or Marriage is a Glory Box, a Hope Chest

In 1 Peter 3:7, the apostle writes:

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

The phrase “according to knowledge” (gnosis) is rendered “in an understanding way” in the NKJV and ESV. But is the exhortation for the husband to understand his wife, or to understand the source of his authority as her husband?

I believe the “Covenant literary” structure not only answers this question, but reveals the sentence to be an Edenic gem. [1] Firstly, it recapitulates the totus Christus pattern found throughout the Scriptures:

The references to the Red Sea and the Jordan allude to this pattern in Israel’s journey from Egypt to Canaan, but we can trace it right back to the first Man and Woman.

Of course, this is not what happened, but based upon countless later patterns, we can accurately reconstruct it. (I know some will be skeptical, but there are many hundreds of examples. Trust me.)

Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1, with Day 7 being the “future” of Adam’s race benefiting from his continuing mediation. That is about as far as we can speculate, but my point here is that Genesis 2 is also a forming and a filling. The first part concerns Adam as priestly “head” and the second concerns Eve as his (bone and flesh) “body.” Having a “people” in the mother of all living moves Adam from priesthood to kingdom (hence the true kingdom did not arrive until Pentecost).

The goal was for Adam to testify on God’s behalf before the serpent, receive the Spirit of God through his obedience, and share that Spirit with Eve, who would sing the kind of head-crushing song we hear from Bible women, songs that sound so strange to modern ears. This third stage is prophetic. Adam has spoken. Eve has sung in response. Now that they are of one mind, understanding the mind of God, His purpose in their testing, they are both wise as serpents and harmless as doves. They become God’s voice, mediating between heaven and earth.

Peter’s Literary Brilliance

We are now in a position to appreciate Peter’s brief statement. Because it echoes a pattern built into the rest of the Bible, these few words contain unfathomable depths. Not only is a marriage a “new Covenant,” it is a new Creation, a new Tabernacle within which God is pleased to dwell as long as its priesthood is faithful. If the husband’s priestly office is not fulfilled, he will not have true kingdom.

This sevenfold process is not only an architectural pattern, it also reveals why there are no “priestesses” under either the Old Covenant or the New. Any authority which Woman has is derived from the accountability of the Man. [3]

Viewed as a chain/process of Covenant authority, line 3 would mean “according to the doctrine/wisdom” given to Adam as mediator. Adam received the Law before the construction of Eve. He was to minister to her in the light of that Law, which is what he failed to do.

The architecture reveals the use of the word “vessel” to be priestly. “Weaker” can mean weakness either physically or morally. In relation to the Law, it may refer to the desire of women for male headship, that is, “leadership by example.” If Adam will not lead her, another spirit will lead her into harlotry. As Christ sends His Spirit to gather the Church, so the Adam’s self-sacrifice “constructs” or edifies Eve. The husband’s meekness towards God results in the wife’s meekness towards her husband, reversing the curse of tyranny in Genesis 3:16.

The earthen “vessel without strength” at 3 requires filling at 4, is fragrant at 5, and presented chaste to God at 6. Adam’s role, as mediator with a heavenly commission, is to take flesh, open its eyes and open its mouth. What God did for Adam physically, so Adam is to do for Eve legally. The woman begins as a possession but Adam, the regent, is to lead her to the role of co-regent. We see this in the difference between the Ten Words in Exodus and Deuteronomy, and in the process of Esther becoming more than simply another bride. [4] Of course, we see it in the difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant brides, expressed in baptism (robe of office) being given to “both men and women,” women allowed into the Sanctuary, and the inclusion of women as Covenant witnesses, “prophetesses,” beginning after the resurrection. The true empowerment of Woman can only ever come through the submission of Man to God.

The Architecture of Sex

Human sexuality is an expression of the Trinity. It is an architecture also found in the Tabernacle. The Most Holy Place is the authority of the Father (the Ark), the Holy Place is the priestly submission (Table), kingly authority (Lampstand) and prophetic witness (Incense) of the Son. Finally, the courts of the nations are the gathering of the Bride by the Spirit (Eve is the multiplier). The pattern throughout the Bible is:

This is also the pattern of the entire Bible, as well as the deep structure of the book of Revelation. It is also hinted at in the search for a bride for Isaac, and in many other narratives.

Interestingly, we can also see the triune architecture in

Man and Woman (Genesis 1 – physical attributes)
Husband and Wife (Genesis 2 – social offices)
Father and Mother (Genesis 3 – historical continuity)

The evolutionary assumptions of modernism first deconstructed our understanding of man and woman as physical images of God (temples for His Spirit), mostly for the purpose of freedom from Moses (as some have testified). Without recognition of the authority of God, the purpose of “male and female” became arbitrary. Sex (gender) was reduced to the physiological, flesh without a divine commission. Western males and females were rendered naked, and bereft of hope.

This rejection of heavenly authority then led to the deconstruction of marriage, which had previously integrated Western culture, giving it a backbone and rendering it upright. “Husband and wife” as offices before God also became meaningless. Marriage ceased to be seen as sacrificial ministry, and the house was eventually left desolate. False gods were welcomed in, which led to adultery and then further perversion.

Our now spineless culture is at the stage where Father and Mother are also being deconstructed, through a man-made narcissistic version of marriage — love of the same rather than “the other.” Since male and female are no longer gifts from God, and husband and wife are no longer a means of exercising those gifts, Father and Mother are now also meaningless. We are left with Human, Partner and Parent. This is the social outcome of the rejection of the heaven-and-earth, head-and-body divide. There is no authority, no submission and thus no ministry.

According to Knowledge

I hope you noticed the allusions to the pattern of events in the New Testament. It is also the pattern of events in the apostate churches around us today. In both cases, the Word of God was well-known.

This tragic deconstruction is a threefold process of sin reaching its full maturity in our culture, with each step being the product (usually after a generation, around 40 years) of the previous sin. [5] God is tearing down the house in three stages, so He gets the glory.

Romans 1 outlines this process for us. Three times, God says He “gave them up” to what they desired, because they would not listen. The next step for our rebellious culture is a quick decline. We have sacrificed our historical continuity on the altar of unbridled desire. Atheists have taken the inheritance of 2000 years of Christianity and blown it all, like Hollywood brats, in a few decades. Say goodbye to Western Culture, with all its heavenly blessings.

Ideas have consequences, and the desire to be “in control” of nature, like gods, leads to nature being empowered by God to cut us off. Abortion, sterility, sexual perversion, social disintegration (and the mental illness that follows) and an epidemic of sexual diseases, are the outcomes of the dogma of Darwinism. It is highly ironic that Darwinism turned out to be an exercise of the right to extinction.

Empowered by the knowledge of God, the family is the spring of good culture. Rejection of that knowledge results in a poisoned spring, and God will put a stop to the bitterness. His judgment is entirely just. Our sin is not simply a “wandering astray.” It is high-handed rebellion from a culture with more knowledge of God than any before. Worse, those with a perverse desire relabel it as a “call” from God. The Spirit departs. The song is silenced. The Land and the womb are rendered barren.

The fact that many intelligent Christians fail to understand the importance of Genesis 1-3 quite amazes me. [6] It turns out that those early chapters are also the key to understanding the New Testament, as the pattern is replayed in individuals, families, churches and states.

It seems Peter, by the Spirit, was fully aware of the inescapable sacredness of marriage. As in Eden, marriage is itself a “glory box,” a hope chest filled with promises for the future. But today it is a marriage made in heaven, that between Christ and the Church, and Jesus will never forsake us to the serpent as Adam forsook Eve. He ministers to us “according to knowledge.”

Photo: Medieval Marriage Chest.

________________________________
[1] So much for Peter being an ignorant fisherman. See Uneducated Fishermen? Nuh-uh.
[2] Chart from Bible Matrix, p. 76.
[3] See The Throne of Eve.
[4] See Esther and the Ten Words.
[5] See God Gave Them Up.
[6] See When the Grid Goes Down.

“The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse.”

The Dangerous Trajectory of Those Who Seek to Be Gods

An excerpt from Joe Rigney’s new book, Live Like a Narnian: Christian Discipleship in
Lewis’s Chronicles.

Reading Lewis today, it’s easy to believe that he was a prophet (or at least the son of a prophet). His analysis of education, government, culture, society, and the church has proved to be unusually prescient. One of the chief reasons for this is that Lewis understood the deep reality of narrative, of story, of progression and trajectory.

This is something that many today, for all of our talk of Christian worldview, do not truly grasp—or at least, if we grasp it, we don’t always apply it with the level of insight that he does.
In Chapter 3, I showed how in Edmund’s character Lewis communicates to us the profound truth that we are all headed somewhere and sooner or later, we’re bound to arrive. We may not like our destination, but that is neither here nor there. We have all boarded the train, and it is inexorably going somewhere. This is what Douglas Wilson calls an inescapable question: It is not whether we will have a destination, but which destination we will have. Not whether we will choose to go, but where.

Lewis is capable of portraying this truth through a single character, or, as in The Magician’s Nephew, through a comparison of a few characters. As we read about Uncle Andrew, Jadis, and Digory, we are meant to see something crucial, not only for us as individuals, but for our communities and indeed the world as a whole.

The Tyranny of Scientific Conditioners

Before reflecting on these characters, it’s worth reminding ourselves of some things that Lewis writes about in The Abolition of Man.

There Lewis argues that men who have rejected the Tao (that is, traditional morality, the wisdom of the ages, the God-given order of the universe) have substituted for it the desire to conquer Nature through science and technology. A number of results follow from this.

First, “what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.” [1] Because we are aiming to conquer Nature through science and technology, those who possess the technology have the power and ability to give or withhold it from the rest of mankind. In this way, “Man’s conquest of Nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men.” [2]

Second, because the conquest of Nature includes the attempted modification of human nature, such an endeavor truly means Nature’s conquest of Man, that is, the reduction of Man to an “artefact,” an object, or, in other words, the turning of Man into a “thing”—a He into an it. The scientific planners primarily engaged in this conquest are therefore compelled by a lust for power, the desire to control and shape the destinies of the rest of humanity (this is why Lewis refers to them as “the Conditioners”).

Third, in order to modify Man, these Conditioners must begin to “use” particular men as test subjects and guinea pigs. To do this, they must set aside their shared humanity and reject the common Law which stands over all men (namely, the Tao). As Lewis says, “the conditioners have been emancipated from all that. . . . They themselves are outside, above.” In seeking to be gods, they have ceased to be men, at least men in the traditional sense. They are, in essence, Former Men, “men who have sacrificed their own share in traditional humanity in order to devote themselves to the task of deciding what ‘Humanity’ shall henceforth mean.” [3]

Fourth, the last quotation introduces the key element of Time into the picture. For the tyranny of the Conditioners extends beyond their own generation. Indeed, one of their fundamental motivations is to shape what Man shall be in the future.

In order to understand fully what Man’s power over Nature, and therefore the power of some men over other men, really means, we must picture the race extended in time from the date of its emergence to that of its extinction. Each generation exercises power over its successors: and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors. [4]

Finally, it’s worth highlighting the historical connection Lewis draws between the scientist’s quest for power and the magician’s lust for the same.

I have described as a ‘magician’s bargain’ that process whereby man surrenders object after object, and finally himself, to Nature in return for power. And I meant what I said. The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know better. There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. [5]

Later he writes,

There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the ‘wisdom’ of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious—such as digging up and mutilating the dead. [6]

With this background, we’re now in a position to compare Uncle Andrew, Jadis, and Digory . . . .

_________________________
1. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 47.
2. Lewis, 49.
3. Lewis, 73.
4. Lewis, 47–46.
5. Lewis, 63.
6. Lewis, 63–68.

Last week, Peter Leithart commented on an interview with Professor Simon Conway Morris. I sent the link to my expert friend, Tas Walker, and he has discussed it a little less briefly:

Paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris, of Burgess Shale fame, says that examination of the fossil evidence demands a radical rewriting of evolution. Why so?

In an interview with the University of Cambridge’s alumni magazine (Issue 65, Lent 2012, pp. 32–35) Conway Morris says it’s because of “convergence”.

That’s the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems. He wrote of this phenomenon extensively in his 2003 book Life’s Solution.

Conway Morris illustrates with the “camera eye”—“the kind of eye which you are using to read this feature.” That eye comprises a lens suspended between two fluid-filled chambers.

Conway Morris points to the octopus, which:

“has a camera eye which is remarkably similar to our own. … And yet we know that the octopus belongs to an invertebrate group called the cephalopod molluscs, evolutionarily very distant indeed from the chordates to which we belong.

“The common ancient ancestor of molluscs and chordates could not possibly have possessed a camera eye, so quite clearly they have evolved independently. The solution has been arrived at by completely different routes.”

Or, as the interview explained, “evolution has converged on a solution.”

Convergence is a simple word used to hide evidence for design. Convergence means that the Creator used similar designs for similar functions in unrelated creatures.

The interview continues:

“Most biologists agree that convergence is a common occurrence; but Conway Morris goes a step further, believing that evolution converges on the best possible solution, rather than on a best fit, random solution.”

Conway Morris says his discussion of convergence has lead many commentators to accuse him of being a creationist—something he finds amusing, but says is rubbish.

Of course, Conway Morris has to distance himself from creation explanations because scientific institutions have been taken over by a philosophy of naturalism. They are committed to finding naturalistic solutions. No matter what evidence is found, creation is forbidden. Anyone advocating a creationist solution will likely lose their job (see Expelled).

Conway Morris concludes that “the manner in which life constructs itself must be dealing with some other principle which we’ve failed to identify.”

Failed to identify! 150 years of evolutionary research but its basic principle has not been identified? It’s amusing how our intelligent, academic culture is confounded by the clear, simple evidence for design in the living world.

And they will continue to be confounded so long as they refuse to allow a Divine foot in the door.

Further Reading
Review of Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (pdf) by Simon Conway Morris, in which he deals extensively with convergence.

Presbyterians and Baptists have a long history of working together. As is God’s way, any new endeavour must take the past into account but not be bound by it. This is a guest post by my friend Matt Carpenter.

The questions surrounding the origins and necessity of denominations have been discussed at great length and I don’t intend on bringing them up here. But it doesn’t mean we have a license to continue without giving it another thought. This isn’t another call for lip-quivering ecumenism. Fellow soldiers in God’s army can learn a lot from one another and the two groups I currently have in mind are Baptists and Presbyterians. Traditionally they have shared a lot in common.

In 1642, Oliver Cromwell led a group of mostly Puritans, Presbyterians, and Baptists against the army of King Charles I. Regardless of one’s opinion of this war, it’s not an exaggeration to say they banded together to gain religious freedom for many in England.

Two years later, Presbyterians drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document they believed declared the doctrines of the Reformers, Church fathers, and apostles. In 1689, the Baptists of London drew up a document that declared their faith. With a few exceptions it was taken directly from the Westminster Confession. This was no accident, for they, “have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the Holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring, before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with them in that wholesome Protestant doctrine which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures, they have asserted.” [1] In other words, they explicitly wanted to express their commonality with the Presbyterians (among others) in primary doctrinal truth.

A little over one-hundred years later, Presbyterians and Baptists in the North American colonies again united against the threat of King George III sending an Anglican Bishop to preside over the colonies. None other than John Adams called this the first spark in the American Revolution. [2] Most of the soldiers in the continental army were Presbyterians and Baptists. What is it that links these two groups together, and has done so for hundreds of years? [3]

The first common conviction is the sovereignty of God. As has already been noted, the London Confession reads almost exactly similar to the Westminster Confession when it speaks of God’s sovereignty in all of life, including salvation. In the 1830’s a segment of Baptists and Presbyterians stood against the forces of liberalism that wanted assert man’s free-will over the sovereignty of God.

Another link is the stance against revivalism during the Second Great Awakening. For the Presbyterians the split was among those who supported the “new measures” of Charles Finney (altar calls, anxious benches, etc.) and those who opposed the emotionalism fanned by some ministers. It resulted in the expulsion of 500 ministers and 550 churches. [4] There was also a split among the Baptists in 1832 who also registered their opposition to the “new measures” of revivalist preachers.

A third area of similarity is the belief in the regulative principle (only God’s word can declare what should go on in worship). Baptists like Charles Spurgeon and Benjamin Keach, along with Presbyterians R.L. Dabney and John Murray taught this. Although the principle is interpreted differently among many, it is still held in some form by conservatives of both denominations.

Although there are many other similarities that could be mentioned, a final common link is the emphasis of the local church. In both the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions, chapter 26, section 1 (referring to the church), says: “Saints by profession, are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; …” (emphasis mine). The authors of these statements realized that this can be done only in the context of the local church.

In addition to these areas there are many more we could observe. But suffice to say, sovereign-grace Baptists and Presbyterians have more in common doctrinally than any other groups.

After understanding the historical similarities between Baptists and Presbyterians, we should also understand that there are things we can learn from one another. This requires us to forgo our denominational arrogance. Once we admit that others might see things that we miss, here are some things we can learn from one another.

The first area we can learn is in evangelism. Calvinistic Baptists were known at one time for their evangelistic zeal. They took the message to the frontier and evangelized Indians, white settlers, and anyone else who crossed their path. The Baptist preacher Isaac McCoy was called the apostle to the Indians. Presbyterians Marcus Whitman and Samuel Kirkland were also known for taking the gospel to the Great Plains.

For the church to grow we can’t just rely on other Christians leaving their churches and joining ours; we must be willing to proclaim the word of God to dry bones and tell them to live. We must believe, just like they did, that God will call His elect and they will believe when the gospel is preached.

We can also learn the importance of applying the Word of God to everything. One of the fallacies of modern thought is that the Bible is only useful in the religious sphere, that is to say, at church and in between your ears. But Jesus is Lord over everything, not just our souls. Because His lordship extends to all things our calling is to cast down every thought and stronghold that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. This is one place we as Baptists can learn from our Presbyterian brethren.

R.L. Dabney spoke of the necessity of understanding science from the perspective of Scripture. In his Systematic Theology he articulates why a literal reading of Genesis 1 is important, and he did it in the face of the growing popularity Darwinism. One quote from him should suffice. “The position to which they [Darwinists] consign God’s word is that of a handmaid, dependent for the validity of the construction to be put upon its words, on their (the scientists’) permission. Now this we boldly assert, is intrinsic rationalism… exalting the conclusions of the human understanding over the sure word of prophecy.” [5]

And who could overlook the ministries of men like Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark who used the sword of God’s Word to dispel humanistic philosophy. And when it comes to law, many are familiar with R.J. Rushdoony and the work he’s done with biblical law, but another man who believed in applying God’s law when possible might surprise you: the Baptist theologian John Gill. In his Body of Doctoral Divinity, Gill said:

“And they are, certainly, the best constituted and regulated governments that come nearest to the commonwealth of Israel, and the civil laws of it, which are of the kind last described… And whereas the commonwealth of Israel was governed by these laws for many hundreds of years, and needed no other in their civil polity, when, in such a course of time, every case that ordinarily happens, must arise, and be brought into a court of judicature; I cannot but be of opinion, that a digest of civil laws might be made out of the Bible, the law of the Lord that is perfect, either as lying in express words in it, or to be deduced by the analogy of things and cases, and by just consequence, as would be sufficient for the government of any nation.”

Suffice to say, these men believed in applying God’s word to everything. If we don’t give the church and those outside the church a vision for life under the Lordship of Christ, they will construct their own vision with whatever materials the world makes available to them.

Another lesson we can learn from our brothers in the past is the need for the church to not forsake its calling to the world. Early Baptists did a great job critiquing the world’s attempts to usurp the roles of the church. [6] But you can’t beat something with nothing. We should know what role the church should play in society, but that’s not enough.

The best way to protect the roles of the church is to step up and begin ministry. Do you visit the orphans and widows, or leave it to the government? Does the local church create tracts and literature or do we leave it to the para-church ministries? These are small steps but we must begin somewhere. Charles Spurgeon operated orphanages, shelters, and food kitchens. When Thomas Chalmers was pastoring in Scotland, the number of poor dramatically decreased because of the local ministries developed. The modern church has surrendered her calling to the state and secular groups. We can’t despair of the position we’re in; we must start wherever we are and be faithful right here.

Last but not least I hope we can learn of the importance of the unity of believers. In England, sovereign grace Baptists were known for being much more open in fellowship than the General Baptists. [7] Charles Hodge and other Presbyterians wrote articles that called for greater fellowship with the saints.

In America, this was one area in which all have struggled. We have long memories and if “your people” did something to “my people” we won’t easily forget it. No one is immune to the disease of disharmony among saints. As I said earlier, those who hold to the Westminster and London Confessions have more in common with one another than they do with some in their own denomination.

Do we really believe iron sharpens iron? Then why do we only listen to those who are shaped in a similar way to ourselves? Baptists have weaknesses; Presbyterians have weaknesses and neither will gain strength without changing our spiritual exercise. This means talking, praying, listening to, and fellowshipping with those outside our local church or denomination. You can say, “I love them.” But how do you practice it? Do we foster relationships with churches which are different from us?

There are two different beliefs Christians hold about the world. One says we should remove ourselves from others and remain as pure as possible while we wait for Jesus to come. This view naturally lends itself to divisions among brethren. The other view says that we are called to manifest the reign of Christ in the world and live as spiritual warriors. This view requires us to fight alongside those who serve the same Lord but differ with us on some matters.

God has called us to grow up into a new man. We can’t return to the “good old days”, whatever those were; we must go on to maturity and this requires us to fight next to those who proclaim the same gospel. It’s time to go to war together again, but this time not with carnal weapons. Our enemy is spiritual and we must fight him with God’s weapons in the power of the Holy Spirit. Victory will not be granted to Baptists or Presbyterians, Methodists or Pentecostals. It will only be granted to the body of Christ, the same body which He will present as a glorious kingdom to His Father on the last day.

___________________________________
[1] Introduction to the London Confession of Faith, 1689
[2] Religion and the American presidency: George Washington to George W. Bush, pg. 7, by Gastón Espinosa
[3] In referring to Presbyterians and Baptists, I’m speaking of Presbyterians who held to the Westminster standards and the Baptists who held to the London Confession of 1689, not just anyone who calls himself by one of those two names.
[4] Crossed Fingers, p. 119.
[5] Dangerous Pseudoscience, The Christian Observer.
[6] The Black Rock Address, 1832.
[7] A History of the Baptists, Robert Torbert.

Brian Mattson writes:

Honest-to-goodness scholars are people who think, analyze, teach, and write in good faith.

Honest-to-goodness scholars are, by virtue of their own expertise, acutely aware of their limitations. Bono is absolutely right when he and U2 sing:

“The more you learn the less you know / the less you find out as you go / I knew much more then than I do now.”

The deeper one gets into a subject, the more one learns, the more difficult and mysterious the subject matter seems. This is because we are finite creatures trying to get a grip on a vast universe built by an infinite God. We “see through a glass darkly,” as St. Paul so aptly put it.

I often like to say that when I was 20 I was omniscient; it has been a long, downhill slide from there. Learning is a funny thing: we do accumulate knowledge; yet, at the same time, the amount of things to know, as well as the complexities of how our knowledge interrelates to other things, vastly increases.

This means that an honest-to-goodness scholar is, above all, humble. They are quick to acknowledge their shortcomings. They have an attitude that welcomes correction. They do not pretend that all their views are beyond challenge.

This also means that honest-to-goodness scholars are in short supply.

Brian then contrasts this observation with the career of another well-known biblical scholar.

“All those who hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:36

Ralph Smith notes that Western culture, particularly the United States, is suffering from a clash of two worldviews, two competing narratives that “vie for the right to define our world.”

A review of the biblical story already sets the biblical worldview against much modern thought. The theory of evolution, of course, contrasts sharply with the miraculous creation of the world in six days and man’s special creation as the image of God. The story of Adam and Eve as the original family stands in stark, if implicit opposition to all forms of racism, feminists’ denial of different sexual roles for male and female, homosexuality, and polygamy, to name only a few areas in which contemporary thought clashes with the Christian worldview.

Theories of man that see the basic problems of human life as psychological or sociological are undermined by the truth that man is homo adorans by nature, and that all of his problems trace their source to Adam’s sin. Denying that the human body is good or asserting that our problems arise from our animal past also contradict the biblical narrative. The simple story of the creation of the world and man’s place in it has profound implications for the way life should be lived. These unfold as the biblical story continues. To build our worldview in terms of the Bible’s teaching requires us to stand firm against most of the thinking of our day, especially in the academy, where opposition to Christianity is deep and widespread.

The story of the Big Bang—in the West the “scientific” alternative to the biblical story, which posits initial conditions, an explosion, and a process of development, all enshrouded in unfathomable mystery—tells of a world of impersonal forces that by accident or by some deterministic formula produced the world we live in today. There is no special meaning in the big-bang world, no special purpose, and no explanation for the way things are, including all the misery and suffering of the world. What we see is what is, nothing more and nothing less. Why should men choose this view? Because of the inescapable demand of science? Hardly. Men choose to anchor their souls in the sands of nothingness and despair rather than turn to the God who created them. They are just what the book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible shows us all to be, sinners who prefer their own false and empty hopes to the divine promise of eternal life through faith in the God of all grace.

The biblical story of creation, fall, and redemption in a story that exalts man above the animal kingdom and gives him the astonishing quality of godlikeness. Personhood makes evil possible, for persons have the power to choose, and Adam chose to pervert the covenant relationship. Because of man’s sin, the history of the world includes profound tragedy, but the story of God’s grace in redemption is the story of victory over tragedy. It is indeed the greatest story ever told. It is the story of the Son of God who became a man and died for our sins in order to save us from sin and the devil and remake us into a new covenant in a new creation. The biblical story finds its climax in the story of the incarnation of God and the saving work of Jesus, which ushers in a new world, the kingdom of God.

Ralph Allan Smith, Trinity and Reality: An Introduction to the Christian Faith, pp. 108-110.

“The entire free world could be shipwrecked by a teleprompter.”

I remember Carl Sagan commenting on the oddness of books, a collation of leaves covered in squiggles, in symbols. This is only odd if you are a godless fool (biblically defined) whose worldview is entirely at odds with reality.

Sadly this applies to many Christians, who have compromised the foundations of their faith, and pass this corruption on in many Bible colleges.

Man makes symbols because God makes symbols. Man is God’s symbol, God’s logo, pointing to God. Man chose to become a defaced symbol and made bad symbols. God became man to point man back to God, to restore the image. Redemption is the high art of the Logos. It is the men without true symbols who are weak, who are, in the end, less-than-men, men with symbols that mean nothing, despite the chaos and carnage they create in the meantime. James Jordan writes:

The study of symbolism is seen by some as a curiosity, rather far removed from the central matters of life. Anyone who spends time studying Biblical symbolism may well be getting into a “dangerous” area. Persons who engage in an “overly symbolic” interpretation of Scripture are to be regarded with suspicion. What matters is the study of reality; symbolism is secondary.

From the Biblical point of view, however, the reverse is the case. Symbolism is more important than anything else for the life of man. Since this is a manifesto, let me repeat that statement in italics: Symbolism is more important than anything else for the life of man. Anyone who does not understand this has yet fully come to grips with the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, or more importantly, with the biblical doctrine of creation.

How can I write this so confidently? Simple. The doctrine of creation means that every created item, and also the created order as a whole, reflects the character of the God Who created it. In other words, everything in the creation, and the creation as a whole, points to God. In short, everything is a sign or symbol of God. The idea that everything is a symbol of God, His character, nature, ways, etc., is the foundation stone of the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is the basis of the Vantillian doctrine of natural revelation.

And not only so. Just as everything in creation is a general symbol of God, so also man is the special symbol, for man and man alone is created as the very image of God (Gen. 1:26). Each individual human being, and the race as a whole (Gen. 1:27), symbolizes God in a special way. What is this special way? Theologians have debated the issue, and no one will ever fully understand it (since to do so we should have to understand fully the nature of the God whose symbol we are). All the same, this much can be said: Man is the only symbol which is also a symbol-maker. Since this is a manifesto, let me say that again: It is of the essence of man’s divine imagehood that he is a symbol-making creature.

(The safest way to precede is to note what is said about God in the preceding verses of Genesis 1. This is the context in which it is then said that man is the image of God. God has been presented as one who determines, creates, evaluates, names, takes counsel among Himself, etc. These things are what man uniquely images.)[1]

If you believe Pink Floyd, the only factor that differentiates humans from apes is our ability to talk. [2] In fact, it’s not near impossible for this to have evolved, it is absolutely impossible. If natural selection were actually capable of producing progress (it isn’t) and might is right, why do words have so much power? It is because they did not come at the end; they came at the beginning, “at the (river)head” as Genesis 1:1 says. Adam could hear, speak, and, most likely, write. Language is not a new development. It is the way it has always been. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and this practical knowledge of the truth brings dominion. Fictional 12-year-old prodigy (and atheist) Paloma Josse notices this discrepancy between evolutionary theory and reality, and writes,

“The strong ones
Among humans
Do nothing
They talk
And talk again”

“…nothing is harder or more unfair than human reality: humans live in a world where it’s words and not deeds than have power, where the ultimate skill is mastery of language. This is a terrible thing because basically we are primates who’ve been programmed to eat, sleep, reproduce, conquer and make our territory safe, and the ones who are most gifted at that, the most animal types among us, always get shafted by the others, the fine talkers, despite the latter being incapable of defending their own garden or bringing a rabbit home for dinner or procreating properly. Humans live in a world where the weak are dominant. This is a terrible insult to our animal nature, a sort of perversion or a deep contradiction.” [3]

In the beginning was the Word. The Creation order was spoken to, delegated to, the Son, by the Spirit. The Son’s obedience bore fruit, by the Spirit. Ideas have consequences precisely words take on flesh, because electricity moves the muscle; the elite control the workers.

All of God’s speeches are carefully deliberated and meticulously structured. When the Father issues a command, He never wishes He hadn’t pressed “Send.” All His Words, even the curses, are blessings in the long-run. The words of sinful man also build up and cut down. Words are power; words are crucial. The entire free world could be shipwrecked by a teleprompter.

The 5-fold Covenant model and the 7-fold matrix each have words at every point. The source-Word from God to His delegated Head, the delegate’s word to the body, the body under the word, the body’s witness to the truth of the word, and the totus’ oath at the marriage supper on the garden spring, leading to children carrying the word as rivers into the nations. God-Dad-Mum-Kids, God-Dad-Mum-Kids, God-Dad-Mum-Kids…

James 3:1-12:

Creation – Source of Word (Genesis)
My brethren,
…..let not many of you
……….become teachers, (Law given)
……………knowing that (Law opened)
……….we shall receive (Law received)
…..a stricter judgment.
For we all stumble in many things.

Division – Delegation of Word
If anyone
…..does not stumble in word,
……….he [is] a perfect man,
……………able also to bridle the whole body.
……….Indeed, we put bits in horses’ mouths
…..that they may obey us,
and we turn their whole body.

Ascension – The Altar-Land above the Gentile Sea (man as Covenant Head)
Look also at ships:
…..although they are so large
……….and are driven by fierce winds,
……………they are turned by a very small rudder
……….wherever the pilot desires.
…..Even so the tongue is a little member
and boasts great things.

Testing – Discerning the Spirits
See how great a forest a little fire kindles!
…..And the tongue [is] a fire,
……….a world of iniquity.
……………The tongue is so set among our members
……….that it defiles the whole body,
…..and sets on fire the course of nature;
and it is set on fire by hell. (BAD Shekinah)

Maturity – Swarms/Armies (Covenant Body)
For every kind of beast and bird,
…..of reptile and creature of the sea,
……….is tamed and has been tamed by mankind.
……………But no man can tame the tongue.
……….[It is] an unruly [lawless] evil,
…..full of deadly poison. (Cup of Sanctions)

Conquest – Coverings and Sanctions/Oath
With it we bless our God and Father, (Transcendence)
…..and with it we curse men, (Hierarchy)
……….who have been made in the similitude of God. (Ethics)
…..Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. (Sanctions/Oath)
My brethren, these things ought not to be so. (Continuity)

Glorification – Covenant Succession
Does a spring send forth
…..fresh and bitter [water]
……….from the same opening? (Singularity)
……………Can a fig tree,
……….my brethren, bear olives, (Plurality)
……….or a grapevine bear figs?
…..Thus no spring yields
both salt water and fresh.

Our words are barrenness or fruitfulness, Eve offspring or serpent offspring.

_______________________________
[1] James B. Jordan, Symbolism: A Manifesto. [PDF]
[2] Pink Floyd, “Keep Talking,” The Division Bell.
[3] Muriel Barbery, The Elegance of the Hedgehog, p. 53.
Thanks to my atheist friend, Mitch Griggs, for pointing out the video.

“There is a curse on Mankind.
We may as well be resigned.
To let the devil, the devil
take the spirit of man.”

War of the Worldviews

I first heard Jeff Wayne’s musical version of The War of the Worlds when I was 11. My brother and I and some cousins listened to it in a dark room. It was electric and terrifying. Hearing it again years later, the worldview behind the story is much more apparent. One song in particular lays it bare, The Spirit of Man.

[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

Van Gogh’s work has been regarded by some as “hallucinatory,” however his letters show that few artists were as intelligent and rational. His work was not the product of his dark times but of his struggle against them.

“I am feeling well just now… I am not strictly speaking mad, for my mind is absolutely normal in the intervals, and even more so than before. But during the attacks it is terrible—and then I lose consciousness of everything. But that spurs me on to work and to seriousness, as a miner who is always in danger and makes haste in what he does.” [1]

William Cowper, who battled debilitating and often life-threatening depression throughout his life, and yet was the author of many famous Christian hymns and poems, was the same. John Piper writes:

“I live with an almost constant awareness of the breach between the low intensity of my own passion and the staggering realities of the universe around me, heaven, hell, creation, eternity, life, God. Everybody (whether they know it or not) tries to close this breach—between the weakness of our emotions and the wonder of the World. Some of us do it with poetry.

William Cowper did it with poetry. I think I know what he means, for example, when he writes a poem about his mother’s portrait long after her death and says,

And, while that face renews my filial grief,
Fancy shall weave a charm for my relief.

There is a deep release and a relief that comes when we find a way of seeing and saying some precious or stunning reality that comes a little closer to closing the breach between what we’ve glimpsed with our mind and what we’ve grasped with our heart.

It shouldn’t be surprising that probably over 300 pages of the Bible was written as poetry. Because the aim of the Bible is to build a bridge between the deadness of the human heart and the living reality of God.” [2]

I want to relate this to every Christian life. This fruitfulness from the darkness is a process that belongs to every child of God. At the very heart of it is the tension caused by challenges to unseen truth by an unbelieving world, and the desire for vindication and rest. This is one of the processes inherent in Covenant history, and an understanding of it helps us to persevere in the truth, even in the darkest times. The New Covenant is no exception. [3]

God calls a man
…..Separates him for duty
……….Gives him the rules
…..Tells him the consequences of his performance
Arranges for the next tour of duty

Of course, this is Ray Sutton’s 5 point Covenant pattern, and I maintain that it becomes 7 point when “played out” on the stage of history:

Creation: God’s call and anointing
…..Division: The man is sent to work

and this is where the distress of the Covenant comes in. The central point is split into three—LAW/LAW/LAW:

……….Ascension: He receives the Covenant Law (as above)
……………Testing: He is challenged by a false Law

This is where the rubber meets the road. It is the Starry Night of Day 4, the saints in the wilderness. Will we be rulers, or will we be ruled? Will we be filled with the law as burning bushes (Lampstands) like Daniel and his friends, or will we be incinerated like the sons of Aaron?

The test is that the world suddenly doesn’t seem to correspond to what God said. We can only see so far, and Satan and those who follow him maintain that what is beyond our sight is not what God said (which is also why evolution is not science but philosophy). How many Christians feel that God has abandoned them, or betrayed them, or failed to reward them for their faithfulness so far? The challenge is to understand that God is qualifying you for more responsibility, more servant-kingship, and of course, more glory.

God’s Word often seems to contradict reality. Imagine being instructed to build a very large boat on dry land, and to put up with the jeers and taunts of the scientists and philosophers of the day. Imagine being instructed to tell the rulers of Judah to submit to the king of Babylon. Imagine being a Pharisee instructed to eat with Gentiles, and form new Jew-Gentile synagogues across the empire. Imagine being instructed to tell the King of the Jews that it is, in fact, You Who are the true King of the Jews. Both Jesus and Paul were thought to be mad. Do you know that feeling? [4]

Of course, vindication came, in torrents, in every one of these situations. The Book of Hebrews is a plea to Christian Jews to hold out, to persevere with this “new Covenant,” despite the fact that the Herods were still building monuments of white stone and gold all over the Land (including the Temple) and Christians were being persecuted and slaughtered across the empire. The words of Jesus certainly didn’t correspond with reality, did they? But the elect, as Daniel predicted, shined like stars. They believed the Word spoken, saw the fulfilment of the promises by faith, although they were far off and not yet seen. Faith is not blind. It is long-sighted.

Faith is also attractive, especially when it rides against the zeitgeist. It is very striking for people today to come across Christians who not only know what they believe, but are also not idiots. I teach the Bible to high school students, and the testimony of someone who believes it from cover to cover stays with them forever. I know, because the Bible was taught to me by people just like that. Brave testimony, under distress, is the heart of the New Covenant.

……….Maturity: He repeats the Law, warns the Bride,
……….and there is great plunder

After obedience at Testing, there are always plagues and plunder. That’s what we see in Exodus. That’s what we see in the ministry of the Apostles and the Reformers and the great missionaries (and not-so-great).

How about you? Are you willing to submit to God for the sake of the plunder? For the New Covenant missionary, the plunder is people, even if he doesn’t live to see the result (like Jim Elliot). I read about a missionary who spent seven long years evangelising some remote tribes and died without seeing a single convert. But those who followed after him reaped the harvest. Unlike discipling your own children, teaching the Bible to other people’s kids seems fruitless at times, because the seed takes a while to germinate. We have faith that it will sprout and that God will give the increase. Many Australians trace their conversion back to Sunday School or SRE (Bible teaching in public schools).

Faith is like time travel. In the midst of suffering, abandonment or persecution, we travel back in time to remember God’s faithfulness in the past, in our life, in the biographies of saints, and in the Bible. And we jump ahead in our head and hearts to the Conquest and Glorification that God has promised for the elect. The Psalmists did this (in both directions), and so did Christ and the Apostles. God is consistently faithful, regardless of how things might feel right now. How can we be trained to judge if there is no tension, no true and false witnesses presenting evidence? The question is, will you turn to other, short-term gods to ease the pain? [5] Or will you persevere and produce the abundant fruitfulness possible only through this process of pruning? Jesus said that if we judge ourselves, we will not be judged.

He shall see the labour of His soul, and be satisfied. Isaiah 53:11

Van Gogh sold only one painting, and died by suicide in poverty. William Cowper had the loving ministry of John Newton, and His God, watching over him. Imagine if Van Gogh and Cowper could see how their labours, the fruits of lives spent suffering in the dark, have been a blessing for hundreds of years to millions of people.

Faith, the substance of things not seen, is like time travel. By your obedience to the Word, and your fearless witness, you are a memorial to something that hasn’t even happened yet, and something that happened long ago. Like Noah, like Jesus, you are the incarnation of the past and a window on the future. Faith is the domain of the prophet, and in the New Covenant, all God’s people are prophets who know the end from the beginning.

So stick with it. Stand. Perseverance is just about everything. And vindication will come.
________________________________
[1] Quoted in Robert Hughes, Nothing If Not Critical.
[2] Listen to or read the transcript of Piper’s wonderful biographical sermon here. See also Seeing In The Dark.
[3] See A Lamentable Life.
[4] See Mercury Rising.
[5] See What Comes Out.