The Sufferings of the Scapegoat

Leviticus 16:22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.

As the scapegoat was released into the wilderness to suffer and die, we can think of Jesus Christ being sent outside of the camp to suffer and die on behalf of his elect.


Follow the scapegoat, and see its doom. Is there not here a criminal led along? There is something that speaks of the Man of Sorrows, made sin for us. Is there not here a criminal led away to an unknown woe? There is something that speaks of one “made a curse for us”. Why is he left alone, defenseless, trembling, amid a wilderness? There is here enough to remind us of Jesus left to suffer without sympathy… The scapegoat’s solitary cry is re-echoed by the barren rocks, and the howling of beasts of prey terrifies it on all sides; the gloom of night settles down upon it and shrouds it in deeper terror. Perhaps too, it was not uncommon for Jehovah himself to direct His lightning’s stroke toward the victim, and to cause it to perish amid the tempest’s roar. Wounded by beasts of prey, from whom it has scarcely escaped, it is now stretched on the ground by a stroke from that thunder-cloud, its eye glaring with convulsive fear, and its piteous cries echoing through the dismal wilderness. Perhaps it was generally thus that the sin-bearing scapegoat died. ‘Lover and friend hast thou put far from me, and mine acquaintance into darkness’… That victim’s sufferings are my sufferings.

Theodore Beza, Meet David Engelsma

The Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary recently received the private library of Dr. Theodore Letis. In the personal library was a very rare copy of Theodore Beza's New Testament in Greek and Latin. Apparently Dr. Letis (I have never heard of him, have you?) was a New Testament scholar who wrote to defend the Textus Receptus (the Greek text behind the Authorized Version and the New King James Version).

This is a very special addition to any library. The Prots should be happy with this rare volume. The article is here and begins on PDF page number 95. It is worth reading because it gives a short personal narrative of David Englesma's time in seminary in the basement of 1st Prot Church. The article also shows that they are not interested in too much reading beyond their tradition (Englesma says that there were a number of books about evangelical feminism and they are going in the dumpster! Those would be useful for reference in a paper, at least... you would think!)

Congratulations to the Protestant Reformed Seminary on their recent addition to their library.

Who Then Can Be Saved?

Jesus told his disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. The disciples cried out, "who then can be saved?" The response is no one! No man can work to earn his salvation. But the sweet blood of Jesus Christ is more efficacious than all the work that a man can do. Thomas Watson, in his Treatise on the Holy Eucharist, comments:

If we had offered up millions of holocausts and sacrifices, if we had wept rivers of tears, this could never have appeased an angry Deity. Only Christ's blood ingratiates us into God's favor and makes Him look upon us with a smiling aspect. When Christ died, the veil of the temple was rent. This was not without a mystery, to show that through Christ's blood the veil of our sins is rent which interposed between God and us.

Descendit ad Inferna?

In a discussion on the article of faith, "He descended into hell" you will find much confusion. The ancients intended this phrase to mean just what it says- Jesus descended into hell after his burial. Most views say that he preached or proclaimed his triumph over sin and death before demons and/or the damned.

Reformed Christians historically deny this interpretation. We have reinterpreted this phrase in our ancient creed to mean that he either entered the place of the dead or he suffered the pains of hell on the cross. My personal belief (which does not find much support in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition) is that we strike this phrase from our Creed or we place a giant footnote at the bottom of every printing and state that we disagree with the original meaning of the authors of the text.

As far as I see there are three camps in the Reformed tradition here:
1. Those who are revisionists and reinterpret the creed.
2. Those that do not think that it is that important to change or redefine.
3. Those who want to strike the phrase out of our ancient creed.

Of course, all three have consequences. What should be done though? Does a revisionistic interpretation open the door to liberal interpretations of the Scriptures? Does striking the line show disrespect to our ancient heritage?

Three quotes were given in the discussion that shows the confusion that this phrase has made in the evangelical world. These quotes left me astonished that some have gone so far as to redefine Christ's atoning sacrifice to fit into a creedal system. I see these as the bad fruit of not dealing with this early on in the Protestant Reformation (I understand that the Reformers would not have been able to maintain their claim on catholicity if they began disassembling the creeds of the historic Church):

When Jesus cried, ‘It is finished!’ He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. There were still three days and nights to go through before He went to the throne...Jesus’ death on the cross was only the beginning of the complete work of redemption. -Kenneth Copeland

Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross? If that were the case, the two thieves could have paid your price. No, the punishment was to go into hell itself and to serve time in hell separated from God...Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him bound and they threw a net over Jesus and they dragged Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence. -Fredrick Price

He [Jesus] tasted spiritual death for every man. And His spirit and inner man went to hell in my place. Can’t you see that? Physical death wouldn’t remove your sins. He’s tasted death for every man. He’s talking about tasting spiritual death. -Kenneth Hagen

Dear Ephesus

I have begun a Bible study on the seven churches of Asia Minor found in the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation. There are so many practical applications for the Church today found in those two little chapters.

Wednesday we began with the letter to Ephesus. Ephesus was the 'mother kirk' of the other churches in that region, pastored by Timothy with apostolic oversight from John. The session of this congregation was known to have precision doctrinally and could spot heresy from a distance. At the time of the writing to the churches, this congregation had lost much of the zeal that 'first generation' Christians bring to a congregation. The love for Christ had grown cold. Jesus tells them that they are to do these first works again and to repent.

“The lush green color of springtime in the congregation has disappeared, and the fading shades… of Autumn are now prevalent. To put it differently, the church that Jesus addressed no longer consisted of first generation believers but of second and third generation Christians. These people lacked the enthusiasm their parents and grandparents had demonstrated. They functioned not as propagators of the faith but as caretakers and custodians. There was an obvious deficiency in evangelistic outreach as a result of a status quo mode of thought. They loved the Lord, but no longer with heart, mind, and soul.” -Simon Kistemaker

Jesus gives them a great promise though. If they overcome, they will be granted to eat from the Tree of Life. To a city that was full of false worship that was symbolized by the fig-tree, this promise would stand out as such comfort to those that longed to magnify the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Jesus’ last words… is not a threat but a promise: the victor will eat from the tree of life in the paradise of God. In this first letter the painful memory of paradise lost is transformed into hope, as the promise points ahead to the tree of life in the New Jerusalem… The great temple of Artemis at Ephesus was built on the site of an ancient tree-shrine, and the image of the date palm symbolized the goddess and her city, Ephesus. But Jesus excels Artemis, for he promises to those who overcome, through truth expressed in love, access to a tree that yields endless delight and eternal life. –Dennis Johnson.

May we not lose our first love, do those first works of love and worship towards Christ and neighbors, thus also being partakers of that eternal fruit from that Ancient Tree.

Technical Difficulties

I will not be posting until my laptop has been fixed. It is the only approved instrument for blog post making. Pray for her, she is a good machine.

Whatsoever we have over-loved, idolized, and leaned upon, God has from time to time broken it, and made us to see the vanity of it; so that we find the readiest course to be rid our comforts is to set our hearts inordinately or immoderately upon them.
—John Flavel

In the meantime, I will, continue the Memoirs of Thomas Boston. I will also finish a sermon that I have been working on. I will have to break out the Greek lexicons, since I rely on Bible Works 7 for my lexicons. Time to sharpen some pencils.

Cultural Relevance or Biblical Mandate?

In the evangelical world you do not often see articles or discussions about women covering their heads in worship. Last week Andree' Seu, of World Magazine, wrote the article: Symbol of Glory as a a defense of why she has been covering her head in worship.

I know that it is a controversial issue and that there are God honoring people on both sides of the argument; but it is nice to see that people are at least thinking about the implications of I Corinthians 11. 2-16.

I would like to see more discussion on the issue done in a God-honoring way. I am afraid that in some, it has become a symbol of control over a woman rather than of her glory. Either way, Seu has a balanced argument for the usage of head coverings.

Thinking Out Loud: The Bible in 'Common' Language

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, says that the Word of God is to be translated into the 'vulgar language of every nation into which they come'. This causes some difficulty for us that are outside of the camp in regards to textual criticism.

There are two major textual traditions within the church. Some hold to what is called 'the critical text' and others hold to 'the majority text' or the 'received text'. Those of us who hold to the latter have only a few choices to choose from in Bible translations. There is the Geneva Bible of 1599 which was just republished, there is the Authorized Version (King James), and there is the New King James version (as well as a couple of other small and obscure translations).

Those in the critical textual tradition have a huge variety to choose from. There are very poor translations such as the NIV and New Living Translation; but there are some very good and accurate ones as well. The New American Standard is good as well as the English Standard Version. These are both very accurate 'word for word' translations.

Some have said that the textual variations only make up for about 20% of the problems that translations run into. Some are big problems though, such as the ending of the Lord's Prayer being taken out- even though in Confessional churches we swear to that ending in our Confessions.

My congregation uses the Authorized Version which is a very good and accurate translation, but I fear that we do not heed the words of our forefathers who said that the Bible needs to be in the vulgar, or common language. People (I have not heard this from members of my congregation) often say that we need to retain the thees and thous and that people should have to learn how to understand these archaic words. I do not think that this is the correct attitude. The church's job is to provide an accurate and understandable version of the Bible that can be read and studied in homes and churches. I do not think that those with only a high school education should miss out on what the Word actually says because the ministry wants to hold onto language that is not common to today's people.

I mean no disrespect to those who use the AV, I am one of those people. But I do think that being 393 years removed from a version is a problem (especially when it is a translation that was authorized by a man who hated the Reformed faith and was trying to push an Anglo-catholic agenda).

I do not know what the answer is. I have a few ideas and suggestions that could be implemented though:

• Read the AV, but replace the archaic words with a more common word. This would mean that when you see, "I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt" it would be read, "I am the Lord your God which brought you out of the land of Egypt". This would allow for the nuances of the word you in Greek and Hebrew to be kept, as well as break the awkwardness of the reading. (This would be quite difficult at first, but it is possible. This is what I do during family worship quite often.)
• Use the ESV or the NASB, but double check for any variations in the original language. This would cause some difficulty in public worship, but it could be overcome with a good teacher.It also would be difficult at home, causing some to stumble over the reliability of the Word of God.
  
• Call a summit of like-minded denominations who hold to the majority-received text for the writing of a new translation. I know that at our seminary, Dr. Bilkes and Dr. Murray both have a command of the original language to undergo such a task. The problem here is that people often hold traditional 'church' language in a high place and do not want to leave the Authorized Version behind. (Remember that 'church' language in prayer and text is not something that is in the original languages but has become a custom that many require of people in prayer. Since it is custom and extra-biblical, it is not something that we are permitted to bind men's consciences to.)
  

Those are some of my thoughts on the issue. Today I bought my first ESV and plan on using it along side of my AV and my Greek and Hebrew texts. I feel a bit guilty over the whole thing, because of my love for the AV. What are some of your thoughts on the issue?

Mother Kirk and Her Translations

I have not read the book- but here are some quotes that were sent to me from a fellow seminarian during a discussion on translation and textual traditions. If the quotes are reflective of the quality of the book, then it is quite worthy as a read.

'Now when the Reformers first rejected the abuses of the Roman Catholic church, they did so on the basis of Sola Scriptura - the Roman Catholic church responded by collecting all the variant textual readings and then holding them up in front of the Reformers and asked, which one is scripture alone? you need the Roman Catholic church and the Pope to tell you.'

'The Reformers responded, not as scientists, examining every textual manuscript (which they couldn't anyway, because the Vatican had most of them), but as confessing Christians, and said that the Sola Scriptura was contained in the manuscript family which contained the overwhelming number of manuscripts = the Received Text. (80% of all manuscripts).'

'The Reformers looked at the variant texts and saw what man can do (that is, thousands of scribal errors). Then they looked to the Received Text (or Textus Receptus; not the same as the Majority Text), and saw what God does (that is, He uphold His Word accurately).'

'All the protestant bible tanslations up to the KJV used the Received Text, until the NIV introduced textual criticism. Now most Bibles include the variant texts, because they're thought to be older and better. This is leaving the thoughts of the Reformers.'

What We Believe Concerning the Old and New Testaments

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church;[3] and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:[4] which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]
1. Rom. 1:19-20; 1:32-2:1; 2:14-15; Psa. 19:1-4
2. John 17:3; I Cor. 1:21; 2:13-143. Heb. 1:1-24. Luke 1:3-4; Rom. 15:4; Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Isa. 8:205. II Tim. 3:15; II Peter 1:196. John 20:31; I Cor. 10:11; 14:37; I John 5:13; Heb. 1:1-2; 2:2-4

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:

Of the Old Testament:
Genesis I Kings Ecclesiastes ObadiahExodus II Kings The Song of Songs JonahLeviticus I Chronicles Isaiah MicahNumbers II Chronicles Jeremiah NahumDeuteronomy Ezra Lamentations HabakkukJoshua Nehemiah Ezekiel ZephaniahJudges Esther Daniel HaggaiRuth Job Hosea ZechariahI Samuel Psalms Joel MalachiII Samuel Proverbs Amos Of the New Testament:
The Gospels Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians II The first and according to the Romans Timothy I second Epistles Matthew the Corinthians I Timothy II of Peter Mark the Corinthians II Titus The first, second Luke the Galatians Philemon and third Epistles John the Ephesians The Epistle to of JohnThe Acts of the the Philippians the Hebrews The Epistle Apostles the Colossians The Epistle of Jude the Thessalonians I of James The Revelation of JohnAll which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]
7. Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; II Tim. 3:15-16; John 5:46-47

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]
8. Rev. 22:18-19; Rom. 3:2; II Peter 1:21

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
10. I Tim 3:1511. I Cor. 2:4-5, 9-10; Heb. 4:12; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11, 59:21; Rom. 11:36: Psa. 19:7-11; II Tim. 3:15; I Thess. 1:5; I John 2:20, 27

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
12. II Tim. 3:16-17; Gal. 1:8-9; II Thess. 2:213. John 6:45; I Cor. 2:12, 14-15; Eph. 1:18; II Cor. 4:614. I Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]
15. II Peter 3:1616. Psa. 119:105, 130; Deut. 29:29; 30:10-14; Acts 17:11

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]
17. Matt. 5:18; Psa. 119;8918. Isa. 8:20; Matt. 15:3, 6; Acts 15:15; Luke 16:3119. John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Rev. 1:3; II Tim. 3:14,1520. Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 14:6; Mark 15:3421. Col. 3:16; Exod. 20:4-6; Matt. 15:7-922. Rom. 15:4

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]
23. Acts 15:15; John 5:46; II Peter 1:20-21

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
24. Matt. 22:29,31; Acts 28:25; I John 4:1-6

A PT Discussion on Old and New Testaments

I have never hosted a discussion, per se, without giving my thoughts up front. It seems that a nice Jewish person has posted this question concerning the Old and New Testaments. I would like to give you his question and then open the comments section for some discussion on the issue. Enjoy!

Q: Did it ever occur to you that the Old Testament was written by G-d and the New Testament was written by mortal men.Men naturally are able to exagerate and lie. Do you think it could happen?...I do.

Only rule: Season all things with grace.

Did the Church Make-up the Bible?

I am not sure where the switch has occurred in Protestant thinking, but it seems that many people, when thinking about the formation of the Scriptures, want to attribute them to a counsel, more than to God. The idea taught in a lot of Christian schools is that at Nicea the Christian church declared that our 66 books of the Bible were the Word of God. This may be because the Church no longer believes the Scriptures thanks to the influences of Liberal "scholarship".

Although true, Nicea did affirm, the Scriptures, but had not the Christian Church been using all of these books since the late-middle of the first century? As the Bride of Christ, we must know our place, and not declare ourselves over our Lord.

In this affair, then, the Church is a servant and not a mistress; a depository and not a judge. She exercises the office of a minister, not of a magistrate...She delivers a testimony, not a judicial sentence. She discerns the canon of the Scriptures, she does not make it; she has recognized their authenticity, she has not given it-The authority of the Scriptures is not founded then, on the authority of the Church: It is the Church that is founded on the authority of the Scriptures. -Louis Gaussen