When we come to the New Testament we see that God’s people need the greater than Solomon, who is Himself the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1). We need one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” We need Him to rule us with His saving grace and wisdom. He is the one who fulfills the promise to Abraham and who rules the true descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:9; 29) with His wisdom. In Him a people from every tongue, tribe, nation and language are redeemed (Rev. 5:9). We need the seed of Abraham and the greater Solomon to redeem us and rule us with His wisdom. But we also need the wisdom that Christ provides. This is why James writes: “If anyone lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and without reproach. But let him ask in faith with no doubting…” We are to come to the greater than Solomon so that we also may receive wisdom and understanding. Our God will give us largeness of heart like the sand on the seashore if we ask for it as Solomon did. Ministers especially need to ask for wisdom since they have been called to watch over, and care for, the people of God. Oh that the Lord would grow his flock and give his shepherds wise and understanding hearts.

The Preeminence of Christ (Joshua Harris)

Christ’s Incarnation (D.A. Carson)

Christ’s Life (Kevin DeYoung)

Christ’s Death (C.J. Mahaney)

Christ’s Resurrection (Sinclair Ferguson)

Christ’s Return (Sinclair Ferguson)

HT: Justin Taylor

But is all proof-texting wrong? I wonder if there hasn’t been an over reaction to the abhorrent theology of the cults and sects, and to the aberrations of sound theology in the dispensationalist and postmillennial camps of Christendom. Everyone practices proof-texting of some kind, and it is entirely right to do so. The Apostle Paul did it relentlessly. One only has to consider his method of defending justification by faith alone in Galatians 3, or his explanation of individual, eternal election in Romans 9, or his eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, it could be argued that Paul defends every doctrine of Scripture by proof-texting from the Old Testament. The use of the OT in the NT is a systematic application of contextual proof-texting. So what is the principle that needs to be established before we can practice a biblical proof-texting? This answers to this question could fill, and have filled, volumes. It seems, however, that a very basic answer can be given based on discussions of exegesis being governed by systematic and biblical theology.

The relationship between these three theological approaches (or ‘sciences’ as they are so commonly called) has formed the basis for endless discussions in our day. In the spirit of brevity I would simply like to focus on Paul’s proof-texting in Galatians 3.:1-14. There are no less than six direct proof-texts that Paul brings forth in his defense of justification “by faith” not “by the law.” The first is a reference to the example of the justification of Abraham (Gal. 3:6) from Genesis 15:6: “just as Abraham ‘believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. ” (NOTE: Justification is not simply “table fellowship” as some have surmised because Abraham is not sitting at the table with anyone but God). The second is also from the Abraham narrative (Gal. 3:8), specifically from Gen. 12:3, and relates to the Gospel in the OT: “the Scriptures forseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand saying ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed .” The third is in the context of the requirement of the law (Gal. 3:10) given to Israel in Deuteronomy 27:26 : “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them .” The fourth is a declaration about the nature of faith as the instrument, or means, of righteousness (Gal 3:11), and is taken from Habakkuk 2:4: “The just shall live by faith .” The fifth is a contrasting statement about the nature of the law, as a means of life, (Gal. 3:12) from Leviticus 18:5: “The man who does them shall live by them .” The sixth, and final proof-text in this section (Gal. 3:13), is part of a verse from Deut. 21:23, describing the nature of the curse of the law and the public manifestation of the curse: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree .”

It would be impossible, in this short post, to deal adequately with all the intricacies and exegetical issues surrounding each of these OT verses in their NT context. But the issue of context (i.e. specifically theological context) is the major issue that must be discussed. Paul does not proof-text at random, with no coherent relationship to a theological grid or system. Paul draws from the Old Testament revelation in order to support the biblical-theological and systematic theological truths he is setting forth. The Biblical theology (the progressive revelation of redemption) of the passage, from Abraham to Moses to Christ, is clearly the larger context of the passage. Paul is interested in defending the reception of the blessings of Abraham (i.e. justification and the reception of the Spirit) to Gentiles, as well as Jews, in their relationship to the Person and work of Christ. The entirety of the passage deals with the contrast between faith and works, law and Gospel, blessing and cursing.

The first two OT quotes are meant to root the concept of “justification by faith alone” in the first clear manifestation of the Gospel. There is one Gospel and one way of salvation. This was true of the first Jew, Abraham. The law had not yet been given, and Abraham was already justified. How was he justified? Paul reaches back to Gen. 15:6 to prove that it was by faith , not by what he did. Paul makes it clear that Abraham had the “Gospel” preached to him, when he alludes to Gen. 12:3. As he unfolds the relationship between the law and the Gospel, Paul now enters in on a discussion of the nature of the Law. The Judaizers were trying to get Gentile and Jewish converts to believe that it was necessary for them to keep the law, in addition to having faith in Christ, so that they may be accepted by God and ultimately saved. The final three OT proof-texts deal with the demands of the law and the penalty for failing to meet those demands.

Now, it could be argued that the OT texts that Paul appealed to in Galatians 3 could, each on their own, be pulled to defend any of the truths of the overall context of Galatians 3:1-14. Their meanings are not dependent on the further revelation of Galatians 3. It certainly helps us get a better grasp of their meaning as we see them woven together in their redemptive historical context. But, the truth and theological meaning of each verse is embedded within the particular verses. Here is the conclusion: Proof-texting is not only not illegitimate, it is actually supported and demanded by Scripture. The more important question concerns the biblical-theological and systematic moorings of the verses themselves. What is the meaning of the verse in its original context? What is the meaning of the verse in light of previous revelation? How does this verse relate to Gen.3:15 for instance? How does this verse relate to what we know about God, Christ, sin, salvation/judgment from the rest of the Scriptures? In short, everyone practices proof-texting (or at least everyone should).; but, is the proof-texting you are practicing accurate in relationship to the biblical and systematic theological truths of the Bible. The problem with the proof-texting of the cults and sects, as well as those with faulty eschatology and ecclesiology in Christian circles, is that their biblical-theological and systematic foundations are missing or wrong. If they were accurate it would be very beneficial to “proof-text” all day long. While these are not always easy issues to grapple with, we should not be ashamed of quoting particular verses to prove a particular doctrine. The problem is not in proof-texting, it is in the theology with which each group or individual approaches particular verses. Every word of God is inspired, as well as every verse. In John 10:35 our Lord quotes one word of Scripture (‘gods’), from Psalm 82, thus showing that every word is inspired and useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Certainly He does so with the proper theological support. But would we rebuke our Lord for proof-wording? Praise God that He has given us the example of His Son, together with the NT prophets and apostles, to follow. We must defend the truth “line by line and precept upon precept,” but we must make sure that our line and precepts are governed by the theological truths of the whole of Scripture. We must be “workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Our last post concluded on a small slice of the infra- and supralapsarian views of grace by saying it was a real issue and not a myopic study of flavors. How one perceives the moment of regeneration directly contributes to views of adoption, faith, baptism, forgiveness, sanctification, scripture and sacrament. For Bavinck and the Reformed, these doctrines ultimately arrive at our fellowship with other believers and may impact personal faith in God.

Reformed theology sees grace as something eternally inherent in the Triune God. Positive descriptions of God’s essence are impossible but statements such as “God is Love”* or “God is Light” are possible due to the covenant nature of divine revelation. Grace is powerfully active in the fallen world, because revelation has cut a remarkable course through human history despite itself. But does love conquer all? God did not positively will sin and evil yet it seems to permeate the whole creation. Reformed and Puritan language for the origin of evil often uses ‘passive’ or ‘permissible’ to describe the divine will as, historically, questions of the origin of evil did not directly strike the question of God’s existence then as they do today (Helm). Sin does not make one free and independent from God as much as it does not lie outside of God’s providential government. Permission, says Bavinck, is not passive similar to watching a crime take place and not preventing it. Passivity is active in the sense that it positively brings about the good of God’s will although the reason for it is immeasurable (cf. Aquinas I.q.1.). Bavinck’s solution to the origin or problem of evil, written at a time when the last shimmering rays of the Enlightenment were beginning to fade, offers no other alternative but the covenant of grace.

The cross is the apex of God’s covenant with humanity, and eternally so. The polytheism of ancient cultures contained an element of appeasement and atonement (sacrifice) somewhere in their cultic rites. Yet there is a servile, legalistic fear within the theology of these various cults, with no idea of a covenant of grace revealed to them freely of God. The covenant of grace is eternal in that it was not conceived on the spot with Abraham, Moses, or David, etc. Israel was singled out, says Bavinck, but not as a drop of oil in the ocean or set on a remote mountain top but situated at the center of the world. The opening revelation of the Law (Exodus 20:2) is, “the essence of the covenant of grace.” The cross put away the ‘Sianitic dispensation’ connecting the older covenant of grace with the new in a golden line of historical continuity without a hint of artificiality (Rom. 1:2; Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:2; 2 Tim. 3:15). The foundation of God’s work of redemption is clearly discerned in hindsight to whom it is made; Adam stood as the first covenant ‘head’ although failed to meet the requirements and Christ, who successfully ratified the new covenant of grace with his obedience, death and resurrection. The new covenant therefore depends on the old in a very real and vivid way despite the distinctions each has, not as polar opposites that never attract, but objectively separate; grace depends on nature as the natural proceeds the spiritual, as grace before glory.

_________

* See Bavinck RD , 2; 129.

You can also find other sermons and lectures by Eric Alexander here .

David Bebbington did a outstanding job (which is typical of his work) of outlining a history of revivals throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Focusing on the different circumstances and theologies that lay behind each period of revival he persuasively argued that God was at work in each and every true revival. If these lectures are published I think you will find Bebbington’s work a worthwhile source of history on the subject. I am amazed at how much this man can unpack in so short a period of time.

Adriann Neele explained that Edwards depended on Van Massticht’s Theoretica Practica more than any other work. He went on to outline Van Masstricht’s work, drawing a convincing connection between Edwards’ History of the Work of Redemption and the later part of the Theoretica Practica. What I did not know prior to this talk was that Van Masstricht replaced Gijbertus Voetius at the Univeristy of Utrect. Van Maastrict was also a disciple of Johannes Cocceius. This is especially important since Van maasrtict’s Theoretica was the basis for Edwards’ History of the Work of Redemption. Edwards’ biblical theological approach to the Scriptures seems to have been on account of Cocceius, whether he realized that in his adoption of Van Masstricht’s principles or not. I wonder whether Van Masstricht wed the pietistic approach of Voetius to the Biblical Theological approach of Cocceius. This would be a an interesting subject to pursue further as the two camps were sort of antithetical during the Nadere Reformatie.

Michael McClenahan gave consideration to Edward’s polemical responses to John Tillotson in regard to Tillotson’s rabid arminianism. Sadly, the electricity went out during his lecture making it more difficult to pull together all the material he had to present on Monday and then finish on Tuesday. It was a helpful talk which posited Edwards’ writings on good works in contrast to much of what Tillotson was promulgating.

I also benefited from David Jones’ lecture on Edwards’ connection to the Welsh evangelical ministers of the 18th and 19th centuries. Jones did an exceptionally good job in relation to Edwards’ influence on William Williams, the noted theologian and hymn writer.

It was at this conference that I spent some time with William and Carine MacKenzie, owners of Christian Focus publication. Their commitment to Christ was incredibly refreshing, and the presence of so many of the good books they have published was a great encouragement at a highly scholastic conference on Edwards.

Anyone who has ever studied Hitler will tell you this: No one, even at the highest levels of his government, had any idea as to the extent of damage and suffering he would inflict on the world and his own people. The suffering caused by sin has a similar analogy; Adam and Eve had no idea how sin would plunge the world into this melancholy subject. It’s a moot point to say that suffering is universal. If sin were taken out of the equation suffering would be reduced to a much smaller dimension in human life. Bavinck makes this case by pointing out the variety of sins, both spiritual and material in nature, and contrasts it with the calamity of natural disaster. With hurricanes, famine, thorns and such, all manner of superstition follows near all natural phenomena. Here Bavinck beautifully presents us with a dilemma; how do we differentiate and also reconcile scientific and biblical explanations of universal suffering that is otherwise entrenched in folklore and superstition? What to do. What to do.

On one side there is a scientific, rational, explanation for death and suffering. Darwinians, for example, are foremost among those who affirm death is natural it is built into the natural world. The idea that Satan is behind the bushes and in the thunderclouds is Christianized pagan superstition. But is death natural and suffering the norm of life? No, says Bavinck, “it violates the inner nature of a human being (Job 14:1-12).” Sin has devalued human life creating a tension between the natural and unnaturalness of death. Only a faith rooted in scripture, and not a rationalist outlook, overcomes superstitious outlooks that distort a true, godly, and yes, scientific perspective on sin and suffering. How so? Bavinck’s analysis here (chapter 4) unfortunately doesn’t reach a firm conclusion. On the one hand Bavinck complains that in his day the most precise scientific thinking on all levels, which had abandoned scripture faith, turned to hypnotism, astrology, and the occult. This initially sounds a little silly but there is something to it (the Nazis were obsessed with the occult). Yet on the other Bavinck buries the reader under a mass amount of ‘proof texts’ losing the clear voice of his central thesis.

So Bavinck reaches a great summit but stops for the sheer magnitude of the view. What are we to think? Is death final? Is it a natural part of the world? We will have to wait until the next chapter: the Covenant of Grace in Jesus Christ.

In our last few posts we’ve been plowing through Bavinck’s analysis of original sin and what was lost by the fall. Human beings did not become ‘sub’ creatures after breaking the covenant or works, but something changed. The original relationship and integrity with God was destroyed when sin took advantage of the commandment. Here is a brief look at Bavinck’s analysis of the nature of sin in what he describes as ‘mystery in variety’.

Sin is not mere heredity, explains Bavinck, it is universal and cannot be summed up in one type of transgression. From a host of scriptural examples, everyone from Augustine to the scholastics argued that the first sin of humans was ‘pride’ or ‘disobedience’ (Rom. 5:9). Protestants emphasize doubt and unbelief occasioned in Eve’s trial. Bavinck asks; was it really one thing or another? Original sin contained within itself a whole variety from disobedience, to self-elevation, pride, homicide, theft, covetousness. It triggered in a range of emotions, feelings and thoughts within the intellect, will, and body. We might say that sin is similar to reading: it takes the whole person to do it. One of the great mysteries of sin is how it is imputed through Adam. Sin is not a physical substance; if it were then it would have been positively created by God and, “[sin] has no efficient but only a deficient cause” (Augustine). Supposing sin is like to a disease or disposition that is ‘handed down’ merely describes symptoms and characteristics; the essence is more elusive.

Whatever it is, sin initiated and continued separation from God. It breaks the health of relationships: Adam blamed Eve, Cain killed Abel, and the world crucified Christ. It is grace, says Bavinck, that after the fall humanity still retained the consciousness that things ought to be different. There is a notion that human beings should conform to the law of God but the reality of that desire is the reverse. The conscience is not the consciousness of communion with God, but rather the “subjective proof” it has been broken. Here we are confronted with a grave dilemma: is the silence of conscience peace or separation ? Bavinck argues the more the conscience functions (develops) and is articulated the more it validates the scriptural view of humanity (Rom. 2:14-16).

Bavinck has presented a very weighty matter for consideration. He has a strong case and quite a command of the data …but … what? Some have put forward that Bavinck’s view of God’s law is much more positivistic than Calvin intended (Helm). A comparison between Bavinck’s treatment of universal guilt (the outset of chapter 3) and Calvin’s (especially Ins . Bks. I. xvi & II.vii) views on providence and natural law indicates the parting nuance. The perspective here is not ‘should I lose sleep over this?’ but rather, ‘I should study this when I can’t sleep.’

So it is, as we approach the New Testament revelation that we find a shift in focus, not away from the Person and work of Christ, but on the fulfillment of that work, and the fruit that flows from His death and resurrection. This is naturally coupled with the prospect of the consummation of that work in His second coming. It is these two architectonic events that structure the New Testament, even as they were alluded to in the Old; and it is these two events that structure the book of Revelation. Everything that occurs within this book–all the people, places and events–find their meaning in regard to these advents. So, it is the theme of the book that John has in mind when he writes:

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

The saving work of Christ crucified is the ground for what John sees, concerning the people of God, in his vision. In Revelation 7:9-10 we read, “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

It is the Lamb–the One who was slain and who redeemed a people to God with His blood–who is the focus of the entire heavenly vision. The title “the Lamb” binds together in unbreakable unity the Person of Christ and His saving work at Calvary. It is on account of His shed blood that sinful men and women, boys and girls, are made worthy to stand before the throne of the thrice Holy God. This theme reoccurs throughout the book and differentiates the righteous from the wicked. Even when the righteous are spoken of in regard to their spiritual purity–denoted by the most felicitous term “virgins” (as is the case in Rev. 14:4)–they are said to be “the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes,” and who “were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.” The death of Christ makes ALL the difference for all the people of God. The blood that He shed is efficacious blood, in that it secured eternal life and happiness for all for whom it was shed.

But, the saving work of Christ is incomplete, if I may say it reverently, without His return to bring about the full fruition of that atoning death. The Christ who died, is also the Christ who is risen. The Christ who is risen is the Christ who is ascended on High. And the Christ who ascended is the Christ who will one day come again in glory to bring about the full redemption accomplished by His death. This is the great hope of all the saints who are suffering tribulation in this present age.

We must always keep the Person and work of Christ before our minds. We must ever remember that it is His saving work, in all of its fulfness, accomplished in His first and second coming that structures redemptive history; and it is this that gives us the master key to unlock the mystery of the Apocalypse. Let him who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Nursing Home ministry is a responsibility and privilege that is often overlooked by the church. I think there are a several reasons for this. First, you will never grow a church by ministering in a Nursing Home. You will never get a sudden surge of people into the church pews (or cushion seats if you are more cutting edge) by focusing on Nursing Home Ministry. Your church will not visibly grow, but Jesus’ church will. I imagine that there have been many elderly men and women who have come to saving faith on account of some loving child of God coming into a Nursing Home, or Assisted Living Center, and spreading the love and the word of Christ. The fields are rip for harvest in a Nursing Home.

Another reason Nursing Home/Assisted Living ministry has not received greater emphasis is on account of the fact that it takes a great deal of commitment and care. Most of us, if we are honest, do not want to commit to or care about things like ministering to needy, sick and dying people. Sadly, I know that this is true in my own life.

The final reason nursing home ministry is not carried out more frequently is on account of the lack of training. It takes a great deal of training to understand how to ministry to needy people. It can often be difficult, because of our lack of knowledge. We cannot lay all the blame on the first two reasons. It is on account of this that David Apple and I brought Ed Verbeke, former chaplain of the RPCNA Retirement Home, to Tenth to do a one day training seminar. Ed is a dear friend, who preached at Anna and my wedding. Ed has "Brittle Bone Disease" and has been the subject of care and need for most of his life. Despite (or perhaps on account of ) this malady, Ed is one of the most productive Christians I know. The grace of God, working through Ed’s own needs, has enabled him to care for and serve those who are needy. Ed has a unique gift in ministering to the elderly and shut-ins. I think you will find that this seminar contains some of the best training for Nursing Home Ministry available. You can find the videos here .

You can also find a Nursing Home manual, written by Tom McCormick, posted below the videos. Tom has served in Nursing Home ministry for many years and had his introduction to it through Dr. Skilton.

“Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits before the throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and freed from our sin with His own blood and has made us kings and priests to our God.”

There are several significant details in the salutation. In the first place, it is a Triune blessing. Grace and peace come to the people of God from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not so clear on the surface, because of the way in which each Person of the Godhead is spoken of, or from the order in which each member of the Godhead is mentioned.

John describes the Father as “Him who is and who was and who is to come.” He is the everlasting God. The One who has no beginning and no end. Though the Father is not mentioned by any particular name, and though this same description is applied to Jesus in verse 8, the construct necessitates this interpretation. The Father has already been mentioned at the beginning of the book by the name “God.” It is surely taught in Scripture that the Father and the Son are each God in every way that makes Him God. Deity is clearly attributed to the Spirit as well, in such places as Acts 5 where it is said that Ananias and Saphira have lied to the God by lying to the Holy Spirit. But, in the realm of redemption (i.e. the work of the economic Trinity) the Father is often referred to simply as “God.” The other confirmation is the reference to the Spirit and the Son in the subsequent verses.

John goes on to say that grace and peace come from the “seven Spirits who are before His throne.” Why is the Spirit spoken of as the “seven spirits?” It would appear, by the close proximity of the description of the churches to whom this prophecy is given, that the Spirit is to be understood as the perfect gift to the church. John is writing to the “seven churches.” It is the “seven spirits” given to the “seven churches.” The number seven obviously has a symbolic meaning. God created in six days and rested on the seventh. It is the number of completion, perfection or wholeness. According to Solomon, there are six things that God hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him. Surely there are more than seven things that are an abomination to the infinitely holy God. Surely God hates all evil. This is the point of using the number 7. Again, it is said by Solomon, “For the righteous falls seven times and rises again.” The righteous may well fall many more times that seven–even as much as seventy times seven–but the point is that no matter how complete his falling may seem he will rise again. So, in the book of Revelation the Holy Spirit of God, who works His perfect work in the church, is termed the “seven Spirits.”

The second Person of the Godhead, the Lord Jesus Christ–the One whom this revelation is all about–is mentioned in the third place in this salutation. Note the way that John gives Him a three fold description. He is “the faithful witness, the first-born from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.” This is interestingly a description of His role as Prophet (i.e. the faithful witness), Priest (i.e. the first-born from the dead), and King (i.e. the ruler over the kings of the earth). He is the center of all revelation, and so, it is fitting that a further description of His work is attached to this salutation. The reason He is not mentioned in the second place in this greeting is because the Spirit wants us to recognize that the blessings of God comes through the Person and Work of Christ. While the book of Acts is really the “Acts of the apostles of Jesus Christ by the Spirit, ” this is the Revelation of Jesus Christ .” He is the One who has loved us and freed us from our sins by His own blood. The Father and the Spirit were not the Agents of that most necessary means of providing forgiveness. It is only by the blood of the Lamb. This is a glorious salutation. Grace and peace only come from the Father and the Spirit through the dying love of Christ.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. 4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia

There are several significant features of this introduction. Too often, we rush into the details of this grand vision without first recognizing the significance of the more basic truth of the nature and source of this book. John opens with a brief summary of the theme of the book. This book is nothing less than a revelation of Jesus Christ. This very basic interpretive key is frequently overlooked. The book of Revelation is not, first and foremost, a prophecy about particular events in human history; neither is it simply a code to be unlocked. It is an unveiling (as the word ‘revelation’ means) of the Person and work of Christ. This theme is developed a bit further in verses 5-8–where the first and second coming of Christ are in view. Everything that will be discussed in the subsequent chapters is understood with relation to the Lord Jesus Christ and the work He accomplishes in His two advents. The visions span the entire period of redemptive history between Christ’s first and second coming.

But John also deals, at the outset, with the all important chain of origin of this prophecy. The Holy Spirit has intended to begin this final redemptive prophecy with a description of the chain of revelation. The revelation of Jesus Christ originates with the Father. This is seen in the phrase, “Which God gave Him…” The Father gives the revelation, about the Son, to His Son. John next notes that Jesus, having received the revelation from the Father and acting as the great Prophet of the church, “sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John. The Father gives the revelation to the Son, the Son gives it to His angel (i.e. His spirit messenger) who in turn gives it to John. Finally, John, we are told, gives it to the church: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia Minor.” It seems that the authority of Scripture, and of this prophetic piece in particular, is of upmost importance. The purpose of outlining this hierarchical delivery of the revelation is to confirm to the minds of the readers the attention that is required of them.

The authority is noted along with the responsibility of the particular members of the church to respond appropriately. John writes, “Blessed is he who reads, and those who hear, and he who keeps the words of this prophecy.” The content of this prophecy, written in the first century, is of utmost importance because it comes from the Father, to the Son, through an angel, to the apostle John–and finally to the church. The Father is speaking when the revelation is read. The Son is also speaking. Two of the members of the Godhead have spoken. It is, therefore, the message of the great King. Interestingly, the kingship of Christ is most fully set out in this book where He is even termed, “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” So the response that we make to this prophecy is the response we make to the King of the Universe. Jesus Himself alluded to the importance of the channels of revelation when He said to the apostles, “Whoever hears you hears Me, but whoever rejects you rejects Me.”

There is one final important aspect of the first introduction. John adds a causal statement to the promise of blessing for the one who reads, hears and keeps. He writes, “for the time is near.” The things written in this prophecy would occur quickly. This is a repeated theme in the book. The note of urgency is coupled with explanation of authority so that we might be all the more quick to read, hear and keep. We should long to dig down deeply into the words of this book because it is a book about our Savior Jesus Christ, it is a prophecy that comes from the Father to the Son, and because there was and is an immediacy to the things written within. Let him who has ears to hear let him hear what the Father and the Son say to the church.

Here are the complete MP3 audio files from my ordination service:

Dr. Philip G. Ryken – Sermon Preached at the Ordination of Nicholas T. Batzig (1 Cor. 16:1-9)

Rev. James T. Obrien – Charge to Nicholas T. Batzig

Dr. James E. McGoldrick – Charge to the Presbytery