to do certain things, the norm is (monogamous) marriage.

“The question is about the polygamy of the patriarchs in the old testament. Now first of all, lets look at the whole subject from the biblical perspective. From the perspective of the bible, the family is the basic institution of mankind. The family. Therefore, the bible looks at the family as against everything that is hostile to the family, therefore any kind of promiscuity, adultery, anything that is hostile to the family is regarded with total enmity. Now from the beginning, the bible recognizes monogamy as the standard from the garden of Eden. The Mosaic law makes it clear that this is the true path. These other forms are regarded as inferior, defective and more or less sinful forms of the family. But, not as bad anything that is anti-family, thus in our culture today for example, we look on polygamy with horror. ”

RJR

Imagination vs. History Lecture

“Polygamy is seen by God as an inferior form of marriage. The law forbids it but also imposes regulations on those who practice it.”

RJR

Exodus Commentary — pg. 292

Calvin on Polygamy,

When he soon afterwards adds, that God created them male and female, he commends to us that conjugal bond by which the society of mankind is cherished. For this form of speaking, God created man, male and female created he them, is of the same force as if he had said, that the man himself was incomplete.94 Under these circumstances, the woman was added to him as a companion that they both might be one, as he more clearly expresses it in the second chapter. Malachi also means the same thing when he relates, (Genesis 2:15,) that one man was created by God, whilst, nevertheless, he possessed the fullness of the Spirit.95 For he there treats of conjugal fidelity, which the Jews were violating by their polygamy. For the purpose of correcting this fault, he calls that pair, consisting of man and woman, which God in the beginning had joined together, one man, in order that every one might learn to be content with his own wife.

Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis 2:24

“They shall be one flesh.”

Although the ancient Latin interpreter has translated the passage ‘in one flesh,’ yet the Greek interpreters have expressed it more forcibly: ‘They two shall be into one flesh,’ and thus Christ cites the place in Matthew 19:5. But though here no mention is made of two, yet there is no ambiguity in the sense; for Moses had not said that God has assigned many wives, but only one to one man; and in the general direction given, he had put the wife in the singular number. It remains, therefore, that the conjugal bond subsists between two persons only, whence it easily appears, that nothing is less accordant with the divine institution than polygamy. Now, when Christ, in censuring the voluntary divorces of the Jews, adduces as his reason for doing it, that ‘it was not so in the beginning,’ (Matthew 19:5,) he certainly commands this institution to be observed as a perpetual rule of conduct. To the same point also Malachi recalls the Jews of his own time:

‘Did he not make them one from the beginning? and yet the Spirit was abounding in him.’153 (Malachi 2:15.)

Wherefore, there is no doubt that polygamy is a corruption of legitimate marriage.

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary states, quoting verse 18 from the Authorized Version: “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her”:

“The marginal construction involves an express prohibition of polygamy; and, indeed, there can be no doubt that the practice of having more wives than one is directly contrary to the divine will. It was prohibited by the original law of marriage, and no evidence of its lawfulness under the Levitical code can be discovered, although Moses—from ‘the hardness of their hearts’ [Mt 19:8; Mr 10:5]—tolerated it…”

“[I]f Christianity is not to control the laws of the country, then as monogamy is a purely Christian institution, we can have no laws against polygamy, arbitrary divorce, or ‘free love.'”

— Charles Hodge

Note, Polygamy, or the marriage of more persons than one, as well as adultery, must be a breach of marriage-covenants, and a violation of the partner’s rights.

Matthew Henry

Commentary — I Corinthians 7

Because god has joined them together (v. 15): Did not he make one, one Eve for one Adam, that Adam might never take another to her to vex her (Lev. xviii. 18), nor put her away to make room for another? It is great wickedness to complain of the law of marriage as a confinement, when Adam in innocency, in honour, in Eden, in the garden of pleasure, was confined to one. Yet God had the residue of the Spirit; he could have made another Eve, as amiable as that he did make, but, designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife; had he made him more, he would not have had a meet help. And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that he might seek a godly seed—a seed of God (so the word is), a seed that should bear the image of God, be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honour,—that every man having his own wife, and but one, according to the law, (1 Cor. vii. 2), they might live in chaste and holy love, under the directions and restraints of the divine law, and not, as brute beasts, under the dominion of lust, and thus might propagate the nature of man in such a way as might make it most likely to participate of a divine nature,—that the children, being born in holy matrimony, which is an ordinance of God, and by which the inclinations of nature are kept under the regulations of God’s command, might thus be made a seed to serve him, and be bred, as they are born, under his direction and dominion.

Matthew Henry
Commentary Malachi

Note from Reformed Study Bible for the account of Lamech in Gen. 4:19-24

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Lamech represents both a progressive hardening in sin with his defiant embrace of polygamy.

Here’s how the original Geneva Bible phrased it:

The lawful institution of marriage, which is, that two should be one flesh, was first corrupted in the house of Cain by Lamech.

We will end with Scripture again

Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;

The addition of wives, Scripture teaches, leads to men’s hearts being turned away from God. This is as true for men who are not kings as for men who are kings (the context of Deut. 17:17).

And we see that as the record of the OT where polygamy is never mentioned without there being a strife and conflict in the home where it was practiced.

Having pointed all this out we would have to conclude that those who continue to insist on the continued validity of polygamy are practicing antinomians on this subject and have need to repent and bow to God’s revelation.

As a result of this article run by Ligonier’s Table-Talk

Christianity or Critical Theory?

my very little influence will be used to encourage people to withdraw their support of all things Ligonier including Reformation Bible College as well as Mid America Seminary where Dr. Eric Watkins is employed.

I encourage people to read the article for themselves. I will be critiquing the highlights (lowlights) of the above-linked piece here but people should read the piece themselves to determine if they think that I have treated Dr. Watkins fairly.

______

Let me say at the outset that the tone of the article is all wrong.  The tone we as Christians should be taking against Critical Race Theory and Cultural Marxism should be less like some scholar wearing a tweed jacket, smoking a pipe while sitting in an overstuffed armchair by a toasty fire, and more like a Phineas driving a spear on a two for Tuesday special. We no longer have time to be “irenic” and “fair” with the enemy. “Irenic,” and “judicious” are not what one goes for when one is being scalped. Christians should be seeking to decapitate CRT and Cultural Marxism with all the violence they can muster and what Eric Watkins gives us is “Little House on the Prairie” analysis.

Now on to the picking apart of this scab of an article.