DeoLexRex linked to a great article in his comment to my post, Canceling Worship on Christmas. The article was great, so I thought I would bring it up to the top of my blog. The article can be read HERE

Matthew 13:31-32

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

This is the parable of the mustard seed. The passage says that the kingdom of heaven is like that seed. What conclusions can we draw from this?

We will recall in Matthew 13:4 that when Jesus used the illustration of birds, called fowls of the air in that verse, they were a bad thing. They were the enemy, if you will. The birds came and snatched away the seed that was sown. Birds are not a good thing.

I think this parable well illustrates the covenantal aspect of Christ’s Church. The birds and the branches are both identified with the tree, yet the birds are not branches. They are not part of that tree. In the same way, there are those who are identified with Christ and His church, but they are not truly a part of that church. They are members of the visible church, but they are not members of the Universal, or Invisible Church. Maybe these have even been covenantally united to Christ by their baptism, they have taken on the name of Christ. They have lodged in the branches of the tree, they say Lord, Lord. But when they say to Christ that they did mighty works in his name, he will tell them to depart because he never knew them.

I don’t claim to have a good understanding of Revelation by any means, but there are some parts that aren’t too hard to figure out. And since this passage in Revelation was brought to my attention recently, I did a bit of reflecting, and what follows are my thoughts on the subject.

Revelation 21:1-8

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. 9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

So, we are talking about the Bride of Christ here. What is the bride of Christ? Why it’s the Church. Imagine that. Seems pretty easy to understand to me.

But according to Dispensational Theology, this chapter is interpreted as referring to a time after the second coming of Christ.  Thus, it takes place in the second heaven and second earth. But this runs into conflict with verses 6 and 7. God says he will give to him that is athrist of the fountain of life freely. Then he says that those who overcome will inherit all things. Now wait a minute, I thought they had already overcome and now they were in the second heaven and the second earth. Clearly, the Dispensational theology doesn’t match up with what the scripture actually says.

So as not to be tedius, I’m not going to quote text in full any more here, but I am going to go on further in my musings.

Now consider verse 14. It says that the wall of this city (New Jeruselem) had twelve foundations. Now what on earth can this be. It tells us in this same verse. It says that in them is the name of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Now, what did Jesus tell Peter? He said, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. Wow, is this making any sense? Simple. Christ built his Church upon the foundation of the Apostles.

Verse 24 says that the nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of it. Can we remember any nation of those who were saved, who at one time walked in the light of the Church of God? What was the US founded upon? It was founded upon the word of God. The US is just an illustration, there have been nations before that walked in the light, and there are probably more to come. But I don’t think this passage can be referring to nations after the second coming of Christ, as the Dispensationalists claim.

Verse 27 says that: “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Are we talking about anything other than the universal Church of God (the invisible, or the Church made up of all true believers)?

We must remember that there are no chapter breaks in the orriginal manuscripts, so moving into chapter 22 is an illusion. The beginning of chapter 22 continues describing the same thing as the previous chapter. Notice that verse 2 says that the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. What nations? Why the nations of earth of course, not nations after the second coming of Christ.

Now comes my big question. How can we say, as the dispensationalists do, that nothing in Revelation has come to pass yet? Consider the end of verse 6, “the things which must shortly be done.” Now what does shortly mean? Does it mean shortly, or does it mean it’s going to be a while? Now consider verse 10, “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.” Well let’s see, what does he mean by saying that the time is at hand? This isn’t very hard to figure out.

Now, there are many things in Revelation that I don’t understand, and there are plenty of things in chapters 21 and 22 that I don’t understand completely. But one thing is abundantly clear to me, this is not prophecying of something far, far away. I am of the persuation that most of the things in the book of Revelation have come to pass.

When Doug Phillips posts stuff like you see HERE, HERE, and HERE, it makes me not want to link to him when he posts something I do like. I mean I do like a lot of things he posts, but this here stuff is not anything that I like…

I was truly surprised at how good of a job “Hollywood” did with Narnia, but Doug Phillips just can’t seem to get over the fact that it came from Hollywood.

And I’m not trying to run anyone down. I truly do like Doug Phillips, but I just wanted to make it clear that I am in disagreement with him on these posts since I have linked to his blog in the past.

I am aware that Douglas Wilson is surrounded by a lot of controversy, but I like almost everything he has to say. And the post he made on 10-18-05 HERE, is no exception (yes I know this was almost two months ago, but I want to post about this anyway).

Here is a quote from that post:

The New Testament identifies believing synagogues as churches. James identifies the two in his letter. If a man in filthy rags comes into your synagogue (Jas. 2:2), don’t do thus and such. And if anyone there is sick, let him call for the elders of the church (Jas. 5:14). Now when Paul came to Jerusalem (where many of these believing synagogues were), he went out of his way to reassure everybody that he was not teaching Jews to discontinue circumcising their infants. This means, in the short form, that there were New Testament churches that had infant members. A circumcised infant in a believing synagogue was a member of that church. Now if Jewish churches/synagogues had infant members, on what grounds could we exclude infants from membership in Gentile churches? We could not exclude them. But we could say that circumcision was not required for them, because the sign and seal of the covenant was in the process of being changed to baptism. “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:27-29).

I would like to make a point of my own here. The New Covenant cannot be less inclusive than the Old Covenant, unless you are willing to say that the Old Covenant was a better covenant, which we know is not the case. The problem here is that, if you say Children of Christian parents cannot be members of the church (the local and visible expression of the universal Church) until they have made a profession of faith, you have now made the New Covenant Less inclusive than the Old.

Later on in the same post, Douglas Wilson asks a very searching question:

Are you prepared to maintain that an infant brought to your congregation (formally and covenantally excluded) is in the same position as an infant brought to a believing synagogue in Jerusalem in AD 52? Not only would the believing synagogue not exclude such an infant, I believe that they would have difficulty even comprehending the concept of excluding the infants. And if there was such a generation-long uproar over the inclusion of the Gentiles, what would the commotion have been if the apostles really were teaching the Jews that not only must you start admitting the Gentile adults, but you must start excluding your own children? I have trouble believing that this would not have caused the Mother of all Theological Controversies. But there is not a word about such a controversy in the New Testament.

The problem is that the meaning of covenant is something that most of Christendom has forgotten. Being a member of the covenant, being a part of the local body, being a part of the visible church, none of these things specifically equal election/salvation, just as being a covenant member of the Children of Israel did not equal election/salvation.

However, being a part of the visible church means you have taken on the name of Christ. By means of your baptism you have had the mark of Christ placed upon you. Just as in the Old Covenant, if you were born an Israelite, you were a member of the Covenant and must receive the mark of that covenant. If you didn’t you had broken God’s covenant with His people.

But now somehow in the New Covenant, we think that our children are not Christians until they have made a profession of faith. In light of the Old Covenant, this concept has become very hard to swallow. Just how is this possible anyway? Can anyone explain to me how we got this mixed up?

Well, I think it is time we un-mix it up…

I find this article very interesting.

No services on Christmas Sunday… eh? What’s going on here anyway? What is this holiday all about anyway? And what right does a church have to cancel it’s regular services because of a holiday that scripture does not command us to celebrate.

Please do not take from this statement that I am against celebrating Christmas (though I used to be). Actually, I am very much for celebrating Christmas. What I celebrate is the triumph of Christianity over paganism. Christ was born and he lived a sinless life. He then died for our sins and rose again. We could let the pagans have the season surrounding Christmas back, but I don’t think that is a good idea. What we need to do is celebrate what is good and holy and pleasing to our God. We have every right to celebrate, but not as the pagans do. We want to reform Christmas. But the way to reform Christmas is NOT TO CANCEL the service of worship in the way that we are actually commanded to worship God. It still stands that no one is required to celebrate Christmas, but we are required not to forsake the assembly. To put it another way, To celebrate a triumph over paganism through means of Christmas is fine, but to cancel the means by which we are actually commanded to worship God does not accomplish the goal. And that goal is furthering Christ’s Kingdom on earth.