Biblical Horizons » Jeff Meyers

Yahweh Dwells Between the Cherubim

Jeff Meyers — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:25:39 +0000

Reading in John Calvin’s sermons on 2 Samuel today, I came across this wonderful statement. This comes from a sermon preached on July 3, 1562, “The True Worship of God,” an exposition of 2 Sam. 6:1-7. Calvin is discussing the implications of the affirmation that Yaweh, the God of Israel, “dwells between the cherubim.”

“Nevertheless, in order that we might know that God does not want to frustrate us, and that the signs which he gives us are not frivolous and empty baggage, like toys for little children, it says that God truly dwells between the cherubim. This does not mean that his essence is enclosed in the ark, but that he wishes to display his virtue there for the salvation of his people. Similarly, today in the waters of baptism, it is the same as if the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ poured down from heaven to water our souls and cleanse them from their uncleanness. When we have the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, it is the same as if Jesus Christ were coming down from heaven and making himself our food, so that we could be filled with him. We must not, therefore, take these signs as visible things and figures that are to feed our spiritual senses, but are to realize that God joins his virtue and truth to them, so that the thing and the effect are joined to the figure. We must not put asunder what God has joined together” (Sermons on 2 Samuel: John Calvin, trans. by Douglas Kelley [Banner of Truth, 1992], 236).

The Impending Distress (1 Cor 7:25-40)

Jeff Meyers — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:55:32 +0000

A great deal of confusion about the relative value of “virginity” and marriage can be avoided if one pays careful attention to the text of Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 7. The two most important observations are: 1) that Paul’s specific recommendations are made because of the “impending crisis” (v. 26), and 2) that Paul wants both the unmarried and the married to be free from the anxieties that attend their particular estates.

First, the “impending distress” is the result of the huge change that was taking place between A.D. 30 and 70. The “appointed time has grown very short” (v. 29, ESV). The old “world/age” was under judgment and was “passing away” (v. 31). And although people still had to live in that old world (v. 30, 31), they needed to be careful about the “fleshy tribulations” that were coming (v. 28). Charles Hodge writes:

The awful desolation that was soon to fall upon Jerusalem and on the whole Jewish race, and which could not but involve more or less the Christians also, and the inevitable struggles and persecutions, which according to our Lord’s predictions, his followers were to encounter, were surely enough to create a deep impression on the apostles mind, and to make him solicitous to prepare his brethren for the coming storm.

In the light of this, then, secondly, Paul wants everyone to be free from anxiety. Everyone. This portion of the passage has been greatly misunderstood. Paul wants them to be free from anxiety—the anxieties that attend marriage and the anxieties that are peculiar to the single state. Paul says that the unmarried man or woman is unnecessarily anxious about “how he may please the Lord” (vss. 32, 33). That’s not a good thing. He’s not presenting some ideal celibate state where someone might direct all of his attention toward religious matters and not worry about the problems associated with marriage. He is warning single people that they should not be anxious about pleasing the Lord. Paul wants them all to be free from anxieties.

With that little introduction here’s my “interpretive translation” of 1 Corinthians 7:25-40.

25. Now concerning the special case of virgins [that is, unmarried and unmarried betrothed men and women]: I have no direct commandment from the Lord [Jesus regarding this special situation]; yet I will give you my judgement as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

26. Because of the present crisis [—you understand my meaning here: the great turmoil and distress surrounding the dissolution of the old world as prophesied by our Lord, a tribulation that will also spill over into the entire inhabited world and produce, among other horrors, great persecution for the Church of Jesus Christ—] I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. [Haven’t I already urged you to accept this? Permit me now to apply this general principle to your present concern about unmarried men and women.]

27. Are you married [or under the obligations of betrothal to a woman]? Do not seek a divorce [or seek to be loosed from your betrothal obligations]. Are you unmarried [or free from a wedding engagement]? Do not seek a wife. [Just as I have been saying, don’t be anxious to alter your current marital status].

28. But if you do marry, you have not sinned [contrary to what your misguided leadership says, marriage will not drop you down into a second-class spiritual state; and so there is no religious reason why you should not marry]; and likewise if a young woman marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless, [as a faithful pastor I must advise you that] those who are married will have tribulation in the flesh, and I want to spare you this. [Please notice, dear Corinthians, that my reasons for advising you against marriage now are strictly pastoral; they arise out of my evaluation of our own present crisis situation. Unlike your reasons for preferring singleness, spirituality does not enter at all into the rationale for my advice. The old humanity (“the flesh”) is passing away and is being replaced by a new world. That process will bring tribulation, as our Lord promised.]

29-31. Let me explain myself more fully, brethren: the time is short [—we are in the “last days,” the transition from the old to the new world—], so that from now on even those who have wives should live as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not, those who rejoice as thought they did not, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use the things of this world as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form [that is, the entire old world economy with Israel and Rome at the religious and political center of the world] is passing away.

32. Now, I want you to be free from an anxiety-ridden existence [Gk: 'amérimnos*]. The man who is unmarried [in the Corinthian community] is unnecessarily fretful* about the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. And the man who is married is anxiety-ridden* over the cares of the world—how he may please his wife [both kinds of anxiety are unhealthy and to be avoided].

*See Matt. 6: 25, 27, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Lk. 10: 41; 21:34; Phil. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:7;

34. Now consider the difference between a wife and a unmarried woman [in the Corinthian community dominated by your false view of spirituality. Your legalistic pestering has insured that] the unmarried woman is anxious* about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit [and so she has gotten herself all worked up over whether getting married or staying single is more spiritual]. And she who is married is anxious* about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. [Why? Because the teachings that are circulating among you make her anxious about all this “secular” time she supposedly wastes on pleasing her husband. Again, both forms of anxiety are unspiritual and dangerous.]

35. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord [or as some have translated it: that you may serve the Lord without distraction—the distractions of these unspiritual anxieties].

36. Now if any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin.

37. Nevertheless, he who stands steadfast in his heart, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and has determined in his heart that he will not marry—this man also does the right thing.

38. So then, he who marries his betrothed does right, but he who does not marry does even better [because of the present crisis and the trouble that the church will experience].

39-40. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But blessed is she who remains as she is—that is my judgment [given the coming crisis that will spare none of us], and I think that I have the Spirit of God.

PCA GA Colloquium on the Efficacy of the Sacraments

Jeff Meyers — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:20:23 +0000

Readers of the BH blog will be interested in reading or listening to the presentations made a few days ago here in Dallas at the Colloquium on the Efficacy of the Sacraments. Will Barker, Rob Rayburn, Ligon Duncan, and Jeff Meyers (me) all made 30-minute presentations. You can find the links to the papers and the audio lectures here.

Pseudo Sacrifice

Jeff Meyers — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:30:54 +0000

We at Biblical Horizons have been interested in understanding the biblical texts on “sacrifice” for at least a couple of decades. There are a number of excellent tape sets from past BH conferences with great lectures on this topic. This morning one of the seminary students in my church forwarded me a link to a video of a “Jewish Priestly Passover Sacrifice.”

Unfortunately, I cannot embed it, so you’ll have to trust me that this link won’t take you to something inappropriate. Make sure you heed the warnings before you watch the video. If you are not a farmer or a hunter or used to killing and preparing game to eat, you might be grossed out.

What I would like to do is discuss what happens in this video. I’ll start by saying that I find the whole thing rather strange. It’s all a little bit weird, isn’t it. Staged and not quite “normal.” There’s all sorts of bizarre stuff in this video. Uniformed guards?

Second, this video shows just how odd it is for post-AD 70 Judeaism to attempt to offer sacrifices. There’s no temple or altar anymore, so this “sacrifice” was performed in anything but the glorious environment of the tabernacle or the temple. It looked like they were doing this clandestinely in a weed-infested vacant lot where no one could see them.

Third, notice what a big production it is, requiring a bunch of men. All for one little lamb. Not so in the old world. Remember, they sacrificed loads of animals daily at the temple. From what we read in the Old Testament, a single priest was able to assist a worshipper in the slaying and “sacrifice” of the animal.

Fourth, there’s a bunch of extra-Levitical rituals added.

Fifth, there’s no temple or altar so the lamb cannot become “qorban” or turned into smoke as food for Yahweh.

Sixth, the title says that a Jewish priest sacrifices a lamb. Nah. There are no priests. There’s no temple or sacrificial ritual anymore. There’s no genealogical records either. These guys aren’t even dressed like priests.

I’d like to hear from some of the other BH guys about this.

Empire & University

Jeff Meyers — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:51:46 +0000

By Rich Bledsoe

If we take as a starting point the Tribal / Monarchical / Empire model, we can then add to it the Late Empire Phase. The particular ‘marker sin’ of Empire is false intermarriage, which signifies pluralism and syncretism. Empires by definition are “cosmopolitan” dominated by cities, high culture, many cultures, and many languages. There is more immediate contact with at least the high points of many civilizations and people groupings than any other form. But, with the corruption of Empire, any recognizable center drops out and agreed upon Truth is lost, and it is replaced by very vague and empty universalisms, and a lot of mush.In the Late Empire phase, the marker sin is the homoerotic.

This moves beyond the thousand women of Solomon to another level of descent, and is tied to ego and identity weakness. This should follow. If Perichorosis is the Trinitarian model for identity (the Father finds Himself in the Son, the Son in the Father, the Spirit in the Father and the Son, and
whatever other combinations follow), so the husband finds himself in the wife, the wife in the husband, the father and mother in the sons and daughters, and vice versa) to begin to stretch oneself so thin as to be “in” a thousand women is to lose oneself, and not in a good way. One no longer has a self, because one is so spread out to a thousand others and one has zero depth with any of them.

One is lost. One would think this would also lend itself to patheism, in obvious ways. Late Empire eras are eras of gender confusion, and not knowing who one is. It is the era of the search for oneself, and mostly people cannot “find” themselves. It fits that we are the “therapeutic era”. It finds its height of expression in the homosexual community. The homoerotic urge is the search for ones own weakened and perhaps almost non-existent self in an idealized other. It is the quest of incubus and succubus. The “other” is not really “other” but an extension of, or a “substantializing” of the self. Here is the irony and paradox that I am building up to.

The most “cosmopolitan” eras, are at one and the same time, the most ethno-centric. If the height of civilization is a high empire era, by a very strange turn of events, these places are in the most danger of becoming the narrowest of all eras and places. Hence, it seems to be that the most cosmopolitan places in the United States, such as San Francisco, and Manhattan (which must be distinguished from all the other boroughs) are also the very places the very least likely to be able to have any openness to anything other than themselves. They begin to be as narrow as any tribe in New Guinea. Hence, ethno-centricism finds its most natural home in the most cosmopolitan of all areas. It eventually becomes impossible see anything other than ones self in everything.

It is clear that while a place like Harvard certainly is a place with a lot of knowledge and real insight, it is also a place blighted, more blighted with ethno-centricism than most small towns. It is an odd combination of high culture and blighted narrowness. The “Sociology of Knowledge” is at work everywhere, but the most perversly in the most advanced cities and universities.

The “otherness” of the texts, and “otherness” in general, is muted and only seen through an acceptable filter. Now I know we all have this problem. It is not unique to the high world of Late Empire at places of concentration. But it is both the most invisible and also the most visibly at work in those places.

I am not accusing any particular modern scholar of the homoerotic. I am saying that the world of higher learning, is especially dominated by this ethos.

How James [Jacob] Came to Be Written

Jeff Meyers — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:20:32 +0000

“. . . and just when are you guys going to live up to your Sons of Thunder reputation? Huh? A lot of us are wondering about you two.” With that, the young man got up, climbed down the ladder, and stalked up the street toward the old city.

Jacob turned from watching the man and looked at his brother. This was not the first time he saw that expression on Johanan’s face. What was it? Bewilderment mixed with sadness maybe, but then too a hint of fear. Jacob empathized. For months now they had been hearing similar angry speeches. The younger men especially were given to reacting to the persecution with a show of strength, even force. Every apostle in Jerusalem has been approached with similar proposals. But now the situation appeared to have gotten worse. This man reported on activity that crossed the line. He actually urged them to join with the resistance.

“Johanan, do you think his report is credible? Or might he have been exaggerating in an attempt to get us to join the cause, so to speak? What do you think?”

“Well, I don’t think he’s making it up. Perhaps he’s embellished the incident somewhat, but I’ve heard similar stories this week from other brothers who’ve been driven out of Jerusalem.”

“Wait. Similar stories? Do you mean different accounts of this one incident or similar incidents in different places?”

“The latter, Jacob. Many of the brothers are losing patience. They tell me that they are no longer able to control angry disciples. I guess we should have seen this coming. As you know, since the tribulation began last year there has been a steady deterioration of order in our assemblies. . . . Look, Jacob, here comes brother Levi, Peter, and Peter’s deacon Mark. They don’t look very happy.”

Jacob went to the ladder and called the three up. After arranging a few more cushions for their friends to recline with them, Johanan called down to his wife and asked if there was an extra jar of wine downstairs for the five of them. She said there wasn’t, but that she would send Joseph down to the market before it closed to purchase a bottle of that wonderful vintage port from the Negev. “Thank you, dear,” Jacob said.

Jacob then turned toward the three visitors. “Why the dour looks, brothers?”

Levi spoke. “You would think that as my account of our Lord’s life circulates, the disciples would connect the dots with their own situation. But I don’t see it happening. The brothers that do see the connection are being drowned out by these loudmouthed young wannabes who counsel violent action against the persecutors.”

“Violent action. You’ve heard about it, too? We just heard a report from a brother who claims it has moved beyond mere talk. Johanan just now tells me that he’s heard similar reports. I can see from your expressions that it must be true.”

Peter said, “Yes, it’s awful. In Bethel the servant of an agent of the Sanhedrin on a mission to find disciples has been killed. I don’t know all the details. But the reliable word on the street is that the deed was done by disciples that are being described as zealots.”

“We’ve also heard,” Mark added, “that some brothers are cursing the persecutors in their assemblies and privately organizing bands of men bound by oaths to establish the righteous rule of Jesus. What a mess!”

Everyone was quiet for a while. Then Peter spoke up.

“Too many brothers apparently believe that the success of the Lord Jesus’ cause must be measured the way our apostate nation measures success. If their assembly has no political influence or power, no material wealth or visible signs of prosperity, then how can they claim to be the Messiah’s new people? So they mimic their rich persecutors and think that by responding in kind they will prevail.”

Jacob said, “But this kind of attitude and behavior is diametrically opposed to the way of our Lord Jesus! If we disciples are going to covet the power and wealth of apostate Jerusalem, then we may as well just become pagan Romans. After all, Jerusalem simply mimics Rome these days. I’ve just read an insightful essay on this by a young brother named Rene ben Girard from the Gadarene region. Can’t the brothers at least discern what’s going on? Such pride will cause the Lord’s judgment to fall on us, not just on Jerusalem and Rome. Friendship with the world is enmity with God!”

Peter said, “So we are all feeling the same way, I see. This is a sign from the Spirit to us that something needs to be done.”

“I agree,” said Levi. “Remember how we came to a consensus about this when I was commissioned to write my account of Jesus’ ministry?” Everyone nodded. “Okay. I believe we need to write something to the churches now, specifically to our brothers who are shepherding the assemblies that have been formed outside of Jerusalem since the persecution and dispersion. Do you men agree?”

Peter: “Yes, Levi, I believe this is exactly the right thing to do. And since your account of our Lord’s ministry is now being copied and circulated, the new work ought to draw out the implications of our Lord’s life and teaching for the persecuted church. People should be able to see the connection between Levi’s account and this new work’s presentation of proper behavior for disciples of Jesus. Does everyone agree?”

Johanan said, “Yes, I think the Spirit is moving us in precisely that direction. Let me add that I think this work ought to be a circular letter written to our brothers, the pastors and leaders of the persecuted assemblies. Every disciple will be able to learn from it, of course, but if we write the leaders and ask them to read and explain it to their people, we will be addressing the source of the most of our problems. These brothers are supposed to be mature, able to lead their people with meekness and mercy. They seem to want to rule like the Gentiles. Someone needs to remind them of the royal instruction given by our Lord in his mountainside sermon! If we want to continue to reign with the Lord Jesus, we better start acting like true kings and leave off imitating apostate Jewish blowhards and pagan Roman warmongers.”

Peter: “Good idea, John. We need to make sure that this concern for how the brothers lead the congregations by means of their words is at the heart our exhortation. Words are powerful, but words will not save us. Our Lord told us ‘wisdom is justified by her works.’ We need to make sure that our appointed teachers understand this.”

“Speaking of words,” Jacob interjected, “I would like to see us address the true heart and soul of faithful Christian piety – caring for the poor and needy, especially widows and orphans. The churches are being sidetracked from this by our persecutors. Stephen was a great example of this. But I gather that some bigmouths think that Stephen’s death proved his ministry was ineffective. They don’t seem to remember that Stephen was following in the footsteps of our Lord. They were both murdered by envious Jewish rulers whose own failures were illuminated by Jesus’ and Stephen’s righteous service to the poor. Our people can talk about faith all they want, but putting one’s faith in Jesus means doing the kinds of works he did. Perhaps we need to remind everyone of the uselessness of empty talk, even empty confessions of faith.”

“Well, men, do we have anyone more passionately concerned about this than our brother Jacob?” Peter asked. “I think not. I think it is especially appropriate that Jacob write this pastoral letter given that he now functions as the lampstand of the assemblies in Jerusalem. Most of the men and congregations that have been displaced last year were under his shepherding care. It only makes sense to have him write these brothers. What do you all think?”

Everyone nodded vigorously, while Jacob looked a bit apprehensive. “I’ll need your help, men. For I’ll need to avoid just the kind of angry speech that I wish to warn the brothers against. This is an honor, but I don’t feel up to it.”

Peter then got to his feet and motioned everyone to gather around Jacob. They did so, laying hands on him, and praying fervently. Peter petitioned the Lord to grant them all humility and patience in the midst of these great trials. He prayed that they would have the grace to count even these tribulations as blessings. Mark prayed that the Lord would judge those apostate Jewish leaders who failed to honor the apostles and disciples of the Messiah. He prayed that the cries of the laborers that were sent to harvest the fields of Israel would reach the Lord of armies and that he would act swiftly to bring in the reign of righteousness he promised. Levi prayed that the disciples of the Messiah would remember the suffering and patience of the prophets, and that the Lord would reward their steadfast faith with the harvest of righteousness they all longed for. Finally, Johanan prayed for his brother, that God would grant that through his words many who are wandering from the truth might be rescued and that this pastoral letter might be the means whereby the Lord would cover a multitude of sins.

When they had finished praying, Jacob got up from his knees and saw his son Joseph standing by the ladder with the promised bottle of wine. After everyone had a glass, he raised his cup and blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Everyone shouted amen. They enjoyed each other’s company for a little while longer, but Jacob’s mind was already busy with the letter he would begin to write early the next morning. He kept hearing the prayers that were spoken over him a few moments ago. His letter was taking shape in his mind.

On Renewing Theology

Jeff Meyers — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:06:44 +0000

I spent the last few days at A Conversation on Denominational Renewal, which thankfully met in St. Louis. The conference was well attended, about 300 or more people. The audience was mostly PCA ministers and elders, but because it was held in St. Louis there were a good many Covenant Seminary Students and professors.

I’m not going to summarize the conference. All I will say is that it was quite stimulating and helpful. When they post the mp3s of the lectures on their website, you need to listen to them. I’ll try to alert everyone when they are posted.

I’d like for us to discuss one part of Jeremy Jones’s lecture on Wednesday morning. The title was “On Renewing Theology.” I think it was one of the most challenging lectures of the lot.

Jeremy addressed problems with the way we tend to conceive of and do theology in the Reformed world, especially the PCA. Early on he talked about “The Ecclesial Culture of Reformed Sectarianism.” He lamented the fact that so many Reformed ecclesial cultures end up as little more than “denominational police states.” How does this happen?

First, we imagine a golden age (17th century) in the life of the church and the theological task is to preserve that theology at all costs. Theological error always begins as a mustard seed that, unless it is discovered and rooted out, will flower into full-blown heresy. Now I will quote from Jeremy’s handout:

Methodos of Reformed Sectarian Theological Rationality
There are several methods employed to catch the mustard seed of heresy that we can see being utilized in our midst over nearly every controversy that arises in our denomination (see note#1).

1) Because we presuppose inevitable theological decline, we must police our borders and sniff out the traitors who are surely lurking in out midst.

2) We must evaluate current theological positions primarily in light of past positions (both positive and negative) and must not hesitate to equate current positions with past positions if they are the same (and they usually are): this = that, today = then.

Sonship = antinomian
Parachurch ministries=”new school”
N.T. Wright is neonomian, Baxterian.
Federal Vision = New Haven after Edwards

These equations are often hastily and sloppily made with out a patient, attentive, and charitable listening, reading, and interaction with one’s theological “opponents.”

3) We will use slippery slope thinking as a tool of diagnosis to see “what’s really going on” among those we suspect, to see the troubling trajectory of their thought.

It’s dangerous to take people’s word for what they think/believe. Furthermore, because our knowledge of tragic theological history, we can see where certain views inevitably lead, even if their proponents do not. Consequently, we may impute what we “know” is “the logical conclusion” (or historically inevitable conclusion) of a certain position to our opponents and treat them as if they hold this position. For example:

False principles, like leaven in the meal, always tend to work out their logical consequences, and to lead their votaries to all their results. These may be very unexpected; they may be very unpopular; they may be bitterly repudiated, even by those who are unconsciously tending towards them. But in due time they come, and are at last boldly avowed. Unless the seminal errors are purged out, this must be so; because the human mind must reason connectedly from its postulates (R. L. Dabney, Discussions, vol. 2, p. 444).

4) Because all doctrines are interconnected logically in a system, one error at any point threatens the whole. It is not possible to distinguish between central and peripheral doctrines. Therefore, any and every doctrinal error, once discerned, must be purged from our midst.

. . . the truths of redemption are a connected system. . . its several propositions must have a logical dependence. The reveal system is a regular arch; the removal of the smallest stone loosens another, and that another, until the very keystone is shaken and the whole structure endangered. The surrender of a point of doctrine not fundamental to salvation endangers others more important than itself. . . Thus, the rejection of a truth not fundamental may jeopardize those that are (R.L. Dabney, Discussiions, vol 2, pp. 455-456).

Results: A Denominational Police State

(Note #1: For an example of these moves see Robert L. Dabney, “Uses and Results of Church History” in Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, vol. 2 [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982], 5-25).

John Frame on Historical Election

Jeff Meyers — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:59:30 +0000

This is the conclusion to Frame’s discussion about historical/covenantal election in his The Doctrine of God (pp. 329-30):

Historical election and eternal election are distinct, but they cannot be entirely separated. Note the following:

1. Both historical and eternal election are aspects of God’s saving purpose. The election of Israel and the temporary election of individuals in history are means by which God gathers together those who will receive his final blessing.

2. As we have seen, the “remnant” of historical election is no less than Jesus Christ. Jesus himself is eternally elected by God (1 Pet. 1:20), together with those God has chosen to be in him. So in the end, historical and eternal election coincide [1]. In history, they do not; for historical election is a temporal process and eternal election is forever settled before creation.

All of the eternally elect are historically elect, but not vice versa. Historical election is the process in time by which God executes his decree to save the eternally elect. As God judges the reprobate through history, the difference narrows between the historically elect and the eternally elect. In the end, the outcome of historical election is the same as that of eternal election.

3. As such, historical election is a mirror of eternal election. God elects Israel by grace, as he elects believers eternally by grace. He promises blessings to them which are essentially the blessings of salvation, ultimately the presence with them of the living God. God’s covenant presence with Israel in the tabernacle and temple is an image of his presence with eternally elect believers in Christ. The chief difference, of course, is that among the historically elect there are some who will not be finally saved. But even the historical rejection of unbelievers from the covenant images eternal election, for it pictures the final separation between the elect and the reprobate.

4. We may think of historical election as the visible and temporal form of eternal election. We cannot see another’s heart to know for sure whether he is eternally elect. But we can see whom God has led to unite with his visible body, the church. We can see who has given a credible profession of faith in Christ. By observing the process of historical election in the light of Scripture we gain a limited knowledge of eternal election—the best knowledge possible for us today.

5. Those who join the church are historically elect, in the way that Israel was historically elect. It is possible for people in the church to apostatize, to renounce their profession. Church membership, therefore, does not guarantee membership in the new covenant. But the church is a new covenant institution in that it proclaims God’s eternal election in Christ and the forgiveness of sins through Jesus’ atonement. In that sense, Israel also was a new covenant institution. So the Book of Hebrews reminds its Jewish Christian readers of the new covenant to which they are called, and it also warns them not to fall away as did Israel in the wilderness.

______________________
[1] Note that in Rev. 20:15, those whose names are “not found written in the book of life” are thrown into the lake of fire. Is this the historical book of life, from which names can be blotted out? Or is it the eternal book of life, written before the creation? We cannot tell. For by the day of judgment, all blotting will be done, and the names in the historical book will be the same as the names in the eternal book.

John Frame on Covenantal Election

Jeff Meyers — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:46:06 +0000

This is from John Frame’s The Doctrine of God:

So although the election of Israel is by grace, there is an important
place for continued faithfulness. Individuals can belong to the chosen people, yet lose their elect status by faithlessness and disobedience. Branches can be broken off “because of unbelief” (Rom. 11:20).

When we consider divine rejection, we should not argue that the discarded branches were never really elect. There is a place for such reasoning, but it pertains to a different kind of election, which we will discuss in the following section. Here, however, we are talking about historical election. And in this context it is possible to lose one’s election. The discarded branches were indeed elect at one time, for they were part of the tree of Israel. Israel as a nation was really elect, before God declared them to be “not my people,” and they became elect again, when God declared them to be “sons of the living God.”

The same is true of the New Testament church. It would not be right to say that Judas, or Ananias, or the apostates of Hebrews 6 and 10 were never elect in any sense. They were elect in the sense that Israel was elect. Indeed, when Calvinists worry about the implications of Hebrews 6 and 10, it is useful for them to consider that the apostates in these passages are very much like Old Testament Israel: they “have once been enlightened, . . . tasted the heavnly gift, . . . shared in the Holy Spirit, . . . tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age.” (Heb. 6:4-5). Israel experienced all these things throughout Old Testament history and particularly during the earthly ministry of Jesus. But they rejected him and joined those who crucified the Son of God. So those church members who turn away from Christ “are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (6:6).

Note how Hebrews 4:4-6 emerges out of the references to Israel in chapters 3 and 4. The Israelites, blessed as they were with enlightenment, the heavenly gift, the Holy Spirit, the word of God, and the powers of the coming age, nevertheless hardened their hearts against the Lord (3:7-11, 15). The writer therefore urges Christians to “make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience” (4:11).

So God continues to break branches off the tree of redemption. Even those who have been freshly engrafted can be broken off because of unbelief (pp. 324-5).

Chiasms in James

Jeff Meyers — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:49:27 +0000

Hopefully, my commentary on James will be out later this year. But here are a few chiasms for your consideration. I think the James 5 chiasm orginally came from Doug Jordan.

The entire book of James is focused on how the pastors and leaders (“brothers”) of the church use their tongues.

The Whole Book

A. 1:2-8 – Trials, faith, steadfastness
  B. 1:9-27 – Suffering, patience, etc.
    C. 2:1-7 – Rich and “the poor man”
      D. 2:8-13 – Love, liberty, and mercy
        E. 2:14-26 – Justification [dikaio] & works
          F. 3:1-12 – The tongue
        E’ 3:13-18 – Righteousness [dikaiosune], Wisdom, & works
      D’ 4:1-12 – The members at war
    C’ 4:13-5:6 – Rich & “the righteous one”
  B’ 5:7-18 – Suffering, patience, coming judgment, fruit, etc.
A’ 5:19-21 – Wandering, sin, death

James 5:1-18
  A. 5: 7-8 – be patient, as a farmer waiting for rain, fruit of the earth
    B. 5: 9 – do not grumble against each other
      C. 5:10-11- prophets/Job example of suffering, v10 “name of the Lord”
        D. 5:12 – above all, do not swear
      C’ 5:13-15 – how to deal with suffering, v14 “name of the Lord”
    B’ 5:16 – confess your sins to one another and pray for one another
  A’ 5:17-18 – pray, as Elijah prayed for rain, earth bore its fruit