Two Maxims of Music

Darren ExleyLeave a comment

Music is more powerful than you think.
Music will not give you what you want.

I argue that these two maxims I am asserting help us gain insights into music. They also help us gain insights regarding devices of power in general. But here, I will use these maxims to offer brief insights into the more specific topic of musical participation.

When we experience music to be more powerful than we think, it spurs us on to increased musical participation. For some of us, it is easy to be consumed by the power that we are attempting to understand. We might have our own way to participate, whether it is as a consumer or a producer or a combination of the two. A person might pick up a guitar and practice many hours a day, or a person might dive deeper into a specific artist or genre by simply listening to recorded music. This increased participation is owing to the natural power of music. It is not an intrinsically bad thing to participate more in music, and yet we are willing to dramatically change our lives as increased musical participation continuously reiterates the experience that music is more powerful than you think.

However, some of us also have moments of discovery, in various ways and degrees, that music will not give you what you want. Just as music’s power can be discovered of a specific artist or genre, music’s disappointment can also be experienced regarding a specific kind of music, a specific or song (but it can also regard the general notion of music). Our reaction is that we refuse to participate in that music, since it does not give us what we want. The person practicing the guitar might hit a rut and stop improving. The listener might feel alienated by the folk artist who goes electric. The maxim applied to specific music might reduce the musical participant to say, “only this music will give me what I want, all other music is __.” So there is a polarity that is owing to the power of music that incites a person to embrace some music as the standard of which other music is rejected.

Yet this second maxim asserts that music in general will not give you what you want. However, in granting this assertion, are we encouraging therefore that musical participation should cease? Far from it! After all, we have our first maxim: music is more powerful than you think. It is a power given to us by God. The mature musical participant does not need to harness that power to get what he wants, because it is not a power that is meant to be self-harnessed to that end. This is not to say that music should not be cultivated into specific forms; but we should say that music should not be shaped into a means of control as an attempt to grasp that power for ourselves. The mature cultivation of music should always embrace the power of music as a gift that is given from an outside Giver. Music, like any means of power, is not a polarizing all-or-nothing thing when it comes to our participation in it. Those who do not participate in music should probably consider participating in it more. Those who are free to participate in music many hours in a day should be free to do so because they know that music (as a proposed giver) will not give them what they want, for music is rather a free means (that is given) to that desired end, like any other device of power.

The Problem of the Intellect and Will Concerning Freedom

Darren ExleyLeave a comment

The definition of ‘free choice’ and the outworking of the topic are mutually dependent. According to the definition that is summarized by the ability to exercise an act and the ability to withhold that same exercise, it remains obscure as to whether that power to act and not act remains, since a man does not simultaneously act and not act a particular action. The fact that one act is chosen leads some to add an additional end to the definition, namely to choose from one of the optional means that lead to a certain goal. This “certain goal” is highlighted in the definition of Fransiscus Gomarus.1 Yet there are debates as to whether this “certain goal” would introduce necessity to the exercise of the power to act and not act. 

The views of the Jesuit philosopher and theologian, Francisco Suarez, and the Reformed theologian, Gomarus’s pupil, Gisbertus Voetius concerning free choice do not appear to be compatible. They both appear to agree, however, that the faculty of free choice should be distinguished separately from the intellect; but they disagree as to whether that faculty is impeded if the last judgment of the practical intellect should necessarily prevail in the choice. Suarez says that the free faculty would indeed be impeded and thus he is against the intellect necessarily having its way in the final choice. Voetius affirms that the intellect does have its way.

The purpose of this paper is to set out an interpretation of the disagreement alongside the proposal that the intellect and the will are not distinctly separate when it comes to our definition of freedom. However, this interpretation admits no solution apart from the question of God. However, it is rather necessary to hold to a unity of both the intellect and will, and a unity of both the goal-oriented and the power-to-not-choose aspects of freedom. Even though, here, we will not thoroughly examine the theological issues, we propose a way that is more dependent on theology than any other alternative concerning the problem of freedom. Our wholehearted dependence on theology is signified by our continuing reflection on the lack of created intermediaries between the Creator and the creature. The freedom of the rational creature is defined by the lack of created intermediaries imposing necessity upon the self. However, the lingering question that finally arises is whether the positive power to act pertaining to the absolute good is accompanied by a complimentary power to do otherwise.

Suarez’s Definition of Freedom

Fransisco Suarez’s main argument is indeed attached to his definition of freedom. The attachment is located in the second part of his definition which goes as follows; first, “an active faculty that of itself and by its own internal ability has the power to exercise its action and the power to withhold its action;” second, “when this faculty exercises its act, it is disposed and proximately prepared […] for its work in such a way that, with all the things required for acting having been posited, it is able to act and able not to act.”2

Suarez employs the second part of his definition for the purpose of stating that it is insufficient that the free faculty would be free from being necessitated toward certain actions, but also free from necessity in its “exercise” of certain actions (=objects). Thus, a concept of divine concursus that is formulated so that the divine act impedes the free faculty in its action in a way that the faculty is determined to one effect in its exercise is, in Suarez’s mind, a concept that is against good reason and also the Christian Faith. It is against the Christian Faith since the church fathers affirm that the rational creature indeed has this free faculty.3

Suarez first makes the distinction between the free faculty itself and the exercise of the faculty when he addresses the view of certain Thomists4 who say that it is sufficient for freedom that the free faculty not be determined by the object to one effect . Suarez says that “this position assumes that no cause can impose necessity on the will except the object or except by the mediation of the object,” which is an assumption that Suarez thinks is false since God “can also impose necessity on the will.”5 For Suarez, God can impose necessity on the will (yet that power does not entail that God does impose necessity etc.), but the case of God’s imposition would make the faculty not free even though necessity is not imposed on it by the object itself. 

When it comes to all that is required for an act of the faculty, Suarez says there is an ‘antecedent act’ that is required, which is either a condition with a proper principle or the mere condition itself, which he calls the “first act.” This first act is distinct from the free action itself, which is called the “second act.” And so anything that is also required for this free action as an addition to the faculty itself is said to be required ‘concomitantly.’6

A physical (or even an intellectual) ability to operate in a given way, such as, for example, an ability to inscribe, belongs to the first antecedent act rather than the second, for if one had not the ability, a non-action does not proceed from the free faculty that chooses. Suarez sharply asserts that what belongs to the antecedent act might indeed include the intellectual reasoning of a rational creature. He says “when the will itself fails to act because of natural inattention on the part of reason, this absence of an act proceeds not from [a free act] but rather from an inability to operate.”7 The proposed scribe might fail to make an inscription because he has not learned the craft, or because his reasoning fails to propose that a choice to inscribe is truly relevant to the situation at hand. Both scenarios, in the case where there is no act of inscribing, belong to the first act; the free faculty (and thus the second act) is excluded. 

Suarez then employs the distinction between antecedent and concomitant acts in his consideration of divine concursus. He says, in accordance with the two acts required for the creature, “God’s movement of our will can be understood to be of two types:” one “is antecedent to God’s actual concurrence with respect to the will’s action; the other type consists in the actual concurrence itself.”8 Thus, with respect to the will’s action, there is only one actual concurrence, which is the divine concurrence that is required for the second act and not the first. With regard to the distinct divine motion that is required for the first act, Suarez says that such motion is not demonstrated philosophically; for the antecedent motion in question belongs to the topic of theology; and so Suarez reserves this for a separate discussion. What he does assert is that whatever is concluded from divine actions concerning the first act does not categorically make the first motion belong to that which determines the free faculty (second act) to one effect. But the actual divine concursus concerning the second act “is essentially included,” as Suarez puts it, “in the will’s very action.”9 It is not further explained by Suarez how this actual divine concurrence works, and yet it is apparent to us that any attempt to introduce any temporal causality to the equation renders the divine act to be antecedent rather than concomitant.

While Suarez affirms the concomitant act of the divine in all acts of the free faculty, he does not likewise include the intellect in the free action. Suarez asserts that the judgment of the intellect that concludes what is good, even if the judgment “is a second act in the intellect, [it] is nonetheless related to the will as a first act.”10 For example, if a man chooses to journey to Rome rather than Jerusalem, his judgment that it is better to go to Rome because the city has better pizza belongs to the first act in relation to his choice (second act) to go to Rome. Suarez, overall, is decidedly against the judgment of intellect (even the final judgment) determining the will to one effect; he does not grant that the intellect is concomitant with the exercise of the free faculty.

Since, for Suarez, divine act is exclusive to being concomitant with the exercise of the free faculty, we observe that there is no intermediary between the divine and the rational creature in the free action.

Suarez’s Problem of the Intellect in Gomarus and Voetius

Suarez is in no way denying that the free faculty operates without the intellect, for only a rational creature has the free faculty; but the intellect itself belongs to the antecedent that grants the power to act which is then freely chosen. Yet the judgment of the intellect also seems to depend on free choice. However, this apparent codependence of the intellect and will should first raise the question of the will’s dependence on the intellect. The question might be asked in two ways. First, whether or not the intellect is a necessary component in the antecedent to a free action, even if it is not always regarded as most proximate to the action. The second way we might ask the question is whether there is any notion of ‘intellect’ that might be considered concomitant with a free action. Suarez, who has made his distinction between what is antecedent and concomitant to free actions, denies the postulation that the intellect is concomitant to the free faculty. Some Reformed theologians, however, venture to think that the intellect and will are really the same free faculty. And yet the ‘antecedent/concomitant’ distinction found in Suarez is not always made clear in Reformed writings. Fransiscus Gomarus (1563-1641), a Reformed professor at Leiden University, gives attention to the apparent lack of separation between the will and the intellect. The translators of Gomarus’s “Theological Disputation on Free Choice” prefer to call free choice a power that belongs to a “mind-gifted nature.”11 Gomarus’s treatment of free choice appears to emphasize, more than Suarez, the singular goal that is involved in the free faculty’s operation, which is also shown by the fact that one thing is chosen as a means to a certain goal. Suarez is strict to postulate any notion of a goal with the antecedent, whereas Gomarus does not provide such strictures. He rather states the ‘goal’ in the same breath with the power to act and not act, even observing the likeness of intellect and will in these distinctions. Gomarus says:

It is the same faculty: with regard to a goal it is called will (voluntas); with regard to the means, however, it is called free choice (liberum arbitrium), just as the one intellective potency is called intellect (intellectus) with regard to the first principles, and is called reason (ratio) in so far as it draws conclusions.12 

Gomerus does appear to resolve how the “same faculty” might achieve the freedom that his definition proposes. While it is the same faculty, he only employs the word “freedom” (liberum) alongside the word arbitrium and not voluntas, leaving us to question what freedom might have to do with voluntas. We will further attend to this proposal of the “same faculty” in our interpretation of the problem further below. 

Gomarus’s pupil, Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676), discusses a three-fold consideration of necessity in “The Freedom of the Will.” The three components that accompany the human exercise of choice are the divine decree, divine premotion, and the last practical judgment of the intellect. Voetius, who affirms God to be an efficient cause of the operation and effects of human free will, is opposed to any notion of formal causality being said of the divine; formal causality rather belongs squarely to the rational creature.13 In view of the divine decree being depended upon by the rational creature, Voetius says “when it comes to the connatural mode of acting, the [created] will is not more necessitated by the decree than by itself.”14 Voetius states that “the end point of both God who decrees from eternity and the creature who operates in time in a rational way, is the same.”15 For Voetius, the divine decree itself is not said to have any formal operation in what belongs to the rational creature’s free operation, which, alone, is the formal cause of the act. Divine premotion, also, does not turn the creature towards an act that the creature, in its free operation, would not have acted himself. For it is not the necessity of natural cause, but a free cause, a most-wise cause, that “turns the will sweetly and nevertheless strongly to that very end, to which it–certainly being moved and premoved by God–would have turned itself.”16 The question remains of whether, in this divine premotion, any created nature is involved in positing  necessity on the free operation of the will.17 Voetius finally lands with the third kind of necessity, a necessity that involves the creature’s intellect, and therefore this necessity includes created natures; for the intellect is indeed a created nature. Voetius says that the ultimate practical judgment of the intellect “removes from freedom only indifference in the compounded sense.”18 Thus, according to Voetius, the ultimate practical judgement of the intellect is both necessary to free operation of the will and also imposes necessity to the act of the will, yet only in the compounded sense.19 The result of Voetius’s formulation, is that the free faculty of the will is not free in the highest possible sense; for it is not free from created causes imposing necessity.20

Suarez, on the other hand, does not assert that any intellect act would render the free faculty determined to one effect. Both Suarez and Voetius agree that the object does not itself impose necessity upon the free faculty; but for Suarez, contra Voetius, there is no notion of the intellect’s judgment that renders the act of a free faculty to be necessary, even in the compounded sense.

Gomarus’s general assertion that the intellect and the will are the same faculty poses many questions that Voetius attempts to put in order. That order always gives primacy to the intellect; thus it does not agree with the notion of any overall power to do otherwise, nor does it account for situations where intellectual judgment does not stand in the closest proximity to the choice.21 Surely if there are different degrees to the intellect’s operation, we might ask whether the intellect is completely inoperative in the free faculty’s exercise, which is the formulation of Suarez, or else whether there might be a possible incompatibility in the succession of judgments (antecedently) leading to the last judgment pertaining to the free act.

A reflection on free choice leads us to ponder whether a rational creature always has some degree of action that could be otherwise (possibly even while sleeping); this is a question whether the free faculty itself is always operating positively. We might conclude that the only actions that could not be otherwise are the acts that do not pertain to the intellectual power; and thus we have established some level of dependence of freedom upon the intellect. If we are willing to, however, consider that they are the same faculty, then our reflections on whether the rational creature has some level of action that could be otherwise (which proposes an endless relationality of actions) has bearings also on questioning whether such continuity is also seen in the intellect.22 The proposition also maintains our central question of whether there are created intermediaries between the rational creature and the Creator; if the created intellect were to play an intermediate role, such as in the formulation of Voetius, then the intellect is really necessary as a domineering intermediary for divine concursus.

Our Proposal for the “Same Faculty” and its Demand for Theology

In Voetius’s formulation, we cannot distinguish whether the last judgment of the practical intellect is antecedent to the free act or a simultaneous component of the free act. If we propose the latter, then the simultaneity of the intellectual judgment and the act itself proposes either a logical (atemporal) order of the intellect necessitating the will that acts,23 or else that the intellect and the will are codependently acting in the free action. If we were to interpret Voetius as positioning the particular act of the intellect as concomitant with the action, we must also interpret a logical priority of the intellect to the will. If we were, however, proposing a codependent identity of the intellect and will in the free action, and combining it as the free faculty, then we encounter the problem of whether the faculty necessitates itself to one effect, which appears to contradict freedom, or else whether there is an assertion of freedom in the intellect’s practical judgment. Freedom in practical judgment is considered in the following way: the object (the act) itself is not thought to be the best option but is rather seen indifferently; yet this conclusion appears to contradict the very definition of practical judgment, which identifies what is good in comparison to lesser goods. 

If we grant that the intellect is operating simultaneously, effectively, and directly unto the object, then we must (highlighted in the formulation of Suarez) acknowledge a potential break between the intellectual acts that belong antecedently to the act and the act itself; and thus any line of reasoning that is antecedent to the last judgment cannot be depended upon by the last judgment. This break is seen in the example of a man who judges that it is best for him not to eat pizza because he needs to make healthy gains but rather chooses to suspend this judgment seemingly to satisfy a less-rational craving of the body. If we say that the final choice is also the final judgment of the practical intellect, it is difficult to defend that the final judgment has elicited the best possible world since it has broken away from an evidently better judgment.

This scenario would support the idea of the last practical judgment of the intellect being of itself not determined to one effect, even though it sounds absurd. Yet we must note that the free faculty (the ability to do otherwise) is always active even when considering any intellectual act of the antecedent, which, even when it is not finally proximate to the free action itself, must be nevertheless present when considering all that is antecedently required for a free action. In other words, there is no break in the free faculty (according to Suarez’s definition of the word) since the free-choosing person is also antecedently active as a free-choosing person. The man who chooses to suspend his judgment might prove that his better judgment itself is not determined to one effect as it also resembles freedom in this way. Both Suarez and Voetius appear to deny this conclusion regarding the intellect, but in different ways in consideration of the free faculty. Suarez denies the intellect’s power to one effect over the free faculty, and Voetius affirms it.

Our proposed alternative indeed raises an apparent contradiction regarding the intellect. The object in the intellect is indeed the act in consideration, but we are not (by definition of ‘intellect’) considering the act chosen or not; it is rather what a rational creature deems to be the best course of action. Antecedent to the act, the mind can determine a different course that is deemed to be best, but if the act simultaneously includes what is deemed to be best, how can the same act also be possibly deemed not best at that same time of action? for there is no time for a change of mind. There must be some degree of indifference to the judgment; but how can the best course of action also simultaneously be deemed not the best as that particular act is chosen?

Bernardinus de Moor highlights a distinction between theoretical and practical judgment in his “Continuous Commentary” that here includes commentary on a certain passage in “The Compendium of Christian Theology of John à Marck”. De Moor compares what he calls “the honest good” with “the useful and the pleasant good.”24 Of the second kind, which is ‘practical judgment,’ De Moor says that this judgment is “always followed by the will.”25 The first kind of judgment (theoretical) might possibly be contrary to the second kind and therefore is not the one that is followed by the will. Here, continuing with our example, imagine that our health-conscious man has the choice to eat chicken with broccoli or else pepperoni pizza. Let us suppose that chicken with broccoli is always the best choice (regardless of the other options) as a means to the goal of healthy gains; thus it is a theoretical judgment. And yet the man chooses to eat pizza because it satisfies his lower cravings. This event either proves Suarez to be correct that the intellectual judgment does not determine the free faculty to one effect, or else it demands for the last judgment to be distinguished from the first; for the last judgment, for de Moor, is called ‘practical.’ If the first judgment is indeed retained while the will simultaneously follows the second judgment, then the first is both deemed the best course of action and yet not the best course of action.

This apparent contradiction is not a contradiction if we consider the difference in the goal. It is curious that the man would choose a lesser goal (satisfying bodily cravings) over a greater goal; but his judgment pertaining to the greater goal is not necessarily modified, for he still judges that chicken and broccoli are the best for his health, thus retaining his theoretical judgment, while also judging that his health is not the most important goal in that particular instance. Thus, the man is neither determined to a certain act (the means to a goal), nor is he determined to a certain goal; yet he has nevertheless acted according to his judgment; and his second judgment has not suspended the first. Yet an objection arises in this case since the man’s choice of pizza appears to completely nullify the goal of health; therefore his first goal is contradicted by his choice, and thus the first judgment has no operation in the choice. This objection would indeed be valid if we have claimed that health is always the man’s best goal; but this claim has not been made. Our claim that chicken and broccoli are always the best for his health has not presupposed that health is always the best goal for the man. Therefore our particular theoretical judgment is not wholeheartedly absolute. However, the two goals still appear to be against one another if indeed health is always a greater goal compared with lower cravings.

J. Martin Bac’s commentary on the work of de Moor distinguishes not one but two kinds of judgment apart from the third kind (the third being the final judgment followed by the will).26 However, the first kind (theoretical) and the second (absolute practical) are both not distinguished as what we have considered to be truly absolute.27 The truly absolute is what is deemed to always be the best goal for the man. The Christian faith, in multiple mainline traditions, declares that the absolute goal is God. However, even philosophically speaking, whatever we identify as the final goal serves to address our problem of whether the man, in our case, who appears to seek the lesser goal, has made two judgments that are incompatible. First we must consider that if God (absolute being) is indeed the final goal, we need to determine whether any other goal (such as the goal of health) would necessarily compromise that final goal. If it is possible to have lesser goals without diminishing the final goal, then we retain the possibility that a lesser goal might be compatible with the greater goal. Yet if it is possible that a lesser goal be incompatible with a greater goal, such as the goal of murdering an innocent man (made in the image of God) standing together with the goal of God, then it is possible that the goal of quickly satisfying bodily cravings might be incompatible with the goal of long-term health. However, if we consider that the final goal is always the greatest, we might say that it is possible that the goal of health is incompatible with the final goal,28 and that it is also possible that the goal of satisfying bodily cravings is compatible with the final goal. Therefore, even when there is no compatibility between health and cravings in themselves, the judgment of the man is still able to hold both goals in consistency alongside the final goal in the case where he judges the lesser goal to be better in his final choice. And yet, on the other hand, it is still also possible that he is wrong. Christians might be right to call this act a sin. But a sin is not necessarily a sin unless the final goal is neglected. Thus the man can be wrong for choosing what he craves while holding to the goal of health, but he might also be right before God.

This scenario is another way we can highlight the fact that God is necessarily concurring with the act of the rational creature without an intermediate (created) agent imposing necessity on the act. Theoretically, therefore, the one who sins is sinning against God without an intermediate cause and is thus sinning freely; for there is no created cause imposing necessity. However, the sinner also appears to be bound to sin since he no longer freely judges God to always be the goal; judging that “God is always the goal” in light of even a single instance of God not being the goal necessitates repentance together with a positive act that makes the man once again freely say “God is always the goal” without any incompatibility with the rational creature’s previous judgments.

In Reformed Christianity, that positive act (divine grace) that accompanies repentance is on the same plain with the act of existing. No rational creature can say in the first person that “I could have accomplished my own existence” nor “I could have done otherwise and never existed” when it comes to existing as that person; neither can a redeemed person say “I could have done otherwise” as it pertains to the ultimate goal any more than he could say “I could have redeemed myself.” The positive part of the equation is much more demanding than the negative; and yet even the negative demands more than what the means by themselves can accomplish. Therefore the sinner is ever bound to the goal of self-existence since he will never accomplish that goal, and yet he is free from all the means that he could choose since none of them too can accomplish his goal. The freedom of those who are saved is even a greater mystery since they also include means that are chosen for the goal that declares “I wholeheartedly trust God.” 

Conclusion

Since there is no space remaining in this paper for the seemingly endless theological inquiries that are due, I grant that there is no singular conclusion that results from our thinking. However, the key to digesting the most important considerations we have made boils down to our definition of freedom. Is freedom merely the power to act and not act, or does the power to achieve an absolute goal enter intrinsically into the equation? The goal itself necessarily includes intellectual acts prior to the act and the achieving of the goal necessarily demands future volitional acts. If both faculties are acting as one faculty in a present particular act, then we must continue along a theological path to distinguish between freedom and not freedom regarding the free act of the created rational soul.

What we have highlighted in this paper is the continuing perspectival consideration of the rational creature’s freedom from being determined by any created intermediary outside of the self (which makes the self responsible in the case of sin). Our proposal is that both the intellect and will are the self and therefore divine concursus does not propose one to be a necessary means for the operation of the other, but they are rather the same faculty–the ‘ego’–that always depends on the divine for existence and goal-orientation, even in the case where the ‘ego’ has freely bound himself to its own goal. However, when the ‘ego’ wholeheartedly embraces his dependence on the divine, he cannot do otherwise; for, indeed, the creature, like the Creator, is not bound to even the means of any created self. And in this way, the creature cannot but be free.

Works Cited

de Moor, Bernardinus. “Continuous Commentary”. Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Willem J. J. van Asselt, Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Gomarus, Fransiscus. “Theological Disputation on Free Choice”. Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Willem J. J. van Asselt, Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Suarez, Fransisco. On Efficient Causality: Metaphysical Disputations 17, 18, and 19. Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

van Asselt, Willem J. J. Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds. Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Voetius, Gisbertus. “The Freedom of the Will”. Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Willem J. J. van Asselt, Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds.  Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

  1. Fransiscus Gomarus, “Theological Disputation on Free Choice”, Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Willem J. J. van Asselt, Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010) 128. ↩︎
  2. Francisco Suarez, On Efficient Causality: Metaphysical Disputations 17, 18, and 19. Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 319. ↩︎
  3. Suarez, On Efficient Causality, 290. ↩︎
  4. A “Thomist” is a follower of Thomas Aquinas. ↩︎
  5. Suarez, On Efficient Causality, 305. ↩︎
  6. Suarez, On Efficient Causality, 321. ↩︎
  7. Suarez, On Efficient Causality, 322. ↩︎
  8. Suarez, On Efficient Causality, 323. ↩︎
  9. Suarez, On Efficient Causality, 325. ↩︎
  10. Suarez, On Efficient Causality, 323. ↩︎
  11. Gomarus, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 128. ↩︎
  12. Gomarus, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 129. ↩︎
  13. Gisbertus Voetius, “The Freedom of the Will”, Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Willem J. J. van Asselt, Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010) 149. ↩︎
  14. Voetius, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 150. ↩︎
  15. Voetius, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 150. ↩︎
  16. Voetius, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 151. ↩︎
  17. Created natures might even include angels, if not also material and bodily motions. ↩︎
  18. Voetius, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 152. ↩︎
  19. The compounded sense goes as follows: if the judgment of the intellect determines the act, then the will is determined to the one effect. This is in contrast to the divided sense: the will itself is determined to one effect. ↩︎
  20. Obviously, the created intellect is a cause in Voetius’s formulation. ↩︎
  21. For example, when a man is hungry and then chooses to eat what is in front of him; the intellectual judgment is either not operating or else operating weakly in closest proximity to the choice. ↩︎
  22. The discontinuity of intellectual judgment is also seen in the “otherwise” equation of the free faculty. ↩︎
  23. This is a one-way dependence of the will upon the intellect. ↩︎
  24. Bernardinus de Moor, “Continuous Commentary”, Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Willem J. J. van Asselt, Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010) 203. ↩︎
  25. de Moor, Reformed Thought on Freedom, 204. ↩︎
  26. J. Martin Bac, Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Willem J. J. van Asselt, Martin Bac. Roelf T. te Velde. eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010) 214. ↩︎
  27. Or as I put it earlier: “wholeheartedly absolute.” ↩︎
  28. A man might neglect God in his pursuit of health. Health might, in Christian language, be an idol. ↩︎

The Fifth Command & the Gift of Eternal Life

Darren ExleyLeave a comment

While studying the fifth command of God’s decalogue (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5), it occurred to me that there is a different projection of the fifth command as compared with the fourth:
The Sabbath command first looks back.
The honouring of parents then looks forward.

Remember the Sabbath, keep it holy
Since God rested on the seventh day of creation
Since YHWH delivered us out from Egypt, out of the house of slavery

Honour (glorify) your father and mother
So that you may live a long life in the land that YHWH your God is giving you

The fifth command assumes the natural course of outliving one’s parents. It also suggests that looking forward doesn’t exclude remembering the past. So we provide for parents as they become dependent in old age, since we were dependent on them while we were young, and we live as their representatives after they have departed.

The fifth command helps us also with the fourth command of remembering, since parents are a former generation, which also helps us with the previous three that we would honour and glorify our heavenly Father in the fullness that we have witnessed through past generations.

Yet the fifth command then looks ahead to a long life (indeed eternal life). Wisdom in obeying the fifth command is then helped by looking ahead to the following commands.

We honour parents in honouring our brother as an equal, which extends beyond our household to our neighbour and all who are made in God’s image. “Do not murder” (do not harm, do not hate) is the first practical recognition of this equality, assigning a personal responsibility outside our most immediate household.

We honour parents by growing to maturity and separating from them. We ought to separate from being dependent on them, which prepares the way for them to be dependent on us. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.” Marriage is the perfect expression of this separation in maturity. “Do not commit adultery” (do not flirt, do not lust) is a recognition of the sanctity of marriage. The bond of marriage is a bond like no other. Parents need this separation from children so that they would be prepared to be honoured in eternal rest through letting go of the current life that is perishing, a hope that is analogically realized through being able to rest on their children’s maturity for coming generations. So marriage is the sanctified institution to provide offspring for generations to come, which is a glory to the parents of old.

Separation from parents is also recognized by us having title to our own property. “Do not steal” implies that we are entitled by just means to have property of our own that is not owned by parents or the government. For even the civil government will perish, but God remains the ruler of all things and bestows gifts on his children.

We honour our parents in building a reputation of our own. To glorify our parents is not merely to bear their reputation but to even improve upon it by being a faithful witness to God in Christ. “Do not bear false witness against your neighbour” regards a personal reputation that is built on truth.

And it is important that we don’t even covet (desire in our thoughts) the reputation, the goods, and the spouse that God has gifted our neighbour, even the things which God has gifted our children as they grow to maturity.

If a parent, or even a civil governor says, “you are still a child, you depend on me,” it is an imperative for us to grow up in all of God’s commands so that we can set appropriate boundaries. For, in the end, we all must serve the one everlasting God, who grants eternal life to all his children.

Love as Strong as Death: An Interpretive Introduction to the Song of Songs as the Holy of Holies of Scripture

Darren Exley

All Scripture is Holy. All Jewish and Christian Scripture testifies of the Anointed One. Yet not all who embrace the Pentateuch agree on which books are included in the full canon of Scripture, neither do all agree that Jesus of Nazareth is the Anointed One. When it comes to a small collection of love poems called the “Song of Songs,” Jews as well as Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians all agree that the book belongs in the holy canon of Scripture. Moreover, this love poem has been called by the first and second century Jewish Rabbi Akiba, “the Holy of Holies” of the holy writings.[1] The Christian Scripture, which includes twenty-seven New Testament books, testifies that human beings have access to the high-priestly Holy of Holies through Jesus Christ, who is the high priest in the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:10). Christians then can boldly access the Song of Songs with the expectation of meeting the King of kings and Lord of lords in holiness, righteousness, and glory. Yet gazing on the Christ Song also introduces a wellspring of meaning to sex, marriage, and love, so enriching us in language that represents God’s design of love in its modesty, mystery, and danger.

Early Interpreters of the Song of Songs have typically favoured an allegorical interpretation of the book that likens the man and woman to the King and his people, to Yahweh and Israel, and/or to Christ and the church. Some more recent interpreters have favoured a natural/literal interpretation, asserting that the intention of the book is to celebrate marriage, sex and love between a man and a woman. Iain Duguid believes “that it is possible to steer a middle ground between the allegorical and literal extremes.”[2] Since Duguid’s commentary on the Song actually explores both readings, these readings are only extremes if an allegorical reading is antithetical to a literal reading and vice versa. Mark Garcia says that the Song of Songs is “as theologically dense, rich, and powerful a witness to the meaning of everything as you will find in Scripture … if you will hear it as a portion of Christian Scripture.”[3] In writing this introduction to the Song of Songs, I will favour and defend a Christian allegorical interpretation of the text, yet one that continues to multiply fruit as the book’s literal and natural features are unveiled. The Song can be seen as a centerpiece to the whole of God’s revelation, giving light to a systematic, biblical, and natural theology that is deep and ever flowing with richness through our magnifying of these short love poems in their fitness to be called the Holy of Holies of Christian Scripture.

Canonical Interpretation

The very definition of canon, as a distinct collection of holy writings held together as the “rule of faith,” gives us reason to characterize God the Ruler in each canonical book. The canonical writings are holy because God’s holiness is the dominant theme throughout the writings. Thomas Watson says of the Scripture in its canonicity that the “holiness of [Scripture] shows it to be of God;” and he relates the whole of Scripture to the interpretation of its parts: “the sun best discovers itself by its own beams; [likewise] the Scripture interprets itself to the understanding.”[4] The Westminster Assembly agrees that the whole of Scripture is given for the interpretation of its parts:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[5]

~ The Westminster Confession of Faith I:IX

Since the closed canon is singular as God’s full and complete self-revelation (John 1:18), we should seek the magnificence of God’s character even in the places where Elohim, Yahweh or the persons of the Trinity are not explicitly named. “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. So God’s spoken word revealed in his handiwork is written on the cosmos (Psalm 19:1). On the sixth day, Elohim said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Human beings are made in the image of God and are therefore types of God. The Greek word τύπος, most directly translated in English as type, originally refers to the image of a blow or imprint made by a striking object. The use of the word in philosophy expanded the word’s use to indicate a “sketch or outline” or the “preliminary disclosure of a thing.”[6] Τύπος is no less than an imprinted form made from an object through an impressive action indicating the shape of the acting object, such as a wax stamp; but, according to the term, such an imprint is not necessarily an exact representation of that impressing object.[7] In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is said to be the exact imprint (χαρακτὴρ) of God’s nature (Hebrews 1:3). So Christ is exclusive in that he is not made in God’s image as a mere man, he is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). However, there are human beings who are types of Christ in the Old Testament, so taking their shape from Christ. Paul says that Adam is a type (τύπος) of Christ, even though he was the first sinner (Romans 5:14). So, even though these types are not exact imprints, it is appropriate to say that many Old Testament figures, such as Melchizedek, Isaac, Moses, David and Solomon, are types of Christ insofar as there is resemblance between the type and the one typified. And we can perceive that there is the direct action of God’s creation and providence at work with each impression. So we can gather that these types are not merely persons, they are persons with localized stories, all of which give meaning to all things visible and invisible. The world as we receive and perceive it takes its shape from the eternal Christ.[8] So much more do books such as the Song of Songs and Esther, though they do not explicitly identify God by name, reveal the very character of God in his covenant faithfulness; otherwise, the books are hard-pressed to be recognized in the holy canon.

The Song of Songs ought then to be interpreted with God’s covenant in mind. Interpreters who prefer to focus their interpretation of the Songs as a celebration of the created world without celebrating the Creator and his continuing activity have missed the theme of Scripture. Many natural blessings, many festivals, and many non-canonical books celebrate the created world. There are manifold ways to celebrate God’s creation, but there is only one Scripture which gives full meaning to God’s creation. And that fullness, I will suggest, is God himself in the flesh (John 1:14-18). In Paul’s writing to the Ephesians, the apostle likens the one flesh union of husband and wife to Christ and the church, indeed naming the mystical union of God to his people as the foundation for how we understand the design of marriage (Ephesians 5:25-31).

Yet in modern times, there are some who would prefer an interpretation of the Songs that is somewhat limited to the literal and natural sense, which gazes squarely on human marriage, sex and love apart from magnifying God’s covenant. Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman says, “there is nothing in the Song of Songs itself that hints of a meaning different from the sexual meaning.”[9] Daniel Akin calls the book “God’s instruction manual for sex and marriage.”[10] I will later demonstrate that such assertions do have some importance in counterbalancing the history of the book’s interpretation, but an overall emphasis on the natural reading over and against the allegorical reading reduces the fullness of the Song’s speech.

We receive hints of a greater significance in the Song of Songs beyond a simple celebration of sex through observing language that compares to other parts of the Scripture. The physical features of the lovers’ bodies and the local love setting itself employs words that make echoes of Genesis, such as a garden abounding with flowers and fruit (Song 2:3, 2:12, 4:13), a promised land flowing milk and honey (4:11, 5:1); the text also describes springs and mountains (2:8, 4:12) which echo other parts of the Hebrew literature. The mention of scarlet, fragrances, and anointing oils (1:3, 1:12, 4:3) recall the tabernacle and the priesthood; the mention of cedar and palm trees (1:17, 7:7) recalls Solomon’s temple. Solomon as a king is obviously a key figure in the Song. Regardless of whether David’s son composed the verses with his own hand, the language portrays a wisdom that, through in at least paying homage to Solomon, spreads its poetic richness as living springs flowing into the Torah and the writings.

In observing the whole of the Christian Scripture, Solomon is seen to be a type of Christ. Origen acknowledges this type in observing “first that [Solomon] is called the Peaceable, and also because the queen of the south … came from the ends of the earth to hear [his wisdom].”[11] The New Testament names Christ as very wisdom from God (1 Corinthians 1:30). What is attributed to Solomon is truer of Christ, who is the Holy One through whom the whole world receives wisdom.

The female vocalist is then, for Origen, likened to the queen of the south, for she is “the Church that is gathered from among the Gentiles.”[12] The female also represents the land, the garden, and the city. Francis Landy describes the nature and meaning of the garden as “nature perfected by culture.”[13] In Genesis, Adam was first created in the wilderness then was placed in Yahweh’s garden to work and keep it. Adam was however alone; as beautiful the garden would have been, it was void of common likeness to Adam’s flesh. The garden wasn’t what it was intended to be without human society. So after not a suitable helper was found among the animate creatures, God formed the woman who, in the likeness of Adam, glorified the flesh of Adam the same way the garden glorified the land of Eden. Moreover, the woman and her fruit of human society is the fullness of the cultivated garden extended to the ends of the earth. Adam named the woman “the mother of the living,” for through her fruit, nature is cultivated to become a society, a civilization, a city of eternal fruitfulness.

The man and the woman as lovers are the main vocalists of the Song of Songs, but there is also a chorus of voices that celebrate the love, yet they share especially in the woman’s joy and pain. When the woman is missing her beloved, the chorus feels her pain, singing, “where has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?” (6:1). The chorus is thus an extension of the woman, and so the woman is figuratively connected to the vocal society.

Likewise, the figure of Solomon is connected to the man. Even though some have interpreted Solomon to be the male vocalist’s rival,[14] Solomon is never painted to be someone that the woman disdains. Toward the end of the Song, the woman is called a “Shulammite,” which is the name of a female Solomon,[15] a name that is attributed to her both by the chorus and the male vocalist himself (6:13). She glorifies King Solomon and is celebrated as such. The only characters in the Song who are antagonists are the mother’s sons who subject the young woman to sun-stroked labour (1:6) and the little foxes that spoil the vineyard (2:15). Both problems however serve as contributors to the lovers’ admiration for one another.

As the woman represents the people and the man represents the king, some interpreters have been led toward an allegory that is first seen in a political state. Martin Luther calls the Song “an encomium of the political order, which in Solomon’s day flourished in sublime peace.” He then names this peace to be analogous to the eternal peace Christ shares with his people.[16] So, besides the private matters of love alluded to in the text, the Song can also be interpreted by extension to the political sphere.

Allegory and the Avoidance of Flesh

While the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs does fit to multiple layers of spiritual and political life, the original theme of the text as a love shared between a man and a woman shows no attempts toward desexualisation. Some interpreters have, however, favoured the allegorical interpretation to a degree that acknowledges the theme of sex only for its utility so that we can say something about spiritual and political matters. Of the Song’s opening reference to lovers’ kisses, Luther says, “this means that God honours this people with his word,” only acknowledging the intimate reference as God speaking “according to the custom of the people of that day.”[17] Origen, who predominantly names the male vocalist to be “the Word of God,” admonishes the reader to rid themselves of “outward” carnality so that the “inner” spiritual meaning of the Song would take shape. Origen not only aims to desexualise the Song, but also dematerialize it, interpreting the theme of a banquet feast as a partaking of words rather than food.[18] Thus, to gain a spiritual understanding, these interpretations have discouraged the reader to fully receive the carnal features of the text.

However, since these are Christian interpretations, the Scripture testifies that the Logos (the Word) has become flesh (John 1:14). Indeed, when John introduces Christ as the Logos, he no longer names Christ as the Logos after the text reveals that the Logos has become flesh. Jesus remains the eternal Logos, for John’s gospel continues to magnify his deity, but it was important for John to make flesh and bones of Jesus’s ministry. The Son of God was a man who grew hungry and thirsty, yet he miraculously fed the multitudes, telling his disciples, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35); likewise, he wept at the sight of his friend Lazarus in the tomb before raising him from the dead (John 11:28-44). At his final Passover, Jesus distributes the bread and wine as representing his very body and blood. In distributing the bread at the last supper, he does not say, “this is an image of my body,” but rather “this is my body” (Mark 14:22). The carnal features of holy feasting thus give direct meaning to the Word.

Jesus, the Son of God, came as fully human. The woman sings, “My beloved is white and ruddy” (5:10, KJV). Of this verse, John Owen says of Christ that “he is white in the glory of his Deity, and ruddy in the preciousness of his humanity.”[19] Since Jesus is true in both his deity and his humanity, the natural theme of human love needs not to be emptied when favouring the spiritual fullness of the Song. Indeed, the spiritual meaning is fully enriched through considering the carnal features as they are given. Yet we don’t need to exhaust the carnal features as if we live by bread alone. A fleshly exhaustion, for instance, of suffering such as what is portrayed in Mel Gibson’s motion picture “The Passion of the Christ” is not a mandatory passageway for our understanding. It is important in holy worship to physically consume bread that is rendered to our bellies, yet not for the purpose of filling our bellies, but rather of filling our understanding. “Love is as strong as death,” says the songwriter; and so Jesus, by his death, puts the wisdom of the lover’s verse to the test. Since Jesus’s love for his beloved remains true to the point of death, his love is verified, but only that his death is imagined and believed to be a fleshly occurrence. Jesus died according to the flesh so that all our visible experiences of death would be imagined also of the Bridegroom. What comfort can those who are dying draw from the Saviour if the Beloved Saviour had not faced the same agony? It is of Christ’s love that he died in the flesh so that our bodily death, when it is given, would raise our hope toward a resurrected-in-the-flesh holy communion with the Beloved.

So the kisses of the lovers don’t fall short of being fleshly kisses (1:2). Kisses are also not less than an exchange of words; they are rather more than words and flesh. Mouths speak words, they also eat and drink, but mouths also breathe. The communal experience of a shared meal accompanied by words that are breathed forth gives the Song of Songs, and particularly its kisses, a meaning that is amplified in the worship of God. The worship of the Holy King is the exchanging of holy words, the singing of holy songs, the breaking of holy bread, the drinking of holy wine; and breath is given to a faith, hope and love that fills and transcends both the sacraments and the words to a third-heavenly reality.[20] The heavenly reality does not posit words against food, but rather gives a full and transcendent meaning to both. Wise words speak of the head, and food nourishes the body; Christ fills both. He also transcends both, as he is the giver of breath—the Holy Spirit, for the kiss represents the most intimate and transcendent elation of Christ’s communion with his bride.

Unseen Mystery

The mystery of sexual desire is then typological to the mystery of communion with God. The words of the Song of Songs preserve the mystery of sex because the text does not exhaust the carnal features of human intimacy. Origen warned those who are spiritually immature to steer clear of the Songs until they are mature enough to not be egged on by the text toward fleshly lust.[21] The caution that Origen expresses toward these matters is in one sense prudent; the Song itself warns of a premature awakening of love; and so both sexual desire and communion with God should be treated with care. Yet since the text is not explicitly sexual in its fleshly depiction, it seems that the hiddenness of the text is sufficient to guard the immature mind from excessive consumption. Moreover, the immature mind may be brought to maturity through a careful reading of the text; and where else can we receive its warnings of danger? In Origen’s day, a person was vulnerable toward carnal lust through the enticements of the public theatre. Over time, developments in technology have provided many more mediums and resources that would exhaust the carnal features of human intimacy in words and images. By exhausting the carnal features, the meaning of love, sex and marriage are robbed of the hiddenness that is intended of these natural delights. The Holy Song can then be a means of restoring the true meaning of sex, a meaning that ripens one to the knowledge of Christ’s gospel, a gospel that is most hidden when it is most revealed.

Many eyewitnesses saw the death of Christ, and many more saw his resurrected body. No one, however, was inside the tomb to witness the dead body come to life; neither did they see his exodus from the tomb. When Mary Magdalene peered into the tomb, she saw two angels at the head and feet of where Jesus had once lain, which is a vision that resembles the tabernacle’s Holy of Holies. Jesus then appeared to Mary as a gardener outside the tomb. And although his resurrection was believed by Mary, Jesus told the woman not to cling to him, for he was to ascend on high to be invisibly seated so that many who don’t see him would believe (John 20:11-18). This woman, like the woman of the Song, experiences multiple absences of her Beloved (3:1-5, 5:2-8), yet the woman, like the church, in her tumult over the Beloved’s absence, doesn’t give up her belief, a belief that is witnessed in the city. So just as Christ’s resurrection in the tomb was hidden, so belief in Christ is a hidden marvel amongst the saints. Jesus had once told Nicodemus that a person must be born again to see the Kingdom of God, and that this spiritual birth is likened to the wind that “blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes” (John 3:8). Thus the Kingdom of God is most seen as it is most hidden; such is the mystery and marvel of belief.

So the Scripture sings:

Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind!
Blow upon my garden, let its spices flow.
Let my beloved come to his garden,
and eat its choicest fruits.

I came to my garden, my sister, my bride,
I gathered my myrrh with my spice,
I ate my honeycomb with my honey,
I drank my wine with my milk.

Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!

~ The Song of Songs 4:16-5:1

Christ came to his garden as one conceived of the Holy Spirit. He ate and drank at gatherings to the point that was called a glutton and a drunkard. The people received his ministry as one that resembled a land flowing with milk and honey. Yet his garden was found to be a wild vineyard of death (Isaiah 5:1-2). Christ finally administers and partakes of the bread and wine that signifies his death in private communion. In the Garden of Gethsemane, the final cup awaited him. Jesus sweats as if already pouring out blood; he denies himself when tempted so he would die for his bride. The Eternal Christ held his liquor in drinking the cup of God’s wrath, remaining true to his mission, for he was rather drunk in his intimate acquaintance with his beloved. Noah’s vineyard, representing the post-flood Garden of Eden, made Noah drunk with wine so that his nakedness was prematurely exposed (Genesis 9: 18-28). Jesus was bloodied and naked on the cross, revealing the sins of the world cleansed by baptism, so that the dead wilderness would be resurrected as a garden flowing with springs of living water. The arousal of the wind in 4:16 comes at the time of ripe maturity. The word “awake” or “arouse” is the same word the woman uses in other places to warn the daughters of Jerusalem against a premature arousal of love (2:7, 3:5, 8:4).[22] When Christ drinks of the cup of maturity, the cup of staggering becomes a cup of delight, a cup for resurrected lovers who are no longer ashamed in their nakedness, for they are clothed by their delight for one another!

Conclusion

Biblical interpretation might be comparable to an onion. While systematic theology guards against stripping God of his transcendent deity through naming his being and attributes and his relationship to created things in providential works of redemption for the glorification of Christ; biblical theology explores the depth of layers to the Bible’s many literal features, showing the vastness of special revelation that emanates the many colours and varieties of which the created world speaks of the Creator. The Song of Songs speaks to all the layers of Scripture, shedding light on the Word as a whole, showing how the Christ of Scripture encompasses, indwells, and puts his stamp on the goodness of the created world. Christ speaks into nature and nature speaks of Christ. Therefore sex is to be enjoyed where it is lawfully given since it speaks of the covenantal goodness of God’s creation and providence to the end of glorification. The volume of spiritual allegory in the reading of the Songs is turned up when all the layers of natural life are enjoyed as revelation from God. From this introduction to the Song of Songs as the Holy of Holies of Scripture, I aim to continue to explore the fullness of Christ’s Scripture in a way that gives meaning to all the layers of spiritual and natural life. The Song of Songs acts as Scripture’s centerpiece because it speaks to the heart of life that gives light to an ever-fruitful eternal glory shared in communion with Christ!

[1] Rabbi Akiba, quoted in Francis Landy, Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity and Difference in the Song of Songs, ed. David B. Gunn (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 13-14.

[2] Iain M. Duguid, Song of Songs, eds. R. D. Phillips, P. G. Ryken, & I. M. Duguid (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2016), xviii.

[3] Mark A. Garcia, “The Unveiled Woman at Table: The Zealous Love of the Song of Songs,” The Order of Reality: Sacred Vocation, 2021. Greystone Theological Institute. https://www.greystoneconnect.org/library/the-order-of-reality-sacred-vocation63773/188194/path/step/158805982/.

[4] Thomas Watson, The Scriptures. https://www.monergism.com/scriptures-thomas-watson.

[5] Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 20.

[6] Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981). 118-119.

[7] Ibid., 116-135.

[8] Mark A. Garcia, “The Intersection of Tuesday with Eternity,” The Order of Reality: Sacred Vocation, 2021. Greystone Theological Institute. https://www.greystoneconnect.org/library/the-order-of-reality-sacred-vocation-63773/188194/path/step/159289768/.

[9] Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 36.

[10] Daniel Akin, God on Sex: The Creator’s Ideas About Love, Intimacy, and Marriage (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2003), 5.

[11] Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, trans. R.P. Lawson (New York: Newman Press, 1956), 51.

[12] Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary, 99.

[13] Landy, Paradoxes of Paradise, 190.

[14] BibleProject, “Overview: Song of Songs,” 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KC7xE4fgOw.

[15] Peter Leithart, Alastair Roberts, “Episode 202: Sexuality and Liturgy (Song of Songs),” The Theopolis Podcast, 2019. Theopolis Institute. https://theopolisinstitute.com/podcast/episode-202-sexuality-and-liturgy-song-of-songs/.

[16] Martin Luther, Works: Vol. 15: Notes on Ecclesiastes, Lectures on the Song of Solomon, Treatise on the Last Words of David, Eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Hilton C. Oswald (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing, 1972), 195.

[17] Ibid., 196-197.

[18] Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary, 24.

[19] John Owen, The works of John Owen, Vol. 2, ed. W. H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), 49.

[20] Garcia, “The Unveiled Woman at the Table.”

[21] Origen, The Song of Songs Commentary, 22.

[22] Duguid, Song of Songs, 87.

The Covenantal Foundation of Christian Freedom

Darren Exley

And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
…
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
…
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.


~ Genesis 2:9,16-17; 3:22-23

Christian freedom is foundationally covenantal. In the Garden of Eden, God expresses the extent of man’s free will in covenant. Promises were given by what God had spoken in creation, and these promises were specifically sealed through God’s command of forbidding that was accompanied by a threat. Therefore free will was not simply a matter of discovering and recreating nature’s abundance in thanksgiving to God, but a moral obligation to faith and worship in the discovery and recreation of God’s free nature. As a matter of possibility, Adam was free to eat against God’s command so that his obedience to God’s command would be accounted as a free act of special worship to God. When Adam sinned, binding himself to the knowledge of possible worlds, for even the tree’s name insinuated such knowledge, it was a binding to sin, for Adam had now exhausted the possible world of breaking God’s covenant while simultaneously trading in his freedom. Adam could no longer choose proper worship freely because even an attempt to choose God for worship would now be determined through the exhaustion of disobedience. How could we say an act of volition is special and primary when an alternative has already been selected? Thus, Adam and his posterity could no longer please God with voluntary worship.

Humankind is then bound to sin; and therefore sin is the greatest enemy to freedom. And since the possible world of sin is actively evident amongst all generations, slavery to sin is perpetual to man’s history. But God, who is perpetually determined to reveal his free nature so to redeem free worship for man, has upheld his covenant promises and threats in an extraordinary way. Jesus Christ was born a man, as very God in the flesh and Son to God the Father, to receive the exhaustion of God’s threatened curse of death due to human sin. Jesus never sinned, and was therefore free in his humanity since the world of disobeying his Father was impossible in his divinity. The Father decreed the human death of his own Son, so the Son was torn in agony over receiving the wrath of God for the sins of the world. “For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin …” so that Christ’s free obedience would be the final determiner of our free worship through his free-from-sin embodiment of sin’s curse “… so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

So Christians freely worship God in the name of Jesus Christ, for such worship is not determined by the exhaustion of disobedience but by Christ whose free obedience exhausted sin to death through the outpouring of his blood. The Son of God was banished from Jerusalem’s garden so he would be banished from sin’s tomb in order to be the first gardener of the New Jerusalem. Christ was raised from the dead that Christian freedom be vivified in our justification for our willing and active crucifixion of sin in Jesus’s name. And Christ is ascended so that freedom is principally perpetuated in the visible worship of the invisible Christ. For though Jesus is temporarily invisible, so the Scripture, the sacraments, and the face-to-face preaching of the written and corporeal word amongst the assembly of confessing saints renders the Word becoming flesh to be a covenantal reality for the believer’s faith by the free witness of God the Holy Spirit.

Christian Freedom: A More Brief Treatment

Darren Exley

My goal with this writing is to do a brief overview of Christian freedom. Since freedom is the opposite of slavery, and slavery is one’s subjection to a master possessing the power of death, death is central to how we define free living. For human beings, death is the consequence of sin; and sin is ultimately disobedience to God’s word. Satan, whose name is “the accuser,” is the chief agent of invisible entities that desire power to accuse sinners unto death. But the ultimate power over death belongs to God, that he sent his Son to die a sinners’ death on behalf of sinners so that the Son’s sinless perfection would be credited to those who repent and put their trust in Jesus. This Jesus rose from the dead on behalf of his own perfect life that is joined to his perfecting of many brothers who crucify their own sin at Christ’s cross. Since believers in Christ are joined to Jesus’s resurrection, sinners who trust in Jesus have freedom over death and are therefore free from all authorities who would use sin and death as a threat against freedom. Since a believers’ death rendered to sin has an active expression of obedience to God’s word, Christian freedom is a freedom to obey. Therefore, the free obedience of believers is to pick up one’s cross and follow Jesus, who is the Holy One who lived an obedient life commensurate to his free state as Son to God the Father.

Visible authorities under Jesus’s contemporary invisible domain have three categories: the civil magistrate is a ministry of justice that guards the state through the threat of death so to set boundaries to promote the flourishing of life; the household is a ministry of mercy that gives and nurtures life out of weakness so to build up strength and wisdom against any threat of death; and the visible church is the ministry of death and life, particularly the death and life of Christ the Word joined to the invisible bride so to advance and guard the proper visible and invisible worship of the Triune Creator of all. The church is then finally the most articulate ministry of freedom, since by the Scripture she proclaims the Christ who both upholds justice and forgives sins for the freedom of eternal life. Yet the visible church cannot do away with the other authorities; for it is not fitting for the church to issue capital punishment or to mother a nursing child, but rather to speak to the greater reality of death and life in view of God’s very kingdom and house. Christ, who exited the tomb, is then head over all visible dominions, and yet that invisible headship is shared exclusively with the church invisible, a free dominion that the visible church bears witness to.

Free obedience is then owing to Christ alone. And yet, headed by the Scripture, obedience to Christ is manifestly shown through one’s obedience to earthly authorities. Matters might be commanded by authorities that in themselves have no moral gravity on faith and worship. A civil governor may require citizens to obey daylight savings time, a mother may require of her child a particular way of making the bed, and a clergyman may prefer a pulpit that is made of wood rather than stone. There is often wisdom to why something is commanded over an alternative, but an alternative isn’t necessarily a denial of the Christian faith. The same goes for the decisions each individual is free to make. Though one tree was forbidden, Adam was free to eat of many other trees; but he would have had to learn wisdom in matching the varieties of food to his nutritional needs as well as understand the specific way to cultivate each specie. Once wisdom is learned, however, absolute obstinance against a conscience that has gained wisdom would finally infiltrate one’s moral disposition against proper worship. In the Garden of Eden, the woman’s unwise consideration of the words of an inferior creature accumulated to the eating of the forbidden tree. Yet, for any other tree that God rendered free—that is, for matters “indifferent”—any act of volition, no matter the level pertaining to wisdom, is an act that requires faith not to normalize one choice against others or forbid one choice as a creed for worship; for then it is a superstition. So the necessity of acting in faith links all free choice, on some level, to faith and worship, even when one is free to choose one out of many alternatives. So since the matter of faith has an accountability that pertains to the individual before Christ, individuals should obey authorities by faith if the authorized command would not require the individual to sin. And then the authority would have to answer to matters of faith and worship for themselves, for they are not above the judgment of Christ. The subject’s faithful conforming to a faithless authority is not then faithless. The obedience of the subject is free in Christ. Ordinarily, the free obedience of those subjects would help those in authority be confronted with their own obligation to obey Christ. It is only when the authority commands the subjects to sin should the subject obey God rather than man. The result for the subject might be suffering and even death, but such is joined to the suffering and death of Christ who was raised. And then when obedience to Christ at all costs is shown, the reality that all authorities are called to account before Christ becomes further publicized.

Since the gospel of Christ is a call for all people of all nations to repentance and faith, it is not ideal for Christians to raise their banner of freedom outside civil, familial, and, most of all, ecclesiastical society. Surely the individual must answer to Jesus alone regarding faith and worship, but worship is also communal, and the glory of individual faith is shown in relation to others, for Christ is the answer for all. Jesus Christ entered Jerusalem, and though he was driven outside the camp, he entered his priestly office of the tomb now emptied of corruption, his kingly office by his ascension to the Father’s right hand for his pending judgment of the world, and his prophetic office as he dwells amongst the brethren through breathing forth the Holy Spirit into the church so to prepare the world for his final judgment to the glory of his name. The Son of God gave up his freedom to come to earth as a humble servant to secure his bride—the invisible church who is a holy society of worshipers. So this humility was with Paul, who is free from all, yet was a slave to all so that he might win more (1 Corinthians 9:19). Though Paul was free, for instance, to eat all food, there are occasions when he did not partake of certain foods for the sake of freedom for others. Sometimes, amongst pagans, he would not partake on grounds of informed false worship (1 Corinthians 10:27-29); other times, amongst believers, he would not raise his banner of freedom to eat because doing so would have grieved a premature brother for whom Christ died (Romans 14:14-15). He exemplified the character of Christ, who, though he was a free Son, would not fly away from the cross so to gain the freedom of the brethren.

Therefore the death of death reveals the very character of freedom, for Christ institutes freedom through his free and obedient death. Death to sin means that the power of death has been put to death, and death to sin is made evident by Jesus’s rising from the dead. Visible and invisible authorities who would unjustly threaten death to gain temporal power have forfeited their freedom, for the weakest one is free from the binding of all men and angels through faith in the Holy One. An individual is however not an individualist, since those who are freed from Adam’s posterity of sin are made perfect in Christ, who is the firstborn of many brethren. So the saints, who are contemporarily exiled in a corrupt land, bear the name of Christ in communion so to mortify sin at the cross for the freedom of eternal life, looking to Jesus Christ who shall be glorified in free society when the Bridegroom beholds the bride!

Christian Liberty and Individualism

Darren Exley

From William Wallace to Aretha Franklin, freedom is a word that has resonated through many generations in a variety timbres and tones. Naturally speaking, freedom is the negation of slavery. The threat of death[1] is the most powerful device to enslave a person. A free person, on the other hand, is not enslaved by a natural threat of death. In the Scripture, the most potent form of slavery is slavery to sin, for its wages of death signify sin’s power. The ultimate freedom is power over sin and death through the salvation that is in Jesus Christ. Freedom is hinged on the death of Christ. For Christ rendered powerless the threat of death, and his resurrection signifies his actual freedom over death. The Bible defines and establishes freedom using specific sets of indicatives and imperatives. God, speaking to Moses on the mountain, gives the indicative: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exo 20:2); then he gives the imperative: “You shall have no other gods before me” (v 3). God instituted freedom through his specific act of deliverance to initiate his covenant. God then gives a commandment by which freedom is upheld. God’s commandments are the covenantal terms given for the people’s glorifying response. God himself upheld these covenantal terms through sending his Only Begotten Son into the world as a man to perform God’s commandments all the way to the point of death. This final performance showed Christ’s perfect obedience through receiving the full wages of sin on behalf of his people. Therefore his people are free to obey without hindrance of guilt, possessing a surety of power over death. Since freedom has an application of obedience, various considerations are made for the Christian life: the commands of Scripture are many, our individual consciences can be complexly dynamic in relation to earthly authorities, and then there are matters not explicit in the Scripture that can create further dissension. From these complexities, one might tend toward a marked withdrawal from community as an attempt to establish an individual ideal of freedom. The scope of this writing is ultimately aimed at tackling the illusion of individualism that results from an undeveloped conception of Christian liberty.

Part I: Christian Liberty

As I have earlier introduced, Christian liberty is specifically defined through indicatives and imperatives in Scripture. The Scripture says, “be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:44). Jesus Christ alone obeyed God’s holy law to perfection. Jesus not only upheld God’s law in perfect obedience, but in doing so, he accomplished the salvation that qualifies true freedom. Christ also gave us a new commandment, saying, “love one another: just as I have loved you” (John 13:34). The imperative, “love one another,” is not altogether new. The command, “Love your neighbour as yourself,”[2] which summarizes the latter part of the decalogue, had clearly been established in the Mosaic law. But Jesus can say his commandment is new because of the indicative, “as I have loved.” Never has anyone loved his fellow man as Christ.[3] Hence, Christ’s command is truly new, because it is qualified by his final act of laying down his life for his friends. Out of love for his brothers did Christ freely obey his Father. His love is free because his obedience was unto death, free because death held him not.

Since Christ freely obeyed his Father, the Governor of all, we ought to obey the governing authorities out of our obedience to God. Since Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father, we have comfort, because the one who was crucified by unlawful authorities is the same who was raised and exalted, who is ever interceding for us as Governor in the highest heaven. However, when Christ was tried before the authorities, he neither denied who he was nor did he forfeit the work he was authorized to do. He also sought not to justify himself merely by his former signs but testified of the glory he would receive through the work at hand. So we should not deny Christ in word or deed before the authorities, but seek to give him glory because it is Christ who possesses all authority. To deny Christ is to sin. And so, it can also be said: to sin is to deny Christ. However, for authorized commands that don’t require a person to sin, each member ought to obey earthly authorities, even those whose rule is corrupt, for Christian obedience is qualified by Christ, the same Christ who received an unjust sentence from the authorities yet whose perfect obedience rendered him free from corruption all the way to the highest heaven.

Institutional authorities are ultimately accountable to Christ for upholding Christian liberty. The civil magistrate bears the sword to establish boundary lines and uphold justice for citizens under their domain. The husband as head of the household provides sacrificial love to his wife, and, together with her, raises children in the fear and discipline of the Lord; and whether a commoner is free or a bondservant, each has a duty to fear God and keep his commandments. The church presbyter bears the Word of God in the administration of the sacraments for God’s glory in public worship. Thus, the church is the most articulate authority for upholding the terms of faith and worship, particularly in the preaching of God’s Word, yet all three domains are accountable to God for upholding Christian liberty in subjection to the rule of Scripture. So then, Christian liberty ensures us that no authority, not even the church, has the power to bind the conscience on matters of faith and worship over and against the Scripture. 

To summarize thus far, Scripture has made it clear that both authorities and subjects have a duty to the commands. And, as demonstrated by Christ, the sin of those authorities does not necessarily determine the sin of the subjects, for each domain and individual person is accountable to God. Now we can discuss matters of wisdom as it pertains to the moral conscience of the individual. Since the commands of Scripture are imperatives correlated to indicatives, its terms are binding to the conscience for matters of faith and worship. But matters of wisdom may not necessarily bind the conscience to this degree. Some matters may be unclear and may seem morally indifferent. I cannot, however, hold unclear matters to be strictly separate from Scripture’s commands. One “indifferent” activity may have a different moral weight depending on the circumstances of its use. And it may be that one activity is called for in one instance and the same is uncalled for in another. For Solomon says, there is “a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing” (Eccl 3:5). So there is at least some level of relationship between unclear matters and the explicit commands; the closer the relationship, the more weight can be given to the matter. There are even sayings that are not explicitly expressed in Scripture that are equivalent to the commands. When a presbyter says, “worship the Triune God,” he is not quoting a specific Bible verse, but he is saying a clear command which pertains to faith and worship since such an imperative can be deduced from Scripture with equal correlation to the first commandment. Yet the category of wisdom extends to less essential matters. For instance, when a farmer is determining the proper time to sow a seed into the earth, there is little cause to be dogmatic about the terms of sowing as it pertains to faith and worship. But if this farmer repeatedly persists in sowing against conventional wisdom with failed results, it may signify a weightier matter. If this sower is forsaking his responsibility to provide for his household, then there is a greater neglect of his moral duty as compared to the hobby farmer who fails in the same activity. So two similar activities of improper sowing could have a different moral weight depending on the circumstances of the action. Thus, by this example we can perceive the varying degrees of relationship between unclear matters of wisdom and the explicit terms of Scripture.

The Scripture also shows that if the conscience is bound to imperatives apart from the indicatives, it cannot freely speak to matters of faith and worship. If we were to endeavour to love one another without knowing how Christ loved us, the command would be asserted in vain as the impossibility of its performance would appear. Paul, knowing that practical obedience is rooted in doctrine, gives the Philippians a set of encouragements and commands, that is properly understood in consideration of what was demonstrated by Christ:

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

— Philippians 2:1-11

In the preceding passage, there is a crucial bridging of the imperative to the indicative in verses 5-6: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” The activity and mindset that Paul is commanding would be corrupt if it were not understood through Christ. So the commands of the Scripture, even that of the Old Testament, are meant for obedience in correlation to Christ’s gospel. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he condemns those who would advocate the necessity of the ceremonial law to preserve the believer’s adopted status in Christ. Paul rebukes them, explaining that the believer’s free status in Christ is not hinged upon the ceremonial work of circumcision, exclaiming, “for freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery … if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal 5:1,2). Since Christ is on a higher plain, no law of Scripture should be used to bind the conscience away from the freedom of Christ’s gospel.

Aside from the free commands given to all believers, there are some who would use Scripture’s providences and/or God’s speaking to the individual prophets to make laws for themselves and others. They might say, “Since Elijah raised the dead, we ought to raise the dead; since David’s kingdom prospered, we ought to prosper.” If healing and prosperity are not occurring, they might say it reflects poor faith. They are then equating signs with faith,[4] for these signs then become laws that undermine Christ’s free gift to all who would believe. 

Since the Scripture can be improperly used to bind people once again to the yoke of slavery, how improper is it to make laws out of the shifting shadows of the world? To assert a law against God’s creation of male and female has grave consequences for society, and even graver consequences when it is brought into the church. Yet, aside from these obvious shifts from sound doctrine, subtler messages which may sound like “don’t let anyone tell you what you are” and “no one can walk your journey but you” can take on a variety of legal forms. Such messages not only undermine God’s created design, but also his providential governing of the world. The result is not only lawlessness, but such lawlessness then becomes the new law.

Part II: Individualism

Up until now, I have not mentioned the term individualism. But I will profess to have been speaking about it all along. It might be helpful to define the term. Individualism, in the primary sense, is the illusion that a person is not completely and perpetually reliant on God. Secondarily, it is the illusion that a person is not finally reliant on other humans. For the second, one may argue that it is fathomable for a man to become self-sufficient from other humans if he can rely solely on his dominion over inferior creatures. Yet it is obvious that such a state would be temporary at best, since all but the first man were born of a woman. So Adam may have been in that state for a time, but God said that it is not good for man to be alone. After not a helper suitable was found from all the creatures, God created the woman, who was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.[5] When the woman sinned, the man also sinned. Yet he was spared from the full death that was owed to his sin. Jesus Christ, who was the Son of promise, born of the woman’s seed, received that final death, but as a completely sinless man. He was raised due to his righteousness and ascended to the right hand of the Father to govern all things. Therefore all things, and all men in particular, rely on Christ who is truly God and truly man.[6] Individualism is then completely and perpetually impossible.

Therefore it is neither necessary nor ideal for Christians to live outside civil society, even if such individuals would desire to live a righteous life. The civil governments who inflate themselves beyond their God-given capacities do weaken themselves, for they need to break God’s law in order to establish and maintain their inflated domain. When their weakening occurs, those under their domain ought to remain obedient to Christ’s law so to maintain their strength and give opportunity for the lawbreakers to be exposed. Thus, if ever there was a true individualism, it would be one’s obedience under her corrupt superiors. Our obedience is united to Christ’s obedience, therefore we are free. And we are free to obey Christ when earthly superiors command against what Christ has clearly commanded. Because Christ did not deny himself before the authorities to so give rise for Christ’s authority to be revealed over all the earth, so being under earthly authority gives rise for Christians to testify of the Christ who reigns over all authorities. We should then not use our freedom as a covering for evil, because God is our master (1 Pet 2:16). Because we are united to Christ, we are covered and hid with him. So it is not ideal to raise our sign of obedience while running outside the domain of corrupt authorities, for God sees obedience under the corruption, for thus he raised Christ. Under Pontius Pilate, under the High Priest did Christ freely die; he willingly went to Jerusalem; and though he was driven and crucified outside the camp, he ascended to the innermost sanctuary, which is the Holy of Holies. We know then that governing authorities don’t have any authority outside of God’s authority.[7] So there is always freedom in Christ, and freedom is granted by Christ alone.

Since freedom in Christ unbinds the chains of death, and the chains of death were broken by his obedience, true freedom is a freedom to obey. When a person claims that there are unclear matters that are completely free from a commanding God, that person has turned freedom against obedience. Although this person might claim that such matters were designed by God, they would deny his governing authority over it. This doesn’t mean we need to consider each matter rigorously; it is rather quite the contrary. Though the requirement of obedience is not excused when matters are unclear, it does give us reason to relax. Freedom of conscience is a freedom to obey, and it is also a freedom to act in faith, that is, without the need for clear signs. The difference between red or blue socks to the tourist may be yes and amen if it is chosen in faith. If it is not chosen in faith, it is a superstition against obedience. Two roads diverged in a wood may not themselves represent the biggest difference. The bigger difference rests in the faith associated with the choice. Faith for unclear matters should require a person not to fret. There may not be clear signs as to what the best choice is, but two opposing choices would both be made disobediently if they are not made in faith.

If one needs to be completely determined by clear signs, clear in the way that one could tell good and evil from the sign alone void of a commanding God, one is enslaved to the sign.[8] Enslavement and the illusion of individualism go hand in hand. When the woman in the garden of Eden partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the sign alone gave no indication that the tree itself was defiled. It was neither shrouded in darkness nor was it ugly nor was it poisonous; the serpent took advantage of its potential usefulness and its beauty in order to entice the woman.[9] It was the command of God that rendered the eating from the tree to be evil. A murderer may envision a mortal wound caused by a sword thrust through his victim, an adulterer may empirically know that he does not belong to the one he is pursuing, but true disobedience is pure rebellion against a commanding God.[10] Conversely, a man’s true faith acts purely in obedience to a commanding God, rather than being completely determined from natural signs. The visible signs point to a greater invisible reality, for they are marks of true communion with the covenanting God. After Adam and Eve sinned, they covered themselves in the presence of one another and hid themselves from the presence of God, signalling a two-way loss of communion. They were the first to attempt the impossible task of individualism. When they were found by God, now facing the impossibility of individualism, the man blamed the woman as if his sin was determined formally by the sign of her eating, and the woman blamed the serpent in the same manner. Therefore, when individualism is found to be impossible, the blame-game ensues, and determinism is attributed to the formality of the sign as an attempt to avoid human responsibility.

Theologians have put the act of sinning into two categories: sins of omission and sins of commission. At the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man omitted the duty of obedience to God’s command and committed treason against God in an attempt to gain independence. When David committed adultery and murder against Uriah the Hittite, he also omitted the honour that was due to a fellow made in God’s image, also the honour due unto a soldier who fought his battles. Thus, sins of omission are always sins of commission and vice versa. The temptation for the individualist is to say, “because I am not committing murder, I am free from being accounted for sin.” Yet John says, “if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (1 John 3:17). This sin of omission is murder on a smaller scale. It is also a sin of commission because it is falsely saying, “as long as I am not demonstrating the clear signs of murder, then I am accounted as obedient to Christ.” To claim obedience merely from the absence of “committed” sin is an act of treason against God’s Son. The person making this claim is marking his independence from Christ’s blood.

True obedience depends on the blood of Christ. Man’s obedience cannot be merited as a pleasing aroma to God independent from Christ’s atoning work. The obedience of Christ is the positive object of our obedience. If we hold up our obedience independent of Christ, it would be accounted as filthy rags.[11] Sins of omission omit the necessity of Christ’s finished work that continues working on behalf of the sinner; sins of commission do crucify him with evil intent; these sins are one of the same. It is Jesus Christ who is the sole individual through whom the whole world is accounted righteous, and that through his obedience unto death.[12]

The resurrection of Jesus was a sign to the righteousness that accounted many righteous, but it was not the final vision.[13] At the time present, Christ’s seat at the right hand of the Father continues for us as an invisible reality. The imperatives of Scripture appeal to this invisible reality signified by the indicatives. The beginning of the letter to the Hebrews testifies to the indicatives: “After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3). Toward the end of the book, the author gives a few more imperatives such as, “let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Heb 10:24-25). The author is here showing us that it is vital not to omit encouraging one another toward love and good works, which requires meeting together. This command testifies the signs of the coming age, the hope of the invisible reality becoming visible, that is when we finally see the Lord Jesus Christ in his full and glorious body.

Yet, in his first appearance, Jesus showed his love by humbly dwelling among us; so we are to humbly dwell with one another. Jesus performed a specific sign in washing his disciples’ feet. During his washing, he spoke of an indicative matched to an imperative: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). Jesus here is not instituting a sacramental sign[14] but is showing that we should, like Jesus, humble ourselves one to another, stooping to the lowest degree for the sake of another’s cleanness.[15] For Paul says, “though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all” (1 Cor 9:19), also saying, “to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak” (v 22). This humble love correlates with Christian liberty, as Paul is content to lay aside his freedom. His doctrine, for instance, renders him free to partake of all food, but he lays aside this freedom for the sake of those whose consciences are weakened by customs that consider certain foods to be unclean.  He instructs us: “if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15).

Since there is no hiding place from Christ, who laid down his life for his friends, a person cannot claim a hiding place for himself away from Christ’s body and especially away from the Holy Spirit. Ananias and Sapphira, in attempting to measure themselves to the sign of the times, showed themselves to devote the whole sale of their property to the works of God. Yet they hid hell’s portion of their money, and in lying to the Holy Spirit were struck dead.[16] This event serves as a warning to all who would knowingly attempt to hide from God and man. However, there are many of our sins so hidden from us that we cannot confess them specifically, yet Jesus has washed us, for through the Holy Spirit we are hid in Christ. Many of these sins are hidden between Jesus and the one person and are covered by his blood. However, engaging in community does bring to light sins which would never be exposed if one is alone. For the sake of freedom, no known sin should be hid by an individual at all costs against exposure (Eph 5:11-13), even in the company of one another, for the ultimate cost might be deadly. James encourages us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another (Jam 5:16). It is however possible to get in the unruly habit of examining smaller sins as a covering for more looming ones. But no sin is too small that it couldn’t injure another enough to necessitate a confession. Then, in confessing our sins, instead of shifting blame, forgiveness ought to be granted to those who seek it. Freedom in Christ is freedom in forgiveness; forgiveness is mandatory for the faithful.[17] And we can trust the work of the Holy Spirit to bring to life all the signs of Christ’s ministry on earth;[18] so that the church is holy as Christ is holy, and so there is no cause to seek a hiding place, for the Holy Spirit searches all things;[19] and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor 3:17).

To finally conclude,

No one has a claim on Christian liberty aside from picking up one’s cross and following Jesus.[20] And yes, this calling is individual, but it is never hidden from the Father’s plan, from Christ’s atoning work, and from the searching and sanctifying of the Holy Spirit. Also, Christian liberty always raises our vision to the communion of the saints for the glorifying of Christ. Christian liberty is freedom from the chains of death, for our sins have been forgiven, so we are then enabled to walk freely in obedience for the reward of eternal life, that is a life of endless communion with Christ.

[1] This can be an actual death, or a sign of death such as pain, disease, or any other deficiency.
[2] Leviticus 19:18
[3] John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”
[4] With this view, faith would be determined by signs alone. But then it is not faith but sight.
[5] Genesis 2:23
[6] We are not reliant on man alone, but God became man so that our dependence on man, namely Jesus and the church, would signify our dependence on God.
[7] John 19:11
[8] Signs are meant to point us to something greater, rather than function as a governing rule unto themselves
[9] Genesis 3:6, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”
[10] Psalm 51:4, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight”
[11] Isaiah 64:6
[12] This is not to say that every individual in the world is accounted righteous, but those from every tribe and nation who are predestined for salvation.
[13] When Christ appeared to the disciples in his resurrected form, this appearance did not embody the final heavenly vision.
[14] The act of washing the disciples’ feet is not to be instituted in a literal fashion as compared to the administration of the bread and wine
[15] Matthew Henry, “To wash one another’s feet is to stoop to the meanest offices of love, for the real good and benefit one of another.” (Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2007). Peabody: Hendrickson.)
[16] Acts 5:1-6
[17] Matthew 6:14-15
[18] Christ’s earthly ministry was a sign to his greater ministry in heaven.
[19] 1 Corinthians 2:10
[20] Matthew 10:38

A Deadly Lie of Envy

Darren Exley

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (James 1:14)

A few days ago, I began writing a piece on the topic of envy and it quickly became larger than I ever intended it to be. In light of the ten commandments, envy is a sin that is most plainly described by the sixth and tenth commandment, yet it does spread to offend all the other commandments. In that first writing, I aimed to lay out how envy does break each of the ten. No wonder it became a very long piece. In this writing I will focus on a particular way envy can be exposed in the ninth commandment, which is the commandment that reads, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour” (Exodus 20:16).

So how does a person speak falsely against his neighbour out of envy? There are a variety of ways. One can target the person’s conscience or target the person’s reputation, or a combination thereof. However, since envy starts with a person who covets (desires) what God has freely given to another, one’s envy might speak like this: “If I had what this person possesses, I would make a better work of it.”

Now there are occasions for rebuke if a person is using their gifts unlawfully. This would be a topic for another piece. What I am referring to is the freedom a person has to use their gifts under the law. The gifts I am referring to might be the possessions, physical characteristics and/or natural abilities God has given to a person. A person, for instance, may possess some acres of land. There may be a variety of lawful ways for that person to use that land. Yet that person is free to use that land at their heart’s delight to the glory of God. It is not necessary for that person to be bound by what another person would hypothetically do with it. If one should have a different preference, that preference should not serve to dampen the honour due unto the trustee of God’s good and gracious gift.

So far, it seems that it is not so grave a matter that an envying person should claim “I would make a better work of it.” But the reality of the matter is that such a conviction is a flat out lie. God knows us better than we know ourselves, and he has designed a special providence for each of his children. To look at another person’s providential goods and then make such lofty claims against it is contempt against God and slander against neighbour. To be so sure of the claim signifies one’s own entitlement for the gift. It is not then a gift.

Making such a lofty claim is not the same as saying, “Here’s an idea for you to consider.” A generous person may impart some knowledge to the person who possesses and may even feel obliged to do so. And this is good and well. A pastor may advise a carpenter of biblical principles that would help the carpenter’s business. But with no experience in the field, the pastor is not fit to advise on what saw blade should be used to cut a specific kind of wood. It is more fitting that a person who is similarly gifted and perhaps more experienced give that advice. But the one who has not the gift, who envies the person with the gift, who says, “I would surely make a better work of it,” desires not to bless. In fact, he might withhold any truth and/or speak many lies both to the person and to others because he is envious. He might even resort to suggesting unlawful behaviour so that the gifted person would stand accused to have their favour removed.

A few theologians have thought that Satan, who was created as a good angel, fell from grace out of envy, because he looked on the crown that God would bestow on man and desired it for himself. When Satan first appeared to the woman as a serpent, he suggested a way of which the woman could better her condition. God gave her never-ending blessings and only one command: to not eat of the one tree. She also knew that eating would result in death. But Satan said, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4). Satan lied, accusing God of withholding from her, saying there is a law above the law of God, a law that the woman could make for herself since she would attain a new intrinsic knowledge of good and evil. Yet Satan knew that his lie was given to hold the woman and her husband accused against God’s blessing. Satan’s name, after all, is “the accuser.”

However, through the ages, Satan was truly motivated to gain the crown that was reserved to man, because he thought he could make a better work of it as one free from a commanding God. It is the best lie he knows, and he tries to use that lie as a ploy so that men would also worship a work of their own; then Satan would hold man accused, and then also accuse God of contradicting his holy nature in upholding man. As long as he could hold man accused, Satan’s power was fathomable. God’s plan was not however foiled by man’s sin. He would raise up a King through sending his only begotten Son so that wretched man would receive grace through him. This King would uphold God’s law and yet bear every accusation of Satan against man. Satan would exhaust his accusations against the Christ who would be vindicated by God, rendering Satan powerless.

Accusations against Jesus Christ were many as he ministered. The Scripture does not cite direct accusations made by Satan himself against Christ. Satan did however tempt Jesus with lies that suggested how he could better his condition. But for making accusations, Satan commissioned men to act this on his behalf, for the fallen angel himself had no power over God’s Son. All of the accusations made by men too were lies. Some of them were made by his very disciples. Such accusations seemed quite mild. But they were in fact deadly. They too sprung from an envious heart. Especially in the one who betrayed him.

When the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive ointment, Judas Iscariot thought he could make better use of the precious perfume, saying, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” (John 12:5). He was also lying about his intentions, for the Scripture says he was a thief who sought to cash in on the transaction. Judas, out of envy, exalted his own law, one he had no intention to keep, above Jesus, who was the supreme law-keeper. And, of course, Judas would eventually cash in to enable the biggest transaction of them all—the transaction of Jesus’ blood for the purchase of sinners. And yet it was the perfume, an anointing for his burial, that signified Jesus’ death, which was an event that would also prove to be a point of stumbling for the other disciples.

After Peter confesses that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:13-20), Jesus told his disciples that he must suffer, die, and on the third day be raised (v. 21). Peter, taking Jesus aside, rebukes him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (v. 22). Peter thought there was a better way for Jesus to take up his throne. Indeed, all of the disciples were anticipating that Jesus would take up his crown in Jerusalem. For he healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, casted out demons, raised the dead, spoke words to silence the authorities who envied him, all the while showing compassion to the people. His demonstrations could have given him every political advantage. He was favoured by God as his own Son so that twelve legions of angels would have rescued him from his pursuers. But this was not the will of God. God would do a better work.

Therefore Jesus told Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (v. 23). Peter, humanly speaking, had “good intentions,” but Jesus’ crown was even more blessed as someone who would die to receive the nations, procuring a most glorious inheritance for all believers through his atoning death and resurrection. Peter accused Jesus of speaking vainly about the work that was to be accomplished through him. For no one would envy the cross. The disciples themselves felt abandoned by Jesus, but it was Jesus who was abandoned by them. All so that God’s glorious work would be finished by Christ. No one can tell God how to do his work. His work is as perfect as his law. For Jesus worked the commandments perfectly by his cross in order to uphold the commandments so that God’s commandments are named as the very words of Jesus.

Those who speak against God’s works of providence are therefore commanding a law of their own. Jesus made his law free to believers; not free as in optional, but free as in truly beatific. Just as there is a variety of gifts, there might be a variety of ways a person could make use of a gift. As long as one is commanded under Christ’s law of liberty, one is free from any accusation.

Since the commandments themselves are not optional, the saints are accountable to the gifts God has granted. For instance, an owner of a big house may use that house for the lawful production of goods, which would be a loving of neighbour. But if there is a greater and more immediate need for hospitality, the owner is obliged to consider the need out of love. If the owner turns a blind eye to the need, a production only policy would prove to be unlawful. For the apostle John says:

If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (1 John 17)

If love to neighbour is neglected, God’s commandment is neglected. But in loving one another with the gifts God has given, we are in prime standing to ask and receive additional gifts from God. The apostle continues:

Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. (1 John 21-23)

Indeed, we are free to ask for additional gifts to make good work of the gifts God has already given. And we have confidence to receive these from God. For God has given each his very best. How needless then is envy.

So let us not be embittered against one another with lies born of envy. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17) Although there is a variety of gifts, there is no variation or change in God. God gives. He gave his only begotten Son. The Son keeps God’s commandments to the very end. So the end of the matter is the same as the beginning, that we “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”

Top Ten Reasons To Believe In Jesus Christ

Darren Exley

1. JESUS IS THE HOLY ONE WHO SAVES

Jesus Christ is distinct, unique, and separate in all his attributes; he is the one invisible God, who is the Creator of the universe. Although the Son of God owns the exclusive title to all supreme attributes and is fiercely discreet from all creation, Jesus acts as the tender redeemer of all creation. His work is an exclusive work that brings salvation to mankind. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to [God] the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

2. JESUS IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD (Colossians 1:15)

Although Jesus is, of himself, invisible—for he has naturally blinded man to the full radiance of his attributes—he has revealed himself through tangible demonstrations so that humans can worship him in his presence. Jesus has delivered the captives from slavery, established an active covenant in order that he would dwell with his people, and raised up prophetic voices out of the ruin who would speak the words of God. At the appointed time, Jesus laid aside his glory to assume humanity! He was born of a woman and raised under God’s covenant law to be the quintessential example of human worship to God. However, the religious authorities did not accept Jesus’s worship. As a result, they publicly humiliated him as a condemned criminal, putting him to death on a cross. But God accepted Jesus’s worship and raised him from the dead, appearing to women and men. These were the eyewitnesses of his resurrection who would worship him in his presence. Yet they moreover worshipped him after he ascended through the sky and became invisible once again because God sent his Holy Spirit to demonstrate the dwelling of Christ amongst his people. The Holy Spirit gives the church a visible witness by the Scripture’s rule, through the sacraments of Baptism and the consuming of Bread and Wine, and through the Preaching of Christ. These marks of the church are tangible representations of a spiritual (invisible) reality that will, at the appointed time, be seen in its true fullness. In the meantime, guided through the visible representations of the church, God’s people gather to worship Jesus “in Spirit and in Truth” (John 4:23-24).

3. JESUS IS THE RENOWNED NAME OF VICTORY

While people were divergent to what they believed Jesus to be when he ministered on earth, the demons did not debate the identity of Jesus. The demons knew that he was the “Holy One of God” who had absolute authority over their legion.[1] The demons overtook men, but they knew they could not overtake Jesus. Jesus is known by name to the kingdom of darkness as the one who has the power to defeat their leader—Satan. Satan took every opportunity that was given him against Jesus, and the devil actually thought he won when Jesus was crucified. Then Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus already had power over Satan before his death; but, by being crucified and raised in his body, he separated Satan from creation because he redeemed mankind from sin and death. Now, together with Satan’s kingdom, sin and death have also been defeated. Jesus needed to die in order to dramatically rip Satan away from his perceived inheritance. Christ embodied the sins of man through his death. All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23); God declared that the wages of sin is death.[2] Jesus (who was sinless) united our sin to his death so that we would die to sin and live to God through Jesus Christ. For the Bible says, “for our sake [God] made [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Therefore, in bearing the name of Christ, we bear the name of victory over death, and we no longer bear the name of sin, because our sin is defeated through the death and resurrection of Jesus. We confess God’s truth through repenting of our sins and believing in the Holy One of God, living as a new creation by the life of Christ.

4. JESUS HAS WORKED HIS VICTORY TO GIVE US REST

Jesus says, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). We have made presumptions against God. We have not thanked God for air we breathe, for the food we eat, and for the parental care of those who have nurtured us out of infancy. We have judged God for not giving us more than we have already received from him. Yet God has every right to take all of these things away. We are rightly under a deathly curse because of the chasm we have created through our words, thoughts, and deeds against God. Sin is unbelief of God, and we are drenched in sin. We have no way to pay God our debt. Yet we have presumptuously expected sustenance from him without praising him! It would be rational to characterize God, at the very least, as a heavy taskmaster for the debt that we owe him. However, God commanded his people Israel to rest on the seventh day. In the fullness of time, God gave the rest he commanded through putting his only begotten Son to death. Jesus Christ accomplished the perfect work that was required as a payment to God for the sins of his people. When Jesus said, “It is finished,”[3] he knew that he had gained the victory for our salvation so that we would not be burdened to work off the debt that we owe God. Jesus paid it all, that we may receive him—whose burden is easy, and whose yoke is light.[4]

5. JESUS GIVES SONSHIP TO THE SLAVE

Before the death and resurrection of Christ, the people of God were seemingly enslaved to the law of Moses. Yet, through the law, God also promised his people an inheritance, as they were a beloved child. Paul writes, “The heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. […] When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:1-2,4). If God’s people were under guardians until the appointed date, how much more enslaved were those who were not given God’s promise. Yet now the Gentiles are, through Christ Jesus, also given the promises of God. The Jews who were under the law who reject the promised One, Jesus Christ, prove themselves to be slaves, as the Gentiles were, to the elementary principles of the world. Now, all who die with the Son through repentance are raised with the Son unto life, being adopted as sons into the household of the Father.

6. JESUS’S RESURRECTION IS GOOD NEWS FOR THE BELIEVER AND TERRIBLE NEWS FOR THE UNBELIEVER

The resurrection that we receive will not be the void of our bodily senses. As Christ was given an immortal body, so we will be given an immortal body. Even unbelievers will have their bodily senses renewed to them. Heaven is the fullness of Christ for those who have worshipped him in word and deed. While our senses on this side of death have known emptiness and weeping, as our faith is tested through not seeing Christ, we will know nothing but fullness in the resurrection—the fullness of seeing the resurrected Christ himself. Yet the fullness of Christ will be emptiness to those who are judged apart from Christ. Unbelievers will experience every sensation of outer darkness, the weeping and gnashing of teeth,[5] and the eternal burning of the body in the lake of fire.[6] Christ’s resurrection is exceedingly good news to those who are in Christ, and terrible news for the unbeliever. Thus, it is of vital importance for the unbeliever to believe in Christ, because Christ has made forgiveness available to those who repent.

7. JESUS HAS KNOWN US THAT WE MAY KNOW GOD

Jesus came as a human. The eternal Son of God assumed humanity. God knew humanity in a peculiar way, through himself becoming an actual human being. Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve.[7] “He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.”[8] He knew what it is to be tempted.[9] God forgives the sins of humanity through triumphing over sin in his humanity. We are united to his sinlessness because he was sinless in being united to sinful humanity. Jesus experienced weakness, hunger, affliction; he knew betrayal and he tasted death—for us! Believers therefore know God through knowing Christ. We are his beloved bride.[10] God has loved us through knowing us intimately; we know and love God because we were first known and loved by him.

8. JESUS HAS GIVEN HIS CHURCH ALL THAT IS HIS

Because Jesus ascended (in body) to the right hand of the Father, he has the title to all things. The church is never truly without, because she is united to Christ as his bride. She is indeed called to share in the sufferings of Christ. In sickness and in health, she will never lose her title as belonging to Christ. The resurrection will apportion all things to fit Christ’s glory, and the glory of Christ is his bride—the church.

9. JESUS HAS FULFILLED THE PROPHETIC VOICE OF THE SCRIPTURE

What is spoken from the beginning is fulfilled. In the book of Genesis, after the first woman sinned, God said to the serpent, who is Satan the deceiver, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). Jesus embodied the promised offspring who was born of a woman to cast down the headship of Satan. Satan, in turn, would not touch Christ’s crowned head, but only proceed to bruise his heel. To the woman, God said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children” (v. 16). Besides the fact that God actually gave the woman added birth-pains, God spoke moreover of the treachery that would surround the birth of the Holy One. The book of Revelation tells us of a woman who “was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.” And in the presence of a dragon who was prepared to devour the child, “she gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days” (Revelation 12:2-6). Jesus, the child of the woman, who has gained dominion, has been caught up to the throne of God; and the woman, who is now the church, has fled into the wilderness, a place prepared by God, where she is nourished. God has been faithful to his church, guarding the Scripture, providing the nourishment of bread and wine, which represents the body and the blood of Christ, and raising up the preached word of prophecy, even in the midst of this wilderness, which is temporarily prepared for us by God. This is simply one example of a multitude of prophecies predicting both the arrival of Jesus Christ and the last days of the church, all of which have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled by God.

10. JESUS HAS GLORIFIED HIMSELF THROUGH MAKING US FREE

A noble woman may glorify herself with emblazoned hair, dress, jewelry and cosmetics. A rich man may glorify himself with elaborate dwellings and possessions. Jesus “had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). He glorified himself by being lifted up on a cross—naked, wounded, and condemned. By his death, Jesus has made us free. By his resurrection, we are free indeed. Jesus indeed laid aside his glory; and Jesus glorified himself in making us—the naked, wounded, and condemned—free. Because we have sinned, we have mutilated the image of God given to us in creation. Yet the image of God is restored in us through Christ bearing the image of sinful man. This is the way Christ sought his own glory. What is finished cannot be revoked. Thus, we are free to do the will of God without having to pay the infinite debt that is owed. We are free to do the will of God, as his presence—the Holy Spirit—is in us, through the blood of Christ. We are free to do the will of God because God seeks his own glory by glorifying Jesus Christ; and we are in Christ—glorified with him.

[1] See Mark 5:1-15

[2] Romans 6:23

[3] John 19:30

[4] Matthew 11:30

[5] See Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:13 in context

[6] See Revelation 20:15 in context

[7] Matthew 20:28

[8] Isaiah 53:4

[9] See Hebrews 4:15

[10] See Ephesians 5:22-33

Gospel Meditations

Darren Exley

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin … Jesus died representing the sins of humanity

Jesus Christ was with God and equal to God when God formed the earth … Jesus’s blood dripped to the earth when he hung on the cross

Jesus Christ lived a sinless life as the perfect Son to God the Father and died as a condemned criminal, taking on the debt of sinners … Jesus was raised from the dead by the Father as a vindicated life-giver, crediting the sinner with his own sinless perfection before God

Jesus Christ left his Father’s side to become a man who would die … Jesus ascended to be glorified at his Father’s right hand after being raised from the dead

Jesus Christ died for the sins of those who repent of their sins at the cross … Jesus was raised for the justification of those who rest on him for salvation

Jesus Christ blesses those who believe in him by putting to death their sins … Jesus gives believers everlasting life in love and purity with God

If you repent, resolving to die to your sins, and believe in Jesus Christ, resting on his life for your salvation, you will be spared from the everlasting hell that you deserve due to your sins, and you will possess the free gift of everlasting life, an exceedingly happy life in the presence of God, seeing Jesus face to face, possessing a resurrected body like his … The Holy Spirit seals this life to you who repent and believe, calling you to an enduring life of holiness by God’s Word.