Pages

Subscribe:

Labels

Thursday, September 5, 2013

The Kingdom of God: A Baptist Expression of Biblical & Covenant Theology by Jeff Johnson

The blog's readers may well remember that I once recommended Jeff Johnson's book The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism as the best I have read on the subject. I also described it as a very helpful book in understanding Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective.
Now, however, Jeff Johnson has written a book that is soon to be published and that is devoted entirely to an explanation of Covenant Theology from a distinctively Reformed Baptist perspective. Here is the information about the book:
Is there a central plot to the Bible? And if so, why is the Bible divided into two different testaments? Moreover, how do these two testaments relate to each other? No doubt, it can be overwhelming to traverse the various covenants of the Bible. And it can be difficult to understand the unity and diversity of the Old and New Testaments. The Kingdom of God: A Baptist Expression of Biblical & Covenant Theology explains why the maze of the Old and New Testaments cannot be properly navigated or understood without a knowledge of the dual (law and gospel) nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. For the law of the Old Covenant and the grace of the New Covenant flow out of the Abrahamic Covenant and are wonderfully reunited in the gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, out of the earlier dichotomy comes the later unity of the gospel message.
Here is a preview of the contents of the book:
Contents                                                                                     
Introduction

PART ONE  
THE KINGDOM OF GOD & BAPTIST COVENANT THEOLOGY 
1.    The Dichotomous Nature
        of the Abrahamic Covenant
2.    The Wording of the Abrahamic Covenant
3.    Abraham’s Two Seeds
4.    Abraham’s Physical Seed
5.    Abraham’s Spiritual Seed
6.    New Testament Affirmation
7.    The Dual Covenantal Framework
        of the Book of Romans
8.    The Separation of Law & Gospel

PART TWO  
THE KINGDOM OF GOD & BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 
9.     The Rise of the Kingdom
10.   The Fall of the Kingdom
11.   The Hope of the Kingdom
12.   The Hope of the Kingdom Preserved
13.   The Promise to Restore the Kingdom
14.   The High Cost of Restoring the Kingdom
15.   The Priest of the Kingdom
16.   The King of the Kingdom
17.   The Inauguration of the Kingdom
18.   The Consummation of the Kingdom
Here is what one respected Reformed Baptist scholar has to say about the book:
“On the many books that exist on covenant theology, rare are those that are accessible to neophytes while at the same time instructing the well read student on the subject. This one does both. If Jeffrey Johnson’s first book, The Fatal Flaw, explained what Baptist covenant theology is not, The Kingdom of God explains what it is. In my view, the most important contribution of this work is to bring us the history of salvation through all the biblical covenants in a Reformed Baptist perspective. The deeper treatment that Jeffrey Johnson gives to the Abrahamic Covenant in this work is one of the clearest statements I have read. After you finish reading it, you will have a clearer view of the big picture of the kingdom of God.”
Pascal Denault, Ph. D.
Author of The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology
I am told the book hopefully will be available by December. If you want to be on the email list to be one of the first to hear when the book is ready, you can sign up at the 1689 Federalism website here.
Personally, I can't wait to read this book, and I hope all the blog's readers will want to read it as well. Stay tuned for more information in the coming weeks and months.

Monday, August 26, 2013

How Might Charles Spurgeon Respond to the "Free Will Song"?

In the following video he "Joy Quartet" at Pensacola Christian College seek to teach us about the Arminian doctrine of free will.

.

The following quotation from a sermon by Charles Spurgeon entitled Free Will—A Slave is a fitting response, I think.
You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them." That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it—and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Do I hear one Christian man saying, "I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me"? No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts and say—
"Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes to o'erflow;
'Twas grace that kept me to this day,
And will not let me go."

Is there one here—a solitary one—man or woman, young or old, who can say, "I sought God before he sought me?" No; even you who are a little Arminian, will sing—
"O yes! I do love Jesus—
Because he first loved me."
The apostle Paul declared the truth of how we are saved through faith in Christ, and who is the author of such faith, when he wrote:
NKJ  Ephesians 2:1-10 "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
Our salvation is God's work from beginning to end! We were formally dead in trespasses and sins and were incapable of trusting in Christ apart from God's granting us the gift of faith. So much for "free will."

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Eternal Life and the Mosaic Covenant

Was the Mosaic Covenant only concerned about temporal blessings? Was living long and peaceful lives in a land filled with milk and honey the ultimate reward for obeying the Law of Moses? Or was eternal life the ultimate promise of the Mosaic Covenant?
New Covenant Theology (NCT) views the Law of Moses as a code of morality that only demanded external obedience. Some NCT proponents have even sought to explain away the tenth commandment (thou shalt not covet) as a command not to steal. Regardless, for NCT, the Mosaic Covenant was merely an external covenant that promised external blessings to an external people. In some ways, NCT looks at the Mosaic Covenant and the nation of Israel in the same way Dispensationalists look at the New Covenant and the church—parenthetical to God’s overall redemptive plan.
I, on the other hand, believe that the Mosaic Covenant was more than just a parenthetical and typological covenant that was given to foreshadow New Covenant realities. In addition to that, I believe that the Mosaic Covenant was designed for Christ Jesus to fulfill in order to establish eternal life for all who believe. In other words, for national Israel, the Mosaic Covenant was typological and provided only temporal and physical blessings, but for Christ (the true Israel of God), who fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, it brought eternal and spiritual blessings (i.e., eternal life). In other words, the Mosaic Covenant of works was necessary because the New Covenant of grace was born out of its fulfillment.  
With this in mind, there are at least nine reasons why I believe that the Mosaic Covenant promised eternal life.        

1.      The Promises of Mosaic Covenant Flowed Out of the Promises of the Abrahamic Covenant
To say that the Mosaic Covenant only promised physical and temporal blessings is to say that the Abrahamic Covenant only promised physical and temporal blessings. This is because the promises of the Mosaic Covenant are one and the same as the promises given to Abraham. “I will be your God, and you shall be my people” was the ultimate goal of both the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenant. And yes, these spiritual promises were conditional under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant, but to say that the Mosaic Covenant did not promises spiritual and eternal promises is to say that the Abrahamic Covenant did not flow out of the Abrahamic Covenant.  

2.       Moses Taught that Eternal Life was Promised in the Mosaic Covenant  
According to Moses, the reward for obedience was not merely a prosperous temporal life but eternal life: “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5). This is due to the fact that the curses of the Old Covenant not only threatened Israel with expulsion from the promised land but also ultimately, threatened the physical seed of Abraham with being “cut off” from God. For it is written, “the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven” (Deut. 29:20). For the land of promise was to be more than a geographical plot of land for the children of Israel to inhabit, but more importantly it was to be the place where God’s presence would dwell with man. Therefore, to be cut off and expelled from the land implied the greater danger of being cut off and exiled from God.

3.      Paul Taught that Eternal Life was Promised in the Mosaic Covenant  
The Apostle Paul understood that Moses was speaking of eternal life when he compared and contrasted the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant: “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says...For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” (Rom. 10:5, 10). In other words, Paul is not making a distinction between the “life” that was promised in the Mosaic Covenant from the “life” that is promised in the New Covenant. Rather, Paul is contrasting how “life” was to be obtained in the Mosaic Covenant from how “life” is obtained in the New Covenant, which is a distinction between the works of the law and faith in Christ Jesus. For as Paul says in another place: “But law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them’” (Gal. 3:12).

4.    Christ Taught that Eternal Life was Promised in the Mosaic Covenant  
Moreover, when a certain person came up to Christ asking “what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” The Lord responded by saying, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:16-18).[1]For even the Lord Jesus affirmed that it was not merely a long physical life but eternal life that the Law of Moses promised to those who loved God with all their hearts and loved their neighbor as themselves (Luke 10:25-29). Which conversely affirms that eternal death awaits all those who fail to love God in the slightest with all their hearts, minds, strength and souls. Calvin was right when he claimed, “It is quite certain that the primary promises, which contained that covenant ratified with the Israelites by God under the Old Testament, were spiritual and referred to eternal life.”[2]

5.   If the Law was Spiritual, then the Promises Must Have Been Spiritual (i.e., Promising Eternal Life)
Moreover, because the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the moral law of God, it by necessity promised eternal life for all who perfectly obeyed God. Unless the Law of Moses was something less than the perfect moral law of God, then it held out eternal life for those who kept it and eternal death for those who did not. Thus, Samuel Petto (1624-1711) concluded:

Now the Sinai covenant is a platform of the legal righteousness which was indispensably necessary unto life; there it is deciphered, delineated, and described, more clearly than in any other federal expressure. The Sinai covenant excels all other, in discovering what that righteousness is, upon which we enjoy eternal life.[3]

Again, NCT teaches that the Law of Moses merely demanded external obedience, and thus it would make sense that external obedience cannot offer spiritual life. But, if the Law of Moses is spiritual (the perfect moral law of God), then eternal life and death must be its ultimate blessing and curse.

6.   Removes Christ from the Adamic Covenant of Works
And it is important to note that the covenant of works that God established in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants is same as the covenant of works that was established with Adam, for it consisted of the same moral law with the same blessings and curses. Eschatological life and death were at the heart of both. As Edward Fisher writes, “the law delivered on Mount Sinai, and formerly engraven on man’s heart, was one and the same; so that at Mount Sinai the Lord delivered no new thing.”[4]Therefore, these two covenants of works are one and the same, but were issued with two different federal heads. This safely removes Christ from the membership of the broken Adamic Covenant of works, while placing Him in the revised covenant of works that was established in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.
Consequently, the federal head of the Adamic Covenant of works is Adam who brought death upon all humanity, while the federal head of the Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant of works is Christ Jesus who thankfully brings life to all who are united to Him by faith. Thus, we are condemned in Adam who broke the first covenant of works but justified in Christ who fulfilled the second covenant of works. But again, the same moral law that was broken by the first Adam was the moral law that was satisfied by the second Adam (Rom. 5:12-21).     
This also means that the Adamic Covenant of works is still currently holding Adam’s natural seed captive to the curses of the law (i.e., death), while the Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant of works has been satisfied for all of Abraham’s spiritual seed who are heirs to the blessings of the law (i.e., life). In short, the first covenant of works (made with the first Adam) remains broken, while the second covenant of works (made with the second Adam) is fulfilled. Consequently, a person is either in union with the first Adam or in union with the second Adam. And depending upon which union that is, depends if that person is under law or under grace.
And just because it was impossible for the physical seed of Abraham to fulfill such a strict and demanding covenant did not mean that its promises and curses were nullified.[5]For their responsibility to obey was not contingent upon their ability to obey. This may seem unfair, but the moral law by its very nature cannot be anything but fair. And this is why the Mosaic Covenant was an administration unto death rather than unto life, for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Nevertheless, for this reason, the Mosaic Covenant was not hypothetical. The covenant of works condemns all those who are not found righteous in the sight of God’s moral law. Hell is proof that the terms of the covenant of works are unchangeable. The Cross of Calvary is proof that the covenant was not hypothetical.
For the blessings of the law to be established, then the physical seed of Abraham (i.e., Christ) had to fulfill the demands and the curses of the law. For God to be both just and merciful there is simply no way around this. Thus, for sinners, the law was given to awaken them to their own sinfulness and administer death, but for the righteous (i.e., Christ) it was given to establish life.

7.    Christ Fulfilled the Law of Moses
Christ fulfilled is the moral law of God in His life and death. And if the Law of Moses is the moral law of God, then Christ fulfilled it. When the Bible speaks of Christ obeying the law, it is speaking primarily of the Law of Moses and not to the law of creation (which, nevertheless, I believe, that they are the same).

·          Matt. 5:17-19 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
·
·         Gal 3:10-14 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."   But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 


Galatians 3:10-14 speaks of Christ fulfilling the Law of Moses in order to bring the spiritual blessings of Abraham to all who believe. For this reason alone, the Mosaic Covenant must have promised more than just temporal and physical blessings.

8.      The promises in the Mosaic Covenant spoke of Eternal Realities  
Although the Mosaic Covenant was merely typological in the Old Testament dispensation, the promises spoke of eternal realities. For instance, take this quote by G. K. Beale:

…after promising that God would restore Israel and ‘multiply men’, and make them ‘increase and be fruitful’ (Ez. 36:10-11), he also promises a ‘multiplications’ of fruitfulness (36:29-30), so that Israel’s formerly desolated land will ‘become like the garden of Eden’ in which God ‘will increase their men like a flock’ (cf. 36:35-38). Then, in direct development of these preceding ideas and of Leviticus 26:6-12 (!), Ezekiel 37:26-28 again refers to that aspect of the promise of ‘multiplying them’ and ties it to Israel’s temple: ‘It will be an everlasting covenant…And I will…multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their misdst forever. My dwelling place [or ‘tabernacle’] also will be over them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.’[6]

Were these promises physical or spiritual? I would say they were both physical and spiritual. Of course, because of Israel’s failure to obey, the nation of Israel did not enter into the fulfillment of these promises, but regardless these promises pointed to the new heavens and the new earth where they would be ultimately fulfilled. And if this is the case, then the promises given in the Mosaic Covenant, although not fulfilled in the Old Testament dispensation, looked to the greater and eternal realities to come. For what national Israel was unable to bring about, we see Christ, the true Israel of God, establishing.

9.   The Deficiency of Mosaic Covenant was not that It Promised only Temporal Blessings but that It was Unable to Establish the Spiritual Promises  
When the Scripture speaks of the Mosaic Covenant as being physical and the New Covenant as being spiritual, this does not mean that the Old Covenant was unconcerned about spiritual realities (e.g., circumcised heart, eternal life) or that the New Covenant is unconcerned about physical realities (e.g., a new earth, a resurrected body, etc…). Rather, the difference between the Old and New Covenants is that they approach the physical and spiritual concerns of the Abrahamic Covenant from two different directions or starting points.
For instance, the Old Covenant was ineffectual because it sought to reform the inner man by external means. For instance, the Mosaic Covenant started by issuing outward circumcision but afterwards it demanded inward circumcision. Moreover, once the Old Covenant law was etched in stone, it required inward obedience from the heart. Moreover, though the physical children of Abraham were given a physical land and established in a physical kingdom, they would not fulfill their ultimate purpose until they filled the land of promise (i.e., the earth) with the presence, knowledge, and glory of God as the spiritual and holy people of God. Yet, because the Old Covenant started from the outside, it remained ineffectual in establishing for its unregenerate membership the spiritual promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. For no matter how hard one tries, outward legislation (regardless of the purity of the laws) can never change sinful and depraved hearts.
On the other hand, the New Covenant is effectual in securing the physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant because it starts not with the physical but with the spiritual realities first. For example, a circumcised heart precedes water baptism, and spiritual regeneration goes before outward obedience of the law. Moreover, before the saints inherit the world at the end of the age, they must be born again into a spiritual kingdom in the present age. The New Covenant will bring about universal peace, prosperity, and a new heavens and a new earth where only righteousness dwells, but only because it starts by calling out a spiritual people unto a heavenly kingdom in the midst of this fallen world first.  
Therefore, in this sense, the promises of the Old and New Covenant are the same, but they have two different means in which they seek to accomplish their end objectives. As it were, the Old Covenant, by the works of the law, sought to enter the house of God through the back door, which always remains locked for the sinner. By grace, on the other hand, the New Covenant has opened the front door of the house of God for the believer through the finished work of Christ Jesus. For Christ went through the back door by obedience of the law so that he could open the front door for all who enter by faith.
For this reason, the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant. In that, unlike the Old Covenant, the grace of the New Covenant has the power to save sinners and usher believers into the presence of God because it begins by effectually changing their hearts.
Nevertheless, though God redeems the soul before He redeems the body, God revealed the law of the Old Covenant before He revealed the grace of the New Covenant. In other words, though the spiritual kingdom of this age comes before the creation of the new heavens and the new earth in the age to come, the spiritual kingdom of this age was foreshadowed by the physical kingdom of Israel in the previous age.
In the order of salvation, the spiritual comes before the physical, but in the order of revelation, the physical is revealed before the spiritual.


The Order of Revelation
Physical, then Spiritual
The Old Covenant, then the New Covenant
Law, then Grace
Do this, then Live
Ishmael, then Isaac
Animal Sacrifices, then Christ
Israel, then the Church

The Order of Salvation
Spiritual, then Physical
New Heart, then Obedience
Grace, then Works
Live, then do this
Redemption of the Soul, then Glorification of the Body
The Spiritual Kingdom, then the New Earth

Thus, in regards to the order of divine revelation, the ineffectual and physical realities of the Old Covenant, which were revealed first, were only shadows and types of the effectual and spiritual realities of the New Covenant, which were revealed afterwards. “For…the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb. 10:1).
But this only stands to reason. Because the Old Covenant could not fulfill the spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, even the physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were never fully fulfilled either. The physical seed, land, kingdom, and temple may have come first and looked like the real thing, but because of their inability to produce the inward and spiritual promises, they were merely pictures or empty and typological shadows of the spiritual and physical realities, which were to be established afterwards by the New Covenant. To put it more plainly, though the Mosaic Covenant promised eternal life it could not provide eternal life for the sinner, therefore the Mosaic Covenant at best was a temporal and typological covenant that pointed to the spiritual and eternal realities that would afterwards be established in the New Covenant. 
For this reason, the Old Covenant was not only ineffectual in establishing the promises of Abraham, it was a temporal covenant that was not designed to last forever. The ineffectual shadows of the Old Covenant where to continue until the effectual and eternal realities of the New Covenant were establishment in Christ Jesus and then they were to pass away.

Conclusion
For fallen Israel, the Mosaic Covenant was unable to establish the spiritual and eternal promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. For them, the Law of Moses, was design to condemn them. But what Israel failed to do (due to the weakness of their sinful flesh), Christ, the physical child of Abraham (who was born under the Law of Moses), did. In this since the Law of Moses was not designed to condemn but to justify Christ. In a word, because of the fallen nature of the children of Abraham in the Old Testament dispensation, the Mosaic Covenant was merely typological and dealt with only temporal blessings, but because of Christ stratification of the Mosaic Covenant, the New Covenant users in the spiritual and eternal blessings that were promised in both the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenants.



[1] Italics mine.
[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 4.16.11.
[3] Samuel Petto, The Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace (Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Tentmaker Publishers), 129. Italics mine.
[4] Edward Fisher, The Morrow of Modern Divinity (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2009), 80.
[5] According to Edward Fisher, the inability to obey the Mosaic Covenant did not make the covenant unjust: “[F]or the Lord may justly require perfect obedience at all men’s hands, by virtue of that covenant which was made with them in Adam; and if any man could yield perfect obedience to the law, both in doing and suffering, he should have eternal life; for we may not deny (says Calvin) but that the reward of eternal salvation belongeth to the upright obedience of the law” (The Morrow of Modern Divinity, 85).
[6]G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 111

Some Books on the History of Reformed Baptists

For interested blog readers, here is a preliminary list of books recounting the history of our Reformed Baptist heritage. I welcome your own suggestions for further reading.

Perhaps the best pace to start would be Tom Nettles' excellent book entitled By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life. This book is a very good historical introduction especially for those who don't yet have much knowledge of the history of Calvinism among Baptists.

Other books include:

History of the English Calvinistic Baptists 1771-1892: From John Gill to C.H. Spurgeon by Robert W. Oliver

A Cloud of Witnesses: Calvinistic Baptists in the 18th Century by Michael Haykin

The British Particular Baptists - Volume 1 edited by Michael Haykin

The British Particular Baptists - Volume 2 edited by Michael Haykin

The British Particular Baptists - Volume 3 edited by Michael Haykin

The three volume set edited by Haykin is published by Particular Baptist Press who states that "Each volume of this three volume set contains professionally written biographical sketches of the British Particular Baptists from 1638 - 1910."

The Particular Baptist Press also offers a number of other British Baptist biographical and historical works here.

Do you have any books that should be added to the list? Feel free to comment and make your suggestions.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Top Hats, T-Shirts & Hallowed Be Thy Name

I remember as if it was yesterday. “Hey Chad,” I yelled across the basketball court. The echo of my voice that reverberated throughout the gym was met with a clear and firm response from the tall scary man with a whistle around his neck, “I am coach.” Seeing the fire in his eyes and the resolve in the tone of his voice, I decided then and there to never address “coach” by his first name again.

I am thankful for that pointed lesson, for it has stuck with me to this day. My parents taught me and my coach reaffirmed the importance of verbally reverencing my elders and superiors. Yet what was demanded twenty years ago is hardly even expected today. This informal and irreverent attitude is not a minor issue either. For it seems to be connected with multiple other social problems.

An ever-increasing disregard for the elderly is one such problem. Our culture no longer places a premium on the gray hair and the experiential wisdom of our senior citizens but rather the smooth skin of our youth. The older generation is not only being disrespected, they are being pushed aside. “Out of the way old man, your walker is slowing down progress.” Sad, but it is true that our culture would rather follow the counsel of the hip, pop star than to sit at the feet of its elders. Apparently being young and restless is better than being old and stable. But it only stands to reason, if we do not respect, value, and honor our elders, then why would we worry about addressing them in any way that would set them above ourselves?

But this downgrade is not only seen in how the culture views the elderly, but also in how the youth-crave culture has attacked all forms of formality, structure, and authority. Top hats and ties have been replaced with flip-flops and screen-printed tees. “Sir.”, “Mr.”, and “Mrs.” have been substituted with the phrase “Hey you.” There is hardly any distinction between those in authority and those under authority. Children rule over their parents, and parents are eager to place their parents in the nursing home. Let’s keep things causal is often more than a desire to wear comfortable jeans but a desire to keep relationships informal by removing the categories of honor, submission, authority, and accountability. There are becoming less and less environments where formality and gravitas behavior is expected. Not only is it okay to wear pajamas to Walmart, it is okay to wear them to work.

The most troubling thing about the cultural shift is that its effects appear to be most evident in the church. For if there is one environment where there is to be a clear distinction between that which is holy and that which is secular you would think it would be in the presence of a Holy and all-powerful God. Yet sacred music, the sanctuary, and the pulpit (which represents the highest office in the world) have been replaced with rock music and a stage. More and more churches are seeking to attract and appeal to the young and the restless. With this age sensitive marketing stage, the older generations, along with their old-school tastes, are purposefully being marginalized while the average age of the leadership of the church continues to be getting younger. Youth and good looks are more important to represent the face of the church than age, maturity, and wisdom. This is because the church seems to be more concerned about representing the latest cultural fads than representing a holy God. And by a holy God I do not mean a God that desires the church to dress like the characters on Little House on the Prairie, but a God that is envious and protective of His name. God is protective of His name because it represents His uniqueness, transcendence, and set-apartness. God is not like us dependent, weak, miserable creators. Yet, the modern church seems to be more concerned about making God look cool than representing Him as the thrice holy One who even the sinless angels dare not look upon him with uncovered faces. By seeking to make our Lord Jesus look “cool,” the “hip” church has sought to shape God into its own image. For let us not be mistaken, preaching in blue jeans and Toms is not just a desire to communicate to the “seeker” that the pastor is cool, it is often deliberately done to give the subtle impression that that our Lord is also “cool” and that His church is relevant to the cultural pressures of Vanity Fair.

Yet, the most troubling thing is not seeing more and more preachers preaching in T-shirts, for I just may be overly scrupulous and slightly legalistic, but hearing more and more preachers displaying a lack of respect to the Lord Jesus Christ by consciously or unconsciously referring to Him without His Biblical positions or titles. Take time to listen to Christian Radio for a few days and you will notice in both the music and the sermons that the Lord Jesus Christ is most often referenced merely by the name “Jesus.” It is truly amazing how today’s professing Christians speak so informally and casually about the Lord of Glory.

Our Lord is not just “Jesus,” He is Christ Jesus; He is the “Lord Jesus;” He is the “Lord Jesus Christ.” He is not just a mere man, for if my high-school basketball coach felt offended by me calling him “Chad,” how much more does our God desire for His name to be reverenced? Would you feel right about calling an earthly monarch by his first name? Then, why do we feel so comfortable speaking about your Lord in such a fashion. “He is my friend,” you may say. Yes, that may be true, but He is also your Lord and your God. How can we pray, “Hallowed be Thy name,” if we do not desire to hallow and reverence His name before others? Taking the Lord’s name in vain is not merely placing His name in an unholy context, but also speaking about Christ in a cavalier and thoughtless fashion. We would all do well to go back and reread R. C. Sproul’s book The Holiness of God.

I do not write this from a self-righteous position, for I once had an unconscious habit of talking about my Lord and Savior in a caviler matter. I remember talking to one of the godliest men I know, my father, and I was going on and on about “Jesus.” And when my father could no longer hold back, in love he firmly asked me not to talk about His Lord so flippantly. He went on to explain that the vast majority of the time, the Scriptures refer to Him not as merely “Jesus” but as “the Lord Jesus” or “Christ Jesus.” I remember feeling ashamed before my earthly father and my heavenly Father. I remain thankful for my father’s zeal for His Savior’s name, and it is with that same heart that I seek to write this article. Yes, I understand that there are proper settings and times to refer to the Lord as simply “Jesus.” Even so, let us do our best to reverence Christ’s name above every name that is named. And this can be done in part by making a conscious effort to identify our Lord and Savior by His proper titles.

Before I leave you, let me go on record, for I am not ashamed to say (regardless if I may be charged as an overly scrupulous, out-of-touch legalist), that I take real offense with the casual manner in which the name of my Lord Jesus Christ is continuously being tossed around by His followers. Let’s remember who we are—nobodies, and let’s remember who He is—the thrice-Holy God, Lord of lords and King of kings; He is the Christ, the Anointed Son of God.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

e-Sword 10.2.1 Available

The latest version of e-Sword -- the best free Bible study software -- is now available for download. Here are the update changes as posted at the website:
Scripture references in the Bible view having associated Study Notes will now display a wavy underline to denote such.
The Reference Library now has automatic Bookmarks for every article. The Graphics Viewer also has automatic Bookmarks for each module.
Most Commentary modules do not contain specific Chapter Notes, so for those that do not the Chapter Notes mode will now display all of the Verse Notes for that chapter. This is very convenient for viewing those commentaries that have very few or very brief notes.
The built-in Downloader now allows direct downloading of Premium modules without needing to run separate EXE files. A new Info... link displays additional information about the given module.
The VerseList feature will now accept numerous Scripture references at once for populating the list. For example, entering the following list is now valid:
    Mat. 10:42; 2 Sam 9:1, 7; Prov. 14:31; 19:17; Mark 9:41; John 19:26-27; 21:15-17; 1 Cor 16:21-22; 2 Cor 4:5; 5:14-15; 8:7-9; Gal. 5:6, 13, 22; 1 Thess 4:9-10; 1 Pe 1:22; 1 John 3:14-19; 4:7-12, 20-21; 5:1-2
A new Editor hotkey Ctrl+Shift+J will convert a Scripture reference into the actual Bible text using the currently selected Bible and formatting defined in the Copy Verses dialog.
I have used this program almost since it was first released, and it just keeps getting better all the time. I highly recommend it.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Is Age Segregated Sunday School Biblical? – Part 3

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed how it is that we may discern whether or not a ministry practice is Biblical. I hope all would agree with me that we may deem a practice to be Biblical not only if it is in keeping with Biblical prescriptions or precedents, while avoiding running afoul of Biblical prohibitions, but that a practice may also be deemed to be Biblical if it is in keeping with the wise and faithful application of Biblical principles.

I also pointed out that it is precisely when we are discussing Biblical principles that we can say that age segregated instruction of children by the Church is indeed a Biblical concept, since this practice does, in fact, comport with the wise application of such principles. In setting forth these principles, I began in Part 2 of this series with a discussion of the Biblical teaching about the nature of the Church as a spiritual family and how this relates to the Biblical teaching about the biological family. In this final post I want to examine several other Biblical principles that pertain to the issue.

We shall take as our starting point a key text in which Paul describes the ministry and maturation of the Church:
NKJ  Ephesians 4:11-16 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”
We see in this passage a focus on the importance of the maturation of the Church “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (vs. 13). We also see in this passage several important ideas that will inform our understanding and help us to more ably assess whether or not the age segregated instruction of children in the Church is a Biblical concept.

I. We must understand the importance of pastoral ministry for the maturation of the Church.

First, we need to see the importance of pastors as teachers of the Church. At the very least Paul closely connects the role of pastors with that of teachers in Ephesians 4:11. As a matter of fact, F.F. Bruce understands his reference to “some pastors and teachers” as indicating a single group of leaders:
Teaching is an essential part of the pastoral ministry; it is appropriate, therefore, that the two terms, “pastors and teachers,” should be joined together to denote one order of ministry. (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, p. 348)
However, not all Bible scholars agree with the way F.F. Bruce and many other conservative commentators understand the two terms in this passage, but even those who disagree tend to see a close connection between them. Peter T. O'Brien, for example, argues:
The pastors and teachers are linked here by a single definite article in the Greek, which suggests a close association of functions between two kinds of ministers who operate within one congregation (cf. 2:20). Although it has often been held that the two groups are identical (i.e. 'pastors who teach'), it is more likely that the terms describe overlapping functions (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28-29 and Gal. 6:6, where 'teachers' are a distinct group). All pastors teach (since teaching is an essential part of pastoral ministry), but not all teachers are also pastors. The latter exercise their leadership role by feeding God's flock with his word. (The Letter to the Ephesians, p. 300)
Thus, whichever way one understands Paul's reference to pastors and teachers here, one cannot miss the close connection between pastors and their teaching function in the churches.

It is also worth remembering that the term pastor or shepherd (poimēn) is used interchangeably in the New Testament with the terms elder and overseer to denote the leaders of the various individual churches. In fact, Paul used the related verb meaning “to shepherd” (poimaínō) to describe their ministry as well. For example, Luke tells us that, after Paul called for “the elders” of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17), he said to them:
NKJ  Acts 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [epískopos], to shepherd [poimaínō] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” [See also Peter's interchangeable use of this terminology in 1 Pet. 5:1-2.]
Paul clearly refers to the elders both as “overseers” and as those whose task it is “to shepherd” the church. But leading up to this admonition, Paul held himself up as an example for the Ephesian elders to know what they should do as elders in the church after he was gone:
 NKJ  Acts 20:18-21 “And when they had come to him, he said to them: 'You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, 19 serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; 20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.'”
NKJ  Acts 20:26-27 “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.”
There can be no doubt that Paul expected these men to teach the flock as he himself had done so faithfully. And we are not surprised that he also instructed Timothy that elders must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2) and that those who rule well should be regarded as worthy of double honor, “especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17, ESV). In addition, he admonished Titus that an elder must hold fast to the word as he has been taught “that he may be able, by sound doctrine [didaskalía, teaching], both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9).

So we can see that pastors – also known as either elders or overseers – are called to be teachers in the churches and that this is their primary means “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). It is through their teaching of the Word of God that they feed God's people so that they may grow in Christian maturity.

Second, we need to see the importance of pastors as teachers for every member of the Church. Paul specifically says that pastor-teachers are given to the church “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12), and he does not restrict this function only to adult saints. In fact, Paul emphasizes that pastor-teachers will need to do their job of equipping the saints “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13, italics mine). In other words, Paul teaches that pastors are responsible for equipping each and every saint for the work of ministry, regardless of age, which means that they are responsible for the instruction of believing children as well.

But this does not mean, of course, that pastors are required to personally instruct each and every believer in the same way. They may choose to delegate and oversee this responsibility to a greater or lesser degree. For example, as we saw in Part 2 of this series, Christian parents also have a God given authority and role to play in the evangelization of their unbelieving children and in the instruction and spiritual maturation of their believing children. As Paul says later in his epistle to the Ephesians:
NKJ  Ephesians 6:4 “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.”
So when Paul teaches us that pastors have a key role to play in the spiritual maturation of every believer under their charge – including children – he does not see this as undermining or replacing the key role that God has given to parents to raise their children “in the training and admonition of the Lord.” As I pointed out in Part 2 of this series, the church and family must not be pitted against one another. They must work together, as much as is possible, appropriately recognizing their God-given spheres of authority and priority of obligation. And they must avoid succumbing to the false choice that says that either parents are responsible for evangelizing and training their children as believers or that the local church is responsible for evangelizing and training the children in their midst. Clearly God has given a certain authority both to parents and to local churches to perform these tasks, and they must work together to carry them out.

Thus pastors may choose to oversee and guide the parents in their congregation as they raise their children, leaving most of the instruction to them. However, given that not all parents who gather with the local church will be genuine believers, pastors may also want to offer specific times of instruction for the children while the church is gathered and while they seek to reach out to the parents. In addition, some parents may feel the need for help in training their children, help which may be provided either by the pastors meeting regularly with families, or by engaging other mature adult believers in offering classes for the children, or both.

Pastors certainly cannot do everything themselves, and Paul recognizes this fact when he makes it clear that pastors are to equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12). In fact, Paul also recognizes this fact elsewhere when he instructs Titus to engage the older women in helping to instruct the younger women. He admonishes Titus to “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1), which may also be translated as “speak the things which are proper for sound teaching.” In other words, in his capacity as a pastor and therefore as one who is to ensure the sound teaching of the flock, Paul tells Titus to enlist the women in this endeavor as well when he admonishes him to teach:
NKJ  Titus 2:3-5 “… the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things – 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.”
Paul says that the older women are to be kalodidáskalous, teachers of what is good (vs. 3). And when he says that the older women should admonish the younger women (vs. 4), he uses the Greek word sōphronízō, which means “to instruct in prudence or behavior that is becoming and shows good judgment” (BAGD3 #7229, BibleWorks). Or, as the NET Bible notes put it, the word “denotes teaching in the sense of bringing people to their senses, showing what sound thinking is” (BibleWorks).

Thus Paul wisely assumes that there are some things that it is good for older women to teach younger women. In other words, although Paul certainly does not diminish the responsibility of pastors to teach the women to love their husbands and children, etc., he nevertheless admonishes Titus that they may and should enlist the help of older women in so instructing the younger women as well.

But notice also in Paul's admonition to Titus the recognition of the principles of age and sex segregation in the instruction of the younger women by the older women. When Paul says that the older women should teach the younger women, he must be assuming that they will be taking them aside in some way in order to do so. We know that he cannot mean that these older women should do such teaching and admonishing when the whole church is gathered for worship and instruction, for example, since his prohibitions elsewhere concerning the teaching ministry of women would rule out this possibility (1 Tim. 2:11-12). I see no other way to understand Paul's teaching here than as a recognition of the importance of segregating the members of the local church by either sex or age when appropriate and helpful for their instruction. Now, someone may respond that Paul does not specifically mention children here, but only younger women, to which I would simply point out that this objection does nothing to diminish the principle of age segregated instruction which Paul recognizes to be important in the edification of the Church. In fact, if this principle is important when we consider the youth and inexperience of young women, then it will be even more important when we consider the youth and inexperience of children.

II. We must understand the importance of mutual ministry for the maturation of the Church.

Paul quite clearly asserts that it is “the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, [which] causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” (Eph. 4:16). When Paul thus speaks of the Church and refers to “the whole body” and “every part” of the body, he intends to refer to every believer who makes up the body. But Paul does not restrict his words only to adult believers, nor does he restrict his words only to biological family units. On the contrary, he assumes that every single member of the body, regardless of age or biological family relationship, is in need of edification from the other members of the body and has something to contribute to the edification of the rest of the body.

The same can be said for Paul's description of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For example, when he wrote to the Corinthian church concerning spiritual gifts, he said:
NKJ  1 Corinthians 12:4-12 “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. 12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.”
Notice that Paul assumes that every member of the body needs the ministry of the rest of the members of the body and that every member of the body is gifted in some way to that end. This would include even the members of the body who are still children, wouldn't it? But how shall we think of such ministry in a manner that includes children? Well, given that the primary gift or ability under discussion here is the gift of teaching, let us take that as an example. 

Paul makes it abundantly clear in his discussion of the gifts in 1 Corinthians that “the Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (1 Cor. 12:11) and that not everyone receives the gift of teaching (1 Cor. 12:29). However, Paul also speaks elsewhere of a teaching role for each and every member of the body. For example, consider his command to the Colossian believers:
NKJ  Colossians 3:16 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching [didáskō] and admonishing [nouthetéō] one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”
Paul assumes that, as we sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” presuming that such are based upon Scripture and communicate Scriptural truth and are thus products of the word of Christ dwelling richly within us, we will indeed be teaching and admonishing one another as we employ such songs in worship. And such a teaching and admonishing role is one in which every believer can and should take part, whether men or women, children or adults. Such is true despite the fact that Paul elsewhere teaches that there is a special authoritative teaching role for elders in the churches, a role for which an elder must be appropriately qualified (1 Tim. 3:2; Heb. 13:17), and that there is a special teaching role for women that does not include teaching or having authority over men in the churches (1 Tim. 2:11-12; Tit. 2:3-5). And such is true despite the fact that one's biological and/or spiritual maturity will greatly affect his or her ability to discover and use his or her gifts capably and wisely for the edification of the body. For example, when Paul writes to the Roman believers, he indicates the kind of spiritual maturity required to effectively admonish one another:
NKJ  Romans 15:14 “Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish [nouthetéō] one another.”
When Paul indicates that being “full of goodness” and being “filled with all knowledge” are prerequisites to being able to admonish one another, he is assuming that a certain measure of spiritual maturity is required to do so. And we can assume that such would be the same with respect to teaching as well, a fact clearly indicated also by the fact that Paul prohibits the appointment of a novice to the teaching office in the churches (1 Tim. 3:6).

To be sure, then, given the limitations of both their biological and spiritual maturity, children will definitely not be able to teach and admonish others in the body as adults can and should, even if they can play such a role, along with every other member of the body, when they take part in the singing of  “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Col. 3:16). As Solomon says, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child” (Prov. 22:15a), so it would definitely not be wise for us to assume they have a great deal to teach us, let alone the ability to do so. Nevertheless, we can certainly learn even from the children in our midst, as Jesus' own example shows us:
NKJ  Matthew 18:1-5 “At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, 'Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' 2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.'”
We see how the example of childlike faith is one to be followed by all Christians, and thus we see how we may learn from, or be encouraged by, even by the children in our midst, especially believing children whose faith is in the Lord.

The upshot of all of this is simply to demonstrate that every believer – whether adult or child – has a teaching role to play in the local church within the limitations of their biological and/or spiritual maturity or, in the case of women, within the limits of their specific gender role. But this also implies that they need to be taught in such a way as to recognize such limitations as well, and this leads us to our final point.

III. We must understand the importance of the analogous nature of biological and spiritual maturation for the Church.

We have seen this important principle in Paul's instruction to the Ephesian believers:
NKJ  Ephesians 4:11-16 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine [didaskalía, teaching], by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”
Paul likens immature believers to children “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” who need to “grow up” (vss. 14-15). Although he is speaking here of the Church collectively, what he says must apply to individual believers who make up the collective body, and it must apply to believers regardless of their age. In other words, even adult believers begin as spiritual children in the faith who need to grow up. Thus we need to understand that both children and adults mature spiritually in a manner analogous to the way that they mature biologically. This is a fact easily seen in Scripture, and it must be recognized by the Church as she carries out her ministry.  

For example, Scripture recognizes in a number of places what anyone knows from their own experience, namely that as we grow physically from childhood to adulthood we also grow in our capacity for wisdom and understanding. And Scripture readily applies this principle to growth in the Christian life. Here is just a sample of passages that indicate these important principles:
NKJ  1 Kings 3:6-7 “And Solomon said: 'You have shown great mercy to Your servant David my father, because he walked before You in truth, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with You; You have continued this great kindness for him, and You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. 7 Now, O LORD my God, You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in.'”
Although we cannot be sure precisely how old Solomon was when he began to reign, he had been referred to as a "man" before this time (1 Kings 2:9), so we should probably assume that he is speaking figuratively here of his own inability to lead His people. At any rate, when he likens himself to a “little child” in this regard, he also recognizes what we all know, namely that little children lack wisdom and experience. Indeed, this is why Solomon goes on to ask God for wisdom in the account that follows (1 Kings 3:9-12).
NKJ  Isaiah 7:14-16 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”
Here we see a recognition of the fact that children grow in their capacity to understand right and wrong as they mature physically and mentally (see also Isa. 8:3-4).
NKJ  Luke 2:52 “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”
Here we see that even Jesus grew in wisdom as He grew in stature. That is, as He grew up and matured physically, He also grew in His capacity for wisdom. To be sure, Jesus was a bit of a prodigy, whose understanding even at the age of twelve astonished the Jewish leaders, as Luke's account records for us in the preceding context (Luke 2:42-47), but He still went on to grow in wisdom and didn't begin His ministry until He was an adult.
NKJ  1 Corinthians 3:1-2 “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able ….”
Just as an infant is incapable of receiving solid food, Paul says, so the person who is a babe in Christ is not yet able to receive the deeper things of the faith. John Calvin is helpful in grasping Paul's meaning here:
Here it is asked, whether Paul transformed Christ to suit the diversity of his hearers. I answer, that this refers to the manner and form of his instructions, rather than to the substance of the doctrine. For Christ is at once milk to babes, and strong meat to those that are of full age, (Hebrews 5:13, 14) the same truth of the gospel is administered to both, but so as to suit their capacity. Hence it is the part of a wise teacher to accommodate himself to the capacity of those whom he has undertaken to instruct, so that in dealing with the weak and ignorant, he begins with first principles, and does not go higher than they are able to follow, (Mark 4:33) and so that, in short, he drops in his instructions by little and little, lest it should run over, if poured in more abundantly. (Commentary on Corinthians, e-Sword)
Thus Paul saw the importance of teaching people in such a way as to recognize their level of maturity and attempt to teach them accordingly. This is what age segregated instruction is also about. It follows the same principle.
NKJ  Hebrews 5:12-14 “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
John Calvin again offers some helpful comments in understanding this passage:
Paul uses the same metaphor in 1 Corinthians 3:2; and he reproaches the Corinthians with the same fault with what is mentioned here, at least with one that is very similar; for he says, that they were carnal and could not bear solid food. Milk then means an elementary doctrine suitable to the ignorant. Peter takes the word in another sense, when he bids us to desire the milk that is without deceit, (1 Peter 2:2;) for there is a twofold childhood, that is, as to wickedness, and as to understanding; and so Paul tells us, “Be not children in understanding, but in wickedness.” (1 Corinthians 14:20) They then who are so tender that they cannot receive the higher doctrine, are by way of reproach called children.
For the right application of doctrines is to join us together, so that we may grow to a perfect manhood, to the measure of full age, and that we should not be like children, tossed here and there, and carried about by every wind of doctrine. (Ephesians 4:14.) We must indeed show some indulgence to those who have not yet known much of Christ, if they are not capable as yet of receiving solid food, but he who has had time to grow, if he till continues a child, is not entitled to any excuse. We indeed see that Isaiah brands the reprobate with this mark, that they were like children newly weaned from the breasts. (Isaiah 28:9.) The doctrine of Christ does indeed minister milk to babes as well as strong meat to adults; but as the babe is nourished by the milk of its nurse, not that it may ever depend on the breast, but that it may by degrees grow and take stronger food; so also at first we must suck milk from Scripture, so that we may afterwards feed on its bread. The Apostle yet so distinguishes between milk and strong food, that he still understands sound doctrine by both, but the ignorant begin with the one, and they who are well taught are strengthened by the other. (Commentary on Hebrews, e-Sword)
It couldn't be clearer that the author of Hebrews understood our spiritual growth to be analogous to our biological growth, just as the Apostle Paul did. And it couldn't be clearer that he applied this principle to the Hebrew Christians in the same way that Paul applied it to the Corinthians. He did not expect them to be able to understand more than they should have been able to understand, but he did expect them to understand as much as they should have been able to understand at that time in their spiritual development. In other words, he practiced the same principle as Paul, teaching people in accordance with their level of maturity and expecting from them what ought to come with maturity only because by that time they ought to have been more mature.

Thus we have seen clear evidence from Scripture that children develop in their capacity for wisdom and understanding of spiritual things as they grow, and we have seen how this is applied by way of analogy to a person's spiritual growth, whether that person is a child or an adult. However, since children do not yet have the same capacity as adults, we cannot rightly expect the same level of spiritual maturity from them as we would from adults, even if these children have been believers as long as some of the adults in the Church. I am quite sure, for example, that the author of Hebrews did not have believing children in mind when he said “by this time you ought to be teachers” (Heb. 5:12).

Thus we see that Scripture acknowledges what we all already know by experience to be true, namely that believing children do not have the same capacity for spiritual growth that adult believers possess, so we must adapt our instruction of them accordingly. This is what age segregated instruction is all about. It simply recognizes that the children in our churches are not yet able to receive all that the adult believers are able to receive, just as less mature adult believers are not yet able to receive all that more mature adult believers are able to receive. And, if the Apostle Paul, for example, thought it prudent to take this into account in the way he taught less mature adult believers, then surely we ought to take this same principle into account as we seek to instruct child believers. This is both Scriptural sense and common sense. And so we may readily see that age segregated instruction in the churches is indeed a wise application of Scriptural principles.

Conclusion

We thus end our brief study in which we have sought to show that age segregated Sunday School is indeed Biblical. In Part 1 we have seen that we may deem a practice to be Biblical not only if it is in keeping with Biblical prescriptions or precedents, while avoiding running afoul of Biblical prohibitions, but that a practice may also be deemed to be Biblical if it is in keeping with the wise and faithful application of Biblical principles. In Part 2 we have seen that the Bible teaches that the Church as a spiritual family, analogous to one's biological family and that it even teaches that elders in the churches are to lead like fathers lead in their homes. We have also now seen in Part 3 the crucial role that pastors play in the education of every member of the churches over which they have been given authority and oversight, the importance of involving every member in mutual ministry as they are able, and the importance of teaching members in a way that takes into proper account their level of spiritual maturity, with a special emphasis upon understanding the lack of maturity that all children will still possess. And all of this supports the notion that age segregated instruction is indeed a Biblical concept. It is indeed a wise application of Biblical principles to the instruction of children in the churches.

I will conclude by pointing out that, in my experience, most of those whom I have encountered from the Family Integrated Church Movement (FICM) actually agree with this principle in the instruction of their own children, even if they are sometimes reluctant to admit it. I haven't yet met an FICM advocate that doesn't homeschool, and when I ask them questions about their homeschooling I quickly discover that they do not teach all their children the same thing in the same way at the same time. They do not, for example, submit their five year old children to the rigors of algebra alongside their twelve year old children at a time when they are just learning to add. Nor do they discuss with their five year old children such spiritual concepts as predestination or the problem of evil in the same way or with the same depth as they would with their fifteen year old children. In fact, they will typically admit that they don't even keep them in the same room when the are teaching them, lest the younger child become confused and the older child become bored. In other words, they actually practice age segregated instruction in their homes. But I wonder why, then, if age segregated instruction is considered to be a wise application of Biblical principles in their biological family environment, they cannot see that it is just as wise an application of Biblical principles in the spiritual family that is the Church, especially since the Bible so clearly acknowledges that the same basic growth principles apply in both settings.

I would also point out that, just as fathers of necessity typically delegate much of the homeschooling responsibility to their wives, while maintaining loving oversight and involvement, even so the elders in the churches may of necessity delegate much of the instruction of church members to other qualified teachers in their midst, while maintaining the same kind of loving oversight and involvement. Of course, when it comes to the believing children in their midst, they will depend primarily upon the believing parents to properly instruct their children, but there is no Scriptural reason to think they should be required to do so exclusively. In fact, they may think it wise to offer age segregated instruction for the children through the local church as a supplement and an aid to the parents, especially where the parents themselves may be immature believers or even unbelievers. And they may also see it as a wise practice that enables their children to receive more fully the edification that comes through the mutual ministry of the body, since the children are able to have some concentrated time with other mature believers who may actually be more gifted to teach spiritual things to the children than most parents are. 

With that, I will have to end this series of articles, but, as always, I welcome responses from the blog's readers.