In the admission of many of these officers be diverse comely ceremonies and solemnities used, which be not of necessity, but only for a good order and seemly fashion: for if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnity, they were nevertheless truly committed. And there is no more promise of God, that grace is given in the committing of the ecclesiastical office, than it is in the committing of the civil office.
In the apostles’ time, when there was no christian princes, by whose authority ministers of God’s word might be appointed, nor sins by the sword corrected, there was no remedy then for the correction of vice, or appointing of ministers, but only the consent of the christian multitude among themselves, by an uniform consent to follow the advice and persuasion of such persons whom God had most endued with the spirit of counsel and wisdom. And at that time, forasmuch as the christian people had no sword nor governor amongst them, they were constrained of necessity to take such curates and priests as either they knew themselves to be meet thereunto, or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the Spirit of God, with such knowledge in the profession of Christ, such wisdom, such conversation and counsel, that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them, and to accept such as by them were presented: and so sometime the apostles, and other, unto whom God had given abundantly his Spirit, sent or appointed ministers of God’s word; sometime the people did choose such as they thought meet thereunto; and when any were appointed or sent by the apostles or other, the people of their own voluntary will with thanks did accept them; not for the supremity, impery, or dominion that the apostles had over them to command, as their princes or masters; but as good people, ready to obey the advice of good counsellors, and to accept any thing that was necessary for their edification and benefit.
10. Whether bishops or priests were first? and if the priests were first, then the priest made the bishop?
The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ’s religion.
11. Whether a bishop hath authority to make a priest by scripture, or no? and whether any other, but only a bishop, may make a priest?
A bishop may make a priest by the scripture, and so may princes and governors also, and that by the authority of God committed to them, and the people also by their election: for as we read that bishops have done it, so christian emperors and princes usually have done it; and the people, before christian princes were, commonly did elect their bishops and priests.
12. Whether in the new Testament be required any consecration of a bishop and priest, or only appointing to the office be sufficient?
In the new Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop or priest, needeth no consecration by the scripture; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient.
Thomas Cranmer, _Questions and Answers Concerning the Sacraments and the Appointment and Power of Bishops and Priests_, as found in Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer (The Writings of Thomas Cranmer, Vol. 2), edited by John Edmund Cox, p. 116-117.
Ordination According to Cranmer
The Irony of Anglo-Catholicism
Censorship and unwanted comments are hard to pull off on the Internet these days. Apparently, Mr. Clavier (a defrocked continuing priest who is now properly Episcopalian) decided my rejoinder wasn’t fit to be published. So, for the sake of context I put forward his initial reply to me and then my comments below which he decided not to publish:
I made it clear that mere ecclesial connection is not sufficient. However you make some assumptions which I would challenge. The first is that the Reformation, rather than the reform of the church, was a good thing, a pattern worth replicating. Your second assumption is that the theologies of Cranmer and Hooker, hardly identical in many aspects, forms the last word on Anglican ecclesiology. As neither lived at a time when the Anglican Communion existed, it’s rather hard to see how their witness is more than wild speculation. Certainly by the time of the first Lambeth Conference, the position of Canterbury as primes inter pares was assumed, even by Americans. Indeed the enthusiasm of Episcopalians in the United States in itself questions whether the primacy of Canterbury was an expression of British hegemony.
Paul opposed Peter but he didn’t set himself up as a rival or create his own rival church. The Word, as you put it, isn’t some disembodied entity independent of enfleshment. The Word is, of course Christ and the Church is Christ’s Bride. United in Christ in baptism, not only as individuals but as the church (see Cranmer’s consecration prayer in the Eucharist: “we and all thy whole church”) Christians are structured into a fellowship, which has developed, as the Preface to the Ordinal in the old BCP puts it, “from the Apostles’ time”.
I would suggest that your views are closer to those of the Elizabethan sectaries than to Anglicanism or to Hooker himself, both in your minimal ecclesiology and in your understanding of mission.
I haven’t made the assumptions which you infer. The Reformation, glorious as it was, was not an event that can be repeated simply because it’s a singular phenomenon in history. However, the underlying theology which allowed the Reformers on the continent and in England to act as they did is most certainly worth considering in contradistinction to your point of view that reform somehow must always be carried out without damage either to the episcopal office or those who hold it. Given your view, as I said, the Reformation would never have happened and as such England would still be under the thumb of Rome which would make this entire thread of yours particularly irrelevant. You’re simply using the same argument against GAFCON that Rome originally used against the Church of England. It doesn’t wash.
I always love to see Anglo-Catholics defend their partisan view of what it means to be Anglican while disparaging the likes of Cranmer and Hooker. Doing so makes it quite clear that the Anglo-Catholic position is an extreme one and likely does not tell the whole story in terms of what it actually means to be Anglican. The fact that you skip nearly four hundred years of history to appeal to Lambeth I as the point at which we must begin talking about what it means to be Anglican (as if under the British Empire there was no Anglican Communion until then!) is simply another tell by which we can see that the true anachronisms here are in your camp. I referenced Cranmer and Hooker as representative of the overwhelmingly Protestant and Reformed nature of Anglican ecclesiology as it stood prior to the advent of the Oxford Movement and the subsequent infection of liberalism which such a revisionist movement made possible. But, in referencing Cranmer I in no way assumed that they are the be-all end-all of Anglican ecclesiology. They do represent, however, an obvious endorsement of reformational or Protestant principles when it comes to this issue of episcopacy.
No doubt Cranmer and Hooker, like many other Anglican divines since the time of the Reformation, did not see episcopacy as defining the church or necessary for the church to function and had no problems receiving Reformed ministers from the continent who were not in churches with episcopal government. In fact, they were also clear on the actual history of the early church in that at one time both priest and bishop were the same office–very much in line with what modern scholarship has found out beginning with Lightfoot and carrying on to Beckwith, Burtchaell, and others. And, even in the late 1800′s we can see continued recognition of the Protestant nature of Anglicanism through the likes of Bishop Cummins and the REC even while the Oxford Movement was approaching its heyday. Of course, if that is not enough we can also remember that the English rejected Anglo-Catholic and other revisions to the 1662 Prayer Book in the early twentieth century while the more staid Anglo-Catholics in America took an opposite route. All of this points to an ecclesiological identity of Anglicanism as thoroughly Protestant right up and even through the advent of Oxford Movement. After all, wasn’t ECUSA until only recently called the “Protestant Episcopal Church”?
And, noting this is important because it further makes clear what ought to be obvious. Since the Reformation, Anglicanism worldwide has been overwhelmingly Protestant and evangelical and has had little need or use for understanding that episcopacy makes up the essence of the church. Rather, most Anglican divines since the Reformation have clearly taught that episcopacy is simply good for the church and a result of proper apostolic order that developed over the life and history of the earlier undivided church. As such then, to say one would cease to become Anglican because there is no connection to what is already simply a symbolic office as we have it in the See of Canterbury is simply tilting at windmills.
Our definition of what Anglicanism means is not tied simply to an episcopal office but more importanly to the actual theological substance of what those bishops believed over the last five hundred years since the Reformation. That’s the whole reason GAFCON exists–to call errant bishops in our era back to a faithful practice of the Anglicanism that’s existed over the life of the English Church (and other close communions) since the reforming of the church took place during the Reformation.
Re: Paul and Peter – Paul had no reason to split against Peter simply because Peter recanted. But, we find Paul having no issue disassociating himself with both leaders and followers of heresy as Galatians makes quite clear. There is no hint in Paul, then, that being a leader or bishop makes you any less susceptible to error or that the office itself is somehow inviolable when the gospel is at stake. Your claim that I’m talking about some “disembodied entity independent of enfleshment” is simply baseless and not taking into account the true nature of any sort of Protestant Anglican ecclesiology. No doubt Hooker and Cranmer both would laugh at such a suggestion. After all, Hooker defended the right use of episcopacy in England even though he did not feel it was essential to the nature and being of the church.
Idealism Draws To Itself Bad History
There has been a decision by systematicians to prefer an architectonic and idealistic style of writing; this decision has been objectified, for no one can remember making it. Aside from amnesia, the problem with the influence of idealism in systematic appropriations of patristic theology is not that philosophy in general has no place in theology, or even that idealisim in particular has no place in theology. Rather the problem is that, unacknowledged, idealism draws to itself bad history: the integrity of the discipline of historical studies is ruptured by the need to find a “historical” account which is already cast in idealistic terms. History is then treated as the material enstructuring of those themes which are constitutive of contemporary systematics. The dialogue between systematic theology and historical theology is transformed into a conversation between a ventriloquist and her or his prop.
Michel Barnes, “Augustine in Contemporary Theology”, Theological Studies Journal 56, 1995, pp. 243-244.
Real Anglican Identity
This line of thinking would have kept the entire Reformation from happening as it went down. The real problem is not so much a matter of GAFCON or others separating from the See of Canterbury but thinking that we must view both sides of this discussion from the standpoint of the underlying presumption presented here-that somehow what makes one Anglican is the episcopal connection between Canterbury and elsewhere. This whole crisis, in fact, teeters on the errant assumption that what defines the church is episcopal leadership.
Such a construal is not what Cranmer or Hooker taught and goes well beyond any biblical definition of apostolic succession. The whole of the Reformation points us to the fact that institutions and offices are not inviolable or protected from disassociation simply because they are old and well-used in carrying forward the gospel of Jesus Christ at least at one time.
I would suggest that our immediate concern is not whether or not particular bodies remain Anglican but rather whether or not we remain true to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”. Surely, somewhere there is room to think that real Anglicanism is most assuredly wrapped up in a reformational English expression of the gospel of Jesus Christ more than it might be a particular episcopal See especially when that See has seen fit to largely abandon or compromise the very Anglicanism that has made it what it has been over the centuries. How ironic all this is given that prior to the Oxford Movement real Anglican identity was associated much more with solidarity to the Reformation and classical Protestantism than it was the sort of Anglo-Catholic viewpoint underlying the above post.
This sort of thing is what GAFCON is reacting against and while I deplore yet another division in the Anglican world we must be ready to see that the real failure between mother and child in any issue concerning continued disobedience largely rests with the mother and not the child. Where, in this post, are the calls for Canterbury and other bishoprics to repent of their compromise and betrayal of the gospel of Jesus Christ in supporting political and other agendas foreign to their very being as ministers of Christ? Even the Scriptures lay out procedures for divorce in the case of an unfaithful wife, why is it we think the episcopal office is somehow exempt from similar treatment? Paul opposed Peter to his face and yet here we’d rather see everyone kiss the ring as if nothing’s ever happened contrary to the teaching of God’s Word. It’s not right and the only way to fix it is to see bishops and their minions repent and return to the gospel. Once that happens, I’m sure GAFCON and others will be more than happy to lay out the red carpet and rejoice that we might be truly one again.
He is Risen Indeed!
O GOD, who for our redemption didst give thine only-begotten Son to the death of the Cross, and by his glorious resurrection hast delivered us from the power of our enemy; Grant us so to die daily from sin, that we may evermore live with him in the joy of his resurrection; through the same thy Son Christ our Lord. Amen.
Principles Not Procedures
No one doubts that Matthew 18 is a relevant passage in dealing with resolving offenses between brothers, but the procedure outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 is set in a very specific context that is often overlooked. In churches where spiritual abuse is occurring particularly at the hands of ministers and pastors who rule by fear, intimidation, and the inordinate and inappropriate use of Scripture–passages like this can become a very powerful weapon to accomplish and maintain abuse instead of legitimate repentance and reconciliation.
Much of the time, people find themselves caught in a web of spiritual abuse and don’t find out about what’s really going on until it is too late and much damage has already been done. By that time, families are divided. Husbands and wives in disagreement. Maybe even close to or already in separation or divorce. Children who don’t immediately understand the concerns of their parents and just want to see their friends at church again and never want to hear another word about what’s going on. Friends may even stare in disbelief at what you say and do in and out of this sort of abusive church world. Emotions and temperatures run high in an environment where the spiritual authorities in your life already have too much of a hold even after you break free from their grasp. All of this can lead to people being more impressionable than they might otherwise and it also lends itself to taking something like the above passage and allowing someone to outline and manipulate others based off a procedure rather than follow the higher principles that the procedure itself was designed to follow.
People caught up in this sort of spiritually abusive environment often have mixed feelings and may find it difficult to know who to believe when presented with clear evidence that their leaders lie and manipulate people–even when it happens right before their very eyes. It’s easy to look at something small and say, “Well, he wouldn’t really think of it that way, or he certainly didn’t mean it like that”. Or, “Maybe we’ve misunderstood him.” And on it goes. There comes a point however in almost every person who has found himself abused like this that he recognizes that this is a pattern and that unless something is done about it–it will never stop.
Sometimes efforts are made by well-meaning people trying to break out of a spiritually abusive mold to make their ministers conform to the Word of God in their practice and life and church members often don’t always go about it in a way which many people think it ought to be done. So the procedure goes…You have to confront the person privately first. If that doesn’t work, take some few with you and confront him again. If that doesn’t work–then and only then–take it to the church (and really you may generally be told that it shouldn’t ever get that far, will likely be unsuccessful, or that it’s really not your place as a believer to challenge those in authority over you). The tragedy is that if you don’t follow a procedure like this in many abusive church environments, you will be called on the carpet for disobeying our Lord’s words, acting against his ministers wrongly, and encouraging division in the covenant community.
As usual, however, there’s always more to the story and especially so than the one which abusive church leaders press before you. And, it can be quite the shocking thing to reach out to denominational officials only to be told that nothing really is wrong and this is likely just due to differences in opinion or your own overly concerned scruples in the matter. What many people fail to realize is that their abusive ministers likely received their understanding, practice of ministry, and even their corrupting abuses from others equally abusive and any notion of a real appeal in the church over and above an abusive session or consistory then becomes almost impossible. When you sit down and think about this for a couple of years or more it one day comes to you that men who press you on how to properly confront sin in your church are merely using these things to justify their own misdeeds much like the Pharisees of old took advantage of the differences in vows and other laws to give themselves an advantage in disobeying God’s Word and thinking they could get away with it.
We find out that a truly high view of the law of God is especially interested in the morality behind the law and not all the details presented to us in procedures and preferences. The moral law was the key to living God’s way even in the Old Covenant and that is no less true in our own days of the exercising of the New Covenant. It is this moral law that is written on our hearts and not the way in which men think we ought to exercise it. These moral principles take wisdom to exercise aright and it ought to tell us something that Jesus frequently criticized the wooden ways in which the Pharisees took the legitimate law of God and their traditions both to oppress others and to exercise their own undue privileges. It’s funny how certain wood is extremely bendable for certain purposes (like a minister’s preference about issues) and resolutely like oak in other instances (particularly where your obedience is concerned).
But, look how our Lord confronted these men who bore the marks of spiritual abuse in their own day.
Did he go privately first? Then take two or three? Then confront them in the temple or the synagogue? For that matter, did the prophets do likewise? The same prophets who these men who stood condemned by our Lord were the ones which were killed by their fathers. No. Our Lord called them out publicly. He laid their private deeds out for all to see in the open square of the day. When you realize how small of a world Israel at that time was (unlike our nation of some 300 million people) it was very obvious who he was speaking about and it is this very reason that the Pharisees and others put together plans to literally get rid of him. He exposed their wickedness for what it was. He made their insecurities and shortcomings plain. He said the things they never wanted said. He put light to the darkness. Effectively, he really did nothing less than name names. Interestingly enough, apostolic practice continued the prophetic tradition and followed our Lord in this when necessary.
But, the goal of the 18th chapter of Matthew concerning personal reconciliation of brothers is found in the context of Christian leadership. Both before and after the verses in question our Lord is talking to his disciples and to Peter. It has been noted by more than one that quite likely this passage about going to a brother privately and then taking two or more and then to the church is a process which is primarily concerned with dealing with sin in and among a circle of leadership that you are a part of since our Lord was talking to the would be leaders of the church as he outlined these things. These are the men who are to treat little children with the dignity they deserve granted to them by our Father in heaven, the ones who ought to be going after the one instead of the ninety-nine, and the ones who have received forgiveness at the hands of our Lord and should not forget that same graciousness when dealing with those under their charge who also owe them as well. That is the context of Matthew 18 and we find our Lord’s words about offenses in and among this context.
There is nothing in the passage that says that this is how a layman must approach a pastor or session in confronting sin. Wisdom should tell you that the deck is already stacked against you and to think this is the way to proceed in every case is to go well beyond what the basic outline of Matthew 18 proposes. Nor is there anything here in this 18th chapter as to how a person must confront their leadership at all with sin. It may very well be that the wisest thing to do in that type of situation is to leave as quietly as possible and not utter a word to the leadership or others that you have issues with what they have done.
To the extent that elders are faithfully teaching the Bible, you are to do as they say but as our Lord said, “do not do what they do” (Matthew 23:2). Do not think that you must follow a set of procedures that they demand to be followed while ignoring the greater principles involved in handling these things. Not everyone is called to be an Elijah, Nathan, or Jeremiah that works to bring down the corrupt leadership in the church or state today and it may be best for your family to graciously and quietly remove yourself from their abusive tendencies. On the other hand, it may very well be that God is calling you to take a stand against them and if so again the question is not how because God will help you with those details and things will likely progress naturally. The question is, “What is the right and just way to make sure the moral principles of the law of God and His grace for His people is uttermost in our concerns?”. In short, what is the wise way to proceed as our Lord leads you?
Astoundingly difficult to answer in a blog post. But the one thing you must keep in mind is that the Holy Spirit is within you and He will guide you. Lies and manipulation can have no power when you abandon the fear that corrupt elders project and have confidence that your understanding of the matter really is right. Think of our Lord’s words in Psalm 119 and consider its relevance to what I’ve outlined above:
121 I have done justice and righteousness; Do not leave me to my oppressors.
122 Be surety for Thy servant for good; Do not let the arrogant oppress me.
123 My eyes fail with longing for Thy salvation, And for Thy righteous word.
124 Deal with Thy servant according to Thy lovingkindness, And teach me Thy statutes.
125 I am Thy servant; give me understanding, That I may know Thy testimonies.
126 It is time for the LORD to act, For they have broken Thy law.
127 Therefore I love Thy commandments Above gold, yes, above fine gold.
128 Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way.
129 Thy testimonies are wonderful; Therefore my soul observes them.
130 The unfolding of Thy words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.
131 I opened my mouth wide and panted, For I longed for Thy commandments.
132 Turn to me and be gracious to me, After Thy manner with those who love Thy name.
133 Establish my footsteps in Thy word, And do not let any iniquity have dominion over me.
134 Redeem me from the oppression of man, That I may keep Thy precepts.
135 Make Thy face shine upon Thy servant, And teach me Thy statutes.
136 My eyes shed streams of water, Because they do not keep Thy law.
137 Righteous art Thou, O LORD, And upright are Thy judgments.
138 Thou hast commanded Thy testimonies in righteousness And exceeding faithfulness.
139 My zeal has consumed me, Because my adversaries have forgotten Thy words.
140 Thy word is very pure, Therefore Thy servant loves it.
141 I am small and despised, Yet I do not forget Thy precepts.
142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Thy law is truth.
143 Trouble and anguish have come upon me; Yet Thy commandments are my delight.
144 Thy testimonies are righteous forever; Give me understanding that I may live.
145 I cried with all my heart; answer me, O LORD! I will observe Thy statutes.
146 I cried to Thee; save me, And I shall keep Thy testimonies.
147 I rise before dawn and cry for help; I wait for Thy words.
148 My eyes anticipate the night watches, That I may meditate on Thy word.
149 Hear my voice according to Thy lovingkindness; Revive me, O LORD, according to Thine ordinances.
150 Those who follow after wickedness draw near; They are far from Thy law.
151 Thou art near, O LORD, And all Thy commandments are truth.
152 Of old I have known from Thy testimonies, That Thou hast founded them forever.
153 Look upon my affliction and rescue me, For I do not forget Thy law.
154 Plead my cause and redeem me; Revive me according to Thy word.
155 Salvation is far from the wicked, For they do not seek Thy statutes.
156 Great are Thy mercies, O LORD; Revive me according to Thine ordinances.
157 Many are my persecutors and my adversaries, Yet I do not turn aside from Thy testimonies.
158 I behold the treacherous and loathe them, Because they do not keep Thy word.
159 Consider how I love Thy precepts; Revive me, O LORD, according to Thy lovingkindness.
160 The sum of Thy word is truth, And every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.
161 Princes persecute me without cause, But my heart stands in awe of Thy words.
162 I rejoice at Thy word, As one who finds great spoil.
163 I hate and despise falsehood, But I love Thy law.
164 Seven times a day I praise Thee, Because of Thy righteous ordinances.
165 Those who love Thy law have great peace, And nothing causes them to stumble.
166 I hope for Thy salvation, O LORD, And do Thy commandments.
167 My soul keeps Thy testimonies, And I love them exceedingly.
168 I keep Thy precepts and Thy testimonies, For all my ways are before Thee.
169 Let my cry come before Thee, O LORD; Give me understanding according to Thy word.
170 Let my supplication come before Thee; Deliver me according to Thy word.
171 Let my lips utter praise, For Thou dost teach me Thy statutes.
172 Let my tongue sing of Thy word, For all Thy commandments are righteousness.
173 Let Thy hand be ready to help me, For I have chosen Thy precepts.
174 I long for Thy salvation, O LORD, And Thy law is my delight.
175 Let my soul live that it may praise Thee, And let Thine ordinances help me.
176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Thy servant, For I do not forget Thy commandments.
Psalm 119:121-176
[reprinted from the original at reformedcatholicism.com in June of 2008]
The Calvinist International
Steven Wedgeworth and Peter Escalante have put together a new website:
Their first article continues treatment of the Bruce McCormack article regarding the Reformed and Nestorian Christology that I referred to in the last post (Nestorian Christology Among the Reformed: Really???). If you remember, Peter and Steven wrote their first article about this at Credenda/Agenda.
Their work with this subject is absolutely outstanding and I’ll be looking forward to more!
Nestorian Christology Among the Reformed: Really???
How It All Got Started
The controversy surrounding the work of Peter Enns on the inspiration of Scripture began with the publication of his book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. (Enns, 2005) Enns was teaching at the conservative and Reformed flagship Westminster Theological Seminary at the time the book was published and his stance eventually resulted in the loss of his position and overall condemnation of the book and its principles concerning the nature of Scripture. (Westminster Theological Seminary)[1] Enns’ basic point revolved around the idea that we can look at the inspiration of Scripture in light of the Incarnation. In other words, since Scripture is ultimately inspired by the Spirit but written down by men an analogy exists between the God-Man of Jesus Christ and the nature of Scripture. Enns has further claimed that the human nature of Scripture has been deemphasized in favor of divine inspiration presumably in order to defend things like the inerrancy of Scripture. (Enns, 2005, p. 17 ff.) [2]
Nestorianism Among the Reformed?
While the immediate argument regarding Enns’ position is interesting and worth investigation on its own terms, another point of debate sprang forth from the controversy which has seen traction in certain apologetic circles particularly on the Internet. This paper will examine this newly found controversy about Christology in detail and then provide some reformational reflections and pertinent questions toward the end for the reader to consider. In recent years, the Reformed churches and other evangelicals have seen many leave their communions and go either to Rome, Anglicanism, or Eastern Orthodoxy. (Plummer, 2012)[3] The Internet has made increased communication between these groups possible and many evangelicals are learning things about their Christian heritage and history that they did not know previously.[4] One particular argument against the Reformed position is that Calvinist Christology is defective and not in line with the standards provided by the Definition of Chalcedon.[5] In the response to Enns and against his position, Westminster detractors provided an argument that said Christ’s human nature was only contingent as follows:
In light of a biblical, Chalcedonian and Reformed Christology, the divine is essential and the locus of personality, and the human is contingent, dependent on the divine (yet real). At least along these lines, Christology can, if carefully and accurately applied, prove useful in demonstrating more concretely both the limitations and utility of the Incarnational analogy. Though there is no hypostatic unity with respect to the divine and human in Scripture, it is, nevertheless, (as Reformed theology has historically affirmed) the case that in Scripture the divine is essential, the human is contingent (yet real). (Westminster Theological Seminary, p. 11)
Princeton scholar Bruce McCormack heavily criticized the report’s findings regarding Christology and accused the committee of advocating a foreign Christology that relies heavily on an Orthodox understanding of the Chalcedonian Definition rather than one true to the Reformed confessions and the overall Reformed tradition. (McCormack, 2008) Instead, McCormack claims that the Westminster Confession requires a viewpoint like the presumably older Reformed and supposedly Nestorian one because of its emphasis on the two separate natures of the Incarnation borne out of the controversy the Reformed had with the Lutherans.[6]
McCormack then doubles down and makes the following claim:
For Reformed Christians, it is not simply Chalcedon which defines “orthodoxy” within the realm of Christological reflection; it is Chalcedon as interpreted by the Reformed Confessions. Or, in the case of denominations like the OPC and PCA, it is Chalcedon as interpreted by the Westminster standards. Westminster’s Christology stands, however, at the end of a long history of confessional reflection on the person of Jesus Christ and cannot be rightly understood without careful attention to that history. (McCormack, 2008)
So, McCormack at once states here that the Reformed confessional tradition is binding and that it represents a more classic Nestorian viewpoint that the Reformed themselves expressed in response to Lutheranism. This strategy by McCormack has caused no small amount of glee on the part of Orthodox Internet bloggers attempting to inform Reformed and evangelical Christians of the errors of their understanding of Christ and his work.[7]
Is McCormack Right?
McCormack’s interesting conclusions can be challenged in several ways. For one thing, many Reformed churches today represent the confessions as historic documents to subscribe to but there is little basis historically to understand that they were to originally function as such except perhaps as they were framed in particular churches and communions. No less an authority than Karl Barth informs the reader:
Each Reformed confession is really a singular work, one next to many others. Its confessors had little or no actual drive, whether out of a sense of duty or even ambition, to compose a confession for all the Reformed churches. They had little interest either in giving up their confession for the sake of another one, or in allowing their work to flow into a general confession of all Reformed churches…The tendency toward confessional unity of these particular Reformed churches is, on the other hand, remarkably weak in its development…That which is “required above all else” is that the doctrine of the church everywhere and constantly be grounded upon Holy Scripture, which defines not the confessional unity but the confessional freedom of the particular churches in their relationships to each other. (Barth, 2002, originally published in 1923, pp. 12-13)[8]
In other words, historically speaking, Reformed Christians are not out of necessity bound to interpret earlier Christian works if the present ones don’t even form any sort of doctrinal basis by which to understand what is and is not Christian doctrine outside of the communities that established them. The Reformed depended upon the Scriptures for their understanding of the faith and the confessions merely worked as a profession that such words of God were indeed true in their lives. So according to Barth, for the Reformed each confession represented a profession of faith for an individual faith community and the history of the Reformed churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries would seem to bear that out upon closer examination:
The Reformed confessions are precisely not symbols. They are called Confession of Faith [Confessio fidei] (this is the usual term), or Consensus or Catechism or Articles [Articuli] or Theses or Declaration. In other words, they do not want to be placed at the same level of dignity as the confessions of the first centuries, which belong to a higher order, so to speak. To be sure, they are not quite sure how to deal with the early confessions, although that is due less to their content than to their normative claim…The position of the Reformed in regard to the ancient church’s symbols was not quite clear from the beginning. It was natural that both the concept and the content of such a historical authority interposed between the Scripture and the present day would be fundamentally alien to the Reformed view of the total sufficiency of Holy Scripture. It is expressly formulated in the Second Helvetic Confession (M 199,40): “The catholic faith is not given to us by human laws, but by Holy Scriptures, of which the Apostles’ Creed is a compendium” With the exception of the Apostles’ Creed, whose apostolicity as well as its fealty to Scripture were unquestioned, we are dealing here with an alien element, an unavoidable concession, when the Reformed confessional documents speak at all of a symbol, which they only do with reference to the ancient ecumenical symbols. (Barth, pp. 16-17)
Additionally, McCormack’s own words can be presented too strongly by others.[9] For McCormack, discussion of the question centers on an “ambiguity at the heart of the Chalcedonian Definition where the “Person” is concerned” and “that patristic scholars are, to this day, divided over the question”. (McCormack, 2008) Furthermore, stating that a particular formulation of Chalcedon “grants a certain victory to Nestorius” is a long way from demonstrating that classic Reformed theology is actually Nestorian in nature. Last, if the question at hand teeters on an ambiguity present in the Chalcedonian Definition itself, one wonders what difference it really makes since there is some indication that the ambiguity was purposeful in the first place. In fact, other scholars are not afraid to make this very point:
The Council of Chalcedon (451) attempted to solve the christological debates in a way that could be embraced by both Alexandrians and Antiochenes. The council never reached this noble goal, but it was able to combat the major deviating views. The council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and rejected Nestorianism and Eutychianism…The main concern of Chalcedon was to steer a middle course between the dangers of Nestorianism, which separated the two natures—thus the use of the words “indivisibly” and “inseparably”—and Eutychianism, which eliminated the distinction between the two natures—thus the use of the words “inconfusedly” and “unchangeably.” Although the council was unable to state definitely how the union of the two natures occurred, it was able to say how this union cannot be expressed. The controlling principle of Chalcedon holds that provided that Jesus Christ was both truly divine and truly human, the precise manner in which this is articulated or explored is not of fundamental importance. (Kärkkäinen, 2003, pp. 77-78)
But What Does the Reformed Tradition and The Westminster Confession Say?
The Westminster Confession of Faith simply lays out the doctrine of Christ’s person as follows in accordance with the Chalcedonian Definition:
The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. (Westminster)[10]
Turretin also weighed in on this question in his monumental work, the Institutes of Elenctic Theology. In fact, Turretin explicitly recognizes the false claim of Nestorianism as that which some Lutherans accuse the Reformed of since their Christology differs to a degree.[11] Turretin simply states:
Rather the question concerns the truth of the incarnation—whether the Son of God assumed the human nature into unity of person, so that the same one who was the Son of God became by the hypostatical union the Son of Man. This the orthodox assert; the Socinians deny. (Turretin, 1994, pp. 311-313)
Bavinck also echoes Turretin similarly, writing:
It is not a union of persons; it is a personal and substantial union; it is not a moral union like a marriage, not a matter of agreement in disposition and will, no communion of love alone. It is, however, a natural union (ένωσις ϕυσικη), as Athanasius and Cyril called it. This is not to say that that union was necessary and automatically resulted from one of the two or from both natures; rather, it is so called because it is not moral in nature, but a union of natures in the person of the Son, not a natural but a personal union. And the result of that union is not a new nature, nor even a new personality, but only the person of Christ as Christ. He who existed in the form of God from that time on existed also in the form of a man. (Bavinck, 2006, p. 305)
John Calvin himself writes, explicitly denying the Nestorian error in his commentary on 1st Timothy:
First, we have here an express testimony of both natures; for he declares at the same time that Christ is true God and true man. Secondly, he points out the distinction between the two natures, when on the one hand, he calls him God, and, on the other, expresses his “manifestation, in the flesh.” Thirdly, he asserts the unity of the person, when he declares, that it is one and the same who was God, and who has been manifested in the flesh. Thus, by this single passage, the true and orthodox faith is powerfully defended against Arius, Marcion, Nestorius, and Eutychus. There is also a great emphasis in the contrast of the two words, God in flesh. How wide is the difference between God and man! And yet in Christ we behold the infinite glory of God united to our polluted flesh in such a manner that they become one. (Muller, 2003, pp. 296-297)[12]
Conclusion: The Reformed Remain True To Chalcedon and Some Practical Considerations
Curiously then, the idea that the Reformed of old advocated Nestorian Christology must be rejected out of hand. Still less is it true that today’s confessional proponents in the Reformed world are bound by such negative considerations of the history of the Reformed tradition. Furthermore, attempts by parties interested in moving Christians from one communion to another on the basis of such claims as examined above certainly need to stop. Furthermore, one might also take the time to note how one controversy can start another. Had Westminster decided to avoid prosecution of Peter Enns, would it not be reasonable to conclude that the old Lutheran accusation of Nestorianism among the Reformed would have still been consigned to the dust bin of history?
One must be ready to ask if this debate matters at all to the Christian populace many of whom are not interested in wrangling over the fine points of theologizing that took place over and over again throughout the last five hundred years (to say nothing of going back fifteen hundred years to Chalcedon). (Escalante, 2012) Isn’t there some sense in which the faithful must rely on what has already been established by individual communions in determining further Christological and other theological work as the church goes forward instead of trying to continually argue about the legitimacy of this or that position historically? In short, is this accusation of Nestorian Christology really something that matters to the overall communion of saints today sufficient to hop from one communion to another? Or, is it possible that the Christian ought to continue to ask herself, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8, NRSV)
Closely related to that is whether or not your average Christian has the ability to really examine these issues without getting into serious historiographical reflection and learning for years in fields which most laypersons never bother. Understanding fifth century documents and the culture and worldviews which existed during that time sufficient to properly read the sources is a complicated endeavor and yet some seem to have the expectation that they can read the relevant history of Chalcedon like it’s a Danielle Steel novel.[13] Worse still, some make life-changing decisions to jump from this communion to that on the basis of such sophomoric assumptions. Yet, when the conversation is attended by scholars, even McCormack had to admit a certain amount of ambiguity in the Definition of Chalcedon and serious disagreement between modern patristic scholars about such things.
Perhaps this points to a current weakness among the Reformed and evangelical communions. Are the churches really training their people sufficient to handle apologetic claims no matter how baseless and irrelevant they may appear at first glance? Are seminaries providing the kind of theological and historical instruction that will prepare pastors and other ministers to handle the difficult questions as they arrive? Answering these questions truthfully may occasion some pain in the Body of Christ going forward but perhaps it is necessary to protect and help the sheep to both thrive and survive.
________________________________
Works Cited
Barth, K. (2002, originally published in 1923). The Theology of the Reformed Confessions. Louisville : Westminster John Knox Press.
Bavinck, H. (2006). Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, Volume 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Enns, P. (2005). Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Escalante, P. and Steven Wedgeworth. (2012, February 3). Do We Have a Christology Crisis? Retrieved March 16, 2012, from Credenda/Agenda: http://credenda.org/index.php/Theology/do-we-have-a-christology-crisis.html
Kärkkäinen, V.-M. (2003). Christology: A Global Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
McCormack, B. (2008). Reformed Christology and the Westminster HTFC Report: A Critical Comment. Available on the Internet here, http://castleman711.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/all-reformed-need-to-read-this-part-1-mccormack/.
Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume 4, The Triunity of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Plummer, R. E. (2012). Journeys of Faith: Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Anglicanism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Turretin, F. (1994). Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2. Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
Westminster Theological Seminary. (n.d.). Official Theological Documents. Retrieved 3 16, 2012, from http://www.wts.edu/uploads/images/files/Official Theological Documents for Web.pdf
Westminster, c. V. (n.d.). Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646 Edition. Retrieved 3 16, 2012, from Reformed.org: http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
[1] This paper does not examine the historical record or the controversy in detail but will be dealing with a side issue on Christology generated from the controversy itself.
[2] Ironically, for all the controversy the book caused, Enns was attempting to help evangelicals understand the relevance and need for modern biblical scholarship.
[3] Francis Beckwith is one of the most well-known examples of this phenomenon especially since he was in the process of returning to Roman Catholicism while President of the Evangelical Theological Society. Franky Schaeffer is perhaps another.
[4] Many seem also to be unprepared to handle the various historiographical, theological, and philosophical issues involved in considering a topic like this. This will be addressed in more detail at the end of this paper.
[5] Readers can review the Chalcedonian Definition here.
[6] McCormack does note that current patristic scholarship is divided on the question as to which view is actually representative of Chalcedon. Apologetic proponents of either view on the Internet tend to avoid such careful scholarly balance. Additionally, it must also be pointed out that traditionally Nestorianism is seen as a view which separated the two natures of Christ sufficient to avoid the term “theotokos” (Mother of God) for Mary and incipient Arianism. However, there is some difficulty in scholarly circles defining exactly what Nestorianism was or whether Nestorius himself was really heretical. (Kärkkäinen, 2003, pp. 75-77)
[7] Cf. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/a-deformed-christ/ – “Now this brings us to the main attraction. Bruce McCormack of that little school Princeton has chimed in giving a nice summary of how the Reformed have understood or rather misunderstood Chalcedon. Most Reformed folk assume that Reformed Christology is isomorphic with Chalcedonian Christology, but McCormack argues that it just isn’t so. I won’t reherse [sic] everything McCormack has to say in his piece but I will bring this to an end that ties all of the above together. McCormack essentially argues that the Reformed interpret Chalcedon through the lens of their own confessions and that these confessions take a more Nestorian reading. To take the orthodox understanding leaves the Reformed defending a Christology that is not either compatibile [sic] with or meant to support Chalcedonian soteriology or vice versa, Chalcedonian Christology wasn’t designed to be compatible with or support Reformed soteriology.”
[8] Italics are in the original. Here Barth is comparing and contrasting the difference between a free Reformed view and the more restrictive and dogmatic view of the Lutherans in the sixteenth century, a fascinating discussion given the way the confessions are often used in conservative Presbyterian environments today.
[9] There is some question whether McCormack is truly concerned about fidelity to the Reformed confessions here but instead merely rebuking Westminster Theological Seminary for being selective and hypocritical in their enforcement of confessional standards against Peter Enns while adopting what he sees as a foreign Christology. Nevertheless, his overall point concerning the Reformed tradition in question still bears investigation.
[10] To push this definition beyond Chalcedon, one must posit a view of the Westminster Confession that reads more into the statement above than is there. The statement above, for example does not teach what Cyril wanted denied—that there were two persons that came together. Nor does it indicate a Nestorian view which would avoid “take upon Him man’s nature.” At best, all Westminster can be charged with is the sort of ambiguity that by necessity comes upon describing such a unique work God in bringing Christ to the earth. If anything, this sort of language shows how much in common Westminster divines had with their spiritual forefathers at Chalcedon.
[11] The real difference between Lutherans and the Reformed here is whether or not Christ can be ubiquitous in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Reformed rightly asked how an incarnation could really be true if Christ is physically present wherever the Supper is celebrated rather than “seated at the right hand of the Father”.
[12] When an explicit denial like this is in place of Nestorian doctrine, additional individual citations from the author in question must be seen in light of such denials if charity is to have any place in theological dialog. Much of the early Reformed work in theology was done in a polemic context and many ideas were not fully developed in particular instances in writing because the authors were addressing pastoral and apologetic concerns of the day. As a result, a careless phrase here or there should not be taken to mean an implicit support of something like Nestorianism without much more evidence provided from multiple sections of an individual author’s writing.
[13] Danielle Steel is a contemporary romance novel author. See: http://www.daniellesteel.com.
The Meaning of Revelation for Today
In order to determine Revelation’s meaning for today, the reader will need to frame a view of Revelation that is appropriate all things considered. Because Revelation has historically been understood in a variety of ways, application of its truths will undoubtedly differ depending on each view. After spending considerable time in Revelation, I’m quite convinced that Revelation’s main intention is not some grand scheme to condemn world or national empires, nor is the book provided to the church for the purpose of instruction in worship, and whatever else Revelation teaches the church, it is not some grand eschatological scheme of dispensational premillenialism pointing to rapture, tribulation, and the need to make a decision for Christ before God rains down disaster on all creation. Rather, the main purpose of Revelation is wrapped up in its original witness to the first century church. In short, Revelation exists to encourage, comfort, and signal for believers that God is sovereign and in control and that all things will ultimately be transformed in and through Jesus Christ. Revelation then is a retelling of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a working out of its fulfillment through the ages. The church as a whole then is encouraged to be faithful in obedience to God’s Word in anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s reconciling work.
How can the church avoid the impression that Revelation is in the main a critique of Empire as obviously Babylon is encountered and condemned as the great fallen enemy? The mistake many make in reviewing the Babylon passages is identifying the “the great city” with Rome (cf. Revelation 17:18). Such a mistake is not necessarily unreasonable as most of New Testament scholarship today endorses such a read. Other alternatives to the identity of Babylon exist that some may not have considered. The most glaring and accessible alternative other than Rome is to assign the terrible moniker of Babylon to a Jerusalem that has rejected her Messiah. Part of the reason this is such a compelling alternative is because identifying Jerusalem and her destruction as described in Revelation makes the book itself much more in line with the contemporary concerns of the New Testament church especially before the destruction of Jerusalem and the corresponding diaspora of the church.
For John and most other first century Jews or early Christians, Rome was not the center of the world, Jerusalem was. Paul records his Jewish brethren as having “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Romans 9:4, NRSV). Jerusalem was the place where Jesus was both crucified and resurrected. Even after Pentecost, Peter and John are to be found praying regularly in the temple (Acts 3:1). Rome plays no central role in the early church and it would be strange to waste so much ink on something foreign to the historical context and thinking of early Christians. By way of contrast, is it not possible that much of the contemporary church’s focus on injustice and social welfare today makes Rome an easy target to identify in terms of the identity of Babylon in Revelation? Is the church of today really reading the text the way the church in the first century did? Is it further possible that contemporary scholarship is reading into the text what it would like to see criticized rather than allowing the text to speak for itself? Past generations have had similar issues; does the church really believe this generation is exempt from such weaknesses?
In the gospels Jesus himself is never busy criticizing Rome as Empire but instead focuses on God’s people and the initial outworking of the New Covenant. When Jesus does choose to criticize, he resolutely turns to the overly religious Pharisees and others who pretend at their religion and hypocritically live against the very law they teach to the people (cf. Matthew 23). In fact, Matthew 24 dictates for the church quite clearly an imminent destruction of Jerusalem and it would be no surprise that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 19:26) was faithful in passing such a prophecy on however unpopular it might have been. We do find Paul lifting up the name of Jesus Christ above every name in his letters presumably even against Caesar but even Paul used the Roman system by appeal to conduct himself to Rome and ensure the spread of the gospel throughout the known world by doing so. Where really, though, is the first century church confident that the great threat to God’s purposes in the world is the Roman Empire? And, what real exegetical basis exists for the church over the ages to extend such a dramatic bogeyman to any empire as if they are all condemned as such?
There are positive reasons to take “the great harlot” in Revelation 17 as Jerusalem. First, the Old Testament text manifestly describes Jerusalem and the Israelites this way whenever covenant unfaithfulness appeared among them (cf. Jeremiah 2:20-24; 2:32-34; Ezekiel 16, 23). Second, the “great city” of Revelation 17:18 is not a unique term in the book of Revelation. Revelation describes a “great city” in Revelation 11:8 as “where also their Lord was crucified” which would be an odd way to describe Rome. Notice that in Revelation 11:8 Jerusalem is also “prophetically called Sodom and Egypt” (NRSV). So, the inherent wickedness of multiple past cities or nations is presented as representative of the reality of the decadence of Jerusalem and it would be no surprise then that the rhetorical climax of such prophetic name-calling would in fact be to call Jerusalem Babylon. Third, according to the witness of the New Testament (Acts 8:1; Acts 12:3; Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:1-12) it is fairly clear that Peter spent most of his days in Jerusalem and in 1 Peter 5:13 he seems to be writing from Jerusalem and yet calls the city by the name of Babylon. So, there is likely some precedent to the idea that Jerusalem would be seen as Babylon by the Apostles.
Like the gospel of John and the Torah that went before it, Revelation begins with the revelatory witness of the creative incarnate God Jesus Christ and ends with an admonition to remain faithful to God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. compare Genesis 1:1 to John 1:1 to Revelation 1:1 and Deuteronomy 32:46-47; John 21:22; Revelation 22:11). In other words, the story of God’s covenantal actions seen first in the law, demonstrated throughout the history of the Jewish people, culminated in Christ, and then flowing out to all corners of the universe in Jesus Christ has not been thwarted by oppressive enemies either in Jerusalem or the larger Roman Empire. Instead, God has been faithful throughout the ages, continues to be, and will shortly rectify any obstacles to the progress and work of the gospel. Revelation testifies to such faithfulness by constantly referring the reader back and forth to both what God has done, what he is doing, and what he will do to bring about a new heaven, a new earth, and a new Jerusalem.
Conspicuously absent but rarely discussed from the list of seven churches is the church in Jerusalem. Is it possible that the church in Jerusalem isn’t addressed because Revelation prophetically presents her diaspora due to persecution and the destruction of Jerusalem?[1] The message to the seven churches then could be seen as relevant to Jerusalem Christians since many of them might have wound up in those churches after fleeing Jerusalem either prior to or during the destruction of the city by the Romans. This would also explain the movement of the seven golden lampstands lit with the Spirit presumably from the menorah of the temple to the outlying seven churches themselves (Revelation 1:10-12). The original temple in Jerusalem will be gone but God is still with the churches through Emmanuel who stands in their midst with them. Such encouragement for the horrible plight of first century Christians especially if after a rugged journey from Jerusalem they land in one of the seven remaining regional churches!
The real meat then of Revelation in terms of how it needs to be applied today is simply how it was applied in the first century to the seven churches. There is no hint of abandoning empire and anachronistic calls for the abandonment of the social inequity of free markets and the capitalist systems that have made nations like America as great as Rome ever was. What Revelation calls for is covenant faithfulness and obedience to God’s commandments. 1 John 5:3 defines loving God as obeying the commandments he has given and there is no less of a standard present for the seven churches in Revelation 2-3. Like the prophets of old, the church must ask herself “…what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8, NRSV).
The church at Ephesus is called to remember her first deeds and repent and return to how she used to be. Smyrna is instructed to faithfully endure suffering and persecution as a result of her faithfulness. Pergamum is called to repent and turn her faithfulness from partial to full speed by abandoning those things that she shouldn’t be doing. Thyatira and Sardis are encouraged and challenged in much the same way though we find a curious prophecy for those opposed to empire-building at the end of the exhortation to Thyatira. Those who overcome and who remain faithful to what God commands “and continues to do [his] works to the end, to him I will give authority over the nations” (Revelation 2:26). What an odd prophetic word for those who look at the empires of nations throughout history and want to indict them! Not to be outdone, Philadelphia is encouraged to simply continue on as she has and the infamous church at Laodicea is rebuked for her lukewarm reception and maintenance of the gospel.
In each of these churches, we can see glimpses of the contemporary evangelical church in America and throughout the world. As many interpreters present the church today with fantastic and amazing interpretations of Revelation, the still small voice of the Spirit calls us instead to hear what he says to the churches. The great Shema of Israel “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone” (Deut. 6:4, NRSV) was not merely a statement of belief but a call to obey (cf. Deut. 6:5 ff.). The word “hear” is not merely a call for the churches to listen to God’s Word but essentially to hear it with an ear to obey. In other words, the call has been the same from the beginning. As the people of God, the church is called to live her life for him in love and obey his commandments. God speaks. The people listen and obey. The call for today is the same principled call inherent in the law, demonstrated in the life and work of Jesus, seen worked out in God’s own faithfulness throughout the ages culminating in all things being reconciled in Jesus Christ, magnified by the great work of the Spirit, and then echoed back in faithfulness through the church obeying his every command. The message of Revelation is at once then a great encouragement to God’s people and a great call to continue to keep the faith no matter what is put in their way.
[1] Such a question almost immediately presents the reader with an early date of Revelation something which most scholars today deny. However, it is possible that Revelation’s use of Jerusalem and the lack of an address to the Jerusalem church was seen as an ex eventu prophecy typical of apocalyptic literature where past history is reinterpreted along prophetic lines. So, either way, this perspective is still resolutely plausible even though it swims against the tide of current scholarship.
On Incense and Malachi 1:11
“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts. – Malachi 1:11, NASB
A sensible view of Malachi 1:11 is to understand the word “incense” as referring to the reality which it symbolized and that is the prayers of the people (Rev. 5:8). Is it okay for us to use incense as symbolic of prayer? Certainly. Is it required? Not according to this passage. This passage surely refers to the reality of what is being symbolized by the use of incense and isn’t even prescriptive in commanding it. The passage is just simply descriptive in a prophetic sense. Given that in large part there are and have been many Christian worship services without incense–we know that something more here is intended than the symbol mentioned. And, in large part, this very prophecy has already been fulfilled by the spread of the gospel and corresponding worship of God not only to the known world of the ancients but also throughout our entire planet.
The original context is somewhat irrelevant much as it may have produced light on the passage for the Israelites of Malachi’s day. The original context is not completely irrelevant but we have to understand the free hand with which the Apostles and the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint in making the case for Christ among their contemporaries. Our understanding with the advent of the Resurrection has changed our perspective (not changed the meaning necessarily, but colored in many details not previously available). I believe this is part of an apostolic hermeneutic that is missing particularly in circles where Old Testament worship may be looked to as a guide for how we ought to worship today.
The truth is that the book of Hebrews tells us that the temple worship we really engage in now is actually taking place eternally in heaven by virtue of Christ’s intercession. That certainly allows for incense usage down here in worship as a legitimate sign of the reality of the prayers or worship of the saints as the passage in Revelation mentions. But, even still it does not require it as what we do is worship in spirit and in truth–form and function is resolutely less important than it was during the age where everything was a shadow of what was to come and a necessary concrete part of pointing people to an eventual Messiah. Now that we have the reality of Jesus Christ and his work present as well as his word in the Scriptures to make the message available, there is no need to continue older patterns of worship even if for some they feel it is desirable. And, so, we will see our worship resemble much more that of synagogue and assembly and much less the cultic sacrificial temple worship of a previous age.
