Focus on the Family?

Commenting on Nehemiah's reforms, J. I. Packer :

Thoughtful pastoral leaders, like Nehemiah, always focus on families and family life, for the family is the first and most basic form of human community. Family nurture, for better or for worse, goes deeper into children than any form of nurture from elsewhere, and the biblical ideal is that families should be the composite units out of which each church is built. Godliness is to be modeled in the family, and faith passed on there. Everywhere in today's Western world, and to some extent in urban communities everywhere on the face of the globe, family life is being weakened and undermined by pressure of various sorts, and this is likely to get worse. So the need to work as Nehemiah worked to keep family life strong, godly, and wholesome is great, and all who strategize and minister to spread God's kingdom today and tomorrow must make families and home life a matter of prime concern.

—J. I. Packer, A Passion for Faithfulness: Wisdom from the Book of Nehemiah (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1995), 194.

Grace Felicity Wencel

"We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15:11). This was the testimony of the apostles at the Church's first council in Jerusalem around 49 A.D. And it is our testimony, the Wencel's witness, along with countless millions. From first to last, we live our lives, and we receive our salvation from sin and God's wrath, as a free gift. It is all of grace! Ephesians 2 puts it like this: it "is not our own doing; it is the gift of God, not of works, in order that no one should boast" (vv. 8–9). That is, except in the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14).

And as partakers of the covenant of grace bought by Jesus' freely shed blood, we are constantly conscious that all we enjoy in this life comes to us from the gratuitous goodness of our triune God, who is the "God of all grace" (1 Pet. 5:10). And this includes not least of all the children God has given us, as we have asked him for these gifts for his glory.

And so on October 24, 2015, at 3:30 in the afternoon, in Joliet, IL, at Presence Saint Joseph Medical Center, the hospital where I work, God brought forth from Emily's womb our fourth child, a gorgeous girl, whom we have named Grace Felicity Wencel. Grace is from the Greek New Testament "charis," which refers to God’s free favor. Felicity derives from the Latin "felicitas," and means "happiness."

Now Grace Felicity is named "Grace" for two main reasons. First, as noted, we live our lives, and have our all, through the free grace of God in Christ. But, second, we have also named her Grace because she is a special gift to us after losing to death's clutches our second and third children (named Anastasis and Elisha, respectively).

Consequently, we know full well that Grace's being conceived and sustained and brought forth into this world, healthy and whole, are not a given. We do live, after all, we're reminded daily, in a broken and fallen world. We know therefore that possession of life for Grace comes to us through the sheer goodness and good pleasure of God, a God who is sovereign over all, a God who is Lord of the womb and Lord of the tomb. And last, though by no means least, we know that salvation from her sins and from God's just judgement—a salvation freely held out to her in Jesus' death and resurrection according to God's everlasting covenant—this salvation, from first to last, from top to bottom, from head to toe, from cradle to grave, from womb to tomb, from first breath to first death, from dust to glory, is all of it of the sheer graciousness of God.

And so standing in grace (Rom. 5:2), we receive from God's good hands, the hands of a loving heavenly Father, our beautiful tiny gift, specially crafted by a Master Maker—Grace Felicity Wencel. And now it's clear why we've named her “Grace.” She's a gift to us from God, and she's dependent on God's good Gift, even as we are. And perhaps, then, you've also perceived why it is that we've given her the middle name "Felicity." As already said, Felicity means "happiness." O the happiness! In our minds this middle name indicates the happiness that overtakes one touched by God's free favor reaching down when the sinner is not reaching up, and it points to the portion of one who is the object of God's free selective favor—divine grace!—a favor freely bestowed before the foundation of the world in Christ. O the happiness! And it also speaks to the happiness God has given us as Grace's parents, in the gift of her life, a life to be offered back up to him in our joy and for his glory.

Now, Grace Felicity Wencel, we shall address you directly. This comes from the hearts and faith of your parents. We would have you know the following, our heart’s desire, and also our prayer to God:

Our precious Grace Felicity Wencel, you are indeed a gift from God to your parents. And we are so thankful for you. In fact, we are doubly thankful, thankful for your physical life, but thankful even more for God’s gracious promise to you of eternal life in Jesus Christ your Lord. We pray that you will never doubt, not for a moment, not for the blink of an eye, the favor of our heavenly Father toward you in his Son. We pray that you will never doubt that God holds out to you freely the justification that is "by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).

Grace Felicity, you have been born into a covenant home, your parents are recipients of God's free favor, and so grace is already pouring forth from heaven over your life. You are "holy," according to God's Word (1 Cor. 7:14). All you need do is receive it, receive grace, that is, by receiving Christ. Receive him just like you are now receiving all you need from your parents, without a hint of deadly doing, without trying to earn what comes freely to you, coming through those (your parents) who possess far less resourcefulness than your heavenly Father possesses.

And, remember, Grace, even your receiving the grace of God through faith is a gift of God. Faith itself is a gift. It's not something you can work up on your own (Eph. 2:8–9; Phil. 1:29). God has designed it this way, so that you'll never be able to brag about being saved through your own good sense, your own biological pedigree, or your own autonomous willing. No, you are entirely dependent on God’s Gift. Dependent on God's grace!

And you need to know—because your parents' lives know it full well—that grace is sovereign. It is God's doing. Just as you didn't choose your parents, so also your salvation from sin does not come by your own choosing. It comes because God's grace pursues you, it goes after you, it lays hold on you, it will follow you all of your days (Ps. 23:6; ask your daddy about the translation of the Hebrew here). Knowing God as your parents do, and how he has reached down and grabbed hold of us when we weren't reaching up after him, it is our prayer (and expectation!) that God's grace will grab a hold of you and be your portion forever.

And you need to know, our dear daughter, that this is what we've prayed for from the moment that God formed you in the womb. For all we know (and it wouldn't surprise us in the least), God's grace has already transformed you and given you new life. John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb at the voice of the mother of the Christ (Lk. 1:41). And in Psalm 22 David said this, speaking to God: "You are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God" (vv. 9–10).

So we, your mother and I, pray earnestly that you will never try to earn God's acceptance. If you ever dare do that, you will "nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21). We pray that you will regularly recall that by the grace of God you are who you are (1 Cor. 15:10). We also pray that you will know deeply in your own life that grace is not just pardon but also power, so that grace toward you will not prove vain, but be seen in your bodily labors, in your good deeds (1 Cor. 15:10). And so may you never receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. 6:1).

Soon you will be baptized. We, your parents, will do this in obedience to the Lord Jesus who commanded us to make disciples, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey all that [he] commanded" (Matt. 28:19–20). And we shall regularly remind you of the meaning of your baptism. You have been baptized into Christ and into his death (Rom. 6:3). You have been clothed with Christ (Gal. 3:27). And, having been baptized, you belong to Jesus, since you have died with Christ. And since he rose from the dead, you are to walk in the newness of his life (Rom. 6:4).

And now—Grace Felicity Wencel—we "commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" by faith (Acts 20:32; cf. 26:18).

Our Cultural-Linguistic Location in Christ

"Each of us is conditioned in our hearing and reading of God's Word by our cultural-linguistic location. Nevertheless, the most decisive cultural-linguistic location for the covenant people is 'in Christ,' under the normative authority of his Word" (Horton, The Christian Faith, 201).

The New Way of Fasting in the New Covenant Era

Have you ever read Mark 2:18–22 and scratched your head wondering what on earth Jesus is talking about? I have. Repeatedly. What do his illustrations illustrate? What's with these garments and wineskins? Why does Jesus give us these illustrations when he speaks of fasting? And what do they mean? How do they apply?

Some scholars, sensing a disconnect, suggest that verses 21–22 didn't originally belong with verses 18–20, or that perhaps they ought to be taken as an independent bit of instruction. But such suggestions undoubtedly miss Jesus' point, miss the connection, misunderstanding biblical theology, the gospel of the kingdom, and the nature and relation of the covenants. And so we need not posit the kinds of things scholars are apt to posit when they cannot see how a passage hangs together.

Furthermore, some scholars, who grant a connection, think the old is Judaism, and the new is Christianity. Though there is undoubtedly some truth to this, inasmuch as Judaism was a way of practicing the old in the first century when Jesus gave this instruction, yet it focuses too narrowly on one slice of what Jesus is addressing. John and his disciples are also part of the old (v. 18), however we understand the old. And John and his disciples, we have no reason to doubt, practiced, more or less, old covenant spirituality, and did so in a way that was no doubt God-glorifying. So they point to some practices that align more nearly with faithful old covenant spirituality. But Jesus, to whom John points, goes beyond old covenant spirituality, and supersedes it. And thus viewing the old as narrowly referring to the Judaism of the first century doesn't quite seem to get at the contrast between the new that Jesus' brings over against the old that's gone before.

So here's how I think it works. The illustrations of verses 21 and 22 seem clear enough. The new cannot be put on the old; the new does not fit into the old. The new rips the old; the new bursts the old. The new in some sense is distinct from the old. That's plain. Isn't it? But what's not as plain is how these illustrations illuminate how we're to practice fasting—and, particularly, fasting in the new covenant era.

So, how shall we understand these illustrations with respect to fasting in the new covenant era? Well, I think I've finally understood Jesus, after years of head scratching, and here's my attempt to answer the question. Think it over, and you judge for yourself whether or not you think I've got it right.

You cannot fast the way the saints fasted in the old covenant era. That fasting did not focus on the Bridegroom the way fasting in the new covenant era does. "The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day" (v. 20, italics mine). Is this simply saying that disciples will resume fasting again? No, no. That misses the new element. Fasting in the era of the new covenant purchased with Jesus' blood is Christ-centered. It's oriented on the gospel of the kingdom, a kingdom that dawned in the coming of the incarnate King, a kingdom that comes in all its fullness in his coming again in glory with the holy angels.

So fasting after Christ's first coming longs for Jesus' return. It yearns for the King to bring the kingdom in all its glorious fulness (Matt. 6:10). It strives for God's will to be done on earth as it is being done in heaven (Matt. 6:10). It wants—more than it wants anything—for God's name in Christ to be hallowed and adored and praised and blessed and esteemed above all else (Matt. 6:9). And it pants after the river of God's pleasures that passes through the new Jerusalem (Rev. 22:1–2; Ps. 36:8–9), that is, for God's Spirit poured out in fullness in a new heavens and new earth.

Fasting in the old covenant era did not look like this. And so the new way of fasting, if it does not go beyond the garments and containers of the old, rips and bursts the old. The old is old: it cannot wear the new, cannot contain the new. The new is new: it needs new garments, needs new wineskins. The glory of gospel garments far exceeds the glory of the old garb. The glory of gospel fine wine far exceeds the glory of the old wine. The old had glory; but the new far greater glory. And so it must go on in a new way, a new and living way, centering on Jesus, focusing on the his coming kingdom, longing for the fullness of his fellowship. Having been given the engagement ring in the gift of the Spirit, the new way of fasting longs for that Wedding of all weddings.

We might even be able to extrapolate and make applications more broadly to spiritual disciplines generally: the spiritual disciplines of the old covenant era cannot wear or carry the spiritual disciplines of the new. Christ's coming changes everything. The old had its place in God's plan. And it still does, as it continues to point forward to the realities of the new, as it continues to provide the categories for embracing the King and his new covenant kingdom. But now, with the cataclysmic coming of the new age into and driving out the old, the new age and her crowned King must be the center of all our devotion.

"Then they will fast in that day" (Mark 2:20). Now is "that day." Now is the day of salvation. Now is on the edge of eternity. So come, Lord Jesus. Come! For you we wait. For you alone we long. For your glory we pray. Sweep us off our feet, and take us over the threshold of the new Jerusalem into the everlasting kingdom of God. Forever, and ever. Allelujah! Maranatha!

What Is Being in a Covenant of Exclusive Love with God Like?

"The covenant is like a marriage: the blessing is communion, but the condition is faithfulness" (Vanhoozer, Faith Speaking Understanding, 104).

What Is a Covenant?

A covenant is a "relationship involving an oath-bound commitment" (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 132).

What Is a Covenant?

"A covenant, in its normal sense, is an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath" (Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 11).

The Israel of God

There has always been an Israel within Israel. That is to say, a true Israel within an Israel in name only. So argues the apostle Paul, for example, in Rom. 9:6, and elsewhere (e.g., Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3; see esp. the Greek of these texts, and note the various versions, esp. Gal. 6:16, NIV).

But this is clear from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. Paul himself points this out in Rom. 9:6ff. Another text that makes this clear, it seems to me, is Ps. 73:1, though I don't believe this is often pointed out.

There we read:

          "Truly God is good to Israel,
          to those who are pure in heart."

I put the text like this so you can see the parallelism of the two lines in this verse. "Israel" is parallel to "those who are pure in heart." And so "those who are pure in heart" defines who Israel is, who the true Israelites are. Those Israelites with impure hearts are not Israel. At least in one vital sense.

So unless you're going to try to argue that all of ethnic Israel was pure in heart at the time the psalmist composed this poem (which seems to strain credulity, given Israel's checkered history), we have a plain statement in Psalm 73 that "they are not all Israel who are from Israel" (Rom. 9:6, NASB).

The Covenant of Grace as Theological Construct

There are some today who desire to purge the church of any notion of a covenant of grace (for a traditional description of this covenant, see, for example, WCF, Chapter 7). For, these biblicists say, no such covenant is mentioned explicitly in Scripture. And this is true. The words "covenant of grace" are not found in the Bible. That's correct. And even covenant theologians who affirm a covenant of grace agree about the lack of this language in Scripture.

And yet, if the concept is there in Scripture—that is, if conceptually, if as a theological construct, the notion or reality exists—I can't see why we ought to quibble much over the matter. And in the same vein, I also can't see why any would want to criticize those who prefer not to use the language of "covenant of grace" if the reality or concept is affirmed.

For my part, I have no problem with speaking of a covenant of grace. In effect, it is God's pledge in grace for an everlasting relationship with his people joined to Jesus that is manifested in all his gracious covenants. In other words, the covenant of grace holds together and sums up all God's gracious dealings with man via covenants. 

Sucking in Godliness at the Breast

Commenting on 2 Tim. 1:5 and the inducements Paul puts before Timothy to urge him to press on in the faith, Calvin says this of Timothy's grandmother Lois and mother Eunice:

"By [them] he was reared in his infancy in such a way that he could suck in godliness along with his mother's milk."

—John Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (eds., Torrance, David W., and Torrance, Thomas F; trans. Smail, T. A.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 292.

One Main Difference of These Two Covenants

John Owen on an important distinction between the old and new covenants:

This then is one main difference of these two covenants—that the Lord did in the old only require the condition; now, in the new, he will also effect it in all the federates, to whom this covenant is extended.

—John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in the Works of John Owen, ed. W. H. Gould, 16 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 10:237.

Heidelberg on Baptism

Question 73: Why doth the Holy Ghost call baptism the washing of regeneration and the washing away of sins?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause: namely, not only to teach us thereby that like as the filthiness of the body is taken away by water, so our sins also are taken away by the blood and Spirit of Christ; but much more, that by this divine pledge and token he may assure us that we are as really washed from our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water.

Question 74: Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes; for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament baptism is appointed.

—Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom (vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 330–331.

The Broken Sinai Covenant and Pleading the Promise

More on Sinai:

This [covenant at Sinai and its priestly purpose] is an ideal picture. One serious problem remains. It is not Pharaoh this time but Israel itself. Separating the planning and description of the sanctuary (Exod. 25-31) from its construction in the middle of the camp (Exod. 35-40) is Israel’s sin (Exod. 32-34). . . . Within forty days, Israel breaks its covenant with God, violating the first and second commands. Impatient with waiting for Moses on the mountain, Israel creates an image of a golden calf to represent its God, and engages in false worship. The sin forces God to threaten to destroy Israel in agreement with the covenant and to start again with Moses. But Moses pleads (certainly not on the basis of the recently broken Sinai covenant) on the basis of the descendants promised in the covenant with Abraham as grounds for saving Israel (Exod. 32:13). It is only this reason that decisively moves God to have mercy on Israel.

—Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 104. Italics his. 

Slowing Down at Sinai

Dempster on the significance of Sinai:

After the exodus narrative the Israelites move to Mount Sinai. Mount Sinai stands in the way of Canaan, the land of their inheritance, but it is certainly no diversion, nor is it incidental. The centrality of this mountain is shown by a number of narrative signals. First and most obvious is the virtual suspension of narrative pace. Israel stays at Sinai for eleven months in real time (Exod. 19:1—Num. 10:11) and fifty-seven chapters in narrative time. This is important given the fact that sixty-eight chapters precede Sinai and fifty-nine chapters follow it. Sinai is central to the Torah.

—Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 100.

Torah In Deuteronomy

Old Testament scholar William Dumbrell on the term torah ("law") in Deuteronomy:

The concept of torah is critical for Deuteronomy. Usually the term is understood as "teaching, instruction," but its meaning in Deuteronomy is stronger. Torah is covenantal law, the divinely authorized social order of Israel that attests its election. Deuteronomy is entirely about this law and the blessings that obedience to the law will bring.

 —The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 66.

If You Will Keep My Covenant

The way covenants function in the Scriptures is what I consider a problem area for interpretation and theologizing. I suppose it may have something to do with the noncovenantal thinking of the evangelicalism in which I've been reared. But I think it also has to do with the way the whole Bible hangs together, which is a very complex matter.

Exodus 19:5 is an example of this. Which covenant is in view? Here's what William Dumbrell says, which seems right-minded to me: 

The covenant in mind may be prospective and have Exodus 20 in view. In the OT, however, references to keeping a divine covenant are consistently to a covenant already in existence (Gen. 17:9-10; 1 Kgs. 11:11; Ps. 78:10; 103:18; 132:12; Ezek. 17:14). It is possible that Exodus 19:5 points back to 6:5 and 3:13-15 and that continuity with the patriarchal covenant is involved, especially in light of the patriarchal style of address with which Yahweh begins verse 3. Involved in the Sinai arrangement that follows is continuity within the Abrahamic covenant but, for Israel, a specialized responsibility within the covenant. 

 —The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 37.

The Covenant of Grace

What is the covenant of grace? It's not the language Scripture uses, but I do believe that, as a theological construct, it embraces the biblical data within and a common thread through God's gracious covenants.

Here's one of John Owen's brief descriptions of it: "This declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glory, is most usually called the covenant of grace" (vol. 5, Works, 192).

Here's how the Westminster Confession of Faith describes it: "This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequethed" (Ch. VII, Sect. IV).

Calvinism Everywhere, Part 10

In 2 Samuel, David rises to the throne. And he "became greater and greater." Why? Or how? "For YHWH, the God of hosts, was with him" (2 Sam. 5:10). Sounds like the favor shown to Joseph, who rose and succeeded, "because YHWH was with him" (e.g., Gen. 39:21, 23). And David knew that God had effected his rise to power (2 Sam. 5:12). David did not bring this to pass. Read 1 Sam. 16ff. David did not seek the throne, not even after he was anointed by Samuel. Even then he waited on YHWH to bring to pass his rise to power, although he could have taken Saul's life countless times. But God did it. God brought it to pass. And David knew it.

Then YHWH told David, "I will certainly give the Philistines into your hand" (2 Sam.5:19). And so he did (2 Sam. 5:20, 24, 25; 8:1). In fact, "YHWH gave victory to David wherever he went" (2 Sam. 8:6, 14). We've seen this before, haven't we? God hands peoples over. God grants military victory. God reigns supreme, in salvation and in judgment.

Now turn two chapters later in the narrative. There we listen in to the great promises of the Davidic covenant. And the striking element, almost impossible not to notice—God initiates and resolves to bring to pass his good pleasure! Although David had not sought kingship, he now seeks to do something for YHWH, namely, build him a house (2 Sam. 7:2-3). But the word of YHWH won't have it (2 Sam. 7:4-5). He then declares through Nathan the prophet what he will do for David, namely, build him a house. See 2 Sam. 7:8-14. How many times does YHWH say that he will do this or that? Read it. It's striking. He is the Lord. And he reigns over all. His purposes will come to pass. None shall say to him, "What are you doing?" and thwart his plans. Nor shall any make plans and succeed, unless the Lord grants success. For the sovereign LORD is great, and there is none like him, no God besides him. And David knew it (2 Sam. 7:22). David knew that this was the God who drove out a nation and its gods before his people, whom he redeemed from Egypt (2 Sam. 7:23).

Two Covenants in Deuteronomy?

Two texts in Deuteronomy have given me pause over the years, even puzzled me. They are Deut. 5:2-3 and 29:1. And the pause and puzzlement surround this question: Are two covenants to be understood, or one? Often it is stated that what we see here is covenant renewal. So the covenant "besides the covenant . . . made with [Israel] at Horeb" (29:1) is not a different covenant, but the same, only refreshed, as it were. This may be true, but I'm not sure yet. I'm not convinced. The language sounds stronger than that of renewal. And, look closely, the text does not call the covenant made with the present generation a renewed covenant. It almost sounds like old versus new covenant language.

So what's going on here? I'm not sure yet, but I raise this question. And wait for light from above. It seems that there are already—here in Deuteronomy—intimations of the inadequacy and impermanence of the old covenant and the expectation of a new. This should not surprise anyone either. For, after all, the law-covenant does not nullify the covenant promise to Abraham. Paul points this up in Galations 3 as immensely important. But, as I said, I wait for more light. And I acknowledge that the standard view may well be right.

The Covenant of Redemption

Many theologians have spoken of a covenant of redemption.  I have often wondered, while very sympathetic to the doctrine, if there is much exegetical basis for it, not just conceptual.  While meditating recently on Tit. 1:2, I was struck by how clearly the doctrine is articulated, if not the term itself. 

Continuing the salutation, Tit. 1:2 says this: "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began (pro chronon aionion)."  A literalistic, wooden, and nonidiomatic rendering could be something like "before times eternal" or "before times of ages").  Now if this promise was made before the ages (i.e., before creation and time as we know it), to whom was the promise made?  Presumably it was not made to creation, for it did not yet exist.  So then to whom was it made?  Well, to the Son, of course. 

God promised the Son concerning eternal life.  He made a covenant with the Son to redeem fallen humanity, dead in sin, to restore them, and to bestow on them eternal life in the Son.  This is the covenant of redemption, planned and promised in eternity, sealed in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity, sealed by the blood of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  God decreed these things "before the ages for our glory" (1 Cor. 2:7).  And it is indeed marvelous in our eyes!