Tag Archives: Revelation

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

Posted on by
Reply

In this last part, it is our intention to look at two concepts and then some texts that show us clearly that the Old Testament and the Old Testament concept of Law were neither unknown nor forsaken by the New Testament writers.

  1. Scripture:

The first concept is that of Scripture itself. As Christians we are familiar with this term. We use it all the time to refer to our complete Bible. However, this understanding can also lead us astray. For the Early Church, their Scriptures, their Bible, if you will, were the writings of the Old Testament.

Thus, when we read statements in the New Testament in regard to Scripture, we must understand that those statements, in the clear majority of cases, refer to the Old Testament. This is important, for the term Scripture occurs over thirty times in the New Testament. It is also important because this term is used by all New Testament writers bar one, Jude.

Consequently, when Paul, writing to Timothy, says that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”[1], he has in mind, primarily, the writings of the Old Testament. Similarly, when Peter states that, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”[2], his statement, likewise, must be taken as referring to the Old Testament in the first instance.

  1. It Stands Written:

A second important concept has to do with the phrase, “It stands written”, which is often used by the New Testament authors to introduce the Old Testament Scriptures. This phrase is important, first, because of its frequent usage and, second, because it occurs in the Perfect Tense. As the name implies, the perfect tense points to perfected action. In Greek, the perfect has the connotation of something that is completed in the past, yet has abiding validity in the present. As such, the use of this term in this tense to introduce Scripture makes a potent statement about the nature of the Scriptures being quoted. In other words, this tense suggests to us, very strongly, that the Old Testament Scriptures are still valid and authoritative and that they are not to be easily forsaken, overturned, or discarded.

  1. Texts:

Next, we want to demonstrate just how widely the Old Testament was relied upon by the so-called New Testament writers. Now, please understand, the point here is not simply to multiply texts or Old Testament quotes. It is, rather, to display the importance of the Old Testament text, the range of the texts relied upon, and the speaker’s or writer’s emphasis upon the validity of the Old Testament for founding, making, or completing an argument.

          3.a Jesus:

  1. Have you not read: Beginning with Jesus, our first port of call is to see how Jesus rebuked His opponents for not reading and knowing Scripture, the Old Testament. Four times in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus replies to questions or challenges with, “Have you not read?” This phrase is very much akin to the “It stands written”, spoken of earlier, in that it establishes the Old Testament as an authoritative source.

Equally, we must see that there are three topics in view when Jesus uses this term – the Sabbath, Sexuality / Marriage, and the Resurrection. Let us look at each briefly:

          Sabbath: Jesus shows that the Law of the Sabbath is by no means contrary to mercy, compassion, or genuine service (to God). To prove this, Jesus brings in two historical events, one concerning David (1 Samuel 21:6) and the other from the practice of the priests via the phrase, “Have you not read in the Law how …?” Jesus caps of this teaching with a further rebuke, “… if you had known” – implying very clearly that His opponents did not know – and then quotes Hosea 6:6, “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

The point here is that Jesus does not dismiss the Sabbath as no longer relevant. Jesus does not expunge the Law of the Sabbath. Rather, by appealing to the Law and the Prophets, Jesus shows to us the true nature of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is then a sacred and hallowed day in which we must cease from our labours and turn our thoughts and actions unto God, but it is also a day that is pre-eminently about mercy and compassion.[3]

The important point, in regard to our argument, is that Jesus does not simply quote the fourth Commandment and give some instruction. No, Jesus, quotes from history, the Law, and from a prophet to show the validity of the Sabbath and its true meaning. If it is only the Ten Commandments that are valid and authoritative, Jesus must have made a grave error or, the more likely scenario, we have contrived a falsehood when we insist that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law.

          Sexuality / Marriage: Jesus is asked one of those sticky questions by the Pharisees regarding divorce. In answering, Jesus goes first to Genesis 1:27 (5:2), the Cultural Mandate, to establish the fact that Man was crated male and female with genuine, purpose built sexuality and then moves to Genesis 2:24 to show that this sexuality reaches its acme in the covenant bond of marriage. In short, male and female being fruitful, multiplying, and ruling, only occurs legitimately in the permanent bond of marriage.

Again, note that Jesus’ answer is not the quotation of the sixth command, but a restatement of God’s creation order and purpose. In taking this tack, Jesus is upholding the summary of the Law in the Ten Commandments, but He is also showing that God’s Moral Law and God’s Morality can be found in narratives that predate the Law and the Ten Commandments.

This point is essential for our understanding and for pressing home the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in our daily lives. Take, as one example, the issue of homosexuality, which looms large today. There is much nonsense peddled in Christendom today with the result that many are confused. Our local Anglican Bishop came forward and stated that he could not see that homosexual marriage would be in anyway contradictory to the teachings of Christ. Such a position can only be arrived at through gross and wilful ignorance. Jesus, in the passage before us, upholds God’s creation order. In doing so, Jesus, by good and necessary consequence, upholds the fifth, seventh, and tenth Commandments as well as validating texts like Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and Revelation 22:15. Jesus 1; Bishop zip!

          Resurrection: In regard to the resurrection, all that needs to be noted are these basic facts: 1. Whist the OT acknowledges eternal life and resurrection, it does not give much information; 2. We would expect that Jesus may have given us clearer information regarding the resurrection; 3. What Jesus did, however, was quote the narrative of Exodus 3:6 to show that God is the God of the living.

Once more, we see that Jesus went back to the Law in order to make an authoritative statement regarding a little known subject. Using the narrative of Exodus, Jesus simply affirmed that the patriarchs were alive. The implication then being that all Abraham’s true children will live. What Jesus gave us was not a new revelation, but an authoritative restatement of what was already known, but not grasped and understood.

Equally, we cannot miss the point that there is authoritative and valid information contained in the Law, occurring outside the Decalogue and on subjects to which the Decalogue does not speak.

2.What is the Law? Most Christians know the story of the Rich Young Ruler, as it has come to be known. Here is a young man who declares that he has kept the Law from his youth. What many people miss, particularly in Matthew’s[4] account, is the very nature of what is to be called “the Law”.

Most Christians generally refer to “the Law” as the Pentateuch, the Torah, or as the first five books. This is acceptable, in one sense. However, as we have seen, many or most Christians, when pushed, would state that it is the Ten Commandments alone that are the real “Law”, the Moral Law, which unaccompanied is binding and valid. With this view in mind, let us see what Jesus’ encounter with this young man reveals.

Jesus is asked concerning life eternal. Jesus’ reply is “keep the commandments.” It is an aside, but it is very interesting that Jesus asserts that keeping God’s law goes hand in hand with eternal life! Anyway, in response to Jesus’ statement, the young man asks, “Which ones?” Jesus then gives this reply: “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Looking at this list of Commandments, and thinking of the Ten Commandments, the Moral Law, do you notice anything odd?

Let’s go through them. Jesus lists six Commandments. They are, in the order Jesus gives them, six, seven, eight, nine, five, and … whoops, what happened? The last Commandment that Jesus gives is actually a partial quote from Leviticus 19:18 and it is this same partial quote that forms the second great commandment, recorded in Matthew 22:39.

Now, it is very possible that Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 as a parallel to the tenth Commandment, “Do not covet”, for, indeed, to covet your neighbour’s wife or possession is to show an extreme lack of love to your neighbour, especially if this errant desire is acted upon. However, in regard to our argument, it is imperative that we once more grasp the fact that Jesus gives Moral teaching from the Law, but not from what we so often label the Moral Law. Once grasped, we must acknowledge that equating the Ten Commandments with the Moral Law, as done by the moderns, is in fact a modern aberration. The Reformation Church, with its teaching that the Decalogue is a summary of the Moral law, had a much sounder and more Biblical belief.

          3.b Paul: The Apostle, Paul, has some interesting uses of the Old Testament Law that are instructive. They are so precisely because the moderns would never, by their standards, classify these Laws as applicable, abiding, or moral—indeed they would categorise them as those particular to Israel and of no benefit to modern man—yet Paul picks up these Laws and applies them to his day and in such a way that they must be understood as applicable, abiding, and Moral.

First, we read in 1 Timothy 5:17-18, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.””

Here, we come face to face with two case laws that would be, by most modern Christians, placed in the “judicial law” category, which is supposed to have passed away with Israel and therefore be of no relevance to us. Yet, Paul picks out these two Old Testament case laws, one dealing with a threshing ox (Deuteronomy 25:4) and the other dealing with a labourer’s wages (Leviticus 19:13), and applies them squarely to the issues of the sustentation and honour of the Elder. In making such an application, Paul demonstrates that these Laws were of Moral importance in their original setting and, in applying them to Elders, a continuing office of the Church, he makes these Laws applicable to every situation and for all time.

Next, we must understand, and we do mean must, that these Laws did not take on an authority because Paul, the Apostle, quoted them and somehow filled them with authority and validity. No, Paul quoted these Laws because they were already filled with authority; for they contained the very breath of God. Paul, in quoting the case laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was but practicing his own advice that he gave to Timothy, his son in the faith: “All Scripture is God breathed and useful!”

Second, in 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul confronts a real issue of morality with the words: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.”

In looking at this text, it seems a bit pedestrian on the face of things. However, if we focus on the last three words – his father’s wife – we will see that these words bear a striking resemblance to certain Laws contained in the Old Testament. For example, we could look at texts like Leviticus 18:8, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness”; Deuteronomy 22: 30, “A man shall not take his father’s wife so that he shall not uncover his father’s skirt”; or Deuteronomy 27:20, “Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt.”

To make sense of this, let us look more closely at the text. Note that Paul states that there is “immorality” in the midst of the Corinthians. Immorality implies that a sin has been committed. What sin? The Greek word used (porneia) means any unlawful sexual transaction. This term does not specify the sin exactly; only that it is of a sexual nature. To make clear why this fellow is guilty of a sin, Paul then makes reference to the Law. Thus, once more, it is the Law that is the authority; it is the Law that has been transgressed; and because the Law has been transgressed, the man is guilty of a sin, which is classified as immorality.

Please also grasp the fact that Paul did not simply appeal to the fifth Commandment, “Honour father and mother”, but looked passed the summary to actual laws that embodied this principle and showed exactly how to honour one’s parents by elucidating specifics.

          Third, and briefly, we will make reference to Romans 1:32: “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Focussing upon the phrase “ordinances of God”, there are two points to be made. The first is that of understanding the term “ordinance”. It is not a term familiar to us in common usage. We might be more familiar with the term through our televisions, for the Americans use terms such a “city ordinance” more commonly. That usage shows to us that the term ordinance has at its root the concept of law. Thus, Paul is not speaking of a vague concept in regard to God, but rather of His law and His righteous decrees.

The second point comes in the form of a question, “To what is Paul referring?” The only possible answer that makes any sense is to say that Paul refers to the sins that he has listed in the immediate context, namely, the preceding verses.

Once more, Paul takes his stand in the Law of God. Man is to be condemned because he has turned from the knowledge of God and wilfully broken His righteous decrees even though Man knew that to do so was to court death.

          3.c Peter: Lastly, let us consider a few words from Peter. In regard to the first quotation, it is to be admitted that we will change tack slightly. The point at this juncture is that the New Testament writers understood the abiding validity and significance of God’s word. Says Peter, 1:1:23-25, “For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God. For, “All flesh is like grass, And all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever.” And this is the word which was preached to you.”

Peter’s contrast, so it seems, is between the transient nature of man and the abiding Word of God. Man is but a “flash in the pan” compared to the eternity of God and His word. We are perishable and perishing, but God’s word is imperishable and abiding.

However, when we dig deeper we see that the brilliance of the passage is in its correlation of salvation for God’s covenant people. Peter quotes from Isaiah (40:6f), an Old Testament prophet who spoke to God’s wayward covenant people concerning God’s great day of redemption. Peter, speaking on this very same topic, only from the point of fulfilment, not type, highlights that the abiding Word which brings life is the Gospel. It is the Word proclaimed by Isaiah, preached by Peter. It is the abiding Word that not only brings life, but which then governs and orders life so much so that we must “fervently love one another”.

The second text from Peter, returns us to the point that God’s Morality can be found throughout the Old Testament and not just in the Decalogue. Likewise, this Morality, precisely because it belongs to God, is eternal and binding. Noting that there is to be a moral and righteous relationship between Christians on the basis of our redemption, Peter says (1:3:8-12), “To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. For, “Let him who means to love life and see good days refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile. “And let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. “For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Can you see Peter’s methodology here? First, Peter makes certain statements in regard to what Christians should be and why. Then, to prove the correctness of his position he gives an extended quote from Psalm 34:12-16. Once more, the Old Testament does not become authoritative because it is used by Peter. Much rather, Peter uses the Old Testament because it is authoritative.

Similarly, we must see that the Psalm, not being part of the Decalogue, is nonetheless considered to be both Moral, valid, and abiding.

Conclusion:

When the Biblical evidence is assembled, it shows that Theocracy and Theonomy are not terms to be shunned, much rather, they are to be embraced. Furthermore, the very lack of understanding in regard to these concepts stems from the fact that we are using the World’s wisdom to gain understanding instead of turning unto God’s wisdom.

For example, we are being told by the word that Theocracy is bad and that it equates with tyranny (as if the World does not have a barrow to push!). We are told that a Secular government is right because it alone is neutral and will govern for all citizens. The simple fact is that both of these are lies, blatant lies!

Yes, from the Caesars to Idi Amin there have been those who have believed that they have been given a divine right to rule. In one sense they are right. God appoints all rulers and their place and time in history (Job 12:23; Daniel 2:21), but this act of Sovereignty by God is by no means equivalent to a genuine Theocracy. The true Theocracy is a rule established by God and for God. It rules by God’s law and for His glory. Despots with a “Jesus complex” or who delude themselves are rightly to be called rebels not theocrats. Even in regard to Israel, whilst we use the term Theocracy readily, we must understand its use in a loose manner. If the king, like an Ahab, did not fear Yahweh and seek to fulfil His commands, such a king was rebellious and not theocratic. He was in the truest sense a usurper and a pretender.

So, let us not use cases of abuse and cases which are not Theocracy to deter us from believing in the truth of a genuine Theocracy.

The second lie is that of Neutrality. All governments must be biased. They will of necessity be biased toward their fundamental belief system. Even a Theocracy – the very reason it is denounced – is not neutral but actively biased to God. Thus, when Bill Shorten, as one example, campaigns under a slogan of government for all Australians, he is nothing but a bold faced liar. Mr Shorten peddles the politics of Socialism. Therefore, he will discriminate against one group in favour of another, based on his belief system. For example, he has pledged to introduce same-sex marriage within so many days of taking government. This is not governing for all, as it immediately discriminates against every person who believes homosexuality to be errant.

So let us not as Christians, continue to peddle the Myth of Neutrality and concepts like religious freedom and the right of a Secular government, and so on, for it is this plurality that has led us into the current crisis. By admitting that there are many ways that are right, we have denied the exclusivity of God, His right to rule, and His right to rule by His law. In taking this stand, we Christians have opened the door to pluralism and fostered its uptake. Now the chickens are roosting and we are to pay the piper. How long will we halt between two opinions?

Lastly, let us remember the words of Paul: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”[5]

Paul calls God’s people to prayer. Paul calls God’s people to pray for those in authority. This must, of course, include those who form government, no matter what form that government takes. For us, the importance comes when we consider the purpose for which we are to pray – that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (NIV: holiness; we like “reverence”).

If we take these words seriously, then we cannot just pray a flippant prayer; we cannot just pray for a good government; No, we must pray for a righteous government! It is only righteousness that leads to peace and tranquillity. Godliness cannot be achieved through a Secular government; neither can holiness or reverence.

Therefore, if we are to be true to Paul’s command, we must be praying for a government that fears and honours Jesus Christ and such a government can only be had when the hearts of those men forming government are yielded to Jesus by His Spirit!

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.”

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Footnotes:

[1] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[2] 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[3] Even the Westminster Divines, who are big on worship and Sabbath acknowledge this point: WCF 21:8 – This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exod. 20:8, Exod. 16;23,25–26,29–30, Exod. 31:15–17, Isa. 58:13, Neh. 13:15–19,21–22) but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (Isa. 63:13, Matt. 12:1–13)

[4] Matthew 19:16-22.

[5] 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt 3)

Posted on by
Reply

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Institution)

Right now, you no doubt have many questions running through your mind as a consequence of reading the previous articles in this series. You may agree with certain points. You may disagree with certain applications. This is to be expected when the proverbial boat is firmly rocked. However, I hope, like the Bereans, that we will turn to Scripture and search out our agreement in the light of God’s word. After all, every belief and every action must have genuine Biblical warrant. Therefore, to be obedient to our Lord, we must look past the external tags, the “We have always done it this way!”, and the paralysing exasperation, “What else will we do!”

Our obligation is to search out and live in light of the Biblical data. Thus far, that data has shown us that we cannot hold to two masters, two worldviews, or two fundamental presuppositions. Likewise, we cannot believe that the elders are God’s appointed authority for the good and holy governance of His blood bought Church, whilst asserting that such an institution is dated or in need of supplementation. Such a philosophical contradiction is simply untenable.

As posited previously, if we are to rebuild genuine esteem and belief in the institution of Eldership, we must begin by cutting off everything that would seek to undermine and supplant that institution, no matter how subtle its influence in this direction.

So let us look at a few reasons as to why elders should be preferred to counsellors in the Church.

4. God’s Institution:

The first and most obvious reason is that the eldership was instituted by God. Eldership existed during Israel’s captivity in Egypt and was given specific form and structure in the wilderness under Moses[1] and continued in existence to the day of Jesus. As such, it was naturally taken across into the New Testament Church and continues to this day (and forever?).

This point needs to be underscored. In our Reformed history, it is tragic that most look for the foundation of the Eldership in the New Testament only. Our creeds, confessions, and theologies are almost Dispensational in their desire to see Eldership as a new or mostly new office instituted by Apostolic warrant.

Rushdoony rights states:

The origins of the church theologians place in the Old Testament. … Strangely, the government of the church is not likewise sought in the Old Testament, although the New Testament is clear that the familiar pattern, and even the name of the office, elders, was derived from the Old Testament….[2]

Strange indeed; yet true.[3] Consider the following statement:

We know nothing about the origin of this office. There appears to be elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). There probably is a connection between the Jewish council of elders that conducted the business of the synagogue, but did not play a role in worship, and the elders of the Church.[4]

Please note the categorical followed by the maybe – we know nothing, but there probably is! This inconsistency is unexpected given that we Reformed people do not like surprises or the unknown. It is even more surprising given our Doctrine of Scripture and the Biblical evidence that this doctrine unearths for us.

For example, in our theology we have no problem admitting that Moses is a type of Christ[5] and that the Church existed in the Old Testament.[6] Why, then, do we suppose that God’s Church, of old, was ungoverned? Why would we suppose that a new form of Church government needed to be invented?

These questions are posed precisely because the Biblical evidence gives us no right to assume that the “congregation of Israel” was ungoverned or that the New Testament Church[7] had to hurriedly find a model of governance. When we examine Scripture, we see something very different.

After the re-formation of the eldership in the wilderness, we see that elders take a more prominent place in Israel. Such is the evidence that we would need many pages to enumerate all the Old Testament passages regarding eldership. Consequently, we will cite just a few before moving to the time of Christ and on into the embryonic Church, the newer.

The first thing we need to see is that the elders went with Moses and Aaron. We often think of these two great men acting alone. However, this was not the case as far as God’s intent was concerned:

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.” (Exodus 3:18)

We must also grasp the significant fact that the elders of Israel are always portrayed as being in the company of God’s appointed leaders; as taking over leadership in their absence; and in performing significant rites.

Passover – Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.” (Exodus 12:21)

Worship at Sinai – Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance.” (Exodus 24:1)

After the defeat at Ai – Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. (Joshua 7:6)

Israel’s Faithfulness through Elders – Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel. (Joshua 24:31)

Kingship – When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a compact with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:3)

Leaving the Old Testament, let us move forward to the time of Christ.

Please note these three texts:

Matthew 15:1-2: “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Matthew 16:21: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Acts 4:5-8: “The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem … They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!”

In these texts, we witness both the prominence and continuity of data regarding the eldership, both of which are almost universally ignored. We know of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law, but how often have you noted this group called the elders? These elders have traditions. Jesus states that He will suffer at the hands of these elders. When the embryonic New(er) Testament Church is persecuted in the persons of Peter and John, the elders are there and Peter, by the Holy Spirit, addresses them directly.

So it is that we must see that eldership was not some dinky concept that Moses invented in the wilderness so that he could get a bit more “me time”. No. This was a serious institution in Israel for the governance of God’s covenant people. Even though Israel had good familial governance through heads of families and tribes, it was pleasing to God to add to this the office of Elder. Therefore, we should neither view this institution lightly nor be surprised that it is brought into the New(er) Testament Church without fuss.

Here, again, we must challenge ourselves. When we speak of elders in the New Testament Church, we immediately think of the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy and Titus, and of Paul’s instruction to them regarding the standards for the office. What we miss with this singular focus or blinkeredness is the prominence of their position already highlighted throughout Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the record of Christ’s embryonic fulfillment Church moving forward at Her Captain’s command. It is replete with information that is of great use to us in our day. Have you ever noted the place of elders in the Book of Acts?

The term elders – always plural – occurs eighteen times in Acts. Eight of these references are to the Jewish elders. The rest, the remaining ten, refer to the Christian elders. Now, please note that nowhere do we witness an initiation, a ceremony, a command, or any other process of inception. These elders arrive on the scene and are fully accepted, without a whimper, as the authoritative officers for the governance of Christ’s Church (as they always had been).

We first see the Christian elder[8] in the context of those to whom Barnabas and Paul (Saul) would entrust the alms collected by the Antiochian[9] church.[10] The elders took receipt of these alms and were presumably responsible for their distribution. Next, we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in the Church. In this instance the context refers to the four local churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch.[11] Please note, once more, that there is no fuss or bother involved at this point. These commissioned men appoint elders and the church accepts them.

In following the chronology of Acts, we now come to one of the most significant texts. We are all familiar with the Council at Jerusalem as outlined in Acts 15. Whilst there are different views on this Council, certain things are beyond dispute. This Council had authority. It did so because of its makeup. However, this makeup was not in and of itself Apostolic. Please be aware that five times the term Apostle is used in conjunction with the elders. That is to say that every time the Apostles are mentioned in chapter 15, the elders are mentioned right alongside.[12] Hmmm, interesting. Yes?

So who was it that took over the governance of the Church when the Apostles were not around or once they had been promoted to glory? Yes, it was the elders. Then we must ask, “Have we seen this pattern before?”

With this said, let us leave Acts and move into the Book of Revelation. When reading Revelation and with your gaze fixed upon the sublime worship of God in which praise is offered to God by the Seraphim, the angelic host, and the saints, have you ever noticed the role or presence of that other group? Yes, I speak of the elders.

When we view Revelation chapter four, we are immediately introduced to a vision of God Almighty upon His throne. What comes next? Angels? Seraphim? Spirits? Saints? No, none of these. After being introduced to God and His throne, we are introduced to twenty-four elders who sit upon their own thrones in the presence of God.[13] Then, and only then, are we introduced to the four living creatures.

In Revelation, these elders are referred to twelve times. In 5:14, 11:16, and 19:4, these elders are involved in worship. They are said to fall down or to fall on their faces before God and to worship Him. In 5:8 they are said to fall down before the Lamb. They are also shown to sing unto God (5:9, 11). Most striking, though, of all these is the text of Revelation 5:8 – And when he [the Lamb] had taken it [the Book], the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The import of this text is monumental for our understanding. As we noted earlier, many do not look for the establishment of eldership in the Old Testament. Yet, here, in this resplendent heavenly vision, we see correlations that cannot be dismissed.

In our view, the Eldership is re-established and re-organised in Exodus 18. In Exodus 19, God speaks to Moses and says, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant … you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[14] This theme of being kingly-priests is picked up several times in the New Testament. Peter calls us a “holy priesthood” before referring to us as a “royal priesthood”.[15]

Returning to Revelation, we see that John, in his opening comments, addresses the saints in exactly the same manner – “To him who loves us … and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.”[16] The next reference occurs in Revelation 5:10, two verse after the text under consideration, and says, “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God….”

With this information in mind, think back, please, to Revelation 5:8. Here we see the elders, the governors and representatives of the people, falling down in worship before the Lamb. Question, “What is the Church’s priority?” It is the worship of God. Again, think back to Exodus, why did Israel demand to leave Egypt? It was so that they could go forth and worship God.[17] What happened in Exodus 19 after the mention of the kingly-priests? Did not the kingly-priests worship at the foot of the mountain? Did not the kingly-priests meet with their God?

Then we ask, “From what did these elders in Revelation 5:8 arise?” Was it not their thrones? What image comes immediately to mind when you think of a throne? Is it not kingship?

Now we are forced to look at what these elders were holding. First, we note that they possess a harp. What would the harp be used for? Is it not the worship of God? The Psalmist certainly thought so – “I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.”[18] Equally, if we look at Revelation 15:2, we see the victorious possessing harps. With these instruments, verse three, they sang the song of Moses and of the Lamb. How interesting! Moses is not despised. His song is not ridiculed or cast out as irrelevant because it belonged to type and shadow. No, no! Much rather, it is incorporated into the fullness of the worship of God—Servant and Son together praising the Father, God Almighty.

Second, we see that the elders hold censors full of the prayers of the saints. Why would these elders hold these prayers? Could it be that they are going to offer them before God, the Almighty? Could it be that their song of praise is infused with the prayers of God’s people on earth? Such would seem to be very probable. What role, then, would we ascribe to the elder at this point? Would we not rightly designate him a priest?

If so, we see kings who are priests worshipping God and the Lamb. Moreover, we see these elders rightly representing the people who are also designated as kingly-priests.  Thus, the evidence for the unified Biblical doctrine of eldership seems very solid. Also, the potency of these visions underscores the roles that the elder must undertake as part of his commissioning.

Conclusion:

Although this has been a very quick look at some of the Biblical data surrounding the Eldership, it is hoped that your horizons have been widened as to the chronology and importance of this institution. It was given substance through Moses. It was not revoked by Jesus. It was affirmed by Apostolic practice and warrant as normative, and, if that were not enough, we are shown that the elder operates in the heavenly worship of the One Living and True God.

Thus, unlike social workers, psychiatrists, and counselors, when you deal with an elder and the eldership you are dealing with those who are ordained by God. They operate as God’s instruments for His glory and they operate on God’s authority alone. This should, indeed must, signify something of great importance to every Christian. To willingly sidestep the elder, is tantamount to trying to sidestep the living God.[19] God gave us this institution for a reason, to despise it in favour of Worldly substitutes is a fatal error.

 

[1] Exodus 18:24-26. The first mention of elders in Scripture is in Genesis 50:7. This reference is to the elders of Egypt. In Exodus 3, we see, as part of Moses’ commissioning, that he is sent to gather the elders of Israel (3:16). When Moses returns to Egypt, he first gathers the elders together so that Aaron can explain all that Yahweh had commanded (4:29-30). After the elders are given instruction, there are demonstrations of power before the people. When they hear that Yahweh is concerned for them, they bow down and worship. Apart from some obvious patterns and clues that shall become more apparent as we progress, it is necessary to see that right at the beginning of redemptive history, nationally speaking, the elders were at the forefront.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1984, Vol. 2), 679.

[3] See also: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: an urgent call to restore Biblical Church leadership, (Littleton: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995). The first five chapters of this book are useful. The major weakness, however, is the fact that he passes over the Old Testament foundation for eldership. He vacillates, speaking of an apostolic institution, but then tacitly admits some prior form or information that guided their model.

[4] Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2008), 736. Emphasis added.

[5] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, ([1948 Eerdmans] Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975; reprint 1985), 104

[6] Van Genderen and Velema, 677. These do not make the link as strongly as Charles Hodge, who, in one sentence, states: “The conclusion is that God has ever had but one Church in the world.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1989, Vol. 3), 551. See also The Belgic Confession, Article 27.

[7] As noted, it is our view that the Church is one. It would be better if we could hold this conversation without the Old Testament / New Testament bifurcation. However, this pattern has become so entrenched that many find it difficult to grasp arguments when the pattern is not present. Please understand that when this bifurcation is used, we intend no radical discontinuity of a Dispensational variety. Rather, we are referring to the two chapters of the Bible, which make a complete book, as the source of our authority.

[8] Acts 11:30.

[9] This is Syrian Antioch.

[10] A “cat among the pigeons” question may be: Given the evidence from Acts 11:30, would we better term the seven from Acts 6:1-7 as elders rather than deacons? I think I felt a shudder! Think this through please. Remember, Acts 6 does not give these men a title. We have applied a title and an office to them. Calvin argues that the deacons operated under the elders and so the two pieces of information are not incongruous. That however is an argument from silence. If we put the concept of Acts 6 with the information of Acts 11, we have evidence to suggest that the missing institution is not, in fact missing. Just some food for thought.

[11] Acts 14:23. Derbe may be exempted from the list

[12] Note, please, that the letter circulated by this Council also bore the name of the elders (15:23).

[13] These twenty-four thrones are mentioned in Revelation 4:4 and 11:16.

[14] Exodus 19:5-6.

[15] 1 Peter 2:5 & 9.

[16] Revelation 1:5-6.

[17] Exodus 3:18ff. In these passages the term “sacrifice” is prominent. However, in the Old Testament context, sacrifice is worship. See Exodus 3:12 for the term “Worship” and the setting of the context.

[18] Psalm 71:22.

[19] Romans chapter 13 states that there is “no authority that is not from God”. It also states that those who resist that authority will be punished.

Your Sunday Best (Pt 5)

Posted on by
Reply

As Man has shifted his focus in worship from a transcendent, absolute, holy God to himself and to his own gratification, we have witnessed a patent transformation, not only in the form of worship, but also in the form of the worshipper.

In recent years, I have had many discussions on the topic of an appropriate dress code for worship. Most have been with the younger generation and, of these, some have been family members. The objections put forward are telling in themselves. Apparently, one has to be comfortable in order to worship. One must recognise that God looks on the heart. One must not offend a brother who has less than you. One must be able to connect with the stranger who comes in off the street, and so on.

The common denominator in all of these objections is that they focus on man. As such, they are all exploitable because there is no quantifiable standard. What constitutes “comfortable”? Is not “comfortable” a subjective term? Hence, I could state that I am quite comfortable when I am butt naked in a hot bath. Does this now become an acceptable form for my appearing at Church? God looks on the heart – does that mean that our “wayside pulpits’ now carry the words, “Worshippers Welcome. Clothes Optional”? Wear nothing or everything, for God only views the heart. Our poorer brother! Must I now ring him every Sunday and ask what he is wearing, just so I do not turn up dressed slightly more upmarket and create an offence? As for the stranger, if my connection is not even skin deep and relies completely on my “threads”, well …!

About now, the scorn and derision will be forthcoming from those who hold to these views. Apparently I am overstating the case; going to the nth degree; and just being, ‘plain ridiculous’! Am I? Not in anyway. What I want to show is that when we move from God, the immutable and absolute standard, we move into the subjective. When we move into the subjective there is no absolute, no right or wrong, there is only the opinion of the individual.

In the context of worship, this means that each individual decides for himself what it is that God should receive in worship, the method by which He should receive it, and the quality of the thing offered, right down to the worshippers attire. However, as we have already seen, when the opinions of the individual are at the forefront of the decision making process, God’s revealed standard means little. In fact, God is not in view because the individual is consumed by the exalted self.

In opposition to this, when we come to worship God truly, none of these objections even come into view. When we are consumed by the offering of praise and worth to our Saviour God, these objections pale into insignificance. When I am consumed with God, my comfort is of little importance. When I am consumed with God, I realise that my heart and everything else about me, is laid bare before God’s all seeing eye. When I am consumed with God, I am not looking at clothing labels and nor is my brother. When I am consumed with God, the stranger will be welcomed in compassion – “for you were strangers once”![1]

Tragically, the result of worshipping God in accord with our standards rather than the Biblical standard is that we Christians have begun to reflect an extreme casualness in the way we worship God. This is seen both in how we present for worship and what is offered as worship. This is the consequence of taking our eyes from God and fixing them upon Man. Subtly, we have imbibed a false doctrine that maligns God as unimportant and dismisses His holiness as a standard for our conduct and appearance.[2] As a result, the modern Christian, especially the young, present to worship God, bleary eyed, yawning, late, and dishevelled, but supposedly ready to worship in spirit and in truth. Methinks not!

Okay, yes, it is easy to criticise. It is easy to point fingers. In this case the finger pointing is essential and that for two reasons: First, to highlight a major sickness (issue) within the modern Church; Second, to show that it is a problem by pointing to the Biblical data.

You see, when I have had the aforementioned discussion and I posit that the Bible does have something to say about dress codes, I am invariably met with a blank stare, a look of derision, sheer disbelief, or a ‘New Testamenty’ – “God looks at the heart!” thus endeth the discussion![3]

So let us look at the evidence.

First, let us look at our culture. Now, to be sure, culture is not authoritative. However, it is instructive. It has rightly been said that “culture is religion externalised and made explicit”.[4] This means that when you view culture, you are viewing the application of the major ideologies or religion(s) of that culture.

Now, very few, if any, would dispute that our culture has undergone a transformation, and that not in a good way. Most would perceive that there has been a general downturn in morals, ethics, and standards. This is particularly so when we talk about law, justice, honesty, and so on. What of the dress standard? Is it not also true that we have seen a major decline in the way people dress? Gangsters are mimicked. Hats are worn sideways and backwards. Faces are shielded by hoods as though the wearer were allergic to light or ashamed of their very being. Modesty has all but become a forgotten term.

What is at the root of this downturn? It has, no doubt whatsoever, to do with the fact that as a nation we have abandoned God. In exactly the same way that this piece contends that Christians have pushed God aside in worship, so we have pushed God aside nationally as a people. We threw out the old religion, Christianity, with its holy God and His pernickety rules and embraced new religions that gave Man freedom – Secularism, Humanism, Evolution, and others. Each let Man off the leash, to run free in the park, but what was the consequence? What happens when a fallen creature is given unbridled freedom?

Well, look around you. The downward spiral you witness every day is a direct result of this nation swapping religions.  Murder, mayhem, theft, despair, PC, homosexuality, promiscuity, divorce, abortion, etc., etc., are all a result of the new religion. The incongruity for us as Christians is that we quite happily recognise this downturn in regard to the big moral issues, but we skirt the question when it comes to the lesser and more personal item like a dress code.

For those old enough, think back to the term, “Your Sunday best”. Whenever you were required to go anywhere of note, you would speak of ‘putting on your Sunday best’. Implicit in this statement is the fact that the best was reserved for Sunday, God’s day, and for His worship. Culturally, we had a regard for God. Culturally, there was honour for God. Sunday was a day of rest and worship. It was a sanctified day, a day set apart to God, and as a culture we reserved our best for that day.

It is also noteworthy that at that time, the dress code was generally of a higher standard. Modesty was in vogue. People did not appear down the street in their pyjamas. Hats were worn for a purpose and as part of a standard. They were even worn correctly.

Yes, people can mock, but it does not alter these facts. Simply put, when God was honoured in our nation, we saw a higher standard all around, including in personal hygiene and appearance.

Sadly, the national trend of jettisoning God was expedited by the Church’s capitulation on many fronts, but particularly in regard to worship. As a child I remember that many preachers wore robes and or dog collars. Yes, even in some Protestant denominations. At the very least the minister would wear a suit.

Then came the influence of the new religion, and regrettably it held sway over a good number of the clergy. They began to argue for dumping the robes and dog collars. Sure, they started off in suits, but as they had no objective standard, it was not long before the tie was abandoned, the jacket became uncomfortable, it was cheaper to by jeans, and so on.

As the dress standard amongst the clergy waned, so did their standard in a number of other areas. With the clergy actively lowering their standards, it would not be long before preaching on these topics evaporated. Without preaching, “How would the people hear?”

This is a simple cause and effect scenario. Lamentably, it is more than a scenario. It is a matter of history.

As stated, this is not authoritative, but it should show, to any who are genuinely interested, that when God was honoured our standards and the standards of our society were far higher. The degradation caused by apostasy is not just seen in sexual perversion and the aborting of the unborn. It is seen in us, Christ’s people, as we succumb to the standards of the new religion instead of maintaining the holy standard of righteousness given by God.

Let me ask, seriously and genuinely, “Where would your “Sunday best” gain you admittance?”  The footy? The pub? The museum? Would you wear it to court, if summoned? Would you wear it to a wedding or civic function? Would you wear it to meet Premier, Prime Minister or Queen?

Second, let us turn to the Biblical evidence.

At the outset, we must state that a major problem with many topics like the one before us is that Christians have been robbed of an ability to study the Bible. Proof texting became the rage. In so doing it taught Christians that if a doctrine was not stated in a single text of a few words, then it must not be in the Bible.[5] Consequently, Christians, in studying this topic, would look up a concordance under “dress code for worship” hoping that they would find a reference to Hezekiah 12:24 – When thou comest unto worship, wearest thou thy bestest suit, adorned (pronounce the ed) sufficiently with a tie of matching character.

Of course, purists like myself look predominantly to verses 25 and 26:

When thou comest unto worship, wearest not upon thine feets the cultural icon of the ‘thong’, nor adornest thy body with that abominable shit of T. Knowest thou not that any buttonless shirt be unholy.  Also present not they body clad in the jean even though it dost have the holy name ‘Levi’ writ upon it. Be thou shaven or bearded. Comest thou not unto worship with thribble growth.

However, having looked and found nothing, they conclude that the Bible is silent. Yet the Bible is not silent. Not even close.[6]

Our first text is Genesis 35:1-4. There we read:

Then God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.” So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; and let us arise and go up to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and has been with me wherever I have gone.” So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem.[7]

The first thing to notice is the context of this text. It is firmly planted in the context of redemption and worship. God calls upon Jacob to move to Bethel – the House of God – and to build an altar there. In response to this call by God, Jacob undertakes a covenantal clean up. Jacob gives three commands to all under his authority:

  1. Remove all Idols;
  2. Purify yourselves;
  3. Change your garments.

For those committed to the view that dress is unimportant in the worship of God, point three becomes a real challenge. If God only looks at the heart, why is Jacob concerned with how his people look?

However, if we are going to give the text the respect it is due we will see that there is a logical progression. First, true worship calls for the destruction of all other gods and idols. This is but a precursor to the Sinaitic command, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God”.[8]

Having put away the external symbols of falsehood, the people were called upon to purify themselves. They were to repent, to turn fervently to God and embrace all His ways. They were to hold Yahweh as the one true God. The Hebrew word behind our term “purify” is quite strong. Wilson states that it means “to be ceremonially clean, clear, or purged from moral pollution; to be cleared from the penal consequence of sin.”[9] Not only this, the form of the verb means that they are to cause themselves to conform to the required state. Therefore, they must purify themselves, make themselves clean, and make themselves acceptable.

Before moving on to discuss the garments, I would like you to note the pattern and principle established so far. These people were pagan or, more appropriately, polytheists. Although Jacob had met Yahweh, he had allowed his wife to have a household idol. This being so, it was unlikely that he had taken a tough stand with any of his servants who were from foreign nations. Their casual attitude to religion was manifest in their external appearance. Not only did they have household idols, but presumably they carried trinkets and talismans. The reference to “the rings in their ears” is most likely due to the fact that they were a talisman or an actual depiction, in miniature, of a foreign god.

Clearly established, then, is the principle that the inward belief was represented by the outward and external action and dress of the people. Therefore, when Jacob called his people to repentance and purity they had to cast off the old appearance that promulgated the false religion and clothe themselves in a manner that disseminated their dedication to Yahweh.

When this principle is properly understood, it makes absolute sense that the command to “put way idols” and to “purify yourselves” is followed by a command to “change your garments”. The change of heart was to be reflected by the discarding of one external appearance and the embracing of another. Thus, Keil and Delitzsch remark:

The burial of the idols was followed by purification through the washing of the body, as a sign of the purification of the heart from the defilement of idolatry, and by the putting on of clean and festal clothes, as a symbol of the sanctification and elevation of the heart to the Lord (Josh. xxiv.23).[10]

It was necessary that the change in heart be reflected by an external change. It is strange, then, that this concept seems so foreign to the modern Christian, for we are talking nothing other than sanctification. The believer of any age should be marked as different by the fact that the external and observable is different. If it be but the same as the pagan, how are they to be distinguished? If “the old has gone and the new has come” why is there nothing distinctive about the new? If, in terms of Psalm 40, we have been lifted from the pit, out of the miry clay, been given a rock upon which to stand, and have had a new song placed in our mouth, why is it that we are tuneless and look as though we have just competed at a mud wrestling tournament?

Despite what those of the opposite view may think, these are valid questions. The simple reality, established as Biblical warrant by this text, is that our outer attire should be a part of our Christian witness and worship. Just as our actions and our words should always be to God’s praise, so should the way we dress. This article focuses primarily on worship, but the principle has currency for the rest of life. We are to be a Christ exalting people who bring Him glory by taking dominion over this earth in His name. Taking dominion is nothing other than bringing Christ’s rule by His principles over the world – starting with ourselves.[11] Nowhere should these principles and our obedience to them be more evident than in our corporate worship on the Lord’s Day.

Rather than dismissing this text and the principle embodied in it as a cultural anachronism, we would do much better to cherish it and through it better and more elegantly worship the One Living and True God, through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Love for God should make conformity to this principle an offering a joy and not a burden. Focus upon God’s worth should, indeed, makes us forget about ourselves. Rushdoony rightly said: “Respect for God from the time of Genesis to the present has meant such cleanliness as a sign of respect.”[12]

Our second text is found in Exodus 19:10-15:

The Lord also said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments; and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. “And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. ‘No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.’ When the ram’s horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain.” So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.”[13]

Moses has led the people out of the land of bondage and to redemption. He has led them to the foot of Mount Sinai and to their God. At this point, the people are about to meet God in a very personal way. In preparation, Yahweh sets forth His principles of worship so that the people can enjoy their worship of Him without fear. Consequently, the requirement of holiness is stressed by a command to “consecrate” and another to “wash” their garments.

When these texts are viewed together we see that they are set in the context of redemption and worship.  Whether that be at the familial level (Jacob) or at the corporate / national level (Moses) the principle remains the same. Redemption / salvation is to worship and that worship is to take place in accord with the standards that God has set.

Equally, it must be seen that God’s standard not only impacts the composition and structure of worship, but that the worshipper’s comport is also in view. In both these texts, it is God who states that the external appearance of the worshipper must reflect the consecrated or holy estate into which the worshipper has been brought.

As we move forward in redemptive history, we see Yahweh hand down His Law to His people. In that Law there are strict guidelines for worship and purification. Not surprisingly, we encounter many occurrences in which the washing of the outer garment is required in order to complete the purification rite.[14]

Those who disagree with the position espoused will claim that these are ceremonial laws that have passed away and are no longer binding. Even if that be granted, would we not be wise to apply ourselves to understanding the principles involved and applying them to our modern situation?

In reality, it is hard to see how these key elements can be dismissed as passé. Are we not talking about redemption and worship? Are these not concepts that transverse the Testamental divide of the moderns? Are we not talking of core principles that transcend time and reach into eternity precisely because we are speaking of the attributes and character of God?

With these questions in mind, let us leave the Old Testament and look to the New Testament. This shift is not because we are not satisfied with the Old Testament data as some of our readers may be, but because it is important to see that the Scriptures are unified on this subject.

When people think of the New Testament teaching on the subject of clothing, many will think of that solid New Testament principle, which states that “God looks on the heart”. This is a fundamental New Testament statement that shows forth the unity of Scripture. It does so because this solid New Testament passage is actually found in 1 Samuel 16:7!

The second principle that many would focus upon is that found in the book of James. In chapter two, verses one through nine, James speaks of the rich man and the poor man in the assembly. However, his argument does not have to do with the standard of dress or cleanliness, but with the attitude displayed by Christ’s people. Instead of palavering to the rich and despising the poor, the Christian should have been courteous to both. Judging by external motives alone is declared by James to be “bad reasoning”.

Why pander to the rich man when he is the one who exploits / dominates people and takes them to court in person? Why despise the poor man when he is in fact an heir of the promise, called from the foundation of the world, and washed clean in Jesus blood? The point of James’ argument is simple – our discernment should be spiritual and not simply based on sight.

Does James contradict our thesis? No. As stated, James is speaking to a different issue. If we were to focus upon the issue of clothing in worship and ask James for advice, I am sure it would go along the lines of the rich man helping the poor man to take a step up.

Does the New Testament have any other data that may help us? Yes, it does. Let us start with the opaque and work toward the perspicuous.

Matthew 22:1-14 contains the parable of the Wedding Feast. As this is a parable, we need to make sure that we do not stretch the evidence or deal falsely with the text. However, that does not mean that evidence or principle cannot be gleaned from the passage.

Of interest for us are the verses eleven and twelve, which read: “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And he was speechless.”

At the outset, we must understand that this text presents some difficulties. Commentators are unsure as to how to bridge the gap between verses ten and eleven. Were the guests to hurry home and dress appropriately? Did the King provide the garments? These are questions of debate.

What is not unclear, given the King’s response, is that there was a standard of dress appropriate to a wedding function. Calvin says:

There is no point in arguing about the marriage garment, whether it is of faith or a holy and godly life; for faith cannot be separated from good works and good works proceed only from faith. All Christ wants to say here is that we are called by the Lord under the condition that we be renewed in our spirits into His image, and therefore, if we are to remain in His house … we are to practice the new life so that our appearance … may correspond to our honourable calling.[15]

Calvin’s words, at this point, echo what has already been established, namely, that our external appearance (dress or behaviour) must reflect the reality of Jesus Christ as a holy and righteous King. As Kingdom participants, we are to be different and identifiable by that difference. Importantly, that difference should reflect the higher standard held by the Christian precisely because Jesus is his King.

A second text in the opaque category may be that found in Matthew 17:2 – “And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.”

We will not attempt any great commentary on this passage. We simply wish to pause long enough to note that whatever happened to Jesus in the transfiguration also affected Jesus’ clothing. Jesus’ face shone and so did Jesus’ garments.

Transitioning from the opaque to the perspicuous, our first port of call is James 5:2 – “Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten.” In this text, James is condemning the rich by showing how “their sins will find them out.” James points out that their riches are really nothing of significance for they will not pass God’s test. Their clothes are rotting and their gold and silver have rusted (v 3).

Like the parable of the Wedding Feast, this text is a negative example that shows the Biblical principle that the internal and external are inextricably linked.

Last, we would present a number of texts from the Book of Revelation:

  • Revelation 3:4-5– But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy. ‘He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments.
  • Revelation 4:4 – And around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.
  • Revelation 6:11– And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.
  • Revelation 7:9, 13-14 – After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands … And one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where have they come?”  And I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
  • Revelation 22:14 – Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

Despite the reservations of many, the Book of Revelation is not a deep mystery to which there is no understanding. On the contrary, much of its teaching is plain. Essentially, we see in the Book of Revelation King Jesus waging war against the enemies of God. As part of that picture we are introduced to the magnificence of the salvation won for us by Jesus and the heavenly scene of glorified saints at worship.

These themes are presented to us right from the start when Jesus comes to seven struggling congregations and speaks to them in person. In those places we see that the heavenly warfare is played out on the earthly stage. We see covenant sanctions, both positive and negative, set before the people as a spur to righteousness and as a deterrent from sin.

In the congregation of Sardis there is a delusion present. Most think they are alive when in fact they are dead. However, Jesus points to a few who have not “soiled their garments”. Their reward is that they will “walk with Jesus in white”. Then Jesus encourages us all by stating that the one “who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments”.

Similarly, the church of Laodicea shared a related delusion. They thought themselves rich and clothed in fine raiment when in fact Jesus condemns them as poor and naked (3:17). Jesus urges the Laodiceans to come to Him for all their needs, including “white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed” (v 18).

These words to the Church are important for us as they give a setting for all the following references to “white robes”, “washed robes”, and “white garments”.[16]

It is important that we allow Scripture to speak and to show us the continuity found in the Book of Revelation. In that place, the saints are always in white. Soiled clothing and nakedness (the two inappropriate standards) are replaced by white robes washed and made clean in the blood of the Lamb.

Please take this in. We are not introduced to clean and changed hearts, though that be true. We are not given intricate details on justification by faith, though that be true. Rather, we are shown the true nature of our redemption in a simple picture – we are given clean white clothes to wear.

When this evidence is brought together the consistency from Genesis to Revelation cannot be denied. God clothed Adam and Eve in the garden and He clothes the saints in Revelation. Throughout we see that the outer garment is a sign of the heart’s relationship to God. The naked must be clothed. Those with soiled garments must remove them and wash them or they must change them for a new set. Likewise, we see that this change of clothing is always associated with God and His worship.

In conclusion, we once more need to challenge those who would readily dismiss the teaching of these texts. After all, we are talking about two concepts that are familiar to every Christian – holiness and sanctification. As the redeemed of God in Christ, the fact that we are reclothed through regeneration should also be evident in us possessing a sanctified and elevated approach to God’s worship. In short, our standard of dress on a Sunday should reflect the fact that we are bought with a price, that we are washed and sanctified, and that we have no greater joy than to meet with God’s people to show forth His eternal worth.

We have argued elsewhere that heaven, rather than being a tantalising dream, should be a standard for our present reality and lives. The import of this statement is simple. If it is true of heaven, then it should be a goal here and now. To say this is simply to express the prayer Jesus taught us in different language – Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

When we glimpse heaven through the pages of Scripture we see the exalted saints of glory gathered together in white gleaming robes, surrounded by angelic beings, worshipping God and the Lamb in purity. This is our goal. This should be that for which we strive earnestly and unceasingly now.

Salvation is worship. Salvation is worship in purity. Worship is showing forth God’s worth. How do we show God His worth, when we offer Him second best and worse? Did not Yahweh condemn Israel for brining blemished sacrifices? Yes. Yahweh even went so far as to say, ‘How many of your governors would be happy with these offerings?’[17] Yet here we are, the enlightened of the space age, and we will not understand two basic concepts: 1. God demands and deserves the best of everything; 2. All offerings must be offered in accordance with His command.

Part 6

[1] Deuteronomy 10:19

[2] Much of this harks back to comments made previously to the effect that large portions of Christendom have dismissed large portions of the Bible, namely the Old Testament. As they dismiss its teaching as authoritative they are a priori unwilling to listen to and learn from the principles taught therein. As it is in Israel that man is primarily taught how to worship an absolutely holy God, closing those pages can only be detrimental for our understanding and practice of worship.

[3] It may be worth noting that this “New Testamenty” text actually comes from the Old Testament and can be found in 1 Samuel 16:7. It is picked up thematically in Luke 16:15, but it is not directly quoted.

[4] Henry van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture.

[5] This was before the new religion of the exalted self caused them to lay there Bible’s aside and rely on their own judgement.

[6] Once more, a part of the problem is that the “New Testament” Christian will not read the Old Testament or simply dismisses its teaching. Thus, vital and pertinent evidence is discarded.

[7] The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977.

[8] Exodus 20:3-5.

[9] William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (MacDonald Publishing Co, McLean, VA.) SV: Pure, Purge, Purify.

[10] Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries (6 vols) volume 1, pp. 242-243.

[11] For those questioning the legitimacy of this process, may I point you to Jesus’ words in the Great Commission – Teach the nations to obey (keep / guard / protect) all that I have commanded.

[12] Rousas John Rushdoony, Genesis (Ross House Books, 2002) p. 230

[13] The pertinent verses for our discussion are 10, 14, and 15. The rest are included to give a context and to help the reader grasp the gravity of the situation.

[14] Please see: Leviticus 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 13 as examples. Compare with Leviticus 17:16.

[15] John Calvin, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Vol 2. P. 109. Italics added.

[16] There are also several references to “bright / white linen” etc.

[17] Malachi 1:8.