WM 326: Confessional Subscription & the Septuagint

 

Read the article reviewed here.

JTR

The Vision (3.28.25): The Gospel of Your Salvation

 

Image: Ruins of ancient Ephesus, Turkey.

Note: Devotion taken from Sunday AM sermon on March 23, 2025.

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13).

Paul founded the church at Ephesus (see Acts 19), so in Ephesians he is a spiritual father speaking to his spiritual children.

I’ve noted that D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones called Ephesians the most “mystical” of Paul’s writings.

To this we can add R. C. Sproul’s observation that “the tone of Ephesians is so contemplative at points, that it sounds more like a prayer than a letter, more like a doxology [praise of God] than a sermon” (Ephesians, 15).

In Ephesians 1:13-14, Paul reminds the Ephesians of the gospel they had received. The word gospel means “good news.” Paul summarized the gospel he preached at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5: the death, burial, resurrection, and risen appearances of Christ.

In Ephesians 1:13 Paul places the phrases “the word of truth” and “the gospel of your salvation” in apposition. They are the same thing.

Notice also Paul’s emphasis upon the fact that the Ephesians had heard this gospel as it was preached to them. In Romans 10:17 Paul notes that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). In 1 Corinthians 1:21 he says it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Paul also stresses here the necessary response of faith: “in whom also after that ye believed.” Explicit belief and confession of faith is essential (cf. Acts 8:37; Romans 10:9). There is no salvation outside of faith in Christ.

Finally, Paul reminds the Ephesians, “ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise.” A seal was set to ensure that something was left undisturbed or secure. The soldiers went to the tomb where Christ’s lifeless body was laid, in vain, “sealing the stone” (Matthew 27:66), but it would be rolled away. Letters were often sealed with wax and marked with a signet ring to ensure it had not been opened and its content changed.

This is Paul’s inspired analogy. Believers have the seal of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Spirit of God ensures that they will not be disturbed or corrupted or dislodged, but they shall be preserved, kept, by God’s grace, in the faith.

This is the gospel that Paul preached, that the saints in Ephesus heard; and believing, they were sealed.

It is the same gospel of salvation that has saved and preserved every believer across the ages.

The gospel comes with the heat of spiritual power. An old adage says heat can both melt butter and harden clay. When we hear the preaching of the good news, is our heart melted (the experience of the elect) or is it hardened (the experience of the reprobate)? Are we butter or clay?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Preview Video: 2025 Reformation Bible Society Meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan on Saturday, August 2, 2025

JTR

Theology in Particular: The Administration and Administrator of Baptism

 

JTR

The Vision (3.21.25): Ephesus: Yet Here God Has His Church

 

Image: The Library of Celsus, ruins of ancient Ephesus, Turkey.

Note: Devotion based on sermon on Ephesians 1:7-12.

The Puritan minister Paul Baynes (1573-1617) said this about the ancient city of Ephesus to which Paul addressed the epistle of Ephesians: “This was the mother city, famous for idolatry and conjuring, as the Acts of the Apostles testify… This people were so wicked, that heathens themselves did deem them from their mother worthy to be strangled; yet here God had his church.”

Indeed, no place in this sinful world deserves to have a church planted within its borders. Yet God would have his church in all such places, so that the gospel might be faithfully proclaimed.

The apostle Paul was used by God to plant this church (see Acts 19). He then wrote this letter to the church from prison to encourage them in the faith. He twice refers to himself as a prisoner (3:1; 4:1), and in 6:20 he calls himself “an ambassador in bonds.”

The genre of Ephesians is quite different from what we encountered in Genesis, the last book we were expositing.  Genesis Is a historical narrative. Ephesians, however, is propositional, didactic teaching. Our minds and our faith need both kinds of teaching. We need to learn holy history, and we need to learn holy truths.

The apostle continued to catechize the believers, and through the inspiration and preservation of this book, that mission persists. The apostle is teaching and catechizing all of us, and every believer who reads and listens to it.

There are at least four great truths placed before us in Ephesians 1:7-12:

·        In Christ “we have redemption through his blood” (v. 7).

·        In our salvation the Lord makes known to us “the mystery of God’s will” (v. 9).

·        God is working out “the dispensation of the fullness of times” to gather all things together in Christ (v. 10).

·        As believers “we have obtained an inheritance” (v. 11).

Finally, Paul says, “That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ” (v. 12). We have a reason for living. To give praise and glory to God.

Yes, the gospel continues to go out and in every dark place, the Lord continues to have and establish his church.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

"Makebate"

Note: From X post:

Prepping to teach midweek Bible study yesterday on the 18 items in Paul's vice list in 2 Timothy 3:2-4, which, he says, will be prevalent among men in these "perilous times" of the "last days" (v. 1), and was struck by the alternate translation suggested in the KJV margin for "false accusers [διαβολοι]" in v. 3.

The suggestion is "makebates." An online dictionary defines a "makebate" as "one that excites contention and quarrels." It describes the term as "archaic" and notes its first known use as 1529.

It is pronounced as one one might expect a compound word to go: "make" plus "bate," long "a"s and silent "e"s. This is another word we need to make great again and not let slip out of usage. I pledge to start using it in sentences like this:

"The internet troll made himself a makebate in the comments section."

JTR

WM 325: Review of Seven Significant & Curious Problems with Mark Ward's "Scholarly" Article on Psalm 12:6-7

Here are notes from my review of MW's "scholarly" article:

First: The article, beginning with its title, attacks a straw man.

Mark Ward suggests he is opposing those who hold that there are (or were in 1611) extant “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible” and conflates this with those who hold to the perfect preservation of the Scriptures (as in WCF 1:8: “kept pure in all age”). He never demonstrates (through credentialed citations), beyond his own assertions, that those whom he lists as his opponents advocate for the existence of “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible.”

Second: MW falsely blames the KJV’s use of the adjective “pure” (Psalm 12:6) and the verb “preserve” (Psalm 12:7), for causing confusion regarding the proper interpretation of Psalm 12 (see p. 30).

These terms in English were not invented by the KJV translators but are part of the classic Protestant English translation tradition. See the use of the same terms at Psalm 12 in Coverdale’s Psalter (1553).

Third, MW falsely suggests that interpretations of Psalm 12:6-7 as related to the preservation of Scripture are the result of “English-only exegesis” which “can give rise to falsehoods and unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ” (p. 30).

Those he lists as suggesting Psalm 12:6-7 as relating to the preservation of Scripture, however, clearly do not do so simply on the basis of English translations, but on the reading/interpretation of the Hebrew original (cf. Thomas Strouse and PVK2 on “gender discordance” as a stylistic feature of Hebrew) (p. 32).

Fourth, MW misrepresents my position in this article.

He lists myself, “Jeffrey Riddle,” as a “leading” proponent of the interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 which he opposes, but he does not accurately present my position. The best documentation he can provide for my views are two quotations (one not properly enclosed in quotation marks) taken out of context from a 2022 podcast [see pp. 32-33]).

I have done no formal, published writing on this passage. Oddly enough, MW makes no reference even to the only informal writing I have done on this text in the only blog post.

Fifth, in his “interpretive plebiscite” MW perpetuates his straw man presentation of his opponents, who supposedly read Psalm 12:6-7 as promising “perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 39).

Of course, the straw man view will not be found in the survey, because, as far as I know, no one hold it. The real question is whether there are interpreters of Psalm 12:6-7 which connect this passage to the preservation of the “pure words” of Scripture, prior to the rise of KJVO in the mid-20^th century.

Even MW’s survey is suspect as he overlooks historical figures who interpret Psalm 12:6-7 counter to his thesis (e.g., John Wesley, Ebenezer Ritchie, etc.).

MW’s false pretext, leads to false conclusions: “This writer could not find a single interpreter before the advent of KJV-Onlysim who interpreted Psalm 12:6-7 to promise perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 49).

Sixth, MW insists that the “purity” and “preservation” of Scripture in Psalm 12:7 can only apply to the content of Scripture and not to the words of Scripture (see p. 50).

He here denies the classic Protestant construal of the authoritas divina duplex.

He also completely rejects the classic Protestant approach which acknowledges the existence of textual variants in the transmission of manuscripts while also affirming the providential preservation and reception of Holy Scripture.

See Thomas Watson’s comments on the preservation of both the matter and form of Holy Scripture.

Seventh, MW thus wrongly concludes that Psalm 12:6-7 is completely irrelevant as an apologetic prooftext for both the purity of Scripture (in content and words) (v. 6) and the preservation of Scripture (v. 7), as well as the preservation of God’s people (v. 7), and suggests that anyone who holds such a view in like Athanasius standing along against the world.

He does not acknowledge that one might well hold a “both-and” perspective on Psalm 12:7. It refers both to God’s preservation of his needy people and the preservation of everyone of his promises (words) to them. This indeed is a distinct theme we see elsewhere in Scripture (see Isaiah 59:20-21).

Counter to MW’s conclusion, the view that Psalm 12:6-7 applies to the preservation of the purity of Scripture is hardly an “Athanasius” that must stand “against the world.” Even MW’s own article lists more than 20 historical figures who held such a position.

JTR