Covenant Reformed News - 2023

Covenant Reformed News
September 2023 • Volume XIX, Issue 17

Nehemiah’s Godly Enquiry Concerning Jerusalem

The Bible itself often identifies the spiritual significance of its major characters and it is also instructive who makes these identifications. Abraham is called “the father of all them that believe” by Paul, the great proponent of justification by faith alone (Rom. 4:11). David is spoken of as “the man after God’s own heart” by no less than Jehovah Himself, who saw and moulded David’s heart (Acts 13:22). John the Baptist is the one who would “make ready a people for the Lord,” as stated by the angel Gabriel, who was preparing Zacharias and Elizabeth for the birth of their son (Luke 1:17).

Nehemiah is a man who sought the welfare of Israel. This is what God’s enemies thought regarding him. This is a good testimony to have from the ungodly, and their fears regarding Nehemiah were accurate! “When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel” (Neh. 2:10).

Here are three well-known roles or works of Nehemiah. First, he was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes, the Medo-Persian Emperor. Second, he became the governor of Judah. Third, in this office, he was the moving force in the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s perimeter wall. In all these roles, whether as cupbearer, governor or wall builder, he was a man who sought the welfare of Israel. The church needs more men and women like him!

Two members of Nehemiah’s family are named. His father was called Hachaliah (1:1; 10:1) and he had a brother named Hanani (1:2; 7:2), as well as at least one other brother (1:2). If Nehemiah had sisters, they are not mentioned in this book.

Here are two good reasons to think that Hachaliah and his wife had a godly home. First, they had Nehemiah for a son. Second, they had Hanani for a son, whom faithful Nehemiah appointed one of the leaders in Jerusalem, the holy city (7:2).

The Lord especially uses homes like that of Mr. and Mrs. Hachaliah to produce men and women who seek the welfare of Israel, the elect, redeemed and gathered church of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are the sort of homes we need in our congregations!

What does Nehemiah ask at the very start of his book? He makes a double-barrelled enquiry about the people back in Judah and its capital city, Jerusalem (1:2).

The people about whom Nehemiah asks are those who had returned to Judah out of the Babylonian captivity in two main groups. First, there was the group under Zerubbabel the governor. They numbered about 50,000, including Jeshua the high priest, and they rebuilt the temple (Ezra 1-6). These people arrived in Judah over 80 years before the events of Nehemiah 1. Second, there was the much smaller group under Ezra the scribe. Ezra 7-10 deals with the arrival of this great priest and focuses on his leadership in promoting spiritual edification (rather than physical construction). Ezra and his group arrived just 13 years before Nehemiah 1.

How are these two groups doing? Are they amalgamating and uniting in the Lord’s service? Why did Nehemiah enquire about them? Because he cared about their welfare!

Why did he ask about the place, Jerusalem? Because he knew that there was rebuilding work that needed to be done. He hoped to hear that the city wall was progressing. After all, Ezra’s party was there to inject new energy into the people of God in Judah.

To whom did Nehemiah make these enquiries? Nehemiah asked Hanani, because his godly brother knew the issues and understood the importance of people’s spiritual morale. Nehemiah asked the “men of Judah” who were with Hanani because they had recently been there and so they had first-hand knowledge.

Do you see the significance of this? In general, you need to ask the right people in order to get accurate and helpful answers. This is perhaps especially true as regards the church. Ask people at the heart of the church, people who are spiritually attuned.

When did Nehemiah ask Hanani and these men of Judah these questions? When, after journeying from Jerusalem, they had arrived in Shushan the palace, also known as Susa the citadel, one of the places where the Medo-Persian emperor resided and where Nehemiah worked. In other words, these people had up-to-date information on the situation on the ground or, at least, information as current as possible in those days.

Let us follow the text in Nehemiah 1:1-2, which summarizes our exposition so far. “The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah” (1)—here is the book’s heading. Next the scene is set: “And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace” (1). Then comes the arrival of the party from the west: “Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah” (2), followed by Nehemiah’s enquiry about the people and the place, “I asked them [1] concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and [2] concerning Jerusalem” (2).

What was their reply? “And they said unto me, [1] The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: [2] the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire” (3).

How did Nehemiah respond? Not merely with pleasantries: “And how was the weather during your long journey?” Was he a little bit saddened or fairly upset? No! He was deeply troubled and you know why, reader! Because Nehemiah was a man who loved God’s church, her distress was his distress. Doubtless Nehemiah had sung Psalm 137 in the captivity many times and he had meant it! “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy” (5-6)!

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom  

The Covenant of Redemption (1)

A reader writes, “I would like Rev. Hanko to discuss the traditional ‘covenant of redemption’ theory in a future News, particularly the various versions of it:

1) an agreement between the Father and the Son;

2) an agreement between the three divine Persons;

3) an agreement between the Triune God, as represented by the Father, and Christ.

Some say that the covenant of grace in time is a mirror image of this eternal contract; others say it is something separate and different. Various texts are used for this theory.”

The idea of a covenant of redemption (Latin: pactum salutis) or “counsel of peace” (Zech. 6:13) dates back to the seventeenth century, with the term “covenant of redemption” first appearing in 1638 in a speech by the Scottish theologian David Dickson. Men such as Herman Witsius, Patrick Gillespie and James Durham developed the idea in detail. Though many consider the notion of such a covenant as speculative and unbiblical, it continues to have its defenders.

There are different ideas about the parties in this covenant, nicely enumerated above by the friend who sent in the question. Most often, the covenant of redemption is considered to be an agreement between the Father and the Son, to bring about the redemption of the elect through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. Louis Berkhof, for example, defines the covenant of redemption as “the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him” (Systematic Theology, p. 271).

Biblical basis for such a covenant of redemption is sought in the many scriptural passages that describe the salvation of the elect in terms of a purchase, implying, so it is said, a previous agreement, either between the Father and the Son or between the Triune God and Christ. Likewise, the word “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 and I John 2:2 is assumed to imply a transaction of some kind between the Father and Christ. All the references to Christ’s coming in obedience to the Father, fulfilling God’s will, doing His Father’s business and saving those whom the Father gave Him, are cited as proof of such an agreement or transaction between God and Christ.

An important text to those who teach a covenant of redemption is Zechariah 6:13, which speaks of “the counsel of peace” which “shall be between them both.” This passage, however, has nothing to do with any kind of pre-temporal inter-Trinitarian covenant or a covenant between God and Christ. It refers to the union of the priestly and kingly offices in Jesus who is “a priest upon his throne.” In other words, the text speaks of the reconciliation of justice and mercy in Christ who is both King and Priest, not a covenant of redemption.

We are among those who find the theology of a covenant of redemption to be speculative and unbiblical. Our objections to such a covenant, however, have to do not only with the interpretation of various passages but also with the fact that those who hold to a covenant of redemption begin with an unscriptural view of the nature of a covenant. They all define a covenant in terms of an agreement, a contract or a transaction, whether it be a covenant between all the Persons of the Trinity, between God and Christ, between God and Adam or between God and His elect people. This agreement, so it is said, has promises, conditions and stipulations, as any agreement would. After starting with that wrong idea that the covenant is an agreement, those who hold to a covenant of redemption find proof for such a notion in the passages mentioned above.

We have three objections to such a presentation of the covenant. First, such a view of the divine covenant is not to be found in the Bible. Scripture always presents the divine covenant as a relationship, not an agreement. The formula for the covenant between God and His people reveals the covenant to be a relationship. That formula, though expressed in different ways, is essentially, “I will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Lev. 26:12). We will write more of the covenant as a relationship in another article.

Second, if the covenant is an agreement, then God and man, whether Adam, the elect or Christ as man, act on equal terms. That is a denial of God’s sovereignty. In His works and ways with man, God never acts as equal but as sovereign. Even in the incarnation, Christ as man is subject to the Father, sovereignly chosen, equipped, sent into the world and assigned the work of redemption (Act. 2:36). As the Servant of God (Isa. 49:6), His work was subject always to God’s judgment and approval (Matt. 3:17).

The covenant relationship between God and the elect never depends on the elect agreeing to be God’s people or even on Christ agreeing on their behalf. It is not a transaction or agreement. That would make God’s covenant dependent and conditional. God sovereignly chooses the elect to be His people, effectually redeems them in Christ and powerfully converts them by the Spirit. Thus the covenant between God and His people is never described in the Bible as an agreement, something dependent on the will and cooperation of the sinner, but as a relationship established and kept by God Himself. We call this a “unilateral” covenant, a covenant established and maintained by God alone. The covenant between God and His people, then, is not bilateral or two-sided but one-sided. It is, most emphatically, God’s covenant.

Third, if the covenant is an agreement, it is not “everlasting” (Gen. 17:7). An agreement is always temporary, ending when its terms and conditions have been met. God’s covenant does not cease when the redemption of His elect people has been accomplished, but reaches its highest glory and splendour in eternity.

If we are going to speak, therefore, of a covenant of redemption, it is not an agreement between God and Christ, but the relationship between them, established through the incarnation, in which Christ, as God’s Son, becomes the One through whom and in whom God establishes His covenant with us. It is the relationship described in Psalm 89:26-28: “He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.”

More must be said, however, and we will continue this discussion in another article, Lord willing.

Reverend Ron Hanko

Covenant Reformed News
August 2023 • Volume XIX, Issue 16

Clothed With Christ (3)

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” declares Galatians 3:27. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, high Anglicanism and other groups claim this text refers to the ritual or ceremony of baptism: Everyone baptized with water has personally and truly “put on Christ.” According to this view, Galatians 3:27 teaches the baptismal regeneration of all who receive the first sacrament: “For as many of you as have been baptized [with water] into Christ have put on Christ.”

The biblical doctrines of grace are radically opposed to baptismal regeneration. This soul-destroying dogma does not fit with the eternal, unconditional election of some in Christ and the sovereign reprobation of others in the way of their sins (Rom. 9:22-24; I Thess. 5:9). Dying only for His elect sheep and church (John 10:11, 15, 26; Eph. 5:25), the Lord Jesus gives His abundant life to them alone. The new birth is infallibly granted only to those whom the Holy Spirit desires to save (John 3:8). All those who are born again (I Pet. 1:3) are kept by the divine omnipotence (5) and so they assuredly receive their eternal inheritance (4). As Romans 8:30 declares, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Contrary to Romish baptismal regeneration, those to whom the Saviour gives “eternal life” will “never perish” (John 10:28).

Over against the heresy of baptismal regeneration, the truth is that Galatians 3:27, like many other passages (e.g., Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12; I Pet. 3:21), refers to the spiritual, inner baptism of God’s elect and redeemed people (which is signified and sealed by water baptism). Let us marvel at this: The Holy Spirit has baptized us into Christ Himself! This is what water baptism points to and symbolizes.

Many Baptists appeal to Galatians 3:27 in order to make a different point from that made by the advocates of baptismal regeneration. These Baptists believe that baptism equals (total) immersion (followed by rapid emersion). They claim that this text provides support for the mode that they use in the ceremony of water baptism. Galatians 3:27’s reference to our putting on or being clothed with Christ, they say, is an allusion to someone being enveloped in a robe after he or she has been (totally) immersed (and then swiftly emersed) in the ritual of baptism.

According to the immersionist theory, Jesus is pictured in not just one but two ways in the ceremony of baptism! First, Christ is represented by the sinner, for his going under the water portrays Jesus’ burial (though His body was laid in a cave tomb and not put underground) and his coming up of the water the Redeemer’s resurrection (though He did not arise out of soil). Second, Christ is represented by the robe with which the baptized sinner is clothed.

But what is the element in the sacrament of baptism? It is not the baptized sinner, nor any garment that he or she may put on after the ceremony. The cleansing water is the sacramental element and sign! The water symbolizes and seals the washing away of our sins by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5).

In many sports, like football or snooker or golf or tennis or rugby, it is a big mistake to take one’s eyes off the ball. In the sacraments, one’s spiritual focus is to be on the elements, whether water in baptism or bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. The elements point to and signify Christ’s cleansing us by His blood and Spirit (baptism), and feeding us by His broken body and shed blood (Lord’s Supper).

There is an additional problem with the immersionist reading of Galatians 3:27. What is the function of the (postulated) robe? To get rid of the water (which pictures the washing away of sins) by drying it up! In other words, Christ the robe dries up His cleansing blood and Spirit!

So what is Galatians 3:27 teaching? As we said earlier, its subject is real baptism, not ritual baptism by water (though the latter symbolizes and seals the former). The doctrine of our text is neither baptismal regeneration nor the immersionist mode of baptism. It is union with Jesus Christ! By inner, spiritual baptism, we come under the blessed influence of our Saviour, so as to be changed and transformed by Him or, to use the language of Galatians 3:27, we are clothed with Him!

We are often spiritually timid and in need of encouragement. “I believe that I am saved by God’s grace and baptized into Jesus,” we think, “but am I really clothedwith Him? Could someone as weak and foolish as I am actually have put on Christ as my imputed righteousness and infused holiness? Could it be true that I, all over and permanently, am enveloped by the Lord Jesus in His threefold office and adorned with His image, so that He alone covers my nakedness, protects my vulnerability and makes me beautiful in God’s sight?”

Galatians 3:27 states, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Therefore, a person is either both “baptized into Christ” and clothed with Him or neither. This text proclaims that you, believer, are both: “For as many of you as [1] have been baptized into Christ [2] have put on Christ.”

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom      

Why Baptize All the Infants of Believers?

Here is our question for this issue of the News: “Seeing that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant and the covenant promise, if only the elect are in the covenant, if they only and only they are embraced in the promise of God, and the reprobate are not, why does God still will all the children of believers to be baptized?”

The reader of the News is correct that only the elect are in the covenant. Galatians 3:29 is clear: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The seed of Abraham is a spiritual seed, defined not by physical descent from Abraham but by faith in Abraham’s God. All who believe are the spiritual children of Abraham (7) and the children of God (26). Only these spiritual children of Abraham are the heirs according to the promise. The promise is the covenant promise, I will be your God and you shall be my people (Lev. 26:12; Jer. 30:22). That promise was made to Abraham in Genesis 17:1-7 and through him to all his spiritual descendants. They are those who belong to Christ by election and by the blood of atonement. They alone are in the covenant and they alone are heirs according to the promise.

The reader who submitted this question is also correct that the promise of God, the promise of the covenant, is also only for the elect. Like the covenant itself, the promise is not made to all baptized children conditionally but only to the elect. It is not, as some have said, a cheque presented by God to all baptized children, a cheque which they must endorse before it becomes valid and payable to the bearer. Acts 2:39 teaches that the promise is only for the elect and not for all baptized children conditionally: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The promise is to those whom God calls, and they are always called irresistibly and effectually. They are the elect, therefore.

The heresy of the Federal Vision denies any connection between the covenant and election, and many Reformed theologians also hesitate to affirm such a connection. The Federal Vision teaches that baptized children may be elect but still go hell on account of their covenant unfaithfulness; they may be elect and end up out of the covenant. Others want a covenant that is in some sense with all baptized children, not just with those baptized children who are elect. Thus they teach a covenant that is conditional, that is, with all baptized children, but conditioned on their faith and obedience.

Romans 9:6 addresses this issue: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” The Word of God in the context includes the promises, and the Israel to whom the promises belong is defined not by physical descent from Abraham but by election. Only true Israel, elect Israel, has the promises. This is Paul’s conclusion: “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7).

That raises the question: “Why does God still will all the children of believers to be baptized,” if “baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant and the covenant promise”?

The answer to this insightful question is that just as the gospel must be preached to the non-elect, so also must the sacraments, in the purpose and will of God, be administered to many non-elect. It is, of course, impossible to administer the sacraments only to the elect, just as it is impossible to preach the gospel and its call to the elect only. Only God perfectly knows those who are His own (II Tim. 2:19). Some try to limit the preaching of the gospel and/or the administration of baptism to the elect by requiring a profession of faith in Christ of all those who are baptized, but the latter does not guarantee that the sacrament is administered to the elect only.

It is the error of hyper-Calvinism to attempt to limit the preaching of the gospel and its call to the elect, and the error of credo-baptism to attempt to limit the sacrament of baptism to the elect only. Both are impossible. Not only that, but God has His sovereign purpose in willing children who are not elect to be baptized and it is the same purpose He has in sending the gospel call to many who are not elect.

The sacraments, we should remember, are a visible and tangible gospel which declare Christ crucified as the only way of salvation. When the gospel is preached, God wills that many hear who are not elect and who do not believe. He wants them to hear for their hardening and condemnation. Hardened in their unbelief and disobedience, they also serve God’s purpose, just as Pharaoh did (Rom. 9:17-18). By their disobedience, they bring Jehovah’s just wrath upon themselves and they are the means He sovereignly uses to chastise His people, to deliver them from the wicked world in which they live and to make them ready for eternal glory.

The same is true of baptism. Many who are baptized, instead of “improving their baptism” (Westminster Larger Catechism, A. 167), reject all that baptism signifies, are hardened in their faithlessness and unbelief, and bring the judgment of God upon themselves. This does not happen only for their destruction, however, since they are sovereignly used by God within the church for the final salvation of the elect. Their hatred of the gospel is often the beginning of persecution, an important, though distressing, part of God’s deliverance of His church. Introducing heresies and godless living into the church, they are used by God in the church to separate wheat from chaff, to waken His people out of spiritual indifference and sloth, and to occasion the development of the truth.

I Corinthians 11:19 says, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” So it is with the gospel and so it is with the sacraments. In God’s purpose to save His people and His church, He does all things in perfect wisdom to realize His purpose and to bring all things to their appointed end. Those who do not believe, even under the gospel and the sacraments, who fit the description of Jude 4, are part of that all-wise plan. They are the chaff without which the wheat cannot grow and ripen.

So let us not hesitate to apply the sacrament of baptism to all the children of believers, knowing that some who receive it are not among God’s elect people. Likewise, let us not baulk at preaching the gospel wherever and whenever God gives us opportunity, never hesitating because we preach to a “mixed” audience but trusting that it will be the power of God unto salvation to all whom He has chosen.

Reverend Ron Hanko        

Covenant Reformed News
July 2023 • Volume XIX, Issue 15

Clothed With Christ (2)

The wonderful truth is that we are clothed with the Lord Jesus, as we saw in the last issue of the News, for all of God’s elect, redeemed and regenerated people “have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Here is John Calvin commenting on this text: “The greater and loftier the privilege is of being the children of God, the farther is it removed from our senses, and the more difficult to obtain belief. He [i.e., Paul] therefore explains, in a few words, what is implied in our being united, or rather, made one with the Son of God; so as to remove all doubt, that what belongs to him is communicated to us. He employs the metaphor of a garment, when he says that the Galatians have put on Christ; but he means that they are so closely united to him, that, in the presence of God, they bear the name and character of Christ, and are viewed in him rather than in themselves.”

In this article, we shall consider three things: (1) the various purposes of our spiritual clothing, (2) how our Lord Jesus became our clothing and (3) our response regarding this clothing.

We begin with why human beings wear clothes. First, and most basically, our clothing covers our nakedness. Since the fall, men and women are to wear clothes. Stripping off for showering or undergoing a hospital operation are simply exceptions that prove the rule. Nakedness in most situations is sinful and shameful, the foolish claims and practice of nudists notwithstanding (Gen. 3:7, 10-11, 21).

Since the disobedience our first parents, there are two main parties who have sought to provide spiritual clothing. One of the two parties is man. Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to make coverings for themselves (7). The ungodly try to fashion their “good works” into garments, despite the fact that they are actually “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). Like all legalists before or since, the Judaizers in Galatia in the days of the apostles misused God’s law, as if it were a sort of sewing machine, in order to produce clothes to cover the spiritual nakedness of their sins. The other party is the Triune God who has graciously fashioned and given our Lord Jesus Christ as the perfect garment for all His beloved people!

Second, clothing not only covers our nakedness but it is also used for protection. Thus, for example, construction workers wear steel-toed boots and soldiers put on armour. Jesus Christ, our clothing, protects us from the fiery darts of the devil, and defends us from the attacks of the wicked world and the false church.

Third, clothing expresses allegiance or belonging. This is especially evident as regards uniforms. A particular type of school uniform identifies the educational establishment that a student attends. The colour and style of a military uniform indicate the nationality, branch and rank of a member of the armed forces. Since our clothing is Jesus Christ, we belong to the blessed Trinity and do not belong to ourselves.

Fourth, clothing is also for beauty. Think of a gorgeous dress or an attractive jacket. Clothed with Jesus Christ, we wear clean clothes that are never dirty; we wear beautiful clothes all of the time; we wear glorious clothes that are never shameful.

In short, Jesus Christ is our multi-purpose clothing. Such a wonderful garment covers our nakedness, protects our weakness, makes us beautiful and expresses our allegiance: “That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with His precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil” (Heidelberg Catechism, A. 1).

How did Christ become our clothing? He was wrapped in swaddling bands as a baby. Here we are recalling His amazing incarnation and lowly birth for us! A royal robe of purple was put upon Him by the Roman soldiers. Their mockery was part of His humiliation for us! He was stripped of most of His clothing on the cross to fulfil the prophecy of Psalm 22:18. Behold His degradation, suffering at the hands of wicked men and at the hands of the holy God in our place! He was tenderly wrapped in grave clothes, for He really died. Three days later, on the first day of the week, He passed through these same grave clothes or vanished out of them. This is another testimony to His resurrection from the dead!

What ought to be, and is, our response to this, as children of God? First, thanksgiving and worship are due to the Triune God for our wonderful clothing, and in light of the cost to Him who wrought and bought it. Let us be clothed with “the garments of praise” (Isa. 61:3)!

Second, let us keep putting on this clothing. There are two types of text in the New Testament that concern the believer’s spiritual adornment. Some verses speak of the Christian’s clothing as a once-and-for-all gift granted to him at his regeneration, as here in Galatians 3:27: we “have put on Christ.” Other texts, like Romans 13:14, contain an exhortation: “put ye on [i.e., be clothed with] the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.”

How is this calling fulfilled? By believing, for true faith appropriates Jesus Christ, day by day and moment by moment. Thus we are continually and consciously clothed with Him, His graces and His salvation!

It will get even better, beloved. At the general resurrection, even in our bodies, we will “put on” “incorruption” and “immortality” in Christ (I Cor. 15:53-54). On the last day, we shall be clothed perfectly and joyfully with our Lord Jesus!

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom    

Israel’s Animals in the Wilderness

One of our readers has submitted a very interesting question: “We know that the Israelites in their millions were sustained by manna for 40 years but what about their many animals? From what I know, there is little grass in the wilderness of Sinai.”

Scripture gives no specific answer to this question but there are some things we know. We know that well over a million people left the land of Egypt, as the questioner points out (Ex. 12:37). We know that they left with their “flocks and herds,” described in Exodus 12:38 as “very much cattle.” Moses had insisted on this (10:26), and God spared the cattle of the Israelites when He destroyed the flocks and herds of the Egyptians (9:6-7). We also know that they still had their cattle with them when they came to the land of Canaan after forty years in the wilderness and that the number of animals was enormous (Num. 32:1).

Our questioner is correct in his assumption that there was not enough grass in the wilderness for so many cattle. The desert is described in the Bible as a “waste howling wilderness” (Deut. 32:10), and as a “great and terrible wilderness” where there was neither sufficient water or food (8:15). There were specific encampments where there was insufficient food and water for the people and for their animals (Ex. 17:1-3; Num. 20:2-4; 21:5). They stayed in some of their encampments for many months, including almost a year at Mount Sinai, and what grass there was in these places must quickly have been devoured. It is impossible to imagine the amount of fodder needed over such a long time and for so many beasts.

The answer to the question about their animals is that they were kept alive miraculously, just as the Israelites themselves were. We know about the manna and the gushing water from the rock (Ps. 78:15-16, 20; 105:41)—which also must have caused grass to grow—and how God provided for the Israelites by these miracles, but we sometimes forget that their whole existence was under the miraculous care of God. They were miraculously fed and given drink, miraculously protected from their enemies, miraculously guided, and miraculously brought to the land of Canaan. Deuteronomy 8:4 tells us that even their clothing and health were miraculously preserved by God: “Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years.” He must, therefore, have miraculously provided for their animals as well.

Referring to Deuteronomy 8:4, the Levites in the days of Nehemiah confessed in prayer, “Yea, forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, so that they lacked nothing; their clothes waxed not old, and their feet swelled not” (Neh. 9:21). They lacked nothing, the Word of God says, not even food and water for their animals. How exactly God provided for their animals we do not know and it is useless to speculate, but that He did so and did so miraculously we may be sure. Nor is it necessary for us to know. No more than we always know how He will provide for us, is it necessary to know how He provided for Israel’s animals. He provides and we must trust in Him.

We may be sure that God provided for their animals, just as He provided for them, not only because of verses like Nehemiah 9:21 but also because God cares even for the beasts (Ps. 147:9; I Cor. 9:9). They too are the work of His hands and are included in His covenant (Gen. 9:15; Jer. 33:20-21). These beasts belonged to His people and must have been for that reason especially under His care.

There is a lesson in all this, a lesson grounded in the truth that the things that happened to Israel happened as examples (types) for us (I Cor. 10:6). God provides for His people now and in every way, just as He did then. He does so miraculously, just as He did then. We do not mean, of course, that our bread falls from heaven and lies on the ground for us to pick up each morning. We do not mean that we do not suffer from swollen feet as we make our pilgrimage to the heavenly land of Canaan, or from any hurt or harm.

God’s provision for His people is miraculous in that He makes all things work together for their good (Rom. 8:28) and that for Christ’s sake. Never does He give them stones for bread or fail to give them His Spirit (Luke 11:9-13). They may have empty stomachs but He never fails even in that to feed their souls unto life everlasting. They may suffer and be ill, but it is all part of that great healing which will bring them to the land they have not seen but love. They may suffer physically, but God keeps them in spiritual health and strength until that day when “the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them” (Rev. 21:3).

Nor does God always tell His people how He will provide, no more than He tells us how He provided for Israel’s beasts. But that makes no difference. It drives us to trust in Him, and to believe that He will never leave or forsake His own. How foolish we are when we, like the Israelites, living out of the hand of God Himself, say by our murmuring and complaining, by our lack of trust, “Is the Lord among us, or not?” (Ex. 17:7).

In riches and poverty, in health and sickness, in fruitful and barren years, God provides. He is Jehovah Jireh (Gen. 22:14), Jehovah Provider. He provides salvation and eternal life, fellowship with Himself and such blesssedness that it has not entered our hearts to imagine. All else pales in comparison. What does it matter if we have insufficient to eat or are in poor health, when He has given us His only-begotten Son, making sure in all the circumstances of life that nothing will ever separate us from His love in Christ Jesus our Lord. What do a few days of poor health mean when we remember that before long “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Rev. 21:4).

Let us trust in Him and say, “Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places” (Hab. 3:17-19).

He who cares for the little sparrow will certainly care for His own eternally loved, blood-bought and Spirit in-dwelt people.

Reverend Ron Hanko        

Covenant Reformed News
June 2023 • Volume XIX, Issue 14

Clothed With Christ (1)

Galatians 3:27 states that all of God’s people “have put on Christ.” To be clothed with Christ is to be covered with the robe of His righteousness (Isa. 61:10), the “best robe” (cf. Luke 15:22). This garment was fashioned by the Lord Jesus Himself through His perfect obedience to His Father during all of His life on earth and it is reckoned to us by faith alone. But this is not all that is meant by Galatians 3:27, for the verse says not that we “have put on righteousness” but that we “have put on Christ.”

We are also adorned with our Saviour’s holiness. We are not here thinking of Christ’s holiness imputed to us in justification, but of His holiness imparted to us in sanctification through the Holy Spirit and by faith. Thus we are clothed with the garments of all His salvation (cf. Isa. 61:10).

The word “Christ” means anointed, for Jesus was called and equipped by the Holy Spirit for His threefold office. Therefore, to put on Christ is to share in His anointing as Christians. We are dressed in the rough garments of camel’s hair as prophets (II Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4; Mark 1:6). Thus we call men to repent before the Most High God who is the judge of all men. We are attired in the white linen of priests, because we are consecrated to God to offer up sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. We are arrayed in the royal robes of true and godly kings or queens. These are far more splendid than the regal garments of Ahab seated on his throne in Samaria (II Chron. 18:9).

Jesus Christ is the express image of God (II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3) so those clothed with Him are in the divine likeness. In Christ, we are adorned with the knowledge of God (not merely human traditions), we are attired with righteousness and we are arrayed in holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).

Let us, first, consider the extent of this wonderful garment. The Lord Jesus is certainly not a patch or two over the old man. In terms of an item of clothing in our culture, we are not speaking here of something akin to trousers or socks or a coat. Our spiritual garment is more like an overall or a boiler suit or a onesie that covers us all over. He is our all-encompassing clothing that leaves no bare skin (as it were) for all is covered.

Notice too that Christ is our one-and-only clothing and not merely one of several garments. We are not attired with Jesus and Adam. We are not arrayed with Christ and the law. We are adorned with Christ alone!

Second, let us contemplate the permanence of this garment. Like Israel’s raiment in the wilderness which did not wax old (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21), this is clothing that never wears out. It is extremely hard wearing, even incorruptible, and no moth or worm will ever eat it up or even nibble part of it (cf. Isa. 50:9; 51:8).

This spiritual clothing is never taken off, unlike the attire of Joseph in Genesis. He was stripped of his beautiful coat of many colours by his brothers, he wriggled out of his garment to escape the clutches of Potiphar’s wife and he discarded his prison clothes before entering Pharaoh’s presence.

Christ our clothing is not taken off by our backsliding, though, by such wicked disobedience, we defile our conscience and bring reproach upon His name. We are not even stripped of Jesus our garment at death, for this is the only clothing that is taken with us into the next life!

Third, let us turn to the possession of this garment. We are truly covered by real spiritual clothing that belongs to us personally by God’s grace. We are not wearing the emperor’s new clothes, for we are not naked, as those possessed only of a foolish notion.

The Christian is not an impostor, putting on a garment that does not belong to him, like Jacob, who dressed up as Esau in Genesis 27. In claiming this clothing, the child of God is not merely trying to deceive others or even himself.

The Christian must not suffer from impostor’s syndrome, wracked with an awful insecurity: “I’m not really clothed with Christ, am I? One day I will be found out!” Trust in Jesus Christ crucified and risen for sinners! By faith, you have lawfully and rightly acquired this divine clothing through God’s abounding mercy!

Christ is your personal clothing, child of God! This is not a false claim. It is a divinely given covenant possession, for all true believers “have put on Christ.”

The most astounding feature of our spiritual garment, and probably the hardest thing about it to grasp, is that our clothing is a Person! Our attire is not an external ethical code: the law of Moses, as was the position of the Judaizers in Galatia. Our raiment is not even our Redeemer’s blessings or benefits, or His offices, though these things are included in our clothing and have been mentioned earlier. Galatians 3:27 asserts that we “have put on Christ” Himself—a Person, even the Second Person of the blessed Trinity in our flesh, who died for our sins and is now seated in heaven.

Since we are clothed with Him, we even look like Christ spiritually. As those re­created in the image of God and of Jesus, we bear an ethical resemblance to Christ to some degree in the eyes of other people, whether believers or unbelievers, though they can only see the outside of us and their understanding is imperfect. We look like Christ to God, for He sees us “in” His beloved Son and we are clothed with Christ. As John Chrysostom put it, “He who is clothed appears to be that with which he is clothed.”

Clothed with Jesus, we have His standing and we are the objects of God’s favour. We are clothed with Christ’s character, clothed with His mind and will, and clothed with His graces, sentiments, virtues and life—for we are clothed with Him!

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom                          

The Days of Noah (2)

We continue here our answer to a number of questions about Noah and the ark. Since the questions we are answering are not only three in number but rather lengthy, instead of quoting them again, we will summarize the two matters that still need to be addressed:

1. The Spirit’s “striving” in Genesis 6:3: “Was the Spirit’s ‘striving’ an attempt of God to save all?”

2. The size of the ark: “Although the ark wasn’t big enough to accommodate the entire world, nevertheless, the very fact that it could have held many more people than just Noah’s family testifies that the well-meant offer of salvation is real—that there is room for more to be saved than just the elect; that Christ and His atonement, which are pictured by the ark, are sufficient enough to save anyone—whosoever—if only they desire to go in.”

We begin with the first question. The striving of the Spirit was through the preaching of Enoch (Jude 14-15), Noah (II Pet. 2:5) and others. Sadly, some present this as if it were a gracious, though non-saving, work of the Spirit of God, even an inward work of the Spirit in the heart that restrains man’s wickedness and makes him partly good.

Certainly that was not the Spirit’s striving in Genesis 6:3. The word translated “striving” does not mean “restraining” or “trying to save.” It has the meaning the English word “striving” has. It means “fighting with” (II Sam. 19:9; Ecc. 6:10) or, more often, “judging” (Gen. 15:14; Ps. 7:8; Jer. 21:12). Nor does the striving in any way restrain or improve wicked man, for Jehovah still finds man totally depraved: “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5).

Thus, the question needs to be asked, “According to this view, does the Spirit of God strive in vain?” If this striving was gracious and by way of waiting for the repentance of the unbelieving world, then it was in vain, and that is no credit to the Holy Spirit but a denial of God’s sovereignty in salvation.

Those who believe the 120 years Noah spent building the ark were a period of grace and lovingkindness, and who insist that the striving is evidence of God’s grace to all, ignore the fact that Genesis 6:3 says the opposite. God’s striving, whatever it may be, gives man only another 120 years before God destroys the world for its wickedness.

That this striving was through the preaching of Enoch and Noah is also to the point, for, as we have seen, Noah was not preaching God’s love for all men without exception or His supposed desire to save everyone, but “righteousness” (II Pet. 2:5) in the case of the unbelieving world, the righteousness of God as Judge. Enoch is also described as prophesying judgment: “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Jude 14-15). That is God’s striving, the striving of One who is the sovereign judge of mankind, and not someone who wants to, but cannot, save everyone and who is helpless in the face of man’s rebellion and unbelief, who waits for a while, but finally, in frustration, gives up and destroys mankind.

The second question, that of the matter of the ark’s size, is simply answered. The ark was so large, not to show “that there is room for more to be saved than just the elect; that Christ and His atonement, which are pictured by the ark, are sufficient enough to save anyone.” Rather the ark was built so large because it had to accommodate the thousands of creatures that went with Noah in the ark and their food. How anyone could turn that into a picture of a supposed desire of God to save all men, is beyond me.

I find it rather humorous, in fact, that whoever is being quoted by our reader, admits that the ark was not large enough to save the whole world. Is the ark, then, a picture of a desire on God’s part to save more than the elect but not everybody, and of His inability to save these extra people? Such fanciful interpretations of the Word of God only involve one in contradictions and nonsense.

Worse, such aberrant theology makes God dependent on the will of man: “that there is room for more to be saved than just the elect; that Christ and His atonement, which are pictured by the ark, are sufficient enough to save anyone—whosoever—if only they desire to go in.” That denies the divine sovereignty, for “our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3), especially His sovereignty in His gracious salvation, for it “is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom. 9:16).

Nevertheless, the size of the ark does suggest an important biblical truth about God’s saving purpose and the wideness of His mercy. His saving purpose is universal, not in the sense that it somehow or other embraces all men without exception, but in that it embraces the rest of the creation (even then not every single creature), which God gathered into the ark with Noah. It shows that “the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).

Magnifying Christ and His work, Colossians 1:19-21 declares that, “it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you ... hath he reconciled ...” The blessings of Christ’s finished work extend not to all men without exception, but to all things in heaven and earth, as well as to us.

The size of the ark shows the greatness of God’s saving work and of the work of Christ, the length and breadth and height and depth of the love of God, not to all men without exception but to all things He has created, to the world in that sense. He shows us that to humble us. Though God, in His unspeakable love and wonderful mercy, has chosen to save us, we are not everything in the purpose of God. He will “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ” (Eph. 1:10-12).

Reverend Ron Hanko       

Covenant Reformed News
May 2023 • Volume XIX, Issue 13

The Days of Noah (1)

We have a number of different though related questions from the same reader and, since they all concern Noah and the building of the ark, we will treat them together in this article and the next, DV. The brother first quotes from Genesis 7: “And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark … For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth … And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth” (1, 4, 10). He then summarizes three arguments used by advocates of various forms of universal grace:

1. The “Seven More Days” Argument. God tells Noah to go into the ark but does He then immediately bring the flood? No. He waits seven more days. Why is that? Isn’t this a gracious act of kindness and benevolence on God’s part? For He was, essentially, delaying His judgment upon the earth, even if only for seven more days. From the perspective of election, all the elect were in the ark. It seems that the door of the ark was only shut and sealed by God after those seven days. Do we not see here God giving one more chance for anyone outside the ark to be saved? What else does this seven-day delay mean?

2. The “Size of the Ark” Argument. The sheer size of the ark that God instructed Noah to build was immense and testifies to the availableness of salvation. Although the ark wasn’t big enough to accommodate the entire world, nevertheless, the very fact that it could have held many more people than just Noah’s family testifies that the well-meant offer of salvation is real—that there is room for more to be saved than just the elect; that Christ and His atonement, which are pictured by the ark, are sufficient to save anyone—whosoever—if only they desire to go in. If, as it is claimed, there is no such benevolence, offer or desire of God for anyone other than the elect to be saved, surely God would have had an ark built that would have only enough room for Noah’s family and no one else—indisputably implying that there would be no de facto allowance for other persons to come into the ark, even if they desired to, and that the atonement would not be sufficient for such individuals.

3. The “120 Years of Preaching” Argument. If you want to kill another bird with the same stone, I have an additional point that’s related to the two Noah questions I have presented above. It’s the notion that the 120 years of Noah’s preaching to the world (Gen. 6:3; II Pet. 2:5) is another example or proof for the well-meant offer. For example, why would God postpone the judgment for 120 years unless He was giving the world a chance to repent? Was Noah preaching a well-meant offer gospel to all men? Wasn’t God gracious to all men in allowing them 120 years more? Aren’t these 120 years a sort of divine patience toward all of the predeluvian world? Especially as, in those days, only Noah and his family were of the elect. Was the Spirit’s “striving” an attempt of God to save all?

In answer to the first question (#1) about the seven days between God’s command and the coming of the flood, my understanding is that the divine command to Noah came seven days before Noah finished the business of getting all the animals, as well as his family, into the ark (Gen. 7:7-9), at which time the ark was closed up by the hand of God and the rain began to fall. The main reason for the “delay,” therefore, was the work that Noah still had to do.

Some commentators erroneously view the seven days as a period of longsuffering or grace shown by God toward the unbelieving and reprobate world. The same view is held of the 120 years it took to build the ark (cf. #3 above). Lutheran theologians, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, in their commentary on the Pentateuch, call the 120 years “the period of grace,” though even they admit that it had passed when God told Noah to enter the ark.

That the seven days (#1) or the 120 years (#3) are God’s grace to the unbelieving and wicked world is very difficult to see, to put it mildly. Scripture tells us that the Lord beheld their great wickedness (Gen. 6:5), repented of His creation of man (6), and announced His intention to destroy humanity, the animals and the birds (7). How then is any “delay,” whether 7 days or 120 years, gracious when God does not grant repentance to any of those who remained unbelieving when Noah and his family entered the ark? How is it mercy, when the “delay” only serves their continuing in unbelief and wickedness? Does grace serve that purpose? With the passage of time, men increase in wickedness and folly, and fill up the cup of their iniquity (Gen. 15:16; I Thess. 2:16), but that is not because God is loving and gracious to them.

The answer of many would be that God was giving them a chance to repent and believe, but repentance and faith are never a mere chance. Repentance and faith are certain, a sovereignly bestowed gift of God to those whom He has eternally chosen in Christ: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Acts 11:18). Grace, because it is the grace of God, is powerful and saving. It never fails and is never wasted or in vain.

Our reader’s third question has to do with the 120 years (Gen. 6:3) it took to build the ark. These 120 years are alleged to reflect God’s supposed common grace, universal mercy and general lovingkindness towards all those who perished. But the only mention of grace in this passage of Scripture is towards Noah: “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (8)! He alone, and he in contrast to the rest of the world, was shown grace. Nor is “delay” grace, unless one believes that salvation is a mere chance, available to all, and that God was giving men the chance to be saved by the right exercise of their alleged free will. In that case, however, why did God wait only 120 years? Why not longer? Is His supposed common grace or mercy really so limited?

One reason for this “delay” is simply that Noah had work to do, the work of building the ark. It was a huge project and would be even today. Another reason for the 120 years is that in the purpose of God only Noah and his family were to be saved in the ark (Gen. 6:18), but others in the line of the covenant were still living. Methuselah died during the year of the flood and Noah’s father, Lamech, departed only a year or two before.

God had His purpose in letting them live so long. The writing of the Bible had not yet begun so the truth had to be transmitted orally. The long lives of the prediluvian patriarchs served that purpose. Methuselah and Lamech would both have heard the story of creation and the fall from Adam himself, and they would have been able to pass it on to Noah. Not only was there merely one link between Adam and Noah, but Noah would have been able to pass it on first-hand to Abraham! But only Noah and his immediate family were to be saved in the ark, and so the others died during the 120 years.

As to Noah’s preaching during the 120 years (II Pet. 2:5), the Word of God does not say that he preached a failing divine love for all without exception or a common grace of God or that he “offered” salvation to those who witnessed the building of the ark. Scripture instructs us that he preached “righteousness,” that is, the righteousness of God which is the condemnation of the world, but which the Messiah merited and revealed, and is given through faith alone in Him. No doubt Noah preached the necessity of repentance towards God and faith in the coming seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), but that is not common grace. It is simply the call of the blessed gospel.

Hebrews 11:7 bears this out: “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” The building of the ark was the condemnation of the world and only Noah was heir of the righteousness which he preached. I Peter 3:20 says that “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,” but the question is, for what was it waiting? Was it waiting for the possible salvation of everyone to whom Noah preached? Romans 9:22-23 is a loud “No” to that idea for the longsuffering of God only endures or puts up with “the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” while it waits to “make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” At that time, Noah and those of his family were those “vessels of mercy.”

There are a number of matters that we have not covered in this article, particularly the “size of the ark” argument (#2) and the Spirit’s “striving” (Gen. 6:3), an aspect of argument #3. Thus we will continue our discussion of Noah, the ark and an alleged common or general grace in the next issue, DV.

Reverend Ron Hanko

Vessels of Wrath Fitted to Destruction

“What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction …?” (Rom. 9:22). A reader asks, “Are ‘the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction’ by themselves (as many advocates of a divine desire to save the reprobate claim) or by God?”

Of course, it is true that humans who perish eternally do fit themselves for their destruction by their unbelief and other sins. They themselves are morally responsible for their damnation; God is not to blame. Belgic Confession 13 declares, in the context of God’s almighty providential government even over evil, that He is not “the author of … sins.” But this ethical responsibility of lost sinners is not the teaching of Romans 9:22.

The text clearly teaches that Almighty God fits the vessels of wrath to destruction. First, the verb form is passive: they are fitted. Romans 9:22 does not state that the vessels fit themselves, actively, for destruction but that they are fitted by Another. As the first part of verse 22 indicates, this Other is “God,” who is “willing” (i.e., desiring) to show His wrath upon the vessels of wrath and to make His power known upon them.

Second, the thought of all of Romans 9 is the sovereignty of God in damnation, as well as in salvation. God hardens whom He wills or wishes or wants or desires (18). God is the omnipotent Potter who (actively) makes vessels “unto dishonour” (21). The thought of verse 22, in its close relation with verse 23, is that just as God prepares some humans unto glory so He fits others unto destruction.

How does God fit some to destruction? The fitting of verse 22 is not the eternal decree of reprobation itself, but an activity of God upon and within some humans that carries out the decree of reprobation. God has sovereignly reprobated some in the same predestinating decree in which He has elected others unto eternal life. This damnation is in the way of God’s fitting the reprobate for their destruction. This fitting consists of their condemnation and total depravity in the fall of Adam, God’s hardening of them by the preaching of the gospel and His giving them over to all their other sins.

Some who claim that Romans 9:22 teaches that the vessels of wrath fit themselves for destruction and who oppose the doctrine that God fits them profess to be Calvinists. I confront them, therefore, with Calvin’s own explanation of “the vessels of wrath” in Romans 9:22: “That they were ‘fitted to destruction’ by their own wickedness is an idea so silly that it needs no notice. It is indeed true that the reprobate procure to themselves the wrath of God and that they daily hasten the falling of its weight upon their own heads, but it must be confessed by all that the apostle is here treating of that difference made between the elect and the reprobate that proceeds from the secret will and purpose of God alone” (Calvin’s Calvinism (https://cprc.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=075ddd476b87ed45d96d8d5d6&id=382a1895fa&e=afa9b7cb49) [Jenison, MI: RFPA, 2009], p. 66).

Who are the genuine Calvinists? Those who reject and twist the apostle’s confession of God’s sovereignty in Romans 9:22, and outrightly contradict Calvin’s explanation of the text and hold a view which he calls “so silly,” or all those who faithfully confess Jehovah’s sovereignty and stand with Calvin on Romans 9:22?

Professor David J. Engelsma 

Covenant Reformed News
April 2023 • Volume XIX, Issue 12

Objections to the Salvation of Ishmael and Hagar Answered

I. Two main arguments have been made against Ishmael being a child of God. First, there is his sin of “mocking” Isaac (Gen. 21:9). Ishmael’s transgression occurred at a “great feast” celebrating the day of Isaac’s weaning (8). If Isaac was about three, Ishmael would have been about 17. He was jealous over his younger brother’s higher status: “Everybody is making such a big deal of this little pipsqueak but no one held such a party when I was weaned!” Ishmael undoubtedly sinned in attitude and behaviour, but any child in a covenant home would have struggled had they been in his situation.

The book of Genesis also records iniquities committed by Abraham and Sarah. In chapters 12 and 20, Abraham lied about the identity of his wife and she played along with the deceit. Aged Sarah laughed inwardly in unbelief, when she was told that she would bear a son (18:12). Then she lied about it when the Lord Himself rebuked her (13-15). Just as the transgressions of Abraham and Sarah are no proof of their reprobation, given that Scripture elsewhere teaches that they were believers, so too with Ishmael’s sin in Genesis 21, given the five arguments for his salvation in a recent News (XIX:10).

Second, on two occasions God told Abraham that His covenant would run not in Ishmael’s generations (17:20) but in Isaac’s: “Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him … my covenant will I establish with Isaac” (19, 21), for “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (21:12).

But this does not mean that Ishmael perished everlastingly for the contexts of both passages in the life of Abraham prove the contrary. Genesis 17 asserts that Ishmael “lived before” God’s face in covenant friendship (18, 20) and was blessed by Him (20), as was Sarah (16), the mother of all godly women (I Pet. 3:6). Genesis 21 not only affirms that Jehovah was “with” Ishmael (20), the preposition of spiritual communion, but it also twice declares that He answered teenaged Ishmael’s prayers: “God heard the voice of the lad … God hath heard the voice of the lad” (17).

In Genesis 17 and 21, the Lord predicts that the Old Testament church and people of God would descend from Isaac, as would the Messiah. But no such promise was given regarding the generations of believing Ishmael. They would turn away from the Most High so that the Ishmaelites became enemies of Israel, God’s people. In this, Abraham’s son Ishmael is similar to Abraham’s believing nephew Lot (II Pet. 2:7-8), for Lot’s sons, Moab and Ammon, became the Israelites’ inveterate adversaries.

Romans 9:7 explains that the true spiritual “seed of Abraham” were not in the generations of Ishmael (or even of the descendants of the sons of Keturah; Gen. 25:1-4) for “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” quoting Genesis 21:12. Likewise, Noah’s son, Japheth, was godly but the covenant line continued in the family of Shem.

Romans 9 makes a further distinction regarding the 12 tribes that descended from Jacob, Abraham’s grandson: “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel … That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (6, 8).

II. An argument against Hagar being a child of God has been made from Genesis 16. That chapter records pregnant Hagar despising Sarai her mistress (4-5) and fleeing from her (6). Our response is that Hagar’s sudden elevation occasioned her sin of pride, for the Egyptian slave girl had become Abraham’s concubine and now she, unlike Sarai, had been granted conception. Why did Hagar run away? Sarai dealt harshly with her (6). Then, when the angel of the Lord—the pre-incarnate Christ—told her to return to her mistress and submit to her (9), she obeyed, in accordance with the fifth commandment.

None of this means that Hagar was lost. Remember the five points for her salvation developed in the last issue (XIX:11): (1) Would godly Abraham really have taken an unbeliever as his concubine? (2) The honour of the first appearance of the angel of the Lord in Scripture was given to Hagar and He came to her twice (16:7-14; 21:17-19)! (3) God heard her prayers and affliction (16:11). (4) Hagar confessed Jehovah’s comforting presence (16:13). (5) God told her “fear not” (21:17)!

III. Having considered two arguments against Ishmael’s salvation and one argument against Hagar’s salvation, we turn, finally, to an argument against the salvation of both of them. Some claim that Galatians 4:22-31 teaches that Hagar and Ishmael perished. They add that this passage is in the New Testament which interprets the Old Testament.

The answer is that what we have in these verses is an “allegory” (24), that is, a sort of extended metaphor, as the text itself teaches: “Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children” (24-25). Obviously, Hagar is not, literally, a covenant or a mountain. The idea is that Hagar represents these things allegorically.

To sum up, as recorded in the book of Genesis, Hagar and Ishmael (historically, individually and personally) were saved, as demonstrated by the five arguments concerning each of them in the last two issues of the News. However, in Galatians 4:22-31, Hagar and Ishmael are presented allegorically. In Paul’s polemics against the Judaizers who were corrupting the churches in the Roman province of Galatia, he uses the fact that Hagar was (economically and socially) a “bondmaid” (22) or “bondwoman” (23, 30, 30, 31) and Ishmael was “of the bondwoman” (23) as her “son” (22, 30, 30) to represent slavery or “bondage” to the law (24, 25; cf. 3, 9). Having already explained and proved the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without the works of the law (1:1-4:21), the apostle presents this gospel doctrine figuratively in the form of an allegory to make it especially memorable (22-31), without contradicting the historical record in Genesis or damning two of God’s Old Testament saints.

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom   

The Double Procession of the Spirit

A reader asks, “Why is the ‘Filioque clause’ essential doctrine? What clear texts do we use for this and what bearing does this have relating to the gospel? Is this a gospel issue in that, when the eastern church rejected it, they were departing from Christ?”

First, some explanation: the word “Filioque” means “and from the Son.” This Latin word or English clause was added to the Nicene or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the western church in AD 1014 and led to the schism between the western and eastern (later the Eastern Orthodox) churches in AD 1054. The Eastern Orthodox Church still rejects this addition to the creed and its doctrine.

The Nicene Creed, as written at the (first) Council of Nicea in AD 325, ended, “And in the Holy Ghost.” At the (first) Council of Constantinople in AD 381, this article of the creed was enlarged to read, “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets” (an article concerning the church, baptism, the resurrection and the world to come was also added to the end of the creed at that time).

In AD 1014, the Latin-speaking or western church added the word “Filioque,” so that the article reads in English translation, “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”

The phrase “and the Son” establishes the double procession of the Holy Spirit, the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and so by implication the Filioque also establishes the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is the confession of most of Protestantism. “The Father is the cause, origin, and beginning of all things visible and invisible; the Son is the word, wisdom, and image of the Father; the Holy Ghost is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son” (Belgic Confession 8). “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son” (Westminster Confession 2:3).

The word “procession,” then, is used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Spirit, and the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, and the unique character of the Holy Spirit as the third Person of the Trinity.

The relationship of the Father to the Son is that He generates or begets the Son (He is the Father in relation to the Son). The relationship of the Son to the Father is that He is generated or begotten by the Father (He is the Son in relation to the Father).

The relationship of the Father to the Spirit is that He sends out or breathes out (spirates) the Spirit (the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father; Matt. 10:20). The relationship of the Spirit to the Father is that He proceeds from or is sent by or is breathed out by the Father (He is the Spirit in relationship to the Father).

And the relationship of the Son to the Spirit is that He sends out or breathes out (spirates) the Spirit (the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son; Gal. 4:6). The relationship of the Spirit to the Son is that He proceeds from or is sent by or is breathed out by the Son (He is the Spirit in relation to the Son).

It must be understood that words like “begotten” and “proceeding” do not mean that the Son or Spirit have a beginning or are in any way less than the Father. They describe the eternal relationship between the Persons of the Trinity and their unique personalities. In other words, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

These relationships are reflected in the revelation of the three Persons in time, that, is, the Father is also the Father of Christ in His human nature and Christ is the only begotten Son incarnate. The Spirit, as the Spirit of Pentecost and the Spirit of Christ who lives in the church, is also sent by and proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is only to say, of course, that God, in time, reveals who and what He is eternally and as the blessed Trinity. This is an important point for, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in time, then the same must be true in eternity.

The last two points in the above list are what the Filioque controversy is all about. Protestants believe that there must be perfect symmetry, harmony and equality in the Trinity, and that the Spirit does proceed, eternally and in equality, from the Father and the Son. This is denied by Eastern Orthodoxy. Do the Eastern Orthodox Churches, therefore, deny the full divinity of the Spirit or the full equality of the Spirit to the Father and Son (the old heresy of Arianism)? Church history shows a tendency in Eastern Orthodoxy towards Arianism, a tendency to make the Spirit in some sense subordinate to the Father and the Son. If this is true it would make the matter a gospel issue indeed.

Is this matter of double procession biblical? Yes. John 15:26, a passage where the English word “proceeds” is found, teaches the double procession of the Spirit: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” This sending or proceeding of the Spirit in time to the church reflects the eternal Trinity. Both in eternity and in time, therefore, the Spirit proceeds from, and is sent by, the Father and the Son.

The references in Scripture to the Spirit as the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20) and of the Son (Gal. 4:6) also teach the double procession of the Spirit. The Son declared that the Spirit “shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:14). We have no doubt, therefore, that the double procession of the Spirit (from the Father and the Son) is not only Reformed doctrine but biblical teaching.

How glorious is the Triune God: three in Persons and one in Being! How inscrutable is the holy Trinity: the Father is of none, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son! “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea” (Job 11:7-9). We must worship Him alone for “his greatness is unsearchable” (Ps. 145:3)!

Reverend Ron Hanko     

Covenant Reformed News
March 2023  •  Volume XIX, Issue 11 

Was Hagar Saved?

Was Hagar, the wife or concubine of Abraham and the mother of Ishmael, saved? As with the spiritual condition of Ishmael, whom we considered in the last issue of the News, there are differences of opinion among orthodox Christians on this question, with some claiming that Hagar was not a believer and others reckoning that she was a child of God. Similar to last time, I will give five biblical arguments from Genesis in support of the position that Hagar was saved by God’s sovereign grace in Jesus Christ.

(1) Do you really think that father Abraham would marry or take as a concubine an unbeliever and that holy Sarah (Heb. 11:11; I Pet. 3:6) would have presented an ungodly woman as a wife or concubine to her husband (Gen. 16:1-3)? This is Jehovah’s testimony regarding Abraham’s faithfulness in his household, the church: “I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; [so] that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (18:19).

God’s people must marry “only in the Lord” (I Cor. 7:39). Believers are forbidden to enter into wedlock with the unconverted: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (II Cor. 6:14-15).

(2) The messenger of God appeared to Hagar. In fact, the very first recorded appearance of “the angel of the Lord” in Scripture is His conversation with Hagar (Gen. 16:7-14). Moreover, the angel of God spoke twice with Hagar, with the latter interaction being recorded in Genesis 21:17-19.

A careful consideration of these passages in Genesis 16 and 21, as well as a study of the angel or messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament, reveals that He is God, even an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. Hagar was the recipient not only of the first Christophany in the form of the angel or messenger of the Lord but of two of them! Both appearances were favourable to her. Are we really to think that Hagar was ungodly?

(3) God answered Hagar’s prayers (just as He answered Ishmael’s prayers, as Genesis 21:17 records): “the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction” (16:11).

In naming Hagar’s son “Ishmael,” which means “God heard,” the pre-incarnate Christ would have us remember, whenever we read or write or say or hear or think the name “Ishmael,” that Jehovah answered Hagar’s prayers. Moreover, this text specifically states that God heard her “affliction,” for He cares for His people in their suffering and hearkens to their cries (cf. Ex. 2:23-25; 3:7; 4:31; 6:5; Isa. 63:9). Remember Scripture’s testimony regarding whose prayers Jehovah answers and whose He does not: “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination” (Prov. 28:9); “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth” (John 9:31).

(4) Hagar made a good confession of God’s gracious speech to, and vision of, her: “she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?” (Gen. 16:13).

Hagar wisely and thankfully memorialized this marvellous meeting and the wonderful God who met with her in Jesus Christ: “Wherefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi” (14). The three parts of “Beer-lahai-roi” mean, roughly, “well-living-seeing.” If the reference is to God, Hagar calls it “the well of Him who lives and sees me.” Others reckon that the verbs “living” and “seeing” refer to Hagar herself, so that her point is, “I live after seeing Him at this well.” Some think that the name is deliberately ambiguous and so is designed to include both meanings. We do not need a definitive answer for our present purposes. Whatever the precise import of the name “Beer-lahai-roi,” like the name “Ishmael,” it underscores Jehovah’s mercy to Hagar and her piety.

Homer C. Hoeksema makes the following astute remarks regarding Hagar in Genesis 16, the chapter from which we have derived the last four arguments: “There are ... facets of this history we must not ignore ... we note that the Lord comforts Hagar. She is the recipient of a wonderful revelation through the angel of Jehovah, the Old Testament manifestation of the Christ (Gen. 16:7ff). The Lord reveals his favor to Hagar and promises to multiply her seed exceedingly. Hagar commemorates this revelation by naming the well where the angel of Jehovah appeared to her Beerlahairoi, ‘the well of him that liveth and seeth me’ (Gen. 16:14)” (Unfolding Covenant History, vol. 2, p. 157).

(5) The messenger of the Lord told Hagar not to fear: “the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad” (21:17). Unbelievers have everything to fear! Where in His Word does God ever tell the wicked not to fear dying or Him?

There are three other instances in the book of Genesis when Jehovah tells people, “Fear not.” All of these commands are addressed to the believing patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob): “the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” (15:1); “And the Lord appeared unto him [i.e., Isaac] the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake” (26:24); “And he said [to Jacob], I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation” (46:3). Thus Hagar is included in Isaiah’s exhortation of all those whom Jehovah has “created” and “formed” by His grace, including us: “Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine” (43:1)!

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom   

Christ’s Reign as King

Our question for this issue of the News was sent by a reader who was asked by a dispensationalist, “Reformed believers hold that Christ is now reigning as King on His throne, but what about Matthew 25:31-34, II Timothy 2:12 and Revelation 5:10, which, on the surface, seem to imply that He is not yet reigning as King?”

Dispensationalists, as represented by the Scofield Reference Bible notes and those connected with Dallas Theological Seminary, believe concerning the kingship of Christ:

1. that Christ is King only of Israel, that is, of physical Jews, and has a different relationship to the church of which He is not King but Head (this is part of their belief that Israel and the church are two different peoples of God);

2. that Christ’s reign as King will only begin with the restoration of the Jewish nation to the land of Israel, with the rebuilding of the temple and the reestablishment of the throne of David in the earthly city of Jerusalem. This will mark the beginning of a literal thousand-year reign of Christ in Jerusalem over the Jews and will be the fulfilment of all the Old Testament promises to Israel.

Many postmillennialists also use language that implies that Christ must still be crowned King, and will not be until a future golden age is ushered in and all the world Christianized. Then this world will become the kingdom of God but not until then.

We believe that the true Israel, spiritual Jews, are the people of God, the church, gathered from both Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament. “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. 2:28-29). “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29).

Because believing Jews and Gentiles are one people of God, we believe that Christ is King of both, of the spiritual Israel as well as of the New Testament church. “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:37). “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him” (Rom. 10:11-12). “Lord” is very similar to “King” in Scripture.

We believe, then, that Christ’s reign as King is not merely future but also present. As the eternal Son of God, of course, His kingship is without beginning or end (I Tim. 1:17). As the One born in due time and in the likeness of our sinful flesh, His coronation and kingship begin with His exaltation. The risen Christ declared, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11). At Christ’s return, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (I Cor. 15:24-26).

What, then, about the verses mentioned in the question?

Matthew 25:31-34 states, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

Dispensationalism presupposes that the judgment described in these verses takes place a thousand years before the end (dispensationalists believe in three or more judgments), at which time Christ’s kingship over the Jews will also be established. That is reading an awful lot into the passage! These verses describe the final great day of judgment at our Lord’s second coming: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 16:27).

What we have said regarding Matthew 25:31-34 applies also to II Timothy 2:12 and Revelation 5:10. In all three cases, dispensationism merely presupposes an earthly rule of Christ over the Jews for a thousand years before the end, something these verses do not even mention!

Moreover, the biblical truth of Christ’s bodily return is not just that He will come but that He is coming! The Lord Jesus told the sanhedrin at His trial, “I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64).

The present New Testament rule of Christ as King over all things on behalf of a church gathered out all nations is important. If He is not my King, then I owe Him no allegiance. If He is not King of the church, then I have no part in His kingdom. If He is not King of kings and Lord of lords now, then I can have no confidence that all things must work together for good to those who love God. If He is not King now and my King forever, then I have no idea where my citizenship resides, except, to my lasting grief, in some earthly nation that will soon be no more.

“For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:20-21).

Reverend Ron Hanko

Covenant Reformed News
February 2023 • Volume XIX, Issue 10

Was Ishmael Saved?

Was Ishmael, the son of Hagar, saved? There are differences of opinion among orthodox Christians on this question, with some claiming that he was not a believer and others reckoning that he was a child of God.

In this article, I will give no less than five biblical arguments in support of the position that Ishmael was saved by God’s sovereign grace in Jesus Christ. I shall present the points in the order in which they arise in the first book of the Bible, from Ishmael’s thirteenth year (Gen. 17), to his expulsion from Abraham’s camp (Gen. 21) and to his death over a century later (Gen. 25).

(1)Ishmael lived before God. In answer to Abraham’s prayer, “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” (17:18), the Lord responded, “And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee” (20). Was Abraham merely asking God for the continuation of Ishmael’s physical life? There is no indication in the inspired narrative that Ishmael was sick or in danger of expiring. Instead, Abraham here prayed for Ishmael’s spiritual life. After all, the grand subject of Genesis 17 is the covenant of grace! Father Abraham was concerned here with Ishmael’s covenant life, that is, everlasting life in Jesus Christ. Jehovah answered this prayer for Ishmael lived before God as His covenant friend. This is the prayer of all godly parents, themselves the spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham, regarding their children: “O that our sons and daughters might live before thee in Christ!”

(2) Ishmael was blessed by God. Jehovah’s response to Abraham’s prayer for his son is not only, “as for Ishmael, I have heard thee,” but also, “Behold, I have blessed him” (20). Surely, Ishmael is blessed by God (20) with the divine favour, as was blessed believing Sarah (16). Remember too that the blessings of Genesis 17 are covenant blessings in the coming Messiah!

This second point regarding Ishmael’s salvation reinforces the first. (1) Ishmael lived before God as (2) one blessed by God. In answer to Abraham’s prayer, “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” (17:18), the Lord responded, “And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him” (20).

(3) God answered Ishmael’s prayers. Genesis 21:17 states this twice and unambiguously regarding Ishmael: “God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad.” Here is the teaching of Scripture regarding whose prayers Jehovah answers: “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination” (Prov. 28:9); “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth” (John 9:31).

The connection between these three points is obvious. Ishmael (1) lived before God and (2) was blessed by God, and (3) God heard and answered his prayers.

(4) God was with Ishmael. “God was with the lad,” Ishmael (Gen. 21:20), as He was, for example, “with” Abraham (22), Jacob (28:15) and Joseph (39:2, 3, 21, 23), just as Jehovah is “with” all of His elect and believing people. The word “with” is the preposition of God’s covenant fellowship with His saints in Christ and by the Holy Spirit.

Let us restate the four points made so far, emphasizing the prepositions. Ishmael (1) lived before God, (2) was blessed by God and (4) was with God. No wonder that we read twice that (3) God answered his prayers!

(5) Ishmael was gathered unto his people at his death. After his 137 years in this life, Ishmael “gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people” (25:17). The statements that, at death, an individual was “gathered to/unto his people” or a group were “gathered unto their fathers” are significant references in the early books of the Old Testament to the blessed life of God’s people beyond their deaths.

This terminology is first used of father Abraham. Dying at the age of 175, he was “gathered to his people” (25:8). Some 90 or more years before, the Lord had promised Abraham, “thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace” (15:15). The godly “people” and “fathers” to whom Abraham went at death include Terah, Shem, Noah, Methuselah, Enoch, Seth, Adam and Eve. Also like Ishmael, “Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered unto his people” (35:29), as did Jacob (49:29, 33).

Besides these three great patriarchs in Genesis, Ishmael was gathered unto his people like the two sons of Amram and Jochebed: Aaron (Num. 20:24, 26; 27:13; Deut. 32:50) and Moses (Num. 27:13; 31:2; Deut. 32:50). The faithful generation that conquered the promised land under Joshua was also “gathered unto their fathers” (Judg. 2:10).

Thus in Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Judges we have 13 occurrences of the phrase “gathered to/unto his people/their fathers.” These references include six believing individuals—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron and Moses, as well as Ishmael (who marks the second use of this terminology)—and one godly generation, that of Joshua.

At the death of God’s people, they are buried as to their bodies. As to their souls, believers are gathered unto their spiritual fathers and people by Jehovah in His infinite mercy through the crucified and risen Christ.

To sum up this article, we have looked at five key testimonies: two from Genesis 17, two from Genesis 21 and one from Genesis 25. Their united testimony is that Ishmael was saved. After all, in this world, (1) Ishmael lived before God; (4) God was with him, (2) blessed him and (3) answered his prayers. When he left this world, (5) God in love gathered Ishmael unto his people. What more could one want?

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom                   

Felix’s Trembling

Our question for this issue of the News is: “In Acts 24:25, when Paul ‘reasoned’ with Felix of ‘righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,’ Felix ‘trembled.’ This man is viewed by many to be an unbeliever for, instead of believing the gospel that Paul shared with him, he sent the apostle away: ‘Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.’ How do we explain the trembling of this (apparently) unregenerate man apart from a gracious work of the Spirit, convicting him of his sins and bringing him to an acknowledgment that what he heard is the truth, though he rejected it? Surely unbelievers wouldn’t have any concern for these things, for there is ‘no fear of God before their eyes’ (Rom. 3:18)?”

It would seem from Scripture that trembling before God and His Word is a mark of God’s people, an evidence of repentance, of the true knowledge of God and even of humble gratitude for what God has done as Saviour (Ezra 9:4; Isa. 32:11; 66:2, 5; Jer. 33:9; Hab. 3:16; Mark 16:8; Acts 7:32). The wicked in Israel are commanded to repent and tremble before God in Jeremiah 5:21-22: “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence?”

Surely it is true that God’s redeemed people tremble at the knowledge of their own sinfulness and of how near they were to eternal punishment in hell. Especially they tremble at the fact that they have sinned against God. They tremble when they see something of His glory and majesty, and when they behold the greatness of His salvation. Trembling is, for the believer, a mark of grace and of God’s work of salvation in Christ.

However, it is also true that the ungodly can and do tremble before God. In Deuteronomy 2:25, God promised that the heathen Canaanite nations would tremble when they heard of Israel’s victories east of the Jordan (and of their passage across that river into the land of Canaan). Jeremiah 10:10, looking ahead to the end, says that the nations will tremble at God’s wrath: “But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.” This is of the same nature as the trembling of Felix.

Many think that such trembling is an evidence of a common or preparatory grace of God, shown to those who are not yet regenerated or who may never be saved. This is wrong. Trembling before God is either an evidence of saving grace or only an evidence of unbelieving terror.

There is nothing in Scripture that suggests any change of heart or repentance on the part of Felix. That he knew something of the true God is likely for he was married to a Jewess (Acts 24:24) but this was no saving knowledge. That he knew something of the gospel is stated in Acts 24:22 and is no surprise, since he ruled the area where Christianity had its roots. His dealings with Paul show him to be wicked and unbelieving. He was interested merely in a bribe and in doing the Jews a favour (26-27). He trembled because Paul talked to him about righteousness, temperance and judgment, for he was unrighteous, intemperate and under the judgment of God.

Was this the work of the Spirit? Was it a gracious work of the Spirit? Did it show some knowledge of, and conviction for, sin? That it was the work of the Spirit is without doubt, for all things are of the Father, through the Son and by the Holy Spirit. This is not to say, however, that it is a gracious operation of the Spirit in the heart of Felix. How could there be any grace in it when it produced nothing of value and only made the suffering of Paul longer and greater? How could Felix’s trembling be anything but terror before God, entirely lacking saving knowledge, for all he cared for was money and the opinions of men? There is nothing of a gracious operation of the Spirit in that. Indeed, the word translated “trembled” is a word that simply means “frightened.” Felix was frightened, as the ungodly often are when God shakes them out of their complacency.

The most important passage that reflects on Felix’s trembling is James 2:19: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” The word translated “tremble” describes not the feeling of terror, so much as the shuddering and shaking that results from extreme fear. The devils shake at the thought of God but their shaking is neither a gracious work of the Spirit, nor evidence of conviction for sin.

The fear that unbelievers sometimes show and the knowledge (non-saving and not gracious) that they have of God is explained in Romans 1:18-32. God manifests Himself to them in their consciences and in the things that are made, the creation: “that which may be known of God is manifest in them” (19). The knowledge of God that they have does not have anything gracious in it. It only leaves them “without excuse” (20).

Thus this knowledge of God bears no good fruit in them. They do not glorify Him or show thankfulness to Him (21). They turn the truth of God into a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator (25). Their idolatry is not evidence of some felt need for God, that they all have a “God-shaped hole in their hearts,” but is instead proof that they do not want to serve Him. What is more, turning from God, they fall into the vile affections which are so much a part of our society. Their unsaving and ungracious knowledge of God produces in them the sin of homosexuality (26-27).

Do they know God? Yes, they do. At least, they know His eternal power and divinity (20). Does that knowledge of God have any saving value? It does not. It only produces, in the righteous judgment of God, more wickedness. Is there any grace in that knowledge of God? There is not, for grace does not lead to the unnatural affections mentioned in Romans 1. Does God have His purpose in making Himself known to them? Yes, He does. He leaves them “without excuse” now and forever (20).

Romans 1 explains Felix’s trembling, as does the Word of God in James 2:19. God did what Ezekiel 32:10 describes: He brandished His sword before Felix through Paul’s testimony and Felix trembled for his life. What a difference between the trembling of Felix and that of Habakkuk, who said, “When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble” (3:16). That is trembling by grace and with profit, trembling that finds rest in Jesus Christ.

Reverend Ron Hanko 

Covenant Reformed News
January 2023  •  Volume XIX, Issue 9

The Blessings of the Messianic Era

New Testament believers, Galatians 3:26 asserts, “are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” The word “children” here is literally “sons.” According to its context, God’s (human) “sons” are contrasted with unbelievers (e.g., Heb. 12:5-8) or the contrast is between the New Testament church as a mature son—and in which believers are “sons” (Gal. 4:5-6)—over against the Old Testament church as an immature child.

The latter is the idea here (1-7). The New Testament church is a grown-up, mature, adult son, whereas the Old Testament church, was an immature child who was placed under the Mosaic law as a “schoolmaster” to guard, discipline and supervise him (3:24, 25; cf. 4:2). Thus Galatians 3:26 begins with the word “For,” indicating that it gives the reason for verse 25: “after that [the] faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children [i.e., sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (25-26).

Consider a man who wants a babysitter or a childminder to look after himself! He desires to get back into the playpen and start playing with a rattle again. He longs for someone to walk him by the hand to kindergarten or primary school. Everybody would rightly think, “That guy has a massive psychological problem!”

Likewise, what are we to make of groups in the New Testament age who want to go back to keeping the Mosaic law, including the ceremonial and/or civil laws? The Hebrew Roots movement seeks to bring back the system of laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy! The Christian Reconstructionists desire to restore the civil laws in the Pentateuch! The dispensationalists look forward to the return of the ceremonial and civil laws of Moses in their future, earthly, literal millennium!

Don’t any of these groups understand the glorious privileges and dignity of the New Testament church? The full and profound faith concerning the incarnation and cross of the eternal Son of God has come (Gal. 3:25)! Don’t you get it? The days of the Mosaic pedagogue are over for “we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (25)! Don’t you see? The New Testament church is now grown-up and mature, “For ye are all the children [i.e., sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (26)!

Paul explains, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (27). This refers to our real, inward, spiritual baptism into the Lord Jesus, which is signified and sealed by the sacrament of water baptism in the name of the Triune God.

Our baptism is far better than circumcision. First, unlike the rite of circumcision, baptism is not bloody or painful. Second, unlike the Old Testament ceremony of circumcision, water baptism is catholic or universal, for females as well as males.

By God’s grace, we “have put on,” and so are clothed with, “Christ” Himself (27). In Him alone, we have both imputed righteousness and imparted sanctification, and all the blessings of salvation. We do not physically wear the rough garment of a prophet, the white linen of a priest or the royal robe of a king. We are clothed with Christ Himself. Thus we appear before God clothed in Him, with His standing, character, graces and life.

What a garment! Consider its extent: it covers us completely. Consider its permanence: it never wears out and it is never taken off. Consider its possession: it is really and truly ours by faith alone in Jesus! This heavenly clothing covers my nakedness, protects my weakness, expresses my allegiance and makes me beautiful.

One could argue that the “For” at the beginning of Galatians 3:27 gives a reason why New Testament believers are God’s sons: “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (26-27). It is also true that the “For” at the beginning of Galatians 3:27 gives a reason why New Testament believers are not required to keep the Mosaic civil and ceremonial laws: “But after that [the] faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster … For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (25, 27).

The apostle adds, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (28). This is one of the most foolishly and wickedly perverted texts in Scripture. It is often appealed to as if it supported unbelieving feminism’s usurpation of church office by women (cf. I Tim. 2:12).

Galatians 3:28 has been abused in this way for many decades by extremely liberal churches and theologians, like Krister Stendhal, a Swedish Lutheran. But this text is not dealing with church office; deacons, ruling elders and teaching elders are treated in I Timothy 3, Titus 1, etc. The subject in Galatians 3:28 is salvation in Jesus Christ in the New Testament age for the catholic or universal church! It is dealing not with the special offices of pastor, elder or deacon but with the office of believer!

In its context, Galatians 3:28 speaks of the development of the history of redemption from the age of the Mosaic law to that of the New Testament gospel. The salvation which we have in our incarnate, crucified and risen Lord Jesus is far richer and deeper than that presented by Mosaism!

“There is neither Jew nor Greek” (28) for, in the Christian era, there is no national or ethnic distinction in salvation. Hence all the Old Testament laws regarding unclean foods (Lev. 11; Deut. 14), the land of Canaan, worship at a physical tabernacle or temple, etc., are abrogated. There is now full equality of salvation in Christ irrespective of all nationality!

Moreover, “there is neither bond nor free” (Gal. 3:28). This declares the end of the Mosaic laws regarding the children, wounding, goring and releasing of slaves (e.g., Ex. 21). There is full equality in Jesus in the New Testament church, for we are all Christ’s slaves and the Lord’s free men (I Cor. 7:22).

Also “there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). The days in which females do not partake of the initiatory sacrament (i.e., circumcision) are over, for now both genders are baptized. The Mosaic legislation concerning men and women as regards purification after childbirth (Lev. 12), bodily discharges (Lev. 15), pilgrimage to an earthly holy place, inheritance, military service, etc., is rescinded.

Why? “for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28)! The full equality in salvation of all believers in the New Testament age and the unity of the catholic or universal church rest upon our spiritual union with Christ!

Reverend Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street
Ballymena, Co. Antrim BT42 3NR
United Kingdom

Relics and Elisha’s Bones (2)

We continue with this question, submitted by one of our readers: “If God forbids us to have relics or to venerate the dead, why was the soldier resurrected from the dead after touching Elisha’s bones in II Kings 13:20-21?”

We have seen that the veneration of relics is both foolish and sinful. Though spittle and clay, handkerchiefs, garments, Peter’s shadow and Elisha’s bones were used in healing the sick and raising the dead, there is no power in them and they may not be worshipped. They were only means used by God and by those He sent. He alone, in Christ, may be worshipped, as the first two commandments require.

It is worth noting that God does not work such miracles or any miracles through men any more, miracles such as were done by Elisha’s bones, by Peter’s shadow or by handkerchiefs and aprons from the hand of Paul. In the New Testament, such miracles were signs of an apostle: “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds” (II Cor. 12:12). Though there are those who claim to be apostles today, their claims are bogus, for one of the qualifications of an apostle was that a man be an eyewitness of the risen Christ (I Cor. 9:1).

Do we not believe in miracles, then? We do. All God’s works are miraculous. He works every day in the sea what Jesus did by the Sea of Galilee when He multiplied fish. God performs every year in the fields what Christ did when He fed the 5,000 and the 4,000 with miraculous multiplications of bread. God also does things in our lives for which there is no “natural” explanation. Some are healed by God’s hand when the doctors have given up and all available medicines have failed. Some are rescued from death when there is no human power that could have rescued them. God still works miracles, but not now by men and never by relics.

What, then, is the point of the narrative in II Kings 13 and what is its purpose in God’s Word? A correct answer to this question will help us see that the story of the man raised by Elisha’s bones has nothing to do with the veneration of relics.

II Kings 13:20-21 reads, “Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.” That is one of only ten such miracles in the Bible (counting the resurrection of Jesus) and of three in the Old Testament.

The miracles of the prophet Elisha are unique in the Old Testament. More than any of the other miracles of the Old Testament, they pointed ahead to Christ’s miracles. No one in the Old Testament except Elijah and Elisha raised the dead; only Elisha multiplied food (II Kings 4:42-44); he alone healed a leper (5:1-14); only he paid someone’s debt by a miracle (4:1-7). The correspondence is not perfect but many of Elisha’s miracles are similar to those of Jesus. Also, apart from Moses, Israel’s great lawgiver, the miracles of Elisha are more numerous than those of any other Old Testament figure.

Is there, then, a correspondence between the miracle recorded in II Kings 13 and the work of Jesus? We believe there is: that what happened when that man was raised by Elisha’s bones is similar to what happened at the death of Jesus: “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” (Matt. 27:50-53).

In both cases, we see the victory over death that Jesus brings and the power of God in Jesus to bring life out of death. His death is the death of death and the beginning of our new life. This is the point of the story of Elisha’s bones. It is not an encouragement to look for and keep relics or to put our trust in things, but a reminder that death is swallowed up in victory through our Lord Jesus Christ, a reminder that “if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him” (II Tim. 2:11). Jesus said, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26). That is the good news of the gospel, not the fact that handkerchiefs and aprons, clay and spittle, and old bones were once used by God to heal or to bring people back to this life.

Raised from the dead by the power of Jesus’ death and resurrection, we begin already in this life to live as citizens of the kingdom of heaven and to experience a severing of the ties that bound us to this fallen world: “the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). “For our conversation [i.e., citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:20-21).

When we die, it is the death of Jesus that makes the burial of our bodies only a “sleep” until He comes again. It is Christ’s death that ensures our presence in Paradise at the moment of death and that guarantees the resurrection of our bodies at the end of this age. This is the point of the narrative in II Kings 13. Having begun already in this life the life of heaven, we “go on unto perfection” and to that glory which no eye has seen or ear heard—all by the power of Jesus’ death and His resurrection!

Reverend Ron Hanko