At The Last Trumpet

At The Last Trump

In our opening passage Paul says that Christ returns "with the trump of God."  It is at the sounding of this trumpet that the living saints are translated and the righteous dead are raised.  In the passage cited above from Matthew 24, Jesus says that it is "with a great sound of a trumpet" that the rapture and resurrection take place.  In the passage in I Corinthians 15, however, Paul says that this trumpet will be the "last trumpet."  Now, a "last" trumpet implies other trumpets.  For one to teach that the rapture and resurrection of believers takes place at the sounding of the first trumpet, or at the sounding of a trumpet that is not "the last," is an error.  What other trumpets does Paul allude to by his reference to "the last trumpet"?  Who can doubt that the "seven trumpets" of the Apocalypse are pointed to? 

In our previous series on "The End is Near," we showed that the Book of Revelation is the book of the Second Coming of Christ.  We showed that the time period involving the opening of the seven seals is called "the day of the Lord," "the day of judgment," "the day of redemption," and "the revelation of Jesus Christ."  The opening of the seventh seal involves the seven angels who sound the seven trumpets of the day of the Lord.  According to Seiss and others of the pre-trib school, the rapture and resurrection of believers occurs prior to the opening of the first seal, prior to the sounding of the first angelic trumpet.  Yet, this is to be rejected because Paul clearly says that such will occur "at the last trumpet."  This is detrimental to the pre-trib view! 

When we read of what occurs when the seventh and last Apocalyptic trumpet sounds, we find that it is the very rapture and resurrection that Paul had discussed in I Thessalonians chapter four and I Corinthians chapter fifteen. 

"But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."  (Rev. 10: 7)

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever...And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."  (Rev. 11: 15, 18)

Who can deny that what takes place at the sounding of the seventh and last trumpet is the very thing Paul talked about in I Thessalonians chapter four and I Corinthians chapter fifteen?  And what Jesus talked about in Matthew twenty four?  Paul called the resurrection and translation of the saints a "mystery."  John says that it is at the sounding of the seventh and last trumpet that "the mystery of God" is "finished."  It is that time when saints receive their reward. 

(Taken from my article in the series, "Post Tribulation Rapture II" - here)

The Debate On Faith Dramatically Changed

The argument that our Calvinistic forefathers had with Arminians regarding faith, in its relation to salvation, was whether faith was a sovereign gift given to the elect efficaciously or whether it was the result of "free will" and human effort. The debate was never over whether faith was necessary to be saved. However, with our Hardshell brothers, the debate went from the cause of faith to the debate over faith's necessity for salvation (middle to late 19th century). What a change! 

What think ye?

Crony Capitalism

It seems to me that the "New World Order" that many of the world's elite are seeking to create will be a global one world government that is a socialistic system that secures the corrupt system of "crony capitalism." What is it? One definition says that "Crony capitalism is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of free enterprise, but rather as a return on money amassed through collusion between a business class and the political class." 

This is the kind of socialistic economic and political system we see in every country in the world, some more and some less. In fact there are agencies that list each country and gives its level of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism exists in countries where there is totalitarian rule, such as in Russia and China. By its very nature it is a corrupt system.

Said one writer on the subject (emphasis mine):

"...crony capitalism is a world-wide disease. Having formally rejected communism, the masters of Russia — Vladimir Putin and company — control the economy through economic favors and threats. Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, just can not break past bad habits. Any businessman who does not cooperate with the Russian political leaders can find themselves bankrupt, in prison, or worse..." (here)

The same writer says:

"Other countries reputed to be seriously infected with crony capitalism include China, Malaysia, Ukraine..."

In "crony capitalism," says the writer, "the government picks winners and losers through crony capitalism."

Today in the USA we see the marriage between big tech and big business with the federal government and with state and local governments. Government protects certain businesses and gives them favors and in return the businesses give money to political campaigns. It also not only includes big business but big labor organizations such as the NEA and other large labor unions. 

In a country where there is such a marriage between capitalists (businesses) and government leaders there is a "pecking order" established. 

The leaders of the the world who see the coming new world order as inevitable are now "jockeying for position" in that new global order. This is true with national governments and with large businesses. They want a monopoly on their positions in the coming pyramidal hierarchy. They want to secure their positions in the new world order as soon as possible. 

Said another writer (from the Detroit News):

"It is, as economist Randall Holcombe puts it in his book on “Political Capitalism,” a “system in which the economic and political elite cooperate for their mutual benefit.” The political elite tilt the economic playing field in favor of the economic elite, privileging them through subsidies, regulatory protections, and targeted tax breaks. In exchange, the economic elite then help to ensure that the political elite remain in power. The rest of us pay the bill for this quid pro quo through higher taxes, higher prices, and a less efficient, less dynamic economy." (here)

There is a lot of good information on this topic. Perhaps I will have more to say in the future.

Hebrews 9: 15 & The Extent of Atonement

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15)

This is a difficult passage for those who believe that Christ redeemed or atoned the sins of every human being. Paul says that the sacrifice of Christ, his atoning and redeeming death, canceled the sins of people who lived and died before the death of Christ, who died under the first covenant. Did Christ redeem all the sins of all men who lived before his death, both those who died believers and those who died unbelievers? Did he cancel the sin debt of all OT sinners? Universal atonement advocates are forced to say yes. Thus, when Christ redeemed the transgressions of those of OT times, he redeemed all sinners, believers and unbelievers alike. But, why would Christ die for and redeem the sins of those who died in unbelief and were in Hell at the time of Christ's death? If there is no salvation after death, then why would Christ be dying for them? Obviously, those of the OT time period, whose transgressions were redeemed by the death of Christ, were only believers. The text says this redemption of transgressions of OT folks was in order that "they which are called (from either testament period) might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." To me the text says that the ones Christ died for, and who lived under the OT, were the believers, were they who had been "called." Christ did not die, for instance, for Pharoah, Ahab, Jezebel, etc. Why would he die for them if they were already in Hell? 

THE TIME CAPSULE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS

   Very little has been written about the black Primitive Baptists. Why is this? I think there are many reasons, but the main one is because their theology remained closer to the original beliefs than their white counterparts, so they were either ignored by white PB's in their historical writings, or simply remained unknown to them, because the revisionist histories they wrote, were written long after the separation of the two races in the churches. As with all churches, the African American Primitive Baptists were members of the white churches until after the Civil War. The "new" Hardshell teachings of "no means" by the predestinarian faction had already started but had not yet become entrenched, and many African American PB's who had heard this new doctrine referred to the white PB churches as "the do nothings" and once they established separate churches, rejected the "do nothing" doctrine outright.

   To understand this attitude among black Primitive Baptists, one need only look at them as a people. They were former slaves, and as such were leery of any preaching that was "elitist". The white Missionary Baptists had helped their black counterparts to build their own churches, many times giving them the land and materials to do so. The white Primitive Baptists however did not offer their black counterparts the same help. White Primitive Baptists rarely, if ever, ordained black elders, while the Missionaries had done so long before the Civil War. This left an indelible mark on the minds of black Primitive Baptists, and when they left to form their own churches, there were no black elders who could from a presbytery to ordain ministers. One such case is Elder Aaron Munland in Bulloch County Ga, who felt called to preach while still a slave, but the white PB church refused to ordain him, altho they did allow him to form an "arm" for his own people. So what did they do? The answer is stunning.

   As I delved into the histories of some black PB churches, I found two lines of ordinations. One was actually through black Missionary Baptists who offered to form a presbytery to ordain them, with the condition that they "preach the Gospel to them that had and them that had not", which in slave lingo of the 1860's, referred to the master and the slave, privileged and non privileged. This was a euphemism for "preach to everyone". The other line became ordained when the males in a congregation simply laid hands on the ordained and prayed for God's blessing. Over time the two lines intermingled along with the scarce few who had actually been ordained in a white church, which to date, I have only found three. It is probably because of this, that they more readily accept the validity of their Missionary counterparts, exchanging pulpits and holding joint services such as revivals, etc. This is also why many of them were not opposed to Sunday Schools, music, or conventions. Today almost all black PB churches belong to the National Primitive Baptist Convention which in itself is anathema to hardshells. The attitude among them is very similar to the non predestinarian white PB's, although doctrinally the black PB's are calvinistic, the black non calvinist Primitive Baptists having joined Missionary Baptists early on. There is some evidence that black Primitive Baptists who were non predestinarian dropped their opposition to mission societies when they saw white Missionary Baptists sending missionaries to Africa, building schools and orphanages, which they were unable to do, not for lack of concern, but because they simply had no way to finance those endeavors. They also saw the white Missionary Baptists aiding in the establishment of black Missionary churches, while they didn't receive the same from their Primitive Baptist white counterparts. It isn't hard to see why they "jumped the fence". They wondered why the Primitives did not offer both aid and the Gospel to their distant relatives across the ocean.

   Their articles of faith remain true to the original  beliefs of the Particular Baptists. Here are their articles of faith as they have always been recorded among them, taken from the National Primitive Baptist website. The wording of Article VI seems to be unique among them, as it appears that they believe regeneration and the new birth are two separate things. I am told that "regeneration" is a fetal state of being under conviction while"born again" refers to outright conversion, and there has been no debate as to whether or not these two occur simultaneously, although it is clear they believe all the elect will be converted. Perhaps this article was original to the white churches they came from, with the white churches changing their articles to match their new doctrines. Also, Article IX, while using the word "preserve" does not denote the same meaning it does to Hardshell PB's. It is possible that they meant "persevere" since "preserve" does not fit correctly in the sentence, but their articles were written from memory since the newly freed slaves could not read or write. Notice it says " none of them finally fall away so as to be lost" which according to the elder I spoke with proves they believe all the elect will hear and respond to the Gospel, otherwise how can they "fall away"? To not "fall away" denotes their was conscious outward  belief. The hardshell version would say "none of them will finally be lost". Also, Article VII uses "born again" (conversion) and also has the words "imputed to them by faith" which is absent in the hardshell version. The hardshell version reads " justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Christ" with no mention of the requirement of faith. The following items contain scriptural proofs for each item but I have not included them here for brevity's sake.

Articles of Faith: What We Believe

  Article 1 – WE BELIEVE in only one true and living God and the trinity of persons in the God-head—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—and yet there are not three, but one.

Article II – WE BELIEVE the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.

Article III – WE BELIEVE in the doctrine of eternal and particular election of a definite number of the human race chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without blame before Him in love.

Article IV – WE BELIEVE in covenant redemption between God the Father and God the Son.

Article V – WE BELIEVE in the fall of man and the communication of Adam’s sinful nature to his posterity by ordinary generation and their impotency to recover themselves from the fallen state they are in by nature by their own free will and ability.

Article VI – We believe that all chosen in Christ shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and be effectually called, regenerated, and born again.

Article VII – We believe that sinners thus born again are justified in the sight of God alone by the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them by faith

Article VIII – We Believe that faith is the gift of God, and good works the fruit of faith, which justify us in the sight of men and angels as evidence of our gracious state.

Article IX – We believe that all the saints of God (that are) justified by the righteousness of Christ shall preserve in grace, and none of them finally fall away so as to be lost.

Article X – We believe in a general judgment, both of the just and the unjust, and that joys of the righteous shall be eternal and the punishment of the wicked shall be everlasting.

Article XI – We believe that the visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers in Christ adhering to a special covenant, which recognizes Christ as their only lawgiver and ruler, and His word their exclusive guide in all religious matters. It is complete in itself and independent under Christ of every other church organization. It is alone a religious assembly, selected and called out of the world by the doctrine of the Gospel to worship the true God according to His Word.

Article XII – We Believe that the scriptural officers of the church are Pastors and Deacons.

Article XIII – We Believe that Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water by a proper administrator (an ordained elder) in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Article XIV – We believe that only an ordained Elder has a right to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, such as have been properly baptized, called, and come under the imposition of the presbytery by the authority of the Church of Christ.

Article XV – We believe that only regularly baptized and orderly Church Members have a right to communion at the Lord’s Table.

Article XVI – We believe in Washing of the Saints’ Feet in an assembly of believers immediately after the Lord’s Supper.

   Also of note is is their "Mission Statement" taken from the website of Indian Creek PB Church in Huntsville Al. which says the following:

 Under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, we exist to:

1. Spread the Good News of Jesus Christ to everyone.

2. Praise and worship God.

3. Encourage those in the household of faith, showing love, kindness and compassion that foster a bonding fellowship among the saints.

4. Minister to the spiritual needs of the community through evangelism and systematic witnessing to the unchurched and the unsaved.

5. Equip, train, and nurture the saints of God (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-42), teaching them to become mature Christians in the word, greater disciples in the world and good stewards over what is God’s time, talent, and treasure.

6. Reach out to the down trodden and those in despair, and in the likeness of Christ, meet physical needs.

7. Be servants unto all.

    It is VERY CLEAR that they believe in preaching and witnessing to the "unchurched and unsaved" as they say in number 4 of the Mission Statement. This would put to rest any doubt as to how they interpret Article IX
   

   Another thing to look at is their Church Covenant, which includes "tithing" and "ministerial support". I believe this was adopted at the founding of their Convention in 1907. It is interesting to note, that they declared so many things which are anathema to hardshells in 1907 when they came together to form their convention. Could this be to distance themselves from the hardshells which formalized their heresies in the Fulton Confession of 1900? Could that have been the catalyst which brought these black brethren together to form their convention?

The Primitive Baptist Church Covenant

For as much as Almighty God by His Grace has been pleased to call us out of darkness into His light, and having been baptized upon a profession of faith in Christ Jesus, and having given ourselves to the Lord and one another, in a Gospel Church way, we do covenant together by the help of God:

(1) to be governed and guided by a proper discipline agreeable to the Word of God; (2) to keep up the Discipline of the Church of which we are members in brotherly affection toward each other; (3) to watch over one another and if need be, in the most tender and affectionate manner, to reprove one another; (4) to attend our church meetings; (5) to not absent ourselves from the communion of the Lord’s Supper without a lawful reason; (6) to pay the tithe and give offerings for the defraying of the church’s expenses, and for the support of the ministry*; and (7) to not irregularly depart from the fellowship of the Church, nor to remove to the bounds of distant churches without a regular letter of dismissal and placing it in the Church in which we hold membership.These things we do covenant and agree to observe and keep sacred in the name of, and by the will of, God. Amen.

   In closing let me offer these opinions. I think one reason African American PB's didnt become hardshells is because as a minority, this would mean they would've been very isolated. The white PB's didn't have much to do with them because of racial prejudice, and had begun to adopt hardshellism. They would've isolated themselves from much of the black community. Religion has always been a framework of the black community, and to not have fellowship to a certain degree with family relatives of other denominations would've meant they'd be cut off from most of their friends and family. This is true I think of all black churches. Also, slavery is an issue. After the civil war when blacks were dismissed from all churches to form their own congregations, all interaction between the white and black churches ceased. Thus the black PB's were "frozen" in time and didnt drift to the extremes of the white PB's. This could be proof also, that the white PB's (hardshells) did indeed drift away from their original beliefs.But that's just part of the story, and I will dig further. 

   Another point to note is that black Missionary Baptists are 3 times more likely to include the word "Missionary" in the names of their churches than their white missionary counterparts.  When black PB churches "jumped the fence", they wanted to be very clear about where they stood. To these black brethren, taking "good news" back home to Africa was something to be embraced, not debated.

Seiss On Importance Of Apocalypse Study

In the preface to his famous work "The Apocalypse," J. A. Seiss wrote (See here - emphasis mine):

"THERE is a widespread prejudice against the study of the Apocalypse. Though it is the great prophetic Book of the New Testament, the last of all the writings of Inspiration, a special message from the ascended Saviour to His Churches on earth, and pressed upon every one’s attention with uncommon urgency, there are religious guides, sworn to teach “the whole counsel of God,” who make a merit of not understanding it, and of not wishing to occupy themselves with it. If such treatment of an acknowledged part of the Sacred Canon is compatible with ministerial fidelity and Christian duty, the author of these Lectures is very much mistaken in his understanding of Christ’s commands, as well as in his estimate of the purposes for which a Divine Revelation has been given."

"Make a merit of not understanding it"! I have met Christians who have taken this attitude. It is so sad especially when a special blessing is promised to those who read and heed the prophecy. Said Seiss:

"A tremendous Revelation is therefore brought before men in this Book. And if any one would fully profit by it, let him bear with him this one vital and all-conditioning thought, that he is here dealing with Christ’s own infallible foreshowings of the style, manner, and succession of events in which the Apocalypse awarded to Him by the Father is to take place. He who fails in this, misses the kernel of the Book, and must fail of the blessing of those who read, hear, and observe the things which are written in it." (Introduction)

So many miss the nature and subject matter of the prophecy of the Book of Revelation and they are at a loss for it. When Peter said that we believers who have the new testament writings "have a more sure word of prophecy" (II Peter 1: 19) we surely must include the book of Revelation for it is certainly a sure word of prophecy. We are told to "despise not prophesyings" (I Thess. 5: 20) and this would include the prophesying of the apostle John in the Apocalypse. 

From his first lecture on the opening words of the Apocalypse he says:

"There is also a peculiar efficacy and power in the doctrine of Christ’s speedy return. Like a magnet, it lifts the heart of the believer out of the world, and out of his low self, and enables him to stand with Moses on the mount, and transfigures him with the rays of blessed hope and promise which stream upon him in those sublime heights. It is the most animating and most sanctifying subject in the Bible. It is the soul’s serenest light amid the darkness and trials of earth." 

Believers who do not have interest in the prophetic scriptures are depriving themselves and not preparing themselves for the Lord's return. Many of the prophecies of the bible, including of the Apocalypse, are given as warnings. 

The most excited and enthusiastic believers are they who are watching for the Lord's return, who are watching "the signs of the times." They are not, as others, missing out on "the power of the doctrine of Christ's return," the power to transform them and to make them persevere in hope. It is also intended to be a means in their deliverance to have these prophecies. Seiss continued:

"And the great end and aim of this book is to set forth this doctrine. The things of which it treats, are things touching the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, and which it describes as “things which must shortly come to pass.” The impending Advent is the theme which pervades it from its commencement to its close. And just in proportion as he who is awake to the great truth of the Saviour’s speedy coming, and is engaged in waiting and preparing himself accordingly, is a better man, and in a safer condition, and really than the half-christian and the lukewarm; — in that same proportion is he who reads, hears and keeps the words of this prophecy blessed beyond all other people. This book, at least its subject matter, thus becomes to him an instrument of security and attainment to save him from surprise when his Lord cometh, and from the tribulations which shall try the indifferent; as well as a passport to admit him to the marriage supper of the Lamb, and to the highest awards of eternity. Precious book! and happy they who study it! Nor can I close without remarking how all this plucks up, and crushes to atoms, those erroneous and mischievous notions entertained by many, that there is nothing useful in prophetic studies. To say nothing of the duty of giving heed to what God has thought it important to record, or of the folly of seeing only peril in trying to understand what the Spirit of God has inspired for our learning and consolation, what man is he, who, in the face of this text, and its outspoken benediction, will venture to denounce investigation into sacred prophecy? What if it is often dark and mysterious? The darker and more difficult, the greater the reason for earnest examination. Be the obscurity and mystery what it may, God says, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words, and keep those things which are written.” What if this book of Revelation is the fullest of all of dark things and perplexing mysteries? It is then a book which above all needs our most solemn and studious attention. Nay, it is concerning this book especially that God pronounces this blessedness upon the devout and obedient inquirer. Some tell us that what is yet future ought not to be examined into till after it has come to pass. I can hardly realize that this is seriously meant."

What excellent words are these from Seiss! He continued:

"Jesus knew what he was about when he sent this book to be shown unto his servants. He understood his own words when he said and repeated: Blessed is he that reads and he that keeps what is in this book. And I will insist that it is to be studied. As Christ said to the writer of it, so he says to all his ministers, and all his people, in all time: “SEAL NOT THE SAYINGS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK.” It is an open book, and meant to be ever kept open to the view of the Church from that time forward to the end. Woe, then, to the man who undertakes to draw away God’s people from it, or to warn them against looking into it! He takes from the Church, which has now been these 2000 years among the dashing waves, the chart by which above all Christ meant she should be guided, and wherein she may best see whither she is bearing, what are her perils, and where her course of safety lies! He undertakes to seal what God has said should not be sealed! He not only “takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy,” (which who does, “God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book,”) but seeks to take away the book itself!"

It is so sad that many preachers and teachers seek to "draw away" believers from studying prophecy, from studying the Apocalypse. Seiss continued:

"And the more dangerous and reprehensible is such a course, now that “the time is near.” Nearly two thousand years ago, it was said of the things herein written, that they must speedily come to pass. These records were from the first pressed upon the study of the Church by the solemn consideration that the period of their fulfilment was rapidly approaching. But if this argument was of force then, how much more now? Standing, then, as we do, upon the very margin of the great Apocalypse, by all the solemnities with which it is to be accompanied, I not only invite and recommend, but conjure Christians, as they hope to be present at the marriage supper of the Lamb, not to put this precious book from them, or to forgo the faithful study of its contents. The Lord open our hearts to its teachings, and make us partakers of the blessings it foretells!"

Today we have more need than any other generation of believers to heed the prophetic word of the Apocalypse. 

What think ye?

The Two Great Women of the Apocalypse

"a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and 

on her head a garland of twelve stars" 

(Rev. 12: 1)  

"The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication." 

(Rev. 17: 4)

Mother Jerusalem or Mother Babylon?

The woman of Revelation 12 versus the woman of Revelation 17 and 18. 

On the similarities and differences of these two great women, J.A. Seiss, in his commentary on Revelation ("The Apocalypse" - here), made some very interesting observations. Seiss said (emphasis mine):

"The first thing which strikes me in the study of this subject, is one which I have nowhere seen duly noticed, namely: the evident correlation and contrast between the Woman here pictured and another Woman described in the twelfth chapter. There, “a great sign was seen in the heaven, a Woman;" here, it is remarked, “he bore me away in spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a Woman.” Both these Women are mothers; the first “brought forth a son, a male [neuter, embracing either sex], who is to rule all the nations; the second “is the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth.” Both are splendidly dressed; the first is “clothed with the sun.” Her raiment is light from heaven. The second is “clothed in purple, and scarlet, decked with gold, and precious stone, and pearls.” All her ornaments are from below, made up of things out of the earth and the sea. Both are very influential in their position; the first has “the moon,” the empress of night, the powers of darkness, “under her feet;” the second “hath rule, or kingdom, upon the kings of the earth.” Both are sufferers; against the first is the Dragon, who stands watching to devour her child, and persecutes and pursues her, and drives her into the wilderness, and sends out a river to overwhelm her, and is at war with all her seed that he can find; against the second are the ten kings, who ultimately hate her, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her with fire, whilst God in His strength judgeth her, and visits her with plague, death, and utter destruction. Both are very conspicuous, and fill a large space in the history of the world, and in all the administrations of divine providence and judgment. That they are counterparts of each other there can hardly be a reasonable doubt. The one is a pure woman, the other is a harlot. The first is hated by the powers on earth, the second is loved, flattered, and caressed by them. Where the one has sway, things are heavenly; where the other lives, it is “wilderness.” The one produces masculine nobility, which is ultimately caught away to God and to His throne; the other produces effeminate impurity, which calls down the fierceness of the divine wrath. The one is sustained and helped by celestial wings; the other is supported and carried by the Dragon power, — the Beast with the seven heads and ten horns. The one has a crown of twelve stars, wearing the patriarchs and apostles as her royal diadem; the other has upon her forehead the name of the greatest destroyer and oppressor of the holy people, and is drunken with “the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth.” The one finally comes out in a heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, made up of imperishable jewels, and arrayed in all the glory of God and the Lamb; the other finally comes out in a city of this world’s superlative admiration, which suddenly goes down forever under the intense wrath of Heaven, and becomes the habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit." 

These two Women, thus related, and set over one against the other as opposites and rivals, must necessarily be interpreted in the same way. As Antichrist corresponds to Christ as a rival and antagonist of Christ, so Great Babylon corresponds to the Woman that bears the Man-child, as her rival and antagonist. 

By recalling, therefore, who and what is meant by the first Woman, we will be in position to understand who and what is meant by the second. Beyond question, the sun-clad Woman is God’s great symbol of the visible Church, — the Lamb’s Wife, — the bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh, fashioned out of His rifted side as the Second Adam, who fell into the deep sleep of death for that purpose. As Methodius taught, “The woman seen in heaven, clothed with the sun, and adorned with a crown of twelve stars, is, in the highest and strictest sense, our Mother. The prophets, considering what is spoken of her, call her Jerusalem, at other times The Bride, the Mount Sion, the Temple and Tabernacle of God.” She is not the church of any one period or dispensation, but the entire Universal Church of all time, as Victorinus, the earliest commentator on this Book, held and affirmed, saying: “The Woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet, is the Church of the Patriarchs, and of the Prophets, and of the holy Apostles” that is, the Church from the days of Adam and Eve on to the last victory over the worship, name, and mark, of the final Antichrist. What then can this rival Woman be but the organized Antichurch, the pseudochurch, the Bride made out of Satan, the universal body and congregation of false-believers and false-worshippers? As Christ has had a visible Church in all time, embodying the wisdom and spirit of heaven, and maintaining the confession of His truth and worship, so has the Devil had a corresponding following in all time, embodying the sensual and devilish wisdom and spirit, and maintaining the profession and teaching of Satan’s lies. And as the first Woman denotes the one, so the second Woman denotes the other. The proofs of this will appear as we consider the particulars of the case."

Every person is either a part of mother Jerusalem or mother Babylon. To which community do you belong?

Born Again in O.T.?

Over the years I have encountered several who believed that old testament believers were not born again. The reasoning for this belief may be put into a syllogism.

1) the new birth is a new covenant experience 

2) the new covenant did not come into force till the death of the testator 

3) therefore no one prior to the inauguration of the new covenant was born again.

I wrote on this question back in 2010 (See here)

My former Greek teacher in seminary, Dr. Mac Griffin, believed that old testament believers were not born again, arguing the syllogism above. I debated with him and others in the churches supporting his seminary work. I was recently listening to some further sermons by pastor Charles Lawson, who I recently recommended as a good teacher, yet with the caveat that I disagreed with him on a few things, and discovered that he too believes that old testament believers were not born again.

Nicodemus should have known about the new birth.

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’  The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" (John 3: 3-10)

But how was Nicodemus supposed to know these things? Why does Christ come down so hard on him? Was the new birth taught in the Old Testament? If so, where? 

On the question Jesus asked of Nicodemus (vs. 10) Dr. Gill said (Commentary):

"which were so plainly to be suggested in the sacred writings, with which he was; or ought to have been conversant: for the same things Christ had been speaking of, are there expressed by a circumcision of the heart; by a birth, a nation's being born at once; by sanctification; by the grace of God signified under the metaphor of water; and by quickening persons, comparable to dry bones, through the wind blowing, and breathing into them, (Deuteronomy 30:6) (Isaiah 49:21) (66:8) (Ezekiel 36:25) (Ezekiel 37:9 Ezekiel 37:10)."

When I used to debate with Dr. Griffin on this subject he stated that Nicodemus' ignorance about being born again was appropriate since it was not taught in the old testament scriptures. When I first heard this I was rather stunned that he could interpret the dialogue between Christ and Nicodemus in such a way. I argued that Christ was scolding Nicodemus for his ignorance and affirming that he should have known something of the new birth from the old testament scriptures. I thought that Dr. Griffin's interpretation indicted the Lord for scolding him for an ignorance that was justified. I found that repugnant. Christ's rebuke was justified because the old testament scriptures did speak of it, although not as clearly as that of the new testament. Was the new birth known in the old testament? 

Answer: the precise words "born again," or "born of God," or "born of the Spirit," or "regeneration" are not used in the old testament. But, the idea was there in other ways. For instance, it was implied in the fact that the chosen people were called "children of God." So Moses said to the people of Israel: "You are the children of the LORD your God." (Deut. 14: 1) "All of you are children of the Most High," said the Psalmist. (Psa. 82: 6) Also, the Lord said through Moses:

"And you shall say unto Pharaoh, Thus says the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto you, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your son, even your firstborn." (Exo. 4: 22-23)

Being a child of God implies being his offspring, being begotten. In the above Israel is called "my son" and "my firstborn," and "born" is involved. Further, Nicodemus, the master teacher of the old testament, should have known that this being born a child of God pertained not to being physically born (although this was a common error among the Jews at the time of Christ). Isaiah wrote:

"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God." (Isa. 66: 7-9)

Obviously these texts speak of being born of God, being born a "child of Zion." So too does this passage:

"Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah. I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. The LORD shall count, when he writes up the people, that this man was born there. Selah." (Psa. 87: 3-6)

Again, Nicodemus should have known that being a true child of Zion was not due to physical birth. If it were, then every person born of the seed of Jacob would be eternally saved. Nicodemus should have known what Paul later wrote:

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." (Rom. 2: 28-29)

New Covenant Benefits Received In O.T

"No one could receive the blessings of salvation till the atonement was made." 

Such is the main argument of those who believe that believers, prior to the death of Christ and the shedding of his blood, "the blood of the new covenant," were not born again. But, new covenant blessings were given to believers even while under the old covenant. They were given on the basis of the promise of a future covenant in which Christ would become a sacrifice for sin and pay sin's debt. We do the same thing every day when we buy a car and finance it. We get the car even before the car is paid for. The promise to pay for the car in installments grants the buyer the right to ownership even before it is paid for. Abraham, when he believed God, was "credited" with righteousness based upon the promise of God to pay the debt through the sacrifice of his Son. (See Romans chapter four)

To deny that new covenant benefits were given to believers in the old covenant time period (and even before then) is to deny that anyone, before the new covenant was made and came into force, experienced the forgiveness of sins, communion with God, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, yea, of salvation itself. But, such a consequence is totally untenable and so the premises that produced the conclusion must be rejected.

In the old testament the Lord said to people: 

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10:16) 

"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jeremiah 4:4)

In the new testament circumcision of the heart is another figure for salvation or being reborn in spirit. The circumcision of the heart was not only that which the Lord desired of his people in the time before Christ came but is what he promised to do for them.

"And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deut. 30:6) 

Thus, men had circumcised hearts in the old testament and this circumcision is the same experience as being "born again."

No Salvation Before The Testator's Death? 

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Heb. 9: 15-17)

Notice that when Christ died that he made atonement for sins committed by believers "under the first testament." It was retroactive. Yet, this does not mean that God could not save people in the old testament period. He saved them based on the new covenant, though it had not yet been inaugurated by the blood of Christ, the "blood of the new covenant." He saved based upon the "promise" of a new covenant being effected, like we get the benefit of items on credit, or by a "promissory note." Commented Dr. Gill:

""the transgressions" that were under it are the sins of the saints who lived under that dispensation, froth Adam to Moses, and from Moses to Christ, and takes in all their iniquities of every kind: and the "redemption" of these, or from these, by Christ, at and through his death, does not suppose that there was no remission of sins, or justification from them, under that dispensation; or that the Old Testament saints did not go to heaven, but were detained in a prison, till redeemed by the death of Christ." 

"The necessity of Christ's death is here urged, from the nature and force of a testament or will, among men, which does not take place, and cannot be executed, till a man is dead. Otherwise it is of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth; no claim can be made by the legatees for the part they have in it, nor can any disposition be made by the executor of it; not that hereby is suggested, that the testament or will of God was uncertain and precarious till the death of Christ, and subject to change and alteration as men's wills are till they die; nor that the inheritance could not be enjoyed by the Old Testament saints; for it is certain, it was entered upon by them before the death of Christ; but the sense is, that there was a necessity of it, that the saints right unto it, upon the foot of justice, might be evident by it."

The Gift of the Spirit

Those who believe that old testament believers in Messiah were not "born again" will say that they had the Holy Spirit but not as perpetually abiding, while believers under the new covenant have the Holy Spirit in a superior manner and have him as an abiding presence. But, this may be true and yet without denying that old testament believers were saved and born of the Spirit. A superabundance of the Spirit in the church age is no argument against the presence of the Spirit in believers in the Old Testament. Old Testament believers did not experience the Holy Spirit as believers did on Pentecost. (Acts 2) They were not baptized or immersed in the Holy Spirit. The "measure" of the Spirit is greater in believers post Christ's death and resurrection.

The Case Of Peter

"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 16: 15-17)

This was the text I most harped upon to Dr. Griffin when we would debate the question. I would use rhetorical questions and asked:

1) Does not John say that "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God"? (I John 5: 1)

2) Did Peter not believe that Jesus was the Christ in Matthew 16?

3) Was not Peter born again then and that prior to the death of the testator?

What think ye?

Elder Bass on Hyper Calvinism

Dr. Jeremiah Bass, new pastor at Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church recently preached another able discourse. On Cincinnati Church's web page under "Resources" (here) one can find the link to "articles" and find his notes and write up of the sermon. I want to share what he said with our readers as it is a worthy piece against Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism. You can read the entire write up (here) and you can go to the "livestream" link which will take you to recent sermons on video. The last one (August 8th) is where he preached the sermon and you can listen to it. Here are some things he said:

Now some folks who love the doctrines of grace get nervous when you say that God commands all men everywhere to repent.  They get even more nervous when you say that God commands all men to put their faith in Christ.  And the primary reason they get nervous and object to this is that they misunderstand the doctrine of total depravity.  They believe that because the Bible teaches that no one can come to Christ or love God or submit to God’s commands apart from grace, that to call someone who is dead in sin to faith and repentance would be to say that the spiritually dead can do spiritual things.  This is a half-truth.  It is true that the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14; Jn. 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8).  But it is not true that the natural man is therefore off the hook for not believing and repenting, or that they should not be called to repentance and faith.

Why is this?  Behind this objection, an objection that is symptomatic of both hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, is the assumption that ought always implies can.  In other words, if I am obligated to do something, I must be able to do it.  But this is not always true.  For example, just because I can’t pay back a debt, doesn’t mean that I’m not obligated to pay back that debt.  There is a moral obligation to pay my debts, even if I don’t have the money in my pockets to pay them back.  Think about the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18.  He could not pay back his debt (ver. 25), but that did not release him from his obligation to pay.  Now this is significant because our sins are likened to debts (“forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” Mt. 6:12).  Just because you can’t pay your sin debt (and none of us can) does not mean that you are no longer guilty or obligated by them.  Ought does not always imply can.

But, as we all recognize, sometimes it does.  So, does it apply to the command to repent and obey?  Well, think about the command to love God.  Let me ask you this: Is it okay for an unregenerate man to hate God?  No, I think all of us would say it is not okay.  It is sin to hate God.  And this is true even though it is a fact that an unregenerate man cannot in any real sense love God.  It would always be wrong to give the impression that the ungodly are off the hook for their hatred of God just because they cannot love him apart from grace.  Like Joseph’s brothers; we are told that “they hated him [Joseph], and could not speak peaceably unto him” (Gen. 37:4).  Does the fact that they could not speak peaceably with him mean that it was okay that they could not, or that it would have been wrong to tell them that they ought to have spoken peaceably with him?  Of course not!  

This is true not only for the command to love God but also to believe the gospel.  When our Lord began his ministry, we are told that he “came into Galilee [a place that would ultimately reject him], preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14-15).  We are not told that he limited this command to the elect or even to the regenerate.  All in Galilee who heard this message were commanded to repent and believe.  We don’t have to think that our Lord somehow believed that lost men had the ability in themselves to respond to the message.  Regardless of the disposition of their hearts, they were still under obligation to repent and believe.  

Someone may still say, “Well, I don’t see why God would condemn someone for not believing if they cannot.”  To this I reply that you don’t spare a snake because it is its nature to bite; you kill it precisely because it is its nature to bite.  (The analogy of the snake is apropos: for didn’t our Lord say to the Pharisees, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Mt. 23:33.)  God will not put out the fires of hell because it is the nature of the sinner to sin; he will judge them precisely because it is their nature to sin.  It is just for God to hold sinners responsible for their sins even if it is their nature to sin.  The fact that it is their nature to sin and that without grace they will go on in their sin does not excuse it – if anything it makes it even worse.  Just because it is not in the nature of the unregenerate to repent does not mean that God cannot hold them accountable for refusing to repent.  

Another point of confusion has to do with the doctrines of election and limited atonement.  By election we mean that God, from all eternity, unconditionally chose out the human race some to be saved.  By limited atonement we mean that Christ died for the elect only.  Now here is where the confusion comes in: people will say, “If Christ died only for the elect, how can we call all men to believe in him?”  But this objection comes from a misunderstanding of what we are called to believe in the gospel message.  What I mean is this: when the gospel comes to me and calls me to believe in Jesus, it is not a call to believe that I am elect or even that he died for me.  Neither of those things may in fact be true.  Rather, the call of the gospel is a call to embrace Jesus as he is presented to us in the New Testament – as our Lord to whom we must submit our whole lives, and as the only one in whom forgiveness of sins can be found.  And the requirement to believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior is completely consistent with the doctrines of unconditional election and particular redemption.

Why am I saying all this?  I’m saying this because there are some folks who confuse a general call to repent and believe with a rejection of the doctrines of grace.  But that’s not based on a Biblical grasp of those doctrines; it is based on a misunderstanding of those doctrines.  We affirm, with Scripture, total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual calling, and the perseverance of the saints.  We also affirm, with Scripture, that all men, regardless of their spiritual condition, are called to repent of their sins and embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior.  And we do this without retreating one inch from the Biblical insistence that we can only truly love God and repent of our sins and believe on his Son by the sovereign grace of God that gives new life to the spiritually dead.

Is it not good to hear a Primitive Baptist teach such sound doctrine? I pray our Hardshell brothers will study what Elder Bass has said and weigh it carefully in the fear of God. What he said is real "Old Baptist" doctrine, what our forefathers taught. What think ye?

Economic Collapse --> One World Currency

The United States, like many other countries, is headed for bankruptcy. We have already seen it on a small scale with countries like Greece. One of the ways that the debt owed by countries may be handled in the near future is to do what has been done before with borrowers and their loans. One way is to refinance. When one has gotten the lowest possible rate and payments are still too high, then the next alternative is to extend the term of the loan, the time it takes to pay it back with interest (called the amortization period). There is also what is called "shortening" or "renegotiating" the amount owed down, a kind of discount. Therefore here is what may happen, especially in view of the present agenda of the World Economic Forum and the many world leaders who support its statements and mission, that is, post the pandemic. 

Creating a one world currency will go hand in hand with a one world government (at first with limited powers). The one world currency will be part of the new global economic and banking system. All the debt of the nations of the globe will be through the world bank and its new currency. It will be refinanced at near zero rates with terms of 50-100 years amortization schedule. With such low debt payments nations will spend billions on new mega building projects, construction of new modern cities. They will also have a new source of increased loans from the world bank as needed. We should all consider the wise proverb that says "the borrower is slave to the lender" (Prov. 22: 7). With economic power comes political power. 

Another possibility that some have suggested might happen is a kind of debt "Jubilee" where all debt is cancelled and everyone starts out fresh.

There are of course other possibilities. But, the time seems right for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy in regard to the end time world empire of the beast, a time when all who do not receive the mark of the beast will be unable to buy or sell, and who will be martyred.

The technology to regulate individual commerce between people has never existed before but it exists today. These are both exciting and fearful times. Let us keep watch and be sober.

Greater Than John The Baptist?

"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Matt. 11: 11) 

Wrote Dr. J. R. Graves, in his book "Seven Dispensations," says the following upon this passage:

"There are few passages that has called out a greater diversity of opinions, or wilder ones, than this and the verse following it. To the English reader they do present insuperable difficulties. The plain statement is that no one born of woman was greater than John the Baptist. It does not say a greater prophet, as some interpret it, and if it did, it is not in any sense true, for John was not a prophet - he was "more than a prophet." The burden of the prophet's messages was the events that were to come to pass in the future, but John was sent to announce and make manifest the King of his people. John was a preacher of righteousness, and the first apostle of the Christian Dispensation, and his preaching and ministry were the beginning of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ.

But Christ, John's Master and King, was born of a woman, and can we believe that he intended to say that John was, in any respect, greater than himself? Certainly not. So far, the way is clear. But one exception is made, an exception of either one individual or one class of persons: "Yet he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he." To whom can this refer if we accept this translation? Christ was by no means "the least" in the kingdom of heaven, but the greatest, being King over all. Nor can we believe that he intended to say that the least saint or infant that was then in Paradise was greater than John; for it could not have been the truth. Nor, that the youngest child or most ignorant publican or harlot then in the kingdom, or who would hereafter be in the kingdom, was greater than John; for this was not, and could never be, in any sense, the fact. How, then, must the declaration be understood? We must evidently refer to the original. The term, mikros, is here translated as an adjective in the superlative degree, though it has not this form in the Greek, but the comparative, and, if used as an adjective here, should be translated "less;" but this does not, in the least, remove the difficulty. To render it "least" the translators are compelled to translate the comparative degree as a superlative, and nothing is thereby gained. If it can be claimed that one degree of comparison is used for another in this place, why not as well, and far better, claim that mikros is used adverbially, qualifying "is," and not any person or class of persons, and the more so, when the sense positively demands this construction? Admit its adjective form, but give it an adverbial signification, and it will then read: "Notwithstanding he that is later in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

The Herald preceded the king. Christ was manifest to Israel later in point of time than John; therefore, I under stand him to say, that while John was greater than any man who had preceded him, nevertheless, he himself was greater than John. John, speaking of Christ, said: 

 

"He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear."-Matt. iii. 11. 

 

"There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose." -Mark i. 7. 

 

This is he of whom I said: 

 

"He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me."-John i. 15. 

 

"Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom ; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice; this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all; he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all."-John iii. 28-31. 

 

This translation of mikros makes Christ speak the truth, and also makes the statements of John coincide with those of Christ. If mikros were nowhere else in the whole range of Greek literature used adverbially, it evidently is here. The facts compel us to so read it. Both John and Christ were therefore in the kingdom."

Greatness may have reference to a person's age. Thus, anyone older than you is greater than you. Anyone younger than you is lesser than you. (See Job 32: 9) 

Thayer says that "mikros" means:

1) small, little 

1a) of size: hence of stature, of length 

1b) of space 

1c) of age: less by birth, younger 

1d) of time: short, brief, a little while, how little! 

1e) of quantity: i.e. number, amount 

1f) of rank or influence

In the above passage I have no doubt that Jesus is referring to himself and "less" denotes "less in age," or "less by birth," or "younger." Further, "he" is singular. It is "he who is less (later because younger)" and not "they who are less." 

I just cannot believe that Jesus is saying that all converts in the new testament are greater than John the Baptist. Nor can I see how Jesus is saying that the apostles are greater than John the Baptist. What Jesus said is exactly what John said frequently. The one who is younger, who comes later, "after" John, is the Messiah, the one who is "mightier than I." So, Jesus is simply confirming this message by saying "John is the greatest born of woman but the one who comes after him (is less in age) is superior to him." 

What think ye?

God's Elect or World's Elite? XXXVI

"in every thing you are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge" 

(I Cor. 1: 4) 

Social status was very important in the culture in the first century just as it is today. Societies have always been "stratified," that is, there have always been "socio-economic classes" among people in a given state or community, a "division of labor," an hierarchy or "pecking order." Slaves were always considered to be of the lowest class. Plato divided societies into three social classes.

"Plato divides his just society into three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians. The auxiliaries are the warriors, responsible for defending the city from invaders, and for keeping the peace at home. They must enforce the convictions of the guardians, and ensure that the producers obey." (here)

The "guardians" are responsible for ruling the city. They are chosen from among the ranks of the auxiliaries, and are also known as "philosopher-kings." The "auxiliaries" were the soldiers, warriors, magistrates, and police, the ones who executed the laws of the guardians. The "producers" are the workers, the people in general, the common folk. Of course, in our day, these categories are better known as "upper class," "middle class," and "working class." It basically divides people up into who is on top, who is on bottom, and who is in the middle. Factoring into the criteria for determining "social rank" or "standing," are (as we have seen):

 

1) riches, land, and inheritance 

2) power and control over others (authority), 

3) wisdom (including aptitude), 

4) knowledge (education), 

5) speaking ability, rhetoric

6) birth, family, or ancestry (nobility). 

Historically and traditionally, high status in societies, or being one of the "elite," or one of the "choicest" people, its "elect," was determined by the above criteria. These were the people who "excelled," people who were "set apart" or distinguished in their status and persons. These were the "nobles," the "exalted" ones, the ones more highly gifted and favored by the gods. These were the "men of importance," men of "power and influence." They are the "strong," not the "weak." They are the well thought of, not "the despised." They are "uncommon," not "commoners." They are "the somebodies," not the "nobodies." They are the lords, not the servants, the head and not the tail. They are "the wise," the "intelligent," the "well educated," the "academic elite," the Gnostics or "people that know," or "people who are in the know." They are a "privileged class," people who ought to be followed and imitated by the lower classes. They are "entitled" to respect and honor that is unique to their social status. They are "special" people, people who are unique, people deserving of admiration and praise, VIP's, that is, "very important persons." 

God's people, however, are generally not chosen from among the upper classes. They are generally of the category of those who are the poor, of those who are not elite in learning, wealth, noble birth, speaking ability, etc. Yet, in their being chosen and called, they become through a new birth what they were not by their natural birth. God doesn't call or choose the qualified, but he qualifies the called and chosen. They, by their new birth and union with Christ become the real VIPs, being the sons and daughters of God and Zion.

Being converted does not change a sinner's social standing or class in the world. It does make him a better person and citizen, and this does improve his reputation among his peers, but he does not become of the world's elite class by his conversion. He does receive a superior status in being converted, but this status is not with the world, but with God and the society of believers. Also, his enrichment in power, authority, wisdom, knowledge, speech, birth nobility, talents and gifts, etc., is only now "in part," being but an "earnest" (down payment) and "foretaste" of what they will receive fully in "the age (world) to come." 

Recall Paul's opening words to the Corinthian believers that we introduced in the first chapters and began our study.

"For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." (I Cor. 1: 26-29)

We will look closer at what Paul has in mind when he speaks of the believer's "calling" (Greek "klesis") shortly. For now let us focus on the descriptive terms Paul uses to describe the world's infidel elite. 

Paul is not denying that believers, those who are "the called," are "wise," "powerful," of "noble birth," "strong," highly favored, important people. They are now all these things, as we have seen, yet they are not so "according to worldly standards," but are rather such by God's standard. There are the standards (criteria) for "status" and "elect" status "in this age," and there are on the other hand the standards for status and elect status in the world to come. They who are generally now "the kings of the earth (land)" will not be kings of "the new heavens and earth." Believers do not reign now, as a general rule. But, they shall reign in "the age to come." Their wisdom and knowledge, their power and authority, their nobility, their lofty status, is not apparent now, but will become apparent when Christ comes and establishes his kingdom. 

What are the characteristics of the social elite? What is the psychological profile of the world's elite? Do the rich upper class not have their own group think and culture? Do they not consider themselves "elect"? God's gift to humanity? Do they not consider themselves as men of a "higher calling" than those of the lower classes? Do they not consider themselves to be "better" and "superior" as compared to the overwhelming majority of commoners? Social scientists are interested in why particular individuals attain positions of status and power. Does achievement reflect superior talent? Or, is it a product of social or cultural advantage? A product of social environment? Who are the "successful" people in life? How does one define "success in life"? Obviously, as we have seen, how the world defines a successful life is opposite to how God defines it, how believers define it. 

There are certain character traits and attributes that have historically been associated with the world's rich elite. First on the list is hubris, unbridled pride that is manifested in having a haughty and arrogant air, a  condescending, demeaning, and disrespectful spirit and cock-sure attitude. It is evident in their eyes, hence the bible speaks of a "proud look." It is evident in their walk as in a "proud walk." It is evident in their "spirit," hence a "proud spirit," a proud air or disposition. Very few of the world's elite (who reject the gospel and the bible) are meek and humble. Paul spoke of this "mind set" of the "rich and famous" when he wrote: "Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits." (Rom. 12: 16)

"Men of low estate" is a Genitive phrase and we have already seen its use in another place in scripture. Recall that James said "let the brother of low degree" rejoice in his new status in Christ, to the fact that he "has been exalted." In both cases the idea is one of low social rank and status. God's elect are from this class generally with only "few" of the elite class being "chosen and called." What is the "thinking," the "state of mind," of the world's elite? The bible says, and history shows, that they are generally "high minded." Yet, this type of "egotistical thinking" is what God hates and condemns. 

He condemns those who “say, Stand by yourself, come not near to me; for I am holier than you. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burns all the day.” (Isa. 65: 5) It is the elite who say (in their actions if not in their words) to the lower classes "come not near to me, for I am superior to you" or "come not near because you are inferior to me." Paul thought that highmindedness was generally characteristic of the rich and elite, for he said to Timothy - "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded." (I Tim. 6: 17) He exhorted Gentile believers to "be not highminded but fear" (Rom. 11: 20) In this exhortation he associates highmindedness with living without fear, and in a way that is not spiritually healthy nor wise, especially in regard to fearing God. He also said that one of the characteristics of sinners in the day when Christ comes is that they will be "highminded." (II Tim. 3: 4) 

Rather than being "highminded," the believer is to be "low minded," or "humble minded." He should have the "humble thinking" of the Psalmist who said: "Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty; neither do I exercise myself with great matters, or in things too high for me." (Psa. 131: 1)

Paul also says "be not wise in your own conceit." These words recall the words of Isaiah who said "Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight." (Isa. 5: 21)

What is the attitude of the worldly elite? What is the attitude of the Spirit led Christian? The world's elite think they are better than everyone else. They have a high opinion or appraisal of themselves. They judge themselves as "worthies" and "superiors." They are, however, often true Narcissists, "lovers of self." They have gigantic egos. 

Calling & Status

"For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." (vs. 26)

There is a lot of literature available on the debate on whether "calling" (Greek "klesis," a verbal noun) includes the idea of "station," "condition," or "status." All agree that it chiefly denotes a person being called, summoned, invited, etc. However, like most words, it also has a "secondary meaning" as station, status, or social rank and condition, or "vocation." Many people think that first Corinthians 7: 20 demonstrates this secondary usage when Paul says: "Let each man remain in that condition (calling) in which he was called." 

Luther and Calvin both thought that a person's secular work (vocation) was a "calling." Today that same idea is conveyed in several occupations. It is especially true of those who become pastors and teachers in the church, they all having been "called" to such work. Others, among both believers and unbelievers, believe that God called them to their secular work, and thus become doctors, advocates, statesmen, etc. The question for us to address is whether "klesis" carries the idea of being called to a "vocation" in addition to being summoned or biddened. I believe, similarly to Luther and Calvin, that is does involve a being called to work. 

The Greek word "kletos" ("called," adjective) means "called ones." It includes, as previously stated, the idea of being "invited" as to a banquet. It also includes the idea of being "summoned" as in being "called" or "summoned" to appear in court or to appear on "the witness stand." It may include the idea of being "called to (the discharge of) some office," to be "divinely selected and appointed." (Strong)

When one surveys the many new testament texts that say something about being "called" of God, several things concerning its definition and what it entails become evident. First, we notice how being called involves being called "to" something and called "away" from something. In this respect it is similar to being turned by God, or by one's turning to God. 

The sinner in conversion turns to something and turns away from something. He turns away from self and carnal beliefs, from the practice of sin, from darkness, from Satan and the world, and he turns to God, and true faith and religion, and the practice of holiness, to light. The same is true with the sinner's "coming" for salvation. He comes away from the world and to Christ. We may therefore inquire into and delineate those things "to" which believers are called and also those things which he, and all men, are called "away from." 

Second, certain rights and privileges, together with various duties and responsibilities, come with being called of God by the Gospel. It is a call to work, a "call to action" as in men of a nation being "called up" to military action and service. Thus, depending upon what one is being "called to," or what is the precise nature of the call or summons, it may involve the one being called to "become" something that he was not before his calling. It often involves entering into a new state and condition, a new class of people. It involves being called to a "vocation," but not mainly for secular work, but for work in the service of God. The call to salvation is a call to work for Christ. 

Now let us notice a few things said about the "calling" of believers and make some comments as we focus our attention upon them. 

In several places Paul connects "worthiness" with "calling." To the Ephesian believers Paul said - "I entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling ("vocation" KJV) with which you have been called." (Eph. 4: 1) To the Thessalonian believers he said - "we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling" (II Thess. 1: 11) It is evident that Paul associates calling with living a life that is befitting the nature of the call. He is not saying that God calls the worthy and the qualified. We have already shown how Paul says that God chooses the most unqualified, and his call of them is what qualifies them. The call itself ought to convey an honor and worthiness in the state and condition being called to. In being united to Christ the believing sinner becomes a person of superior worth to the Lord, and this will be fully manifested in the age to come. Said the Lord to the elect in the church of Sardis:

"You hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy." (Rev. 3: 4)

They are "worthy" in Christ, by virtue of their being united to him by faith. They have been "called," not by a man or angel, not by a president or earthly king, but by God himself. The ramifications and consequences of a "call" depends upon who is doing the calling. To ignore God's calls are an insult to his grace in calling. To fail to heed his call to faith results in being found "unworthy" to enter the kingdom of God. 

Paul puts the emphasis upon God, the source of the call, when he says "called by God as was Aaron." (Heb. 5: 4) Further, God's call of Aaron to be high priest involved selecting or choosing him. God called the one whom he had chosen. So too with believers. Peter connects "calling" with "election" saying - "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure." (II Peter 1: 10) Every believer can say that God chose and called him "on purpose." His intention to call us to himself goes back before the world began, before we were ever born. Said Paul:

"Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (II Tim. 1: 9). 

Notice several things about the calling of believers. Being called, that is, having heeded the call, salvation results. "Saved and called." The calling is an "holy calling," meaning it is connected with a religious life of devotion to God and his service. It is not a call to become hermits or monks in a monastery, but it is a call to become "separate" from the world in our thinking and conduct and separateness is connected with becoming holy or "set apart" from the rest of mankind. They are called from one community, the society of unbelievers and of the divinely condemned, to the community of believers, as Paul said - "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." (1: 9) The Greek word for "fellowship" is "koinonea" and denotes participation and incorporation into a community or body of people.

Paul exhorted believers and said that he desired that they - "would walk worthy of God, who has called you unto his kingdom and glory." (I Thess. 2: 12) Again, notice the connection of calling with becoming "worthy." Also, notice again how the focus is on something the believer is called "to" when Peter says the God has "called us unto his eternal glory" (I Peter 5: 10). Considering the effect of this call being heeded (eternal glory), we appropriately refer to this divine "calling" in conversion and salvation as being a "high calling," and a "heavenly calling." It is these things in both the source of the call (God) and the effect of the call (salvation and glory unending). (See Phil. 3: 14 and Heb. 3: 1)

Paul says that believers "were called in one hope of your calling." (Eph. 4: 4) "Hope" is not mere "wish," but "confident expectation." Paul also speaks of "the hope of his calling" in his letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 1: 18). In being called there is the expectation of the one calling, on the one hand, and then on the other hand, there is the expectation of the ones being called. For instance, those called to a banquet expect to participate in the banquet, to enjoy it. 

Not only is "election" by God connected with "calling" by God but so are "the gifts." Paul said "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11: 29) The Greek word for "gifts" is "charismata." We have already seen how elite status in this world, to be one of its elect or choicest people, involves being "gifted" with talents, means, and abilities that the common man does not possess. We have seen how in this respect they are considered to be "the favored ones," favored by the gods and in favored circumstances and surroundings. By these natural and carnal gifts and graces they are judged to be superior, to be men worthy of praise, to be men of merit, "successful" people. 

We have also seen that it is the believer who is the truly gifted one, and yet the gifts he now has are but a sampling, a down payment, a foretaste of the gifts he is yet to receive in the age to come. Paul says that the Lord "called you into the grace (favor) of Christ" (Gal. 1: 6). They are favored and graced but not because they are worthy. Their "favored status" with God is unmerited and totally undeserved. 

Paul said - "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3: 14)

The calling of the believer, as we saw, was connected with his being saved in conversion. In these words of the apostle we see how it is connected with a "prize," with an award or reward. It must be a great prize for it to be connected with obtaining eternal glory and kingdom as we have seen.

The call of the gospel is a being "called unto liberty" (5: 13). It is a call to liberty and a call away from bondage, from the slavery of sin. 

Wisdom says to all - "Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man." (Prov. 8: 4)