The Third Year – The Year of Tithing

The passage before us details the final uses of the concept of the tithe to be found in the books of Moses. The first mention was in Genesis 14:20 where it says Abram gave Melchizedek a tithe of all. The passage prescribes nothing. It simply describes what occurred, and nothing more.

In the same chapter of Genesis where Melchizedek is mentioned, Abram’s nephew – Lot – was captured. It then says that Abram armed his servants and pursued and overtook Lot’s captives attacked them, and rescued Lot and all his goods.

Deuteronomy 26:12-19

I. The Holiness (verses 12-15)

¹² “When you have finished laying aside all the tithe of your increase

ki tekaleh laser eth kal masar tebuatekha – “When you complete to tithe all tithe of your increase.” Notice the lack of any article before “tithe” – “all tithe.” The use of the article has been precise and meticulous in all of the tithing verses found in the previous sections that dealt with this issue.

Moses is instructing the people concerning “tithes.” It is a precept that was mandated for the people of Israel. Every year, the people of Israel were to set aside a tenth, a tithe, of their increase. That was first noted, within the law, in Leviticus 27 –

“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s. It is holy to the Lord.” Leviticus 27:30

In that verse, no article is used. “And all tithe of the land.” It is this that is “holy to the Lord.” Nothing was said of what should be done with it. It simply says that tithes were holy to the Lord. Numbers 18:21-32 then details how tithes, the tithes which they offer up as a heave offering to the Lord (Numbers 18:24), are to be apportioned to the Levites, and from that a portion (a tithe of the tithe) is to be given to the priests.

The use of the article, or the lack of it – in each instance – is expressive of what is to occur. Tithes are to be set aside as holy to the Lord. Those offered as a heave offering are to be given to the Levites. But Numbers does not say what is to happen to those not offered up as heave offerings to the Lord. That is only explained later, in Deuteronomy.

It is in Deuteronomy 14:22-29 that the disposition of those not offered up as a heave offering is noted. For a bit of comical relief and as a poke at “tithing” pastors, we will journey there one last time and read that passage –

“You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. ²³ And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. ²⁴ But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the Lord your God has blessed you, ²⁵ then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses. ²⁶ And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. ²⁷ You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates, for he has no part nor inheritance with you.” Deuteronomy 14:22-27

It is clear and precise – party time has arrived, and the tithes are the means by which it will come about. The Lord provided the tithes, and it is His will that they be used to glorify Him through rejoicing in His provision. With that stated, the chapter closed out with these words –

“At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. ²⁹ And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.” Deuteronomy 14:28, 29

It is that final passage of Deuteronomy that Moses now readdresses one last time, hoping that in the dispensation of grace that was to come in Christ, pastors wouldn’t make the galactically huge error of reimposing tithing on their congregation, but if they did, they would at least do it in accord with the law and not in accord with their own corrupt agenda. As he next says…

^{12 (con’t)} in the third year

ba’shanah ha’shelishit – “In the year, the third.” Now, there is a distinction being made between the first two years and the third year. All tithes are to be laid aside, but in the third year, there are specific provisions to be adhered to. It is this third year that is…

^{12 (con’t)} —the year of tithing—

Almost all translations state it this way, and such a translation would cause a contradiction to occur. Every year is a year of tithing. That has already been made explicit. A tithe was to be set aside every year as holy to the Lord. The Hebrew says: shenat ha’maaser – “year the tithe.” The article is again expressive.

This clause and the previous clause are in apposition, restating and explaining the other. The Greek translation adds in the words, “the second tithe,” which are not found in the Hebrew. This was certainly translated by rabbi Reuben who didn’t want to lose out on milking his synagogue of any of his desired portion. The word “second” cannot even be inferred in the Hebrew.

Even Cambridge notes that, saying, “a reading which even after the vocalic changes which it involves in the Heb. results in an impossible construction.” Rather, the text has been very clear with each stage of the development of the tithing guidelines.

Of this tithe, the third-year tithe, Moses next says words that are in accord with the words of Deuteronomy 14, repeating them to ensure clarity concerning the precept so that it is understood…

^{12 (con’t)} and have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow,

The thought is substantially repeated from Deuteronomy 14:29, saying, “And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates…”

Moses is taking care to make it understood that these people, who had no ability to otherwise take care of themselves, would be tended to according to the riches of the blessings of the Lord upon the people of Israel. They were in deprivation, and the year of the tithe was given…

^{12 (con’t)} so that they may eat within your gates and be filled,

Again, the words follow after verse 14:29, where a blessing is included for the people when they observe the precept. There it says, “may come and eat and be satisfied, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.”

In this, they will be observant of the command already set forth. And they are then to acknowledge that the reason was for exactly that purpose. It is not a single purpose, as has already been defined, but for the purpose of the tithe in general, meaning all three years of the tithe. That cannot be misunderstood when the next verses are properly considered. As Moses first notes…

¹³ then you shall say before the Lord your God:

This would be at the pilgrim feasts.

^{13 (con’t)} ‘I have removed the holy tithe from my house,

biarti ha’qodesh min ha’bayit – “I have burnt away the holiness from the house.” The word ba’ar is used. It is the same word used when speaking of purging away evil and purging away guilt. The tithe is holy and thus it is to be considered as such. It would be evil to use it for non-holy purposes.

The words “from my house” are clear. The tithes were kept there until they were to be dispensed with. Two years it was for magnificent partying in the presence of the Lord, and the third year it was to be transferred to the storehouses for the care of those to whom it was set apart for. The latter of those two uses is again stated by Moses…

^{13 (con’t)} and also have given them to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow,

It is the explicitly stated and now repeated mandate for the third-year tithe. But it is not the whole mandate for the three years of tithes. This third-year mandate is for the care of those to whom it is designated. With that again understood, the proclamation of the Israelite continues with…

^{13 (con’t)} according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me;

The translation is exactly correct. What is notable, is that the commandments for the tithe are almost all given by Moses, and yet the acknowledgment to the Lord is that they are commands asher tsivitani, or “which You [the Lord] have commanded me.” It once again speaks of the process of divine inspiration. What Moses has put forth is, in fact, the revealed word of God.

^{13 (con’t)} I have not transgressed Your commandments, nor have I forgotten them.

lo avarti mimitsvotekha – “no have I passed over from your commandments.” The word avar is closely associated with the word ivrim or Hebrew, and this is certainly why Moses says this. A true Hebrew would not cross over the laws of the Lord, but would stay on the side of them that he belonged. He would remember them and not forget.

With that stated, we come to the words of the next verse which clearly and unambiguously reveal to us that there was not a “second” tithe, and that the “holy tithe” mentioned here is the same as that referred to in Leviticus 27:30, the one tithe of Israel which is said to be “holy to the Lord.” The Israelite continues, saying…

¹⁴ I have not eaten any of it when in mourning,

lo akalti b’oni mimenu – “No I have eaten in my affliction from it.” The very fact that Moses brings up eating the tithe in affliction (mourning) means that, at times, the tithe was to be eaten by the individual. If it was not ever to be eaten, Moses would have simply said, “I have not eaten any of it.” What he is referring to is what it says in verse 14:26 –

“…you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” Deuteronomy 14:26

They are commanded to rejoice in the presence of the Lord. This clause now acknowledges that the person has done so. If he were in mourning, he would not be allowed to eat of the tithe. This is what is alluded to in Hosea 9 –

“They shall not offer wine offerings to the Lord,
Nor shall their sacrifices be pleasing to Him.
It shall be like bread of mourners to them;
All who eat it shall be defiled.
For their bread shall be for their own life;
It shall not come into the house of the Lord.” Hosea 9:4

The bread of mourners is that of eating at a funeral. It is a time of loss and despondency. The tithe was not to be used for such a purpose because the tithe anticipates Christ.

The tenth is the Lord’s claim on the whole. To eat this holy portion in mourning would be equivalent to a Christian being in mourning over being saved. The thought would be confused, contradictory, and quite possibly Calvinist – but there is no place for it in the faith. Christ is the Victor over death. In His presence is to be joy and rejoicing forevermore. Next, he is to say…

^{14 (con’t)} nor have I removed any of it for an unclean use,

v’lo viarti mimenu b’tame – “and no have I burnt it in unclean.” It is the same verb just used in verse 13, ba’ar – to burn away. This is still referring to the person using his own tithes in the first two years. An unclean person was not to enter the presence of the Lord. If he were unclean according to Levitical law, he could not legally participate in the festivities where the tithes were consumed.

^{14 (con’t)} nor given any of it for the dead.

It does not say, “the dead.” It says: v’lo nathathi mimenu l’met – “and not I give from it to dead.” This is not speaking of offering it to dead people as some scholars claim. That would always be forbidden, and it is unnecessary to be stated here.

Rather, it is referring to providing it for those who are in mourning for the dead, such as is seen in Jeremiah 16 where no article is used before “dead,” despite the translation –

“Both the great and the small shall die in this land. They shall not be buried; neither shall men lament for them, cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them. ⁷ Nor shall men break bread in mourning for them, to comfort them for the dead; nor shall men give them the cup of consolation to drink for their father or their mother.” Jeremiah 16:6, 7

The tithe is not symbolic of a consolation for dead people. It is representative of Christ, the Victor over death, and of His claim upon those who come to Him. The typology must be maintained. In all of this, the Israelite is to acknowledge…

^{14 (con’t)} I have obeyed the voice of the Lord my God, and have done according to all that You have commanded me.

The tithe was to be used two years in a row at times of thanks, rejoicing, holiness, and purity in the presence of God. In the third year, it was to be presented to those to whom the Lord, through Moses, designated. In obeying these rules, the Israelite could then be satisfied that he had met the commandments accordingly, and could then petition the Lord for blessing…

¹⁵ Look down from Your holy habitation,

hashqipha mimeon qadshekha – “Look down from habitation your holy.” Here is a new word, maon, or “habitation.” It signifies a dwelling place. It can refer to the dwelling place of the Lord, the home of a man, the den of an animal, and so on. The words of this clause are then explained by the next…

^{15 (con’t)} from heaven,

min ha’shemayim – “from the heavens.” The Lord is above, even if his tabernacle is among Israel – be it in Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon, or Jerusalem. He dwells in the heavens, and the request is for Him to look down from there and notice the obedience of His people and to respond…

^{15 (con’t)} and bless Your people Israel

The way the words are structured, it both unites the two objects while having one define the other: u-barekh eth amekha eth Yisrael – “and bless [in the direction of] Your people, [in the direction of] Israel.” Thus, it is affirming that “Your people” are, in fact, “Israel.” And more…

^{15 (con’t)} and the land which You have given us,

v’eth ha’adamah asher nathatah lanu – “And [in the direction of] the ground which You have given to us.” This is a specific request for blessing upon the ground, meaning the soil.

In other words, “You have blessed us with the produce of the ground. We have divided out the holy portion, and we have handled the holy portion according to the instructions You have provided. As such, we ask that you bless the ground from which it came, so that we can then repeat the process according to Your goodness…”

^{15 (con’t)} just as You swore to our fathers, “a land flowing with milk and honey.”’

This is now the fourth of six times this particular phrase is used in Deuteronomy. The word here is different than the preceding clause. There, it spoke of the ground. Here it speaks of the land, meaning the territory, which comprises Israel’s inheritance. The petition is for the ground to prosper in the land in which the Lord said it would prosper.

The Lord promised a land of blessing and abundance, that has been received, and in their obedience to the word, it is petitioned for continued blessing from the land. With that, the long, detailed, and meticulous words concerning the tithes of Israel come to a close. If you missed the previous sermons which built up to this section, it would be worth your time to go back and watch each in order.

So now, you are fully versed on the matter. If you have a pastor (Chinsy Chadwick) who pushes tithing, you are to tell him it is an Old Testament, Law of Moses, precept. If he says, “But tithing predates the law and thus falls under the law of first mention,” you are instructed on how to correct his thinking.

And if he still insists on tithing, then tell him that he must only expect ten percent every third year, and you will think of him and toss him a bone while you are partying with your other two years of tithes. Or, better, find a church where grace is taught in all matters and forget those who pick and choose what they will and will not teach that is in accordance with proper doctrine.

I will rejoice in the Lord my God
I will bless His holy name at all times
Giving thanks to Him along life’s path I trod
Blessing Him in my heart, with songs and rhymes

I will offer my offering as is just and right
And I will do so without compulsion, but with joy in heart
My hand will be open, not shut up tight
Praises and blessings and honor to Him, and that is just the start

How the Lord has blessed my soul
And I shall forever be grateful to Him for this
Towards Him shall I all of my praises roll
And never a chance to praise Him shall I miss

II. His Special People (verses 16-19)

¹⁶ “This day the Lord your God commands you to observe these statutes and judgments;

The words are more precise, saying, “the statutes, these, and the judgments.” He has carefully set forth the two as being required but being different things.

As far as the term, “this day,” Moses has used it numerous times already in Deuteronomy. Each speaks of the timeframe of the giving out of the laws he set forth, not necessarily any single day.

The words now sum up the body of law that has been given so far by him. A new flavor of words, and a new direction in what is stated will come forth starting in Chapter 27, and so what Moses says here serves as a closing thought to this section.

In saying, “This day the Lord commands you,” it is not merely saying, “Ok, today the Lord is telling you these things.” Rather, it is a way of saying, “This is your law. Each day that you live under it, you are commanded to observe what is herein stated.”

Taken from the hearer’s perspective, it isn’t just, “Moses told us while we were by the Jordan to do these things.” Rather, it is “Moses is telling us, right now, to do these things.” This is why the prophets could speak of the law as “right now” when they spoke to Israel. And this is why Jesus spoke to the people in the same manner –

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
²⁶ He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
²⁷ So he answered and said, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
²⁸ And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.” Luke 10:25-28

The law was given, and it continued to be given from itself to the people. As such…

^{16 (con’t)} therefore you shall be careful to observe them

The words now refer back to “the statutes, these, and the judgments” of the previous clause. Moses says, “and you shall keep, and you shall do.” The statutes are to be kept, and the judgments are to be obeyed.

But, as seen elsewhere, this is not just rote observance that Moses is calling for. There is to be both an appreciation of who gave them, and a willingness to observe them because of who He is. As such, Israel is to keep and do them…

^{16 (con’t)} with all your heart and with all your soul.

One can love in varying degrees. What the Lord calls for is to love Him entirely, both with the intellect and reason, and also with that which animates the person in his walk before the Lord.

To be fully obedient to the law with one’s intellect (meaning the heart) but without the soul (that which animates him), reveals a person who sees the law as a means to an end. “I will obey the law as it is written, and it will be my means of salvation, even if I don’t excel at it. I will just do what is necessary.”

To be obedient to the law with one’s soul (that which animates the person in deed and action) but not with the heart (the intellect) reveals a person filled with pride concerning his accomplishment of the law, even without any true regard for the Lord. His deeds are rote observance and legalistic. He crosses every i and dots every t… wait, switch that. And because he is so good at doing it, he can look down on others. He is like the Pharisee.

A person who observes the law with the heart and the soul is a person who is both in love with the law, and who desires to live out the law because of the One who gave him the law.

Such a person, because he both wants to do the law, and who aggressively tries to do the law, will also be the person who knows he fails in fulfilling the law. But, in his knowledge of this, he knows that his efforts are not futile because the law provides for his failings.

¹⁷ Today you have proclaimed the Lord to be your God,

The translation by the NKJV is possible, but more likely the words are causative: eth Yehovah he-emarta ha’yom lihyot lekha l’elohim – “Yehovah you have caused to say today to you to be to God.” In other words, “Today, you have caused Yehovah to say to you that He will be your God.”

This doesn’t mean they actually caused it, but by agreeing to the covenant, it has brought them into a legal standing with Him to be their God. As a consequence of this, the obligation then rests on Israel to meet their obligations to Him…

^{17 (con’t)} and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments, and His judgments, and that you will obey His voice.

It more precisely reads in three successive thoughts, “[1] and to walk in His ways, [2] and to keep His statutes and His commandments and His judgments, and [3] and to hear His voice.” To walk in His ways is to emulate Him, e.g. – “You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:45).

To keep His statutes, commandments, and judgments, is to be obedient to Him, e.g. – “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again” (Deuteronomy 22:4).

To hear His voice is to hearken unto what He says, e.g. – “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: ‘Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place’” (Jeremiah 7:3).

Each aspect is a part of the expected whole. The covenant begins with Moses, but it does not end with Him. Thus, the words here are wholly dependent on the coming of Messiah. The Lord has spoken the words wholly in the singular – “you Israel.”

Because of this, and because the word is new every day to the people, the words must be fulfilled every day. Any day they are not so fulfilled is the failure of Israel to meet the demands of this verse – meaning they never could, ever. As such, the anticipation is the True Israel – Messiah – who would do what Israel is unable to do.

That is more assuredly evidenced in the next words…

¹⁸ Also today the Lord has proclaimed you to be His special people,

Again, the words are causative: v’Yehovah he-emirekha ha’yom lihyot lo l’am segulah – “And Yehovah has caused you to say today to be to Him to people possession.” In the agreement of the covenant, the people are caused to agree to the Lord – “We are your special possession.”

The word is segulah. It signifies possession or property, coming from an unused root meaning “to shut up” as in wealth. One would take something precious, like treasure, and shut it up and keep it close by. Thus, it is variously translated as peculiar treasure, possession, jewels, special possession, and so on.

As far as the translation, the Lord “caused” you to say, it’s not that the Lord actually made them say it, but in the offer of the covenant, and in its acceptance, the statement is affirmed. This idea of being His possession was first promised in Exodus 19 –

“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.” Exodus 19:5

It was then restated in Deuteronomy 7 –

“For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.” Deuteronomy 7:6

To get what is being said, and it is complicated, you would need to review the Deuteronomy 7 sermon. Israel is a holy people, even if they act in an unholy manner. God has set them apart as holy, that does not change. But they still must be holy, a state that is dependent on their actions. That is then seen in the next words…

^{18 (con’t)} just as He promised you, that you should keep all His commandments,

More precisely: “According to which He spoke to you, and to keep all His commandments.” The covenant was made, Israel was caused to be His people, just as the Lord spoke to him, which is based upon 1) His declaration of them as a holy (set apart) people, and 2) the keeping of the commandments.

But Israel consistently failed to keep the commandments, even to this day they fail to do so. In order to be set apart as holy, and to be actually holy, Israel must keep the commandments. But in failing to do so, there is a disconnect.

That disconnect remained and remains without Messiah. But in Messiah, that disconnect no longer exists. This is not because of their keeping of the commandments, but because of His. That final and glorious state is seen in the final verse of the Chapter…

¹⁹ and that He will set you high above all nations which He has made,

u-l’titekha elyon al kal ha’goyim asher asah – “And He will set you uppermost above all the nations which He has made.” It is not that Israel will just be above the nations, but at the very top of them.” The word Moses uses, elyon, is used to describe the Lord God at times, el elyon, or “God Most High.”

As this has never been fulfilled, then it is a messianic verse which anticipates what lies ahead, even now. Its fulfillment is prophesied by Isaiah –

“Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
³ Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
⁴ He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.” Isaiah 2:2-4

The fact that Christ has come, and that He has called for Himself a special people in the church, does not negate a literal fulfillment of these prophecies. The promises are to Israel, and they will be fulfilled. This is not for their sake, but for His toward them…

^{19 (con’t)} in praise, in name, and in honor,

lithilah, u-l’shem, u-l’tipharet – “to praise, to name, to beauty.” Jeremiah uses these same words, saying –

“‘For as the sash clings to the waist of a man, so I have caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me,’ says the Lord, ‘that they may become My people, for renown, for praise, and for glory; but they would not hear.’” Jeremiah 13:11

The covenant was made, and the Lord bound Israel to it, like a sash upon Himself. But despite His efforts, they would not do exactly as is conveyed in these words of Deuteronomy.

Thus, there is the need for something new, something better, in order to resolve the dilemma. Israel could not help but to fail. The infection of sin is too deep. But the promises will be fulfilled, not through their effort, but through His. We can look back on this and know it now, but for them – even to this day – it is all about them…

*^19 (fin) and that you may be a holy people to the Lord your God, just as He has spoken.”

Jeremiah shows that Israel failed in this. Peter, speaking to the Jews who have come to Christ, cites a combination of the words of verses 18 and 19 in his first epistle, saying –

“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; ¹⁰ who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.” 1 Peter 2:9, 10

Paul uses the same word in Ephesians 1:14 concerning the Gentiles who have been brought into the commonwealth of Israel. We have become a possession of the Lord through obedience to, meaning calling on, Christ. More directly, however, Paul uses the phrase in Titus 2 –

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, ¹² teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, ¹³ looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.” Titus 2:11-14

These words of the New Testament clearly show that the church fills a special role, but it does not necessarily follow then that the church has replaced Israel. The church – those of Jews and Gentiles – are received as a people, but Israel – the nation – has been selected as a special people.

The church has a mission to perform during this dispensation, but Israel still has the right to the prophecies spoken to her that will come to pass in their due time. The Gentile-led church is grafted into the commonwealth of Israel, but it does not replace the nation in the process. We simply share in the good that has been promised to them.

When Israel, as a nation, calls out to Christ, that promised day will come, and the words of these verses, and of the prophets to come, will come to pass. As far as when this will take place, that is at the Lord’s discretion and the matter belongs to Him alone. But because the people have been rejoined with the land, that day is closer than most probably realize.

Those who understand the times in which we live can look to Israel and know that God has it all under control. Christ Jesus is the key to the entire scenario, both the current state of things as well as the prophetic scenario that is waiting to be unfolded and realized in its fulness.

The wonder and marvel of both sections of our verses today is that God is doing something wonderful in the world – reconciling man to Himself through the offering of His Son. The types, patterns, covenants, and promises are all based on this thought.

The glory of God in Christ is the glory of God above, in, and through creation. All of the glory of God that we can, or ever will perceive, is because of what He has done through Him. Praise be to God for Jesus Christ our Lord.

Closing Verse: “‘At that time I will bring you back,
Even at the time I gather you;
For I will give you fame and praise
Among all the peoples of the earth,
When I return your captives before your eyes,’
Says the Lord.” Zephaniah 3:20

Next Week: Deuteronomy 27:1-10 To build this is a lot of work… grunts and groans (An Altar of Stones) (75^th Deuteronomy Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. But He also has expectations of you as He prepares you for entrance into His Land of Promise. So, follow Him and trust Him and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

The Third Year – The Year of Tithing

“When you have finished laying aside
All the tithe of your increase in the third year
———-the year of tithing, so it is billed
And have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless
———-and the widow
So that they may eat within your gates and be filled

Then you shall say before the LORD your God:
‘I have removed the holy tithe from my house, as told to do
And also have given them to the Levite
To the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow too

According to all Your commandments
Which You have commanded me
I have not transgressed Your commandments
Nor have I forgotten them, as you can see

I have not eaten any of it when in mourning
Nor have I removed any of it for an unclean use
———-nor given any of it for the dead
I have obeyed the voice of the LORD my God
And have done according to all that You have commanded me
———-just as You have said

Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless
Your people Israel and the land which You have given us
Just as You swore to our fathers
‘A land flowing with milk and honey
———-blessings and blessings and plus, plus, plus

“This day the LORD your God commands you
To observe these statutes and judgments, not in part but in whole
Therefore you shall be careful to observe them
With all your heart and with all your soul

Today you have proclaimed the LORD to be your God
And that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes
———- such has been your choice
His commandments, and His judgments
And that you will obey His voice

Also today the LORD has proclaimed you
To be His special people, just as He promised you
That you should keep all His commandments
So you are to do

And that He will set you high above all nations
Which He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor
———- such shall be the token
And that you may be a holy people to the LORD your God
Just as He has spoken

Lord God, turn our hearts to be obedient to Your word
Give us wisdom to be ever faithful to You
May we carefully heed each thing we have heard
Yes, Lord God may our hearts be faithful and true

And we shall be content and satisfied in You alone
We will follow You as we sing our songs of praise
Hallelujah to You; to us Your path You have shown
Hallelujah we shall sing to You for all of our days

Hallelujah and Amen…

In ancient Israel, God instructed His people to set aside a special tithe to assist those in need, such as orphans, widows, strangers, and Levites (Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 26:12-15).

Today, the church meets its Christian duty toward its needy brethren through the third-tithe program. This tithe is additional and entirely separate from the first tithe (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:21-24), which supports God’s work of preaching the gospel. Like the first tithe, the third tithe is a full ten percent of a person’s increase. Yet, while the first tithe is paid year by year, the third tithe is paid only on the increase earned during the third and sixth years of a seven-year period.

A person should begin counting the third-tithe years soon after he gains the knowledge of it. Since most members of the church learn about this tithe just prior to baptism, they count their third-tithe years from either the Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles closest to the date of their baptism. Some decide to count it from the actual date of their baptism. Whichever way one chooses, it should be adhered to.

In some cases, the individual may give his third tithe to a near relative. A widowed mother, sister, or daughter, for example, would qualify under the guidelines set out in Deuteronomy 14 and 26. Orphans in a similar category would also qualify.

Another option is to send the third tithe to the church office for distribution, since the ministry often knows who the truly needy are among the congregations. When sending third tithe to the church, please indicate clearly that it is third tithe so it will be used appropriately.

The third tithe is God’s way of taking care of those who are in need. Many have learned by experience that God blesses those who faithfully follow His instructions (Deuteronomy 26:12-15).

The Bible’s 8 Dispensations

The list and descriptions that follow are a summary of the eight dispensations of the Bible. It is all of our story, and God’s plan for humanity.

1. The dispensation of innocence began with the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:26. This dispensation ended with God’s judgment on both Adam and his wife Eve in the Garden in Eden, in Genesis 3:22. God created them innocent and provided perfect living conditions for them. Adam and Eve were instructed to tend to the garden and have fellowship with God during this dispensation. Adam and Eve were created innocent by God, but they were only deemed innocent until they were tested. Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden and were found to be guilty of sin. Because of their sin the whole earth was judged by God and cursed. This ended the dispensation of innocence.
2. The dispensation of conscience begins with the fall of man in Genesis 3:23 and concludes in Genesis 8:19 with the global flood. During this time period there was no written law for man to live by, so man lived by his conscience. The fault of this dispensation is made evident in the well known story of Cain and Abel. Cain is given to anger because of his brother Abel’s more suitable sacrifice to the Lord. Cain’s jealousy led him to kill his brother Abel. With no written word or law to follow, Cain followed his skewed conscience. Like Cain, the human race fell into wickedness and sinful practices as a result of following their conscience. This diminishing of mankind brought about the famous worldwide flood that destroyed all mankind except for eight people that boarded an ark built by Noah.
3. The dispensation of human government began in Genesis 8:15 with Noah and his family. It ended in Genesis 11:1-9 when God came down and confused men’s language at the building of the tower of babel. During this dispensation, God instructed man to replenish and fill the earth. To spread out across the globe and govern what God had created. Capital punishment was implemented during this time period and man was to create righteous laws to live by. Man, did not obey God’s commands. Instead of scattering abroad, man came together and tried to build a tower that would reach into the heavens. This was in direct rebellion to God. In conclusion, God had to confuse man’s language in order to stop them from building the tower and scatter throughout the earth as he instructed.
4. The dispensation of promise began after the tower of babel story in Genesis 11:10. It concluded with the death of Joseph and Israel’s captivity in Egypt, found in Genesis 50:26. During this dispensation the whole world was following after idols and worshiping them. Man’s heart was evil and wicked. God then singled out a man named Abraham and promised to give him as many descendants as there are stars in the sky. Abraham was to be the father of a great nation. This nation was Israel. God Promised Abraham land farther than the eye could see and worldwide blessings. Israel was instructed to obey God, serve Him, and stay in the land that was given to them in order to keep receiving His blessing but they did not. As a result, the nation of Israel ended up as slaves in Egypt.
5. The dispensation of Israel began while the Jews were held captive in Egypt. This is where God began to deal with his chosen people. The dispensation will end when Christ comes back to the earth at His second coming and He sets up His literal kingdom on the earth. During this dispensation, God gave a man named Moses the law. This law was to govern man throughout the entire old testament all the way to the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. But the nation of Israel rebelled against the law and against serving God. After Jesus was crucified, the Jewish nation rejected God’s Messiah even though God had given them opportunities to repent. It is during this time period that God sent His message of mercy and saving grace to the gentiles and all who would accept His Messiah. God’s prophetic time clock for the nation of Israel has been on hold during this church age or the “age of grace” but He will continue His dealings with them at the conclusion of the dispensation of grace.
6. The dispensation of grace began with Israel’s rejection of the Messiah. Because Israel would not accept the sacrifice of God’s Lamb, He dispensed His grace to the gentile world. During this time period we no longer live under the laws that God gave to Moses. All those who have accepted God’s Messiah and His sacrifice at the cross, live in God’s grace through faith. This time of grace was hidden since the beginning of the world and was revealed to the Apostle Paul. God would now deal with people individually and no longer through a nation. This dispensation will end when God raptures the church prior to the tribulation period, or the “time of Jacob’s troubles.”
7. The dispensation of millennium is the one-thousand-year rule and reign of Christ Jesus on earth. This dispensation was prophesied in the old testament through many of God’s chosen prophets. Revelation 20:1-6 details this event. In this time period, Jesus will be King over all things and will rule from a visible throne on the earth. This dispensation is a fulfillment of promises that God made to the nation of Israel. That they would have an earthly kingdom and God would be their King. The Lord’s throne will be located in Jerusalem and He will gather all the Jews back to their homeland. The curse will be broken during this time and nature will be restored. Satan will be held captive in the bottomless pit for the entire thousand-year reign. At the end of this dispensation, Satan will be loosed once more to deceive the nations and some will choose to follow him. In the end, Satan and all that serve him will be cast in to the lake of fire forever. He will never be able to tempt anyone again.
8. The dispensation of the fullness of times is the final dispensation of the Bible. It is outlined in Revelation 21 and 22. It begins with the end of Christ’s millennial kingdom and the Lord brings in a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus makes all things new, for all that was will have passed away. Everything in heaven and earth will finally be reconciled to God. There will be no more pain, sickness, or fear, in this new heaven and earth. The new city Jerusalem will be on the new earth in all its beauty. There will be no sun or moon in this new setting because Jesus will be our light. There will be kings and nations on the new earth along with the river of life and the tree of life. This dispensation will finally fulfill God’s promise to the nation of Israel. All those who have trusted in Christ Jesus’ finished work at the cross have a heavenly home and heavenly blessings where the Lord God Himself will live among them.

The dispensation time we live in today is what is referred to as the church age. It is rightly called the age of grace. This is not because God’s grace has not been manifested in other ages or dispensations but because in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ we have the ultimate manifestation of God’s grace. Grace is Jesus Christ and without Him there is no grace.

What is dispensational theology?

Dispensational theology, also known as dispensationalism, is an evangelical theological system that divides history into distinct periods, each characterized by a specific way in which God interacts with humanity. Let’s explore its key features:

1. Distinct Dispensations:
   • Dispensationalism views history as a series of dispensations, each marked by a unique pattern of God’s work. These dispensations are divinely appointed ages that order the affairs of the world.
   • Each dispensation has its own set of rules, responsibilities, and expectations for humanity.
2. Literal Interpretation of Scripture:
   • Dispensationalists emphasize a consistently literal interpretation of the Bible, especially when it comes to Bible prophecy.
   • They believe that each word in Scripture should be understood in its everyday usage, allowing for symbols, figures of speech, and types. However, even symbols have literal meanings behind them.
   • For example, when Revelation 20 speaks of “a thousand years,” dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom).
3. Distinct Peoples of God:
   • Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church.
   • Salvation has always been by grace through faith alone, whether in God (Old Testament) or specifically in God the Son (New Testament).
   • The Church has not replaced Israel in God’s program, and the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church.
4. Israel’s Unique Role:
   • Dispensationalists affirm the uniqueness of Israel in God’s plan. They believe that God’s promises to Israel (such as land, descendants, and blessings) will ultimately be fulfilled during the 1,000-year period described in Revelation 20.

In summary, dispensationalism provides a framework for understanding God’s dealings with humanity throughout history, emphasizing literal interpretation and recognizing the distinct roles of Israel and the Church

Augustine’s AMILLENIALISM

Article contributed by http://www.walvoord.com

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Augustine in the history of theology. Not only did his thinking crystallize the theology which preceded him, but to a large extent he laid the foundations for both Catholic and Protestant doctrine.

B. B. Warfield, quoting Harnack, refers to Augustine as “incomparably the greatest man whom, ‘between Paul the Apostle and Luther the Reformer, the Christian Church has possessed.’“1 While the contribution of Augustine is principally noted in the areas of the doctrine of the church, hamartiology, the doctrine of grace, and predestination, he is also the greatest landmark in the early history of amillennialism.

The importance of Augustine to the history of amillennialism is derived from two reasons. First, there are no acceptable exponents of amillennialism before Augustine, as has been previously discussed. Prior to Augustine, amillennialism was associated with the heresies produced by the allegorizing and spiritualizing school of theology at Alexandria which not only opposed premillennialism but subverted any literal exegesis of Scripture whatever. Few modern theologians even of liberal schools of thought would care to build upon the theology of such men as Clement of Alexandria, Origen or Dionysius. Augustine is, then, the first theologian of solid influence who adopted amillennialism.

The second reason for the importance of Augustinian amillennialism is that his viewpoint became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Church, and it was adopted with variations by most of the Protestant Reformers along with many other teachings of Augustine. The writings of Augustine, in fact, occasioned the shelving of premillennialism by most of the organized church. The study of Augustine on the millennial question is a necessary introduction to the doctrine as a whole.

In the current discussion of the millennial question the restudy of Augustine is especially apropos. Here we have one of the first great theologians of the Roman Church recognized by both Catholic and Protestant as an original thinker and solid contributor to the doctrine of Christendom. The fact that Augustine was amillennial in his viewpoint is noted with pride by modern amillennialists to show that their position is historic and a part of the central teaching of the church. Allis, for instance, loses no time in his attack on premillennialism to point out in the second page of his volume that Augustinian amillennialism was the norm for the church of the middle ages.2 While the significance of much of the material relating to the millennium in writers before Augustine is hotly debated, Augustine is perfectly clear in his position—the general facts of his position are not disputed. We have then concrete teaching which can be treated objectively.

In the previous study in postmillennialism, the current decline of postmillennialism was traced to certain specific factors:

(1) its principle of spiritualizing the meaning of Scripture;

(2) its trend toward liberalism;

(3) its failure to fit the facts of history;

(4) a trend toward realism in philosophy;

(5) the present trend toward amillennialism.

As postmillennialism is suitable for a test case for the principles of the millennial issue as a whole, so Augustinian amillennialism is suitable as a test case for amillennialism. In other words,

1. Does the viewpoint of Augustine demonstrate a proper method of interpreting Scripture?
2. Does it provide a basis for liberalism?
3. Does it fit the facts of history?
4. Does it fit the trend of modern thought?

While all of these questions are not decisive, it is clear that the question of method of interpreting Scripture, relation to liberalism and fulfillment in history are important bases for judgment of Augustine’s views on the millennium. It is proposed to take his doctrine, which is considered normative amillennialism, and make it a test for the doctrine as a whole.

Augustine on the Millennium

Augustine’s concept of the millennium is not difficult to grasp nor are the major facts subject to dispute, Augustine conceived of the present age as a conflict between the City of God and the City of Satan, or the conflict between the church and the world. This was viewed as moving on to the ultimate triumph of the church to be climaxed by a tremendous struggle in which the church would be apparently defeated, only to consummate in a tremendous triumph in the second coming of Christ to the earth.

Augustine held that the present age of conflict is the millennium. Following as he did the chronology of the LXX which is somewhat longer than Ussher’s chronology in the Old Testament, he found that the Christian era is the sixth millennium from creation.

This age apparently began somewhat before Christ, according to chronology, but Satan in any case was bound, as Allis states, during the lifetime of Christ on earth (Luke 10:18).3

Augustine puts it, “This binding of Satan began when the church began to spread from Judaea into other regions, and lasts yet, and shall do until his time be expired.”4

Augustine considered the progress of the millennium in his day (400 A.D.) well advanced and predicted the consummation would occur in the year 650.5

Augustine, however, qualifled his datesetting. He states: “In vain therefore do we try to reckon the remainder of the world’s years…. Some say that, it shall last four hundred, some five hundred, some a thousand years after the ascension. Everyone has his view, it were vain to try to show on what grounds.”6

Augustine’s interpretation of Revelation 20 is not very specific. As in his entire discussion of this doctrine, the treatment is cursory and brief. He discusses Revelation 20 in three or four pages and dismisses without any real argument the literal view.

In fact, Augustine, like many others, does not seem to grasp the principles involved. His reason for avoiding the literal view is reduced to one reason—some had made the millennium a time of carnal enjoyment, a view which Augustine rightly opposed. As Augustine himself put it: “This opinion [a future literal millenium after the resurrection] might be allowed, if it proposed only spiritual delight unto the saints during this space (and we were once of the same opinion ourselves); but seeing the avouchers hereof affirm that the saints after this resurrection shall do nothing but revel in fleshly banquets, where the cheer shall exceed both modesty and measure, this is gross and fit for none but carnal men to believe. But they that are really and truly spiritual do call those of this opinion Chiliasts.”7 Thus on trivial grounds Augustine abandons the literal interpretation of Revelation 20. Somehow, for all his genius, he did not see that he could abandon this false teaching without abandoning the doctrine of a literal millennium.

In spite of adopting a spiritualized interpretation of Revelation 20, Augustine hews closely to a literal interpretation of the time element—it would be a literal 1000 years. Instead of a future millennium however, he considered it already present. Revelation 20 was, then, a recapitulation of the present age which Augustine held was portrayed in the earlier chapters of Revelation. The present age, for Augustine, is the millennium promised in Revelation 20. Augustine, however, also held to a future millennium, to round out the seven millenniums from Adam which he held comprised the history of man. This future millennium, he held, was not literal but is synonymous with eternity—a use of the number in a symbolic sense only.

In Augustine, then, we have specific and concrete teaching on the millennium.8 There is no future millennium in the ordinary meaning of the term. The present age is the millennium; Satan is bound now; when Christ returns the present millennium will close, the future millennium or eternity will begin. It remains, now, to test this teaching in its principles, implications, and fulfillment.

The Principle of Spiritualized Interpretation

It is clear that in arriving at his conclusion regarding the millennium Augustine used the principle of spiritualizing Scripture freely. While he did not use this principle in interpreting Scripture relating to predestination, hamartiology, salvation, or grace, he found it suitable for interpreting prophecy.

A candid examination of his interpretation leaves the examiner with the impression that Augustine did not give a reasonable exegesis of Scripture involved.

Augustine’s doctrine that Satan is bound in this age—an essential of his system of interpretation—is a notable illustration of spiritualized and strained exegesis (cf. Luke 10:18 and Revelation 20:2-3).

Nothing is clearer from Scripture, the history of the church, and Christian experience than that Satan is exceedingly active in this present age against both Christians and unbelievers. Ananias is declared to have his heart filled with Satan (Acts 5:3). The one to be disciplined in the Corinthian church is delivered unto Satan (1 Cor 5:5; cf. 1 Tim 1:20). The Christian is constantly warned against Satan’s temptations (1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14 ; etc.). Paul declares that he is sorely tried by the buffeting of the messenger of Satan (2 Cor 12:7).

While the Christian can have victory over Satan, there is no evidence whatever that Satan is inactive or bound. It is no wonder that Warfield, though a disciple of Augustine, completely abandons this idea of Augustine as far as earth is concerned and limits it to the idea that “saints described are removed from the sphere of Satan’s assaults,”9 i.e., Satan is bound in respect to heaven only. While Warfield’s explanation is no more sensible than Augustine’s as far as an exegesis of the Scriptures is concerned, it at least accords with the facts of church history. It can be stated flatly that Augustine’s exegesis is an outright error as far as the binding of Satan is concerned.

The exegesis of Augustine on Revelation 20 as a whole fares no better. After concluding that the binding of Satan is synonymous with the victory of Christ in His first advent, he draws the strained conclusion that the “first resurrection” of Revelation 20:5 is the spiritual birth of believers. The context in Revelation 20:4 makes it perfectly clear that as far as this passage goes those who are “raised” are those who “were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads.” The subject of the passage is not the living but the dead; not the church as a whole, but the martyrs only. To spiritualize this portion of Scripture to make it conform to the course of the present age is to destroy all its plain literary meaning. Augustine’s view required also, of course, the spiritualization of the many Old Testament passages bearing on the future righteous kingdom on earth, and this he does in his treatment of the Old Testament.

Augustine’s Concept of the Present Age

It is central to Augustine’s theology that he regards the church as ultimately triumphant. While his viewpoint varies somewhat from postmillennial theology, the similarities are so marked that some have taken Augustine to be postmillennial.

Like the postmillennialist, Augustine regarded the present age as a progressive triumph culminating in the second advent and the final judgment of men. He differed from the postmillennialists only in matter of the degree of that triumph. As Augustine held the millennium was already three-fourths past when he lived, he found it necessary to account for the widespread evidence of sin in his day and the comparative inadequacy of the church to bring in a golden age of righteousness. He accordingly did not claim that the present age was a literal fulfillment of the promised age of righteousness, but was rather a time of conflict in which evil often seemed to have the upper hand. Like the postmillenarians, however, he did not doubt that ultimately righteousness would triumph.

While Augustine’s predictions of continued struggle and conflict have been abundantly fulfilled to the present day, there is little evidence that there has been any progress toward the ultimate goal. It is significant that many present-day amillennialists have further retreated from the predictions of triumph and are content to leave a golden age to eternity future or limited to heaven. Premillennialists will not necessarily disagree with Augustine’s basic idea of conflict in the present age nor with the idea that the second atdvent will signal the coming of righteousness to the earth, but they will attach a different meaning to both the present age and the second advent.

The Failure of Fulfillment
The test of any system of interpretation is its correspondence to the facts of history. This is especially true in interpretation of prophecy. The question may fairly be asked whether the history of the church and the world since Augustine has given any confirmation of the essentials of his interpretation.

The Augustinian concept of the binding of Satan has already been shown to be without Scriptural or historical warrant. Certainly there has been no real change in the working of Satan in the world and plainly no lack of activity of Satanic forces. The concept of progress and a triumphant church, while not stressed by Augustine in the postmillennial way, falls far short of fulfillment or even significant attainment. The Christian era has been no golden age of righteousness nor has the church conquered the world. It is more accurate to recognize that the world has to a large degree possessed the church.

One feature of Augustinian millennialism has notably failed. Augustine, as has been previously brought out, considered the coming of Christ within one thousand years after the ascension an essential of his system. So impressed was Augustine with the necessity of interpreting literally the six references to the one thousand years in Revelation 20 that he departed from his otherwise spiritualization of the passage to assert it. Because of his involvement with the theory that the entire history of man would be finished within seven millenniums, he considered it entirely possible that the sixth millennium, the last in ordinary world history, had already begun when Christ was born. Based on calculations from chronology of the LXX, Augustine concluded that the second advent would occur in the year 650 A.D.10 This would seem the most flagrant date-setting one could imagine. In fairness to Augustine, however, it should be said that he is not arbitrary and recognized the possibility of error in the system of chronology which he followed. At the outside, nevertheless, the second advent would certainly occur within one thousand years of the ascension.11 Augustine was positive that in any case the millennium was started no later than the ascension and would last no longer than one thousand years.

The year 650 came and went with no notable events to fulfill the promise in Augustine’s teaching. Attention was soon fastened on the year 1000 A.D. The belief was widespread that the second advent would occur on this date. As Kromminga points out, not only at the year 1000, but also in the year 1044, and again in 1065, when Good Friday happened to concide with the Day of Annunciation, there was hope that the second advent would occur on Good Friday.12 The expectation of the church based on Augustinian eschatology was not fulfilled, and it became evident that by no stretch of the imagination was the Augustinian teaching to be considered fulfilled. For a time they could hope they were in the “little season” (Rev 20:3), but as the years wore away this became increasingly untenable. Both of Augustine’s suggestions—the year 650 and the year 1000 or thereafter—were obsolete.

Two major viewpoints eventuated out of the welter of speculation which continued to regard the coming of Christ as an imminent event. The postmillennial idea that the millennium was literal but would begin someday after the time of Christ had many adherents. All sorts of starting points were suggested. Even to modern times postmillennialists were wont to start the millennium at such time as to bring its consummation in their lifetime. Hengstenberg, for instance, began the millennium in the ninth century, which would bring the second advent in his lifetime. Others began the millennium in more recent times. Allis cites Durham as dating its beginning in 1560.13 Normal postmillennialism follows Whitby, however, in finding the entire millennium or golden age still future. Both Roman Catholic and Reformed scholars were in total confusion as far as arriving at an agreed teaching on this matter. A popular and more tenable position was adopted by some who spiritualized the time element of the millennium along with the teachings which relate to it. Undoubtedly this is a more consistent position even if it leaves the passage indefinite. In any case the outstanding feature of Augustinian amillennialism which captured the church and caused the eclipse of premillennialism proved to be a total failure in the history of the church. There was absolutely nothing to confirm the Augustinian view of the millennium in the centuries which followed him. If the law of fulfillment is essential to establish an interpretation, the Augustinian view is tried and found wanting.

The Amillennialism of the Protestant Reformation
The Roman Church did not make any significant advance in the doctrine after Augustine, and Protestant teachings did not fare much better. Without attempting within the limited discussion possible here an analysis of the whole Protestant Reformation, it is safe to conclude that the early years of Protestantism saw little if any advance over the Augustinian view. It is clear that the great Protestant leaders such as Calvin, Luther, and Melanchthon are properly classed as amillennial. As far as millennial teaching was concerned, they were content to follow the Roman Church in a weakened Augustinian viewpoint. Calvin’s discussion of the millennium is a fair sample of the attitude of the Reformers. They treated the doctrine superficially and arbitrarily, making the view ridiculous by misrepresentation. Calvin, for instance, has this to say: “…not long after arose the Millenarians, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Their fiction is too puerile to require or deserve refutation. Nor does the Revelation, which they quote in favour of their error, afford them any support; for the term of a thousand years, there mentioned, refers not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, but to the various agitations which awaited the Church in its militant state upon earth. But the whole Scripture proclaims that there will be no end of the happiness of the elect, or the punishment of the reprobate…. Those who assign the children of God a thousand years to enjoy the inheritance of the future life, little think what dishonour they cast on Christ and his kingdom.”14 While Augustine discarded premillennialism because he took a carnal interpretation of the millennium as essential to the view, Calvin commits a greater error in assigning to the premillennial view a limited eternity of one millennium. Neither view would be claimed by any thinking premillennialist of our day. One can wonder what Augustine and Calvin would do with the complete system of premillennial teaching available in modern times.

Modern Amillennialism
Because of the analytic treatment of amillennialism from a modern viewpoint, which will follow, it will be sufficient here to observe the broad trend of amillennialism in modern times. For the most part amillennialists of today such as Allis and Berkhof claim to follow in the hallowed tradition of Augustine while admitting the need for adjustment of his view to the actual modern situation. A new type of amillennialism has arisen, however, of which Warfield can be taken as an example which is actually a totally new type of amillennialism. Allis traces this view to Duesterdieck (1859) and Kliefoth (1874)15 and analyzes it as a reversal of the fundamental Augustinian theory that Revelation 20 was a recapitulation of the church age. The new view instead follows the line of teaching that the millennium is distinct from the church age though it precedes the second advent. To solve the problem of correlation of this interpretation with the hard facts of a world of unbelief and sin, they interpreted the millennium as a picture not of a time-period but of a state of blessedness of the saints in heaven.16 Warfield, with the acknowledged help of Kliefoth,17 defines the millennium in these words: “The vision, in one word, is a vision of the peace of those who have died in the Lord; and its message to us is embodied in the words of XIV.13: ‘Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth’—of which passage the present is indeed only an expansion. The picture that is brought before us here is, in fine, the picture of the ‘intermediate state’—of the saints of God gathered in heaven away from the confused noise and garments bathed in blood that characterize the war upon earth, in order that they may securely await the end.”18

Among amillennialists who are classified as conservative, there are, then, two principal viewpoints: (1) which finds fulfillment in the present age on earth in the church; (2) which finds fulfillment in heaven in the saints. The second more than the first requires spiritualization not only of Revelation 20 but of all the many Old Testament passages dealing with a golden age of a righteous kingdom on earth.

Such are the antecedents of modern amillennialism. It remains, now, to analyze this historic doctrine in its modern setting in the light of the Holy Scriptures. Both premillennialism and amillennialism have many honored and historic exponents. The question remains which view provides the best interpretation of the entire Word of God. Obviously the Scriptures do not teach both viewpoints; obviously this is not a trivial matter. The contemporary serious trend of studies in this direction while not always pure in motive finds justification in the significance of the question. What, after all, is the answer of amillennialism to the main issues of Christian doctrine? This is the question which is now to come before us.

Dallas, Texas

(Series to be continued in the January-March Number, 1950)

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

1 B. B. Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine, p. 114, citing in part Harnack, Monasticism and the Confessions of St. Augustine, p. 123.

2 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, pp. 2-5.

3 Allis, ibid., p. 3, “He held that the binding of Satan took place during the earthly ministry of our Lord (Lk. x.18 ).”

4 Augustine, City of God, XX, 8.

5 Cf. Allis, op. cit., p. 3.

6 Augustine, op. cit., XVIII, 53.

7 Augustine, ibid., XX, 7.

8 Cf. Augustine, ibid., XX; Allis, op. cit., pp. 3-5; D. H. Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church, pp. 108-113.

9 B. B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, p. 651.

10 Cf. Allis, op. cit., p. 3.

11 Augustine, op. cit., XVIII, 53.

12 Kromminga, op. cit., p. 117, citing Glaber, Erdmann, etc.

13 Allis, op. cit., p. 4.

14 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936), II, 250-51 (Book III, 25).

15 Allis, op. cit., p. 5.

16 Allis, loc. cit.

17 Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, pp. 643-44.

18 Warfield, ibid., p. 649.

FROM THE SERIES: MILLENNIAL SERIES

Bible Verses about Holiness

Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. 2 Corinthians 7:1

But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16

Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. Hebrews 12:14

How can a young person stay on the path of purity? By living according to your word. Psalm 119:9

He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time. 2 Timothy 1:9

Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalm 139:23-24

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus. Philippians 2:5

Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. Philippians 2:14-16a

You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own. Leviticus 20:26

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Ephesians 5:3

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Romans 12:1

There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 1 Samuel 2:2

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. Romans 6:22

For this is what the high and exalted One says— he who lives forever, whose name is holy:
“I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.” Isaiah 57:15

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48

Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 1 Corinthians 3:16

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. Romans 16:17

And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord. Ezekiel 38:23

Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. Amos 5:14

Praise the Lord, my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name. Psalm 103:1

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. Proverbs 9:10

It is a trap to dedicate something rashly and only later to consider one’s vows. Proverbs 20:25

I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes. Ezekiel 36:23

And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness; it will be for those who walk on that Way. The unclean will not journey on it; wicked fools will not go about on it. Isaiah 35:8

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter 2:9

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

BE CLEAN -Deuteronomy Chapter 14

1. (1) The command to abstain from pagan burial customs.

You are the children of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead.

a. You shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead: Among the pagan cultures surrounding Israel, it was common to cut one’s self, or shave the front of one’s head, for the dead – that is, as a part of pagan burial rituals.

i. “The cutting of the body and the shaving of the head were common mourning rites in the ancient Near East and are referred to in many places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 3:24; 15:2; 22:12; Jeremiah 16:6; 41:5; Ezekiel 7:18; Amos 8:10; Micah 1:16).” (Thompson)

ii. “The mutilation of the body persists still in some countries, e.g. in New Guinea, where a mourner, especially a woman, removes a joint of a finger, and in extreme cases, more than one finger joint.” (Thompson)

b. You are the children of the LORD your God: Among Christians today, there is something wrong if our burial customs are just as the rituals of the ungodly. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 4:13: But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. We may certainly mourn the passing of our loved ones, but as those who have eternal hope in Jesus, we should be different in our mourning.

2. (2) The principle behind the commands for separation.

For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

a. You are a holy people: The idea behind holy is “separate.” The people of Israel were a people separate unto the LORD. In Jesus, we also are a holy people: But you are… a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9).

b. The LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself: The people of Israel were chosen by God, to be His own special people. In Jesus, we also are a chosen people, special to God: But you are a chosen generation… His own special people (1 Peter 2:9).

c. A special treasure: The people of Israel were a special treasure to God. In Jesus, we also are a special treasure to God: We are His inheritance (Ephesians 1:18).

d. Above all the people who are on the face of the earth: Each of these glorious privileges carried with it a special responsibility. If God regarded Israel as something special among the nations, they had to conduct themselves as something special among the nations.

3. (3-21) The command to separate in regard to foods.

These are the animals which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the mountain goat, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. And you may eat every animal with cloven hooves, having the hoof split into two parts, and that chews the cud, among the animals. Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, such as these: the camel, the hare, and the rock hyrax; for they chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves; they are unclean for you. Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses. These you may eat of all that are in the waters: you may eat all that have fins and scales. And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you. All clean birds you may eat. But these you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the red kite, the falcon, and the kite after their kinds; every raven after its kind; the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the seagull, and the hawk after their kinds; the little owl, the screech owl, the white owl, the jackdaw, the carrion vulture, the fisher owl, the stork, the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat. Also every creeping thing that flies is unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. You may eat all clean birds. You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.

a. These are the animals which you may eat: Only certain mammals were allowed to be eaten, and the rule was simple. If an animal had a divided hoof (not a single hoof as a horse has), and chewed its cud, it could be eaten. For example, the camel, the rock hyrax, and the hare all chew the cud, but do not have divided hooves – instead, they have paws – so they are considered unkosher. Additionally, the swine has a divided hoof, but does not chew the cud – so it is considered unkosher.

b. These you may eat of all that are in the waters: Only certain sea creatures could be eaten, and the rule was simple. Any water creature having both fins and scales was kosher and could be eaten. Therefore, most fishes were considered clean – except a fish like the catfish, which has no scales. Shellfish would be unclean, because clams, crabs, oysters, and lobster all do not have fins and scales.

c. All clean birds you may eat: Only certain birds could be eaten; though there is no rule given to determine if a bird is clean or unclean, the specifically mentioned unclean birds (and flying creeping things) are either predators or scavengers; these were considered unclean.

i. Among these animals, they fall into one of three categories: predators (unclean because they ate both the flesh and the blood of animals), scavengers (unclean because they were carriers of disease, and they regularly contacted dead bodies), or potentially poisonous or dangerous foods such as shellfish and the like. Eliminating these from the diet of Israel no doubt had a healthy effect, and one of the reasons for the dietary laws of Israel was to keep Israel healthy!

d. You shall not eat anything that dies of itself: If any animal dies of itself, it has not been properly bled; therefore, it is unkosher.

i. It was important to bleed animals before eating them, because the blood represented the life principle of the animal (Leviticus 17:11), and the life principle belonged to God and God alone. Another reason for the dietary laws was to project an important symbolism to Israel regarding blood and the sanctity of the life principle.

e. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk: This unusual law was a command to not imitate a common pagan fertility ritual. It illustrated the third principle behind the dietary laws of Israel: They were a statement of separation from the nations and prevented Israel from having easy fellowship (sitting down at a common meal) with Gentiles.

i. This law, because of strange rabbinical interpretations, became the reason why one cannot have a kosher cheeseburger. Observant Jews today will not eat milk and meat at the same meal (or even on the same plates with the same utensils cooked in the same pots), because the rabbis insist that the meat in the hamburger may have come from the calf of the cow that gave the milk for the cheese, and the cheese and the meat would “boil” together in one’s stomach and be a violation of this command.

B. The command of the tithe.

1. (22-23) The command to tithe.

You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.

a. You shall truly tithe: The word truly is important; since the tithe described giving ten percent, God commanded that it really be ten percent. One might easily imagine Israelites discovering ways to give God less than truly ten percent.

b. All the increase of your grain: Seemingly, this meant the grain left over after the seed-grain was taken out. This meant that the tithe was assessed on the income, not on the total assets.

c. You shall eat before the LORD: When the tithe was delivered to the tabernacle (and later, to the temple), a portion of the tithe was enjoyed in a ceremonial meal “with” the LORD. The remainder was given to the priest.

d. That you may learn to fear the LORD your God always: This was the purpose of tithing; to build an honor and reverence for God. The paraphrase in the Living Bible puts it plainly: The purpose of tithing is to teach you always to put God first in your lives (Deuteronomy 14:23b, Living Bible).

2. (24-27) “Long-distance” tithing.

But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates, for he has no part nor inheritance with you.

a. But if the journey is too long for you: Since the tithe was to be brought to one place for the whole nation, some would be farther than others. And, if someone was far away, they would find it difficult to transport the grain and livestock the tithe required.

b. You shall exchange it for money: If distance prevented the easy transport of the animals, they could exchange their tithe for money, and then use the money to tithe with when they came to the tabernacle (and later, the temple).

c. You shall rejoice, you and your household: Laws like this show us that God is a common-sense God. He does not place unreasonable demands on His people. He made a way for them to more conveniently tithe.

3. (28-29) The third-year tithe.

At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.

a. At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year: Some have said this speaks of another tithe (sometimes called the “poor tithe”) to be brought every three years. Yet since it speaks of the tithe, and since it also went to the Levite and not only to the poor, it is best to understand that this was not an additional tithe, but a command that once every three years the tithe also be available to the poor, not only to the Levite.

i. As Kalland points out: “The Jewish rabbis have usually held that there were three tithes: (1) for the priests and Levites, (2) for the communal meals, (3) every third year for the nonlanded (i.e., the Levites, aliens, fatherless, and widows).” Kalland goes on to object to this rabbinic approach, and accurately observes, “So all the designations of tithes speak of one basic tithe to be put to various uses.”

b. That the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do: God will bless the giving heart. Ask anyone who gives as the Bible instructs them to give – they are blessed.

i. The New Testament nowhere specifically commands tithing, but it certainly does speak of it in a positive light if it is done with a right heart (Luke 11:42).

ii. It is also important to understand that tithing is not a principle dependent on the Mosaic Law; as Hebrews 7:5-9 explains, tithing was practiced and honored by God before the law of Moses.

iii. What the New Testament does speak with great clarity on is the principle of giving; that giving should be regular, planned, proportional, and private (1 Corinthians 16:1-4); that it must be generous, freely given, and cheerful (2 Corinthians 9).

iv. Since the New Testament doesn’t emphasize tithing, one might not be strict on it for Christians (though some Christians do argue against tithing on the basis of self-interest). Yet since giving is to be proportional, we should be giving some percentage – and ten percent is a good benchmark – and starting place. For some to give ten percent is nowhere near enough; for others, at their present time, five percent may be a massive step of faith.

v. If our question is, “How little can I give and still be pleasing to God?” our heart isn’t in the right place at all. We should have the attitude of some early Christians, who essentially said: “We’re not under the tithe – we can give more!” Giving and financial management is a spiritual issue, not just a financial one (Luke 16:11).

Deuteronomy’s role in the Bible

Deuteronomy reviews the Torah and foreshadows the rest of the Old Testament‘s story. In Deuteronomy, Moses reminds the people of God’s actions in the past:

• His promises to Abraham in Genesis
• His faithfulness in rescuing Israel in Exodus
• His holiness in Leviticus
• His punishment on the disobedient in Numbers

Moses also gives directions, blessings, and warnings, for the children of Israel in the future:

• The appointment of Joshua as the new leader
• God’s expectations of kings—which take effect when Saul becomes king in 1 Samuel
• Prosperity for obeying God—which happens during David‘s and Solomon‘s reigns (1 Kgs 8:56; 10:14–29)
• Exile for disobedience—which happens when the tribes are conquered by Assyria and Babylon (2 Kgs 17:6–23; 25:1–26)
• God’s promise to restore Israel—which happens when Cyrus allows the Jews to return from Babylon in Ezra.

Deuteronomy is primarily the retelling of Mosaic law, but its text is still important today.

When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus cites Deuteronomy 6:5: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mk 12:30). Jesus quotes Deuteronomy three times when the devil tempts Him in the wilderness (Mt 4:1–11).

Deuteronomy focuses on loving God and keeping His commandments (Dt 11:1), which is exactly what Christ expects of us (Jn 14:15).

Quick outline of Deuteronomy

1. Recap of Israel’s journey from Egypt (Dt 1–3)
2. Recap of Israel’s relationship with God (Dt 4–10)
3. How to love God and keep His commandments (Dt 11–26)
4. Blessings, curses, and restoration (Dt 27–30)
5. The death of Moses (Dt 31–34)

Forty years earlier, God had rescued the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. In the wilderness, the people agreed to form a special agreement (a covenant) with their God: he would give them the land of Canaan and protect them as their God, and in return they would keep his laws. However, the people of Israel violated God’s laws almost as soon as he gave them. That generation forfeited the promised land (which you can read about in Numbers), and now a new generation is about to make the journey into the land instead.

Before they do, Moses rallies the people to remind them of God’s law—and why they should obey Him. This is how the book of Deuteronomy gets its name: it’s the “second giving” of God’s law.

Theme verses of Deuteronomy

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse.

So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.

(Dt 30:19–20)

Covenant theology / Federal Theology

Covenant theology, also referred to as covenantalism, federal theology, or federalism, constitutes a conceptual overview and interpretive framework for comprehending the overall structure of the Bible within the domain of Biblical Theology. It is often juxtaposed with dispensational theology, representing a competing form of biblical theology. This theological perspective employs the concept of a covenant as a guiding principle for Christian theology. The conventional form of covenant theology delineates the progression of God’s interactions with humanity, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of three overarching theological covenants: those of redemption, of works, and of grace.

Adherents of covenant theology designate these three covenants as “theological” because, while not explicitly delineated as such in the Bible, they are deemed to be theologically implicit, encapsulating and summarizing a wealth of scriptural data.

In historical Reformed systems of thought, classical covenant theology is not merely treated as a doctrinal point or a central dogma, but as the foundational structure by which the biblical text organizes itself. The most prominent form of Covenant Theology is affiliated with Presbyterians and derives from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Another variant is occasionally referred to as “Baptist Covenant Theology” or “1689 Federalism”, distinguishing it from the standard covenant theology of Presbyterian “Westminster Federalism.” This variant is associated with Reformed Baptists and is based on the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. Within Methodist hermeneutics, a variation known as Wesleyan covenant theology is traditionally utilized, aligning with Arminian soteriology.

As a framework for Biblical interpretation, covenant theology stands in contrast to dispensationalism regarding the relationship between the Old Covenant (with national Israel) and the New Covenant (with the house of Israel [Jeremiah 31:31] in Christ’s blood). The existence of such a framework appears at least feasible since, from New Testament times, the Bible of Israel has been referred to as the Old Testament (i.e., Covenant; see 2 Corinthians 3:14 [NRSV], “they [Jews] hear the reading of the old covenant”), in contrast to the Christian addition, which has become known as the New Testament (or Covenant).

Critics of covenant theology often label it as “supersessionism” or “replacement theology,” citing the perception that it asserts God’s abandonment of the promises made to the Jews and their replacement with Christians as His chosen people on Earth.

Covenant theologians refute the notion that God has forsaken His promises to Israel; instead, they perceive the fulfillment of the promises to Israel in the person and work of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, who established the church in organic continuity with Israel, rather than as a separate replacement entity. Many covenant theologians also anticipate a distinct future promise of gracious restoration for unregenerate Israel.

God’s covenantal relationship with God’s creation is not made automatically or out of necessity. Rather, God chooses to establish the connection as a covenant, wherein the terms of the relationship are set down by God alone according to God’s own will.

THEOLOGICAL COVENANTS

Covenant of works
The covenant of works (Latin: foedus operum, also called the covenant of life) was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who represented all humankind as a federal head (Romans 5:12–21). God offered Adam a perfect and perpetual life if he did not violate God’s single commandment, but warned that death would follow if he disobeyed that commandment. Adam broke the covenant, thus standing condemned as representative for all humankind.[9]

The term foedus operum was first used by Dudley Fenner in 1585, though Zacharias Ursinus had mentioned a covenant of creation in 1562. The concept of the covenant of works became commonly recognized in Reformed theology by 1590, though not by all; some members of the Westminster Assembly disagreed with the teaching in the 1640s. John Calvin writes of a probationary period for Adam, a promise of life for obedience, and the federal headship of Adam, but he does not write of a covenant of works.[10] It is not referred to as a covenant in the opening chapters of Genesis, but is referred to as a covenant in Hosea 6:7, “But like Adam, they transgressed the covenant; there, they dealt faithlessly with Me.”

Adamic covenant
Covenant theology first sees a covenant of works administered with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Upon Adam’s failure, God established the covenant of grace in the promised seed Genesis 3:15, and shows His redeeming care in clothing Adam and Eve in garments of skin—perhaps picturing the first instance of animal sacrifice. The specific covenants after the fall of Adam are seen as administered under the overarching theological covenant of grace.

Mosaic covenant
There is debate among the reformed if the Mosaic covenant was in some way a republication of the covenant of works.[11] The view that there was such a republication was advocated by Thomas Boston, Edward Fisher, Meredith Kline and John Owen.[12][13][14][11]

Covenant of grace
The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who have faith in Christ. God also promises the Holy Spirit to the elect to give them willingness and ability to believe.[15] Christ is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as His active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a “seed” of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace.

The covenant of grace runs through the Old and New Testaments, and is the same in substance under both the law and gospel, though there is some difference in the administration. Under the law, the sacrifices, prophesies, and other types and ordinances of the Jews signified Christ, and men were justified by their faith in Him just as they would be under the gospel. These were done away with the coming of Christ, and replaced with the much simpler sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.[16]

Reformed orthodox theologians taught that the covenant was primarily unilateral or monopleuric (Latin: foedus monopleuron) on the part of God, but also entailed conditions on the part of men. The conditions of the covenant of grace were spoken of as assumptive and confirmatory rather than duties required in order to receive the covenant. The covenant was therefore also bilateral or dipleuric (Latin: foedus dipleuron). Scholars have challenged the notion in contemporary scholarship that Genevan Reformers taught a unilateral and unconditional covenant relationship whilst the Rhineland Reformers taught a bilateral contractual relationship. Mark Jones, Richard Muller, J. Mark Beach, and John Von Rohr have argued that Leonard Trinterud’s identification of the apparent polarisation between Calvin and Olevianus on the one hand and Luther, Bullinger, and the Puritans on the other hand is a faulty reading of history.

Noahic covenant
The Noahic covenant is found in Genesis 8:20–9:17. Although redemption motifs are prominent as Noah and his family are delivered from the judgment waters, the narrative of the flood plays on the creation motifs of Genesis 1 as de-creation and re-creation. The formal terms of the covenant itself more reflect a reaffirmation of the universal created order, than a particular redemptive promise.

Abrahamic covenant
The Abrahamic covenant is found in Genesis chapters 12, 15, and 17. In contrast with the covenants made with Adam or Noah which were universal in scope, this covenant was with a particular people. Abraham is promised a seed and a land, although he would not see its fruition within his own lifetime. The Book of Hebrews explains that he was looking to a better and heavenly land, a city with foundations, whose builder and architect is God (11:8–16). The Apostle Paul writes that the promised seed refers in particular to Christ (Galatians 3:16).

The Abrahamic covenant is:

Exclusive: it is only for Abraham and his (spiritual) descendants. Genesis 17:7
Everlasting: it is not replaced by any later covenant. Genesis 17:7
Accepted by faith. Genesis 15:6
The external sign of entering into the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. Genesis 17:10, but it has to be matched by an internal change, the circumcision of the heart. Jeremiah 4:4, Philippians 3:3
According to Paul, since the Abrahamic covenant is eternal, the followers of Christ are “children of Abraham” and therefore part of this covenant through faith. “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.” Galatians 3:7
According to covenant theology, Paul makes it clear that baptism is the external sign of faith in Christ (“…you were baptized into Christ…”), and that through faith in Christ the believer is part of the Abrahamic covenant (“Abraham’s seed”). This provides the basis for the doctrine that baptism is the New Testament sign of God’s covenant with Abraham, Galatians 3:26. Non-covenantal theology does not teach that the Abrahamic covenant is inherited by gentiles, and thus presents a different view of baptism.[citation needed]
Romans 11 teaches disobedient Jews are broken off of the family tree of Abraham. It is only after the full number of the Gentiles have been grafted into Abraham’s family tree that God will pour out His mercy on the people of Israel.

MOSAIC COVENANT

The Mosaic covenant, found in Exodus 19–24 and the book of Deuteronomy, expands on the Abrahamic promise of a people and a land. Repeatedly mentioned is the promise of the Lord, “I will be your God and you will be my people” (cf. Exodus 6:7, Leviticus 26:12), particularly displayed as His glory-presence comes to dwell in the midst of the people. This covenant is the one most in view when referring to the Old Covenant.

Although it is a gracious covenant beginning with God’s redemptive action (cf. Exodus 20:1–2), a layer of law is prominent. Concerning this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant, Charles Hodge makes three points in his Commentary on Second Corinthians: (1) The Law of Moses was in first place a reenactment of the covenant of works; viewed this way, it is the ministration of condemnation and death. (2) It was also a national covenant, giving national blessings based on national obedience; in this way it was purely legal. (3) In the sacrificial system, it points to the Gospel of salvation through a mediator.

Moabite covenant
Some commentators, like John Gill, see in the passage that begins in Deuteronomy 29:1 a distinct and gracious covenant, involving circumcision of the heart, which foresees the embrace of the Gentiles and which is looked back upon as distinct from the Mosaic Covenant by the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:6–8.[19][20]

Levite covenant
Other commentators, such as Douglas Van Dorn, recognize a separate priestly covenant, independent of the Mosaic covenant (which he takes as a prophetic covenant). In taken with the Davidic (kingly) covenant, this represents the three offices of Christ. Van Dorn argues this case on the basis of Nehemiah 13:29 which refers to “the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites”, Malachi 2:8 who speaks of “the covenant of Levi,” and Jeremiah 33:21 who points to the “covenant with the Levitical priests.” Van Dorn argues that the covenant document for this covenant is the book of Leviticus itself.[21]

Davidic covenant
The Davidic covenant is found in 2 Samuel 7. The Lord proclaims that He will build a house and lineage for David, establishing His kingdom and throne forever. This covenant is appealed to as God preserves David’s descendants despite their wickedness (cf. 1 Kings 11:26–39, 15:1–8; 2 Kings 8:19, 19:32–34), although it did not stop judgment from finally arriving (compare 2 Kings 21:7, 23:26–27; Jeremiah 13:12–14). Among the prophets of the exile, there is hope of restoration under a Davidic king who will bring peace and justice (cf. Book of Ezekiel 37:24–28).

New Covenant
Main article: New Covenant
The New Covenant is anticipated with the hopes of the Davidic messiah, and most explicitly predicted by the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31–33). At the Last Supper, Jesus alludes to this prophecy, as well as to prophecies such as Isaiah 49:8, when he says that the cup of the Passover meal is “the New Covenant in [His] blood.” This use of the Old Testament typology is developed further in the Epistle to the Hebrews (esp. chs. 7–10). Jesus is the last Adam and Israel’s hope and consolation: he is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17–18). He is the prophet greater than Jonah (Matthew 12:41), and the Son over the house where Moses was a servant (Hebrews 3:5–6), leading His people to the heavenly promised land. He is the high priest greater than Aaron, offering up Himself as the perfect sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 26). He is the king greater than Solomon (Matthew 12:42), ruling forever on David’s throne (Luke 1:32). The term “New Testament” comes from the Latin translation of the Greek New Covenant and is most often used for the collection of books in the Bible, but can also refer to the New Covenant as a theological concept.[citation needed]

The covenant of grace became the basis for all future covenants that God made with mankind such as with Noah (Genesis 6, 9), with Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17), with Moses (Exodus 19–24), with David (2 Samuel 7), and finally in the New Covenant founded and fulfilled in Christ. These individual covenants are called the biblical covenants because they are explicitly described in the Bible. Under the covenantal overview of the Bible, submission to God’s rule and living in accordance with His moral law (expressed concisely in the Ten Commandments) is a response to grace – never something which can earn God’s acceptance (legalism). Even in His giving of the Ten Commandments, God introduces His law by reminding the Israelites that he is the one who brought them out of slavery in Egypt (grace).

Subservient Covenant
Moses Amyraut and few others proposed that the Mosaic Covenant is a third kind of substance, called the Subservient Covenant, as opposed to most covenant theologians Moses Amyraut did not hold that the two substances are only the “Covenant of Grace” and the “Covenant of Works”.[22]

Covenant of redemption
The covenant of redemption is the eternal agreement within the Godhead in which the Father appointed the Son through the Spirit to become incarnate, suffer, and die as a federal head of mankind to make an atonement for their sin. In return, the Father promised to raise Christ from the dead, glorify Him, and give Him a people. Two of the earliest theologians to write about the covenant of redemption were Johannes Cocceius and John Owen, though Caspar Olevian had hinted at the idea before them. This covenant is not mentioned in the Westminster Standards, but the idea of a contractual relationship between the Father and Son is present. Scriptural support for such a covenant may be found in Psalms 2 and 110, Isaiah 53,[23] Philippians 2:5–11 and Revelation 5:9–10. Some covenant theologians have denied the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption, or have questioned the notion of the Son’s works leading to the reward of gaining a people for God, or have challenged the covenantal nature of this arrangement

All Dispensational followers believe in Pre-millennialism

Premillennial dispensationalists believe Christ will have three advents. Pre- refers to the church’s catching up (rapture) before the seven-year tribulation before Christ’s second advent (Revelation 20:1-6). The Old Testament passages cited for this view are Isaiah 9, 11, and Zechariah 14.

Dispensationalism is a popular and widespread way of reading the Bible. It originated in the nineteenth century in the teaching of John Nelson Darby and was popularized in the United States through the Bible Conference movement. Its growth was spurred on even more through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was published in 1909.

Scofield’s Bible contributed to the spread of dispensationalism because it included study notes written from a distinctively dispensationalist perspective.

The founding of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer provided an academic institution for the training of pastors and missionaries in the dispensationalist tradition. Some of the most notable dispensationalist authors of the twentieth century, including John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost, taught at Dallas Seminary.

Dispensationalist theology is perhaps best known for its distinctive eschatological doctrines, particularly the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. According to this doctrine, this present church age will be followed by a seven-year period of tribulation. Before the tribulation begins (thus “pre-tribulation”), the church will be caught up to heaven where believers will be with Christ until the second coming, which occurs at the end of the tribulation. At that time, they will return with Christ, who will then inaugurate His millennial kingdom (dispensationalists are thus also premillennialists).

Although dispensationalism is best known for its eschatological doctrines, at its heart is the distinction between Israel and the church. Every other distinctively dispensationalist doctrine rests on this idea. What this distinction means for dispensationalists is that there are two peoples of God. Israel is one of these and consists of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The church is the other, and it consists of all those and only those (whether Jew or gentile) who are saved between the Day of Pentecost and the rapture. Part of the reason for the pre-tribulation rapture is to remove the church from earth so that God can begin dealing with national Israel again.

Dispensationalism differs from Reformed covenant theology in a number of ways, but the most significant is this idea of two peoples of God.

Covenant theology affirms that there is one people of God and thus continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament.

Covenant theology is not, as some dispensationalists assert, “replacement theology” because in covenant theology, the church is not technically replacing Israel. The church is the organic continuation of the Old Testament people of God.

FROM AMMELIANIAL PERSPECTIVE

Consider first the olive tree analogy in Romans 11. In this passage, Paul is addressing gentile believers and urging them not to be arrogant toward Jewish believers. He uses the illustration of an olive tree to explain. Note that in the illustration there is one good olive tree. Paul explains that branches were broken off this olive tree and gentile “wild shoots” were grafted into it. The one olive tree represents the people of God that has long existed. Unbelieving Jewish branches (e.g., Pharisees) have been broken off this tree by God, leaving only believing branches (e.g., Jesus’ Apostles). Believing gentiles have been grafted into this one tree so that it now consists of believing Jews and gentiles. This tree is the church. If Paul were illustrating the dispensationalist doctrine, we would have numerous gentile trees and one Jewish tree (Israel). God would then plant a new tree (the church). He would take believing Jews from the Israel tree and believing gentiles from the gentile trees and graft them into this one new tree. Paul says nothing like this. The one tree that existed in the Old Testament continues, but now God has removed unbelieving Jews and grafted believing gentiles into it.

In this light, consider what Paul says to gentile believers in Ephesians 2:11–22. Paul first tells these gentile believers what they used to be: “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (v. 12). If that’s what they used to be, the implication is that the opposite of each is true of these gentile believers now. They are now part of the commonwealth of Israel and partakers of the covenants precisely because they’ve been grafted into the one tree representing the one people of God. But there’s more than implication. Paul goes on to say explicitly in verses 19 and following that these gentiles are “no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”

Dispensationalists have a difficult time grasping this because of their idea that the seed of Abraham is only the physical offspring of Abraham. Again, Paul begs to differ. In Galatians 3:16, he explains that “the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.” He then explicitly identifies the offspring as Jesus Christ. But note what he then adds a few sentences later in verse 29: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Paul defines Abraham’s seed in terms of Jesus Christ. Christ is a literal physical descendant of Abraham. However, because believers, whether Jew or gentile, are united to Christ, we too are Abraham’s offspring if we belong to Christ.

Does Paul continue to use the terms Israel, church, and gentile in the New Testament? Of course. But not in the way that these terms are used by dispensationalists. He continues to speak of ethnic Jews and ethnic gentiles, both inside and outside the church. But he does not do so in a way that results in two peoples of God. There is one tree in the Old Testament that consists primarily of ethnic Jews, although some gentiles (e.g., Ruth) are brought in. This is the one tree that exists when Christ comes. He doesn’t chop it down, and He doesn’t plant a new tree. He prunes the unbelieving Jewish branches off, leaving only the believing Jewish branches. He then begins to graft believing gentiles into this one tree. This tree with ingrafted gentile branches does not “replace” the old tree. These gentiles are now part of the old tree by faith in Jesus Christ.

If the biblical teaching regarding the one people of God is allowed to stand, all of the distinctive dispensationalist doctrines that rest on the doctrine of two peoples of God are left without any foundation.

“Systematic Theology”

Protestant systematic theology had its origin in the early works of the Reformers. Among the first was the Loci Theologici of Melanchthon published in 1521.

Zwingli produced his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione in 1525. William Farel brought out his theological manual in 1534 with the title, Summaire briefue declaration daucuns lieux fort necessaires a ung chascun Chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder son prochain.

The most famous early work was that of John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, and later entirely rewritten and enlarged through successive editions until the definitive edition of 1559.

No one can question that these works shaped the theological thinking of their own and successive generations and played a large part in the formation of creeds still recognized today. They were in the main a return to Biblical teaching in the fields of bibliology, anthropology, soteriology, and ecclesiology.

The issues were the doctrine of illumination—the work of the Holy Spirit teaching the Scriptures without the medium of priest or church, the priesthood of every believer, justification by faith, and the authority of the Bible.

The Protestant theology of the Reformers was occasioned by the revolt against the corruption and misuse of Biblical revelation. It concerned itself largely with correcting these abuses by a return to the Scriptures. deity of Christ, and substitutionary atonement for which the Reformers stood.

In eschatology, amillennialism became more vocal, divided into different systems of interpretation within themselves, and postmillennialism, an offshoot of Socinianism, came into vogue. For the most part, the Roman background of amillennialism and the unitarian background of postmillennialism did not deter many who continued in the Reformed theology as a whole from embracing one or the other view of eschatology.

While theologians were grinding out reproductions of Reformed theology, it remained for a widespread movement for direct Biblical studies to find the fatal defect in the Reformed treatment of Roman doctrine. Springing from Bible study groups such as the Plymouth Brethren, attention was directed to the teachings of the Scripture on such important subjects as the nature of the true church, the need for consistent literal interpretation of Scripture, and the important place given to eschatology in the Bible. The result was a revived interest in the second coming of Christ, a movement away from the established church as a decadent institution, and a return to the more simple Biblical and apostolic concepts, methods, and beliefs. The movement was not without its excesses, but it came as a refreshing breath of new life to Biblical interpretation.

In the course of time, this new interest in Bible study and the new recognition that the Bible was intended to be understood by all Christians in its apparent literal meaning gave rise to many new groups. Bible institutes sprang up. There were great revivals. Gradually the doctrines of the new movement came to be known by the name of Fundamentalism and by similar titles. Without any organizational unity, a system of doctrine gradually developed, greatly aided by the widespread use of the Scofield Reference Bible, the teachings of Bible institutes, prophetic conferences, and summer Bible conferences. literal interpretation made impossible an objective study of the great body of Scripture dealing with this doctrine.

The divine program for the ages, the contribution of prophecy as a whole, the divinely purposed illustrations afforded in typology, and the blessed hope of the imminent return of Christ are important doctrines which determine the value and content of the message of the preacher. Yet these are either denied or ignored in the traditional method of theological study. The need for a new definitive work in systematic theology which would be unabridged, premillennial, dispensational, and following a literal interpretation of Scripture became imperative.

Lewis Sperry Chafer‘s Systematic Theology

Chafer, pioneering president of Dallas Theological Seminary had felt called of God to undertake this sacred and unprecedented task. The result of ten years of reducing the studies of a lifetime to writing was recently completed and has now been reproduced in eight beautiful volumes, totalling 2,700 pages.

The importance of this new treatise in the field of systematic theology is highlighted by the current disrepute of theology. The inroads of higher criticism on the doctrine of the inspiration anid infallibility of Scripture and the current indifferentism and secularism in the organized church have reduced the recent notable theological works to a trickle. About the only works which have gained widespread recognition in theology have been the restatements of modernism and liberal theology in the form of crisis theology and neo-orthodoxy which have in some respects indicated a reaction from extreme liberalism. As far as furnishing a new and effective approach to Biblical studies their doctrines have been utterly opposed to the theology of the Reformation as well as to modern premillennialism. Modern Christianity has too often been reduced to promotion of an idealistic moralism and a desire for organizational unity.

The general features of Systematic Theology by Chafer make it clear that we have here something entirely different than any previously written theology. For the first time the whole scope of theology is considered from the standpoint of premillennial interpretation. The work is remarkably Biblical. The appeal is constantly to Biblical authority rather than to philosophy, tradition, or creed. There has been proper appreciation of the doctrinal heritage of the Church Fathers and the Protestant Reformers. The work is in no sense iconoclastic.

In the treatment of bibliology and theology proper as well as in later discussions President Chafer quotes extensively with approbation from the best theological statements extant. In general a broad and moderate Calvinism is followed in the theology. The work as a whole definitely belongs within the limits of Reformed theology with certain important additions and qualifications. It is however quite distinct from various restatements of Reformed theology. It is a fresh and creative work, a pioneer in a new field, a gathering together in theological system of an interpretation of Biblical doctrines never before treated in this way. It is essentially an exposition and systematization of premillennial and dispensational theology rather than an apology for it.

The doctrines which it contains have been preached in various forms by most of the great premillennial Bible teachers of the last fifty years. For the first time these doctrines have been reduced to a written system of theology, related to theological problems, and expanded into all the fields in which revelation has provided teaching. It provides for all who hold the premillennial interpretation of the Scriptures a systematic statement of the content, implications, and relations of their doctrines. For those who would be instructed in what are the proper inclusions of premillennialism it provides an ordered statement of the doctrine as a whole such as has never been provided in one work before. Regardless what theological position may be assumed by the reader, he will find this work definitive in its field.

An analysis of the content of each volume provides ample proof of these general conclusions. While it is impossible within reasonable limits to reproduce the scope of contents, the contribution of each volume may be considered in its separate presentation. race are presented. Of great value from a practical viewpoint is the discussion of the divine remedy for sin, whether the sin nature, imputed sin, or sin in the life of the Christian. The treatment is again fresh, original, Biblical, and practical. The discussion covers a field which is usually neglected in most discussions of anthropology.

The contribution of President Chafer in the field of soteriology has been hailed as the most important of all his theological works. The treatment is divided into six sections, the first dealing with Christ as the Savior. The positions of Christ, His offices, His sonship, the hypostatic union, and the sufferings of Christ are included in this discussion. The doctrine is presented in such a complete way that it is difficult to make adequate comparisons. The second and third sections deal with the doctrine of election and the answer to the question, “For whom did Christ die?”

In general the Calvinistic position characterizes the teaching here, but the viewpoint of unlimited atonement is maintained. The saving work of God and the doctrine of eternal security occupy the fourth and fifth sections. The wonders of the saving work of God, the grace of God and the contrasting positions of Calvinism and Arminianism on eternal security are discussed in full.

The discussion of soteriology concludes with a division on the terms of salvation in which the simple exhortation of “Believe” is contrasted to all confusions which arise from adding other conditions. The final section is most practical and helpful. The volume on soteriology, if it stood alone, would in itself assure the author a place among notable writers of Christian doctrine. There is no volume in the field of systematic theology which approaches it in Biblical insight, spiritual comprehension of the saving work of God, and unabridged treatment of the great work of God in salvation. It deals fully with the technical problems of theology in this field and yet is brilliant and moving in its presentation. elements, by its close adherence to Biblical teachings, and by its unfolding of premillennial truth in this field. The entire volume again reflects the original approach of the author and constitutes a new landmark in the field of eschatological literature.

Christology
Having treated the doctrine of Christ in theology proper and soteriology, President Chafer presents here the entire doctrine systematically in new form and additional content. In general following the chronological pattern, the preincarnate person and work of Christ are considered first. Major attention is given to the incarnation, which is presented as an event of immense theological significance. Considered first are His birth, childhood, baptism, temptation, transfiguration, miracles, and His extensive teachings. The sufferings and death of Christ and the resurrection which followed are treated historically and doctrinally. A thorough discussion follows on the ascension and heavenly session of Christ—material often omitted from theologies. The treatment of Christology is concluded by discussion of the second coming of Christ, the Messianic kingdom and His eternal kingdom.

Pneumatology
The need for a comprehensive statement of the entire doctrine of the person and work of the Holy Spirit called for this volume. After an introductory chapter on the name of the Holy Spirit, the deity of the Spirit is sustained by delineation of the Scriptural evidence found in His divine attributes and in His divine works. Also treated are the types of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, and the distinct character of His present work.

With rare clarity and insight into Scriptural revelation, President Chafer presents the work of the Holy Spirit in the world and in the Christian. The Holy Spirit convicts the world. He regenerates, indwells, baptizes, and seals the Christian. All of these great works of the Spirit are accomplished simultaneously in the believer when he is saved.

Of greatest importance is the presentation of the believer’s responsibility in relation to the Holy Spirit. The intdwelling Spirit is presented as the source of power to overcome sin and is the author of the fruit of the Spirit. The filling of the Spirit is offered to all who meet the three conditions: “Grieve not the Holy Spirit,” “Quench not the Spirit,” and “Walk in the Spirit.”

The same clear distinctions which have made his earlier work, He That Is Spiritual, such a blessing to the Christian public are followed in this volume. It presents material almost always omitted from systematic theologies. The writer knows no volumes on systematic theology that even approach the clarity and insight into the doctrine which appear here. Like the volume in Christology, Pneumatology is complete in itself and at the same time gathers together previous material in the series on the subject. It will take its place among the truly great works on the Holy Spirit.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Lewis Sperry Chafer (February 27, 1871 – August 22, 1952) was an American theologian. He co-founded Dallas Theological Seminary with his older brother Rollin Thomas Chafer, served as its first president, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. John Hannah described Chafer as a visionary Bible teacher, a minister of the gospel, a man of prayer with strong piety. One of his students, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, who went on to become a world-renowned theologian and scholar, stated that Chafer was an evangelist who was also “an eminent theologian.”

Chafer is widely recognized as one of the founders of modern Dispensationalism and was vehemently opposed to covenant theology. Yet, he did not reject the idea of a covenant of redemption, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. He affirmed all three along with the Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenant.

He was a premillennial, pre-tribulation dispensationalist. His overall theology could be generally described as based on the inductive study of the entire Bible, having similarities to John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren, a mild form of Keswick Theology on Sanctification, and Presbyterianism, all of these tempered with a focus on spirituality based on simple Bible study and living.

Chafer’s theology has been the subject of much study and debate in and out of the theological community since his death, especially on the two larger topics of dispensationalism and Christian Zionism, specifically that the Jews are a people called unto God with a separate historical purpose and plan from the Church. Chafer held much in common with Free Grace theology and influenced many of its later advocates. Similarly to Charles Ryrie, Chafer defined repentance as being a mere synonym for faith, denying that it refers to sorrow for sin.

Ministry

Ordained in 1900 by a Council of Congregational Ministers in the First Congregational Church in Buffalo and in 1903 he ministered as an evangelist in the Presbytery of Troy in Massachusetts and became associated with the ministry of Cyrus Scofield, who became his mentor.

During this early period, Chafer began writing and developing his theology. He taught Bible classes and music at the Mount Hermon School for Boys from 1906 to 1910. He joined the Orange Presbytery in 1912 due to the increasing influence of his ministry in the south. He aided Scofield in establishing the Philadelphia School of the Bible in 1913. From 1923 to 1925, he served as general secretary of the Central American Mission.

When Scofield died in 1921, Chafer moved to Dallas, Texas to pastor the First Congregational Church of Dallas, an independent church where Scofield had ministered.[5] Then, in 1924, Chafer and his friend William Henry Griffith Thomas realized their vision of a simple, Bible-teaching theological seminary and founded Dallas Theological Seminary (originally Evangelical Theological College). Chafer served as president of the seminary and professor of Systematic Theology from 1924 until his death. He died with friends while away at a conference in Seattle, Washington in August 1952.

SANCTIFICATION

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer stated: “Though clearly stated in the Bible, no doctrine has suffered from misunderstanding and misstatement more than the doctrine of Sanctification.” Dr. Chafer continues to set forth three laws to be observed in the proper interpretation of the biblical doctrine of sanctification summarized here:
(1) The doctrine of sanctification must be rightly related to every other Bible doctrine. Though the doctrine of sanctification is a very important doctrine and the subject of this overview, it must fit into harmony with other equally important doctrines and principles of Scripture.
(2) The doctrine of sanctification cannot be interpreted by experience. Experience may be explained, illustrated and proven by scripture, but scripture is never to be interpreted by experience.
(3) The right understanding of the doctrine of sanctification depends upon the consideration of all the scriptures bearing on this theme. The same root word of being “set apart” is translated in the scriptures as “sanctify,” “holy,” and “saint.”

Salvation solves the problem of sins between man and God. Sanctification involves the
resolution of sin and holiness in the life of the believer. As the doctrine of sanctification has been
developed in the church over the years five major models have surfaced. It is the purpose of this
presentation to introduce and survey the five prominent models of sanctification.

33 Blessings in Christ
Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, listed these benefits of salvation in his Systematic Theology, Volume III (pp. 234-266). These points, along with brief explanations, give the born-again Christian a better understanding of the work of grace accomplished in his life as well as a greater appreciation of his new life.

1. In the eternal plan of God, the believer is:
   a. Foreknown – Acts 2.23; 1 Pet. 1.2, 20. God knew from all eternity every step in
   the entire program of the universe.
   b. Predestined – Rom. 8.29-30. A believer’s destiny has been appointed through
   foreknowledge to the unending realization of all God’s riches of grace.
   c. Elected – Rom. 8.38; Col. 3.12. He/she is chosen of God in the present age and
   will manifest the grace of God in future ages.
   d. Chosen – Eph. 1.4. God has separated unto himself his elect who are both
   foreknown and predestined.
   e. Called – 1 Thess. 6.24. God invites man to enjoy the benefits of his redemptive
   purposes. This term may include those whom God has selected for salvation, but
   who are still in their unregenerate state.
2. A believer has been redeemed – Rom. 3.24. The price required to set him/her free from sin
   has been paid.
3. A believer has been reconciled – 2 Cor. 6.18, 19; Rom. 5.10. He/she is both restored to
   fellowship by God and restored to fellowship with God.
4. A believer is related to God through propitiation – Rom. 3.24-26. He/she has been set free
   from judgment by God’s satisfaction with his Son’s death for sinners.
5. A believer has been forgiven all trespasses – Eph. 1.7. All his/her sins are taken care of –
   past, present, and future.
6. A believer is vitally conjoined to Christ for the judgment of the old man “unto a new
   walk” – Rom. 6.1-10. He/she is brought into a union with Christ.
7. A believer is “free from the law” – Rom. 7.2-6. He/she is both dead to its condemnation,
   and delivered from its jurisdiction.
8. A believer has been made a child of God – Gal. 3.26. He/she is born anew by the
   regenerating power of the Holy Spirit into a relationship in which God the First Person
   becomes a legitimate Father and the saved one becomes a legitimate child with every
   right and title – an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.
9. A believer has been adopted as an adult child into the Father’s household – Rom. 8.15,
   23.
10. A believer has been made acceptable to God by Jesus Christ – Eph. 1.6. He/she is made
    righteous (Rom. 3.22), sanctified (set apart) positionally (1 Cor. 1.30, 6.11); perfected
    forever in his/her standing and position (Heb. 10.14), and made acceptable in the
    Beloved (Col. 1.12).
11. A believer has been justified – Rom. 5.1. He/she has been declared righteous by God’s
    decree.
12. A believer is “made right” – Eph. 2.13. A close relation is set up and exists between God
    and the believer.
13. A believer has been delivered from the power of darkness – Col. 1.13; 2.13. A Christian
    has been delivered from Satan and his evil spirits. Yet the disciple must continue to wage
    a warfare against these powers.
14. A believer has been translated into the Kingdom of God – Col. 1.13. The Christian has
    been transferred from Satan’s kingdom to Christ’s Kingdom.
15. A believer is planted on the Rock, Jesus Christ – 1 Cor. 3.9-15. Christ is the foundation
    on which the believer stands and on which he/she builds his/her Christian life.
16. A believer is a gift from God to Jesus Christ – John 17.6, 11, 12, 20. He/she is the Father’s
    love gift to Jesus Christ.
17. A believer is circumcised in Christ – Col. 2.11. He/she has been delivered from the power
    of the old sin nature.
18. A believer has been made a partaker of the Holy and Royal Priesthood – 1 Pet. 2.5, 9.
    He/she is a priest because of his/her relation to Christ, the High Priest, and will reign on
    earth with Christ.
19. A believer is part of a chosen generation, a holy nation and a peculiar people – 1 Pet. 2.9.
    This is the company of believers in this age.
20. A believer is a heavenly citizen – Phil. 3.20. Therefore he/she is called a stranger as far as
    his/her life on earth is concerned (1 Pet. 2.13), and will enjoy his/her true home in heaven
    forever.
21. A believer is in the family and household of God – Eph. 2.1, 9. He/she is part of God’s
    “family” which is composed only of true believers.
22. A believer is in the fellowship of the saints. John 17.11, 21-23. He/she can be a part of the
    fellowship of believers with one another.
23. A believer is in a heavenly association – Col. 1.27; 3.1; 2 Cor. 6.1; Col. 1.24; John
    14.12-14; Eph. 5.25-27; Titus 2.13. He/she is a partner with Christ now in life, position,
    service, suffering, prayer, betrothal as a bride to Christ, and expectation of the coming
    again of Christ.
24. A believer has access to God – Eph. 2.18. He/she has access to God’s grace which enables
    him/her to grow spiritually, and he/she has unhindered approach to the Father (Heb.
    4.16).
25. A believer is within the “much more” care of God – Rom. 5.8-10. He/she is an object of
    God’s love (John 3.16), God’s grace (Eph. 2.7-9), God’s power (Eph. 1.19), God’s
    faithfulness (Phil. 1.6), God’s peace (Rom. 5.1), God’s consolation (2 Thess. 2.16-17),
    and God’s intercession (Rom. 8.26).
26. A believer is God’s inheritance – Eph. 1.18. He/she is given to Christ as a gift from the
    Father.
27. A believer has the inheritance of God himself and all that God bestows – 1 Pet. 1.4.
28. A believer has light in the Lord – 2 Cor. 4.6. He/she not only has this light, but is
    commanded to walk in the light.
29. A believer is vitally united to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – 1 Thess. 1.1; Eph.
    4.6; Rom. 8.1; John 14.20; Rom. 8.9; 1 Cor. 2.12.
30. A believer is blessed with the earnest or firstfruits of the Spirit – Eph. 1.14; 8.23. He/she is
    born of the Spirit (John 3.6), and baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12.13), which is a work of
    the Holy Spirit by which the believer is joined to Christ’s body and comes to be “in
    Christ,” and therefore is a partaker of all that Christ is. The disciple is also indwelt by the
    Spirit (Rom. 8.9), sealed by the Spirit (2 Cor. 1.22), making him/her eternally secure, and
    filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5.18) whose ministry releases his power and effectiveness in the
    heart in which he dwells.
31. A believer is glorified – Rom. 8.18. He/she will be a partaker of the infinite story of the
    Godhead.
32. A believer is complete in God – Col. 2.9, 10. He/she partakes of all that Christ is.
33. A believer possesses every spiritual blessing – Eph. 1.3. All the riches tabulated in the
    other 32 points made before are to be included in this sweeping term, “all spiritual
    blessings.”

KESWICK THEOLOGY

KESWICK is a City in England. “Keswick theology” refers to the view of sanctification shared by the prominent propagators of the early Keswick movement.

Keswick theology, also known as the Higher Life movement or Keswickianism, is a Protestant theological tradition within evangelical Christianity. It originated in England in the early 19th century and has been influenced by the teachings of John Wesley, John William Fletcher, and Adam Clarke. Let me break down some key points about Keswick theology:

Two Primary Crises:
Keswick theology teaches that the Christian life consists of two primary crises or major turning points:

1. Justification: This is the initial experience of salvation, where a person is declared righteous through faith in Jesus Christ.

2. Sanctification: This refers to the ongoing process of becoming more like Christ after salvation. According to Keswick theology, these two crises happen at different times in the life of a believer.

The Second Blessing: After salvation, Keswick theology emphasizes the need for another encounter with the Holy Spirit. This encounter is often referred to as:

– Entire sanctification
– The second blessing
– The second touch

This second experience with the Spirit is believed to be necessary for progressing into holiness or the “deeper” things of God. Some Keswick teachers even suggest that sinless perfection is possible after receiving this “second blessing.”

Overemphasis and Tensions: While both justification and sanctification are vital aspects of the Christian life, Keswick theology tends to overemphasize the distinction between them. This overemphasis can lead to the perception of two different “classes” of Christians: those who are not being sanctified and those who are.
Additionally, Keswick theology suggests that the initiation of sanctification depends on the believer’s decision after salvation. However, Scripture teaches that both God’s sovereignty and human volition play essential roles in the believer’s journey.

Historical Context:

The annual Keswick Convention has been organized since 1875, bringing together various Christian leaders. Notable figures associated with Keswick theology include missionaries Hudson Taylor and Amy Carmichael, devotional writer Oswald Chambers, and evangelist Billy Graham.

In summary, Keswick theology emphasizes the need for a second encounter with the Holy Spirit after salvation, but it’s essential to maintain a balanced understanding of both justification and sanctification in the Christian life.

Large portions of contemporary fundamentalism and evangelicalism chronologically separate the moments when believers first experience justification and begin progressive sanctification. This is evident in the way many believers narrate their salvation testimony: “I was saved at the age of eight, and I surrendered to Christ at the age of twelve,” or “I accepted Christ as my Savior at eight, and as my Lord at twelve.”

Keswick, located in the picturesque Lake District of northwest England, has been hosting a weeklong meeting in July for the Keswick Convention since 1875. In this essay, “the early Keswick movement” refers to a period from 1875 to 19205 that was characterized by its conservative evangelical nature and was distinguished by the belief that the majority of Christians are living in defeat and that the secret to living the victorious Christian life is consecration followed by Spirit-filling; and stimulated by annual conventions at Keswick, England, and literature by its propagators.

I. A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE EARLY

KESWICK MOVEMENT

Since no theological movement exists in a vacuum, this section traces significant leaders of major movements and institutions that influenced Keswick theology (forerunners) or were influenced by it (successors) as well as Keswick’s primary proponents (propagators).

FORERUNNERS

Wesleyan perfectionism influenced the holiness movement, which in turn influenced the early Keswick movement primarily through the higher life movement as well as Methodist and Oberlin perfectionism.

Wesleyan Perfectionism: Perfect Love Toward God and Man

Wesleyan perfectionism influenced Keswick theology, so it is not surprising that Wesleyan theologians note similarities between the Wesleyan and Keswick views of sanctification John Wesley (1703–91) established Christian perfection, carefully qualifying that it is not absolute sinless perfection.

Wesley modifies “perfection” with the adjective “Christian” to stress that only Christians could experience this kind of perfection, which is different than Adamic perfection, angelic perfection, or God’s unique, absolute perfection. This qualification hinges on Wesley’s narrow definition of sin as “a voluntary transgression of a known law.” He limits “sin” to only intentional sinful acts. He admits that “the best of men” commit “involuntary transgressions” for which they need Christ’s atonement, but such people may still
properly be called “perfect” or “sinless.” When sin is defined accordingly, Wesley does not object to the term “sinless perfection,” but he refrains from using it to avoid confusion. Wesley uses various terms to describe this second work of grace: Christian perfection, salvation from all [willful] sin, entire sanctification, perfect love (1 John 4:18), holiness, purity of intention, full salvation, second blessing, second rest, and dedicating all the life to God. Its essence is unreserved love for God with one’s whole being and, consequently, love for fellow humans. This complete sanctification occurs instantaneously at a point in time subsequent to one’s justification, but God’s gradual working both precedes and follows it.

Wesley’s primary contribution to the doctrine of sanctification is that he is the father of widespread evangelical views that separate justification and sanctification in a way that the Reformed view does not.
Wesley’s followers further developed his doctrine of Christian perfection, and several key leaders such as Palmer and Mahan emphasized the crisis of sanctification as opposed to Wesley’s emphasis on the subsequent process (process-crisis-process). This gradual shift emphasizing the crisis began with John William Fletcher (1729–85), who used Spirit-baptism language for Christian perfection, and was followed by
Adam Clarke (1762–1832), who emphasized the crisis of Christian perfection to a greater degree than both Wesley and Fletcher. The holiness movement modified the views of Wesley, Fletcher, and Clarke by
placing an even stronger emphasis on the crisis of Christian perfection.

The Holiness Movement: Modified; Wesleyan Perfectionism

The blending of Wesleyan perfectionism and American revivalism produced the holiness movement,13 which began in 1835 with Phoebe Palmer’s participation in the Tuesday meetings. The three most significant movements within the holiness movement were Methodist perfectionism, Oberlin perfectionism, and the higher life movement.

Methodist Perfectionism: Emphasis on the Crisis of Christian Perfection

Though it claimed to follow Wesley’s perfectionism, Methodist perfectionism placed a nearly exclusive emphasis on the crisis of Christian perfection rather than the subsequent process. This shift in emphasis is due primarily to Phoebe Worrall Palmer (1807–74), who despite her claim to propagate Wesley’s teaching, modified it considerably by following the innovations of Fletcher and Clarke. The emphasis of her teaching, known as “altar theology,” is that there is “a shorter way” to holiness. Besides Palmer’s written works, the most significant vehicle through which her “altar theology” spread rapidly was the holiness camp meetings, which were re-popularized in America in 1867. These camp meetings “institutionalized” Palmer’s doctrine of sanctification, and the early Keswick Convention became “in some ways a British equivalent of the camp meeting movement.”

Oberlin Perfectionism: The Perfection of a Human’s Autonomous Free Will

Oberlin perfectionism views holiness as the perfection of a human’s autonomous free will. Its primary propagators were Charles Grandison Finney (1792–1875), Oberlin College’s first theology professor (1835–66) and second president (1851–66), and Asa Mahan (1799–1889), Oberlin’s first president (1835–50). It is remarkably similar to Wesleyan perfectionism. Both Finney and Mahan limit Christian perfection to a believer’s intention to obey the moral law, and both view Spirit-baptism as the crisis subsequent to justification that begins Christian perfection. Finney views sanctification as the entire consecration of a person’s autonomous free will to obey the moral law, and Mahan stresses Spirit-baptism as the post-regeneration crisis of Christian perfection even more than Finney. Mahan led the transition from Methodist and Oberlin perfectionism to the ecumenical higher life movement and prepared the way for the Keswick movement.

The Higher Life Movement: Immediate Sanctification by Faith, Trans denominational

The higher life movement began with the publication of William E. Boardman’s immensely popular and influential The Higher Christian Life in 1858 and dissolved with Robert Pearsall Smith’s removal from public ministry in 1875. It was trans denominational and not primarily Methodist, and it combined emphases from Wesleyan, Methodist, and Oberlin perfectionism, modifying their doctrine of sanctification with terminology that did not offend non-Methodists. For William Edwin Boardman (1810–86), who professed to be justified at eighteen and sanctified at thirty-two, the essence of the higher Christian life is a temporal separation of justification from sanctification. He began and led the higher life movement for over a decade until he was overshadowed by a husband-wife team in the early 1870s: Robert Pearsall Smith (1827–98) and Hannah Whittall Smith (1832–1911). Robert and Hannah zealously spread their crisis experiences with others through personal conversations, public speaking, and most enduringly through Hannah’s writing. The message of her most influential book, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, is essentially twofold: “entire surrender” or “entire abandonment” (i.e., “let go”) and “absolute faith” (i.e., “let God”).16 Foundational to her message is a disjunction between justification and sanctification, which explains the nature of her appeals to believers to surrender to the Lord, who “is able to save you fully, now, in this life, from the power and dominion of
sin.” Only some believers experience this special deliverance, which she identifies with Spirit-baptism. Interestingly, although Hannah’s The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life endures as a devotional “classic,” Robert and Hannah Smith did not have “happy” lives. The higher life movement was the immediate predecessor to the Keswick movement. Its series of conventions and other meetings spawned the Keswick Convention, and Keswick historians acknowledge this connection and revere the Smiths and their teaching.

PROPAGATORS

A survey of Keswick theology’s propagators cannot comprehensively cover the dozens of people who preached and taught at the Keswick Convention from 1875 to 1920. This survey highlights sixteen outstanding figures: eight were convention leaders, and the other eight also were (and are) well-known proponents of Keswick theology. All of them experienced a crisis in which they entered the rest of faith.

Eight Leaders of the Early Keswick Convention

1–2. Thomas Dundas Harford-Battersby (1823–83) and Robert Wilson (1824–1905) were Keswick’s founders. Canon HarfordBattersby and Wilson, his close Quaker friend, attended the Oxford Convention (1874), a higher life meeting led by R. P. Smith, and Harford-Battersby experienced his crisis. They next attended the
Brighton Convention (1875), which stirred them so greatly that they decided to hold a similar meeting in their hometown of Keswick just three weeks later. R. P. Smith agreed to serve as the chairman of the Keswick meeting, but his doctrinal and moral fall required him to cancel, giving Harford-Battersby just two or three days notice before visitors arrived in Keswick for the meeting. Harford-Battersby served as the chairman, a position he continued until his death in 1883. Wilson, who later served as Keswick’s third chairman, unselfishly took care of the logistical details such as preparing the tent for the meeting.

3. James Elder Cumming (1830–1917) was Keswick’s exemplar. The Scottish minister had a reputation of being rather irritable, but that changed when he experienced his crisis at Keswick in 1882. He returned to speak at Keswick for the next twenty-four consecutive years until 1906.

4. Evan Henry Hopkins (1837–1918) was Keswick’s formative theologian. Hopkins experienced his higher life crisis of surrender and faith in 1873 when R. P. Smith and Boardman were informally speaking on the higher Christian life throughout England, and it was through one of Hopkins’s messages at the Oxford Convention that Harford-Battersby entered the rest of faith and then founded the Keswick Convention.22 Hopkins did not attend the first Keswick Convention because he was occupied with replacing R. P. Smith as the new
editor of The Christian’s Pathway to Power, which he changed to The Life of Faith, but he appeared as a leader at the Keswick Convention for the next forty consecutive years (1876–1915). He was perhaps the
single most respected and influential early Keswick leader, and he is unanimously recognized as the theologian of the early Keswick movement.

5. Hanmer William Webb-Peploe (1837–1923) was Keswick’s orator. The Anglican clergyman experienced his higher life crisis in 1874, and he remained a regular, popular preacher at Keswick, speaking at twenty-eight Conventions

6. Handley Carr Glyn Moule (1841–1920) was Keswick’s scholar. He served as the principal of Ridley Hall in Cambridge (1880–99) and the Bishop of Durham (1901–20). He initially did not view the Keswick movement favorably, but he experienced his crisis of surrender and faith in 1884 after listening to Evan Hopkins. He
spoke at the Keswick Convention a total of thirteen times, first in 1886 and last in 1919.

7. Frederick Brotherton Meyer (1847–1929) was Keswick’s international ambassador. His first crisis experience occurred in 1884, and a second followed in 1887, illustrating the three steps he proclaimed that people should experience: (1) conversion, (2) consecration, and (3) the anointing of the Spirit. The Baptist minister spoke at the largely Anglican Keswick Convention twenty-six times, and he successfully spread the Keswick message to America and beyond.

8. Charles Armstrong Fox (1836–1900) was Keswick’s poet, his best-known poem being “The Marred Face.” Illness prevented Fox from speaking at the Keswick Convention until 1879, but he was then able to speak there every year through 1899 (except for 1897 because of illness). After his first convention, he gave the closing address on the final evening of each convention he attended.

Eight Other Prominent Propagators of Keswick Theology
Though the following eight people may not have been as prominent and regular speakers at the Keswick Convention as the eight mentioned above, they were highly influential in disseminating Keswick theology.

Though the following eight people may not have been as prominent and regular speakers at the Keswick Convention as the eight mentioned above, they were highly influential in disseminating Keswick
theology.

1- Andrew Murray (1828–1917) was Keswick’s foremost devotional author. He was “the Father of the Keswick Movement in South Africa,” and he came to the Keswick Convention as a listener in 1882 and a speaker in 1895, when he was by far the most popular speaker. He authored over 250 books (all devotional).

2–3. James Hudson Taylor (1832–1905) and Amy Wilson Carmichael (1867–1951) were Keswick’s foremost missionaries. The Keswick Convention began to focus on both consecration and missions beginning in 1886–87. Taylor, founder of the China Inland Mission, estimated that Keswick produced two-thirds of his missionaries. He experienced the higher life in 1869, and he visited Keswick in 1883 and 1887 and officially spoke in 1893. The first missionary whom the Keswick Convention supported was Amy Carmichael, the adopted daughter of Robert Wilson. She served in Japan for one year and in
India for fifty-six

4 – Frances Ridley Havergal (1836–79) was Keswick’s hymnist. After experiencing her crisis in 1873, she became known as “the consecration poet,” and she “thus was able before her early death to write those hymns indelibly identified with Keswick: Like a river glorious is God’s perfect peace [1878] and Take my Life and let it be [1874].”

5 – Arthur Tappan Pierson (1837–1911) was Keswick’s American ambassador. He did not experience his higher life crisis that identified him with the Keswick movement until 1895. He spoke at eight Keswick Conventions from 1897 to 1909, and he promoted Keswick theology in his writing and preaching, spreading it at key conferences such as Northfield.

6–8. William Henry Griffith Thomas (1861–1924), Charles Gallaudet Trumbull (1872–1941), and Robert Crawford McQuilkin (1886–1952) were Keswick’s leaders of the victorious life movement, which was the

American version of the Keswick movement

It began in 1913 and continued for decades, so it does not figure prominently in the years of this historical survey (1875–1920). It began, however, within this survey’s timeframe and adhered to the basic theology of sanctification in the early Keswick movement, even though its conferences and writings were not officially connected with the Keswick Convention.

SUCCESSORS

Of particular interest is how the Keswick movement spawned the following four succeeding movements or institutions that have greatly influenced American evangelicalism. The theology of these movements is not identical with Keswick theology, and they have been influenced by far more than just Keswick theology. Keswick’s influence on them, however, is significant, as demonstrated by their similarities regarding sanctification.

Albert Benjamin Simpson (1844–1919): Founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance

A. B. Simpson founded two nondenominational mission agencies in 1887 that merged in 1897 as the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which was not technically part of the holiness movement but was sympathetic with it. Simpson, who authored over one hundred books, experienced his higher life crisis in 1874 by reading Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life. His view of sanctification was similar to the Wesleyan and Keswick views (though he drew more on Catholic mysticism), and it significantly influenced Pentecostalism (though he did not believe that speaking in tongues is an evidence of the crisis).

Moody, Torrey, and Gray: Leaders of Moody Bible Institute

Moody Bible Institute’s first three leaders enthusiastically broadcasted elements of Keswick theology.

1- Dwight Lyman Moody (1837–99) was in one sense both a forerunner and successor of Keswick theology. He indirectly influenced the early Keswick movement with his 1873–75 evangelistic meetings in England that plowed the soil for well-received higher life conferences and publications, and his later crusading emphasis on the necessity of a crisis experience subsequent to conversion reflects the influence of Keswick theology. He never entirely embraced Keswick theology, but he was publicly sympathetic with it and allowed it to spread at his popular Northfield Conferences. He passionately emphasized the baptism of the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to conversion resulting in power for service, an emphasis continued by leaders such as A. J. Gordon, A. T. Pierson, C. I. Scofield, R. A. Torrey, and James M. Gray.

2 – Reuben Archer Torrey (1856–1928), one of Moody’s closest friends, shared speaking platforms in America with many Keswick speakers, and he spoke at the Keswick Convention in 1904 on his most passionate subject: how to receive the baptism of the Spirit. Torrey further accented Moody’s emphasis on Spirit-baptism as a post regeneration crisis resulting in power for service, and he is the most frequently quoted non-Pentecostal in Pentecostal literature.

3 – James Martin Gray (1851–1935) was sympathetic with Moody and Torrey’s theology of sanctification, but he did not place Spiritbaptism subsequent to conversion as a separate experience. His view is
the most similar to Keswick theology by emphasizing Spirit-filling as the secret key to victorious living and Spirit-anointing as the means for power in service.

Pentecostalism: Product of Wesleyan Perfectionism, the Holiness Movement, the Early Keswick

Movement, Simpson, Moody, and Torrey Theologically, Pentecostalism, which traditionally began at the turn
of the twentieth century, maintains that believers should experience Spirit-baptism after conversion and initially demonstrate this by speaking in tongues. It also shares views on healing similar to those of W. E.
Boardman, Andrew Murray, and A. B. Simpson.

Historically, Pentecostalism is rooted in Wesleyan perfectionism (Wesley, Fletcher, and Clarke), Methodist perfectionism (Palmer and the camp meetings), Oberlin perfectionism (Finney and Mahan), the higher life movement (Boardman and the Smiths), the early Keswick movement (especially F. B. Meyer, Andrew Murray, A. T. Pierson, and A. J. Gordon), and the theology of A. B. Simpson, D. L. Moody, and R. A. Torrey. Common to all of these leaders and movements is the belief in two crisis events, one for conversion and one for a special
sanctification, which are normally separated chronologically. Keswick was a crucial element in the formation of Pentecostalism, which subsequently dwarfed Keswick in size and evangelical influence.

Dallas Theological Seminary: Bastion of the Chaferian View of Sanctification

The Keswick and Chaferian views of sanctification are similar but not identical. The Keswick view predated and highly influenced the Chaferian view, which is named after Lewis Sperry Chafer, who cofounded Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) in 1924. DTS is probably the most influential factor for the prevalence of a Keswick-like view of sanctification in modern fundamentalism and evangelicalism.

1- Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843–1921) is especially significant to DTS’s theology of sanctification because of his close, father-like relationship with Chafer. His famous reference Bible “more or less canonized Keswick teachings,” which he embraced while departing from the language of Moody, Torrey, and Meyer, insisting that Spirit-baptism occurs at conversion for all NT believers.

2- Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), who zealously spread victorious life teaching, divides all human beings into three distinct categories: natural (unregenerate), carnal (regenerate but characterized by an unregenerate lifestyle), and spiritual (regenerate and Spiritfilled). People may experience “two great spiritual changes”: “the change from the ‘natural’ man to the saved man, and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the ‘spiritual’ man.”

3- John Flipse Walvoord (1910–2002), who served in leadership roles at DTS from 1935 until his death, perpetuates Chafer’s Keswicklike view of sanctification. Carnal believers must surrender “once and
for all” by accepting Christ “as Lord,” resulting in the start of “progressive sanctification.” He agrees with the Keswick perspective in Five Views on Sanctification, qualifying that the only point that could use more clarity is to distinguish Spirit-baptism as a once-for-all act at conversion and Spirit-filling as the secret “means of transforming the Christian life.”

4- Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1925–), an influential DTS professor (1953–58, 1962–83), likewise promotes a Keswick-like view of sanctification by emphasizing “dedication,” a once-for-all-time crisis that is never repeated and transitions belivers from being carnal to spiritual. Like his predecessors, he sharply contrasts Spirit-filling with Spirit-baptism, and he strongly denies that Christ must be Lord to be Savior.

The Models of Sanctification (Brief Overview)

Eight different models for spiritual growth or sanctification have been identified. These are: the
contemplative-mystical, the sacerdotal, the Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan-Holiness, Pentecostal,
Keswick, and the Augustinian-Dispensational model.

The first two are largely found within Roman Catholic theology, but elements are also found in some Protestant views. The Lutheran view as stated generally by the Missouri Synod is that, “The Holy Spirit sanctifies me (makes me holy) by bringing me to faith in Christ, so that I might have the blessings of redemption and lead a godly life.”

Furthermore, they see sanctification in two ways, in a more general sense to refer to “the whole work of
the Holy Spirit by which He brings us to faith and also enables us to lead a godly life,” and in a more
restricted sense to refer to “that part of the Holy Spirit’s work by which he directs and empowers the
believer to lead a godly life”

The Augustinian-Dispensational model was identified as such by Dr. John Walvoord, but in this paper it will be labeled the Chaferian model. Of course, there are also many who create eclectic blends, perhaps not realizing the internal inconsistencies or contradictions included when disparate systems are illegitimately married.

Five Significant models: Reformed, Wesleyan-Holiness, Keswick, Chaferian, and Pentecostal.

The Reformed Model

This model emphasizes the Sovereignty of God in Sanctification as in Salvation. Experiential sanctification is guaranteed to the elect and in time by the Sovereignty of God. This model holds to a gradual removal of man’s depravity and tendency to sin which is replaced by holiness. Major proponents are: B.B. Warfield, Anthony Hokema, John Murray, Andrew Naselli, and Thomas
Schreiner.

The Wesleyan-Holiness Model

This model emphasizes a second point of crisis (sometimes called “Second-Work of Grace”) after salvation when the believer is sanctified by an immediate act of God as the normal extension or completion of the believer’s salvation. The sin nature is removed making holy living possible. It is seen as Christian Perfectionism. Charles Wesley himself did not take this to the extreme of becoming sinless as those following him. Major proponents are: Charles Wesley, Melvin Dieter, Asa Mahan, John Fletcher, Charles Finney, Mildred Wynkoop, Phobe and Walter Palmer.

The Keswick or Victorious Life Model

This model is an attempt to promote a higher standard of personal holiness among believers. The sin nature is powerful, but can be brought into subjection by the Holy Spirit. The believer is urged receive the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit by faith through an act of entire consecration to God. It is a “Let go and Let God” act. This act follows salvation and is also by faith to receive sanctification just as salvation was received by faith. The believer is to “die to self” and totally surrender to God thereby receiving the “fulness of the Spirit.” The result of this act is victory in Christian Service. Major proponents are: William E. Boardman, Robert Wilson, Thomas D. Hartford-Battersby, Evan H. Hopkins, Andrew Murray, F.B. Meyer, Charles Turnbull, and J. Robertson McQuilkin.

The Chaferian Model

This model emphasizes the two natures of the believer. On earth there is a battle between the Spirit against the flesh [sin nature] or the new nature against the old nature. In its original presentation it begins with an act of dedication. Afterward, human activity is emphasized by abiding in Christ through the confession of sin, the filling of the Holy Spirit and the believer growing in grace under the Word of God. A modified Chaferian model minimizes or excludes an initial act of dedication making the issue one of abiding in Christ or walking in (by means of) the Spirit, under the filling of the Holy Spirit. Major Proponents are Lewis S. Chafer, John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and Dwight Pentecost.

The Pentecostal Model

Pentecostal views on sanctification are widely divergent. Classic Pentecostalism tends towards the Wesleyan-Holiness model using their experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in
tongues as the Second-Work of Grace. This removes sin so as to make holy living easier. Other branches emphasize a more Keswick model of crucifying the sin nature which is a scriptural impossibility. This enables them to live a more holy life. The clearest model is set forth by the Assemblies of God branch. They see a three stage sanctification of “Positional Sanctification,” “Progressive Sanctification”- which is the experiential aspect, and “Ultimate Sanctification” or the glorification of the believer. The confusion of the “Baptism of the Spirit” with the “Filling of the Spirit” experientially clouds their view of Progressive Sanctification. Major proponents are: Stanley M. Horton, Timothy P. Jenney; Myer Pearlman, G. Raymond Carlson.

The Means of Victory in the Christian Life

Reformed model: The Sovereignty of God is set forth as the means of individual believer victory. As the believer cooperates with God, He in His Sovereignty, gradually sees to the removal of evil and sin from the life of the believer replacing it with spiritual growth and holiness. Human involvement is minimal.

The Wesley-Holiness model; The basis of victory is a second work of grace where the believer in a crisis act receives sanctification seeing love and holiness perfected in them by the removal of the sin nature so that they can move forward in victory.

The Keswick model; Victory is attained as the believer totally surrenders to God in a “Let go and Let God”
experience. The believer then sets themselves to the work of the Lord not to attain victory, but because
they already have victory. The sinful temptations may exist, but the sinful responses of the heart have
been conquered.

The Pentecostal model; Specifics of the basis of victory are hard to pin down in the Pentecostal model due to the experiential and varied nature of the various splinter groups. The common thread is that sanctification
after salvation involves an experience with the Holy Spirit which empowers the believer in many experiential ways to have victory.

The Chaferian model; As an unbeliever one sinful nature is possessed. At salvation the believer gains a new nature which is in conflict with the old sinful nature. Through dependence on the Holy Spirit by His filling/control the believer has victory in walking in the Spirit, abiding in Christ, and maintaining close
fellowship with God. Sin hinders the victory, but is handled by the cleansing and forgiveness of confession. Spiritual growth and victory takes place as the believer walks by means of the Spirit as well as the other representations of this new position: Walking in Him, in Truth, in the Light, in Love, in Newness of Life, and in Wisdom.

THE KESWICK STORY – HISTORY

KESWICK ORIGINS; IDEOLOGICAL ROOTS: HOLINESS THEOLOGY
Charles Finney & Oberlin Theology

Phobe Palmer & Entire Devotion

William Boardman & The Higher Christian Life

Hannah Whitehall Smith & The Christian Secret of a Happy Life

HISTORIC ORIGINS:

The term Keswick derives its name from a small community in the Lake district of England. In the wake of the Moody-Sankey campaigns there was an increased thirst for personal holiness and spiritual victory in the lives of many English Evangelicals. T. D. Harford-Battersby, vicar of Keswick was such a man. He had attended the Oxford meetings led by Robert Pearsall Smith and William Boardman 1874 and a series of similar meetings in Brighton the following year. At the Brighton meetings Harford-Battersby made arrangements to host a series of meetings the following year at his parish in Keswick, billed as a “Convention for the Promotion of Practical Holiness”

The first Keswick Convention hosted over 400 individuals, who met under the banner of “All One in Christ Jesus.” The meetings have become an annual affair ever since. From Keswick the teaching quickly spread over England, Canada and the United States, with Moody himself being key to the propagation of Keswick teaching in the U.S.

The Keswick format is standardized. The subject of the first day’s meetings is that of sin, which is portrayed in graphic detail. The topic of the second day deals with the provision through the cross for power over sin. (The Keswick understanding of Romans 6-8 becomes key in this regard) The third day addresses the topic of consecration, man’s abandonment to the rule of Christ as both crisis and process. The Fourth day focuses on the Spirit filled Life. And the final day focuses upon the necessity of Christian service which is seen as a necessary outcome of the Spirit-filled life.

“Keswick is not a doctrinal system, much less an organization or a denomination, which is perhaps why participation in it has been so broad. Though leading churchmen and noted scholars led the movement, no Keswick leader has written a treatise on its teaching. . . . There is no official doctrinal statement . . . and a broad variety of doctrinal positions have been held and taught by those associated with the name Keswick.” McQuilken (153)

B. THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

THE PROBLEM:
The reason for the existence of Keswick is the perception that the average Christian is not a normal Christian according to New Testament standards. According to Keswick understanding:

“The normal Christian is characterized by loving responses to ingratitude and indifference, even hostility, and is filled with joy in the midst of unhappy circumstances and peace when everything is going wrong. The normal Christian overcomes in the battle with temptation, consistently obeys the laws of God, and grows in self control, contentment, humility and courage. Thought processes are so under the control of the Holy Spirit and instructed by Scripture that the normal Christian authentically reflects the attitudes and behavior of Jesus Christ. God has first place in his life, and the welfare of others takes precedence over personal desires. The normal Christian has power not only for godly living but for effective service in the church. Above all, he or she has the joy of constant companionship with the Lord.” (McQuilken 151)

The Keswick perception of the average Christian is that he is decent enough but there is nothing supernatural about him. When confronted by temptation he succumbs. He is characterized by self-interest

THE SOLUTION:
Keswick’s solution mirrors in many respects the Wesleyan-Holiness theology out of which it was born.

Appropriation:

Salvation (viewed comprehensively) consists of divine and human initiatives. God’s initiative is to provide salvation. Man’s responsibility is to receive it. Thus individuals are responsible to appropriate the provision for daily victory over sin as they are justification.

Means:

The means of appropriation of this victory have a clear affinity to Wesleyanism

1. Immediate abandonment of every known sin, doubt, indulgence, or conscious hindrance to holy living. Rom. 6:12-14; 8:12-14; 14:21-2 and Heb. 12:1-2.
2. Surrender of the will and the whole being to Jesus Christ as not only savior, but master and Lord, in loving and complete obedience. Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3.
3. Appropriation by faith of God’s promise and power for holy and righteous living. Rom. 4:20-25; 6:2, 2 Peter 1:4 and Heb 8:10
4. voluntary renunciation and mortification of the self-life, which centers in self-indulgence and self-dependence, that God may be all in all. Gal.2:19-20; 4:24,25; Cool 3:5; 2 Cor 5:15.
5. Gracious renewal or transformation of the innermost temper and disposition. Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23; 1 Pet 3:4
6. Separation unto God for Sanctification, consecration and service. 2 Cor 6:14; 7:1 and 2 Tim 2:19-21
7. Endument with power and infilling with the Spirit, the believer claiming his share in the Pentecostal gift. Lk. 24:49, Acts 1:8; Eph 5:18 (Arthur T. Pierson, forward Movements of the last Half Century (London & New York: Funk And Wagnall Co., 1900) 32.)

C. PRIMARY ELEMENTS OF KESWICK

THE PROBLEM OF SIN:
Keswick recognizes the battle of sin which the individual faces, and the defeat that issues from personal sin. Keswick sees man as a slave to sin, a master which holds his mind, emotions and will. By virtue of the Fall man is separated from God and sin is established in the nature of man. Keswick speakers and writers stress the reality of the sin nature and disavows the possibility of sinless perfection. Keswick’s understanding of sin involves six propositions:

(1) Sin is an offense to God’s and rebellion against his purity and goodness.

(2) Sin is a ruling principle in man. Man is totally depraved. Romans 6nad 7 describe this deplorable condition:

Chapter 6 shows man’s enslavement to the sin principle, to be freed only through the New Master, Christ (6:6-7). Chapter 7 is seen through the eyes of a Christian, still helpless in the grip of sin. Many Christians find an all-sufficient atonement in Christ’s death, yet have not found the secret of personal purity which lies therein. Sin remains as the ruling principle. (D. L. Pierson, Arthur T. Pierson, a Biography (London: Nesbet & Co., 1912) 287)

(3) Sin is moral defilement.

Sin has made man unclean, and unfit to approach a holy God. Even as a Christian “one small act of disobedience will throw him out of communion.” (Hopkins, 16)

Numerous OT passages are adduced to support this proposition, among them Isaiah 6:5: “Woe to me for I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” The power of sin is so intense that it is never broken

(4) Sin is a spiritual disease.

The strength of the sin nature is central to Keswick.

(5) Sin is an acquired habit

(6) Sin is an indwelling tendency

It is a tendency which remains throughout life. Keswick explicitly disavows eradication of the sin nature. Keswick’s answer to this is its doctrine of counteraction. It is by the power of the Spirit that the power of sin is counteracted. The tendency to sin remains with the believer, but is the greater force of the spirit dispels this darkness of sin. If one walks in the Spirit the Spirit carries the burden of Sin. If one sins, the Spirit no longer counteracts the tendency to sin and the believer is caught in a spiral of sin. He has no more help in overcoming sin than the unbeliever

GOD’S REMEDY FOR SIN: THE KESWICK MODEL.
The remedy for sin stems from the new relationship which the believer enjoys with Christ as Master. Emphasis is placed upon the power of the risen Christ and the union of the believer with Him. Recognition of the believer’s new identity in Christ is key at this point. “The heart and core of the Keswick teaching is its doctrine of sanctification by faith. The Keswick position is that in Scripture, sanctification comes by faith, and not in any other way.” (Barabas, 100)

In the Keswick model there are four parts to Sanctification

1. “gift” (positional sanctification) 1 Cor 1:30.
2. experiential:
   the day to day transformation which begins at regeneration and continues throughout this life.
3. crisis:

“By a deliberate and decisive act of faith, one may step into his rightful heritage of sustained victory over known sin; this we believe is what the word teaches as the normal Christian life. Constant defeat, grinding bondage and restless worry can be exchanged for a life of ‘perfect peace’. The Bible shows that in Christ there is liberty and rest. This is to be obtained not by a lifetime of struggle, but by surrender to the Spirit of God.’ (Charles F. Harford, ed. The Keswick Convention: Its message, Its Method, Its Men. (London: Marshall Brothers, 1907) 6)

At the time of the crisis comes a realization that Christ is our Sanctification. (1 Cor 1:30) He must be accepted as such by an act of faith.

“Christ must be definitely accepted as our sanctification; if we wish to make any progress in holiness, we have to give up belief in the value of self-effort in holiness. The gift of holiness must be worked out in our daily life, but we work from holiness, not to holiness. To become holy we must possess the holy one. It must be Christ in us.” (Hopkins, 68)

In the Keswick crisis the will is broken, and the believer sees his sin as willful rebellion against God. It may be accompanied by emotional remorse. As an biblical example of a Keswick crisis, Hopkins turns to Jacob . Jacob had wrestled with the angel all night. Now he no longer wrestles but clings and entreats Him to bless him. :”This act of clinging symbolizes for us the life of victorious faith after we have yielded in a spirit of entire submission. You cannot cling until you have ceased to resist..” (65-66)

4. Ultimate Sanctification.
   Transformation into the likeness of Christ after death.

CONSECRATION:
By this is meant full surrender. As a result of this surrender all areas of life are changed. Through this experience the power of God will begin to flow in the life of the believer

This full surrender is necessary because the self is totally sinful. and worthless. “We must hate and utterly lose our own life. . . So long as I myself am still something, Jesus cannot be everything. . . When your life is cast out, God will fill you; your life must be expelled.” (Andrew Murray, Full Blessing of Pentecost, 69)

Keswick understanding of human nature in the regenerate man is dualistic. There exists the old nature which is totally sinful and is to be identified with the self. Beside the Old nature there dwells the new nature which is the part of the individual which has communion with God.

Keswick holds no hope for a transformation of the individual throughout this life. Instead it must be crucified, through the painful step of consecration

“Consecration is a sad and often painful episode, but one which needs to be faced frankly. Breaking away from the carnal conformity to the world and its bondage is not easy. But the alternative is to have a lack of power in ones testimony. . . partial dedication is always fatal.” (Aldis, 54)

The crisis of consecration is passive. an abandonment of self which is springs directly from Hannah Whitehall Smith’s teaching on abandonment. This abandonment is an act whose sole responsibility rests with the believer. The result of this total self-abandonment is the fullness of the spirit and rest. Scroggie explains:

“Feverish service will be at an end. Not that we will cease to work, but there will be rest in toil, so that we may accomplish incredible things quietly and restfully. Then we shall have joy for “the fruit of the Spirit is joy.” Another product is love for the Lord and his people. There will also be power–in Christian work, in secular work, wherever the Lord has put us. And there will be victory–consistent victory over sin.” (Wm. Graham Scroggie, The Fullness of the Holy Spirit, 19)

THE FILLING OF THE SPIRIT:
This emphasis flows from consecration. The Keswick understanding of the filing of the spirit is rooted in Ephesians 5:18 as seen through the exegetical lens of human sinfulness and absolute surrender.

Pardington illustrates the Keswick concept of the Spirit’s control Thus:

A young art student sat in a national art gallery in Europe, trying to copy a famous painting by one of the old masters. He struggled and his word was poor. Finally he fell asleep over the canvas. He dreamed that the spirit of the old master took possession of his brain and his hand. Eagerly the old master seized the brush and rapidly reproduced the masterpiece before him. His work received the highest praise. It had a touch of genius. Then he awoke, only to be bitterly disappointed.

But beloved, your dream may come true Spiritually. We try to imitate Christ, struggling after perfect obedience. but at every turn we fail. Finally we give up. Then God gives us the vision of the indwelling Christ. He will unite himself to us, blending his life with ours. Christ will think through our minds. Christ will keep the law within us! He will destroy the dominion of sin and dethrone self in us. (George Pardington , The Crisis of the Deeper Life (Harrisburg Pa.: Christian Publications, n.d.) 149)

Keswick teaches basically that it is the believer’s duty to take leave of his own personality so that Christ can make all the decisions.

D. CRITIQUE
VIEW OF SIN:
Keswick operates with two views of sin, one theoretical and one practical. One sees this in some measure in McQuilkin, but it is even more evident in the older Keswick writers. As noted above, from the perspective of the system, man is utterly and hopelessly sinful, sinful to the point that the self of even the redeemed individual cannot please God. Hence the necessity for the control of the Spirit (in the most literal sense) 1 John1 John

From a practical perspective however, Keswick reverts to Wesley’s definition of sin as volitional. Note the continues emphasis on known sin for one to retain the victory over sin arising form the spirit’s control fullness/power/control

Consecration: I believe that the Keswick insistence on total abandonment of self amounts to an essential denial of the dignity of man as created in the image of God, an image which man retains even in his sinful state. If the self is worthless, why is it worth redemption to begin with? Teaching which asserts the need of the mystical Christ to do everything is tantamount to spiritual suicide. The New Testament clearly places value on the individual because he is justified, and it clearly respects the personality of the individual.

WORK OF THE SPIRIT: CONTROL
In Keswick the Spirit’s control or the filling of the Spirit is key to any relationship with God. However the Keswick concept of is filling akin to demon possession; While this may sound harsh and even shocking this is exactly the analogy McQuilkin uses to describe the Spirit’s filling ministry

“When a person was said to have a devil (or demon), Scripture meant more than the person was devilish, or characterized by devil-like thinking or behavior. It meant that Satan, and his forces were the dominant influence in that person’s life, at least at that point in time. Since the holy Spirit, like the unholy spirits is a person, this use of the term “filled with the Spirit” would seem to be appropriate. The figurative expression would then literally mean that the Holy Spirit dominated, had full control, possessed imperious claim to the whole being, though the domination would be gracious, by invitation only, and would not, like demon possession, displace or override one’s personal choice.” (177)

McQuilken then appeals to Romans 8:9 as an example of such control (the NIV here used the term control but the Greek text uses the term este .. .en pneumati.) However the context of Romans 8 is clearly drawing the contrast between believer and unbeliever, not between Spirit-filled and carnal (. . . if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 8:9b)

CONTROL:
The New Testament never uses the terminology of control to describe the believer’s relationship to the Spirit. The terminology is more subtle, e.g. leading. In fact, a result of the Spirit’s ministry on our lives is self-control, this would hardly seem possible if the regenerate self were still totally evil as Keswick claims.

PRACTICAL PERFECTIONISM:
The goal of Keswick is the peace and joy arising from victory over all known sin. While Keswick expressly disavows that a Christian can be sinless (perfect)for a lifetime, it expressly embraces a moment by moment perfectionism. As Packer notes: “The Keswick promise of complete victory over all known sin goes beyond anything that the New testament permits us to expect in this world. (see 1 John 1:8-10; Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:14-25. . . ). The Christian’s present righteousness is relative; Nothing he does is sinless perfect yet. Behind his best performances lies a heart too little fervent and motives too mixed, and as Jesus’ judgments on the Pharisees show, it is morally unreal to evaluate an agent’s acts without regard for his motives and purposes (see Matt 6:1-6; 6-18; 23:25-28)

QUIETISM:
NATURES & THE CARNAL CHRISTIAN:
As seen above Keswick sees the old nature as something which is not subject to transformation, but retains its full force throughout one’s life. No transformation by the spirit is to be expected. This clearly is in contradistinction to Pauline teaching which speaks of the progressive transformation of the believer into the likeness of Christ (2 Cor 3:18; Rom 12;2)

Hand in hand with this is the Keswick teaching concerning the carnal Christian, i.e. a Christian out of fellowship with God. Keswick basis its teaching on a misreading of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. As Hokema rightly notes:

. . . There is no biblical basis for the distinction between “carnal” and “spiritual” Christians. The New Testament does distinguish between people who have been born again and those who have not (John 3:3,5), between those who believe in Christ and those who do not (v.36), between those who live according to the flesh and those who live according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:5 RSV), and between the “unspiritual man” and the “Spiritual man” (1Cor. 2:14-15 RSV). It never speaks of a third class of people called “carnal Christians.”

The reference in 1 Cor 3:1-3 is not to such a third class of people but to immature Christians, to “mere infants in Christ” (v. 1). Though they are still infants, they are “in Christ.” Their carnality is a behavior problem, which they must outgrow. Since they are in Christ, they are indeed “new creatures”,(2 Cor 5::17 KJV), “sanctified” (1 Cor 1:2’ 6:11), and are spiritually rich (3:21-23) (187)

Holiness: In the Keswick model holiness is freedom from sin, not conformity to God’s character, or even perfect love as Wesley contended. Thus, Keswick is very much anthropocentric rather than theocentric.

Packer notes: “. . this makes it against rather than for, growth in moral and spiritual sensitivity. To make present happiness one’s present purpose is not the path of biblical godliness. (151)

INTROSPECTION:
Another great problem with Keswick teaching in its various forms is the tendency to morbid introspection. If one’s spiritual relationship to God is dependent upon confession of known sin, and absolute yieldedness, how can one be sure that he has actually confessed all sin. If a sin has been missed somewhere, the individual is still out of fellowship with God and devoid of spiritual power. Thus instead of a relationship with God producing holiness, Keswick demands holiness before communion. This mentality Harold Bussell rightly labels as cultic (Unholy Devotion, )

SPIRITUAL ELITISM:
As with Wesleyanism the post conversion crisis gives rise to the haves and the have nots mentality. Those who have experienced this crisis have a tendency to look down upon those who haven’t as unspiritual.

SPIRITUALITY BY FORMULA:
While there is an insistence that the siritual life is a matter of a relationship with the Spirit & Christ (e.g. McQuilken) the means of establishing that relationship is formulaic. For Trumbull it was “Let go and let God.” Andrew Murray gives a different list:

“The three steps in this path are these: First the deliberate decision that self shall be given up to the death; then, surrender to the Christ crucified to make us partakers in his crucifixion; “knowing that our old man is crucified”, the faith that says, “I am crucified with Christ;” and then the power to live as a crucified one, to the glory of Christ.” (Holy In Christ, 182)

Perhaps the most familiar formula is Campus Crusade’s Holy Spirit booklet. These lists cold be multiplied, but the point is the same. Spiritual victory s offered through the means of a formula. The test of one’s spirituality is not the fruit of the Spirit in one’s life but whether one has by faith fulfilled the conditions of the formula. This opens up another veritable Pandora’s box. The whole point of Keswick/Victorious Life theology is to gain victory over sin and have a feeling of victory and the presence of God. Frank notes:

Naturally some who followed the steps very carefully felt no difference; to this the Victorious Life teachers replied that feelings did not count. This I believe , was the source of a great deal of confusion in the Victorious Life message, and it is also where one begins to smell the rat of charlatanism. The victorious life was offered to Christians, especially by Trumbull, as a whole new way to feel. What else can we make of the promises that worry anxiety and anger would be replaced by constant joy and peace. What is “happiness” if it is not a feeling? Any yet when confronted by a woman who said, “I have surrendered, but nothing has happened”, Trumbull quoted C. I. Scofield: “ ‘there are so many people waiting for some feeling to confirm the action of God. . . ‘ Dear friends do not wait for another moment for feeling to confirm the Word of God. If you are resting on your feelings you are resting on quicksand. . . Victory has nothing to do with feelings; God’s Word is true whether we feel it or not.” (Frank, 149)

IV. Conclusion
Wesleyan-Holiness and in Keswick one finds two models of Sanctification which although they differ in detail are based upon the same bifurcation of justification and sanctification. Wesleyanism actually calls this post-conversion crisis a second work of grace. Keswick calls it a second blessing, although in practice there is a one to one correspondence with the second work of grace of Wesleyanism. Both models are ultimately perfectionistic, in the sense that they redefine sin, limiting it to volitional acts of rebellion (at least with reference to one’s ongoing fellowship with God). The result is that an individual may at any point in time be described as sinless. Holiness sanctification historically gave birth to a legalistic mentality which often saw sin in terms of cultural norms. Keswick in effect made surrender and faith works, which had the effect of moving the legalism from the objective sphere to the subjective.

Having said all this, it still must be remembered that both positions had their positive features (Packer lists these, 136-137; 148-150) while they fall short in crucial areas. Both offered what Christians long for, a closer relationship with Christ. As Packer says “. . . When Christians ask God to make them more like Jesus, through the Spirit’s power, He will do it, never mind what shortcomings appear in their theology. He is a most gracious and generous God.”

A CLEAN AND HOLY GOD

Holiness and cleanliness are related concepts, but they have distinct meanings, especially in religious and spiritual contexts. Let’s explore their differences:

1. Holiness:
   • Definition: Holiness refers to a state of being set apart, sacred, and dedicated to God or a higher power. It involves moral purity, spiritual devotion, and living in accordance with divine principles.
   • Context: Holiness is often associated with religious practices, rituals, and ethical behavior. It signifies a close relationship with the divine and a commitment to living a righteous life.
   • Example: In Leviticus, God commands the Israelites to be holy because He Himself is holy ¹. Holiness encompasses both inner purity and outward actions that align with God’s character.
2. Cleanliness:
   • Definition: Cleanliness primarily relates to physical or ritual purity. It involves maintaining hygiene, avoiding contamination, and adhering to specific rules or practices.
   • Context: Cleanliness is emphasized in various religious traditions, including Judaism and Hinduism. Ritual washing, dietary restrictions, and avoiding impurity are common aspects of cleanliness.
   • Example: In Leviticus, there are detailed instructions about clean and unclean foods, as well as purification rituals ¹. Cleanliness ensures fitness or suitability to be in God’s presence ².

In summary, holiness encompasses both moral and spiritual aspects, while cleanliness focuses on physical and ritual purity. However, in Leviticus, these concepts intersect, emphasizing that being clean is closely tied to being holy ¹. Ultimately, both holiness and cleanliness aim to bring individuals closer to the divine

John Wesley, co-founder of Methodism, may have been the inventor of the phrase “cleanliness is next to godliness.” He often emphasized cleanliness in his preaching. But the principle behind the rule dates back long before the days of Wesley to the worship rituals laid out in the book of Leviticus. These rites were established by Yahweh to show sinners how they could be cleansed from iniquity and reconciled to God.

Ritual purification was a matter of extreme importance in Israelite worship. God required his people to be a pure and holy nation (Exodus 19:6). For the Jews, holiness had to be reflected in the way they lived, giving utmost priority to the moral and spiritual virtues that God had revealed in his laws.

Unlike all the other nations, God had given his covenant people specific instructions concerning hygiene and cleanness. He showed them how to maintain purity, and what to do to regain it if they lost it through carelessness or disobedience.

Handwashing

In Exodus, when God gave instructions for worship in the wilderness Tabernacle, he instructed Moses to make a large bronze laver and place it between the tent of meeting and the altar. This basin held water that the priests would use to wash their hands and feet before approaching the altar to make offerings (Exodus 30:17–21; 38:8).

This hand washing ritual of purification came to represent God’s loathing of sin (Isaiah 52:11). It formed the basis of the Jewish practice of washing their hands before specific prayers and before meals (Mark 7:3–4; John 2:6).

The Pharisees adopted such a careful routine of handwashing before eating food that they began to equate having clean hands with having a pure heart. But Jesus didn’t give much weight to such habits, and neither did his disciples. Jesus considered this pharisaical practice to be empty, dead legalism (Matthew 15:1–20).

Foot Washing

The custom of foot washing was not only part of the purification rituals in ancient times, but also one of the duties of hospitality. The humble gesture expressed respect for guests as well as attentive and affectionate regard for weary, travel-worn visitors. The roads in biblical times were not paved, and thus sandal-clad feet became dirty and dusty.

Foot washing as a part of hospitality appeared in the Bible as early as the days of Abraham, who washed the feet of his heavenly visitors in Genesis 18:1–15. We see the welcoming ritual again in Judges 19:21 when a Levite and his concubine were invited to stay in Gibeah. Foot washing was performed by slaves and servants as well as by members of the household (1 Samuel 25:41). Ordinary pots and bowls would have been kept on hand to be used for this purpose.

Perhaps the most remarkable example of foot washing in the Bible occurred when Jesus washed the feet of the disciples in John 13:1–20. Christ performed the lowly service to teach humility to his followers and to demonstrate how believers are to love one another through acts of sacrifice and service. Many Christian churches still practice foot-washing ceremonies today.

Baptism, Regeneration, and Spiritual Cleansing

The Christian life begins with the washing of the body through baptism by immersion in water. Baptism is symbolic of the spiritual regeneration that takes place through repentance and forgiveness of sin. In Scripture, sin is associated with a lack of cleanliness, whereas redemption and baptism are linked with washing and purity.

Washing is also used figuratively for the believer’s spiritual cleansing through the Word of God:

“… Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:25–27, NIV).

The apostle Paul described salvation in Jesus Christ and new birth by the power of the Holy Spirit as spiritual washing:

“He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5, NIV).

Cleanliness Quotes in the Bible

Exodus 40:30–31 (NLT)
Next Moses placed the washbasin between the Tabernacle and the altar. He filled it with water so the priests could wash themselves. Moses and Aaron and Aaron’s sons used water from it to wash their hands and feet.

John 13:10 (ESV)
Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.”

Leviticus 14:8–9 (NIV)
“The person to be cleansed must wash their clothes, shave off all their hair and bathe with water; then they will be ceremonially clean. After this they may come into the camp, but they must stay outside their tent for seven days. On the seventh day they must shave off all their hair; they must shave their head, their beard, their eyebrows and the rest of their hair. They must wash their clothes and bathe themselves with water, and they will be clean.

Leviticus 17:15–16 (NLT)
“And if any native-born Israelites or foreigners eat the meat of an animal that died naturally or was torn up by wild animals, they must wash their clothes and bathe themselves in water. They will remain ceremonially unclean until evening, but then they will be clean. But if they do not wash their clothes and bathe themselves, they will be punished for their sin.”

Psalm 51:7 (NLT)
Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Psalm 51:10 (NLT)
Create in me a clean heart, O God. Renew a loyal spirit within me.

Isaiah 1:16 (NLT)
Wash yourselves and be clean! Get your sins out of my sight. Give up your evil ways.

Ezekiel 36:25–26 (NIV)
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Matthew 15:2 (NLT)
“Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.”

Acts 22:16 (NIV)
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

2 Corinthians 7:1 (NLT)
Because we have these promises, dear friends, let us cleanse ourselves from everything that can defile our body or spirit. And let us work toward complete holiness because we fear God.

Hebrews 10:22 (NIV)
Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

1 Peter 3:21 (NLT)
And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

1 John 1:7 (NIV)
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

1 John 1:9 (NLT)
But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness.

Revelation 19:14 (NIV)
The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

Evangelical Free Church of America

The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) is an evangelical Christian denomination rooted in the Radical Pietistic tradition. Established in 1950 through the amalgamation of the Swedish Evangelical Free Church and the Norwegian-Danish Evangelical Free Church Association, it maintains affiliation with the International Federation of Free Evangelical Churches.

The term “Free” holds significance in two distinct contexts. Firstly, within the historical framework, it signifies the independence of the Free Church in Europe from state church control. Secondly, within theological discourse, it reflects the autonomy of the local church polity, emphasizing that each local church is self-governing and free from ecclesiastical and hierarchical control. This is eloquently elucidated in Evangelical Convictions: A Theological Exposition of the Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America (page 261).

“Though not included among our central doctrinal convictions, the Evangelical Free Church of America is congregational. That is, Evangelical Free Churches are autonomous and self-governing. [The Articles of Incorporation of the Evangelical Free Church mandate that the EFCA “shall be an association and fellowship of autonomous but interdependent congregations of like faith and congregational government” (II.A.)] We hold this as an integral part of our history and tradition, and on the basis of our understanding of biblical teaching.”

Historically, Evangelicals believe that due to sin, God takes the first step in salvation. One theological stream (Arminian/Wesleyan) emphasizes God’s initiation through prevenient grace, while another (Calvinist/Reformed) focuses on effective grace. Despite their differences, both streams agree that God initiates and emphasize the necessity of His action due to the spiritual state of humanity after the fall. Evangelicals reject Pelagianism (condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431) and semi-Pelagianism (condemned at the Council of Orange in 529).

The creators of 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith aimed to formulate a statement that respected both Arminian/Wesleyan and Calvinist/Reformed perspectives on salvation without favoring either. This principle also applies to 2008 Statement of Faith, which states, “He [the Holy Spirit] regenerates sinners” (Article 6).

For the EFCA, this means embracing Arminian/Wesleyan, Calvinist/Reformed, and Lutheran views of soteriology. The fundamental belief in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone remains paramount. Both regeneration (the work of the Spirit) and faith (our response) are crucial for salvation, and our Statement of Faith acknowledges their significance without assigning priority to either. Whether regeneration precedes faith (Calvinism) or faith precedes regeneration (Arminianism) is not given logical precedence. We also recognize both perspectives on the possibility of apostasy (the potential to fall away and lose one’s salvation) and the perseverance of the saints (eternal security).

This does not imply that each local church must equally represent these positions. Each local EFCA church may lean more towards one theological direction than another. However, regardless of the leaning, the church should be open and welcoming to individuals with differing theological perspectives. Within the EFCA, this theological doctrine falls under the category of the “significance of silence,” where we affirm “unity in the essentials, dialogue in the differences,” without causing division.

God’s Grace is Greater than all our sins.

If you are familiar with the story of Jacob and his sons, you’ll know that most of them were involved in troubling and hurtful actions. They committed serious offenses, including murder, adultery, and deceit. They even went as far as selling their own brother and falsely claiming that he was deceased. Some of them even worshipped idols. Despite these transgressions, their names were chosen to be engraved on the gates of heaven.

Upon reflecting on the story of Jacob and his sons, one might wonder if their actions would be tolerated in today’s church. Despite their wrongdoing, their names are inscribed on the gates of heaven. This brings us to the realization that we, too, may have committed wrongs. While we may not have committed the same grave offenses as the men of Israel, we may still feel unworthy of God’s forgiveness.

Why should we consider ourselves unworthy when individuals like Reuben will be there? What is it that makes us believe our mistakes are too great for God to forgive, especially if we genuinely repent and focus on the teachings of the cross? His mercy is boundless and His grace is abundant. All we need to do is seek forgiveness, reflect on our missteps, and allow Him to guide us.

We only have Him, and His grace is all-encompassing. Accept His grace, and find peace.

FEBRUARY 2024 BLESSING

We thank God for we have graciously entered the second month of the year 2024.The bible says

Genesis 7:11 KJV

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, *in the second month,* the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and *the windows of heaven were opened.*

In this second month of the year, may the windows of heaven be opened and you receive all the desired blessings. This is our month of open heavens and may you walk under an open heaven, where prayers are answered and you enjoy:

>Unlimited blessings

> victory in all things

>Divine healing in all areas of your life.

>Breakthroughs in all you do.

>A life of forgiveness,

>Grace and favour in all you do.

May you walk under an open heaven this month and experience the presence of God wherever you go. It’s a month with difference, a month of open heavens.

Enuma Elish

Enūma Eliš, also known as the Babylonian creation myth, has been the subject of much speculation and debate among scholars. The myth, recovered in fragmentary form by English archaeologist Austen Henry Layard in 1849 in the ruined Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, has raised questions about its authenticity and interpretation. While a form of the myth was first published by English Assyriologist George Smith in 1876, active research and further excavations have led to near completion of the texts and improved translation, but doubts linger.

The text, recorded in Akkadian on seven clay tablets, is said to describe the creation of the world and a battle between gods focused on the offering to Marduk. It also talks about the creation of man destined for the service of the Mesopotamian deities, and it ends with a long passage praising Marduk. However, the missing parts of Tablet V and the uncertainties surrounding its translation have cast a shadow of doubt on the complete understanding of the myth.

The rise of Marduk, often associated with historical events and rulers, has been a matter of contention, with differing views on its origins. Some argue that the rise of Marduk started from the Second Dynasty of Isin, while others propose a late Kassite date. Additionally, the supposed recitation of the myth during the Akitu festival adds another layer of skepticism regarding its original purpose and significance.

Before the tablets were conveniently discovered to align with biblical stories, substantial elements of the myth had survived via the writings of Berossus, a 3rd-century BCE Babylonian writer and priest of Bel (Marduk). These writings were then preserved in Alexander Polyhistor’s book on Chaldean History, which was reproduced by Eusebius in Book 1 of his Chronicon. In it are described the primeval state of an abyssal darkness and water, the two primeval beings existing therein, said to be of a twofold principle. The description then relates the creation of further beings, partly human but with variants of wings, animal heads and bodies, and some with both sex organs. (Berossus states images of these are to be found at the temple of Bel in Babylon.) The text also describes a female being leading over them, named as Omoroca, called Thalatth in Babylonian (derived from Greek,) and her slaying by Bel, who cut her in half, forming Heaven of one part and Earth of the other – this, Berossus claims to have been an allegory. The text also describes the beheading of a god, and the mixing of the god’s blood with the Earth’s soil, leading to the creation of men (people). Finally, there is also reference to Bel’s creation of the stars, Sun, Moon, and planets. Berossus also gave an account of the sage Oannes, a sort of fish-man hybrid, who appeared from the sea and taught people all manner of knowledge, including writing, lawmaking, construction, mathematics, and agriculture; Berossus presented the account of creation in the form of a speech given by the Oannes. The neo-platonist Damascius also gave a short version of the Babylonian cosmological view, which closely matches Enūma Eliš.

Clay tablets containing inscriptions relating to analogues of biblical stories were discovered by A.H. Layard, Hormuzd Rassam, and George Smith in the ruins of the Palace and Library of Ashurbanipal (668–626 BCE) during excavations at the mound of Kuyunjik, Nineveh (near Mosul) between 1848 and 1876. Smith then worked through Rassam’s find of ~20,000 fragments from 1852, and identified references to the kings Shalmaneser II, Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and other rulers mentioned in the Bible – furthermore he discovered versions of a Babylonian deluge myth (see Gilgamesh flood myth), as well as creation myths.

On examination, it became somewhat clear that the Assyrian myths were drawn from or similar to the Babylonian ones. Additionally, Sir Henry Rawlinson had noted similarities between Biblical accounts of creation and the geography of Babylonia; he suggested that biblical creation stories might have their origin in that area. A link was found on a tablet labelled K 63 at the British Museum’s collection by Smith, as well as similar text on other tablets. Smith then began searching the collection for textual similarities between the two myths and found several references to a deluge myth with an ‘Izdubar’ (literal translation of cuneiform for Gilgamesh). Smith’s publication of his work led to an expedition to Assyria funded by The Daily Telegraph – there he found further tablets describing the deluge as well as fragmentary accounts of creation, a text on a war between good and evil ‘gods’, and a Fall of man myth. A second expedition by Smith brought back further creation legend fragments. By 1875 he had returned and began publishing accounts of these discoveries in the Daily Telegraph from 4 March 1875.

Smith speculated, quite boldly, that the creation myth, including a part describing the fall of man, might originally have spanned at least nine or ten tablets. He also identified tablets the themes of which were, in part, closer to the account given by Berossus. Some of Smith’s early correspondences, such as references to the stories of the temptation of Eve, to the Tower of Babel, and to instructions given from God (Yahweh) to Adam and Eve, were later held to be erroneous.

The connection with the Bible stories brought a great deal of additional attention to the tablets – in addition to Smith’s early scholarship on the tablets, early translation work included that done by E. Schrader, A.H. Sayce, and Jules Oppert. In 1890 P. Jensen published a translation and commentary Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Jensen 1890), followed by an updated translation in his 1900 “Mythen und Epen” (Jensen 1900); in 1895 Prof. Zimmern of Leipzig gave a translation of all known fragments, (Gunkel & Zimmern 1895), shortly followed by a translation by Friedrich Delitzsch, as well as contributions by several other authors.

In 1898, the trustees of the British Museum ordered the publication of a collection of all the Assyrian and Babylonian creation texts held by them, a work which was undertaken by L.W. King. King concluded that the creation myth as known in Nineveh was originally contained on seven tablets.[18] This collection was published 1901 as “Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum” (Part XIII) (British Museum 1901). King then published his translations and notes in two volumes with additional material 1902 as The Seven Tablets of Creation, or the Babylonian and Assyrian Legends concerning the creation of the world and of mankind (King 1902). By then, additional fragments of tablet six had been found, concerning the creation of man – here Marduk was found to have made man from his blood combined with bone, which brought comparison with Genesis 2:23 (“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man”) where the creation of woman required the use of a man’s bone.

New material contributing to the fourth and sixth tablets also further corroborated other elements of Berossus’ account. The seventh tablet added by King was a praise of Marduk, using around fifty titles over more than one hundred lines of cuneiform. Thus King’s composition of Enūma Eliš consisted of five parts – the birth of gods, legend of Ea and Apsu, Tiamat primeval serpent myth, account of creation, and finally a hymn to Marduk using his many titles. Importantly, tablets, both Assyrian and Babylonian, when possessing colophons had the number of the tablet inscribed.

Further expeditions by German researchers uncovered further tablet fragments (specifically tablet 1, 6, and 7) during the period 1902–1914 – there works replaced Marduk with the Assyrian god Ashur; additional important sources for tablets 1 and 6, and tablet 7 were discovered by expeditions in 1924–25, and 1928–29 respectively. The Ashur texts uncovered by the Germans necessitated some corrections – it was Kingu not Marduk who was killed and whose blood made men. These discoveries were further supplemented by purchases from antiquity dealers – as a result by the mid 20th century most of the text of the work was known, with the exception of tablet 5. These further discoveries were complemented by a stream of publications and translations in the early 20th century.

In the 21st century, the text remains a subject of active research, analysis, and discussion. Significant publications include: The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma Eliš (Talon 2005); Das Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enuma Elis (Kämmerer & Metzler 2012); Babylonian Creation Myths (Lambert 2013); enūma eliš: Weg zu einer globalen Weltordnung (Gabriel 2014); and other works still.

TRINITY

A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Every term in this statement (God, exists, as or in, equally divine, Person) has been variously understood. The guiding principle has been the creedal declaration that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the New Testament are consubstantial (i.e. the same in substance or essence, Greek: homoousios). Because this shared substance or essence is a divine one, this is understood to imply that all three named individuals are divine, and equally so. Yet the three in some sense “are” the one God of the Bible

After its formulation and imperial enforcement towards the end of the fourth century, this sort of Christian theology reigned more or less unchallenged. But before this, and again in post-Reformation modernity, the origin, meaning, and justification of trinitarian doctrine has been repeatedly disputed. These debates are discussed in supplementary documents to this entry. One aspect of these debates concerns the self-consistency of trinitarian theology. If there are three who are equally divine, isn’t that to say there are at least three gods? Yet the tradition asserts exactly one god. Is the tradition, then, incoherent, and so self-refuting? Since the revival of analytic philosophy of religion in the 1960s, many Christian philosophers have pursued what is now called analytic theology, in which religious doctrines are given formulations which are precise, and it is hoped self-consistent and otherwise defensible. This article surveys these recent “rational reconstructions” of the Trinity doctrine, w

Modalism vs Trinity

In Modalism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mere “modes” of how the one God interacts with creation. Like an actor on a stage, God could appear sometimes as the Father, other times as the Son, and other times as the Spirit. For the Modalist, Christ is not only God, he is the Father himself.

The orthodox Trinity doctrine, as taught by the mainstream church, including most Protestant churches, similar to Modalism, regards the Son and the Holy Spirit to be “God” but describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the three distinct Persons. To maintain the one-ness of God, so that the doctrine does not teach tri-theism (three Gods), the Father, Son, and Spirit are said to share one undivided divine essence (also called being or substance).

So, both Modalism and the Trinity doctrine proclaim one God and one substance. But while Modalism describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three modes, the orthodox Trinity doctrine describes them as three Persons. For the orthodox Trinity doctrine to be different from Modalism, personhood must be real.

Full Divine Essence

Firstly, the orthodox Trinity doctrine teaches that God does not have parts. Consequently, the three Persons are not three parts of God, but each of them is the full divine essence. In other words, each of the three Persons is God in His entirety.

This principle may be illustrated by the following formula:

God = the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit.

The Athanasian Creed expresses this principle as follows:

“The Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are NOT THREE GODS; BUT ONE GOD”

Thomas Aquinas, who is “recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as its foremost Western philosopher and theologian” (Britannica) confirmed this:

“It cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons.”

So, if the three Persons are identical, then they are mere modes of God.

One Mind and Will

Secondly, generally, a person is a self, a thinker, with his own will and mind. But in the orthodox Trinity doctrine the Father, the Son, and the Spirit share one single mind and will. Today, there are many who think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each having His own mind, but then you have three Gods (tri-theism).

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the standard Trinity doctrine, share one single mind and will, strengthens the view that they are mere modes of God.

Relations make no difference.

People are differentiated both by their persons and by their relations:

• Each person is different.
• Persons also differ in their relationships with other people, for example in marriage, family, etc.

In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, as already stated, the three Persons are identical because they share one single divine substance. Consequently, the only difference between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is in their relationships, namely:

• The Father begets the Son and
• The Spirit proceeds from the Son (in Western catholic thinking) or from the Father (in Eastern Orthodox thinking).

The following shows that Aquinas argued that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is those relationships:

“So then the only question left is what makes the persons distinct from one another? What makes the distinction real? The answer is that they are distinct only in their relation to one another.” [Summa 1028]

“The divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations.” [Summa 1036]

Aquinas’ justification for the view that the Spirit must proceed from the Son illustrates the notion that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is their relations, for, he says, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then the Spirit is the same as the Son because both have a relationship only with the Father. For the Son to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit, there must be a relationship between them as well. [Summa 1036] Quoting Aquinas:

“It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He (the Holy Ghost) could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him (the Son).”

However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the relationships have no practical implication. As Aquinas argued, “in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself.” Therefore, the “relations in Him are essential, not accidental.” To explain:

• With people, a person becomes a parent when a child is born. That is what Aquinas means by “accidental.”
• But in God, these relations are not caused by events. They are “essential,” meaning that these relations do not bring about change.

So, each of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit always was and always will be the entire substance of God. Consequently, always and under all conditions, the Father, Son, and Spirit shared one and the same substance, mind, and will. The relations make no difference.

Conclusion

Some people, in their explanation of the Trinity, emphasize the three-ness of God, often bordering on tri-theism.

In contrast, the Christian mainstream understanding of the Trinity, namely the theory that the three Persons are not three parts of God, but that each of them at all times is the full divine essence, sharing one single mind and will, implies that the difference in relation (their origins) has no practical consequences. The emphasis is fully on the one-ness of God. Consequently, I fail to see the difference between the three Persons and, therefore, the difference between the mainstream Trinity doctrine and Modalism, in spite of the usual disclaimer that the Trinity doctrine is not Modalism.

SOURCE
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/86808/what-is-the-difference-between-the-trinity-theory-and-modalism