The Church Universal Is Not!

 

CHAPTER III.

THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL

SECTION-MEMBERSHIP.

THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL IS THE WHOLE COMPANY OF THOSE WHO ARE SAVED BY CHRIST.

Whether the term church is used in the Scriptures to denote the whole body of Christ’s disciples, is simply a question of fact. Were we to regard it as an etymological question, we might doubt whether a word, which always assures us of an assembly, could be used to denote a body that has never assembled on earth since the time of the first persecution, which scattered the disciples from Jerusalem. But some reason for such an application of the term may exist; and, if we ascertain the fact that it is so applied, the reason for this peculiar use will afterward become a proper subject of inquiry.

The following are examples in which the word is used with this wide signification: “Gave him to be the head over all things to the church.” “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.” Let any one attempt to interpret these and similar passages, on the supposition that the term church always denotes a body of Christians assembling at one place as the church at Rome, at Corinth, or at Ephesus ­ and he will become fully convinced, that the interpretation is inadmissible. In some of the passages the extension of the term to the whole body of believers, is perfectly apparent.

 

So begins the portion of J. L. Dagg’s fine book Manual Of Theology And Church Order.[1] The problem, of course, is the first sentence of the opening paragraph: “Whether the term church is used in the Scriptures to denote the whole body of Christ’s disciples, is simply a question of fact.” It is not a question of fact, but an erroneous conclusion reflecting Protestant ecclesiology unsupported in Scripture. The rest of the chapter continues to reflect an essentially Protestant understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ, imagining it to be a universal, unassembled assembly.

“Don’t you believe every believer in Christ is a member of the Church?” My answer is “Not yet.” A more complete explanation of the doctrine of the Church is found in W. R. Downing’s The New Testament Church[2] and my offering, The Church Of Jesus Christ: 28 Things Every Christian Ought To Learn.[3] It is a sad thing for Baptists to accept without serious scrutiny a Protestant ecclesiology that can  only be embraced by violating the core meaning of the word ekklesia.

---

[1] J. L. Dagg, Manual Of Theology And Church Order, New Edition, (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982)

[2] W. R. Downing, The New Testament Church, (Morgan Hill, CA: PIRS Publications, Revised 2006)

[3] John S. Waldrip, The Church of Jesus Christ: 28 Truths Every Christian Ought To Learn, (Monrovia, CA: Classical Baptist Press, 2019)

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter 49, The Election of Angels.

I am continually amazed by the reluctance of men who claim to love the truth, know the truth, and embrace the truth, but refuse to engage with anyone who wants to discuss the truth. Several years ago I asked a friend about his relationship with his pastor. He indicated his love for his pastor and their close friendship until he asked about Bible a doctrine his pastor did not want to discuss. For no other reason than asking his pastor’s opinion on a matter of doctrine, their relationship cooled and then ended.

His comment reminded me of my relationship with my first pastor, who steadfastly refused to address matters of doctrine and issues of curiosity in the Bible. I suppose this chapter will provoke the ire of some who claim to love the Bible, know the Bible, and embrace the Bible, but do not want to consider an uncomfortable topic taught in the Bible.

This chapter is divided into seven parts. 

The Elect Angels - Five paragraphs. The author discusses ranks of angels, demons, the election and reprobation of humans, a difference between elect men and angels, and several theories related to elect Angels. The Westminster Confession and the Westminster Larger Catechism are cited. Johannes Wollebius, W. G. T. Shedd, John Calvin, R. L. Dabney, Jonathan Edwards, and Augustine are mentioned. 

The Reprobate Angels – Seven chapters. Four citations are included, from Augustine, Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Gottschalk. Additionally, comments by Edward Polhill, Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Rutherford, Loraine Boettner, Karl Barth, and Gottschalk are considered and/or criticized. 

Angelic Supralapsarianism – Five paragraphs. The author suggests a chart of the logical order of the decrees for the reprobate angels:

1. Decree to create all angels

2. Decree to preserve some angels in holiness

3. Decree to permit the others to fall

4. Decree not to elect any of the fallen angels

5. Decree to predestine the fallen reprobate angels to eternal punishment 

The Elect Angels and Christ – Three paragraphs. The author discusses the election of angels not being an election “in Christ” to salvation because they never sinned. 

The Relation Between Elect and Reprobate Angels and Humans – Five paragraphs. The views of Augustine, Anselm, Richard Wurmbrand, Jonathan Edwards, and Thomas Watson are mentioned. 

Their Predestined Destinies – Four paragraphs. “Elect Angels are predestined to happiness and glory, but all reprobate angels will be sent to eternal Hell with reprobate men (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10). Like reprobate men, they will glorify God in being justly tormented forever for their sins. Since they are older, never sleep, and have sinned far more than any human, they will be tormented far more. Like reprobate men, they will be forced to bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10 – 11) … They will offer forced and grudging worship to Christ, even as they were forced to submit to Him when He cast demons out and overthrew Satan on earth. The elect angels, by contrast willingly worshiped Christ at His birth (Luke 2:13 – 14) and continue to do so in Heaven (Revelation 5:11 – 12; Isaiah 6:1 – 3 with John 12:41).” 

Conclusion - The author cites a portion of a C. H. Spurgeon sermon.

When Selecting The Church's Next Pastor

Revelation 3.1:

"And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead."

“And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write”

Sardis was a wealthy city thirty miles southeast of Thyatira. In the sixth century B. C., it was one of the world’s great cities, ruled by the fabled Croesus, called Midas by the Greeks, and known for its golden treasures. However, the glory of Sardis was passed, for the city had fallen to the Persians in 546 B. C. and to the Greeks in 334 B. C. In A. D. 17, Sardis was destroyed by an earthquake and rebuilt by Tiberius Caesar. When John wrote Revelation, the local Church established on the Gospel was spiritually “dead.” This indicates that John wrote this message long after this Church’s founding, an essential consideration in dating the book of Revelation.[1]

Situated on a natural acropolis rising 1,500 feet above the valley floor, Sardis (modern Sart) was nearly impregnable. Around 1200 B. C., it gained prominence as the capital of the Lydian kingdom. Its primary industry was harvesting wool, dying it, and making garments from it. The famous author, Aesop, came from Sardis.[2]

Sardis means “escaping ones” or “the ones who got out.” I indicated there is no direct evidence that these seven letters to the angels of the seven Asian Churches necessarily represent periods or phases of Church history. However, some similarities exist between what Churches have gone through and periods of history, for no other reason than because there is nothing new under the sun. Such similarities would result from congregations being tragically led into decline by pastors like this Church in Sardis.

With that noted, that there will be some similarities between the Sardis Church’s experience and a critical turn in Church history. If this Sardis situation is similar to a period of Church history, it would probably correspond to when Protestantism escaped Rome and the Papal religious system.

“These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars”

In this letter, the Lord Jesus Christ introduced Himself as the Possessor of “the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars.”

Seven is frequently a significant number in the Bible. In addition, we have already seen that the phrase “seven spirits of God” represents the Holy Spirit of God. The reference for that would be Isaiah 11.2:

“And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD”

As well, there is Revelation 1.4:

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne”

The seven stars refer to seven messengers, which I consider the seven pastors of the seven Churches. The Lord Jesus Christ reminded His preachers that the Holy Spirit, Who empowers the Gospel ministry, and the man who physically leads the Church’s ministry conduct their ministries under His leadership.

He said to that pastor, “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”

This was the first pastor mentioned thus far in John’s Revelation who received no commendation from the Lord. There was no praise, no slap on the back of any kind. Instead, the Lord Jesus began His message to this man with a strong pronouncement:

“I know thy works” Apparently, this man was not lazy. But our Lord’s omniscience was again emphasized. He knew.

“that thou hast a name that thou livest” The man had every external appearance of being alive. He was hustling and bustling.

“and art dead.” The man was dead, in some sense of the word, and did not even know it. This can happen in a Church, as well. William Barclay observed that a Church “is in danger of death when it begins to worship its own past ... when it is more concerned with forms than life ... when it loves systems more than Jesus Christ ... when it is more concerned with material than with spiritual things.”[3] May the Lord spare your congregation from that kind of death. Such might have been the case with this pastor. Either that or the Lord Jesus Christ was letting the pastor know in no uncertain terms that he was lost. Lost? Many Churches vote into the pastorate unsaved men. The complete absence of any attempt by the Savior to persuade this man to repent and clean up his act may be the strongest evidence that he was a lost man, but for the next couple of verses. My opinion tends toward surmising that what we have here is a lost man in the pastorate. He was going through the motions, functioning in an orthodox ministry, with the Church possibly thriving because the pastor was clever and had organizational skills, without actually knowing Jesus as his Savior and possessing eternal life. This is a pattern I have observed over decades of pastoral ministry.

Congregations must carefully scrutinize the conversion testimony of any pastoral candidate of a Church. Care should be taken carefully to how the candidate declares he was converted. Question him, interrogate him, interview him, and examine him. Then come back at him a week or two later and do it again. Please do not call anyone to be the pastor based on his speaking skills, based upon his past successes, based upon his organizational skills, or based upon his sense of humor. Hire a private investigator to thoroughly check him out in every conceivable way by doing a background check, running a credit report, and questioning his neighbors, relatives, former employers, and past subordinates. Then, when you ask him about his doctrines and practices and satisfy yourselves that this is the man God would have you to call, examine his conversion testimony all over again more thoroughly than you have ever evaluated anyone’s testimony. Why? You do not want anyone like the pastor in Sardis to be your pastor.

What kind of man do you want to deal with your grandchildren about their eternal destinies? What about the man you want to guide your grandchildren to Christ? It is rational and reasonable for someone to love and be loyal to the man who guided him to Christ. Anyone who does not love and exhibit loyalty to the pastor who guided him to Christ, his father in the faith, is likely not truly converted. But what about the man who replaces your present pastor? You will want to be as sure about him as ever about anything you have ever considered. Why so? Suppose you are not careful, cautious, and critical in your evaluation (not of the man’s personality or gifts, but of his relationship with Jesus Christ). In that case, you may end up with the kind of pastor being rebuked here or worse. If that happens, do not lay the blame at Jesus’ feet but at your own.

---

[1] See footnote for Revelation 3.1 from Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000), page 1368.

[2] See footnote for Revelation 3.1 from John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997), page 1996.

[3] Quoted in John Walvoord, The Revelation Of Jesus Christ, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1966), page 80.

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter 48, The Order of the Decrees.

Those of you who have been to Bible college or seminary will likely recall the lengthy discussions you engaged in over coffee about the order of the decrees. During such talks approaching a half-century ago, I remember there was usually a great deal of heat and little light. Some Bible colleges are so insecure that even discussions of this topic are out of bounds, against the rules, and grounds for dismissal, which is the Christian college version of an ostrich with its head planted firmly in the dirt. This installment of Ministerial Musings is offered to shed a little bit of light on the topic. 

The chapter is divided into seven parts; The State of the Question, The Three Main Reformed Positions, Amyraldism, Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, Alternative Theories, and Conclusion. 

The State of the Question: Five paragraphs. “The state of the question revolves around three points: (1) whether the decree of election was logically before or after the decree of the Fall, (2) whether the decree of election was logically before or after the degree of the atonement, (3) whether the decree of creation was logically first or last in the order of the decrees. The issue is a matter of logical sequence rather than chronological arrangement. 

The Three Main Reformed Positions: Three paragraphs. Amyraldism is Low Calvinism., also generally called hypothetical universalism. Supralapsarianism is mainstream Calvinism. Infralapsarianism is High Calvinism. The positions are more difficult to define concerning their adherents than is usually recognized, requiring more caution and information than most who quickly attach a label.

The author refers Hyper-Calvinism without pointing out something important for those of us who are IFB’s to recognize because it is tangential to the thrust of his book. The late John R. Rice intentionally mislabeled Hyper-Calvinism and improperly linked Hyper-Calvinism to those not deserving the label.

Throughout his career, Rice chose to identify as Hyper-Calvinism, the position espoused by CH Spurgeon. He did this while ignoring Spurgeon’s long career in London opposing hyper-Calvinism while conducting a vigorously evangelistic ministry as a professed Calvinist.

He also frequently reprinted the sermons of so-called Hyper-Calvinists (who were not) and edited their manuscripts to remove terminology he disapproved of without ever (to my knowledge) informing his readers. Sadly, the man who most effectively encouraged personal evangelism in the 20^th century engaged in that practice. 

Amyraldism: This word is a moniker for four-point Calvinism. The seven paragraphs treating this subtopic are well worth the time of every Gospel minister wishing to hold a position that is not based on a misunderstanding of the issues involved. 

Supralapsarianism: Sixteen paragraphs develop this subtopic. The sovereignty of God is not a topic of controversy among Baptists, yet many Baptists are unwilling to discuss or study the order of the decrees that God sovereignly exercises. Surprising to the uninformed, this understanding of the order of the decrees has been held by both Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists. The individual who does not understand how it is even possible for both Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists to subscribe to this position understands neither position and does not recognize how these two positions differ from each other. 

Infralapsarianism: Four paragraphs. This is by far the mainstream Reformed position, bearing on the atonement. Since every view of the atonement is in some sense an advocacy for a limitation of the atonement, the order of the decrees deserves serious study and prayer. 

Alternative Theories: Twelve paragraphs. The order of the decrees was a topic Martin Luther did not seem to have discussed. The later Lutherans did. The Arminian order of the decrees is (1) creation, (2) permission of the Fall, (3) universal atonement, (4) sufficient grace to all, and (5) election by forcing faith of those who persevere to the end. 

Conclusion: The author’s opinion regarding the order of the decrees follows:

1. Decree to create mankind

2. Decree to permit the Fall

3. Decree to choose some sinners to salvation

4. Decree to pass by other sinners in reprobation

5. Decree to send Christ to die for the elect

6. Decree to send the Holy Spirit to efficaciously apply redemption to the elect

7. Decree to harden the reprobate

8. Decree to glorify God through the glorification of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate

Not Only Rick Warren

Rick Warren was certainly not the first, but he so far has been the most prominent of well-known pastors to endorse congregational leadership by women since Aimee Semple McPherson. My thoughts are derived from Revelation 2.20.

(2.20) Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

After the commendation the Lord comes back with a severe condemnation of this man’s life and ministry. Notice that the condemnation stemmed not from what he did but from what he did not do, as he stood by and watched someone else do wrong without stepping in to stop it. He tolerated a woman named Jezebel. I do not know if her real name was Jezebel or if the Lord Jesus was likening her to the Jezebel in the Old Testament, who opposed the ministry of Elijah. I instead think it was the latter case.

Jezebel was the wife of wicked king Ahab, king of the northern kingdom of Israel. In addition, old Ahab is a beautiful example of a spineless jellyfish type of husband who is ruled over and patronized by a wicked and loud-mouthed wife. Notable, is it not, how frequently such a woman is so big-mouthed? That observation aside, Ahab’s Jezebel was responsible for the wholesale idolatry that swept across Israel while her pathetic husband quietly occupied the throne. As for the woman the Lord Jesus refers to in Thyatira, I doubt that her given name was Jezebel. However, she does seem to be the spiritual twin of the queen of Israel, who lived some 550 years before Christ.[1]

This woman called herself a prophetess. She set herself up as an authority. That is the chief characteristic of a Jezebel since there is no evidence that the Jezebel of Old Testament times was ever unfaithful to her husband. We know that she dominated and manipulated the man she was supposed to submit to. Therefore, a Jezebel is a manipulative wife who speaks out as an authority and runs her husband.

Several scholars, because of the wording of this verse, think this woman in Thyatira was none other than the wife of the angel of the Church in Thyatira.[2] That would mean the Lord Jesus Christ harshly rebuked this preacher for refusing to restrain his wife as she pretended she was a God-called spiritual leader. Imagine that. The Lord Jesus Christ called a preacher down for not keeping his wife in line and allowing her to pawn herself off as an anointed congregation leader, just like he was supposed to be.

I wonder what modern-day women preachers, the so-called co-pastor wives found in many Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations (and bossy Baptist pastor's wives who overstep their positions), and the female pastors in liberal mainline denominational churches say about this passage. I wonder how a man married to such a woman who rolls over and allows her to trample him with her words and deeds can live with himself. I know men whose wives are Jezebels and have no respect for them. They are pathetic and despicable excuses for manhood. I am in no way advocating abuse by any husband. I am, however, advocating authentic manhood in a man and not wimpy simpering passivity because the pansy is afraid to make his contentious wife angry with him for daring to stand up to her.

Whoever this Jezebel was, she taught and seduced Christ’s servants to commit fornication and to eat things offered to idols. To do this, she must have established herself as an authority over the plain teachings of God’s Word. However, is that not what bossy wives and women preachers do today? Sure they do. What do First Timothy 2.11-12 and 3.1-7 say?

¹¹ Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

¹² But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

¹  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

²   A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

³   Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

⁴  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

⁵  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

⁶ Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 

⁷  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 

This Jezebel taught believers that they did not need to separate themselves from their past pagan practices. Though it may be difficult and trying for you to cut the ties to your pagan religious past, you must. Amen? Cut yourself off from Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, Buddhism, and secret societies like Masons and Shriners and Easter Star and Job’s daughters and DeMolay.

The fornication here could refer to either literal fornication or spiritual fornication. She may have led the congregation into sexual sin, especially if she indulged in paganism, which was frequently nothing more than religious harlotry. Greek temples, those beautiful ones whose remnants are seen in National Geographic documentaries? They were nothing more than brothels, where sacred prostitution and sanctioned sodomy took place under the guise of worship. I speak the truth. If this woman did not lead people into committing physical fornication, it could be that what is meant here is that she led them into idolatry, which is spiritual fornication.

When the Holy Spirit is dealing with a person, if the individual wants to be saved, they ought to sever all religious ties to any false religious system to which he once belonged. To continue relations with the past is to commit spiritual fornication and adultery. I encourage Churches not to mix and mingle with false religion. This is why I am a separatist.

Where Rick Warren is now positioned is the consequence of an approach to the ministry that led to a path he began walking in high school. Sadly, there are many other pastors who are married to Jezebels or who tolerate, in the name of wokeness, Jezebels in their ministries. 

---

[1]  See note on First and Second Kings, Author and Date, John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997), page 467.

[2]  John F. Walvoord, The Revelation Of Jesus Christ, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1966), page 73.

My Take On Revelation 1.5

Rev 1.5  "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," 

1.   “And from Jesus Christ” 

The Lord Jesus Christ is also the source of grace and peace. John 14.27 records the words of the Lord just before His crucifixion: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. Not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” 

2.   If God, the Father, is the source of grace and peace, and if the Holy Spirit is the source of grace and peace, and if the Lord Jesus Christ is the source of grace and peace ... is not that evidence to support the tri-unity of God? Of course, it is. The source of grace and peace is God, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. 

 Description of Christ as prophet, king, and priest  

3.   “Who is the faithful witness” 

Jesus is the faithful witness Who always spoke those things that are true. He never compromised or slighted the truth in any way. Is not this the function of a prophet, to give forth truth from God to man? Did not our Lord Jesus do that? Who would step forward and truthfully accuse Him of compromising or slighting the truth in any way? No one. Since that is so, why do not people believe that He is Who He said He is? The problem, you see, lies not with the One Who speaks the truth, but with those who hear the truth and who refuse to believe it or act upon it. 

4.   “And the first begotten from the dead” 

This phrase tells us that there will be others who will follow the Lord Jesus in the resurrection, though being first He will always be preeminent. In addition, do you know what will happen when those who are Christ’s are resurrected? In part, we will get new bodies, suited for heaven and eternity. 

5.   “And the prince of the kings of the earth” 

Jesus Christ is the ruler over all the kings of the earth. This word “prince” translates the Greek word, ἄrcw, for “ruler.”[1] He has not yet come back to earth to exercise that rule, but it is His right to do so. In addition, someday He will come back to rule. Oh, what an interesting event that will be. 

6.   “Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His Own blood” 

a.  This book of the Revelation has much to say about God’s wrath falling on a wicked and gainsaying world. Because of that, the reader of the Revelation might lose track of a great and comforting truth ... “Him that loved us.” In English, it appears that the verb “loved” is past tense. In the Greek text, however, it is a present active participle, ἀgapῶnti, indicating He does continually and ever-presently love us.[2] 

b.  How does our Lord demonstrate His ever-present love? By washing our sins away in His precious blood, which was shed for the remission of our sins. Let me ask you a question. Who is it that offers sacrifices unto God for the remission of sins? Is it a priest? Jesus Christ is our Great High priest Who cleanses our sins away in His Own blood. Therefore, we see the glorified Christ here as our prophet, as our king, and as our great high priest. 

c.  This portion of verse 5 is very timely in light of the assertion made by John Mac Arthur that when the Lord Jesus Christ was on the cross His blood ran down into the dirt and decayed. Hebrews 9.12: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” 

1)  In The MacArthur Study Bible we find this statement in the notes for Hebrews 9.12: “Nothing is said which would indicate that Christ carried His actual physical blood with Him into the heavenly sanctuary.”[3] 

2)  MacArthur’s note is consistent with his belief that while He was on the cross the blood of Jesus Christ ran down into the dirt and was corrupted. It is also consistent with MacArthur’s frequently stated position that the blood of Christ is a metonymy for the death of Christ. That is, what Christ wrought He wrought by His death rather than with His blood. 

3)  In his commentary on Hebrews we find this paragraph: “It is possible to become morbid about Christ’s sacrificial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus’s physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus.”[4] 

4) I am a bit taken aback by this remark considering the writer to the Hebrews mentioned blood twenty-one times in chapters 9-13, and twelves times in chapter 9 alone. For this reason, morbid is not a term that am persuaded is appropriate for such an emphasis on blood, whether in Scripture or by a devout Christian. 

5)  Why do I bring these points out in our study of Revelation 1.5? Look at Revelation 1.5 again and you will see the Apostle John made a declaration about the blood of Jesus Christ approximately 60 years after the crucifixion. How are we to understand this verse if the blood of Jesus Christ ran into the ground as He hung between heaven and earth and then dried and rotted? 

6) Let us carefully look at the word “washed” and then proceed from there. The Greek word is loύw, which refers to using water to cleanse a body from a physical impurity.[5] Therefore, the word is obviously used in this verse to refer to the blood of Jesus Christ cleansing sinners from their sins. 

7) If the blood of Jesus Christ ran to the ground while He hung on the cross, and if it later dried up and disintegrated, and if no blood was left in His body, how are my sins cleansed some 2000+ years later? In addition, how are sins continually cleansed, as First John 1.7 declares, if there is no more blood of Jesus Christ? These questions cannot be satisfactorily answered if the blood of Christ ran into the ground and is no more. 

8) Additionally, would not Christ’s resurrection include one of the largest organs of His human body, His blood? Although the Lord Jesus Christ’s blood was shed, He did not die from exsanguination. [6] The blood and water from His side resulting from the Roman soldier’s spear thrust establishes that.[7] Rather than exsanguination, the Lord Jesus Christ gave up the ghost, John 19.30.[8] 

9)  If John MacArthur is mistaken about the blood of Christ, if the blood of Christ and the death of Christ are not precisely the same thing, and if the blood of Christ is in heaven as I speak, then there are no tough questions which cannot be answered. I am persuaded the blood of Jesus Christ was resurrected along with the rest of His physical body, and that both His glorified body and His precious blood are now in heaven. 

10) What is the basis for my asserting this? There are several bases: First, I assert that the death of Christ and the blood of Christ are not the same, that the blood of Christ is more than a symbolic representation of the death of Christ, based upon the fact that the communion of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated with two elements, not one. We serve both wine and bread, wine commemorating His shed blood, and bread commemorating His sacrificed body. If blood was supposed to represent Christ’s body, why are there two elements in the communion of the Lord’s Supper? Clearly, the blood and the body of Christ are not the same thing and should not be understood to be the same thing. 

11) Second, I believe the Lord Jesus Christ was raised from the dead without His body seeing corruption. This requirement is stated in Psalm 16.10 and was referred to by Simon Peter in his Pentecostal sermon in Acts 2.27: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” However, if Christ’s blood ran into the ground and rotted was this prediction fulfilled? In addition, would anyone assert that Christ’s blood was not a vital and integral part of His physical body? Therefore, if Christ’s blood was not raised incorruptible with the rest of His body then the prediction of Psalm 16.10 was not fully realized. 

12) For the blood of Jesus Christ to cleanse away sins, for the blood of Christ to wash us, there must be blood. The blood must continue to exist. Moreover, the only possible way the blood of Christ continues in its existence and continues in its efficacy is if it was raised up after three days and three nights with the rest of our Savior’s human body, glorified. 

In summation, this verse tells us, 

a)   With the word “and” at the beginning of the verse, John connects the Lord Jesus Christ with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as the source of grace and peace. That is evidence, which supports the Biblical doctrine of the tri-unity of God. 

b)   The verse goes on to illustrate the Lord Jesus Christ functioning in His prophetic office, His kingly office, and His priestly office. Being the One Who is at the same time prophet, priest, and king, this same Jesus must be, of necessity, the Messiah of Israel. 

c)   Oh, how glorious it is that the eternal Son of the living God has loved us and has washed us from our sins in His Own blood. What advantage does the believer in Jesus Christ have. What deliverance the believer in Jesus Christ has. What blessings the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has.

---

[1] Rogers, Jr., Cleon L. and Rogers III, Cleon L., The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key To The Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1998), page 611.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Footnote on Hebrews 9.12, John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997), page 1910.

[4] John F. MacArthur, Hebrews: An Expository Commentary, (The Moody Bible Institute Of Chicago, 1983), page 237.

[5] Bauer, Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), page 603.

[6] https://www.epainassist.com/blood-diseases/exsanguination

[7] John 19.34

[8] https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/exsanguination

This installment is titled “Casual Profanity. Why Do So Many People Drop F-Bombs?”

It has always been the practice of the uncouth, the peripheral, the uneducated, and the impoverished to swear and use profanity. Their rough language arose from their limited vocabulary and inability to express themselves except in simple ways.

I grew up on Indian reservations in North Dakota, South Dakota, Florida, and Oregon, with many of my friends speaking English as their 2^nd language and being unfamiliar with ways to describe bodily functions except by using the crudest terms. I remember my first day in first grade on the Fort Totten Indian Reservation in North Dakota.

My teacher, Miss Daggs, spent the day rehearsing with my classmates the importance of expressing their needs by saying, “I need to go number one,” or “I need to go number two.” How they had been raised to express themselves was incredible. However, English was their second language.

My own use of profanity was so extensive that I remember walking home from school one day when I was in 2^nd grade and erupting to a group of classmates with a stream of profanity that likely would have surprised a drill instructor. Moments later, the thought ran through my mind, “I am 7 years old, and I cuss like that. I am surely going to Hell.” How I came to understand how wrong I was to swear as I did, I did not know because my mother and father spoke like that all the time.

My vile profanity continued through grade school, into junior high school, and into high school, and was far more natural for me at University than I remember. I was even ordered to leave saloons because of objections to my profanity. That was not a time in my life that I look back on with fondness. This is the first time since my conversion in 1974 that I have mentioned it.

My shame for the way I so casually spoke was profound. It was wrong. It was vile. It was disgusting. It was offputting to so many people, which was likely my reason for talking that way. Then came the night when God the Father drew me to His beloved Son so graciously.

The first indication of my new life in Christ was my different manner of speaking. Gone was the profanity. Absent were the crudities and vulgarisms. The long list of nasty words never again passed over my tongue or between my lips. I am so grateful that God washed out my mouth for all the other difficulties and challenges I have faced in my Christian life (which have been many).

That said, in the years since my conversion, I have increasingly wondered how common the vilest of speech patterns has become. Yes, I was profane. Yet, since my conversion almost a half-century ago, I have observed far worse patterns of speech coming from women and children. I find it astonishing, but I never sought an explanation for the phenomenon.

Then I watched a YouTube video interview of a famous Grove City College professor, known to many Christians, conservatives, and libertarians as 2^nd only to Hillsdale College. This remarkable higher education center has never received government subsidies. His name is Carl R. Trueman, and he is English. 

He teaches biblical and religious studies and is a historian. While reading his book, The Rise And Triumph of the Modern Self, I noted his explanation of the rise in profanity and why so many people sprinkle F-bombs throughout their conversations. I think he is onto something.

Although I am not yet halfway through the book, more than 400 pages long, I am convinced it will be one of the best books I have ever read. This man is a student, and he is more than a student of the Bible. He is also a student of history and is familiar with the writings of notable historical figures, from Thomas Aquinas to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from C. S. Lewis to Marlon Brando. His breadth of learning has given him a great perspective, and I think he is onto something concerning swearing, profanity, and vulgar talk.

Referring to the nasty culture that is overwhelming the Western culture, he writes, “crudity becomes the norm because the general interdict against such is seen as a tyrannical hangover from an outdated way of viewing the world. The casual use of expletives (profanity) by public figures such as politicians as a means of demonstrating their authenticity provides a good example.”[1]

The author does not suggest that profane talkers and F-bomb droppers are sophisticated thinkers. I am sure he would agree that those who talk that way are, in the main, people with a limited vocabulary who are incapable of expressing themselves better than they do. But people who speak that way are caught up in a tidal wave of cultural change that arrogantly seeks to overthrow what already exists, what was established centuries ago in the Protestant Reformation, and significant spiritual events that have occurred since then.

The profane may not be conscious of their opposition to the plan and purpose of God, however clear it may be to us. Sadly, people who talk that way (as I used to speak) are men, women, and children overwhelmed by the current that carries them along. The living fish in the stream always swim against the current. Only the dead fish are swept along by the current, tide, or swell.

They will arrive at their final destination without consciously going there. That is sad. That is why we must reach them with the Gospel.

---

[1] Carl E. Trueman, The Rise And Triumph of the Modern Self, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2020), page 89.