NOTE: The following catechism is for high school girls. The corresponding catechism for boys can be found by CLICKING HERE. This is designed to be recited by girls grades 7 - 12 at the beginning of every school day.

What is a pointless life?
A pointless life involves no sacrifice, no discipline, and no courage.

From where does purpose come?
Purpose is not something I create. It is something I receive from the Lord. Each Christian receives different talents and gifts which establish their role in God’s Kingdom. Yet each Christian, united to Christ by faith, has the same responsibility to worship and obey the Lord Jesus Christ.

How do I live with spiritual purpose?
The only way is to depend entirely upon the grace of God, which, through faith in Jesus, covers my sin and enables my fight against it. Faithfulness is as active as ants. It is the virtue of drinking up as much living water as each situation spouts. It requires exceptional vigilance, which is why I pray for the Holy Spirit’s help.

How are men and women different?
Women are not driven by the same goals and inner springs as men. The distribution of wants among the two sexes is distinct enough that they don’t want the same things from their lives. With respect to work outside the home, men want competition in the market. With respect to work inside the home, women want to provide care for the family.

What is the source of such differences?
Since the roles and gifts of men and women are from God, equality-of-result ought not be socially engineered or biologically buffeted. God hard-wires into women a feminine nature that is not a prison crippling her humanity, but a clarifying summons enabling her faithfulness.

How are men and women most themselves?
C.S. Lewis said that the masculine is oriented toward strength, rigidity, and protection of life, while the feminine is oriented towards softness, fluidity, and creation of life. So, men act according to their nature when they embrace their strength and duty to protect others. Women act according to their nature when they create environments that nurture life.[1]

How should I spend my time?
I must reject the self as my sole obsession and cultivate a love for others. This happens by making things in real life to build culture and life outside myself. My time and attention are too valuable to give it away to social media companies. Instead, I will rouse up myself and fill my days with creativity and labor directed to worthy objects that bring value and esteem, such as learning a foreign language and how to play an instrument, learning to grow things and corral a group of kids, learning to organize events and a lead a book club, and learning to sew and prepare a meal.

How does displaying the fruit of the Spirit affect those around me?
When I live out the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control—I am most myself. When I live in sin—sexual immorality, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, envy, drunkenness—I am less myself.

By living the fruit of the Spirit, dressing modestly, acting with self-control, and adorning myself with good works (1 Tim. 2:9-14), I have the power to transfer the sincerity and love of Christ onto every person I know and to strike at error and wrongdoing in a way that makes the adversary cower.

Should women be educated?
Women should be educated in God, God’s Word, and God’s world. Those who are so inclined are free to pursue higher education, provided it leads to the fulfillment of God’s design. Scripture provides the example of Mary, who nurtured baby Jesus and also wrote the stinging words of the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). And there is the example of Jael who was a homemaker who turned her domestic tools into weapons of violence when needed (Judges 4:17-5:27).

What does Titus 2:4-5 says about the education of girls?
“Train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” The Bible does not prescribe preparation for a girl boss feminism of hustle culture that says career success, promotions, and prioritizing job above family are the most important things. The Bible does affirm the goodness of marriage, the blessing of children within marriage, and the virtues, skill, and honor necessary to run a home well.

What does 1 Peter 3:4 say about a woman’s beauty?
“Let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.” This means I should cultivate the quality of soul that makes me loved by little children, strong to help those in sorrow or trouble, and sympathetic to the human heart because of genuine concern for other people.

How can I become the Proverbs 31 woman?
I develop skills for being a faithful woman who works from home, is productive, hardworking, skilled at management, and able to conduct family business. I must become competent to make decisions and exercise my agency with intelligence, cultivating the skills of discernment, shrewdness, resourcefulness, hospitality, and wisdom. It’s not that women will never or should never work outside the home. But as a girl in training, I ought not be burdened by career expectations as my paramount concern.

What does 1 Timothy 5:14 say about young women?
“I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander,” meaning girls must be trained to become housemasters, exercising real authority to manage the house in submission to the headship of her husband (1 Tim. 3:5). I must beware of the Betty Friedan message that centralizes career as a woman’s path to self-actualization, and regards children and marriage as perfunctory.

What did G.K. Chesterton mean when he said that only “domestic education” is particularly true?[2]
The opening line of G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man, explains that “There are two ways of getting home; and one of them is to stay there.”[3] His point is that domestic life is the larger matter. Commercial or official life is the lesser matter. This is why Titus 2:5 instructs women to be about the greater matter of “working at home.” This means a mother providing conversation, culture, meals, and moral support for her own child is more important than social work for one hundred children absorbed by the system. Chesterton’s point isn’t that girls can never choose public life. The point is to teach them that commercial life is the smaller life.[4]

If the role of a wife is to respect her husband, what should women be looking for in a man?
Respectability. If she respects him, and if her parents and pastor respect him, then that enhances the chances that she can respect him for the rest of her life. A woman might desire her husband to be a certain height, make a certain amount of money, or take her on fancy dates. But God’s standard is that she respects and submits to him (Eph. 5:22-33).

What should a woman be working toward in preparation for a husband?
Since the husband’s job is to (1) love his wife sacrificially, (2) nourish her, (3) cherish her, and (4) lead her like Christ leads the church (Eph. 5:23-29), then a woman looking for a husband needs to become the sort of lady that a man can (1) love sacrificially, (2) nourish, (3) cherish, and (4) lead.

What does living the good life require?
Because of Christ, life is strong in me. I will press on and live with gratitude. I will seek truth, make beauty, live well, and love big. This is my spiritual act of worship as a happy warrior of the Kingdom of God.

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

[1] C.S. Lewis, Perelandra (New York: HarperOne, 2003), 172-174.
[2] Dale Ahlquist, The Story of the Family: G.K. Chesterton on the Only State that Creates and Loves its Own Citizens (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2022), 172.
[3] G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (Rough Draft Printing, 2013), 7.
[4] Dale Ahlquist, The Story of the Family: G.K. Chesterton on the Only State that Creates and Loves its Own Citizens (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2022), 170-180.</sub>

NOTE: The following catechism is for high school boys. It should be recited at the beginning of every school day.

Why must I put off childish things and stand firm in the faith, like a man?
Christianity is not for wimps. It is a religion with a particular kind of calling. Our Lord was tortured and crucified (Mark 15:6-41). The one who prepared his path was beheaded (Mt. 14:1-12). Those who preached the gospel were thrown in prison (Acts 12:1-19; 21:27) and killed (John 21:18; Acts 12:2). Who are we to think we deserve better (Mt. 10:24)?

Why should I put off the childish temptation to not try?
Not trying is living in the diffident shadow of passivity. It is waking up each day with as much purpose as a squirrel crossing the road. It is living with all the grandeur of a “get-by,” doing just enough to “get by.” The way to maturity is to live like a ferocious archangel, full of incontestable purpose.

How do I not squander my teenage years?
Rather than relaxing in the yawning pit of slumber, I will stir up the dubiousness of my heart and awaken Christian conviction. I won’t passively wait for life to happen. I will banish the flavor of wickedness on my pallet and spit it out with repulsion. I am a covenant child who belongs to the Lord. I have received this gift at my baptism. It is my job now to live with faith.

What is a pointless life?
A pointless life involves no sacrifice, no discipline, and no courage.

From where does purpose come?
Purpose is not something I create. It is something I receive from the Lord. Each Christian receives different talents and gifts which establish their role in God’s Kingdom. Yet each Christian, united to Christ by faith, has the same responsibility to worship and obey the Lord Jesus Christ.

How do I live with spiritual purpose?
The only way is to depend entirely upon the grace of God, which, through faith in Jesus, covers my sin and enables my fight against it. Faithfulness is as active as ants. It is the virtue of drinking up as much living water as each situation spouts. It requires exceptional vigilance, which is why I pray for the Holy Spirit’s help.

How do I live with intellectual purpose?
I purpose in my heart to work hard, to read, study, learn, think, write, speak, and gain wisdom to more fully align my life with Scripture.

How do I live with moral purpose?
To grow in Christlikeness is to grow in obedience. First Timothy 4:12 says, “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” This means that when I speak foolish words, live sinfully, and reject faith, I deserve to be despised.  The way to be admired in the Kingdom of God is to have virtue in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity.

How will I learn to live with biblical virtue?
I will find and imitate those Christians who have more active virtue than I do, who obey Christ more than I do, who speak more wisdom than I do, who live in the light more than I do, who love sacrificially more than I do, who pray in faith more than I do, and who walk in purity more than I do.

What does it mean to live a life of sacrifice?
Sacrifice is when I voluntarily give myself to help another person, at a cost to myself. It is serving another person freely, without compulsion or calculation. The man from Nazareth is the perfect example of the sacrificial life, which is painful and pleasurable at the same time. The result is something more than heady contemplation. It is adventure. It is blood, sweat, and tears.

How do I repent of a lifestyle of entitlement?
I spurn entitlement when I take my share of responsibility. I will thrust myself into the intellectual fracas, the moral melee, and the spiritual skirmish. Christ was a joyful warrior (Heb. 12:2) and I can be too. The ethic of responsibility is always accompanied by the ethic of conviction. The one does not exist without the other. The reason many teenagers don’t take responsibility is because they lack conviction. Biblical convictions lead to decisions that please the Lord. Convictions that lead elsewhere are fraudulent.

What does it mean to have godly ambition?
It begins with a hunger for meaning and purpose, and a corresponding vision of how to proceed in constructing a life that matches. Since building a meaningful life takes intentional effort, I will not default to the easier way but will take the trouble to cultivate the desires, dreams, and ambitions befitting a child of God.

How do I begin preparing for marriage?
Since wives are told to respect their husbands (Eph. 5:33) and submit to them (Eph. 5:22-25), I must, in God’s power, become a respectable man who thinks slothful people are dull and social media is a waste of time. I will seek the counsel of others (Prov. 11:14), keep good company (Prov. 13:20), work hard (Prov. 6:6), pursue knowledge (Prov. 2:1-5), guard my tongue (Prov. 4:24), and respect the Word of God (Ps. 119:9) as I prepare to earn the respect of my future wife.

Why is the common mantra “you do you” foolish?
“You do you” means that truth is constructed in my image. It means each person is free to create their own unique meaning in a world devoid of universal meaning. This is why “truth” is equated with authenticity, which means fulfilling your lusts without external constraint. “You do you” doesn’t deliver on its promises. Self-indulgence never provides the meaning and satisfaction people seek. Only Jesus Christ can do that.

Why is obedience to God not legalism?
The gospel is more than a one-time experience. It is the power of Christ (Rom. 1:16) that brings divine order to disordered love. By faith in Christ, I am forgiven of my sins and declared righteous (Rom. 4:1-8). To submit to God’s righteousness is for the Spirit to re-habituate my life to acts of kindness, service, love, prayer, patience, rejoicing, reading God’s Word, testing everything, and abstaining from evil (1 Thess. 5:12-22). Or as Paul said, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17). One evidence that I’m living in the righteousness of God, is I won’t have time or energy left for social media and pornography.

What does living the good life require?
Everyone must strive before they die to learn what they are running from, what they are running to, and why.

What do Christians run from, run to, and why?
Christians run from sin, death, and the devil. Christians run to Jesus Christ because, in the end, life offers only one tragedy: not to have been a child of God.

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.}

Introduction
The Old Testament calendar is a full life liturgy that regulated temple activity, moral expectations, legal codes, and purification processes. It also regulated work and rest. But how many days did the calendar prescribe work and how many days was spent not working?

It’s not a simple answer. Counting the work and rest days of Israel’s calendar requires a biblical-theological reckoning on a 49-year cycle with a concordance in one hand and a calculator in the other.

This reckoning can be organized according to five categories:

First, the ordinary year.
Second, the annual feast days.
Third, the seventh year.
Fourth, the Jubilee year.
Fifth, the implications.

Let’s get started.

First, the ordinary year
The expectation for an ordinary week was that the people would work six days and rest one day. The pattern was established at creation. In Genesis 2:1-3, God finishes his work in six days and rests on the seventh day. Notice several things. First, this occurs before the Fall, which means this pattern is not a reaction or result of the Fall. Second, this pattern predates the Mosaic Law, which means it is a creation ordinance. Third, Adam’s first day on earth is a full day of rest, not labor, meaning that in God’s calendar, rest precedes labor.

The 6/1 pattern was then commanded in the Decalogue. Exodus 20:8-10 says, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it, you shall not do any work.” Why are people to rest on the seventh day? The answer is in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This means that the 6/1 pattern is imitation.

Deuteronomy 5 also contains the Decalogue, but the fourth commandment contains a different rationale for the 6/1 pattern. Why must they rest on the seventh day? Deuteronomy 5:15 says, “You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand.” So, the reason for the 6/1 pattern in Exodus 20 is creational imitation. The reason for the 6/1 pattern in Deuteronomy 5 is in memorial of redemption. Different reasons, it seems. Or are they? In both cases, rest is God’s blessing to his people. The backdrop of Egypt reminded them that slavery is the condition of the person who cannot stop working.*  

The 6/1 pattern is also reflected in the surrounding laws of the Torah. Sabbath mercy is extended downward, to servants, foreigners, and animals, suggesting that a society that cannot stop their labor especially harms the dependent parts of the community (Ex. 23:12). During the harvest season when economic pressures is heightened, God’s command for rest is still in force (Ex. 34:21). This is why Nehemiah shut down the Tyrian merchants, wine pressers, and grain loaders working on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:15-22). In the passages about the construction of the tabernacle Moses writes, “Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest” (Ex. 31:15; 35:2), reminding the people that even the construction of God’s house does not override the command to rest.

Those who resent the disruption of their work grumble and complain about the command to rest (Amos 8:5). But required rest is God’s good design. Six days of work suffices for seven days needs. The story of the manna in Exodus 16:22-30 includes a double portion on the sixth day. This is God’s provision to protect the rest day of the people.

The ordinary year also includes the new moon days (Num. 10:10; 28:11-15). These days don’t explicitly include the no-work clause. They are primarily a day for sacrifices to God. But then in other passages they are described as special days when work ceased (1 Sam. 20; 2 Kings 4:23; Amos 8:5; Ez. 46:1-3). Sometimes the new moon days are mentioned alongside Sabbaths and feasts, as if they are one class of holy days (Hos. 2:11; Is. 1:13f; 66:23; Col. 2:16). There is one new moon at the beginning of each month (Num. 28:11; Ps. 104:19; Ex. 12:2). The year has twelve months (1 Kings 4:7; 1 Chronicles 27:1-15). So, there are twelve new moon days a year. One out seven new moon days occur on a Sabbath, which was already a non-work day, meaning new moon days add ten or eleven days to the 52 Sabbath days.

Now for the calculation. One sabbath rest day a week for 52 weeks means 52 rest days per year, plus ten new moon days equals 62 non-work days, which is just over 17% of total days in the year.

Second, the annual feast days.
Leviticus 23 is a catch-all description for the feast days in the liturgical calendar.

The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven holy days for the year on which “you shall not do any ordinary work” (Lev. 23:6-8).

Next is listed the Feast of Firstfruits (Lev. 23:9-14). More slender and subtle, no additional holy days result from the Feast of Firstfruits. When there is a holy day of no work, like with the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:7), Pentecost (Lev. 23:21), Trumpets (Lev. 23:24), Atonement (Lev. 23:27), and Tabernacle (Lev. 23:35-36), it is explicitly said there is “no ordinary work.” The Feast of Firstfruits has no such statement, suggesting it is not a day of rest (Lev. 23:9-14).

The Feast of Weeks (AKA Pentecost) is described in Leviticus 23:15-22 and has one holy day (Lev. 23:21). The Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, likewise, receive one holy day each (Lev. 23:24, 27). The Feast of Tabernacles (AKA Booths) has eight holy days. The first and eighth days are for solemn rest. Days two through seven are feast days. No ordinary work is done on these days.

The feasts tell a story. It begins with redemption in the Passover feast, then resurrection in the Feast of Firstfruits anticipating Christ in 1 Cor. 15:20, then the creation of a people at Pentecost where they receive unleavened bread for the first time (Acts 2), then the Feast of Trumpets where a trumpet blasts summons the congregation, then the Feast of Atonement where the blood is carried into the holy place anticipating Christ (Heb. 9-10), then the Feast of Tabernacle where God dwells with them (Zech. 14:16-19; Rev. 21:3). The point of the story is to train the popular instinct to return to it, even in times when the doubting instinct is let loose.

The calendar of feasts and holy days annually walk the people through the story of redemption, past, present, and future. This would continue until the Messiah came to fulfill it. The body and soul are being trained to look to the higher work of the Lord. God is writing a story that has a plot, a crisis, and a resolution. It moves. There are twists and turns; ups and downs; bad guys and good guys. And walking through the shadows of the story, the people see the One True Good Guy, the Messiah. When the Savior fulfills the feast days, it satisfies rather than replaces the need to set aside time to look to the higher things and be shaped by them. This is the real R&R of Scripture. In the divine calendar, the harvest is preparation for the feast. The work is preparation for rejoicing.  

The feast days in total add eighteen holy days. When you account for the overlap with Sabbath days, which were already rest days, that means, at minimum, an additional 15 non-work days for the year. So, Sabbath/new moon days (62) plus non-overlapping feast days (15) is 77 rest days a year, which is 21% of the total days in the year.

Third, the seventh year
Leviticus 25:1-7 says that when Israel comes into the land, the land shall be given a Sabbath (Lev. 25:2). For six years Israel works the land and harvests the crops. The seventh year is a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land. This is a time when the people will not work the land (Lev. 25:3-5). This is the 6/1 pattern of the week stretched and applied into years.  

What exactly is prohibited on the seventh year? Active, productive agricultural work. Leviticus 25:4-5 say, “You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. You shall not reap what grows of itself in your harvest, or gather the grapes of your undressed vine.” Reaping is prohibited, meaning they may not harvest the field systematically for the purpose of stockpiling. Gathering is prohibited, meaning, they may not strip the vines completely to press the grapes and store the wine.

What is permitted on the seventh year? Leviticus 25:6-7 says, “The Sabbath of the land shall provide food for you.…all its yield shall be for food.” So, on that seventh year, the land is not under cultivation, but it doesn’t stop producing. The people and their animals must still eat. What will they eat? Whatever the untended land yields of itself. But this volunteer growth may not be treated like a harvest. Day by day the people pick and eat what they need.

There are other components of the seventh year. First, as Exodus 23:10-11 explains, the fallow year is a means of provision for those with no land of their own. So, in years 1-6, the person treats the land as their harvest. They own it. In year 7, the owner denies his special claim on the harvest, making it open to those in need. Second, as Deuteronomy 15:1-11 explains, the seventh year is a release from debt. “Every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (Dt. 15:2).

So, in the seventh year, people still eat, worship, keep the weekly Sabbath, and keep the feasts. They still tend the flocks and gather the volunteer growth. Trades and craft work continue, as does commerce, study, and domestic labor.

How should we handle this in our calculation? Are these 365 rest days? Not exactly. There is prescribed resting from some work. The farmers are given a distinct kind of rest, while other work remains. A significant category of work is removed, but not work as such. For a herdsman or craftsman, the seventh year apparently changed very little. For the agrarian majority of Israel, the seventh year changed a great deal. They experienced a lighter year. Mathematically, these are not counted as additional non-work days, but as lighter work days for a majority of the people.

Fourth, the Jubilee Year
Leviticus 25:8-11 describes a Jubilee year that should take place every “fiftieth year,” which is probably referring to the last year of the 49-year cycle and the first year of the next cycle. So, the “fiftieth year” is overlapping in a way that makes it the 49th year itself.**  The Jubilee was announced on the Day of Atonement with a trumpet blast (Lev. 25:9). Three releases are commanded. The release of the land (Lev. 25:11-12) where the land was given rest, the release of the property where land reverted to its original family holding (Lev. 25:10, 13-34), and the release of the slaves where Israelite indentured servants went free (Lev. 25:39-55).

The Jubilee year adds no new category of human rest day beyond what we’ve already counted. The Jubilee sets right who is free and who owns what. The free servant returns home, not to rest, but to work his own land. So, it’s not extra rest from work. It’s a different kind of gift, a sort of homecoming of money, people, and land such that everyone is returned to their inheritance. It’s a reset, a refresh, a re-creation, which is what all the work and all the rest was pointing toward, a time when the people and the land would be made whole.

So, the rest days point to the Jubilee year, and the Jubilee year points to the Great Jubilee of the Messiah. Isaiah had foreseen a coming Messiah anointed to “proclaim liberty to the captives” and to announce “the year of the LORD’s favor” (Is. 61:1-2). This is the language of the Jubilee horn, now applied to all history. When Jesus stood in the synagogue at Nazareth and read Isaiah 61, He closed the scroll and said, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). He was declaring Himself the Jubilee Incarnate. Every seventh year that rested the land, every “fiftieth” that freed the slave and restored the field was a preview of Christ, the Son of God arriving to cancel the true debt, to set the real captives free, and to return His people to the inheritance lost since Eden. Christ accomplished the homecoming the Jubilee year pictured. The rest and worship that Israel practiced one day in seven, Christ offers without end, saying “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt 11:28).

Fifth, the implications
When it comes to rest and work, we should strive to talk about it as biblically as possible, which means we must understand God’s liturgical calendar. We must see and count the days. We must run the calculation. We must see the purpose of resting from work.

What is the purpose? The point of rest and leisure is not to make people more efficient cogs in the economic system, but to restore the soul to wholeness. This allows a person to worship the Lord and Giver of Life, celebrate existence in God’s world, see the goodness of reality, and receive truth and beauty as gifts not measurable on a P&L sheet. A feast day, or celebration, or Sabbath that merely stops work for the sake of work serves no higher purpose than work. When the entire liturgical calendar, or corporate calendar, is reduced to fine-tuning man to be a tool for profits, then work becomes a cult—a religion—as if work included the whole field of human existence, activity, and life. This changes the nature of human existence by making “worker” the whole conception of man.

In the Old Testament calendar, 77 out of 365 days are explicitly non-work days, which makes for 1.5 days out of 7. So, the weekly ratio is to work 6 and rest 1, while the annual average is to work 5.5 and rest 1.5, which is the floor for rest days. The seventh year of land rest must also be accounted for. The seventh year hasn’t entered this calculation because some people kept herding, cooking, trading, and foraging.

But, for the agrarian majority, including the farmers and vine dressers who made up most of ancient Israel, the seventh year was dramatically lighter, even if not classified as a rest day. In a normal year, the farmer’s calendar was dominated by the grueling labor of cultivation, plowing, sowing, pruning, weeding, and harvest time. Exodus 34:21 singles out the work of the farmer as part of the covenant renewal need for Sabbath rest.

In the seventh year, all of that work stops. No plowing, no sowing, no pruning, no harvesting. What remains for the farmer is lighter than the work of the other six years. For the majority of people then, the seventh year wasn’t 1.5 rest days a week; it was closer to a year-long reduction to subsistence gathering. This can’t be neatly fit into the calculation, but it is part of the calendar to keep in mind.

It’s true that the laws and ceremonies of the Old Testament expired with that nation-state, including the liturgical calendar of feast days, new moon days, and so on. But the general equity principles still remain for the people of God, which suggests there is biblical wisdom in trying to apply the biblical-theological calendar, calculations, and commission of work and rest.

There are other factors to think about before these principles can be comprehensively formulated, such as (1) how work is not equal to a job/career, (2) how much of the work days should be spent working at the job and how much time should be spent doing other work, (3) the change from an agrarian society to an industrial one, (4) the shift of work as something that once took place inside the home to something that now takes place outside the home, (5) the difference between manual labor and desk work, (6) the intolerance of laziness in the covenant community (2 Thess. 3:6-10), (7) the exact nature of a convocation day, a feast day, and a Sabbath day, (8) the nature of leisure as awakening your soul to higher things, and (9) how the purpose of rest days points to the work of Christ as the great giver of rest (Mt. 11:28).

But for now, we can say this. Israel’s calendar built rest in at every scale. One day in seven, an extra half-day worth of feasts, and then an entire agricultural sabbatical every seventh year. Rest is woven into the day, the week, the month, and the year, all the way up to the Jubilee, which is not a corporate Christmas party to build company loyalty, but an entire year of receiving divine gifts. God’s divine design is a society that works hard and unto the Lord (Col. 3:17). But the people were forbidden from working endlessly. The whole calendar was pointing to the rest, not just as a time to put your feet up, but as the time to worship, celebrate, and receive the divine rest of the Redeemer who is Lord Sabbath.

Without the liturgical calendar, Israel would have been like the Canaanites, where strange gods were worshiped under strange skies. God’s design of worship, rest, celebration, and work points to the King of King’s defiance of the pagan program that thrusts people up against a vast and vague hostility to divine rest. So odd and beautiful is God’s movement toward rest that the faithful might hear not only the blast of the trumpet, but the voice of the outsider singing along, longing for the perilous grace that is poised to receive him in eternal rest.

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

* The author of Hebrews had something to say about the rest of God (Heb. 3:7 – 4:13).
** We should note that there is another view that this is a distinct 50th year. For our purposes, it matters only very little, as it will change the math slightly if we are calculating on a 49-year window or a 50-year window.</sub>

Click here for part two and here for part three

Beyond Skin Deep: The Sin of Ham

Introduction
A father-and-son at enmity, a hint of nudity, the air of conspiracy–the scene in Noah’s vineyard tent after the flood smacks with all of the trappings of an HBO series. However, unlike the kitsch of contemporary television dramas, the story of Ham is often ignored by Christians due to a combination of embarrassment and ignorance. Christians are often embarrassed by Ham’s curse because, as is well-known, it was the text most often employed by the apologists of the unbiblical institution of chattel slavery in the Euro-American debate over the status of Africans.[1] Beyond embarrassment, Christians also typically lack the requisite knowledge or attention to detail that would allow them to positively employ this passage for its intended purpose. This leaves us with two questions: what exactly was the so-called curse of Ham, and what are we to do with it?

Preliminary Considerations 
Biblically, there are at least three things that we can conclude about the so-called curse of Ham: First, there is no curse on Ham. Second, there was a curse on Canaan. Third, the curse on Canaan is void. In this essay, we will deal with the first of these conclusions–namely, that there is no curse on Ham.

Though it seems like semantics, it is imperative that we begin by noting the substance and the subject of the curse. Substantially, the curse that falls is due to Ham’s revolutionary actions, which leads in turn to Canaan, the subject of the curse, being brought under the subjection of Shem and Japheth respectively. This fact is important because it primarily establishes that the curse is not racial, as was formerly supposed.

Though this argument has rarely seen the light of day since the Civil War, in our racially charged milieu–where not only the so-called racism of the left is falsely flagged on anyone at any time anywhere but also the whitelash of racial vainglory is becoming concerningly conspicuous–it is time for this interpretation to go the way of Wcyliff–that is, to be posthumously exhumed and (re)condemned and tossed into the sea once and for all.

The Argument(s)
Here’s the simple syllogism: the name Ham etymologically means both black and hot in Hebrew; Ham is cursed to be a servant; therefore, this passage functions as the etiology (“mythical origin story”) for the warm-climate-dwelling, dark-skinned descendants of Ham being under a permanent sanction of subjugation.

The chief problem with this interpretation is simply that it is childish and fallacious exegesis. It commits what biblical scholars often call the root-word fallacy, meaning that the basic linguistic definition of a word suffices for its entire meaning and interpretive force.[2] Now, words do mean something, and names especially communicate meaning in Scripture. However, there is a significant and unjustifiable jump from simply noting that ham means dark or hot in Hebrew to concluding that he is the father of all dark-skinned folk, who have been placed under an unalterable sanction of slavery. This argument fails on at least two points. First, it immediately and univocally equates Ham’s name with his appearance while biblical appellation deals with character rather than appearance. Even in the case of Esau, whose name means something like hairy, what is in view is not simply his pilosity but his beastiality: he looks like an animal but how much more does he act like one; his brother Jacob is a smooth man in appearance, but this appearance is meant to be a signal of his slippery character as trickster, heel-grabber, as his name suggests. Thus, there is no warrant to say, “Ham means dark; therefore, he was dark-skinned”; for there is no direct narrative connection between his name and his appearance, which we find most nearly in the case of Esau but not even fully there.[3] If we want to be faithful to biblical patronymics, therefore, we must say that Ham’s darkness is beyond skin deep.

Second, and more obviously, this argument fails to note, as analogously happens in Genesis 3, the subject cursed in this passage. Canaan is cursed, not Ham. There is no curse on Ham. This means that, even if we hypothetically grant that Ham was indeed a dark-skinned fellow, even if we irrefutably grant that he is the progenitor of those who will eventually become our more melanin-rich brothers and sisters, neither he nor his “African” descendants are the ones upon whom the curse of subjugation falls; rather, it falls to his son Canaan, meaning that skin tone is in no wise connected with the sentence of subjugation. Of course, this raises all sorts of questions about fairness, justice, and intent, which will all be dealt with in the next essay.

By way of extension, we must note as an important aside that, if the contrived category of race is not in view in Ham’s punishment, it is therefore also not in view for the benediction pronounced through Yahweh to Shem and Japheth. The fact that Ham, Shem, and Japheth are the historical primogenitors of certain ethnic groups–Ham of the Middle Eastern, Shem of the Semitic, and Japheth of the Mediterranean–is the incidental rather than the substantial point of this passage. Simply put, ethnicity—and particularly ethnicity in its visible aspect—is nowhere in view in the account of Noah’s sons.

Conclusion
Whatever is going on in this complex passage, we can already make at least one
observation and two applications without having the full picture. The observation is simply that this passage simply has nothing to do with race–not only is that an anachronistic and contrived concept that is eisegetically read back into this passage but it is also demonstrably untenable to see this passage as the justification of the race-based subjugation of dark-skinned folk. So, there are at least two applications for us. First, we must stop referring to this passage as the “curse of Ham.” Instead, call it the “sin of Ham” or the “curse of Canaan” for accuracy and to avoid confusion in a time when old ethnic baggage is rearing its ugly head as an immature response to Critical Race Theory. Second, we also must not associate the blessing of Shem nor the enlargement of Japheth with their ethnic progeny. All who partake in the sin of Ham, whether Jew (Shem) or Greek (Japheth[4]), will face the exact same curse that falls on Canaan (Deut. 28:15-68; Rom. 1:18-34; Ps. 2).

_{Gage Crowder is husband to Rachel and a graduate of Birmingham Theological Seminary and the Theopolis Institute, Gage is associate pastor at Trinity Reformed Church and a lecturer in philosophy at Providence Classical School in Huntsville.
  
 [1]See Benjamin Braude, “The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 54, no. 1 (January 1997): 103-142. JSTOR.
 [2]D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 28-35.  
 [3]John V. Dahms sums up the point nicely: “meaning is determined by usage, not etymology.” See John V. Dahms, “The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered," NTS 29 (1983): 223.
[4]Japheth begat Javan (Gen. 10:2), and Javan is both the mythical and biblical primogenitor of the Greecian people (Dan. 8:21; 10:20; 11:2; Zech. 9:13). See Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 vols. (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 6:111-112, Logos 9.}
  

Introduction
The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision, which was not merely a national or ethnic identity marker, like a tribal tattoo or a passport stamp. It was God’s covenant sign, marking that a person belonged to His covenant family outwardly and inwardly. The physical cutting away anticipated a spiritual cut to the heart, a spiritual change that included faith (Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:28f). Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, which was considered “a sign and seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11). Circumcision was a physical sign pointing to a spiritual reality.

God said this to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:7). This is why in the Old Testament they started applying the covenant sign not just to the parents who had faith, but to their male children, pointing forward to the day when the child would receive the gift of the covenant sign with faith.

But what about the baby girls? They couldn’t be circumcised. Does that mean they were not included in the covenant like the boys?

Girls were covenant members just like the boys were, but not by their own sign. They were members of the covenant by federal representation through the circumcision of the household males. Genesis 17:11 says “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.” The “you” is plural, meaning “you all.” When the males were circumcised, the entire household, including the females, was counted as bearing the covenant sign.

So, the OT contains a male covenant initiation sign of circumcision that included blood. But also, there is a broader washing ritual, a program of purification that was applied to all, including baby girls.

Leviticus and the purification of mother and newborn
Leviticus 12 describes the process of purification for a mother and her newborn child in three phases.

Phase one is the time of impurity. For the male child, the mother is ceremonially unclean for seven days (Lev. 12:2), and the boy is circumcised on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3). For the female child, the mother is ceremonially unclean for fourteen days (Lev. 12:5). Part of the asymmetry between male and female is that the male child’s eighth-day circumcision happens the day the mother’s first phase ends.

Phase two is the blood of purifying. For the male child, the mother remains “in the blood of her purifying” for thirty-three days (Lev. 12:4). For the female child, the mother remains “in the blood of her purifying” for sixty-six days (Lev. 12:5). During this time, the mother, “shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed” (Lev. 12:4).

Phase three is the sacrifice and washing at the sanctuary. When the days of her purifying are complete, she brings a lamb, or if poor like Mary (Lk. 2:24) she brings two birds (Lev. 12:6). This is for the burnt offering and a sin offering, as mentioned in Leviticus 15:30. The priest “shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood” (Lev. 12:7).

Think about the three groups. There is the mother, the baby boy, and the baby girl. How is the mother restored to temple worship? Through sacrifice and cleansing, not circumcision. How is the boy incorporated into the covenant? Through the blood-sign of the covenant cut into his body (Lev. 12:3), then through atonement and offering (Lev. 12:7), and finally through ceremonial washing. How is the girl incorporated into the covenant? Through the atonement and offering mentioned in Leviticus 12:7 and the ceremonial washing. Leviticus 15:19-28 elaborates on the postpartum impurity. There is washing with water (Lev. 15:21, 27), which returns the mother and child to cleanness through water.

The boy’s sign of circumcision is named while the girl gets no named rite. Instead, the girl, along with the boy, passes into the water purification process. Why are the newborns impure? Impurity is transmissible by contact (Lev. 15:21-23; 26-27). So, the mother is unclean, and the newborn is in ongoing physical contact with her. The mother is nursing the child and holding the child through the entire seven or fourteen-day phase. Thus, the newborn is unclean and in need of the washing with water.

The question is this: Does washing the newborn girl with water have any significance for entrance into the covenant? On the surface the answer seems to be an obvious “no.” But then we read the prophetic words of Ezekiel 16.

Ezekiel 16 – Covenant Entry by Washing
Ezekiel 16:4-9 depicts God’s covenant relationship with Israel using the figure of an abandoned newborn girl. At birth, this baby girl was not washed with water for cleansing. She was not salted or swaddled (Ez. 16:4). The Lord saw this pitiable child wallowing in blood and decided to enter into covenant with her (Ez. 16:5-8). How does God enter into covenant with the baby girl? He washed her with water, cleaned off the blood, and anointed her with oil (Ez. 16:9).

The actions of Ezekiel 16:4-9 don’t strictly follow the postpartum cleansing phases described in Leviticus 12 and Leviticus 15. Rather, it is an image of a newborn girl being washed at birth as the beginning of a covenant relationship. It’s not a male child in this passage, but a female. The sex that does not receive the covenant sign in the Torah does receive covenant washing in Ezekiel. And the sex that does not receive covenant washing in Ezekiel does receive the covenant sign in the Torah.

This anticipates the New Covenant where “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ …. male and female” (Gal. 3:27f). There is something fitting, almost narratively foreseeable from the perspective of the Old Testament. In the Abrahamic Covenant the sign, carried out by knife, excluded half the children, while the female child was purified with no knife. According to Colossians 2:11-12, in the New Covenant, circumcision gives way to a new sign carried out with water, the very element that had been ceremonially washing the mothers of the covenant, and their newborns, for millennia. Water was always in view, even when it hadn’t become a covenant sign yet. If the blood-sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was selective (male only), the water-sign of the New Covenant is comprehensive (male and female).

Consider another Old Testament text that anticipates the inclusiveness of the baptism rite.

Numbers 19 – Water in the Sacrifice
In Numbers 19, a red heifer, without blemish and never yoked, is slaughtered outside the camp and burned entirely, including hide, flesh, blood, and even dung (Num. 19:1-5). The priest then throws cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet into the fire, and the heifer burns (Num. 19:6). The priest cleans himself and his clothes with water before gathering the ashes and storing them outside the camp in a clean place (Num. 19:7-10).

Why is all this done? It is preparation for the purification of the people to use as a sin offering (Num. 19:9). When needed, a clean person takes some of the ash, adds “living water” (Num. 19:17) and this becomes the water to clean those who are impure (Num. 19:19). A clean person dips hyssop in the water and sprinkles it on the defiled person on the third and seventh days (Num. 19:17-19). The blood was applied once and sprinkled toward the tent (Num. 19:4), but the ongoing work of cleansing is through the sprinkled water (Num. 19:19).

The author of Hebrews describes this process in Hebrews 9:13, saying, “The blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh.” This is one of the “various washings” (baptismois) referred to in Hebrews 9:10. Unlike circumcision, the red-heifer water (what else shall we call it?) reaches everyone, male and female; adult and child; even “for the stranger” (Num. 19:10) who needed purification (19:9). All “the persons who were there” where death occurred get sprinkled (Num. 19:18). This inclusiveness seems to be anticipating Galatians 3:28.

The reason the ceremonial rites of Numbers 19 are inclusive is because it deals with the impurity that comes from being near a dead body. Anyone in a tent or house where death occurs; anyone who touches a dead body or grave, becomes impure, whether they be infants, females, or sojourners. Which means infants, females, and sojourners—indeed everyone—each receive, in the words of Hebrews 9:10-13, baptism by sprinkling, not as covenant-initiation, but as the sprinkling of purification water.

Hebrews 13 – Christ Connection
In Numbers 19:9 the ashes are gathered up outside the camp. Remember, Hebrews 9:13 summarized the red heifer sacrifice of Numbers 19. Then Hebrews picks this thread up again in Hebrews 13:11-13. Look for the connection.

“For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. 13 Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.”

Christ suffering “outside the gate” (Heb. 13:12). The water that cleanses is ash-of-death mixed with living water, kept outside the gate (Num. 19:1-9, 17). In the Old Covenant, death and living water were combined and sprinkled on everyone who had touched death. This was done so they may approach the sanctuary. In the New Covenant, Jesus’ death, in complete fulfillment of the sacrificial system, sanctifies the people through his blood (Heb. 13:12). It’s a new rite where “our hearts sprinkled clean… and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). And not just water, but also the Spirit, as Jesus taught, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5).

This inclusion of the Spirit for all God’s people takes us to the promises of a New Covenant.

New Covenant Prophecies
The New Testament merges the male sign of circumcision and the various purification washings to create the sign of the New Covenant, baptism by water. This is an inclusive measure that replaces the blood of circumcision, the male-exclusive sign. The New Covenant prophecies reach for water and Spirit imagery when describing the internalization. The shift from a blood-sign to a water-sign means the sign of the New Covenant is applied to both sexes.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 describes the New Covenant with a sequence that involves water, new heart (internalization), and Spirit.

Ezekiel 36:25, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.”

Ezekiel 36:26, “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.”

Ezekiel 36:27, “And I will put my Spirit within you.”

Notice a few things. The mode of applying the water is sprinkling. This is the same mode as Numbers 19 and the same mode emphasized in Hebrews 9-10. Why does Ezekiel pick the mode of sprinkling? Remember, Ezekiel is not just a prophet, but also a priest (Ez. 1:3). He was trained in the purification system where sprinkled water was used to restore the impure.

Notice also that Ezekiel changes the sign from circumcision to water baptism. The New Covenant promise includes internalization (Ez. 36:26; Jer. 31:31-34) and the Spirit for all (Ez. 36:27; Joel 2:28-30). In Ezekiel’s presentation, the sign of the New Covenant, baptism, is entrance into the New Covenant of internalization and receiving the Spirit.

Jesus brings these two things together in John 3:5, teaching that those united to Christ are “born of water and the Spirit.” Jesus is getting this from Ezekiel 36:25-27 and Isaiah 44:1-5. It’s worth noting that Jesus’s words in John 3:5 use Isaiah 44:1-5, which says the recipients of the water and Spirit are the newborn offspring of believers. So, in Jesus’ mind, the New Covenant promise and the application of water retains the same household form found in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:7). Jesus knew the words of Jeremiah 31:34 where the New Covenant is given to all. Who is all? “The least of them to the greatest,” an all-inclusive phrase that refers to all ages, from infants to the elderly, and both sexes, male and female (Jer. 6:9-15). Jesus also knew the words of Isaiah 52:15 that extends the sprinkling of water to the nations, signaling that the New Covenant is inclusive not just of age and gender, but also to Gentiles.

Then there is Zechariah 13:1 which says, “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness.” So, this takes the fountain of living water image and specifically connects it to cleansing from not just uncleanness, but also sin. Paul sees this same connection when he writes that God saved his people from their sins by the water of regeneration (Titus 3:5).

Conclusion
The asymmetry of circumcision applied to boys but not girls was always pointing toward a water-sign that would gather in everyone. The prophets describe the new sign of water and apply it to the whole people, and to their offspring, and to the Gentiles. In the New Covenant, there are not “various washings” as in the Old Testament (Heb. 9:10), but one baptism and one people joined to one Spirit. One faith in the one Lord, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Eph. 4:4-6).


_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.}

Introduction
The God of the Bible is addressed as a “He,” and never a “She.” God the Father is repeatedly called Father and given the pronoun “He” (Dt. 32:6; Ps. 103:13; Is. 64:8; Mal. 2:10; Mt. 6:9; Mt. 7:11; Jn. 5:19-23; Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 1:3). God the Son is repeatedly called Son and given the pronoun “He,” even becoming a man (Is. 9:6; Mt. 1:21; Lk. 1:32; Jn. 1:1-3, 14; 8:58; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 1:13-18; Eph. 5:25). God the Spirit is repeatedly given the masculine pronoun, signaling that the Spirit is not an “it” but a person, and signaling that this person should be recognized masculinely (Jn. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).

The Transcendent “He”
In the ancient world, “She” symbolized something immanent, something familiar, something motherly. “He” symbolized something transcendent, something other than the world. When God made the world, he made a ‘creaturely other’ outside of God himself. God is something distinct from Mother Earth, something outside the system.

The transcendence of God establishes the Creator/creature distinction. Before there was space, time, or matter, He was. He created space and time; the heavens and the earth; ethereal and human beings. God creates the world and then rules the world with full authority. He (not She) impregnated the created order with life. The Personal created the impersonal, and as an apologetic aside, we should carefully note that the reverse is impossible.

Non-being received life from Being, which means there are two modes of being. The first is that God existed in the beginning. He is eternal. The second is that human beings exist because God created them. They are derivative. God is unmade and man is made. Except for that one man, Jesus Christ, the one divine “He” that incarnated and came to the earth from without.

The Representative “he”
Priests are representatives of their God, which is why Israel had no priestess or goddess. The priest mediates between God and man. The mediator, as a symbol of his God, cannot be a woman for a God who is not a mother.

Women are not excluded from the role of pastor or elder because of prejudice or contempt for women. Jesus had a large following of women (Luke 8:1–3; Matthew 27:55–56; Mark 15:40–41; Luke 23:55–56; John 20:1–18; Acts 9:36). Women prophesied in the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Joel 2:28–29; Luke 2:36–38; Acts 2:17–18; Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5), and wrote some of the most beautiful poetry in all of revealed religion (Jdg. 5:1-31; Lk. 1:46-55). The central question isn’t the worth, competence, or talent of women.

A pastor is a representative who represents the church to God and God to the church. He prays to God for the congregation. He preaches to the congregation for God. These tasks, along with the Sacramental ones, require the masculine imaginary. Since God is our Father, the divine He, rather than mother and She, a female pastor would embark on a different religion. The drive to clothe God with female pronouns under the sanctimonious imprimatur of egalitarianism—all bow—is the creation of a new “gospel.”

God has taught us how to speak of him. He has given the church men who are pastors and elders (1 Cor. 14:35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; Titus 1:6). To change God from He to She, and change his representative from he to she, is not an argument for tolerance. Neither is it a benign theological eccentricity, as if some law of mutuality must clobber every part of life. It is an argument against Christianity as a revealed metaphysical religion. The only female gods in scripture are false gods, such as Ashtoreth, the wife of Baal (Judg. 10:6, 1 Sam 7:4, 12:10). If you can change the biblical concept of God, you have created a false god.

Masculine representation and imaginary mediate the identity of God. Sex and gender can’t be neutered without God himself being neutered. God is teaching the congregation through biological sex, which symbolizes something unchangeable about God, similar to how marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime expresses something unchangeable about the union of Christ to the church (Eph. 5:22-33). Pastors can’t be female unless absolute reality can shift and change. He and she are not just facts of nature, but the shadows of reality that are designed to teach the world.

Conclusion
Jesus refers to God as the heavenly Father (Matthew 6:9; Matthew 6:26; Matthew 7:11; Matthew 11:25–27; Matthew 23:9; Luke 11:2; John 5:17–18; John 20:17), as does Paul (Romans 1:7; Romans 8:15; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 4:6; Philippians 4:20). They saw this in the Old Testament, and they believed it themselves. They believed in one masculine God, not in a pantheon of gods and goddesses like the ancient Greeks or the Hindus.

Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride (Matthew 9:15; Matthew 25:1–13; Mark 2:19–20; John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:25–32; Revelation 19:7–9; Revelation 21:2, 9; Revelation 22:17). God is He and the church is she. This is because of who God is. He is the one and only Absolute Person of the universe, the only self-existent being. God is never the means to our end or the cherry on top of a comfortable life. He is not subordinate to us but us to him. He is not relative to us. He is absolute, and we are in relation to him. He is the great I AM. He asks the questions and He has all the answers. We are not the judge and God the defendant. He is the judge and we must give account. He is the Potter. We are the clay (Rom. 9:19-23). God is not a man that he should lie nor a son of man that he should change his mind. Does he speak and not act? Does he promise and not fulfill (Num. 23:19)?

God’s various names reveal Him, which means the name “Father” reveals Him, as does the pronoun He. God is a He and never a She. It is ontologically who He is. It is metaphysically the grammar of complete and utter sovereign self-existence.

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

Bibliography
John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002), 383-386.

Peter Kreeft, The Philosophy of Jesus (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press, 2007), 14f, 40ff.

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1970), 234-239.</sub>

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

This year marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a significant milestone in our nation's history. As Christians, occasions like this give us an opportunity to pause, reflect, and most importantly, give thanks to God for His providential care throughout the generations.

In this blog I’ll be sharing a series of lessons that I wrote for a young man’s Bible class during the Jubilate Deo camp my family and I recently attended. While these lessons were designed for 5th and 6th grade boys, the biblical truths they explore are for all of us. They center on four themes: God's sovereignty over the nations, gratitude and remembrance, honoring authority, and faithful obedience for the sake of future generations.

Before you read them, consider one thought about how Christians ought to celebrate our nation’s 250th anniversary.

When we celebrate a wedding anniversary, we don't spend the evening recounting every argument, disappointment, or hardship the couple has endured. That doesn't mean those struggles never happened, nor does it mean there isn't an appropriate time to acknowledge them. Rather, an anniversary is a time to celebrate God's faithfulness, to remember His blessings, and to give thanks for His sustaining grace through the years.

The same is true as we reflect on the United States of America.

Our nation's history, like the history of every people since the Fall, includes both great achievements and grievous sins. Christians should never ignore injustice or refuse to learn from the failures of the past. There are proper occasions for repentance, lament, and honest historical reflection.

But an anniversary celebration is not primarily one of those occasions.

It is an opportunity to thank God for His providence—for preserving a nation through war and various other trials, for granting remarkable freedoms, for raising up faithful churches, for allowing the gospel to spread widely, and for showing mercy to generation after generation. Above all, it is an opportunity to remember that every good and perfect gift comes from our heavenly Father.

As Reformed Christians, we believe history is not driven by chance or merely by the decisions of men. Christ is Lord over the nations. He raises up kings and removes them. He governs history according to His perfect wisdom and for the good of His Church. That conviction shapes how we remember the past, how we live in the present, and how we look to the future.

I pray that these reflections will help us cultivate hearts of gratitude, deepen our confidence in Christ's reign, strengthen our commitment to honor the authorities God has placed over us, and encourage us to steward faithfully the blessings He has entrusted to our generation.

May we remember His mighty works.

May we give thanks for His steadfast love.

And may we labor faithfully for the generations that will come after us.
 
#1 - The Sovereignty of God Over the Nations
Psalm 2 & Matthew 28:16–20

Who rules the world?

If you listen to the news, it often seems as though presidents, kings, dictators, and world leaders are directing the course of history. Nations rise, wars are fought, governments pass laws, and cultures increasingly reject God's ways. It can feel as though the world is spiraling out of control.

But Psalm 2 invites us to step back and see history from heaven's perspective.

The psalm begins by asking, "Why do the nations rage?" The word translated rage (rāḡaš) carries the idea of an uproar, or a noisy assembly… in other words, an organized rebellion. The nations are not merely making poor decisions—they are united in resisting God's rule. Throughout history, we have seen this pattern repeated, from the Tower of Babel to the kingdoms of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, and countless governments since. The world is never truly neutral. Every nation is either submitting to Christ or conspiring against Him.

Yet God's response is not panic. He does not worry. He laughs.

The laughter of God is not amusement at suffering, but confidence in His absolute sovereignty. Human rebellion never threatens His throne. Just as He frustrated the plans of those who built the Tower of Babel, so every attempt to overthrow His authority ultimately fails.

Why? Because God has already established His King.

_{"I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."}

Notice that God speaks as though the matter is already settled. His decree cannot be overturned. His purposes cannot fail.

Psalm 2 then shifts to the Son Himself:  

_{"Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage."}

The nations are Christ's inheritance. They belong to Him by divine right, not because He must earn them, but because the Father has given them to Him. Just as you did not earn your family name, Jesus did not earn His right to the nations by political conquest. The Father has bestowed them upon His Son.

The psalm also speaks of the Messiah ruling the nations with a "rod of iron." This is not the picture of a cruel tyrant, but of a righteous King whose authority cannot be resisted forever. Every rebellion will either be broken in judgment or transformed through repentance.

That is why the psalm ends with an invitation rather than merely a warning:

_{"Kiss the Son."}

Kings and rulers are commanded to humble themselves before Christ. The nations are not simply condemned—they are summoned to submit.

This theme reaches its fulfillment in Jesus' Great Commission.

After His resurrection, Jesus declared,

_{"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."}

This is the fulfillment of Psalm 2. The King has been enthroned.

Because Christ already possesses all authority, He sends His disciples to "make disciples of all nations." Notice that Jesus does not simply say to make disciples from every nation. He commands His Church to disciple the nations themselves. The goal is that entire peoples, cultures, and kingdoms increasingly submit to the reign of King Jesus.

Baptism beautifully pictures this reality. In baptism, we publicly transfer our allegiance. We leave the kingdom of darkness and are united to Christ, our true King. Every baptism is a declaration that Jesus is Lord.

This changes the way we live.

Too often Christians behave as though Christ is waiting to become King someday. But Scripture teaches that He reigns now. The Church is not fighting for victory; we are announcing the victory Christ has already won through His death, resurrection, and ascension.

The question for each of us is simple:

Do I live as though Jesus is already King?

His authority should shape how we obey our parents, honor our teachers, love our neighbors, work diligently, and speak truthfully. It should give us confidence that no matter how chaotic the world may seem, history is moving exactly where God intends.

The nations may rage, but Christ reigns. And through the faithful witness of His Church, He is bringing the nations to Himself, just as He promised.
 
#2 - The Duty of Gratitude and Remembrance
Psalm 136

How do you remember to say "thank you"?

It's a simple question, but one with profound spiritual significance. The truth is, we can't be grateful for what we have forgotten. Gratitude begins with remembrance.

That is exactly what Psalm 136 teaches us.

Psalm 136 is a song of remembrance. It was written to be sung by God's people, likely in a call-and-response format. A leader would recount God's mighty works, and the congregation would respond after every line:

_{"For His steadfast love endures forever."}

The repetition is not simply a poetic choice. God knows how easily His people forget, so He gives them songs that train their memories and shape their hearts.

The psalm begins by remembering God's work in creation.

God made the heavens. He spread out the earth upon the waters. He made the sun to rule the day and the moon and stars to rule the night. Before Israel remembers what God did for them, they remember who God is—the Creator of everything.

Every sunrise, every star-filled sky, every mountain and river is another reason to say, "His steadfast love endures forever."

The psalm then turns to God's mighty acts of redemption.

It recounts the Passover, when God struck down Egypt's firstborn and delivered His people from slavery. It remembers the Exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, God's faithful provision in the wilderness, His victory over mighty kings like Sihon and Og, and finally His gift of the Promised Land as Israel's inheritance.

Each event is followed by the same refrain:

_{"For His steadfast love endures forever."}

Israel's history wasn't merely a collection of interesting stories. It was a testimony to God's covenant faithfulness. Every generation was called to remember what God had done so that they would continue trusting Him in the present.

The psalm concludes by reminding God's people that His care did not end with the conquest of the land.

<sub>"He remembered us in our low estate."

"He rescued us from our foes."

"He gives food to all flesh."</sub>

God continues to provide. He continues to remember His people. He continues to sustain His creation every day.

This connection between remembering, feeding, and thanksgiving reaches its fulfillment in the Lord's Supper. On the night before His crucifixion, Jesus took bread and the cup and said,

_{"Do this in remembrance of me."}

Just as Israel remembered God's redemption through the Passover meal, the Church remembers Christ's greater redemption through Communion. At the Lord's Table, we remember His sacrifice, give thanks for His grace, and are spiritually nourished by the One who gave Himself for us.

Through baptism, we have been brought into God's covenant family. Israel's story of redemption points us to Christ, and in Him, it becomes our story as well.

At the same time, we recognize that while America is not God's covenant nation in the way Israel was under the Old Covenant, we still have countless reasons to thank Him for His providence toward our country.

We can remember His hand in preserving a people seeking freedom and establishing a nation where liberty has flourished. We can thank Him for sustaining our country through wars, preserving it through seasons of division, and bringing an end to the evil of slavery. We can praise Him for His abundant provision of food, peace, and opportunity, for His protection through times of danger, and above all, for allowing the gospel to be freely preached and His Church to grow throughout this land.

Like Israel, we learn to interpret history through the lens of God's providence. We do not celebrate ourselves—we celebrate the God who has shown mercy again and again.

An exercise I did in class with my students was to write your own "Psalm 136." Perhaps this is something you can do with your family as well as you celebrate Independence Day. Gather around the table and finish sentences like these:

<sub>"To Him who provided for our family..."

"To Him who protected us during difficult times..."

"To Him who gave us faithful parents..."

"To Him who brought the gospel to our home..."</sub>

Or come up with your own, remembering specific moments in our nation’s history… or maybe even in your own local, or family, history.

And after each one, answer together:

_{"For His steadfast love endures forever."}

Gratitude is learned through remembrance. The more we remember God's faithfulness in our lives, and in lives of those who have gone before us, the more our hearts will overflow with thanksgiving.  

#3 - The Duty of Honoring Father and Mother
Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, and Ephesians 6:1–4

Who is in authority over you?

For children and young people, the answers come quickly: parents, teachers, coaches, pastors, and perhaps employers. Some are easier to obey than others, but that raises an important question: Why does God place authorities over us in the first place?

One answer to this question is simple but profound: before God calls a man to lead, He teaches him how to follow.

The Fifth Commandment says,

_{"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."}

Unlike many of the other commandments, God attaches a promise to this one. Honoring our parents is connected with blessing, stability, and flourishing. The Apostle Paul reminds us of this in Ephesians 6, calling it "the first commandment with a promise."

But honoring father and mother means more than simply obeying our parents while we are children.

The Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC 124) explains that "father and mother" represent all those whom God has placed over us in lawful authority—not only our parents, but also teachers, pastors, civil authorities, employers, and others who possess greater age, wisdom, or responsibility.

Why does God frame the command this way?

Because every earthly authority is meant to reflect something of God's own fatherly care. Authority is not merely about giving orders; it is God's gracious provision for our protection, instruction, and growth.

So what does it mean to honor those whom God has placed over us?

The catechism (WLC 127) describes honor as reverence in heart, word, and behavior. It includes respectful speech, attentive listening, willing obedience, prayer for those in authority, gratitude for their care, and even covering their weaknesses with love rather than exposing them with contempt.

For young men, this begins with simple, everyday choices.

Respect means listening without rolling your eyes or speaking with sarcasm. It means avoiding the habit of talking back or mocking those who correct you. In fact, it is entirely possible to dishonor your parents without saying a single word. A disrespectful attitude can often be seen long before it is heard.

Honor also means obedience.

Paul writes,

_{"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."}

True obedience is willing and timely. Delayed obedience, selective obedience, or grudging obedience all fall short of the joyful obedience God desires.

Another often-overlooked aspect of honor is prayer. Scripture calls us to pray for those whom God has placed over us because leadership is not easy. Parents, pastors, teachers, and civil leaders all carry significant responsibilities. One of the greatest ways children can honor them is by regularly praying that God would grant them wisdom and strength.

Finally, honor includes gratitude.

Few children fully appreciate the sacrifices their parents make each day. Meals appear on the table. Clothes are washed. Bills are paid. Time is invested. Prayers are offered. To honor father and mother is to recognize these gifts with thankful hearts rather than taking them for granted.

Sadly, Scripture also warns us about the opposite.

The Larger Catechism (WLC 128) lists rebellion, complaining, contempt, mocking authority, ignoring instruction, and making excuses among the sins that violate the Fifth Commandment. Sometimes open rebellion is obvious. Other times disobedience hides behind a smile while resentment grows in the heart. God sees both.

Yet this command is not only directed toward children.

Paul also addresses fathers:

_{"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."}

Godly authority is never harsh, selfish, or arbitrary. It exists to protect, teach, encourage, and lovingly discipline. Parents are called to reflect the character of their heavenly Father as they lead their children.

This reminds us that learning to honor authority today prepares young men to exercise authority tomorrow. Our sons will one day become husbands, fathers, elders, employers, or leaders in their communities. The habits they develop now will shape the kind of leaders they become later.

Ultimately, the Fifth Commandment points us to Jesus Christ.

Jesus honored His earthly parents. Luke tells us that after His visit to the temple, He returned home with Mary and Joseph and "was submissive to them."

Even more, Jesus perfectly obeyed His heavenly Father. The Apostle Paul writes that Christ "humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Because of His perfect obedience, we receive forgiveness for our failures and the grace to grow in obedience ourselves.

As you reflect on the Fifth Commandment this week, consider ways you can honor those whom God has placed over you.

Obey the first time without complaining.
 
Thank your parents for something they regularly do.  

Pray for your parents, your teachers, or your pastors and elders.

And remember that the young man who learns to obey faithfully today is preparing to lead faithfully tomorrow.

#4 - The Duty of Obedience for the Sake of Your Land
Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 4:1–11, Philippians 2:8–11

Why does obedience matter?

Most people think of obedience as something that affects only themselves: If I obey, things will go well for me. If I disobey, I alone suffer the consequences. But the Bible paints a much bigger picture. Our obedience—or disobedience—affects our families, our churches, our communities, and even future generations. God gives blessings and inheritances to His people, and obedience helps preserve and pass them on.

Think about what happens when no one follows the rules. Games or sporting events become chaotic. Families fall apart. Schools become unmanageable. Entire societies begin to unravel when citizens refuse to respect lawful authority. Order gives way to confusion.

As an illustration, I had my boys stand up and follow 3 rules:

1)    March in place. Together.  
2)    Chant together: One, Two, Three, Four… One, Two, Three, Four. 3) Pump your arms up and down in rhythm.

Even amongst 5th and 6th grade boys, it was a well-oiled machine. They were all in step… and then I began removing the rules:

1)    You can now move your arms in any direction → arms flailing everywhere
2)    You can chant whatever numbers you want → utter cacophony
3)    You can march in whatever direction you want → utter chaos

Even America's earliest founding documents recognized this truth.

The Mayflower Compact declared that the Pilgrims would "covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic" for their "better ordering and preservation." They understood that a community could flourish only if its members willingly submitted to lawful authority.

Likewise, the Declaration of Independence teaches that governments should not be overthrown for "light and transient causes." Lawful government is God's good gift, and rebellion is presented as an extraordinary remedy, not the ordinary way of life.

The United States Constitution was written "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, [and] insure domestic Tranquility." The Founders understood that peace and liberty depend upon citizens who respect law and order.

These principles reflect an even older biblical truth.

In the Fifth Commandment, God says,

_{"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."}

Why does God connect honoring parents with remaining in the land?

Because the family is the foundation of every healthy society. Children who learn to respect and obey their parents are being prepared to become faithful husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, church members, and citizens. Strong families become strong communities, and strong communities become strong nations.

Israel's history illustrates this principle clearly.
Before entering the Promised Land, Moses urged the people:

_{"Hear the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land." (Deuteronomy 4:1)}

The land itself was God's gracious gift. Israel did not earn it by their righteousness. Yet once they received that inheritance, they were called to live faithfully within it.

Sadly, later generations forgot.

The book of Judges summarizes the nation's spiritual condition with one sobering sentence:
"In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25)

When each person became his own authority, covenant faithfulness disappeared. Idolatry spread. Justice collapsed. Eventually, Israel lost the very inheritance God had given them and was carried into exile.

Every generation receives an inheritance. Every generation must decide whether it will preserve it or squander it.

The greatest example of obedience, however, is found not in Israel, but in Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul writes that Christ

_{"humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."}

Because of His perfect obedience, God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name. Jesus now possesses all authority in heaven and on earth. He has secured an eternal inheritance for His people—not because we obeyed perfectly, but because He did.

Christ's obedience accomplished what ours never could. Yet having been redeemed by His grace, we are now called to walk in faithful obedience as His disciples.

For young men, that obedience begins with ordinary responsibilities.

What has God entrusted to you today?

Your family.

Your church.

Your education.

Your friendships.

Faithfulness in these seemingly small things is God's training ground for greater responsibilities to come. The habits you build today will shape the man you become tomorrow.

As you reflect on this truth, ask yourself:

How can I honor my parents this week?

How can I strengthen, rather than weaken, the inheritance God has given me?

How can my obedience today become a blessing to future generations?

God has entrusted each of us with gifts, relationships, and responsibilities. By His grace, may we be faithful stewards who preserve and pass on those blessings, just as those who came before us faithfully passed them on to us.

_{Brian McLain and his lovely wife Denise were born and raised in Florida. They have been blessed with six beautiful daughters who fill their home with boundless joy and entertainment. Brian has degrees in Theology and Electrical Engineering and spent 20 years in the Power Industry. The McLains love to sing, dance, read, cook and play games, and they cherish the opportunities they get to serve and host others in their home.}

Introduction
Who is Melchizedek, this shadowy king who moves through the biblical story? He appears out of nowhere, blesses the father of the faithful, collects a tithe, lives at Mount Moriah, and then vanishes. Yet his name surfaces ten times across the Bible (Gen. 14:18; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17). Those ten appearances fall into three places: Genesis, then Psalm 110 (which the New Testament quotes), and finally Hebrews. We will visit each site in turn, wrestle with what each passage says, and watch the portrait of Melchizedek come slowly into focus.

Read this way, the three texts are not three unrelated cameos but three stages of one revelation: Genesis shows us what Melchizedek does, Psalm 110 tells us who he is, and Hebrews discloses whom he resembles. We begin where he first appears on the stage.

Melchizedek in Genesis
In Genesis 13, Abram and Lot part ways and divide the land. In Genesis 14, trouble descends as Canaan is invaded by a coalition of four regional powers (Gen. 14:1). In response, a team of five kings, including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, bands together to resist them (Gen. 14:2–3). The five are defeated, and Lot, dwelling near Sodom, is swept up and carried off as plunder (Gen. 14:12).

This is where Abram steps in. He arms his household, pursues the invading kings, defeats them, and brings Lot home (Gen. 14:14–16). Returning in victory, he is met by two kings bearing two very different proposals. One from the king of Salem; one from the king of Sodom (Gen. 14:17–21). Let’s take them one at a time.

First, who is the king of Salem? His name is Melchizedek, and he is not king only; he is also “priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). This is before the law comes through Moses and before the Levitical priesthood associated with Aaron.

What is a priest of God for? A priest is one who brings people near to God (Heb. 5:1). The prophet moves from God toward the people, carrying the Word down to them. The priest moves from the people toward God, leading them up into his presence. So, when God sends Melchizedek out to meet Abram, the whole point of the meeting is to draw Abram near to God.

And what does the king of Salem offer (Gen. 14:19–20)? He offers bread and wine, and he pronounces upon Abram the blessing and reward of God Most High. Abram responds by honoring Melchizedek with a tithe. The only other figure in all of Scripture who is king and priest, and who is named King of Peace, is Jesus Christ. Melchizedek is the first to put flesh on Yahweh’s promise to bless Abram (Gen. 14:19). The last to confirm the blessing will be the Angel of Yahweh on the mountain (Gen. 22:15–19). The bracket is worth remembering.

Second, who is the king of Sodom? He is one of the five kings whom Abram has just delivered. His proposal is, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself” (Gen. 14:21). In other words, he offers Abram wealth.

The two proposals are a test of where Abram will look for his reward. Abram answers the king of Sodom, “I have lifted my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, that I would not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’” (Gen. 14:22–23). Notice the contrast. Sodom’s king offers possessions; Salem’s priest offers God Most High as Abram’s shield and very great reward. Abram refuses the lesser gift because he has already received the greater. He recognizes that wealth makes a wretched god, and he will not let it be said that the king of Sodom, rather than God Most High, made him great. The priest with bread and wine, not the king with plunder and pain, brings Abram to the One True Rewarder.

The next time Abraham crosses paths with Melchizedek is in Genesis 22, when God commands him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham is sent to the land of Moriah (Gen. 22:2). This is no anonymous wilderness. Moriah is where David will one day raise an altar (2 Sam. 24:18–24) and where Solomon will build the temple (2 Chron. 3:1). It is the high country of Jeru-salem, the very city over which Melchizedek reigns as king and priest (Gen. 14:18). Did the priest-king of that city know a sacrifice was being offered on his doorstep? As the priest in charge of sacrifice, surely he did. The reader can hardly avoid placing Melchizedek on the scene. And present too is the Angel of Yahweh (Gen. 22:11), who halts the knife and then pronounces upon obedient Abraham the promised blessing, the same blessing Melchizedek first spoke in Genesis 14:19, now spoken again.

Those who go on to read Psalm 110, Matthew 22, and Hebrews 7 find themselves wondering why Melchizedek and Jesus are ongoingly compared with each other. But we are taking this one passage at a time. In Genesis, Melchizedek is the priest who meets Abram with bread, wine, and blessing, who names Yahweh as the only true reward, and who stands at the hinge of the covenant promise. What Genesis leaves open, Psalm 110 begins to name.

Melchizedek in Psalm 110
In Psalm 110 the Holy One swears two oaths. In verse 1 he promises to make the enemies of “my Lord” a footstool. That is, he grants “my Lord” worldwide rule, with every enemy laid beneath his feet. In verse 4 he promises someone an eternal priesthood.

Two oaths. To whom are they sworn?

Take the first oath. To whom is the promise of Psalm 110:1 given?

_{“The Lord (YHVH) says to my Lord:
    ‘Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.’”}

Yahweh makes a vow to “my Lord.” But who is “my Lord”? Jesus presses exactly this question on the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41–46:

_{“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, ‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’”? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?’ And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.”}

Jesus points out five things about Psalm 110. First, the psalm is David’s, spoken in the Spirit (Mt. 22:43). Second, “my Lord” is the Messiah (Mt. 22:42). Third, Yahweh swears an oath to this Messiah (Mt. 22:44). Fourth, the Messiah cannot be merely David’s son, for David calls him “Lord” (Mt. 22:45). Fifth, the Messiah is greater than David himself. This raises a question. What mortal son outranks his royal father? Only one who is no mere mortal. To call the Messiah “Lord” is to confess him as more than a man.

The Pharisees evidently granted that David spoke of the Messiah, for they had not a word of rebuttal (Mt. 22:46). Nor was Psalm 110 the only place they could have looked. The Old Testament already knew of a divine-human figure enthroned beside God:

_{“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
    there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
    that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
    and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13–14)}

Daniel envisions a heavenly throne room. The Ancient of Days presides while a figure rides the clouds of heaven, the action of deity in Scripture, and yet this same figure is “one like a son of man.” A divine-human being is granted a place beside God and given everlasting dominion over all the earth. When Daniel 7 is placed beside Psalm 110, a portrait emerges of a man enthroned next to God, a man who conquers the earth, a man who is somehow divine.

So what is Jesus claiming in Matthew 22? He is claiming to be the Messiah, the one David called “my Lord,” the divine man sent from the Father, the very figure Daniel saw coming on the clouds. This is no isolated outburst. Across the Gospels Jesus makes the claim of Messiahship in creative ways (Mt. 16:15ff; Mark 8:29; 14:61f; Jn. 4:25f). And in Matthew 22:41-46, Jesus makes this claim by referring to Psalm 110 and Melchizedek. So, the first oath of Psalm 110 belongs to the Son of God.

Now the second oath. To whom is the promise of Psalm 110:4 given?

_{“The Lord (YHVH) has sworn and will not change his mind,
    ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’”}

Here a difficulty emerges. Yahweh appoints someone a priest forever “after the order of Melchizedek.” What does that assume? Melchizedek’s priesthood must itself be everlasting, or there would be no eternal order to be ranked within. And if Melchizedek is already an eternal priest, how can Yahweh now install a second eternal priest beside him? Are we to imagine two rival everlasting priesthoods running side by side forever?

David Mitchell has argued that the Hebrew is better rendered, “You are a priest forever according to my decree, O Melchizedek.” This makes sense of the difficulty. There are not two eternal priests but one. And verse 4 supplies a name for the nameless “my Lord” of verse 1. It is Melchizedek to whom both oaths are sworn: universal dominion in verse 1, eternal priesthood in verse 4.

This clarifies what Genesis told us. Melchizedek is no random tribal king who happens to cross Abram’s path. He is the eternal priest-king who blessed Abram in Genesis 14:19 and met him again in Genesis 22. Genesis showed his office. Psalm 110 gives him an eternal throne and a name. How can an apparently mortal man receive such things? Hebrews takes up that question.

Melchizedek in Hebrews

_{“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:1–3)}

Notice five things the author of Hebrews says.

First, Melchizedek is “without father or mother or genealogy” (v. 3). In a nation that prizes bloodlines, to have no recorded line at all is to stand outside the ordinary order of creatures.

Second, he has “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (v. 3). It’s not that Melchizedek’s birth and death go unrecorded. He says Melchizedek has neither birth nor death, which is the language of immortality.

Third, he “continues a priest forever” (v. 3). Mortal priests die and hand their office to a successor. This priest never vacates his office. The one who received Abram’s tithe is one “of whom it is testified that he lives” (Heb. 7:8), holding office “by the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16).

Fourth, he is “resembling the Son of God” (v. 3). That is, he is “having been made like the Son of God.” So Melchizedek appeared to Abram in the very likeness of the Son of God, bearing the Son’s own image. Curious minds want to know: who could resemble the Son of God with such exactness except the Son himself? Could it be that the Second Person of the Trinity manifested to Abram as Melchizedek, made for that hour in the likeness of the Son he eternally is?

Fifth, Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, for the lesser is blessed by the greater and the patriarch paid him tithes (Heb. 7:4–7). But who outranks Abraham? Not Moses, Aaron, Joseph, or David. They all came from Abraham’s loins, and in a sense paid the tithe in him (Heb. 7:9–10). Not an angel, for angels are servants sent out for the elect (Heb. 1:14). The one greater than Abraham must be greater than the whole house that came from him. And that narrows the field to someone divine.

Gathered together, a single figure stands out. Melchizedek on earth is a divine man on earth. He brings salvation to Abram in the war of the kings (Gen. 14:17), sets before him bread and wine (Gen. 14:18), and presides over the mountain where a ram is provided to redeem Isaac (Gen. 22:12–14).

Recall that Jesus claims to have seen Abraham (Jn. 8:57f). When did this occur, if not in Genesis 14 through 22? This is why the writer of Hebrews can apply Psalm 110:4 to Jesus (Heb. 7:20–22), measuring the eternal salvation Jesus secures by the pattern of the priest-king who came before (Heb. 5:5–10).

Jesus is a priest forever (Heb. 4:14ff); so is Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20; 7:3). Neither holds’ office by genealogy, but by the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16). Each is made priest by a divine oath (Heb. 7:21). So unless we are prepared to confess two simultaneous eternal high priests, the question presses itself upon us: Is Melchizedek the incarnated form of the Second Person of the Trinity? John Henry Newman believed so, saying, “Who is Melchizedek but our Lord and Saviour, and what is the Bread and Wine but the very feast which He has ordained?”

Three passages, one figure. Genesis gave us the priest with bread and wine. Psalm 110 gave him an eternal throne and the name “my Lord.” Hebrews names whom he resembles, the Son of God, because he is the Son of God. It appears the Son of God has been in the story all throughout the Old Testament, from the beginning.

Conclusion
The witness of Scripture is of a continual, visible manifestation of the divine Lord. God speaks the same yesterday, today, and forever, with the same authority, the same fresh breath, and the same vital power. His Word, unlike man’s word, emanates from the background of eternity.

The Second Person of the Trinity appears on earth under various other titles, including the Angel of Yahweh, or the Angel of Elohim, who is so closely identified with Yahweh that he speaks as Yahweh and receives the worship due to Yahweh alone. In passage after passage the Angel of the Lord simply is Yahweh present in person (Gen. 16:7–14; 21:17–19; 31:11–13; 32:24–30; Judg. 13:3–22; Mal. 3:1). Hosea names this Angel as Elohim (Hos. 12:3–4), and so does Jacob (Gen. 48:3–4, 15–16). In Genesis 15:1 “the word of Yahweh” (Hint hint, the Logos of John 1:1–2) comes to Abram in a vision. A vision is something seen: the Word leads him out, shows him the stars, and cuts covenant with him. In Genesis 18 three men appear at the oaks of Mamre; two are angels (Gen. 19:1), but the one who speaks with Abraham is Yahweh himself in human form (Gen. 18:1, 13, 22).

Since the New Testament tells us plainly that it is the Second Person of the Trinity whom the Father sends (Gal. 4:4–6), it stands to reason that the same Son is the one the Father sent in the Old. Who, then, is it that speaks with Abram across Genesis 14–22 (Jn. 8:57f)? Who speaks with Moses face to face (Ex. 33:11, 17)? Who appears at Shiloh (1 Sam. 3:21)? In each case the answer is the same.

Jesus was put to death because he claimed to be the Messiah. And that claim reached back through the whole of redemptive history. He claimed to be Melchizedek who blessed Abram (Mt. 22:41–46; Jn. 8:57f). He was the Angel-Messenger who led Israel out of Egypt in the pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21; 14:19; 23:20–23), the Rock that gave water (Ex. 17:6; Num. 20:11; 1 Cor. 10:4), and the one who appeared to Moses at the tent of meeting (Ex. 33:9–11). It raises questions all throughout the Old Testament. Who appeared to Joshua outside Jericho (Josh. 5:13–15)? Who stood in the sanctuary before Samuel (1 Sam. 3:21) and David (1 Chron. 21:16)?

We must not forget that the Second Person of the Trinity doesn’t show up for the first time in Matthew 1. He is the Logos sent from God, present at the very beginning of the story:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (John 1:1–5)

And the line does not stop at Christ. In him the church is made “a kingdom and priests” (Rev. 5:10), a royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices (1 Pt. 2:5). Since Christ’s priesthood is the priesthood of Melchizedek, the church’s priesthood is no independent thing. It is a sharing in this. The priest who met Abram with bread and wine still meets his people at a table, still blesses, still draws them near to God. Melchizedek is not a random detour in the story. He was the Son of God, stepping for a moment into Abram’s road. And he has been walking it with his people ever since.

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

Bibliography
David C. Mitchell, Jesus: The Incarnation of the Word (Campbell Publishers, 2021), 1-20, 51-71.
John Henry Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, Volume 7 (Hardpress, 2019), 172.</sub>

Introduction
In C.S. Lewis’ essay “After Priggery – What?” he explores what to do about Cleon. Some newspapermen are so desperate for attention that they stir angry bewilderment as the technique to attract readers. They disseminate falsehoods for money. They make claims “calculated to produce envy, hatred, suspicion, and confusion.” Cleon is the name Lewis uses for this kind of provocateur. He is an intellectual prostitute. He gives people a base pleasure and infects them with a dangerous disease. He is a wicked man who draws in the honest man. He is the person of bad will who draws in the person of good will. What should we do about Cleon?

Lewis’s Answer
Some believe “Cleon to be as false as hell” yet still “meets him on perfectly friendly terms over a lunch table.” He does not hesitate to read Cleon, listen to him, joke with him, and shake his hand. Cleon ought to have “the same social status as a prostitute.” Yet there this good man is, treating him as a friend. He isn’t maintaining contact from a perspective of charity. He is not associating with Cleon like a pastor or missionary would minister to a prostitute to help them turn to Jesus, who “saves his people from their sins” (Mt. 1:21). The person doesn’t remain with Cleon out of Christian love for the villain. He accepts Cleon with “a tolerant laugh or a shrug.”

Treating Cleon like a friend is to falsely build up the scoundrel. “The result is that things are a good deal too easy for Cleon. Even when the rewards of dishonesty are strictly alternative to those of honesty some men will choose them. But Cleon finds he can have both.” Cleon gets to express his inferiority complex, enjoy unearned influence, and gain access to the ears of the honest man.  

Then Lewis says this, “From such conditions what can we expect but an increasing number of Cleons? And that must be our ruin.” Why? “They render impossible the formation of any healthy public opinion” and become “tools of government,” tools of “the totalitarian threat.” Therefore, Lewis concludes, we should refuse to associate with Cleon.

“In cold-shouldering a man for his vices … are” we “claiming to be better than he is?” Lewis points out that the sober man who drives his drunk friend home implies that one man is sober and the other is not. In that one moment, the sober man is better, even if, generally speaking, neither man is better or worse. If one man can walk straight and the other can’t, then there is a difference between the two men. When there is a lawsuit, one man claims he is right and the other man is wrong. This is a claim of particular superiority, not a general one.

Likewise, “We can (and should) blackball Cleon at every club and avoid his society and boycott his paper without in the least claiming any general superiority to him.” Lewis goes on, “We may have a hundred vices from which he is free. But on one particular matter we are, if you insist, ‘better’ than he.” How so? “We are not professional liars and he is … And that one thing which he does and we do not do is poisoning the whole nation.”

Lewis is saying that it is necessary to prevent Cleon’s influence. This requires discrediting him. And the way to discredit him is to not buy his newspaper and not be interested in what he has to say. This doesn’t eliminate all attention toward Cleon. But it leaves only Cleon’s like to support him.

Cleon’s influence perishes by being ignored. Buying the paper perpetuates the paper. If only the real true-blue supporters are left, they may not be enough to keep Cleon afloat.

Modern Answer
The current version of Cleon is not a newspaperman, but an influencer. There is an entire class of conflict entrepreneurs who spawn polarization, brush off nuance, and foster fights. The method for attention is to be intensely loved and intensively hated. This is accomplished, first, by giving a great deal of trouble to everybody. And second, by giving a special sort of trouble to those people who agree with them in nearly everything.

Conflict entrepreneurs can’t exist in isolation. They need each other, and it creates an entire ecosystem of parasites where one preposterous opinion is met with another. The monetization of conflict requires an ouroboros where two snakes eat each other’s tails (Gal. 5:15).

What should we do about it? What would Lewis’s Cleon argument look like in application to the conflict entrepreneurs? Lewis would say that we give them too much credibility by paying attention to their conflict. If the honest person, if the person of good will, pays attention to the wicked fools, then that multiplies attention to mendacity. Attention builds their brand, their bank account, and their potential for drawing in the next honest person (2 Tim. 2:23).

While acknowledging there are some exceptions (Lewis never tells us what the honest critic or faithful watchman looks like), let’s imagine that Lewis’s prescription is right and the church’s response to the flame-throwers is to ignore them. What would that mean?

First, it would mean the Proverbs method for dealing with scoffers.
Proverbs 26:4 says, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” So, engaging on the conflict entrepreneur’s terms drags you down to their level and into their frame. Cleon makes you Cleon. Then Proverbs 26:5 apparently gives the opposite view, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” This means discernment is required in dealing with fools. We must know what is fitting and what is unfitting, not according to what passes for respectability today, but according to God’s standard. If people insult you, you don’t insult back, because God says so (Mt. 5:38-48). We overcome evil with good (Prov. 25:21-22). Yes, we should expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11). Lies shouldn’t go unanswered. But Lewis’ point is that one of the methods for exposing darkness is the contrast that occurs when your light is moved further away from the abyss. Practically, this means don’t respond on Cleon’s terms, which are designed to profit and grow from your response, whatever it is.  

So then, when do we answer the fool, and when do we not? The goal is to destabilize the fool in their foolishness without becoming like him. Since listening to Cleon won’t destabilize Cleon, but potentially make you like him, and since your tweets won’t change Cleon, but make him bigger, the church would be wise to collectively ignore Cleon as the best application of Proverbs 26:4-5.

Proverbs 9:7-8 and 23:9 warn that correcting a scoffer earns abuse and accomplishes nothing. Proverbs 26:20 establishes the principle of staving fire rather than feeding it: “For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.” If attention is the fuel, if attention is the wood, then how do you make the fire go out? Remove the attention, and you remove the oxygen to sustain the strife. Proverbs 17:14 changes the metaphor: “The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out.” Now the problem isn’t fire, but water. When the water breaks through the breach, you get a flood. How do you stop the flood? Get out of the strife. Ignore it.

Second, it would mean the skill of disengagement.
Titus 3:9-11 says, “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” Paul gives Titus the prescription for dealing with Cleon: disengagement rather than repeated rebuttal.

First Timothy 6:3-5 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.” What is Paul’s counsel? “But as for you, O man of God, flee these things” (1 Tim. 6:11). Involvement with quarreling, even listening to ongoing quarreling, is the thing that does the damage (2 Tim. 2:14).

Third, it would mean the deliberate reallocation of attention.
Where does your attention rightly belong? Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” Focus your attention not on the inflammatory but on the worthy. The conflict entrepreneur’s content nearly always fails to be true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, or excellent.

Conclusion
Lewis concludes his essay with a proposal: “In the present ‘tolerant’ age he has the support and countenance not only of the rascals but of thousands of honest people as well. Is it not at least worth our while to try the experiment of leaving him and the rascals alone? We might try it for five years … I doubt if you will find him still rampant at the end.” So, what would it look like to put Lewis’s advice into action? It would require a newfound boredom in the influencers, countermanding your attention to something fruitful.

Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

Other Articles
https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2024/09/17/are-you-mature-enough-to-use-social-media

https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2026/01/08/the-algorithm-and-the-christian

Bibliography
C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns: Journalistic Essays (HarperOne, 1986), 65-72.

Paul speaks of “empty deceit” in Colossians 2:8, and there is an entire lifestyle of empty deceit marketed and available right now. It’s especially targeted at young men, though women fall for it too. People of all ages can be taken captive. We might call it gamification.

Gamification is the direction the world is trending. Amp up everything. Join the app and keep the streak going. Put action on everything, prop bets on everything.

Why is all this enticing? Because life itself has become insufficient. People are dulled to thinking the world doesn’t offer an interesting enough story. So they desperately engineer artificial stakes to make existence feel like something worth paying attention to.

The sunrise with its prolific, staggering radiance isn’t enough anymore. Let’s bet on what time it crests the horizon. The game itself isn’t compelling enough. We need a parlay on every possession just to sustain interest through the fourth quarter. A bag of chips won’t do. It needs to be flaming, loaded, extreme, McDonald’s-flavored chips to overwhelm every taste receptor you have.

And underneath so much of it runs a seductive current: the promise of free money and no sacrifice. Pick the right game, pull the right lever, tap the right screen, and unlimited crypto appears. No knowledge required. No discipline. No years of study, no mastered craft, no professional competence. Just reactions, reflexes, and luck dressed up as skill.

Everything is impacted. The way to get people into politics is to make it WWE. Let’s pave over the White House lawn to set up the octagon for UFC fights to win crypto.

The vision of this empty deceit looks something like this: a young man sunken into a couch, vape pen in hand, Reese’s Cup flavored energy drink within reach, two screens running simultaneously, live betting on one, something pornographic on the other, while somewhere in the background a refrigerator the size of a small room slowly fills with food that will be forgotten and thrown away untouched.

This entire ecosystem of gamification exists because a marketplace discovered it could commodify idle hours, especially the idle hours of the young, and extract wealth from them. The whole experience is deliberately, scientifically engineered to be addictive. Hooks everywhere. Rewards timed to maximize dependency. It is not accidental. It is predatory.

This is the modern version of Paul’s warning against “empty deceit” wearing a modern costume. It promises fullness and delivers vacancy. It promises freedom and delivers addiction. It promises meaning through stimulation while systematically destroying the capacity to find meaning in anything real.

Meanwhile, you were made to be filled with Christ (Col. 2:10). The gamified life is a slow substitution of that fullness with enough noise, enough dopamine, and enough artificial energy to make it so that you won’t even notice you’ve been sold a bill of goods.

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.}

1.    The artist makes beautiful things to convey the truth about God, God’s Word, and God’s world in order to inspire others to contemplate the living God.

2.    Art, in its highest form, is the use of beauty to make people receptive to divine inspiration and love Higher Things.

3.    Inspiration does not come from deep inside human subjectivity, as if the inner desires of the person are somehow pure, as if freeing human instincts from tradition or inheritance is the pathway to beauty.

4.    The human heart naturally seeks beauty as the antidote to the withering claims of materialism and rationalism.

5.    Atheistic art is when the artist’s subjectivity is free from the will of God, the Nature of Things, and the artist’s ego masquerades as the source of truth.

6.    Since a tree is judged by its fruit, art can be judged as beautiful if it makes people love the Truth.  

7.    The artist’s job is to observe, apprehend, and reproduce God’s world artistically to reveal the order of beauty and inspire a higher knowledge of the New Jerusalem.

8.    God’s world has many hidden or unappreciated forms contained in it, from the tiny creatures scurrying along the forest floor, to euphonious harmonies of backup singers, to nature and its proportion, and the radiance of the cosmos. The artist's job is to abstract these things and apply them in creative ways.

9.    People travel to see and experience the inspiration of neo-Gothic or neo-Classical architecture whose soaring frames, rhythmic lines, intricate ornamentation, disciplined geometry, and complex stonework speak directly to human intuition. They line up to see the Notre Dame Cathedral or the Parthenon, but not the Brutalist style of the Barbican Centre. It’s high time architecture schools started wondering why.

10.    To walk in the spiritual disciplines of the Bible requires directing the passions via human habit to learn to like the art that God likes and hate the art that God hates.

11.    Humans have a deep artistic impulse that arises from the need to function as an image of God. The second commandment directs the artistic impulse properly to restrict the sinful application of it.

12.    Beauty is based on the objective truths of balance, proportion, permanence, life, and telos. Attraction is based on a person’s feelings about something.


13.    Jackson Pollock, Duchamp, Piero Manzoni, and the like are haters of beauty, nature, and transcendence who represent the modern blight of art museums.

14.    It’s never the artist himself that we are supposed to weigh and consider. In other words, art is not good simply because it expresses someone’s inner “me.”

15.    The greatest art will always discern and align itself with the Truth.

16.    Art must make perceptible the unseen realm. It must translate the ineffable truths of God, God’s Word, and God’s world into the language of human intuition.

17.    When Truth and Goodness are suppressed in the broader culture, then Beauty is needed to fulfill the task of all three.

18.    Art awakens a sense of Transcendence when it contains more than it communicates, hints beyond what is there, and makes a claim on the person who enters its presence.

19.    True beauty is the earthly shadow of heavenly glory, and it is the duty of artists to represent the majesty and perfection of God.

20.    Solomon learned that vaingloriously grasping after cultured refinement was vapor and a striving after wind (Eccl. 2:8-11).

21.    God can make something out of nothing, while man can make something out of something, which means the eternal vocation of God is unlimited creation, and the artistic vocation of man is limited creation.

22.    The beauty of art is not because of the inner subjectivity of the artist, but because of how the artist sanctifies their proclivities to an external object that is beautiful.

23.    The Scripture describes God himself as beautiful and full of majestic glory (Ps. 27:4, 96:6; Mt. 17:1-8; 2 Pt. 1:16f), which means that beauty is predicated on God.

24.    A non-Christian may do art that presents an eternal truth, and a Christian artist may inadvertently do art that presents a tacky and disposable worldview.

25.    The world doesn’t need more art about Christianity, but more art by talented Christians covering the entire range of nature, experience, and divine beauty.


_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.}


Other Articles
https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2024/08/27/seven-truths-about-art

https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2026/02/02/creativity-and-the-church-or-how-to-develop-creativity

In 556 B.C. King Nabonidus inherited the land between the Tigris and Euphrates. This was a constantly disputed territory and a challenger arose to rival the rule of Nabonidus. The challenger’s name was Cyrus of Anshan, a Persian ruler from what is now Iran’s southern province of Fars. The other half of modern Iran was settled by the Medes. The Persians were vassals of the Medes until the rule of Cyrus the Great (550 – 530).

Cyrus eventually ruled an empire—the Achaemenid Persian empire—that covered two million square miles. For context, the United States is just under four million square miles. Cyrus carefully crafted his legitimacy by embedding himself within various traditions. There were no fewer than four origin stories of the future king, each presenting Cyrus as a person destined for power.

Given the surrounding habits of forced cannibalism, it wasn’t hard for Cyrus to emerge as a competent and likable alternative. He also sought the good graces of the local nobility. Cyrus’ tactics were in stark contrast to the Assyrian monarchs who asserted dominance through annihilation. Compared to his bloodthirsty rivals, Cyrus appeared as a liberating hero. He retained local customs, appointed representatives from the people, and graciously administered justice. People craved stability and Cyrus gave it to them. In Plato’s Laws, the Athenian statesman explains, “The Persians found the right balance between servitude and freedom” (3.694a-b). Conquest by ingratiation meant local power in exchange for fealty. The policy engendered loyalty to Cyrus, which helped to keep down rebellions. Cyrus only used scorched earth tactics when the people revolted against his rule, such as when he hunted down the Lydian nobleman Pactyes.

Ruling 200 years before Alexander the Great, Cyrus created the most powerful political empire and military force the world had yet seen. He overpowered the Medes in 549 B.C. and Lydia in 546 B.C. He defeated rivals far and near. He then marched on Babylon in 539 B.C. After defeating Babylonian troops at Opis (near modern Baghdad), Cyrus entered Babylon without much resistance. Modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Israel fell to him during the conquest of Babylon. His army was a lightning burst of red sparks. His kingdom was an expanding province of fiefdom.

Readers of the Bible remember Cyrus from the book of Ezra. When Cyrus took control of Babylon, he found Jewish exiles there. The Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II had taken them from Jerusalem and deported them to captivity. The Edict of Cyrus (537 BC) decreed that the Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. A small group returned to the land. These were the very people exiled in Babylon in 587 B.C. (Ezra 2:1).

God had sent them into exile and now God, through Cyrus, brought them back into the land. This is the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Ezra 1:1). Not to be left out, Isaiah said that Cyrus was heaven-sent. “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: ‘I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron’” (Is. 45:1-2).  

It was Cyrus’ practice to keep traditional customs in place and restore them where broken. He allowed the exiles to return home and rebuild their ruined temple. Cyrus even sends back the vessels of the temple that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away (Ezra 1:7-11). Similar to how the Egyptians urged Israel to leave by giving them silver and gold (Ex. 12:33-36), Cyrus decreed Israel to return to its homeland with gifts of silver and gold (Ezra 1:4-6). In an odd twist, when inhabitants of the land offered to help Israel rebuild, they refused. Even though the helpers claimed to worship the same God, Zerubbabel stuck with the program of King Cyrus (Ezra 4:1-3).

Cyrus was the Lord’s anointed. The Hebrew word for “his anointed” is “m’shichu,” i.e., “his messiah.” Unwittingly, Cyrus, a Persian, a Gentile, and a conqueror of Babylon, fulfilled the Davidic role by authorizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Cyrus, of all people, was, for a time, the new and greater David. He was the shepherd who fulfilled the purposes of God (Is. 44:28). Yahweh promised to go before Cyrus and level the exalted places (Is. 45:2), give him spoils of war (Is. 45:3), a name (Is. 45:4), and the desire to help Israel (Is. 45:13).

In Cyrus, we see one way God works for his people. Cyrus, a man outside the covenant, worked events in favor of those inside the covenant. He acted in wisdom and courage; in justice and deference to Israel’s covenant obligations. Cyrus was a powerful man who gathered up the universal virtues for the benefit of the visible church. Yahweh used a Gentile with dubious motives to establish a new order. God used a Persian to accomplish a Davidic task.

This is the Lord and there is no other (Is. 45:5). He forms light and darkness (Is. 45:7). He stretches out the heavens and commands all their host (Is. 45:12). It is the Lord’s righteousness to use Cyrus to produce the fruit of salvation (Is. 45:8). God is the Potter and Cyrus the clay. This is one way God makes known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy (Rom. 9:23).  Historians recognize Cyrus’ wisdom in permitting aliens to return to their homeland. The prophet Isaiah recognized that it was Yahweh who called and gifted Cyrus for the task. All the nations will follow the Lord and bow down to him (Is. 45:14). Those who make idols will be confused and shamed (Is. 45:16-17), which is always the result of those who pray to gods who cannot save (Is. 45:20). In it all, God is the Victorious One, “a righteous God and Savior.” What shall we do when we see God exalt Cyrus to accomplish great things? We should turn to the Lord and be saved (Is. 45:21-22). The way God used Cyrus was one phase of the ongoing struggle. The “offspring of Israel” (Is. 45:25) can also expect to be used differently than expected.

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.}

Bibliography
<sub>Achtemeier, P. J. “Cyrus.” Harper’s Bible Dictionary. (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 1st ed., p. 200.

Klaven, Spencer, “One King to Rule Them All.” Claremont Review of Books. Winter 2022/23.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008), 486-492, 497-504.

Waters, Matt. King of the World: The Life of Cyrus the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022).

Wiseman, D. J. “Cyrus.” In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, & J. I. Packer (Eds.), New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 3rd ed., p. 250.</sub>

To graduate from high school is to leave behind one phase of life and press forward to something new. Consider two vital truths you must take with you into this next phase.

First, Real Presence
You must intentionally live with a real presence in the world. This requires swimming against the tide. You live in the age of the instant, of the flicker, of the “story” that disappears in 24 hours, and the opinion that disappears even faster. The age of the instant plays out on social media, which transfers an entire ethos to those who become its slaves.

Whether you join social media or not, you must never join the ethos of social media, which is, as I once heard it put, like a person sitting in the back seat of a car going one hundred miles an hour, staring out the side window. The world outside that window is rich, vast, full of trees, faces, sunrises, and the occasional cow. But to this poor passenger, everything is reduced to a blur, a passing color, a shape without substance, a moment without memory.

This person sees so much and understands so little. She confuses motion for meaning. And worst of all, she thinks she’s in control of the car.

Don’t be that person. Instead, have real presence. Don’t be captured by the ethos of the instant. Don’t think that AI is wisdom or that the search engine is a soul.

Life is not meant to be a blur. Real life is not a feed to scroll through, nor a highlight reel to stage. Real life is a pilgrimage, a strange and slow adventure where even the roadside weeds have names, and even the delays have a purpose.

So, don’t live so fast that you miss what is real. Step outside the car. Walk. Stumble, even. But see the world as it is, not with the filter that others put on it. Because in the end, the soul is not nourished by speed, but by wonder. And wonder, as Chesterton said, is the natural state of man when he is sane.

Second, Self-Limitation
You must live with self-limitation in the world. Self-limitation entails salvific revolutions. This requires an explanation, but first, we must reflect on the paradox of how the explosion of knowledge has rendered us stupider.

How so? We live in a time where information flies faster than bullets and often does more damage. Yes, we can split the atom. Yes, we can build a missile that shakes an eight-block radius (designed here in Huntsville, no less). We can hurl a man to the moon with mathematical precision (also work done in Huntsville). Yet we can scarcely tell that man why he’s here on Earth in the first place.

We can invent deadly viruses in a Wuhan laboratory and cover it up.[1] We can connect the globe with the miracle of the Internet. But to what end? So that a man in Kansas can argue with a man in Kosovo about a cat video. The point is that for all these technological advances, man has lost the one knowledge most necessary to him: the knowledge of his limits.

That is the great irony you must avoid. The more omnipotent our machinery and knowledge, the more you forget that you are not God. You need to learn the lesson of Babel. You need to discover the lesson of Job. You need to memorize Psalm 131. The lesson you are learning, discovering, and memorizing is this: You are not God.

When people begin to see themselves as infinite, they see nothing at all. They are blinded not by darkness, but by the glare of a thousand artificial lights. When these technological breakthroughs convince man that he has no limits to knowledge, he ends up in a place where he knows less about reality than before.

That’s why self-limitation entails salvific revolution. It’s the sin of hubris to think there is nothing that we shouldn’t know; nothing that we couldn’t know. Today, you and I walk around demanding rights, demanding answers, and explanations from God. We put God on trial as if we are god, as if we are in charge, as if we know. And this is the greatest sin of the modern world.  

Job experimented with this sort of hubris. When Job went down the path of demanding knowledge from God, God said this to Job:

Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

At the end of this discomfiting exchange, Job learns wisdom and says:

I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know...therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

That is the salvific revolution that you need.

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

[1] Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton University Press, 2025).</sub>

Introduction
Marxism, like the tower of Babel, is a marvelous and impressive work of man. It’s unsurprising that people, including Christians, approach it ready for cognitive bargaining.[1] But it is deathly to imagine Marxism as something alive with the miracle of mysterious vitality. It is spiritual suicide to embrace socialism as a marvelous and impressive work of God.

Marxism is a theory of history that ushers in an economic system, based upon the collective ownership and control of resources, implemented by violent revolution and enforced by a dictator of the proletariat through physical and psychological terror designed to overthrow all existing social conditions, especially those influenced by the Church.

At the center of Marxism is the inexorable proletarianism principle, the IPP, also known as the inevitable existence of equalization, the IEE. This IPP exists in various forms, from Marxism to Communism, to Socialism, to elements of Critical Theory, even down to certain forms of vague “democracy.” This is the man-made element of the IPP. Yes, it is anti-clerical in more or less obvious ways, and this is a manifestation of it being a work of man. But also, the proletariat has been so thoroughly flattered that, as C.S. Lewis put it, “They are convinced that whatever may be wrong with the world, it cannot be themselves.”[2] The fault may lie with capitalism, the church, or the Creator, or some combination of the three, so it all needs to come down. The proletariat functions as the judge of capitalism, the church, and the Creator. Indeed, the whole civilization turns into the courtroom of guilty verdicts. This is the nucleus of the IPP's man-made foundations. It goes by the name revolution, and Marx taught that it was historically inevitable.

What follows are seven quotations that reveal the IPP to be full of the unnatural insensibilities of man.

#1 Pope Pius XI, in the Quadragesimo Anno said, “One cannot be at the same time a socialist and a Christian. The two are incompatible."

Many people are familiar with Marx’s quote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”[3] Marx uses the metaphor to say that religion exploits humans and results in heartless and soulless persons. He says that religion is used by the capitalist ruling class to drive the masses into submission.

Marxism is atheistic through and through. Marx also said, “Communism begins where Atheism begins.” Vladimir Lenin, the first head of the Soviet Union, said, “There is nothing more abominable than religion. All worship of any divinity is necrophilia.” A slogan from the Soviet Union’s League of the Militant Godless said, “Whoever is for Easter is against socialism.”

This has been the viewpoint of Marxism from The Communist Manifesto, to the Soviet regime in 1917, to Communist Mongolia, Maoist China, the Eastern Bloc after 1945, Castro’s Cuba, the Khmer Rouge’s “killing fields” in Cambodia, the macabre Juche cult of the Kim Dynasty in North Korea, and the anti-clericism in Albania, where Enver Hoxha executed priests for baptizing children. In sum, Marxism’s response to the religiosity of human nature has been to silence Christian voices. The result has been a cold and compulsory culture of death, decay, and dimness.[4]

We could modify Marx’s quote to make it true. False religions can be accurately described as the opium that drugs and lulls people to sleep. But the resurrection of Christ is like smelling salts that jolts the spiritual sleeper awake.

#2 In the Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn says that the essence of the Soviet plan was that “The peasant’s seed must perish with the adults.” Marxism-Leninism “has shown us how to destroy utterly—down to the very babes.” “Hitler was a mere disciple [of Lenin and Stalin], but he had all the luck, his murder camps have made him famous, whereas no one has any interest in ours at all.”

The mass murder committed by the left is largely ignored by historians, Democrats, academics, and the media. Solzhenitsyn traces the blood thirsty behavior of Marxism to ideology.  He explains that Shakespeare’s villains stopped short at a dozen corpses, “because they had no ideology…. Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience villainy on a scale calculated in the millions.”[5]

Russian literary expert Gary Saul Morson argues that Marxist atheism doesn’t just reject traditional virtues like compassion or benevolence. It’s not just amoral. It is “precisely reverse morality,” meaning compassion and benevolence are vices to be eliminated rather than cultivated. Brutality is the first choice. Since human life is not sacred, and since people are just a random collection of cells, mercilessness becomes a compliment.[6]

R.J. Rummel’s book Death by Government provides a shiver of historical revelations detailing the murder totals of the Left. Over 100 million people in the twentieth century.[7] Zbig Brzezinski puts it in perspective: “It is absolute insanity to condemn the Nazis without recognizing that the Soviets and the Chinese Communists killed tens of millions more indeed, potentially as many as two hundred and fifty million people in the twentieth century.”
Socialists today often talk about how they regret the excesses of past revolutions while affirming the need for more revolutions. They excuse the violence of the socialist revolution.[8] For example, James Cone said, “If the system is evil, then revolutionary violence is both justified and necessary.”[9]

If false teaching on marriage and diet is from demons (1 Tim. 4:1-3), then from where is the false teaching that leads to mega-death?

#3 G.K. Chesterton, “The materialist theory of history, that all politics and ethics are the expression of economics, is a very simple fallacy indeed. It consists simply of confusing the necessary conditions of life with the normal preoccupations of life.”[10]

Chesterton goes on to explain that through the course of life, a man’s normal doubts and daydreams are about existence, not how to live, but why we live. When you study the interior of man, it isn’t about economics. It’s about something way more, which means Marx doesn’t just miss the mark. He’s shooting at the wrong target altogether!

Marx believed that matter alone is real, and change takes place as people compete for control of the material forces. As such, Marxists deny the spiritual realm. Jesus taught that if you seek the spiritual things first, then you ought not be anxious about the material things. “Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Mt. 6:31-33)

Isn’t it ironic that those who deny the spiritual realm, those who believe in and seek only the material realm, should, in their denial of the spiritual realm, also be denied basic needs in the material realm? This is predicted in Ecclesiastes. One of Solomon’s main points is that a life devoted to pleasure-seeking results in unsatisfied appetites. This drives the honest philosopher to conclude that the fault must lie with the materialistic worldview, which is entrapment, forcing people to swing between metaphysical dread and the false promise of a totalizing utopia.

#4 Ludwig Von Mises said, “They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau.”[11]

Statism is an ideology that places the state in an idolatrous position. The country becomes the center of meaning and the object of highest adoration and obedience. People must obey the state in all things and pledge their ultimate allegiance.

A few years ago, the president of the Chinese Communist Party said, “Active efforts should be made to incorporate religions into socialist society.”[12] He was calling for all religious beliefs to be co-opted by the state for the state. Why do socialist regimes direct special hostility toward Christian churches? Why do they see Christianity as their enemy? The reason is because of what Jesus said in Mark 10:16-17, “And they brought one. And he said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ They said to him, ‘Caesar's.’ 17 Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.’ And they marveled at him.”

Jesus is anti-totalitarian to the core. The second command—“render to God the things that are God’s”—is the ground of the first command—“render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” does not exist in isolation. The all-important assumption is that “from him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). Not everything belongs to the state. But, everything does belong to God, who has assigned to civil government the roles of punishing criminals, rewarding the righteous, and establishing good order and justice in society through equal weights and measures. The state has no right to set itself against the church or lay claims to total allegiance.

Why does the coin belong to Caesar? Because it has Caesar’s image on it. Caesar can demand his coin, so give it to him. In the Providence of God, Caesar has control over what is supposed to go to Caesar. What is supposed to go to Caesar? That which has his image on it. What is supposed to go to God? That which has His image on it. What bears the image of God? Human beings.

Luther defined tyranny as when the secular authority takes the role of the religious authority.[13] Totalitarian governments always fear religious liberty. They fear the Christian gospel in particular. Christians have to recognize Communism for exactly what it is. It is absolute, unadulterated, unfiltered idolatry. Christians should name it and shame it. The Christian’s that fail to name it properly, unfortunately, do claim it. More on that in quote seven.

#5 Ronald Reagan said, “A Communist is somebody who reads Marx, an anti-Communist is someone who understands Marx.”

What must be understood about the IPP ideology? It is calling for a revolution that overthrows God, God’s Word, and God’s world. In this way, socialism fails because it does not represent, conform to, or address reality. It is a straight edge ruler in a world of circles. Socialism inspires the notion that the fault lies with those who have more than others. Those who have more money, more talent, more virtue, and more hard work oppress those who have less money, less talent, less virtue, and less hard work. As such, Marxist ideology requires that all humanity conform to the oppressor/oppressed dialectic. This trains people to resent the existence of that which is stronger, smarter, and more splendid than themselves. It doesn’t just concede to the insatiable appetite of envy; it endeavors to pick and provoke it.

#6 Henry Hazlitt describes how Marxism is built on envy, “The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects—his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity.”[14]

Marxism is the narrative of the victim and victimizer. It assumes the moral guilt of successful people. Achievement is reduced to sinisterism. This is usually done by characterizing non-socialist systems as encouraging people to pursue their own self-interest. Christians admit that self-interest is a sin (1 Cor. 10:24), especially selfish ambition (Phil. 2:13; James 3:16). But we must go deeper. What is behind selfish behavior? Envy, which leads to the sinful pursuit of self-interest.

Envy is not just the desire to have what another has, or to become what another has become. It’s the unresolved feeling of inadequacy working to drag down the rival to your level or lower. The relationship between envy and equality is that envy begins with a perceived inequality. It makes the person feel vulnerable and inferior. Relief comes not by climbing to their height, nor by being happy for them, but by suppressing the success of the rival.

It is the built-in envy of socialism that channels self-interest in a destructive direction. In a socialist system, people squabble over the re-slicing of a shrinking pie. There’s a famous Winston Churchill quote that says that the ostensible problem with capitalism is that people aren’t equally rich, whereas the supposed attractiveness of socialism is that people get to be equally poor.

That being said, in socialist nations, it isn’t entirely accurate to say that the people are equally poor. Sure, the masses are equally impoverished by socialist systems, but a handful of people escape this poverty. The government elites who preside over the socialist system have very comfortable lives. For example, Hugo Chavez and his compatriots became billionaires while the Venezuelan people were starving to death.[15] Talk about income inequality! The same thing happened in the Soviet Union. A study from 1960 showed that in the USSR, the income differential between the highest-paid and the lowest was 40:1, which was four times higher than in Western countries. [16] Whether you are talking about Venezuela, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, or Cuba, the elite enjoy undeserved and unearned wealth while ordinary people live wretched lives of deprivation. Socialism is organized and coercive poverty for the people and wealth for the leaders. No wonder so many politicians are drawn to socialist policies.

What happens when envy is fomented? Solzhenitsyn wrote in “Reflections on the Vendee Uprising” about the French and Bolshevik revolutions. They “disrupt the natural flow of life, destroy the best elements of the population while giving free rein to the worst;…no revolution can ever enrich a nation—but only a few shameless opportunists—while to the country as a whole it bears myriad deaths, widespread spiritual impoverishment, and, in the gravest cases, a long-lasting degeneration of the people.”

#7 W. Cleon Skousen documented that “Churches became a major target for Communist-Socialist infiltration many years ago. These people were successful in capturing many key positions in a number of important religious organizations.”[17]

The Soviet Comintern Archives from the Communist Party U.S.A., now declassified, reveal how cynical and strategic the infiltration was. Herb Romerstein was America’s preeminent insider on Communism. He himself had been a Communist before turning away. Romerstein was once asked which American group the Communists had their most success duping. He answered that the religious left were the biggest suckers of them all. Particularly, the archives reveal that the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. were the Communists’ greatest successes.

But it didn’t stop there. The Left’s targeting of the evangelical church has been going on, in earnest, for many years, as Megan Basham has documented.

There is a specific reason evangelicals have an appetite for the IPP. It’s not that folks in the Gospel-Centered movement become Marxists, of course. But there is a tendency to utilize Marxist categories as a second level of analysis. Why? It’s because of the incomplete teaching that the gospel is only about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The privatization of religion has been so thoroughly hammered home, from the First Great Awakening, to the Second, to the Fundamentalist resistance to modernism, to the Gospel-Centered movement, that evangelicals are irrevocably the children of the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, these evangelicals have a genuine faith in Christ, and this gives them a spiritual intuition, undeveloped though it may be. They have checked all the boxes of privatized Christianity, yet still push back and desire something more, something bigger, a story of a global gospel, a Christ of cosmic concern in addition to their personalized Jesus. Yet, they fail to find a fuller preaching of the gospel in their evangelical hubs. So, in steps the Marxist dialectic, re-packaged as identity politics or wokeness, and there they finally find a vision of remaking the broken world, a vision that satisfies the yearning.

They fail to see that a church offering only what socialism offers is unnecessary. They latch on to what they hear, the promise of a godless, socialistic, utopia of equality. They cleanse it with the comforting words of Christianese. And all this, even while the rewards of socialist sharing are strictly alternative to those of the gospel.

Conclusion
Church history is a study of path dependency, especially in the field of metaphysics. Once a church commits to a path, they don’t go back. Rome is committed to Aristotle and isn’t going back. The Eastern Church is committed to Plato and isn’t going back. The Coptic Church is committed to monophysitism and isn’t going back.[18] And many evangelical churches have committed to a Marxist heuristic, or an identity politics of group sorting, and they aren’t going back from Liberation Theology, Black Liberation Theology, or the Woke Church. The Episcopalians haven’t gone back. The Methodists haven’t gone back. The PCUSA hasn’t gone back.

But the ancient glory shall not abdicate or recede. Not going back is part of the judgment of God. It’s also part of the advance of the Kingdom. Israel didn’t go back. They rejected the prophets, then the Son, and then they were swallowed up in judgment (Mark 12:1-12). Israel’s apostasy was needed to reveal the complete truth of Christ to the world. Israel didn’t go back to Yahweh, and the Kingdom of God came to earth. When those who were once his people turn to the dark and don’t go back (Heb. 6:1-4; 10:26-30), God judges them and advances his Kingdom (Hab. 1-2).

What are we to do? What is the method for drawing the church away from the Marxist desire to remake the world according to the principle of “equality”? How do you topple an urge so strong and so central? The method for dispelling any darkness is always the same. The light draws people not just to something different, but to something more powerful, more worthy, and more Living, namely, a mother church, a glorious narrative, a moral order, and a proclamation of God’s plan to save the entire world through the resurrected Christ. This is the compelling and powerful truth that can squash any church’s tendency to pull in the direction of the IPP, grandiose as it pretends to be.

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and the book The Making of Evangelical Spirituality (Wipf and Stock).}
 
Other Articles
https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2025/08/12/seven-reasons-to-be-informed-by-history

https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2025/09/02/seven-problems-with-darwinism
 https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2023/07/31/the-dubious-diversity-rationale

https://trinityreformedkirk.com/blog/2026/04/13/evangelicalism-s-divided-soul-megan-basham-s-shepherds-for-sale

^{[1] James Davison Hunter's concept of “cognitive bargaining” refers to how individuals or groups negotiate their understanding of the world in light of competing worldviews, often within pluralistic societies. The idea is rooted in the way people navigate conflicting beliefs, values, religions and perspectives.
[2] C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns: Journalistic Essays (HarperOne, 1986), 78.
[3] Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction
[4] To his credit, Billy Graham understood the ideological nature of the struggle from the earliest of days. In his famous 1949 crusade in Los Angeles, Graham proclaimed that “Communism has decided against God, against Christ, against the Bible, and against all religion. . . . Communism is a religion that is inspired, directed and motivated by the Devil himself, who has declared war against Almighty God.” Or this from 1953: “Either Communism must die, or Christianity must die, because it is actually a battle between Christ and Anti-Christ.”
[5] https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/solzhenitsyns-gulag-archipelago-at-50/
[6] https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/murderers-row/
[7] http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
[8] Zúquete, José Pedro, ed. The Palgrave Handbook of Left-Wing Extremism. 2 vols. (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023).
[9] James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997), 245.
[10] G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (Watchmaker Publishing), Ch 7.
[11] Qtd. in David L. Bahnsen, 250 Economic Truths (Washington, DC: Post Hill Press, 2021), 265.
[12] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/president-xi-jinping-warns-against-foreign-influence-on-religions-in-china
[13] Alastair Roberts et al., Protestant Social Teaching: An Introduction (Landrum, SC: The Davenant Press, 2022), 54.
[14] Qtd. in David L. Bahnsen, 250 Economic Truths (Washington, DC: Post Hill Press, 2021), 72.
[15] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html & http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423011/venezuela-nicolas-maduro-socialism-economics
[16] Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1990), 200.
[17] See W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist (Salt Lake City: Ensign Publishing, 1958), 289. Skousen outlines the patient strategies of Communism to remake the world. It includes taking control of the schools and churches.
[18] https://americanreformer.org/2026/03/whither-the-reformation-in-america/}

Anthony Bradley published an article at Mere Orthodoxy entitled “Critical Race Theory Isn’t a Threat for Presbyterians.” Bradley argues that the Presbyterian Church in American (PCA) doesn’t need a statement or counter-statement to Critical Race Theory (CRT) because in a “confessional denomination, such a statement, or counter-statements, would be unnecessary.” Instead, the PCA (and presumably all confessional Presbyterians) can rely on “the Bible, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the Presbyterian tradition, and covenant theology.” Therefore they can “eat the meat and spit out the bones” of Critical Race Theory (CRT).

One wonders how people will know what meat to eat and what bones to spit out without a statement or counter-statement. Indeed, Bradley’s article itself is a sort of statement about CRT, or a counter-statement to the fact that “six Southern Baptist seminary presidents signed a statement declaring Critical Race Theory to be incompatible to the non-binding doctrinal standards of their denomination.” Bradley later says that when armed with the resources of Reformed Theology, Christians can “propose something even better to account for what we see in the world today on the intersection of America’s racial history with contemporary culture.” Again, one wonders how this proposal is made public without a “statement, or counter-statement.”

Bradley’s article does a commendable job concisely defining CRT. He points to the work of Antonio de la Garza and Kent Ono who explains that “Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an intellectual movement that seeks to understand how white supremacy as a legal, cultural, and political condition is reproduced and maintained, primarily in the US context.” But more than “seek to understand,” Bradley rightly points out the CRT seeks to “centralize the issue of race” in historical interpretation. He also rightly points out that CRT is, well, critical. That is, it scrutinizes how white supremacy is a normalized, assumed, and irrevocable part of America’s past and present.

Bradley then says, “One can (and should) learn what one can from it while rejecting what is wrong … it is not an account we must accept or reject wholesale.” In this, Bradley seeks a centrist view that neither embraces CRT as a complete doctrine, as do the progressives, nor rejects CRT in its entirety, as do the secular conservatives.

This is a common tact in evangelicalism today, namely, to try and find the good and redeemable things in all ideas, even un-Christian ones. The impulse isn’t all wrong. We certainly don’t want to live with a hyper-critical spirit. Sometimes there are redeemable qualities in bad ideas. I, for one, have learned a lot from the monastic tradition, even as I think the Desert Father’s retreat from the world badly missed the mark. But the Monastic Tradition exists within the contours of Christianity. CRT does not. In general, it’s a mistake to use the world’s ideas and methods to create a new synthesis.

Bradley then interacts with CRT. He starts with the issue of racism in America: Does it exist in American history? Does it exist now? This, we should point out, is an acceptable place to start interacting with CRT, since so much of the theory is built on the premise that the United States is systemically racist even still. On the question of whether or not systemic racism exists now, Bradley says, “it depends.” We need to make a “case-by-case basis.” He admits that white supremacy doesn’t explain everything that is wrong with America. He admits that white supremacy doesn’t explain all statistical disparities between the races. But then he says, “CRT can be and is useful in some limited contexts for identifying where race may be a variable.” He later says, “CRT may have a certain limited usefulness in pointing out analytical blind spots in examining the role of race in American life.”

Bradley’s main thesis is that Christians should “eat the meat and spit out the bones” of CRT. In other words, Christians should find those things in CRT that have limited usefulness. But he never explains why. So I’ll ask it: Why must Christians do backbends to publicly identify that which is useful in CRT, a theory crafted by those who hate the God of the Bible? His article never specifically says what the meat of CRT is. He never says specifically what true things CRT provides.

Bradley says, “CRT simply wants to dismantle racism in an attempt to achieve cosmic salvation from their perception of the worst of all evils. For CRT, anti-racism will set us free.” Later, Bradley says, “Dismantling racism will not rid the world of the evils CRT seeks to purge … It might be helpful in identifying some aspects of some forms of evil.” In this Bradley assumes that CRT merely wants to dismantle racism. In reality, they have, as Carl Trueman says, created “a creedal language and liturgy.”[1] Words like racism have new meanings. Trueman explains that CRT is filled “with orthodox words (‘white privilege,’ ‘systemic racism’) and prescribed actions (raising the fist, taking the knee). To deviate from the forms is to deviate from the faith. Certain words are heretical (‘non-racist,’ ‘all lives matter’). The slogan ‘silence is violence’ is a potent rhetorical weapon. To fail to participate in the liturgy is to reject the antiracism the liturgy purports to represent—something only a racist would do.”

It is not the case that “CRT simply wants to dismantle racism.” Rather, they seek to redefine racism. Consider some of the new vocabularies of CRT.[2] First, the term “anti-racism.” This does not mean someone is against racism. Rather, this is when someone is committed to actively dismantling systems and institutions that produce whiteness. Second, the term “racism.” This doesn’t mean that you look down upon people of another race (hate) and look upon people of your race as superior (pride). Rather, this now means power plus prejudice. In CRT, only majority groups can be racist because racism is impossible apart from power. Third, the term “white fragility.” This is a term unique to CRT. It refers to a posture of defensiveness, anxiety, and anger exhibited by whites in response to discussions of race.[3] Fourth, the term “White privilege.” This refers to a set of unearned advantages that whites experience relative to non-whites, by virtue of their skin color. It also implies that privilege of any kind is wrong. In Scripture, however, the existence of privilege is not sin. Someone may either righteously or wickedly use their privilege. Fifth, the term “whiteness.” This refers to a set of normative privileges granted to white-skinned individuals and groups which is “invisible” to those privileged by it. CRT views whiteness as a problem that needs to be overcome. So it’s the case that CRT is a system that doesn’t simply want to dismantle racism. They are seeking to redefine the entire conversation. It employs duplicitous language. Bradley seems to take it at face value that CRT wants to dismantle racism, not acknowledging that CRT activists have taken their erasers to the dictionary.

Bradley says, “CRT is a reductionistic theory of human evil and suffering. It is precisely for this reason that CRT is not a threat to the PCA! It is woefully inadequate to explain the nature of reality and to offer non-coercive solutions. That is, CRT is not good enough.” It is certainly true that CRT is not good enough to explain reality. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a threat. CRT isn’t just a problem of misinterpreting reality. It is an attempt to redefine it. Consider an example. CRT explains the statistical disparities between blacks and whites by citing racism. In so doing, it fails to account for the disaster that happens when marriage is destroyed and children are raised in single-parent homes.

Economist Glen Loury has argued that marriage is supposed to be the first social context for a child’s life. As Christians, we would add that God’s purpose for marriage is that children are raised with two parents in the home. If the nuclear family is broken, then no subsequent level of society can fully correct it, no matter how pure the motivations are and how much government money is spent. On the issue of statistical disparities between whites and blacks, Christians need to be clear that if the family is broken, it doesn’t matter what government program is passed and how much money is spent.[4] There is no substitute for the family. Glenn Loury makes the point that if you're going to talk about racial inequality, you have to start by talking about the destruction of the black family.[5] It’s not possible to remediate what's lost if marriage and family and kinship and community are not intact. It is within the nuclear family structure that children learn to tame their impulses, improve cognitive skills, learn social skills and develop emotional self-control. In other words, it is through home-training that children learn to function in society. The Christian worldview understands that both white and black children born to single mothers have significant hurdles compared with those children born in a two-parent family. Yet CRT deems it racist and bigoted to say that racial inequalities will not be alleviated until there is a return to a culture in which children are born to married couples who stay married and invest their energies in those children.[6]

Bradley says that Christian theology allows us to freely “acknowledge evil where it exists … We are free to protest and invest by unlocking the goodness of creation, blessing our neighbors, and fighting evil.” Christians would all agree to this. In fact, this is why it is essential to oppose CRT, root and branch, whenever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of justice which is false. Good Christians who love justice are deceived.

Bradley wants to acknowledge the helpful parts of CRT and spit out the vices. The error with this strategy is that the vices Bradley wishes to eradicate from CRT are essential features of it. Consider the way CRT sorts people into groups. Each group is divided into Marx’s categories: bourgeoisie and proletariat. Yet critical theory goes beyond the economic groups of Marx, expanding this to include the powerful or oppressed; the advantaged or disadvantaged, and the privileged or discriminated against.

Bourgeoise	Proletariat
Powerful	Oppressed
Advantages	Disadvantaged
Privileged	Discriminated against
White	Black

CRT studies these groups to find and challenge power structures, which shape the relationships between groups. Sorting people into groups creates divisions between the powerful and oppressed, an analytical technique innovated by Marx and applied in the courts of tyrants.

Thrasymachus, the Greek philosopher, wrongly defined justice as “the interest of the stronger.” Carl Trueman helpfully explains that “Critical theory, whatever form it takes, relies on the concept of false consciousness—the notion that the oppressors control society so completely that the oppressed believe their own interests are served by the status quo…. this allows every piece of evidence that might refute one’s ­theory to be transformed into further evidence of how deep and comprehensive the problem of oppression is.” CRT tries to make minorities the strongest by, as Bradley admits, centralizing “the issue of race.”

The problem is that this isn’t justice. Carl Trueman, again, says, “when that framework flattens our moral judgment and erases distinctions, makes ‘the system’ the culprit, and guards its assertions with a self-certifying account of what must be affirmed, the scene is set not for Christian reconciliation but for cultural intimidation, as all dissent is denounced as racist.” CRT is an analytical framework to analyze institutions and culture. Its purpose is to divide the world into white oppressors and non-white victims. The ultimate goal of the theory’s proponents is to remake society so that the victim class eventually displaces the oppressors and becomes the new ruling class.[7] Within this framework, “white privilege” and its unearned benefits become responsible for economic and social disparities in minority communities.

CRT advances a narrative of blame that declares white America guilty for the plight of blacks. In CRT, there is no way out for whites when it comes to race. For example, Derrick Bell says racism has a permanence to it. Robin DiAngelo teaches people that, “The question is no longer did racism take place, but how did racism manifest in this situation?” All of the core critical race theory texts say that racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society. Critical race theory assumes that racism is permanent and affects every aspect of society, including political, economic, social, and religious institutions.

Blaming the abstract “system” with no hope of forgiveness is decidedly opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the good news of Christ, reconciliation happens through individual confession, repentance, and forgiveness. The parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35) teaches that the Gospel pattern of forgiveness should be carried out in our daily lives. The point of the parable is that if we claim to be forgiven by Jesus, yet still have an unforgiving spirit, then that proves that we have never tasted the forgiveness of Jesus in the first place. Reconciliation is impossible when repentant individuals are denied forgiveness and kept forever on the hamster wheel of guilt.

And so we return to our question: Why must Christians do backbends to publicly identify something useful in CRT, a theory crafted by those who hate the God of the Bible? And if it is the case, as Bradley says, that Christians armed with the resources of Reformed theology can propose something even better than CRT, why must we affirm something—anything—about CRT?

Rather than being “an excellent oil, which shall not break my hand” (Psalm 141:5), CRT is a hot oil that burns it. Racism exists. We don’t deny that. The point is that Christians don’t need CRT to point out that racism can infect social structures, economic systems, and legal codes. The fact that CRT is unneeded is proven by Bradley’s article. While he calls on Christians to “eat the meat and spit out the bones,” not once does he explicitly identify what meat CRT provides to the Christian worldview. So then why does he insist that Christians should “learn what one can from it”? Addison Meeke, wisely speaking about race relations, says “We do harm to the name of Christianity by trying to please people or be politically correct.”[8]

Bradley tells us to eat the meat and spit out the bones. But first, we must ask if the buffet set before us is food or poison. Failing to differentiate the two is a disaster. Adhering to CRT is not the way to fight for justice. Bradley says, “It might be helpful in identifying some aspects of some forms of evil.” My question is: What specifically does it help identify that the Christian worldview can’t do on its own?

The closest agreement Bradley himself has with CRT is when he says, “There is racism in America and, at times, that racism can take on structural forms.” But he doesn’t tell us where exactly structural racism is found. His statement is a mere abstraction. In the end, Bradley leaves the door open that CRT may be slightly helpful, but he gives no specific examples of how CRT is helpful. Bradley says, “One can (and should) learn what one can from it while rejecting what is wrong.” But he gives no specific examples of what true things are learned from CRT that can’t also be learned without CRT. Bradley says we should approach CRT in a way “that discerns true insights.” What true insights does CRT provide? Bradley doesn’t expressly say. He does say this, “CRT can be and is useful in some limited contexts for identifying where race may be a variable.” But, again, why do Christians need CRT to identify race as a variable in injustice?

He says that “The social sciences are simply attempting to provide replacement narratives” for Christianity. In this statement, he seems to imply that CRT is a replacement narrative for Christianity. This is a savage blow to his claim that CRT is “not an account we must accept or reject wholesale.” If CRT is a replacement narrative for Christianity, don’t we have an obligation to reject it wholesale? Why do we need it?

The church needs leaders and members who are not deceived by the pretensions of justice which usher in the cruelty of divisions, resentment, and rioting. To use CRT in the church, or to adapt it to the Christian worldview, is to dilute the truth. I truly appreciate the critique Bradley makes of CRT, along with his belief in the rich resources of the Reformed Protestant tradition. But he proves too much. It is precisely because of the Christian critique of CRT and the depth of the Christian worldview that CRT is unneeded in the church.
 
<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and the book The Making of Evangelical Spirituality (Wipf and Stock).

 [1] https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/02/evangelicals-and-race-theory?fbclid=IwAR2EYdQNc2b4tqduO6T1NFTb0EpCN7MOKfBs9hOTQzYRdHapnBsHXFKz5Ng
[2] https://shenviapologetics.com/an-antiracism-glossary/
[3] Carl Trueman says, “Critical race theory is extremely ­seductive. Who wants to be guilty of standing on the side of the oppressors rather than in solidarity with the victims of injustice? The theory is likewise hard to oppose, since it denies the legitimacy of arguments that call it into question. The he-who-is-not-­with-us-is-against-us rhetoric ensures that even tentative reservations will sound, well, racist. How many of us want to identify ourselves as not “­antiracist”? Who wants to appear to deny that black lives matter?”
 [4] See the book by Peter Berger and Richard John Neuhaus, To Empower People: From State to Civil Society (Washington D.C.: AEI Press, 1996). Also see the Thomas Sowell book, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (New York: William Morrow, 1984) for an economist’s explanation for why more than just race explains statistical disparities.
[5] https://www.manhattan-institute.org/why-does-racial-inequality-persist
[6] Consider, further, what Lawrence Mead ably points out in his recent paper “Poverty and Culture.” “Attempts to attribute long term poverty to social barriers, such as racial discrimination or lack of jobs, have failed. Some scholars now attribute poverty to culture in the sense that many poor become disillusioned and no longer seek to advance themselves. More plausible is cultural difference. The United States has an individualist culture, derived from Europe, where most people seek to achieve personal goals. Racial minorities, however, all come from non-Western cultures where most people seek to adjust to outside conditions rather than seeking change….These differences best explain why minorities—especially blacks and Hispanics—typically respond only weakly to chances to get ahead through education and work, and also why crime and other social problems run high in low-income areas….The black middle class has converted to an individualist style and thus advanced, but most blacks have not.”
[7] BLM co-founder is rather transparent about this goal in her book The Purpose of Power: How we Come Together When we Fall Apart (New York: One World, 2020).
8] https://decisionmagazine.com/the-stated-goals-of-black-lives-matter-are-anti-christian/</sub>

Introduction
In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau criticizes Christians with these words, “Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian’s country is not of this world. He does his duty, certainly, but does it with a deep lack of interest in whether the work he has put in has produced good or bad results.”[1] Rousseau makes three claims about Christians. First, a Christian’s country is heaven. Second, Christians are occupied entirely with heaven. Third, Christians are not interested in things on earth.
 
The first claim is kind of true, if qualified properly, since Paul says “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). Speaking of the Old Testament saints as our model, Hebrews says, “they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb. 11:16). These statements point to the final “heaven,” also known as the New Heavens and Earth (Is. 65:17-25; Rev. 21-22). But Rousseau’s second and third claims are all kinds of false. Christianity is not entirely a spiritual religion, as seen when you consider that Scripture puts the redeemed into a sequence of three places. (A) It begins with physical life on earth, which is ended by death, (B) at which point the body and spirit separate and the disembodied spirit is in heaven with God until Christ’s Second Coming, (C) where body and soul are reunited to live in the New Heavens and New Earth with resurrected bodies.

The Redeemed Sequence
The above sequence needs further explanation. Since death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23), it’s appointed for all to die because all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Christians are not exempt from death. They, too, are subject to the sting of death (1 Cor. 15:55). For all people “in Christ,” death is the beginning of eschatological glory.

In Philippians 1:21, Paul says that “to die is gain.” Why is it gain? Verse 23 says, “I am hard pressed between the two [living or dying]. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” So, when a Christian dies, what happens? They are instantly “with Christ.” Their body returns to dust and sees corruption, but the soul is immortal, and neither sleeps nor dies (1 Cor. 15:42-44). The spirit goes to be “with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8), where there is fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore (Ps. 16:11). This is why Revelation 14:13 pronounces a blessing on “the dead who died in the Lord from now on.” The Westminster Larger Catechism 86 describes this condition as “the commencement of communion in glory with Christ.”

It’s not that the soul is eternal, as the Platonists argue, because the soul has a beginning and is thus subject to time. It’s that in redemption, God gives the redeemed immortality (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53-54; 2 Tim. 1:10). The Nicene Creed concludes by saying we “look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.”

When Christ comes, those who are alive will be “caught up together” with Christ (1 Thess. 4:17), who returns with all those saints who have previously died (1 Thess. 4:14). At that point, body and soul are reunited such that “We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:51b – 53). Then comes the final judgment where humans will be judged according to what they have done in thought, word, and deed (Rev. 20:12). The righteous will go into everlasting life in the New Heavens and New Earth, and the wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction away from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:9).

Should Christians care about this world?
Back to Rousseau’s charge. How can we expect believers longing for the next world to care about the common good of this world? For Augustine, the answer lay in virtue. Without a transcendently defined virtue to strive for, society is ordered without a mind to the true highest good of human life. G.K. Chesterton put it this way, “We must be fond of another world (real or imaginary) in order to have something to change it to.”[2] C.S. Lewis said, “Because we love something else more than this world we love even this world better than those who know no other.”[3] Civil life is a mockery when God is not given his due, which is the recipe for how to contort virtues into vices.

So, the only way to build this world is to long for God’s reconciled world—the New Heavens and New Earth. What is the New Heaven and Earth? It is the true temple that fills the whole creation (Rev. 21:1-3, 10; 21:22). The New Jerusalem comes to earth (Rev. 21:2) where “the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” (Rev. 21:3). When you work backward from verse 3 you see that the tabernacle of verse 3 (“the dwelling place of God”) is the same as the city of verse 2, which is identical to the new creation of verse 1. This informs our understanding of taking dominion of the world for Christ the King, which is to fill the whole earth with the knowledge of God (Is. 11:9).

Heaven or the New Heavens and Earth?
Life on Earth now is the first step of the sequence. Life on the New Creation is the third step of the sequence. Longing to transform this world into God’s temple is the final telos, the motivation for ongoing Christian ministry, and the full hope of the gospel. The longing for this final and ultimate glory doesn’t erase or diminish the second step of the sequence, even though Paul describes it as “far better” than the first step (Phil. 1:23). Should Christians long for the second step of the sequence, that time when our disembodied spirit is present with Christ? Isn’t heaven just an otherworldly, Platonic, gnostic, intermediate state? Since the New Heavens and Earth are the once-for-all final destination, shouldn’t we long for that rather than heaven?

The answer is that Christians will long for the intermediate glory along the way of longing for the penultimate glory. Paul was not wrong when he expressed an earnest desire to depart from this life and be with the Lord (Phi. 1:19-21; 2 Cor. 5:5-8). Neither was Peter wrong when he used the hope of heaven to encourage God’s people, saying they were begotten “to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:4). Neither was the angel wrong when he testified to John about the glory and happiness of the intermediate state, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” ‘Blessed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors …’” (Rev. 14:13).

Neither was John Calvin wrong when he wrote, “If we reflect that by death we are recalled from exile to inhabit our native country, a heavenly country, shall this give us no comfort?” In the same section of the Institutes, he says, “No man has made much progress in the school of Christ who does not look forward with joy to the day of death and final resurrection.”[4] Neither was the Westminster Confession of Faith wrong when it spoke of the Christian’s life after death, “Their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect of holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory.”[5] Expressions like this can be found throughout the history of the church.[6]
The witness of Scripture and the wisdom of our fathers teach that the intermediate state is a blessed one. Yet, those who have a fixed eye on the New Heavens and Earth may feel squishy using the phrase “going to heaven” since heaven is not the final destination. Perhaps it’s because we’ve adopted modern, ethereal definitions of the word “heaven” and dispensed with the more robust, ancient definition.

The modern ideas of heaven are as an ill-defined space beyond the clouds where spirits maintain airy existence while waiting for the resurrection. But in ancient cosmology, the heavens were a place of life where the stars and heavenly hosts sing praises to God (Job 38:7, Luke 2:13-14). The book of Revelation is filled with images of beauty, praise, and glory that resonate to God from angels and saints before the final resurrection. And it doesn’t stop there. Scripture not only describes what they do, we’re told in Hebrews 12:22-24 that we have come unto “the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.” Since the heavenly entourage is already our privilege in this life (though we can’t see it with our physical eyes) how much better will we be able to enjoy that status after we come into “the presence of the Lord”?

Scripture provides brief glimpses of saints in the intermediate state. For example, when Moses and Elijah joined Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, Luke specifically says that they—not just Jesus—appeared “in glory” (Luke 9:30-31). While we don’t know precisely what this means, they certainly appeared in a greater, more majestic state than they were in their earthly lives. If Moses and Elijah enjoyed this status before the completed work of Christ, what more can departed saints hope for after His victory?

Conclusions
While it’s not the final glory of the New Heavens and New Earth, the words of Paul, Peter, Luke, and John about the intermediate state should be enough to fill the heart of any believer with hope at the prospect of death. Christians no longer should look at death as a powerful enemy. Rather, death is a good, though slightly contrarian, friend who ushers Christians from this mortal life to the throne of God, which Jesus calls heaven.[7] From there, the souls of the saints wait for Christ’s Second Coming, where body and soul are reunited in resurrection glory. Rousseau’s mistake is when he frames it as this world or the next. In truth, it is this world and the next and the next. Rousseau’s vision means that people should be a citizen and nothing but a citizen to a secular nation. The Christian vision means people are more than earthly citizens, which is the only faithful way to live on God’s earth.

Other Resources
Check out Pastor Stewart Jordan's phenomenal study about heaven coming to earth.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four


<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, American history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call, now available on Amazon.

[1] Rousseau goes on to say, “Provided he has nothing to reproach himself with, it doesn’t matter much to him whether things go well or ill here below. If the state prospers he hardly dares to share in the public happiness, for fear he may become puffed up with pride in his country’s glory; if the state goes downhill, he blesses the hand of God that is hard upon His people.”
 [2] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 106.
 [3] C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, 150.
 [4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5.
 [5] Westminster Confession of Faith, 32:1.
 [6] See Augustine, City of God, Book 13:2. John Chrysostom, Homily 41 on I Corinthians.
 [7] Acts 7:49, Matthew 5:34, Revelation 4:1-6, Hebrews 8:1, Psalm 11:4</sub>

Introduction
Pornography is looking at images as erotic stimulants. It is the attempt to arouse a sex instinct where it was previously dulled, or excite it where it was strong already. It must always be evil because, for a human, it degrades his kind and is unworthy of human dignity. Flannery O’Connor said of pornography, “It leaves out the connection of sex with its hard purpose, and so far disconnects it from meaning in life as to simply make it an experience for its own sake.” It takes the humanity out of people by turning them into objects for gratification. When people become one thing among another, it is the disavowal of the human subject, the separation of body from spirit, the un-mingling of the integrative essentials of personhood.[1] There’s nothing more dehumanizing than disinterested pleasure in perceiving an object’s form as if all that exists is the formal properties of matter.

God saw fit to make human beings with a sex drive. He also saw fit to make marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime, the proper outlet for that sex drive. There are teleological reasons for this that have to do with God’s purpose in making the earth, namely, to fill it with his image bearers. There are also spiritual reasons for this that have to do with the image bearers themselves. Sex is tied to the responsibility of marriage and family. It requires entering a world of real encounters with real people, wherein comes love, attachment, and duty. Pornography is an act of sexual legerdemain where the person gets some of the pleasure of sexual excitement without the attendant accountability.

Pornography is a proclivity that partakes of perversion and peril. Its perversity encourages man to believe that his desire is superior to the law he otherwise says is good. It is perilous because it makes every other battle against lust more difficult by begetting blindness of spirit that adulterates volition. In the fight against lust, the most destructive public policy action in our nation’s history was the 1997 Supreme Court ruling Reno v. ACLU. The landmark decision to permit online pornography has given teenagers, women, and old men the most ubiquitous access to pornography in the history of the world. Pornography is now a regular part of regular people’s lives.[2]

Christians who struggle with voyeurism wished they didn’t for the singularly sane reason that it makes their souls small. For those penitents who are daily struggling with the give and take of Romans 7:15-20, pornography is a sin of solitude and accidental temptations. Pornography is neither love nor art, neither permanent nor pure, neither sustaining nor nourishing. It is the impulse to destroy the person from the inside out. Just as murder is more than an action, so too does lust begin in the heart (Mt. 5:27f). Paul says that the “lusts of their hearts” lead to the “dishonoring of their bodies” (Rom. 1:24-27).

Lust begins in the heart, but it doesn’t end there. The outward peep reflects the state of the heart. Thus, Job was watchful over his eyes, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin” (Job 31:1)? Lust moves from the heart to the eyes, and finally into action (James 1:13-15), such that “eyes full of adultery” are “insatiable for sin” (2 Pt. 2:14). This is why mortification (Rom. 8:13) must take place on all three levels: action, eyes, and heart (1 Jn. 2:16). Otherwise, pornography makes for a morally threadbare soul.

Consider three facts about pornography.
First, pornography makes a sexually unfulfilled life
Pornography is an exercise in the law of diminishing returns because it leads to a sexually unfulfilled life.

First, it hampers people from developing a mature emotional connection with their spouse. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18 that the sexually immoral person sins against their own body. Sexual sin is a unique sin. It is damaging and has consequences. The more sexual partners someone has before marriage the more difficult it is to have a lasting and happy marriage. Why is this? The more partners you have before marriage, the more difficult it is to bond sexually when you are married. During sexual intercourse, the body releases the hormone oxytocin. This creates a sense of bonding and the desire to attach to the other person. So, not only is sex physical and emotional, it is chemical. There is no casual sex. Fornication creates real bonds that disrupt marital intimacy. God has given sex an objective meaning of a defined covenantal bond. It is damaging to use sex in a way outside that covenant meaning.[3] Likewise, pornography makes sexual intimacy with your spouse difficult for many reasons, one of which is that pornography reduces virility.[4]

Second, it creates unattainable expectations which guarantee dissatisfaction. Not only does pornography pressure women to be someone and do something that doesn’t match reality, but it also feeds men’s selfish sexual demands by reinforcing the lie that women are a commodity. It was a nasty-minded man’s idea to brand pornography as women’s empowerment. No woman anywhere at any time has been empowered by pornography. Empowerment is a weak and wobbly word used to curry favor with those who instinctively recoil at the real meaning of pornography. It only makes sure that there shall never be any empowered women, only men empowered to look at women as objects. It’s a mechanism to give men exactly what Satan thinks they should have. Sordid men love looking at women’s empowerment. Empowerment, therefore, is an unmeaning word that makes the structural exploitation of women sound innocuous.

Third, it damages the brain.[5] Paul Loverde summarizes the problem, “Chronic viewing of pornographic material impacts one’s brain chemistry in a manner that can ‘hook’ a person and lead to a quest for increasingly lurid forms of pornography. Over time, more and more is needed to produce the same effect. The brains of habitual users of pornography are strikingly similar to those of alcoholics, and the part of the brain involved in moral and ethical decision-making is weakened by viewing pornography. Once brain chemistry is remapped, it becomes very difficult for one to ‘reset’ to a sense of normality in the future. Any man can tell you that these images are often very hard to forget.”[6]

Second, pornography is not inevitable
The demonic character of pornography corrupts the righteous character of the one who gives in. Porn appeals, as evil always does, to the inevitable. Temptation is presented as if it were a matter of fate. It is the essence of sin to darken the prospects of faithfulness. The Tempter whispers, “You’ve buckled before. What makes you think this time will be any different?”

Before collapsing under pressure, consider this. If someone put a gun to the head of a loved one and said, “If you look at pornography this week I’ll pull the trigger,” you would not look at pornography. The love of Christ would control you (2 Cor. 5:14). You would take care to avoid the shadows of isolation. You’d tame curiosity by removing even the slightest suggestions. You’d put a filter on your phone and ask a pastor to help you with website accountability. You’d admit that “your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pt. 5:8). Rather than walking into Satan’s arms, you’d seek to destroy him first.

Faithful Christians who stand adamantly opposed to the politics of the left willingly invite the morality of the left into their home, into their pocket, and onto their screens. But Christians don’t have to surrender themselves to the dark and evil machinery of destiny. Christian faith is accepting that the power of the Holy Spirit is more than theoretical. The Spirit directs your heart to love (2 Thess. 3:5; 1 Tim. 1:5). He gives eyes to see that the promises of porn are external and irrational. They are the fantasies of evil spirits, a diabolical joke the Spirit crushes under his feet (Rom. 16:20). The strength of destiny belongs to God, not Satan. Moral courage belongs to the sons of God, not slaves.

Third, pornography is overcome by love
Porn-addicted souls grow weary. Righteous intentions break under the undisciplined squads of desire. The pattern of addiction sets in such that permanent victory over the perplexity of deteriorating existence seems out of reach. Failure. Shame. Confession. Grace. Repeat.

First Thessalonians 4:5 says the passion of lust is combatted by knowing God. Love is the only catalyst for change and to know God is to know love (1 Cor. 8:3; 1 Jn. 4:7-12). God is the cause and telos of change. God’s love elevates weary sinners from the carnal to the transcendent. It’s in the nature of love to extend horizontally and vertically. No one is saved alone. Only love can draw a person out of themselves to Himself. God’s love is the agent of transformation (Rom. 8:37). So, the first step in overcoming temptation is to become a lover. This begins with an apprenticeship in love, namely, cultivating love for the dead, love for family, and love for tradition. The more love one has the fewer avenues of temptation are open for business.

It’s time for a shifted meaning, a new beginning grounded only in love. The problem is that God’s love is incomprehensible. It requires divine strength to envisage it (Eph. 3:14-19). That’s because His love exists in both time and eternity. Christ’s incarnation brings eternal love into time and space to disrupt the decaying cycles of sin. This love is the meaning of the universe. Only eternal love can prevent the influence of lustful suggestion upon the soul.

Sex is about either love or lust, and pornography is only the latter. Adultery in the heart is always hate and never love. Romans 5:20 says "where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." Do porn-addicted Christians live a lifestyle where sin abounds? Yes. But that means they must be living in a time when grace abounds much more. Because of the gospel, abounding grace conquers and overcomes evil, ruining the ruts of sin.

Conclusion
Christians are in revolt against the pornography industry and the pornography industry is in revolt against Christians. Christians have a quarrel with the slavery of pornography and pornographists have a quarrel with the freedom of Christians. To be free is to be a slave to Christ (Rom. 6:16-19). This requires appreciating the primary things. When love is not central, people lose all sense of proportion about the world. Slavery to sin is when someone prefers listless pleasure over a miracle. The Spirit is needed to shine a light on the dark and rejuvenate the oldest of truths. Rather than hugging the chains of slavery, God’s children drink deeply from the fountains of life. This is how they are made ready for the new world.

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and the book The Making of Evangelical Spirituality (Wipf and Stock).
 
[1] Secular philosophers Peter Singer and Derek Parfit argue that embodiment is no longer enough for personhood.
[2] https://enough.org/stats_porn_industry
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2014.1003773#.Vd9NavlVhBc
[3] Nancy Pearcey, Love the Body: Answering Hard Questions about Love and Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2018), 127.
[4] https://time.com/magazine/us/4277492/april-11th-2016-vol-187-no-13-u-s/
[5] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/5/493/htm
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-can-promote-sexual-violence/
[6] https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/03/let-the-battle-for-purity-begin}

Megan Basham has written a deeply sourced book about how the political left has been pouring money and influence into evangelicalism for decades. There are initiatives, political action groups, conferences, books, and celebrity pastors that have introduced leftist political policies into the church. Rank and file evangelicals first exposure to the politicization of their church is usually through a sloganeering campaign: Supporting environmentalism is “loving the least of these”; supporting BLM is a “gospel issue”; wearing a mask is “love of neighbor”; supporting open borders is “practicing hospitality,” Love requires “pronoun hospitality”[1] towards transgender people.

For several years, evangelicals have witnessed their church leaders wield this new jargon and wondered if there is a substratum influence in the church. Basham’s thesis is that many church leaders are letting the culture rather than Scripture dictate the content of their teaching. There has been a well-funded and intentional effort to influence Christian churches, pastors, and institutions to support Democratic party politics. Many aspects of the evangelical order—denominations, churches, pastors, coalitions, seminaries, networks, publishers, journals—have been reduced to a program that confuses the Kingdom of God with socialistic progress.

Basham’s book has garnered strong reactions that roughly fit into three camps. First, there are those flummoxed by Basham’s research because they support, in part or in full, the “leftist agenda.” In the worst case, it is those who have received money from George Soros or Pierre Omidyar and never intended it to be common knowledge and they have a great deal to lose. Second, some are hostile to Basham’s book who have not themselves received money, but have been steered, at least in part, toward the “leftist agenda.”[2] Third, there are those bothered by Basham’s thesis because their church, their favorite celebrity preacher, or their seminary, has been compromised. These are the regular church members who grieve to see the church influenced by atheistic politics.

As riveting and needed as Basham’s book is, we have to acknowledge the pitfalls associated with both the one who writes and the one who reads such a book. We must be careful with other people’s reputations. We must not claim more about people than we know. We must not impute motives beyond the evidence. In the introduction, Basham acknowledges that the several categories of Shepherds aren’t equal. There are dupes and deceivers. There is organic influence and orchestrated influence. There are wolves, cowards, mercenaries, and fools. Many people are listed in the book along with many institutions.[3] Perhaps the book’s biggest weakness is it could have been more scrupulous and careful about the definitions of these categories and who belongs to which label. There is a big difference between a wolf and a dupe. They don’t deserve the same estimation. Yet, Basham’s book on the whole is a responsible handling of a difficult topic. The strength of the book is that Basham has done her homework.

Basham’s point isn’t that Christians should rabidly support Republicans. Rather, she is revealing how progressive priorities have bullied their way into the church. The claim that shepherds are for sale has a spectrum of meanings. In some cases, it is the case that left-wing foundations create evangelical front groups that get their hooks on church leaders. In other cases, shepherds are enticed to support leftist politics because of the positive media attention, the rewards of a think tank, or cultural adulation.

Chapter One is about how left-wing think tanks influenced Christians to support the environmentalism movement. The Clinton Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation funneled money into evangelical front groups with names like Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN). The hope was to entice high-profile evangelical leaders to talk about these issues and convince legislators that evangelicals support green initiatives. Rick Warren and Richard Sterns signed on to green initiatives, as well as institutions such as the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Christianity Today, and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which represents over 180 Christian colleges.[4]

Chapter Two is about the Gang of 8 immigration legislation that wanted open borders. This bill would have given 11 million illegal immigrants legal status and further incentivized illegal immigration. The National Immigration Forum (NIF), which is a well-funded NGO that receives financial support from George Soros, partnered with the NAE to create a shell group, the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), that’s explicit purpose was to pass legislation, especially the Gang of 8 legislation. More recently it lobbied against Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy that was continued by the Biden administration. They backed the Senator Langford bill, which was similar to the Gang of 8 bill. The goal is to create the allusion that evangelicals support these measures, thus convincing lawmakers that their evangelical constituents want these laws. The immigration issue reveals that for some of the shepherds for sale, it's not just about policy. It’s about partisan politics. Russell Moore and J.D. Greear repeatedly and publicly cast Trump’s border policies as wicked and un-Christian. But when the Obama and Biden administrations used similar tactics, they kept silent.[5]

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. You will have to read the book to get the rest. But be warned, if you are looking for a book that merely tosses around vague political sentiments to satisfy a pre-determined emotional feeling, then this isn’t the book for you. Be prepared for details, examples, and citations. And that leads us to consider two other books arguing with a very different method and from a very different perspective.

Books by Russell Moore and Tim Alberta
Basham’s Shepherds for Sale makes the recent books of Tim Alberta and Russell Moore not just beside the point but almost as though they were never the point at all. Tim Alberta and Russell Moore write with a particularly pointy political emphasis that resembles the condescending and divisive tone common in the secular academy.[6] The Moore and Alberta books function as an updated version of Kristin Du Mez’s 2020 book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.[7] Du Mez’s book is written from a progressive, feminist perspective and condemns Billy Graham as guilty of the heinous sins of Christian Nationalism and patriarchy. She argues that these cultural shifts within evangelicalism helped pave the way for the widespread evangelical support for Donald Trump. Moore and Alberta are running a similar political play that treats haters of Donald Trump with deference, even adoration.[8] They argue that professing Christians should disentangle their faith from partisan politics, especially from Donald Trump because of his hateful rhetoric.[9]

There is inherent instability in an argument condemning others for political machinations that itself is standing knee-deep in the very same machinations.[10] For example, when Russell Moore’s Christianity Today receives funding from the Lilly Endowment[11] he regards that as a pure transaction of trade. When a blue-collar, churchgoing, lower-middle-class person is drawn to Trump’s policy to cut government regulations, that is a selfish quest for political power. Moore’s book is just another stale maneuver of the cultural wasteland, the sort of power play that seeks power by saying no one else should have it.[12] It's cunning and ruthless. Even when warnings against lust for power are obviously applicable, it isn’t particularly cogent in the hands of Alberta and Moore, who ignore a large number of Christians to whom their squabbles do not in the least apply.

Alberta and Moore’s tired tropes of never-Trumpism are merely braying back the hee-haw of the donkey, a very political and well-funded donkey. Specifically, Moore and Alberta make three heuristic mistakes.

First, they misunderstand the battlefield
According to their moral calculation, those who reluctantly vote for Trump are impure. Those, like Russell Moore, who proudly attended Barack Obama’s White House Christmas party, are pure. Obama is granted an intrinsic integrity that contributes to human flourishing—but those who oppose Democratic policies are imputed with vile motives. The assumption is that Trump is a moral monster because he uses hateful and immature rhetoric, in contrast to Obama who is dignified, nuanced, and academic. Alberta is impressed with Barack Obama's intellectual background and his reputation as an academic. Obama is regarded as a highly intellectual and introspective figure, whose academic credentials and thoughtful approach to politics set him apart from Trump.

Many evangelicals are noticing the corrosive political dynamics in evangelical churches, especially since COVID. Basham has written a book that proves this influence is coming from the Left. Shepherds for Sale offers a meaningful contribution to evangelical debates about political influence in the church. Moore and Alberta’s books, in contrast, have attempted to redefine evangelical political action so that it excludes support for Trump. They are further evidence of how political and feverish those debates have become. This is why Moore and Alberta’s books are unconvincing. These books are marked by the very same politicization that they accuse evangelicals of having. Are we supposed to take seriously the people who embody all the blots they criticize? Their books are a display of political allegiance framed primarily not of what they are for—but what they are against. The implicit aspects, however, are clear.

Moore and Alberta write with contempt and offer vague solutions. Moore says the issues compromising the witness of the evangelical church are “Political fusion with Trumpism, Christian nationalism, white-identity backlash, the dismissing of issues such as abuse as ‘social justice’ secularism, and several others.”[13] It doesn’t take a proponent of Christian Nationalism to see that Moore’s chapter on the subject reads like he has not engaged any of the books defending it. The problem with the picture Moore paints is that he never attempts to understand those who think differently than he does. This is how you get rhetoric that says when evangelicals vote for Democrats they selflessly promote social justice; when they vote for Republicans they selfishly promote cultural wars with an untoward interest in political power.[14]

Moore concludes that the reason young evangelicals are leaving the church is because the church no longer believes in its own moral teachings. This is a dangerous claim if the reason young evangelicals leave the church is something entirely different, namely, the church looks just like the world. For example, Basham documents how the pro-life movement has been redefined. Brett McCracken is pro-life because he opposes the second amendment. Russell Moore is pro-life because he lobbies for illegal immigrants to get amnesty. Karen Swallow Prior is pro-life because she wears a mask. Ben Low is pro-life because he supported Obama. Beth Moore is pro-life because she opposes Donald Trump.[15]

Second, they misunderstand where on the battlefield they are standing
Much of these books are spent on a sweeping, straw-manned account of those evangelicals who “celebrate” the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump. Moore says the sundry evangelicals who, for varying reasons, vote for Donald Trump, have compromised their ability to be “prophetic voices of truth and justice.”[16] Alberta and Moore tend to condense the diverse “supporters” of Trump into one amalgamated archfoe, a hideous chimera rather like Bunyon’s Apollyon with scales like fish, wings like a dragon, feet like a bear, and fire and smoke out of his belly.

The Moore/Alberta slant is that republican politicians are leveraging the church for political aims. There is a sinister scheme driving evangelicals to prefer Republican candidates. Alberta claims that going back to the late twentieth century, Christians opposed pornography, homosexuality, and abortion, not for biblical reasons but to “satisfy the lowest common denominator of their socially conservative constituency.”[17] It’s jaw-dropping to read Moore and Alberta when there is a verifiable history that demonstrates the exact opposite of what they claim. Moore and Alberta are blinkered by their political ideology.

It is the Communist Party that has intentionally infiltrated the church for political reasons for over one hundred years, a history that is not dependent on speculation.[18] W. Cleon Skousen’s painstakingly researched book, The Naked Communist: Exposing Communism and Restoring Freedom (1958) outlines the patient strategies of the Communists to remake the world by taking control of schools and churches. Paul Kengor’s book, The Devil and Karl Marx, documents with real research—not speculation—how the Communist Party USA duped the mainline Protestant churches. Herb Romerstein, who died in 2013, was America’s foremost living expert on Communism. He scripted many of the Venona Papers. Romerstein was asked which particular group the Communists had the most success duping in the United States. He answered that it was the religious left. They were the biggest suckers of them all. There is a real, historically documented attempt of the Left to co-op evangelicals for political purposes. Moore and Alberta’s tribalism displays no awareness of this history. They don’t factor into their analysis that evangelicals are going to react to these real threats.

Whatever one’s opinion of the character and rhetoric of Donald Trump, the never-Trumper arguments are not responding to a meaningful threat. The country has never been at less threat for a President to become a tyrant than if Donald Trump were re-elected. Trump can’t cross the street without being indicted. He can’t go to a rally without being shot. He can’t deregulate Health and Human Services without being stonewalled by the bureaucrats who might deregulate. A person doesn’t have to love Donald Trump to see that Moore and Alberta have created a fantasy nemesis as the composite for collective fears and anxieties with little connection to reality. They dismiss opposing viewpoints as the manifestation of an irrational phobia when their own position against Donald Trump is an irrational phobia.

There is where Megan Basham’s book stands in stark contrast to Moore and Alberta. She documents “the manipulation of Church leaders who claim that to stand where the Bible stands is ‘political,’ yet not accepting their view on some issue where biblical application is disputable is somehow—even when they’re pressing you to lobby for legislative remedies—paradoxically not political. Republicans who speak of how their faith prompts them to vote for a certain candidate are grasping for power. Democrats who do the same are illustrating faithfulness in the public sphere.”[19]

Part of the misunderstanding is that of unfairly applied weights and measures on the standards used to judge the character of public officials. The argument from Moore and Alberta is that Christians can’t vote for Donald Trump because he is a moral monster. What are we to make of this claim? What would it look like to be morally and politically consistent with this claim?

Answering that question requires answering another. What is character? A politician’s character is determined by their personal behavior, their moral principles, and their political actions. One must first evaluate a politician’s character along these lines. Second, they must ask, “Compared to what?” The Christians who voted for Trump understand his moral defects. But are voters really to assume that Trump’s character, as salacious as it is, is worse than, say, Barack Obama or Joseph Biden? Biden has been accused of sexual assault,[20] protects abortion access, expands LGBTQ power, and reduces religious liberty protections.[21] Obama used the IRS to target political opponents,[22] supported sodomite marriage, allowed the Muslim Brotherhood input into foreign policy,[23] enabled the persecution of Christians,[24] and was the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history until Biden.

Basham explains, “Let’s be clear, no one cast a ballot for Trump because he committed adultery or because he bragged in 2005 about grabbing women’s private parts. Nor was the legal protection of adultery or lechery a feature of the Trump campaign’s platform. In contrast, Clinton and Biden did promise voters that electing them would allow the butchery to continue. They did make it part of their platforms, and a significant number of voters cast ballots for them based on those promises. Given this, which vote is more morally compromising for the Christian—the one that places power in the hands of those who promise to allow the innocent to be put to death or the one that vests power in those who promise to make a way to rescue the innocent.”[25]

Here is the point. It is a plausible Christian position to be cautious about voting for a man with Donald Trump’s moral record but only if those cautioning against Trump are even more cautious about voting for people with the character of Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Joseph Biden. Moore and Alberta’s lack of moral and political consistency reveals it’s not really about character. It’s about partisan politics. Moore and Alberta promote a political agenda that is intolerant of Christians who reject it. Moore, for example, lobbied for open borders, among other Democratic policies. He is also the editor of evangelicalism’s flagship magazine where “100% of the political donations from 2015-2022 by staff members at Christianity Today… went to Democrats.”[26] Basham writes of Tim Keller, who made similar never-Trumper arguments as Moore and Alberta, “Though only a handful of staffers at Keller’s church network and preacher-training ministry have donated to political campaigns since 2015, those who did, donated frequently, and according to Federal Election Commission records, gave exclusively to Democrats.”[27]

Third, they mis-divide the battlefield 
They make the Bazian error when they propagate what they claim to oppose, namely a Trump-centric view of the world. They are contributing to a Trump-centric view of the world by sorting evangelicals into camps for or against Trump. It’s almost like they’ve forgotten that God rather than Trump is at the center of meaning.

The cultural divide today isn’t really about Donald Trump. It is between those who grasp for unreality and those searching for reality. Even outside the church, there are unbelievers thirsty for moral sanity. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Christian conversion encourages glimpses and visions of the opportunity for gospel witness among those who seek what C.S. Lewis calls, “the Normal.” Some oppose the deconstruction of family, life, and law. They regard the stable, objective realities of God’s world and stand ready to learn the Transcendent framework for distinguishing moral ideas from immoral ones.

The sociological divide is between those who see, agree with, and love the world as God made it versus those who can’t see, agree with, or love the world as God made it. It is between those who reinforce reality and those redefining it, which raises a question for Moore and Alberta: Since reality is not as secularists tell us it is, how can Christians compromise with, let alone join them? The effect of these books is to open evangelicals up to the possibility of voting for Democratic politicians, which places Moore and Alberta as further evidence of the Basham thesis.

None of this is to excuse a lust for power if it has manifested in evangelical support of Trump. But if support for Trump is as bad as Russell and Alberta claim, then how much worse is evangelical support for the Democratic Party, which is as radically pro-abortion as it can possibly be?[28] Hating Donald Trump can’t explain everything, especially for Christians. Basham‘s book, though not a direct interaction with Moore‘s and Alberta’s books, highlights that not only are the books by Moore and Alberta self-refuting, but those Christians tempted to affirm the Moore/Alberta arguments need to first understand how hypocrisy undermines an argument. For example, Moore approvingly quotes Robert P. Jones, who claims, “white Christian churches” are “responsible for constructing and sustaining a project to protect white supremacy.” Readers are left wondering why they are supposed to oppose the rhetoric of Donald Trump and approve of the slander of Robert Jones.[29]

Now What?
Moore concludes each chapter with advice on how to counter the described problem. For example, chapter two is called, “Losing our Authority.” Moore, without any hint of irony, claims the church has surrendered its authority by aspiring to political power. The chapter ends with the following suggestions for action: Maintain Attention, Tell the Truth, Avoid Foolish Controversies, Don’t Self-Censor, Question Authority, and Inhabit the Bible. It is not the fundamental meaning of these vague statements that are false. But there is a particular falsification of the statements themselves arising from the slant of regarding everything only in relation to the progressive political perspective. It’s a tactic that crowds out the Truth.

If we need a political theology sensitive to the variations of change in the world, we also need one that can transcend the myopic politics of the next election. Thus, the primary political platform of all Christians is “Christ is King!” Earthly politics is in its nature a secondary and dependent thing. But Moore and Alberta treat politics as the primary and independent thing, as if Democratic policies are absolute. Such a conception of what is primary lacks the metaphysical finality that is proper in the church.

All three books—Basham’s, Moore’s, and Alberta’s—embody the problems that result when politics becomes a person’s totalizing reality. Each book has a deeply personal, professional, and political investment in exposing the other side as wayward and no investment in finding what makes the two sides alike. There is a natural tendency in books like these to obscure common beliefs, convictions, and concerns. Yet the sweeping assertions of Moore and Alberta’s books leave readers asking different questions than the copiously researched book by Basham. To Moore and Alberta, the discerning reader asks “Why should I believe what you say?” To Basham, the reader asks, “What should I faithfully do with this well-researched information?”

G.K. Chesterton said that only by explaining things in their simplicity can we correct their complexity.[30] There is no way out of the political tangle without increasing the proportion of Christians who are curious about why so many evangelical institutions are taking money from secular political groups—groups that hate the Christian’s summa political principle, “Christ is King!” That’s why Basham’s book matters. If Moore and Alberta take readers into the abyss of irony and contradiction, Basham takes the reader out by shining light on the echopractic paradox of Christian institutions becoming like the secularists that fund them.

Conclusion
On the whole, Shepherds for Sale is an original, yet disheartening read. It answers a lot of questions and raises others. The broader question that is beyond the scope of Basham’s book is this: Why are evangelical institutions so susceptible to being manipulated by ideologies that hate Christ?

The answer is knotty, but it starts with the history of American Christianity. The one binding integration point of evangelicalism is subjectivism.[31] The integration of conversionism, “God spoke to me” spirituality, anti-clericalism, anti-creedalism, and the so-called gospel-centered culture, is a porous foundation to defend against an intentional, well-funded, devilish, and politically obsessed ideology.

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

  [1] This phrase was used by J.D. Greer.
   [2] Basham’s book describes, rather than creates, a divide in evangelicalism. Gavin Ortlund is a pastor named in the book who has resisted Basham’s claims in a spicy back and forth. Basham’s point of referencing Ortlund was that he used his large platform to convince Christians to support environmentalism. Ortlund claims he was misrepresented. All the back and forth between the two, when combined with Ortlund’s original climate change video promoting “unity” on the scientific consensus of climate change, vindicates Basham’s modest point regarding Ortlund, which is that he is an example of someone who promotes climate change. Disagreement is not slander and Ortlund’s alleged example of being misunderstood by Basham does not discredit the rest of the book. Bethel McGrew points out that Basham has a few “lapses in rigor” that “provide unnecessary excuses for bad-faith critics to miss the forest while fixating on a few leaves of one tree.” McGrew says that the bad faith critics operate with a “double standard is undeniable when reviewers obsessively pick apart these sorts of imprecisions while turning a blind eye to truly egregious misrepresentations by an ‘approved’ figure such as Russell Moore.” https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/08/how-the-evangelical-elite-failed-their-flock
[3] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), xxi-xxvi.
   [4] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 1-30.
   [5] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 31-50.
   [6] Russell Moore writes, “Many evangelicals have traded the Sermon on the Mount for the sloganeering of political tribalism, and nowhere is this more evident than in the embrace of Donald Trump. The cost of this exchange is a crisis of credibility that has undermined our witness to the world” (54). He also says, “It's not just a matter of political differences; it's a matter of whether we are willing to be prophetic voices of truth and justice, even when it costs us something. Supporting a leader who embodies the antithesis of Christ-like humility and compassion is a betrayal of our mission” (78). Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America (B&H Publishing Group, 2023).
   [7] Kristin Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (Liveright, an imprint of W.W. Norton, 2020).
   [8] For a refutation of the most stubbornly persistent cultural unreality of the last four years, click here.
[9] Russell Moore writes, “The hateful and immature rhetoric that has become a hallmark of Trump's public persona is not just a political problem; it is a spiritual crisis. When evangelicals excuse or even celebrate such behavior, we betray the very message of love and grace that we are called to embody” (91). He also says, “By aligning ourselves with a leader whose words are often cruel and divisive, we risk becoming desensitized to the destructive power of such language. The normalization of hateful rhetoric among evangelicals is a grave danger to our witness and to the health of our communities” (104). Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America (B&H Publishing Group, 2023).
   [10] https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/protestant-deformation/
[11] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 73-79.
   [12] Tim Alberta has written, in the words of Aaron Renn, “a deeply hostile book.” Alberta fights the culture war by decrying those of different political opinions fighting the culture war. Tim Alberta, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism. New York: HarperCollins, 2023.
   [13] Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America (B&H Publishing Group, 2023), 11.
   [14] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 62, 71.
   [15] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 68-71.
   [16] Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America (B&H Publishing Group, 2023), 78.
   [17] Tim Alberta, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism (New York: HarperCollins, 2023), 66.
   [18] The Communist International was established in Moscow in March of 1919. In America, in September of 1919, in Chicago, the American Communist Party began. From the outset, the  American Communist Party was taking orders from the Soviet Union. The original dispatch that was sent from Chicago to Moscow reports as follows: “Comrades, we did it. Long live the Great Soviet Republic. Long live the Comintern.”  The goal was for a Soviet American Republic to exist under the Soviet Constitution. So the American Communist Party, even their newspaper the Daily Worker, are all creatures of the Soviet Union. They answer to the Soviet Union. The people who ran the day-to-day business of the party were hired, fired, and approved by the Soviet Union. They received subsides from the Soviet Union throughout the entirety of the Cold War until the 1980’s.
   [19] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), xxv-xxvi.
   [20] https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-allegations-women-2020-campaign-2019-6?op=1#at-a-may-2019-campaign-event-biden-told-a-10-year-old-girl-i-bet-youre-as-bright-as-you-are-good-looking-10
[21] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 61.
   [22] http://freebeacon.com/blog/obamas-scandals-didnt-embarrass/
[23] Glazov, Jamie, ed. Barack Obama's True Legacy: How He Transformed America (Republic Book Publishers, 2023), 31-49.
   [24] Glazov, Jamie, ed. Barack Obama's True Legacy: How He Transformed America (Republic Book Publishers, 2023), 50-64.
   [25] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 71.
   [26] https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/protestant-deformation/
[27] Megan Basham, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside, 2024), 62, 85.
   [28] https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/08/kamalas-abortion-extremism
[29] Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America (B&H Publishing Group, 2023), 213.
   [30] G.K. Chesterton, In Defense of Sanity (Ignatius, 2011), 267.
   [31] Russell Moore’s understanding of the history of evangelicalism is that it is “built from the beginning on nationalism, racism, militarism, misogyny, populism, or right-wing politics.” Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America (B&H Publishing Group, 2023), 14.</sub>

Introduction
Among evangelicals, there has long existed a vague unanimity that polygamy was wrong. There was a hazy notion of the varied examples of it in Scripture, but it was nothing more than a preposterous proposition. If one wife is a tantalizing riddle, what must 1000 wives be?

In Scripture, polygamy is more than an accidental misfortune of exceptional times. It’s more than solemn foolery. It’s more than mere dregs of melodramatic or connubial visions. The polygamy of one kind was a type of another kind, and in this way, it’s a bigger part of the story than one would think. It was Israel’s growing and ongoing practice of polygamy that beggared and enslaved them to the high places of the gods. But we are running ahead. We’ll demonstrate these conclusions in due course.

Before exploring what the Bible says about the subject, we must establish the standard against which everything is measured. This takes us to a time before Sinai, to a time before the Fall. Genesis 2:24 says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The grammar is singular throughout. “A man,” not men. “His wife,” not wives. Interestingly, the Hebrew word echad, translated as one, is also part of the Shema. Just like “the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Dt. 6:4), so too is marriage where two become one. The oneness of marriage relates to the oneness of God, and as we will see, it points forward to the exclusive covenant between Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:31-32). With that baseline, we are prepared to conduct a biblical survey of polygamy.

Old Testament Survey of Polygamy
The first reference to polygamy is when Lamech, the descendant of Cain, takes two wives, Adah and Zillah. Lamech is a man of violence (Gen. 4:23) who intentionally takes after his ancestor, Cain (Gen. 4:24). So, polygamy enters the biblical story through the chronicle of a killer. There is no moral footnote that spells it out: “Lamech’s polygamy was wrong.” That would be too obvious. The embedded actions of a wicked loggerhead in a narrative context point to a leitmotif that polygamy is always a miasmic event.

The narrative of the Patriarchs is more complicated. Abraham took a wife named Sarai, who then proceeded to give her Egyptian servant, Hagar, to Abraham “as a wife” (Gen. 16:3). One would hope that was the end of the flummery. But, alas, Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, was deceived into marrying the wrong woman, Leah. So he works another seven years to marry the right woman, Rachel (Gen. 29:15-30). Troubles mount in the household of multiple wives. Leah gives birth, but Jacob’s beloved, Rachel, is barren. So, Rachel gives her servant Bilhah to Jacob as a wife, and she bears Dan and Naphtali (Gen. 30:1-8) on Rachel’s behalf. Not to be one-upped, Leah gives her servant Zilpah to Jacob, and she bears Gad and Asher (Gen. 30:9-13) on Leah’s behalf.

Abraham’s other grandson, Esau, takes multiple wives, Judith and Basemath, both Hittites (Gen. 26:34), and Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael (Gen. 28:9). Esau’s other wives are mentioned in Genesis 36:1-5. They are named Adah, a Hittite, and Oholibamah, a Hivite.

Here we have Abraham and Jacob, the heroes of the faith, practicing polygamy. God blessed the Patriarchs throughout their lives. Does that mean God was blessing polygamy? Reflecting on the Patriarchal narratives, polygamy does not emerge as the happy bliss of moral purity. Abraham’s marriage of Hagar is about rivalry (Gen. 21:9), expulsion (Gen. 21:10), displeasure (Gen. 21:11), and tears (Gen. 21:16). Jacob’s marriage to two sisters, and then the sister’s servants, is marked by envy (Gen. 29:26, 30; Gen. 30:1), hatred (Ge. 29:31), rivalry (Gen. 29:34; 30:8), anger (Gen. 30:2), and manipulation (Gen. 30:14-17). And all this strife carried into the relationship of Jacob’s children. Remember that Joseph was nearly murdered by his brothers. This is a dysfunctional polygamous household. The lesson is plain: When the creational norm is violated, sin is multiplied.

Then comes the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 17:17 restricts kings from having multiple wives. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 regulates a situation where a man finds himself married to two women, one he loves and one he doesn’t love. If the unloved wife bears his firstborn son, he may not deprive the firstborn son of his inheritance. This law assumes polygamy has been occurring and sets out to govern it, without explicitly endorsing it. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, a man must marry his dead brother’s wife if they all dwelled together. The regulation is silent on whether this applies even if the brother was already married. Leviticus 18:18 says, “And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.” Notice the problem with polygamy. It invites rivalry into the household, something that is true whether the wives are sisters or not, as 1 Samuel 1:1-8 illustrates. In other words, a bad wife is better than a good haraam.

It wouldn’t be right to conclude that the Mosaic law approves of polygamy. God’s law regulates it, which is different from supporting it. Just like God regulates divorce without approving of it (Dt. 24; Mt. 19:8), God establishes guardrails to protect the vulnerable within the pestiferous situation of polygamy. Providing merciful protections within the muddle is hardly a blueprint for a faultless design. It’s revealing that the king is forbidden from marrying multiple wives (Dt. 17:17). He is supposed to be the leader, the model that the people follow.

The historical books provide several more examples of polygamy. In Judges 8:29-32, Gideon has two names and many wives. When he is called Jerubbaal, the son of Joash, in Judges 8:29, he lives in his own house rather than a palace. He is resisting Baal by resisting the tendency to become a totalitarian king. But when he is called Gideon in Judges 8:30, he has 70 sons. In Scripture, the number 70 points to the nations of the world (Genesis 10; Judges 1:7), and Gideon’s 70 sons come from his many wives.

In Judges 10 – 12, polygamy is implied by the description of fecundity attributed to Jair the Gileadite (Judges 10:3f); Ibzan of Bethlehem (Judges 12:8f), and Abdon (Judges 12:13f). These leaders of Israel operated above the law, ignoring God’s disapproval of polygamy. It’s after the failure of the Judges that God’s people wish for a king. But their first monarch, Saul, takes a concubine (2 Sam. 3:7) and foreshadows the royal polygamy that plagues Israel’s future.

The royal history of Israel is where polygamy reaches catastrophic levels. David accumulates many wives and concubines (1 Sam. 18:27; 25:42f; 2 Sam. 3:2-5; 5:13; 11-12). David also receives Saul’s wives. Second Samuel 12:7-8 explains, “Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.’” Nathan goes on to prophesy that these wives would be the source of David’s humiliation (2 Sam. 12:11f).  Indeed, David’s polygamous household is an unhappy disaster followed by Amnon’s rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:1-22), Absalom’s murder of Amnon (2 Sam. 13:23-33), Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 15:1-18:33), and the violation of the ten concubines on the rooftop (1 Sam. 16:21f).

The apex of royal polygamy is Solomon, taking 700 wives and 300 concubines. His wives turn his heart to other gods (1 Kings 11:1-8), just like Deuteronomy 17:17 predicted. This is the part of the story where polygamy is directly linked to apostasy and the destruction of Israel. Here is a man who seemed to have it all: A Temple that was the wonder of the ancient world, the inherited promises of David, and legendary wisdom. But his sublime life is brought to ruin by multiplying wives.

Solomon, like Adam, failed in his marriage duties. Adam failed in the garden when he listened to his wife rather than God. Solomon failed in the palace when he listened to his many wives rather than God. And not just many wives. 700 plus 300. 1000 represents totality and completeness. God’s promises were to a thousand generations (Dt. 7:9), his blessings were the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10), and divine time means one thousand years are but as a day (Ps. 90:4). God’s total covenant fulfillment comes by the thousands. Solomon’s complete covenant corruption, likewise, came by the thousands.

But the pattern continues. Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chron. 11:18-23), Abijah took fourteen wives (2 Chron. 13:21), and Jehoram had multiple wives (2 Chron. 21:14, 17). Jehoida the priest, the guy who should know better, arranged Joash’s polygamy (2 Chron. 24:3). Caleb (1 Chron. 2:18f, 46ff), Shaharaim (1 Chron. 8:8-11), and Jerahmeel (1 Chron. 2:26) also had multiple wives.

The polygamy of Saul, then David, then Solomon, then all the rest of the kings, was in direct violation of God’s law forbidding kings from marrying multiple wives (Dt. 17:17). This is the story of the fracture of the kingdom. When the United Monarchy was shattered like a windshield, polygamy was the little rock that turned a little indention into a series of cracks.

The wisdom and prophetic books imply that monogamy is normative. Proverbs 5 and 31 don’t explicitly mention polygamy, but set forth the vision for the ideal wife and the faithful husband. The Song of Solomon, in an irony worthy only of Solomon, elevates the singular bride above the attractions of sixty queens and eighty concubines (Song of Solomon 6:8-9). That is the Solomon way, to say things that incriminate your own life, but advocate God’s wisdom. Ezekiel 23 is an allegory in which two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, are portrayed as the two wives of God, Samaria and Jerusalem. Ezekiel uses polygamy not as a model, but to illustrate the unfaithfulness of God’s people, in that both wives are unfaithful. Even in metaphor, polygamy leads to condemnation.

How will Israel heal from their disobedient history of polygamy? Malachi 2:14-15 calls for fidelity in marriage, emphasizing the oneness of marriage, “The Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.” The prophet is calling Israel back to the creational norm. In all the Old Testament examples, polygamy never works out to a happy conclusion.

New Testament Survey of Polygamy
The New Testament provides sweeping clarification on God’s expectations for monogamous marriage. This starts in Matthew 19:3-12, when the Pharisees ask Jesus about divorce. Jesus answers, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mt. 19:4-6). Jesus is saying that the foundational understanding of marriage predates the Mosaic law. Two become one. It’s not that three or four become one. For two to become one means that no third party can enter the marriage. This is God’s design “from the beginning.” Jesus’ hermeneutics clarifies that the creation order for marriage supersedes any accommodation that might be derived from the Old Testament.

Elsewhere, Jesus further clarifies that God’s intention for marriage is one man and one woman for one lifetime. To marry another is to commit adultery (Lk. 16:18). The marriage covenant requires exclusive devotion, so much so that if a husband even looks at another woman with lustful intent, he has committed adultery in his heart (Mt. 5:27-32).

The Apostle Paul teaches that “Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). “Wife,” not wives. “His own wife,” not a wife among others. The husband “gives his wife her conjugal rights” (1 Cor. 7:3). The husband doesn’t have authority over his own body any more than the wife does (1 Cor. 7:4). This mutual conjugal duty is incompatible with polygamy. The binding between the husband and wife is singular and exclusive until death (1 Cor. 7:39). All of Paul’s teachings on marriage are an extension of Jesus’ teaching on the subject (1 Cor. 7:10f).

In Romans 7:1-3, Paul uses marriage to illustrate the gospel principle of freedom from the law. At the center of this illustration are two remarriage scenarios, both found in Romans 7:3. The first scenario is that if a married woman goes on to live with another man while her first husband still lives, she is called an adulteress. The second scenario is that if a married woman’s husband dies and she marries another man, she is not called an adulteress. How is it that one remarriage would make her an adulteress while the other would not? What has made the difference? In the first scenario, the married woman goes on to live with another man while her first husband is still living. In this scenario, she is called an adulteress. Why? Because she is still bound by law to her husband. In the second scenario, the married woman’s husband dies, and she marries another man. In this scenario, she is not called an adulteress. Why? Because she is released from the law of marriage that bound her to her husband, who is now dead. Paul’s teaching only makes sense if marriage is exclusively singular.

In Ephesians 5:22-33, we learn the penultimate reason God designed marriage as a monogamous institution. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:25, 31-32). Notice two things. First, like Christ, Paul roots marriage in Genesis 2:24, where two become one. Second, the mystery of the one-flesh union refers to Christ and the church. So, why did God make monogamous marriage an essential civilizational institution? It is a parable pointing to the exclusive, self-giving, singular love of Christ for his Bride. Indeed, the new creation is structured as a marriage (Rev. 21:2,9). For the bride’s part, she must not have relationships with the other gods (2 Cor. 11:2). For Christ’s part, he does not have multiple brides. There is one Lamb and one Bride (Rev. 19:6-9; 21:2, 9). The sign of marriage must correspond to the reality it signifies.

In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul uses Abraham’s two wives, Hagar and Sarah, as an allegory of two covenants. Hagar, the slave wife, represents flesh (Gal. 4:23), Mount Sinai (Gal. 4:25), and slavery (Gal 4:25). Sarah, the free wife, represents “the Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:26), promise (Gal. 4:23, 28), and freedom (Gal. 4:26, 30f). Paul is not endorsing polygamy. He is using it typologically, deriving theological lessons to persuade God’s people to leave behind the slave wife.

In 1 Timothy, Paul requires an elder to be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2). He must be a one-woman man, not a polygamist, among other things. Deacons must likewise “be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:12). The pattern for leaders in the church is that they practice monogamy (Titus 1:6). This reflects the creational norm. The people of the church are expected to follow the example of their leaders. In 1 Timothy 5:9, it’s not just elders and deacons that should practice monogamy, but also widows. Only if she were a one-man woman could she enroll in the church’s care.

In sum, the New Testament is consistent. Monogamy is God’s norm for marriage. Polygamy is never treated neutrally, it is never endorsed, and it is never accommodated. When the Westminster Confession of Faith (24.1) states that marriage is to be “between one man and one woman,” it reflects the Bible’s rejection of polygamy and the church’s conviction on the subject for two thousand years.

Spiritual Polygamy
The Bible’s distinction between marital and spiritual polygamy reveals that they are quite the same, even when they are assumed to be different. When Solomon accumulated wives, he accumulated gods. The body trains the soul, and in Solomon’s case, his marital polygamy trained his soul for spiritual polygamy. But it’s not that the two phenomena are analogous. It’s that marital polygamy is a mechanism that generates spiritual polygamy (1 Kings 11:1-8). This is seen, first, not with Solomon, but with Jacob, whose polygamous household included foreign gods (Gen. 31:19) that needed to be purified (Gen. 35:2-4). Surely it’s no coincidence that the word that is used for sexual unfaithfulness in Genesis 38:24 is also the word used for spiritual idolatry in Exodus 34:15-16.  

This would then mean that marital monogamy as the norm of society is supposed to train people to spiritual monogamy to the One True God. God’s marriage to Israel is that of exclusive devotion (Ex. 34:14-16). The warning against idolatry is that Israel must not “whore after their gods.” So, it’s not just that God is jealous, it’s that God, as Israel’s husband (Jer. 3:14), has spousal jealousy for Israel.

God commands Hosea to marry a promiscuous woman, Gomer. Why? To provide a living lesson of Israel’s spiritual condition (Hos. 1:2; 2:5, 13). It’s not just Solomon now who is compromised. It’s all of Israel. Israel had taken spiritual lovers when they worshipped the gods at the high places. Gomer’s serial unfaithfulness effectively multiplies her husbands, and this mirrors Israel’s actions. Jeremiah warned Israel to no longer play the whore (Jer. 3:6-10). The creational norm of one man, one woman, one flesh, for one lifetime, is not just a pattern for human marriage. It is the pattern for God’s covenant relationship with his people.

The good news is that there is hope for the unfaithful bride. Hosea 2:16, 20 says, “And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband’... I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.” Even after indicting Jerusalem’s whoredom, God says, “I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish for you an everlasting covenant …. That you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth against because of your shame, when I atone for all that you have done” (Ez. 16:60, 63).

Israel’s kings were unfaithful and polygamous. Israel needed the One True King. Jesus Christ is the one faithful husband Israel never had in their kings. The church is the singular bride, a new nation drawn from every nation (1 Pt. 2:9; Rev. 5:9). They used to sleep with the harlot in search of a god (1 Cor. 6:12-20). But they repented of their false gods (Ezek. 14:6; 1 Thess. 1:9) and underwent the purifying fire of Christ’s holiness (1 Pt. 1:7), reconciled to Christ by his death (Col. 1:22), made ready for the wedding feast (Rev. 19:7f).  

Conclusion
Why does this matter? It’s not only that the church’s marital practices train their spiritual ones. It’s also that polygamy may be the next cultural move to outflank and destroy God’s design for marriage.  Finding biblical clarity on the subject of polygamy is far more relevant than it appears on the surface.

The 2015 Obergefell decision redefined marriage. Each individual, wholly apart from all others, was declared free and equal, independent and separate, each with his own right, irrespective of the Bible, the city, the society, the common concern, or the needs of children. The right is concentrated on personal desire as both the means and the end of marriage. This new right redefines marriage in the name of adult equality and pleasure. In other words, Obergefell transformed marriage into a vehicle for adult fulfillment. If marriage is about individual sexual desire, no matter how perverted, then marriage is fundamentally about what makes individuals happy. If this is the ground of marriage, not only will they remove the complementarity of marriage, but they will also remove the monogamy requirement of marriage as superannuated thinking. The church must be theologically clear-headed to face down the oncoming challenges.  

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and the book The Making of Evangelical Spirituality (Wipf and Stock).}

The Sanhedrin had been crowned, anointed, and named the official power brokers of Israel. When the rogue rabbi from Nazareth showed up, they claimed the right to kill him, as much as a Scot has a right to Scotch. Jesus’ ministry threatens the political arrangement between the Pharisees and Rome. Jerusalem thrives on economic exploitation. It serves as the capital city, the seat of power, and the base of Herod’s operations. The Temple operates as a den of thieves, built on this corrupt relationship. The money changers at the temple only accept the regular half-shekel, which weighs double. As a result, worshipers pay twice the amount. As often happens with a strong centralized government, the nation’s people face heavy taxation, while the ruling class benefits the most.

Jesus’ ministry endangers the fragile alliance between Pilate and Caiaphas. The Sanhedrin wants to protect its position, so they come after Jesus like a pack of howling savages. Caiaphas explains that if the people believe in Jesus, “the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (Jn. 11:48). The Jewish leaders aim to maintain their wealth by staying in Rome’s good graces. As Jesus’ popularity grows, the likelihood increases that the people will try to make him king by force (Jn. 6:15), which could lead to the collapse of the lucrative Jewish temple complex and bring ruin to the nation. The Romans demand compliance from the Jews—no riots, no disruptions, and no repeat of the Maccabean revolution.

What will satisfy both parties? Caiaphas suggests, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish” (Jn. 11:50). They find a single victim, a scapegoat that allows the cronyism to continue (from the Sanhedrin’s perspective) and keeps the peace (from Rome’s perspective). With the right victim, the Pharisees remove the threat of Jesus while letting the Jews release their pent-up violence in a way that doesn’t threaten Rome. The solution is simple: kill Jesus so the nation won’t be destroyed. If Jesus dies, Israel survives. The Council kills Jesus to prevent Rome from killing Israel. They substitute Jesus for the Sanhedrin. To an external observer, the high priest condemns a blasphemer, and the Roman governor Pilate maintains the peace. Place the blame on one man. Punish the one man. His guilt doesn’t matter; it’s for the greater good.

Jesus has a history of scrapes with the Scribes but arranging for Jesus’ execution is a question of proportion. When Jesus enters Jerusalem that fateful week, his reputation is the perfect ruse for a common cause among the leaders of the Temple Industrial Complex (Jn. 12:19). Jesus is a troublemaker. The large crowds that follow him create chaos compared to the ordinary foot traffic the Romans prefer. That’s why they can’t arrest Jesus during the day; they must do it at night to avoid an uproar among the people (Mt. 26:4-5) Jesus blasphemes on the level of robe tearing (Mt. 26:65). He eats on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1), heals on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:10), and instructs people to work on the Sabbath (Jn. 5:9-18). He dines with disreputable people (Mt. 9:10f) and openly challenges the authority of the temple leaders (Mk. 11:27-33). He claims to be the Temple incarnate (Mt. 26:61).

The Jewish Council fears that if Jesus grows in popularity, the Romans will take away their place and their nation (Jn. 11:48). The term “place” refers to the temple (Acts 6:13f; 21:28). Given the Jewish history of repeated and traumatic loss of land, including the sacking of the temple, they have every reason to doubt the stability of their positions. The fear of losing the “nation” refers to the semi-autonomous status the Romans grant the Jews. The Sanhedrin works hard to appease Rome and avoid armed revolt. They believe killing Jesus will end the threat of messianic expectations. Yet the temple falls anyway because they put Jesus to death in a desperate search for political solutions.

The entire episode demonstrates the wickedness that results from unity with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. It’s no surprise that the High Priest Caiaphas would stoop to Satanic oneness with Rome. The Sanhedrin possesses the hubristic quality of believing in their own power as the salvation of Israel. All teaching, all miracles, all ideas, and all creations have to survive the intoxication of this bald, unvarnished commitment. There are rumors that Caiaphas purchased the high priesthood from Herod. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, who serves as the high priest for twenty-three years, becomes part of a dynasty. Five of Annas’ sons and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, serve as high priests after Annas leaves office, making Annas a sort of perpetual high priest. John’s gospel says that after Jesus’ arrest, he first meets with Annas, “for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year” (Jn. 18:13). This suggests that Caiaphas’ authority exists in a stratified form, with Annas pulling the strings behind the scenes (Jn. 18:19-24; Lk. 3:2).

The Roman governors can remove the high priest for any reason, and they often do. Some high priests serve only one year before Rome replaces them. Caiaphas remains the high priest for eighteen years (AD 18 – 36), a feat only possible if he is a child of the appetites of the Romans. But Caiaphas’s shady politics are not the only factor behind the death of Jesus. His prophecy about Jesus carries a political meaning with a sacrificial nuance. Where does Caiaphas’s prophecy come from? Is this a genuine prophecy?

In Israel’s history, the high priest hears from God through the oracle of Urim and Thummim. The high priest wears a breastpiece on his robe, containing Urim and Thummim, the shining precious stones (Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21). God uses this oracle to direct his people throughout their history, going back to the days of Moses and Joshua. When Saul becomes king, he rejects God's commands (1 Sam. 14:3, 18–19, 36–37), and the oracle shifts from Saul to David. Even after God rejects Saul, he tries to return to the oracle, but God does not answer him (1 Sam. 28:6). In contrast, David frequently consults God, hears God’s Word, and obeys the divine directions (14:35-41; 15:26; 22:13, 15; 23:9–10; 30:7–8, 18; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19, 23; 21:1; 23:14; 1 Chr. 10:14; 13:31; 14:10, 14).[1]

David’s successors do not consistently consult God through this oracle. When the two tribes returned from exile, the right to the oracle was not immediately restored (Neh. 7:61-65).[2] Josephus wrote that the oracle had been silent for two hundred years before he wrote his Antiquities. According to Josephus, the oracle is temporarily restored during the days of the high priest John Hyrcanus (134 BC – 104 BC), an excellent king, priest, and prophet. Hyrcanus foretells several things that come to pass, but the oracle ceases when he dies.

That doesn’t stop the high priests from wearing the diadems and attempting to hear the will of God. Do these high priests receive secret messages from God? Does Caiaphas’s prophecy of Jesus come from God as a specimen of this ancient oracle? Or does Caiaphas impose his thoughts on the people by claiming to speak for God?[3]

John’s gospel provides a clue. Caiaphas says, “It is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” Then John explains, “He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (Jn. 11:50-52). John indicates that Caiaphas prophesies, suggesting that John believes God gave these words.

Receiving God’s words and understanding them are two different things. God has a particular meaning with these words (Mk. 10:32-34), while Caiaphas interprets them differently, in a self-serving, politicized way. God’s meaning is that Jesus’ death and resurrection establish a forever reign for the eternal King. Caiaphas believes Jesus needs to die and be out of the way. This is how politics kills Jesus. The death and resurrection of Christ demonstrate what happens when people who are infatuated with their authority confront the Son of God. Caiaphas is one of those exasperating people who does not understand Jesus’ prophesies, and yet also does not understand his own. What appears as political power overwhelming the Messiah actually becomes the Messiah overwhelming their power. This is how the Kingdom of God operates. When the elites exchange virtue for pernicious schemes, they bring judgment upon themselves (Ps. 2:1-12).

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and the book The Making of Evangelical Spirituality (Wipf and Stock). 
 
   [1] Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The Works of Josephus, Antiq. 6.12.5. Hendrickson.
   [2] See also 1 Esd. 5:40; 1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41
   [3] Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The Works of Josephus, Antiq. 3.8.9. Hendrickson.}

Introduction
In Dante’s Purgatorio, pride is the first sin punished. Penitents carry heavy boulders on their back, forcing proud heads to stoop so the gaze of their smug eyes never leaves the earth. Elsewhere, Dante compares proud persons to children, which suggests pride is a characteristic of spiritual adolescence.

So, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that covenant children, especially teenagers, will have seasons of incorrigible youthful arrogance. Teenagers with this condition are unsociable and uncivilized. Unsociable because, like Gorgon, everyone else in the room turns to stone—laughter fades, wonder evaporates, and valiance vanishes. Uncivilized because solemn conceit ruins everyone else’s day. A scoffing spirit fills the room and suppresses the virtue of others. Courage is debunked. Wonder and learning are debunked. Self-sacrifice is debunked. Obedience is debunked. Thinking of others is debunked. Love is debunked.

Those who blow the sly breeze of self-congratulation haven’t quite grasped that other people aren’t interested in those quite interested in themselves. In sum, youthful arrogance is when a teenager pretends they are the universe. It’s a disposition of self-absorption and sinful self-love.

This proves difficult for parents and teachers, who wish to help the young soul to maturity. A complex interaction of spiritual, developmental, and psychological forces produces a bewildering kaleidoscope of youthful arrogance that is hard to understand. Youthful arrogance is built on three founding myths: I am special; I am the central presupposition; I have a theory for that.

First, I am special
Proverbs 10:4 says, “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.” Those who think themselves special say, “I’m going to be rich when I’m an adult, but I’m not going to work hard like the chumps.” Proverbs 3:13-14 say it is better to gain wisdom than riches and Proverbs 4:24 says, “Put away from you crooked speech, and put devious talk far from you.” Those who think themselves special say, “I’d tell a lie if it resulted in a large profit.” Proverbs 10:17 says, “Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.” Those who think themselves special say, “Who are they to correct me?” Proverbs 10:8 says, “The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin.” Those who think themselves special say, “I’ll babble whatever I want, whenever I want.”

In other words, those with inflated self-regard bluff that the wisdom of God doesn’t apply to them. In the Proverbs, God says, “The world normally works this way.” The arrogant remonstrates, “I’m not normal; I’m the exception; I’m special.” It’s an ill-placed certainty that the wisdom of God doesn’t apply to me.

Second, I am the central presupposition
It’s fitting in John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress that the character Ignorance hails from the town of Conceit. Ignorance is described as a “very brisk lad” who is going to the Celestial City. The trouble is Ignorance doesn’t enter the narrow path at the Wicket-Gate that is at the head of the way. He enters through a crooked lane. Nevertheless, Ignorance is confident he will gain entrance to the Celestial City because he tithes, gives alms, and lives a good life. Ignorance responds to Christian’s objection by saying, “Be content to follow the religion of your country, and I will follow the Religion of mine.” Ignorance is wise in his conceit. He takes the journey alone rather than join the pilgrims. When he trusts his own heart, Christian points out this is deceitfulness and the Word of God is the only trustworthy testimony. Ignorance responds, “I will never believe that my heart is thus bad.”

When someone thinks they know what is good and evil without relying on Scripture, they’ve made themselves the standard of knowledge. So, when they read a book with words they don’t understand, they think, “How dumb for the author to use those words that I don’t understand.” When they see someone take the narrow path, they think, “Why would anyone do that?”

Consider, Dillon, a teenager with youthful arrogance. He blasphemies what he doesn’t understand (Jude 10) in fits of disinterested conjecture. Dillon is suspicious of those who don’t start where he starts, namely, with Dillon. He is suspicious of great men and great ideas because they aren’t Dillon’s ideas. He can’t see the merit in lowering himself to the level of Aristotle or Edmund Burke, who foolishly write complicated sentences with words and ideas that no one could possibly understand. Dillon presses on with an abiding hostility against all that is non-Dillon.

Third, I have a theory for that
The fact that young people are preoccupied with theories over events—speculation over theology—suggests a lack of sense of how the world works. This is the case because the experiences of the young are limited. Old people know how the world works because they’ve lived it. When the Proverbs warn against venting (Prov. 29:11), the experienced person hears the wisdom because they know experientially that venting isn’t as cathartic as advertised. When Proverbs 18:2 says, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion,” the experienced person hears the wisdom because they’ve seen a thousand blithering fools.

When a wise person hears the latest world-altering theory, he pats it on the head and forgets it the next day. Why? Because he’s seen the rise and fall of hectoring ideas his whole life. When an arrogant youngster hears the latest theory, he embraces it full of cocksureness, certain that the whole climate of opinion will turn in this direction. As Chesterton once quipped, “His cunning is infantile.” Young people’s theories on the world are too depersonalized, not accounting for the human lives that animate God’s world with consciousness, will, failure, progeny, responsibility, prejudice, and inheritance. The arrogant youth measures other people’s worth by what they have achieved but then insists that other people measure him by what he postulates.  

Conclusion
To identify and address youthful arrogance head-on is not to relegate these children to a cursed caste. Parents and teachers can help poor souls afflicted with youthful arrogance. The goal is to reverse the founding myths of youthful arrogance. I am special becomes God is special. I am the central presupposition becomes God is the central presupposition. I have a theory for that becomes God’s Word has spoken to that.

Consider several strategies for ministering to such as these.  

First, help the weak and be patient with them all (1 Thess. 5:14).
A chess game has many moves before checkmate. Likewise, there will likely be many small moments before the child is humbled. There is not one perfectly delivered dad-speech that will fix it. Like most change, the path from pride to humility is slow and gradual. Parents can model humility, teach modesty, and offer correction. They can also pray that the Lord’s good providence orchestrates life circumstances to humble the child. Christ was humiliated before glory. Our covenant children will be no different. To exalt yourself is to imitate the fall of the devil. To humble yourself is to imitate the ascension of the Lord.

Second, help them see that ontology trumps autonomy.
For covenant children in the twenty-first century, autonomy is the alternative to submission to God. Autonomy is rebellion against their ontological placement in the covenant, a rebellion that visualizes a future apart from the efficaciousness of the covenant bond. When covenant children are baptized, they are united to Christ (Rom. 6:1-3). This is the objective (i.e. ontological) meaning of baptism. When covenant children manifest prolonged periods of youthful arrogance, they are failing to embrace the objective gift of God’s grace (1 Pt. 5:6-7). The only proper way to receive the Kingdom is as a helpless babe (Mark 10:13-16), which requires receiving God and his grace.

Chesterton said, “The fullest possible enjoyment is to be found by reducing our ego to zero.” There are two things suitable for this task. First, a proper understanding of the evil in one’s own heart, and that Christ was scourged, mocked, and crucified because of the sin of his people. Second, a proper consideration of the God of the covenant, who chose an undeserved sinner, placed his covenant sign on him, and distributed undeserved grace and glory, revealing divine holiness, power, and majesty.

Third, help them embrace the beauty of the gospel.
The gospel message is this: You are not God! There is only one true God and you are not him. The prideful soul is full of calamity. There is only one thing that gives calm and quiet to the soul (Ps. 131:2) and it is Christ alone as revealed in Scripture alone (James 1:21). In the cross of Jesus, God does everything, leaving you with nothing to put your pride in. It is Jesus who saves. It is not we, but he who saves. It is his going to the cross and submitting himself as the Lamb of God and having our sins put upon him by the heavenly Father. It is Christ bearing the strokes of wrath that were meant for you. He does it all, which means there is nothing left for you to boast in except Christ, and Christ alone (1 Cor. 1:31).

<sub>Bibliography
G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (Nashville: Sam Torode, orig. 1905), 53-55.

Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the book The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and the book The Making of Evangelical Spirituality (Wipf and Stock).</sub>

Introduction
The ubiquitous expectation in modern life is to “be true to oneself,” which means the foremost concern and superseding moral imperative is the cultivation of the self.[1] This self-creation assumes that people have the liberty to form their judgments, even when aligned against the Nature of Things. It’s the liberty to ignore the Lawgiver and Judge; to ignore the unchosen obligations of life; to take up any religion or none at all while imagining oneself to be an impartial critic of the Bible. The authenticity ethos is the right to self-define and then unveil at a time of my choosing. Rather than building an alternative to the authenticity deliramentum, evangelicals have made a truce with it.

For modern evangelicals, authenticity equals transparency. And since evangelical theology emphasizes brokenness rather than victory—“none of us are perfect” rather than “be holy because I am holy”—transparency means revealing sin. In other words, since ongoing sin is the evangelical reality more real than others, the squalid side of life is thought to be more genuine than the holy side.

The language of “authenticity” is itself misleading. It should be that “authentic” refers to rightly aligning oneself with objective reality. But the new notion of authenticity is grounded in the self rather than the metaphysical truth of the Universe. It’s a project of aligning oneself with the imagined or desired outcome. Evangelicals don’t just have a truce with authenticity; it is the fundamental premise of modern evangelical theology, as illustrated in evangelical preaching and music.

This is seen, first, in evangelical preaching (EP). The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news that Christ came to save sinners. Saving sinners refers to salvation. Salvation implies saved from and saved to. What does "EP" say you are saved from? Failure before man. The message is that through Christ you are unconditionally loved, so no matter your failures, shame, or embarrassments, Jesus loves you. You are saved from failure before man. You are saved from not measuring up to the person more talented than you. You are saved from feeling bad about yourself. You are saved from the guy one cubicle over who personally slighted you. What does "EP" say you are saved to? Freedom to feel no failure before man, freedom to feel like who you are is enough, and freedom to boost your self-esteem. This is why EP requires that the preacher exposit himself and reveal his psychological weaknesses as illustrations of “the Gospel.”

This is seen, second, in evangelical songs. Consider Keith and Kristyn Getty’s song, “He Will Hold Me Fast.” The lyrics of the song, as such, are not inaccurate. But it embodies the authenticity ethos where weakness is authentic and Christians barely stumble across the finish line. The first lines of the song are:

  When I fear my faith will fail
Christ will hold me fast
When the tempter would prevail
He will hold me fast

Of course, Christ will indeed hold his people when the tempter tempts and believers fear, but by emphasizing the authenticity ethos the implication is that the Christian life is for people feebly holding on in the face of fear and temptation, that fear and temptation are the genuine realities of life, and people just weather the storm until Christ just barely pulls them through. The Gospel is thus domesticated to accommodate the new ethic of authenticity.

Confusion
 
The authenticity ethos found in modern evangelicalism confuses four things.

First, it confuses honesty
When people start with the assumption that feelings aren’t evil because feelings are honest, then expressing real feelings feels honest. In contrast, self-control over whatever feelings happen at the moment feels dishonest. And since honesty is a virtue, that means expressing feelings is a virtue. In this way, the authenticity ethos privileges “emotivism,” as Alisdair MacIntyre called it.[2] Evangelical emotivism assumes there is no way to secure agreement on theological, political, or ethical matters. So, confessionalism is regarded as fraudulent arrogance for failing to feature uncertainty and failing to allow each person’s preferences about theology, politics, and ethics to suffice.

The reason the authenticity ethos confuses honesty is that every virtue is something we are responsible for (Rev. 20:12). Furthermore, emotions are easy but virtues are not (Mt. 7:12-23). Unfettered emotional release is much too easy to be a virtue. Besides, honest feelings don’t lie about their object. A child might feel authentic anger and resentment toward their parents. But as Peter Kreeft has said, “Honesty with feelings means asking whether they are true.”[3]

Second, it confuses community 
The gospel of authenticity says that the more planned and liturgical something is, the more artificial it is. This helps explain the devaluing of the Lord’s Day worship service. If authenticity is revealing sin, then the authentic life is living as part of the world. Living in sin is more genuine than consecrating oneself to the Lord.

The authenticity ethos fails to see that biblical community is impossible without Sunday worship services. Covenant Renewal Worship renews biblical fellowship in at least three ways. First, the weakest members see themselves as part of the whole church, not just as tag-alongers. It does the weak members well when the one who is high experiences what it’s like to be low at the foot of the cross. Second, the church is separated from the temptations and sins of the world. After all, it’s hard to view pornography on your phone while on your knees confessing sin alongside God’s people. Third, the quarreling members’ otherwise intractable conflict resolves as they unite at the Lord’s Table, remembering that they have one faith, one Lord, and one baptism.

Third, it confuses cognizance
When people think it’s virtuous to say what they think, they assume something false, namely, that they have mastered what they think. Part of the reason people struggle to master their tongue (James 3:7-8) is that they struggle to master their thoughts. The meaning and actions of one’s life are a person’s real thoughts, and the final meaning of life isn’t known until reviewed by Christ the Judge on judgment day. This is reflected in C.S. Lewis's novel Till We Have Faces, when Orual says, “Lightly men talk of saying what they mean … I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?” Until that day when the word is dug out of us, pray the Spirit conforms you to the Scriptures, prayers, and confessions of the church.

Fourth, it confuses righteousness
In the authenticity ethos, there is a distinction between inner authentic emotions and obedience to external moral standards. Authenticity is thought to be righteousness itself because it reveals a certain identity and complexity, at once factual and mysterious. And so it is that sexuality is obligated to be faithful to inner desires rather than to biblical moral expectations. Pastors are authentic when they reveal the raw elements of their own life. Churches are authentic when they feature the “weakness” and “messiness” of life and how Christ someone makes the harum-scarum life look beautiful. Congregants don’t confess sin on God’s terms, but imperfections on their own terms. The primary result is that people are sheltered from correction, making sanctification impossible.

Christianity, no doubt, has room for acknowledging weakness before God (2 Cor. 12:9). But the difference is that the Christian confession of weakness happens conjointly with confessing sin for the purpose of transformation. The gospel of authenticity says “I accept you as you are.” The gospel of Christ says, “I will transform you.” The first requires the mere confession of weakness, the second also requires Spirit-wrought repentance from sin.

The authenticity ethos is a trendy way to embody the chic piety of self-definition. This is problematic for Christians for two reasons. First, God hands out the definitions, not people. Second, when people hand out the definitions, they conform to the canons of sinful nature. This is how a Roman Catholic priest can come out as gay and receive a standing ovation in the name of authenticity. Had he declared his commitment to fighting against the dishonorable, unnatural desires (Rom. 1:26), he would have received the anti-ovation of heckling jeers.

Conclusion
The authenticity ethos thrives when the objective reality of Christ’s victory is diminished by the subjective feeling of imperfection; when the supreme reality is moodiness rather than God, the cross, and the Gospel. In contrast to the authenticity ethos, the great truth of the world is the objective reality of Christ’s victory. This is particularly emphasized in the book of Revelation, where the Christ, the Faithful and True One, goes forth unto victory, riding the white horse, robed with the garment sprinkled with blood, and leading the armies of heaven (Rev. 19:11-16). Make no mistake, God sees the tears and fears (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Yet the final victory is assured (Rev. 15:2), the faithful’s blood avenged (Rev. 19:2), and our Savior reigning (Rev. 5:7-8).

Why is it wrong for Christians to practice “authenticity?” Because that's not the reason Christ died on the cross. He didn’t die so people could have self-expression. He died to create a society of human beings who have died to the self and been united by the Spirit, with the Son, to the Father into a heavenly city equipped to invade the earthly city.

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.

  [1] Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), 270.
   [2] Alisdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 19.
   [3] Peter Kreeft, The Best Things in Life: A Contemporary Socrates Looks at Power, Pleasure, Truth, and the Good Life (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP, 1984), 105.</sub>

The power of hypocrisy is that it proves something to be false. But maybe not the thing you think. Veganism isn’t proven false by a vegan who has three exception days a week. Her belief in veganism is proven false.

Or consider what environmentalism hypocrisy says about the movement. We are told that the situation with climate change is an emergency. But many (most?) of the advocates don’t act like it is an emergency. What does this prove about environmentalism? It does not prove that climate change is false. It proves that environmentalists say one thing with their mouths and another with their lifestyles.[1] If they believe the hysteria, then wouldn’t they at least fly commercial instead of the private Learjets and Gulfstreams? Or not fly at all? Wouldn’t they avoid the Limo? Yet outside the UN Climate Summit, how many limousines are parked? Again, hypocrisy doesn’t prove falsity. It proves that many climate changers don’t believe what they say they believe. This has been an enduring feature of the “justice” and outrage causes of the left.

Paul Johnson’s book Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky demonstrates that the intellectual class is the leftists. Johnson argues that one of the biggest issues with the intellectual class is that they seldom actually live by the ideas that they propound. In other words, the people on the left are hypocrites. One high-profile example of hypocrisy comes from the former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, who brought an entourage aboard his personal Falcon 900 to Copenhagen, at a cost in carbon emissions that was thirty-seven times more than if the group had flown commercial. The reason for the trip? Mr. Bloomberg was speaking at a conference on climate change.[2]

The point is that a person can claim to believe one thing, but as James 2:14-26 says, actions prove what a person believes. When environmentalists live life functionally like there is no emergency, I’m inclined to think they don’t believe there is an emergency. Likewise, when Christians live life functionally like there is no wrath to come, I’m inclined to think they don’t believe the Bible. Shouldn’t we hold our own kind to the same hypocrisy standard we hold the environmentalists to?

Jesus spoke about a certain kind of religious hypocrisy in Mark 7:6-7, “And he said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” According to Jesus, hypocrisy has to do with how the inner person (the heart) interacts with the outer person (the lips). John Milton said that hypocrisy was invisible because it begins within.

_{For neither Man nor Angel can discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible, except to God alone[3]}

Obadiah Sedgwick, another Puritan, said: “The souls of men…have a secret way contrary to open profession.”[4] Hypocrisy is when there is an unclear and disputed interaction between the inside and the outside. Jesus says that traditions become sinful when they focus merely on the outside. The traditions of the Pharisees stood in opposition to the Word of God, yet they appeared to accomplish a righteous purpose. For this, Jesus calls them hypocrites, a word that refers to an actor who would put on a mask and pretend to be something he was not. This type of hypocrisy takes the form of self-presentation that has the appearance of virtue.[5]

It’s not enough to say, “Everyone is a hypocrite,” true though it may be. Christians need to be on guard against hypocrisy. There is hypocrisy natural to man which is on display in every human being—a parent yells at his kids to stop yelling. There is a hypocrisy that is occasional and represents only a temporary inconsistency—a flash of jealousy over a friend’s success. And there is the soul-crushing religious hypocrisy that Jesus spoke about—a buttoned-up presence at church joined with a prayerless and spiteful life at home.

The Bible reminds us that God knows and sees all. Whether your hypocrisy is natural, occasional, or religious, you need to confess it to the Lord who already knows. God doesn’t miss a thing, which means that when Christ died as the Paschal Lamb, he didn’t miss any of the sins of any of his people. Jesus died for and paid the price for every one of them, including the secret sins. Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound? By no means! God’s grace flows like blood and water. The blood covers the sin and the water makes us clean, new, transformed, and alive.[6]

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.
 
 [1] See the following link for an example of climate scientists who do live according to their beliefs.
 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/29/no-flights-four-day-week-climate-scientists-home-save-planet?utm_source=pocket-newtab
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/nyregion/battling-climate-change-from-the-back-seat-of-an-suv.html?mtrref=www.google.com
[3] John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book III; 684
[4] Obadiah Sedgwick, The Anatomy of Secret Sins, Presumptuous Sins, Sins in Dominion, and Uprightness (London, 1660), 15.
[5] Wilfred McClay, A Student’s Guide to History, pg 81.
[6] Mark Jones, Knowing Sin: Seeing a Neglected Doctrine Through the Eyes of the Puritans (Chicago: Moody, 2022), 98f.}

Introduction
Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Faith implies that there is something we can’t see. The totality of reality does not consist in what man can see, hear, or touch. There is something outside the human field of vision. What is not seen is part of the true actuality. Thus, part of human existence is that some certain share of us can’t be nourished by merely the visible or the tangible. The temptation of men of all ages is to reduce the world down to what is seen. Faith is resistance to this inclination. Faith is crossing from the tangible to the intangible realm, repenting from partial reality to embrace the depths of existence.

And what are the depths of existence? Jesus Christ himself. His crucifixion. His resurrection. His ascension. His New Society and New World, which is dependent upon his glorious grace. So it is that John Calvin defines faith as, “A firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”[1]

Object of Faith
Christian belief is about how the gulf between the visible and the invisible, the separation of the temporal and eternal, is bridged by God as man. This is God’s self-revelation, as John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” Jesus makes God known so we can see and touch him. The problem is that when they did see Jesus, they didn’t believe in him (Jn. 6:36). He did many signs for them, but they still didn’t believe in him (Jn. 12:37). By seeing Jesus’s signs and rejecting him, they proved that they hated both God the Father and the Son, establishing that they were guilty of sin (Jn. 15:24). They didn’t even believe Jesus when he was raised from the dead (Lk. 16:31). This is why Jesus denounced “the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent” (Mt. 11:20). Jesus “marveled at their unbelief” (Mk. 6:6).

In other words. Christ’s incarnation led to the death of God, killed by man. Since man kills God, it seems to conceal God’s revelation and obscure Christ’s divinity. How can man kill God? Can man believe in a God he has killed? The answer is yes, we must, as the Centurion taught us (Mk. 15:39). Otherwise, man remains in an apparently closed world, a “domain of darkness” as Paul calls it (Col. 1:13), which is more unreliable than believing in the death of God. People reject faith for its apparent uncertainty, only to experience the uncertainty of unbelief. Without the crucified Christ, reality is reduced to an only materialistic claim, which the soul knows is screamingly false.

So, while faith is knowledge (see below), it is more than knowledge. It is entrance into the totality of reality from which meaning is bestowed. The spiritual and physical parts of man, including his decisions and actions, are based on this reality, this bestowed meaning. Faith is entrusting yourself to the King who upholds the world (Heb. 1:3). When you enter into this reality, there is a firm ground for standing; there is a stable metaphysics for living. Since human existence depends on the Creator, the Logos, the Word made flesh, faith is receiving the Creator, as John says, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn. 1:11-13). Receiving what? Receiving Christ. More particularly, receiving and accepting that Christ provides the meaning of the universe. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said the West’s problem was that it had forgotten God. But that doesn’t mean the solution is to merely remember God. The Apostle Paul taught that real understanding isn’t merely knowing that God exists. It’s about knowing God’s will in all spiritual wisdom (Rom. 12:2; Col. 1:9, 4:12; Eph. 5:17).

So, here you are, you’ve expressed that Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, is the object of your faith. How will Christ judge your profession of faith? In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus will say to those who enter the kingdom. “‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”

Jesus judges if your faith is the real deal by assessing how you look upon the least of men. Do you see those who need your help and discover Christ?[2] To have faith in Christ, rather than merely professing it, is to recognize the needy person as worthy of receiving the love of Christ through you. A profession of faith in Christ, when genuine, leads to a commitment to serving and helping people. Put again, faith in Christ without love of man is not real Christian faith. What Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:31-46 is said plainly elsewhere, for example, Galatians 5:6 speaks of “faith working through love.”

Faith and Forgiveness
Jesus repeatedly linked healing with faith. When the friends lowered the paralytic through the roof, Jesus saw their faith, forgave the man, and he was healed (Mt. 9:2-8; Mk. 2:1-12; Lk. 5:17-26). Jesus healed the bleeding woman, saying, “Your faith has made you well” (Mt. 9:20-22; Mk. 5:25-34; Lk. 8:43-48). Jesus healed the two blind men, saying, “According to your faith let it be done to you” (Mt. 9:27-31). When the Syrophoenician woman asked Jesus to remove the unclean spirit from her daughter, Jesus said, “‘O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire.’ And her daughter was healed instantly” (Mt. 15:21-28). Jesus healed blind Bartimaeus, saying, “‘Go your way; your faith has made you well.’ And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way” (Mk. 10:46-52). When Jesus healed the ten lepers, all ten were cleansed, but only one’s faith is commended, suggesting something more than physical healing. Jesus tells him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well” (Lk. 17:11-19). For the Centurion’s servant, healing happens at a distance based on the centurion’s faith, saying, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith” (Mt. 8:5-13). Jesus raises Jarius’ daughter from the dead, telling Jarius, “Do not fear, only believe” (Mk. 5:21-43). With the epileptic boy, the disciples fail to drive out the unclean spirit because of their lack of faith. But Jesus tells the boy’s father, “All things are possible for those who believe” (Mk. 9:14-29).

Faith in Christ leads to forgiveness, and forgiveness leads to healing. So, man becomes most human when he is forgiven. This is because the healing that comes by faith restores people to the covenant community. The centurion believes for his servant. The friends believe for the paralytic. Jarius believes for his daughter. Faith is a communal activity, occurring within relationships. So, the woman’s cleanness means she can return to the community, just as the healed lepers can return to their town.

So, faith is the point of contact between the human and divine. Jesus says, “Your faith has healed you,” not because faith has magical powers, but because of what faith is, namely, receiving the extended hand of Christ. Faith in Christ heals a physical disease, but it’s the healing of the spiritual disease, as is emphasized in the paralytic’s story of Mark 2:1-12, that shows the deeper problem and the deeper healing. It restores you to fellowship with God and man.

Faith and the Spirit
Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22f), produced by the Holy Spirit. All of salvation is a gift of God, including faith (Eph. 2:8f). Belief is something that is granted (Phil. 1:29), something obtained by divine allotment (2 Pet. 1:1). Confessing Jesus as Lord requires the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3) and without the Spirit people can’t accept spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:14). The new birth, which includes faith, comes from the Spirit (Jn. 3:5f; 1 Jn. 5:1). The Spirit gives spiritual life, at the center of which is faith in Christ (Jn. 6:63). Faith is the result of divine opening, where God opens the heart (Acts 16:14). The Spirit enlightens the heart to revelation, enabling faith (Eph. 1:17f). Everything we have is received, including faith (Jn. 1:12f), which means it is not self-generated (1 Cor. 4:7).

Faith by Hearing
“Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). What does this mean? It means that faith is not like a philosophy that results from reflection. Faith does not come by thinking it out. Faith is the reception of something heard rather than the result of something thought. This doesn’t remove thinking from faith. It means the thinking is over something you’ve heard and received.

This is what happened with the Samaritan woman at the well. She meets Jesus and hears his words about living water. She hears him reveal the private details of her life. She hears his claim to be Messiah, and she believes (Jn. 4:7-26). Then, she testifies to what she heard, telling the people in the town (Jn. 4:28f). The Samaritans hear the woman’s testimony, and they believe (Jn. 4:39) and want to hear from Jesus directly (Jn. 4:40-42). As the Pslamist says, the sheep will hear God’s voice and not harden their hearts (Ps. 95:7f; Jn. 10:27).

Cornelius faith came from hearing Peter speak (Acts 10:44). Lydia’s heart was opened when she heard Paul speaking (Acts 16:14). The 3000 at Pentecost heard Peter’s sermon and were cut to the heart, repented, and were baptized (Acts 2:37-39). The Thessalonians received the word, which they heard from Paul’s missionaries (1 Thess. 1:5-6; 2:13). Faith comes by hearing with divinely opened ears (Mt. 13:16; Jn. 6:44f; 8:47; Eph. 1:17f). As the prophet writes, hearing leads to salvation (Is. 55:3).

So, faith is receiving the Word of God. This reception changes your life. Previously, your thoughts and desires took precedence over everything. Now, the Word takes precedence over your thoughts and desires. The Word lays an obligation that doesn’t change the fact that you think and feel. It obligates your thoughts and feelings to conform. Conformity implies community. Individual Christian faith is communal because everyone in the church is being conformed by the same Spirit and the same Word.

Different Uses of the Word “Faith”
There is a wide semantic range of the word “faith” in the New Testament. Faith is often used to mean personal trust or confidence. For example, Galatians 2:20 talks about new life “by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” John 3:16 says, “Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” So, faith is directed toward the person of Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).

 Faith is also used as belief or conviction in propositional truth. Hebrews 11:6 says that “Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” In this case, faith believes two propositions. God exists, and God rewards those who seek him. Romans 10:9 requires confessing that “Jesus is Lord” and believing “that God raised him from the dead.” In this case, faith believes in two more propositions. The Lordship and resurrection of Christ. Romans 10:9 adds that this belief occurs in your heart, which means it’s not a probability bet. It is a belief where you stake your life on it.

Faith is also used to mean faithfulness, for example, Galatians 5:22, “The Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control.” Or 1 Thessalonians 3:2, Paul sends Timothy “to establish and exhort you in your faith.” Timothy’s job is to strengthen them to fulfill faith as an enduring commitment, that they may “walk by faith, not by sight” as 2 Corinthians 5:7 puts it. In Revelation 2:13, they did not deny their faith but held fast to the name of Christ, remaining faithful to Christ under persecution.

Faith is sometimes used as “the faith” referring to a body of Christian doctrine. So, Jude 3 encourages Christians to “contend for the faith,” and 1 Timothy 4:1 says some will “depart from the faith,” meaning they are abandoning orthodox teaching. When Paul turned to Christ, he began “preaching the faith” (Gal. 1:23) and many of the Jewish priests converted and “became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).

The various semantic usages of faith continue beyond this. For instance, faith is also a spiritual gift, as in a set-apart ability (1 Corinthians 12:9). It is assurance, or certainty, as said in Hebrews 10:22 and 11:1. Whatever the particular usage, the key is to see that faith is covenantal throughout. Just like love is multidimensional, so is faith. Whatever the semantic usage, it involves a personal relationship with God himself.

What sort of faith does God require?
Persevering Faith 
Christians are under the covenant demand of persevering faith, which is why many verses teach that true saving faith perseveres until the end. Philippians 1:6 says, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” Colossians 1:22-23a says, “He has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith.” Hebrews 3:6 says, “We are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.” Hebrews 3:14 says, “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” Second Peter 1:10 says, “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” First Timothy 2:15 says, “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is framed by conditional clauses. To receive the promises of the gospel requires—is conditioned upon—an enduring faith in Christ. This does not undermine God’s unconditional election (Eph 1:3-14; Rom. 9:1-23; 2 Tim. 1:9f), but complements it. Just like God ordains the means of someone coming to faith, he ordains the means of them continuing in the faith. God has ordained to keep his elect (Jn. 6:39; 17:11f; Phil. 1:6; Rom. 8:29f; 1 Cor. 1:8f; 2 Thess. 3:3; Jude 24f). In John 10:28, Jesus said, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” That means that your trials and temptations, your tribulations and troubles, cannot destroy your faith. Rather, they further it (James 1:2-4).

Knowledgeable Faith 
“For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me” (Jn. 17:8). The order is that they received the words, they came to know in truth, and they believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Elsewhere, Peter confessed, “We have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:69). The order here is reversed. They believe, and then they know. In John 10:38, Jesus says, “Even though you do not believe in me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Here, the order is that they believe, know, and understand. But then in John 16:30 the disciples say, “Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” The order here is knowledge and then faith. In John 8:31-32, Jesus says, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” The order here is abiding in God’s word, which refers to obeying in faith (2 Pet. 1:5-8), then knowing truth.

What are we to make of this complicated relationship between faith and knowledge? It seems the surest conclusion is that knowledge and faith are interwoven in a mutually dependent way. The order varies. Sometimes belief precedes knowledge (Jn. 6:69). Sometimes knowledge precedes belief (Jn. 17:8). The point is that they are inseparable. Faith and knowledge can be distinguished as two different things. But they can’t be distinguished temporally. Real faith includes growing knowledge of Christ. Real knowledge of Christ includes growing faith. John Calvin put it this way, “Faith rests not on ignorance, but on knowledge.”[3]

As faith starts small and grows big (see below), so does knowledge (2 Pet. 3:18). John’s Gospel is written that they may believe (Jn. 20:31). Knowledge of the life and teachings of Christ is part of believing in Jesus. Paul prays that the believing Ephesians would grow in knowledge (Eph. 1:17-19). Paul’s own faith leads him to want to know Christ (Phil. 3:8-10). He knows whom he has believed (2 Tim. 1:12). And as knowledge grows, obedience grows (Col. 1:9-10). This pursuit of knowledge is spiritual in nature because it is dependent upon divine illumination (2 Cor. 4:6). It’s a knowledge that centers on Christ the Lord (Heb. 8:11). It’s a covenantal knowledge (Jer. 31:34). Within the covenant, faith seeks knowledge while knowing that too precise a knowledge would, at some point, no longer be faith, as Thomas learned (Jn. 20:24-28). Thus, faith requires the humility to admit that my own ignorance is true knowledge when standing before incomprehensible mystery.

Satisfied Faith
John 6:35, “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.’” Faith in Jesus means that spiritual hunger and thirst are satisfied. Christians are the beneficiaries of an undeserved bounty, which, consequently, produces contentment with all that God is for you in Jesus. When Christ turns the peasant into a prince, there is gratitude and satisfaction such that the new prince can only think of praising the Lord. Psalm 63:3 and 5 says, “Because your steadfast love is better than life, my lips will praise you … my soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food, and  my mouth will praise you with joyful lips.”

Personal Faith
Faith is not based on belief in something, but Someone, the God-man Jesus Christ. Encountering Jesus is experiencing the meaning of the world, not as a Fate, but as a person. Jesus speaks not his will, but the Father’s will (Jn. 5:30). Since the Father is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17), Jesus is the witness to the intangible. When God takes on human flesh, the invisible God is made visible, the distant God is made near, the transcendent God is made imminent, and the eternal realm is brought to earth.

 Why did God become incarnate? “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). In other words, when the invisible God is made visible in Christ, when the meaning of the world appears as a person, it is to witness God’s love to the world (1 Jn. 4:7-12). Life is worth living because of the incomprehensible love of God to man (Eph. 3:17-19).

 Scripture says that Christ is the foundation of the world (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pt. 2:6). Scripture also says we should seek and find (Dt. 4:29; Jer. 29:13; Mt. 7:7f; Lk. 11:9f; ),[4] which means faith is finding the foundation that upholds the universe, namely, God’s love manifest in the person of Jesus Christ. We enter God’s Kingdom when we entrust ourselves to God like a child knowing he is safe in his mother’s arms (Mk. 10:13-16). So, if God is a person, that means our faith in him is of a personal character. He loves us by taking the form of a man, “born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5). We love him by obeying him in faith (1 Jn. 3:23f).

Faith will one day become sight. “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). That which we believe now will be seen then. “For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience” (Rom. 8:24f). Faith is what you know when you can’t see. It’s the hope of what you will one day see, namely, the King of Creation who knows you by name (Is. 43:1; Jn. 10:3; Lk. 10:20; 2 Tim. 2:19).

Obedient Faith
An obedient faith is, to use the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 16, one that does good works as “the fruit and evidence of a true and lively faith.” John Calvin says that “Paul defines faith as that obedience which is given in the gospel.”[5] And “Faith can in no wise be separated from a devout disposition.”[6] What is Calvin talking about?

Paul says that the “righteous requirement of the law” is “fulfilled” in those who “walk …. According to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4), “live according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:5), subject their “mind …. To God’s law” (Rom. 8:7), do not “live according to the flesh” (Rom. 8:13), “put to death the deeds of the body” (Rom. 8:13), and “suffer with him” (Rom. 8:17). These things represent the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Paul’s goal in evangelism was “to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed” (Rom. 15:18). This is what happened when Paul preached the gospel to the Romans, they became “obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed” (Rom. 6:17). What is the “standard of teaching”? It’s the gospel.

It’s not that the apostles don’t care about faith. It’s that the goal of evangelism is faithfulness. And faithfulness is a life of faith that includes things like confessing your sin. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9). Faithfulness is not work-righteousness. Faithfulness is not earning your salvation. It is all of grace to trust God and follow him. This is why in Acts, believers and disciples are synonymous (Acts 6:1-2, 7; 9:1, 10, 19, 25f, 36, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 28; 15:10).

Growing Faith 
Faith starts small and grows big. Jesus said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you” (Mt. 17:20). The mustard seed is, proverbially speaking, the smallest of seeds (Mark 4:31). So, faith can be small—very small—and it can be big—very big, “larger than all the garden plants” (Mk. 4:31). Thus, not all faith is equal in size. Some faith is small and immature. Other faith is large and mature. Those with weak faith are expected to coexist alongside those with strong faith (Rom. 14-15).

Abraham’s life demonstrates that faith does not arrive fully mature. His faith begins by believing God’s call and promise (Gen. 12:1-8). But it's an immature faith. He lies about Sarah twice. He takes Hagar and scoffs at God’s promise. Despite his small faith, he is declared righteous by faith. Justification is by faith alone, or perhaps more accurately, justification is by mustard seed faith alone. Abraham is the patron saint of faith (Gal. 3:6-9). He is the father of all who believe (Rom. 4:11) and obey (Rom. 4:12). By faith Abraham received the promise, and so too for all those “who share the faith of Abraham” (Rom. 4:16). Abraham’s faith grows through testing, notably the near sacrifice of his son Isaac (Gen. 22). The paradigm of faith, modeled by Abraham, is that it starts small and grows. This is the ordinary way of justifying faith. Israel’s problem was that it didn’t follow the pattern of Abraham. Their faith shrank rather than grew. They were saved from slavery by miracles, but their faith was hardened by idolatry (Hebrews 3-4).

Faith can be small but genuine (Mt. 17:20) and powerful (Mk. 11:22-24; Lk. 17:6). Jesus likens faith to a seed for a reason (Mt. 17:20). The same seeds produce different outcomes. Some seed “hear the word and accept it and bear fruit” (Mk. 4:20). Other seeds die. Elsewhere, faith is contrasted with doubt (Mt. 14:22-33; Mk. 9:24), showing that real faith can be weak and genuine faith can waver. This is why the disciples ask Jesus to “increase our faith” (Lk. 17:5). Yet Jesus reminds them that though faith can be little or great, it’s ultimately measured based on whether it is alive or dead (John 15:1-11).

The pattern throughout the New Testament is that faith grows. Consider the disciples who scattered at Jesus’ arrest, then boldly preached the gospel at Pentecost (Acts 2). Their faith grew significantly. Paul tells the Thessalonians, “Your faith is growing abundantly” (2 Thess. 1:3). He notices that the Corinthians’ “faith increases” (2 Cor. 10:15), and the Philippians have “progress and joy in the faith” (Phil. 1:25). The faith of the Corinthians started “partial.” It was a faith “in part.” It was faith that saw “in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor .13:9-12). But Christian faith doesn’t remain partial. It grows “From faith to faith,” which speaks to the direction of Christ-life as a trajectory of increased righteousness (Rom. 1:17).

Question 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism describes faith in its most mature form, saying, “True faith is not only a sure knowledge by which I hold as true all that God has revealed to us in his Word; it is also a wholehearted trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the gospel, that God has freely granted, not only to others but to me also, forgiveness of sins, eternal righteousness, and salvation. These gifts are purely of grace, only because of Christ's merit.”

Fully formed faith involves knowledge, assent, and trust, but it doesn’t begin that way. The seed of faith begins as a “relational posture of trust toward another person.”[7] It lacks the propositional, detailed, or articulated form of mature faith, much like the acorn lacks the height, roots, and leaves of an oak tree. It’s relational, like the helpless trust exhibited by the infant in his mother’s arms. Psalm 22:9-10 teaches that covenant infants don’t just trust their mother, they trust God, “You made me trust you at my mother’s breast. On you was I cast from my birth and from my mother’s womb you have been God.” Babies are born relational creatures capable of relational trust, which, when fully formed, includes the ability to articulate propositional knowledge.

So, it’s not the case, as Baptist theologian Paul Jewett argues, that “the Bible always speaks of repentance and faith…in terms of a change of mind, an enlightening of the understanding, a renewal of the will, which comes by hearing the Word and issues in a conscious commitment to Christ.”[8] Faith is not always fully formed. It does not always include conscious knowledge, cognitive comprehension, or verbal articulation. Sometimes in Scripture, a person can trust the Lord from before birth (Ps. 71:5f). Indeed, in the mind of Jesus, the faith-filled child is illustrative of the entire category of covenant children (Mt. 18:6).

Too critical an inquiry into infant faith obscures the fact that when matured, this trust will have knowledge and assent as its companions. Until then, it’s a faith that breathes in the Spirit as warmly as it's given. God is a God who can be trusted by the weak and praised by the learned academician. God’s gift of faith can be granted as a partial propensity that, over time, will be gloriously colored with knowledge and assent.

Calvin wrote, “The age of infancy is not utterly averse to sanctification.”[9] What began in faith continues in faith. Faith is perfected, that is, completed, through works (James 2:18, 22). Faith matures across lifetimes. It can grow in leaps and bounds. But ordinarily, growing faith is like a race of endurance (Heb. 12:1-2). It must be refined (1 Pet. 1:7) and disciplined (Heb. 12:3-17), like Edmund, whose first trip to Narnia is stumbling and profane. But by the last battle, he’s a king who trusts Aslan completely. Faith grows because people are transformed.

Conclusion
Justification is by faith alone. The characteristic of faith that makes it the instrument of justification is, as the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 11 says, “Receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness.” This “is the alone instrument of justification.” As it relates to justification, faith is receptive. It is the “instrument” of receiving God’s righteousness, which “is only of free grace.”

_{Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.
 
   [1] Calvin, Institutes, 3:2:8.
   [2] This is consistent with a biblical Christology. Christ is the “last man” (1 Cor. 15:45), which means Christ is the real man and the future man who is gathering to himself the last men, such that to be on Christ’s side is to be on the side of these last men.
   [3] John Calvin, Institutes, 3:2:2.
   [4] The Reformation formula was fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding.
   [5] Calvin, Institutes, 3:2:6.
   [6] Calvin, Institutes, 3:2:8.
   [7] Rich Lusk, Paedofaith: A Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation and a Handbook for Covenant Parents (Athanasius Press, 2005), ii.
   [8] Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 268.
   [9] John Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.18.} 

Introduction
The central event of the New Testament is not the overthrow of the Old Testament, but the overthrow of death by way of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, which forever linked the two testaments, establishing the continuity of covenant architecture. But if there is continuity between the covenants, why is it called the New Covenant?

Christ—The New Indicative
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jeremiah 31:31-34

The New Covenant promises internal transformation (Jer. 31:33). Yet the Old Covenant also includes internal transformation (Dt. 10:16; 30:1-10; Jer. 4:4; 9:26; Ez. 18:31; Rom. 2:28).[1] So then, in what sense is the New Covenant new? In what sense is the internal transformation of the New Covenant different from the internal transformation of the Old Covenant?

The Old Testament’s promise of internal transformation anticipates a time of complete fulfillment that will be more fruitful.  This time is invariably known as the latter days, the New Covenant, the new creation, the gospel, and the Messianic Age. Deuteronomy 30:1-10 is an anticipatory passage that anticipates the complete fulfillment of the internal transformation. In the New Testament, the promise of internal transformation is strengthened.

Consider an example of how this works. The Old Covenant contains commands. So does the New Covenant. What is the difference between the commands in the Old and the commands in the New? The difference is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God doesn’t dispense with commandments in the New Testament. The Epistle of James is 108 verses long and has fifty imperative commands. The commanding power of the law is strengthened in the New Covenant because the indicative of the New Covenant is strengthened.

  God’s commands are always based on indicatives of grace. Before giving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, God said, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Ex. 20:2). God’s moral commands come out of the graciousness of saving the nation from slavery in Egypt. God reminds them of his abundant grace before giving commands. Grace precedes command. God never expects his people to have the moral ability to obey his commands apart from his grace.

  Grace precedes command is also the pattern of the Sermon on the Mount. Immediately before the sermon, in Matthew 4:23, we read, “And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.” Then Jesus preaches the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus’ commands come out of the grace and mercy of Jesus’ actions. Grace before task. God gives himself first and gives commands second. God’s grace paves the way for obedience, which is why God’s grace demands more, not less. The commanding power of the law is strengthened in the New Covenant because the indicative power of the New Covenant is strengthened.

  Likewise, the internal transformation of the Spirit is strengthened in the New Covenant because the indicative of the New Covenant is strengthened. The potential for internal transformation is intensified because Christians live in the age of the Spirit in which the promises of God have been fulfilled in Christ.

  The internalization promise of the New Covenant highlights the weakness of the Old Covenant (Heb. 8:8). The source of internalization in the Old Covenant was unfulfilled. The source of internalization in the New Covenant is Christ crucified and resurrected. The gift of the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ to his people. Christians obey the law, not because of intrinsic moral ability, but because of Christ’s resurrection power applied through the Spirit. By faith in Christ, the triune God applies the gospel inside out. The Father (1 Jn. 4:12f), the Spirit (Rom. 8:11), and the Son (Eph. 3:17) together fulfill the internalization promise of the New Covenant. The triune God abides in his people, empowering obedience, granting assurance, and giving comfort. God convicts them of sin, establishes repentance, and transforms the elect. This internal work of God manifests through outward good works (Eph. 2:10).

Signs
The sign of the Old Covenant was circumcision and the sign of the New Covenant is baptism. The Israelites performed the rite of circumcision on believers and their children. This wasn’t a cultural sign. It wasn’t a national or fleshly sign.  It was a spiritual sign. According to Jeremiah, Old Covenant circumcision represented a circumcised heart (Jer. 4:4), and this, as Abraham says, involves living faith (Gen. 15:6). According to Ezekiel, New Covenant baptism represents a new heart through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” Ezekiel 36:25-27

The Old Covenant sign was external and internal (Rom. 2:28f). It was visible and invisible (Col. 2:11f). It was earthly and heavenly. It was fleshly and spiritual (Rom. 4:11). The New Covenant sign is also all of these things (Zech. 13:1; Mt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Pet. 3:21), but there is a difference. Christ makes the Old Covenant obsolete (Heb. 8:13). How so? Jeremiah contrasts the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant when he says the New Covenant is “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (Jer. 31:32).  The testatory of the Old Covenant was the law. The testatory of the New Covenant is Christ crucified and resurrected. The need for the priesthood, sanctuary, and sacrificial system of the Old Covenant is now removed. The provisions of the Old Covenant are at the heart of what is made obsolete by Christ.[2]

Conclusion
The New Covenant of Christ’s blood (Lk. 22:20) is “better” (Heb. 8:6) than the sacrificial system (Heb. 8-10). The New Covenant prophecies highlight forgiveness and internalization. Does that mean there was no forgiveness in the Old Testament? Does that mean there was no law on the heart of God’s people in the Old Testament? No, there was forgiveness and internalization in the Old Testament, but of a kind the sacrificial system could support. Old Testament forgiveness and internalization were but shadows of the fullness of forgiveness and heart change made possible in the death and resurrection of Christ. In the Old Testament, they did not enter God’s rest because of unbelief. The church is warned that they ought not to make the same mistake (Heb. 3:7 – 4:16).

<sub>Jason Cherry is an elder at Trinity Reformed Church in Huntsville, Alabama, as well as a teacher and lecturer of literature, history, and economics at Providence Classical School in Huntsville. He graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary with an MA in Religion and is the author of the books The Culture of Conversionism and the History of the Altar Call and The Making of Evangelical Spirituality.


  [1] In Dt. 30:14 the law is in the heart and mouth to obey it. They don’t need to go to heaven or descend to Sheol to hear the word of the law. Obedience is because of an inside-out process.
   [2] Peterson, D. G. (1994). Hebrews. In D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham (Eds.), New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 1338). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.</sub>