top of page

Volume 3: Issue 4 | June 2020

Commandment Exposition: What God Said First

 

"And God spoke all these words, saying,

'I am the LORD your God,

who brought you out of the land of Egypt,

out of the house of slavery.'”

-- Exodus 20:1-2

 

          As we learn to obey the Ten Commandments, we should never forget how God introduced them. Even God did not immediately launch into giving orders. First, he identified both himself and the history that connected him and his people. His opening statement teaches us about identity and memory, covenant, grace and law. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

 

I am the Lord. God began by giving his name, YHWH in Hebrew. His name speaks of self-existence, and thus sovereignty and power. Here is the Creator of all things speaking as the one who is what he is.

 

Your God. He does not come asking, “Would you like to be my people?” He claims the relationship. He is our God. This relationship is more striking in the original polytheistic world when God first spoke to Israel. We know there is only one God available to us, but that was not the operating religious assumption in any part of the world then. Introducing the Ten Commandments, God does not insist that he is the only God so much as that his chosen people should be totally loyal to him. I am your God; you are my people. Why was the nation of Israel the people who belonged to YHWH?

 

Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Here is the history that binds Israel and YHWH. YHWH saved Israel from slavery. God himself delivered them, not Moses, or the whim of Pharoah, political maneuvering, or their strength. Since they are to remember this preface, they will have to remember that they were slaves in Egypt until God saved them.

 

There are already many lessons in the preface to the Ten Commandments. One is about memory and identity. The Israelites were to remember their misery. They had been slaves, but now their God had delivered them. They were not to go back to slavery, or wallow in victimhood, nor forget their past or invent a new one. So we likewise are neither to forget past misery nor stay in it. We should remember what we were, not to be trapped or haunted by it, but so that we can rejoice in our salvation and give thanks to God. Our history reminds us what we were before God made us what we are; our past does not control us.

 

The preface to the Ten Commandments also guards against the mindset that asks, 'what have you done for me lately?' We are to remember again and again: God saved me from slavery.

 

The preface also showed Israel that their salvation preceded their law keeping. Grace came first, then good works. They were saved by grace through faith – for without faith, who would spread a lamb's blood on doorposts? God gave them freedom so that they would do good works, which God now set before them in Ten Commandments. ("For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10)

 

Now this writer has traveled a certain amount, probably more than most Americans. He has even been to the Middle East, but he has never been to Egypt. Neither have ninety-seven percent of those reading this article. So, while we can see why the Israelites had to remember this preface, why should we remember it?

 

Before we answer that question, let us consider two old men who responded to God by asking for further assurance, Abraham (Genesis 15:8) and Zechariah (Luke 1:18). When Abraham asked for further assurance, God made a covenant with him and swore by himself that he would do as he promised. But when the priest Zechariah asked for assurance, God struck him dumb for his lack of faith until his son John the Baptist was born, even though Zechariah was speaking only to an angel, not to God himself.

 

Why did God treat Abraham and Zechariah differently? Because Zechariah lived 2000 years after Abraham! It was Zechariah's duty to know that God had kept his promises to Abraham. Zechariah was to know that God had brought Israel out of Egypt. He was to know that God had made and kept multiple covenants. Therefore, even though he had never in his long life seen a miracle or spoken to an angel, he was to believe instantly the angel Gabriel’s words. God's long history with Israel meant that God now expected faith without further proof from him.

 

So, why should we remember the preface? Because we are duty-bound to live by its lesson that God keeps his word! We are to remember that what God has promised he has done over and over again, and God expects us to believe him without doubting.

 

Secondly, we are to remember that we too were once slaves, slaves to sin. “Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” Jesus told the Jews. “The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:34-36) Just as God set the Israelites free from their slavery to Pharaoh, so God has set us free from slavery to sin. This is our past when we hear the Ten Commandments. For Christians as for Israel, grace came first through faith and good works of obedience follow. We have been set free to walk in good works, which God prepared beforehand.

 

Third, and finally, consider two ways of doing the right thing. In one case, we know right and wrong, and we do what is right. We relate to the standard and live up to it. This is good as far as it goes, but it does not go as far as God's preface indicates we should go. It teaches that we should know right, wrong, and God himself! God has delivered us from slavery, so we gladly walk before him. We thus do what is right for God’s glory, to please him. We do what is right to relate to God and live out our love for him. This way of doing the right thing fits God's preface to the Ten Commandments: we are in relationship with a living, personal God. There is an I, God; and a you, someone saved by God. The standard of right and wrong is objective, but even more deeply it is relational.

 

The standards for the relationship are set by God’s covenant that he made with his people. They did not negotiate it with them: he made it with them. The Ten Commandments are the heart of God’s covenant with Israel that he gave through Moses, and for this reason the two tables containing them were carried in the Ark of the Covenant. As a whole covenant, the Mosaic Covenant no longer binds Christians, but its pattern remains: grace precedes law, memory informs identity, the full moral life is relational, and God who does not change requires the same obedience of his Ten Commandments of us as well as of Israel. Every time you think of even one of God’s Ten Commandments, remember how he prefaced them: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

 

-- John D. Edgar

What God Said First
Religion vs. Christianity

Religion or Christianity?

by J. G. Vos

Reprint from Covenanter Witness, August 21, 1935, pp. 116-117

          Recently the President of Princeton University sent the alumni of the institution a circular letter entitled A Statement by the President Regarding the Place of Religion in the Curriculum and on the Campus. This document contains the words “religion” and “religious” eighteen times in its two printed pages, but “Christianity,” “Christ,” and “God” are not even mentioned once. Accompanying the President’s letter was a longer circular entitled Report of the Special Committee of the Faculty on Religious Education. This report in more than a dozen pages discusses the need for religious education on the Princeton Campus and also deals with the relation between Christianity and “religious education.” The validity of the conclusions of the “higher critics” is assumed throughout, though the critics have long ago been refuted by believing scholars of equal and superior scholarship. One sentence in the report is illuminating: “It is perhaps superfluous to say in this connection that the Committee has no intention of recommending any course which could be construed in the sense of ‘Bible Study’ or apologetics.” The report ends with these words: “We are free to pursue the study of religion as an element of liberal culture and as one of the humanities. Except as such, this Committee must refuse to recommend any religious instruction whatsoever as part of the curriculum of the University.” Religion is to be studied by the Princeton students, but, be it noted, it is to be studied as “culture” and emphatically NOT as truth or a divine revelation.

 

A long succession of Presbyterian ministers were Presidents of Princeton University up to the time when Woodrow Wilson, a Presbyterian elder and son of a Presbyterian minister, became President of the University. Students have always been required to attend Sabbath chapel services. There is a beautiful new Gothic chapel built at a cost of two million dollars in which the milk and water gospel of modernism is preached to “cultured” young pagans who know as little of the real Gospel or the blood of Calvary’s cross as the heathen on any mission field.

 

How have the mighty fallen! Princeton University (which is an entirely separate and distinct institution from Princeton Theological Seminary) because of its requirement of chapel attendance and its tradition of Presbyterian ministers for Presidents has the reputation, among those not too accurately informed, of being a Christian institution. Alas! A conservative, Bible-believing preacher is simply never invited to preach to the students. Bible-believers are considered “bigoted” and of course it would not do to have a bigoted man to address the students! Among the alumni of the institution there are some outstanding conservative, orthodox ministers, but they are never invited to preach – with the result that the students never have a chance to hear the real Gospel but are fed plentifully on the liberalism of men like Harry Emerson Fosdick.

 

Though many people use the term “religion” when they mean the only true religion or Christianity, nevertheless there is a sharp distinction of meaning between the two terms. Someone has said, “Yes, there are comparative religions but Christianity is not one of them.” Perhaps the following comparative table will serve to bring out the distinction between the two ideas:

 

1. Religion – Is natural to all men.                                   

1. Christianity – Is supernatural, depends on a special revelation. (Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:3)

 

2. Religion – Is man’s search for God. (Acts 17:27)

2. Christianity – Is God’s search for man. (Luke 19:10)

 

3. Religion – “God helps those who help themselves.”

3. Christianity – “God helps those who CAN’T help themselves. (Romans 5:6)

 

4. Religion – Consists in man’s doing something for himself, or human works, character, devotion, human merit.

4. Christianity – Consists in man’s doing nothing for himself but trusting God for all. Divine grace to those who have no merit. (Romans 10:6-10, 5:15)

 

5. Religion – Represents man as becoming divine, as ancient heroes, sages, etc. were worshiped after their death as gods: Buddha, Confucius, the Roman emperors. Man becomes God by deification, and the human race becomes divine by evolution. (Acts 12:22, Romans 1:23)

5. Christianity – Teaches that God became human in the incarnation of the Son of God, who took to himself a human nature for the redemption of man. God became man. (John 1:1, 14)

 

6. Religion – Holds that man is essentially good and only needs teaching, development, or knowledge in order to become perfect. (The root error of China's religion, Confucianism)

6. Christianity – Teaches that man is a fallen and sinful being (total depravity), and needs redemption, not merely enlightenment, in order to become inherently good. (Romans 5:12, 6:23)

 

7. Religion - Teaches man’s ability to turn to God whenever he wishes to do so (free will).

7. Christianity – Teaches man’s inability to turn to God until God first works in the soul. (The will in bondage to a sinful nature; man is a free agent to act accordingly to his nature, but he cannot originate the love of God in his heart, because his nature is evil.) (John 6:44, 8:44, 3:3)

 

8. Religion – Is universal in nature, consists in eternal or universal principles (true or false) which are not dependent on any historical facts. It would not matter to Confucianism if Confucius had never lived, for he was only a teacher, not a Savior. The founders of the religion merely said things to men.

8. Christianity – Is historical in nature, consists in events which took place once for all at certain definite times in the world’s history. Christianity, therefore, is dependent on historical facts, in particular the death and resurrection of Christ. (Hebrews 1:3) Christ, the founder of Christianity, was not primarily a teacher but a Savior; He not merely said things to men but did something for men which they could never do for themselves. (Revelation 1:5)

 

9. Religion – Says: “Do.”

9. Christianity – Says: “Done.” (John 19:30)

 

10. Religion – Says: “Something in my hand I bring.” (Salvation by works or character.)

10. Christianity – Says: “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” (Salvation by divine grace.) (Romans 11:6)

 

In conclusion, Christianity is different from all other religions not merely in degree but in nature. The relation between Christianity and religion is not that between a part and the whole but between something and its opposite.

 

[The rest of Vos’ article attacks the Laymen’s Foreign Missions Inquiry report, “Re-thinking Missions” (1932), which essentially called for a Jesuit-style combining of Christianity with local religions (syncretism). – ed.]

Getting to Know You:

Alex and Susan Edgar, Broomall RPC

Where are you each from?

          Alex – Just outside Philadelphia, PA

          Susan – Western, MA 

 

What did you believe about God growing up? What did your family teach you?  Did you go to church? Where?

          Alex – I grew up in the Broomall RP Church. My dad led us in family worship every night. I learned from an early age that I was a sinner in need of God’s grace and that the only path to reconciliation with God was through Jesus Christ. From my parents, I also learned (in no particular order) the importance of prayer, reading God’s Word, diligence in all things, hospitality, and faithfulness.

          Susan – My parents taught me from my earliest days that all people are sinners who need to repent and be reconciled to God through his son Jesus Christ. I don’t remember a time when I did not believe this was true, so I don’t have any particular conversion moment or experience. My parents trained my siblings and me through faithful family worship, keeping the Sabbath, hospitality, and their personal examples of Godliness. I was baptized at Cambridge, RPC by the pastor at the time, Bill Cornell. Even though my family moved away from the Boston area we remained members in Cambridge, so it was my home church growing up.

 

How did things change as you went through high school and beyond?

          Alex – Since I have never known a day without God’s presence, I don’t have a “conversion story.” For a while in high school I wondered if that meant that I wasn’t actually saved. Now, I view it as God’s faithfulness to believers that their children are properly viewed as within the covenant. While I didn’t particularly focus on going to a Christian college, I only applied to schools that had an RP church nearby.

          Susan – I continued to believe that God’s Word is true and the guide to how we should live, and God continued to train me in what that means. I enjoyed the company of other believers which led me to go to a Christian college. I am thankful for the years I spent at Grove City College as well as for my time after college working in the Boston area and being part of Cambridge RPC.


How did you meet? Get together?

          Alex – We sat down to breakfast at the International Conference in Grand Rapids, MI with a mutual friend. Susan couldn’t get rid of me after that.

          Susan – My friend and I met for breakfast on Sunday morning at the 2008 International Conference. A friend of hers came over to say hi and catch up with her while we ate. He subsequently joined me at Sunday School and morning worship, managed to get my phone number to text me, and after that I couldn’t go anywhere without him showing up too. I soon realized that I liked having him around even if it might turn out to be forever.


What led you to God?

          Alex – My parents, older siblings, and my father’s mother. I had their faith as my witness and example all through my youth.

          Susan – My parents’ testimony from my earliest days and the faith of my grandparents.


What led you to visit Broomall RP Church?

          Alex – My parents started taking me before I was born. I never left.

          Susan – I became part of Broomall when I married Alex and moved to Philly since he was already well established there.


What led you to join Broomall RP Church?

          Alex – Believing all that the church taught, I made my public profession of faith and became a member around age 12.

          Susan – I transferred my membership from Cambridge RPC (where I had made my profession of faith as a pre-teen) to Broomall RPC when I moved to Philly.


How has God helped you in the last few years?

          Alex – God has given me a supportive wife and a stable job. Through His Word, he reminds me of his faithfulness to his people and His merciful patience. He has helped me to communicate more peacefully with Susan and have patience with my sons.

          Susan ­– God has blessed me with a kind and supportive husband and has been faithful to me through various trials and a chronic illness diagnosis. He has helped me learn greater humility and better communication with Alex as well as increasing patience with my children.


What are you most thankful for at this point in your lives?

          Alex and Susan – For our decade of marriage, our three energetic, imaginative sons, God’s continued faithfulness to us and our families, and for the united fellowship we have in the church in which he’s placed us.

-- Alex and Susan Edgar

Alex & Susan Edgar

How to Stay Married

 

          The New Yorker magazine (December 16, 2019 issue) published “The Art of Dying” by its art critic, Peter Schjeldahl. He has lung cancer at age seventy-seven, having smoked for years. He and his wife Brooke have been married for forty-six years. Peter spent many years as an alcoholic. Finally, Brooke kicked him out of the house and sent him to rehab, which was a scary place. Frightened, unable to sleep, he called his wife to say he had to get out. She said, “Cope,” and hung up. Saved his life. Her father had been an alcoholic. He writes, “Note to anyone who knows an active alcoholic: never, ever sympathize. If you suspect you’re going to, shut your eyes, plug your ears, and hum.”

 

Peter and his wife Brooke have a daughter, Ada. Ada asked her mother how to stay married. “Don’t get divorced,” Brooke answered. Peter continues, “If you don’t get divorced you are one hundred per cent married no matter what’s going on. I am so glad we stayed together.”

 

I thought, “The Christian Church used to teach the wisdom that these unbelieving New Yorkers with their second home in the Catskill Mountains have.” How can a couple stay married? Don’t get divorced! They were not always happily married. No one is. People change, sometimes for the worse. That is why Christian marriage vows include “for better or for worse.” God does not guarantee happy marriages, even if you follow all of the good marriage tips (date nights out, languages of love, practicing forgiveness). Seductions happen. Jobs disappear and poverty arrives. People shout. Illness makes one of them an invalid who needs constant care.

 

I love my flesh, but it doesn’t always love me back. A friend my age at the Y said to me the other day, “I had a wonderful dream this morning. I woke up, jumped out of bed, and nothing hurt.” I agreed that was a wonderful dream. When we marry, God makes us one flesh for life. That means that when our flesh hurts, God tells us, “Cope. Keep your vows. Your marriage won’t be forever, only until death parts you. And then you will have eternity with me.” The Bible’s main emphasis on marriage is not having a happy marriage, it is faithfulness and love for better or for worse because one can’t shuck off one’s flesh when it hurts. The Christian Church used to teach this truth, insist on it, and make the window giving grudging permission to divorce very, very small.

 

But times change. The American divorce rate has skyrocketed from its three per cent rate in the 1870’s. And the Christian Church seeks to make its peace with divorce, either by just giving up and accepting it, or by redefining words like “adultery,” and “desertion,” so that every wife and every husband can find occasion to accuse the other of guilt and file for divorce – with the wisdom of the elders backing them, of course. It’s like former President Clinton once said, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

 

Jesus takes a lot of abuse from his bride the Church. We are full of spots and wrinkles. Thank God, he does not divorce us. He coped with his disciples even to the point of dying for them. When I read something that states the obvious in plain language, I rejoice. How can a couple stay married? Don’t get divorced.

-- Bill Edgar

How to Stay Married

Songs of Ascent In Time of Quarantine: Trust in the Lord

 

"Those who trust in the Lord

Are like Mount Zion,

Which cannot be moved, but abides forever."

-- Psalm 125:1

 

          The spiritual beauty and simplicity of verse 1 is not to be missed. What must we do to be like Mount Zion? What must we do to have the eternal security that the LORD promises to His people? Must we have the right number of spiritual, mystical experiences by which we might prove that we are part of the kingdom? Must we have the right number of good works? Must we have made the right amount of progress in our sanctification?

 

No. For how many spiritual, mystical experiences would be enough? How many good works? How much sanctification? How would we ever know if we had done or attained enough?

 

The life of sanctification certainly is an important aspect of our assurance. Peter tells us that through our diligence in Christian living we make our call and election sure (2 Peter 1:5-11). However, in Peter’s great chain of sanctification (2 Peter 1:5-7)—virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love—have you ever noticed where Peter begins? The Apostle tells us to “add” all these things to something. What is that something to which we “add” the disciplines of grace? It is faith (v.5). “Add to your faith.” Faith is the foundation without which the life of sanctification cannot be built, indeed, cannot exist.

 

So here in Psalm 125, verse 1: “Those who trust.”

 

There is much to do in the Christian life to build upon one’s trust in the LORD—but there is nothing to do before one trusts in the LORD. Where there is trust—there is Christ. And where there is Christ there is “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Ephesians 1:3).” Where there is no trust—there is no Christ. And where there is no Christ there is only condemnation and wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3).

 

Remember that each one of us was born with a sinful nature that only knows how to relate to God through works. Have I done enough? Have I attained enough? Have I experienced enough spiritual gifts? Do I have a strong enough mystical connection with God? The “old man” who still troubles all Christians, given its way, would have us once again groveling in the fear of whether or not we had done or attained enough to be accepted by God (see Ephesians 4:20ff).

 

Over against this temptation we have the spiritual beauty and simplicity of our psalm—“Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but abides forever (Ps. 125:1).”

 

Our enemy Satan is fine with our being ardent students of all manner of spiritual truth; just so long as we neglect the heart of the matter; just so long as we neglect trust and faith, because neglecting trust and faith is falling short of the Kingdom.

 

Our Savior points the way: “Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it (Luke 18:17).” The Kingdom of God is not for those who demand entrance as a wage for deeds done in self-righteousness. The Kingdom is for those who trust in the promise of Jesus like a little child and receive the Kingdom as the free gift of grace that it is.

Who is like Mount Zion?

Who cannot be moved?

Who abides forever?

The one who trusts in the LORD!

-- Alex Tabaka

Broomall, 2020

Trust in the Lord

Why We Should Be Hospitable People

by Gretchen Edgar

Reprint from Midwest Presbyterial, April, 2004

          Hospitality is a universal virtue, not just a Christian virtue. The Arabs, the Chinese, the ancient Greeks all praised and honored the hospitable house. How awful, then, when Christians don’t show hospitality to friends and strangers!

 

The Bible commands hospitality. It is not an option. We find it listed in the requirements for an elder. “A bishop must be...hospitable.” (I Timothy 3:2) “For a bishop must be...hospitable.” (Titus 1:8) When we elect elders, one of the things that we should ask is, “Are they hospitable?”

 

But the practice of hospitality isn’t left just to elders. In Romans 12 we see a long list of wonderful encouragements and admonitions, including this: “pursuing hospitality,” that is, “look for opportunities to be hospitable.” (Romans 12:13) And listen to this! “If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat; if thirsty, something to drink... (Romans 12:20” In other words, be hospitable even to your enemies, giving him food and drink. Where? At a soup kitchen? Outside on the sidewalk? Or is it even in our own houses? “For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”

 

I read of the conversion of Norma McCorvey, the Roe in Roe v. Wade. She was working for abortion providers next door to a crisis pregnancy center. The people there, especially the kids, kept inviting her in, offering her food, just being friendly. Irresistibly friendly! That was the beginning of her coming to God. Often in offering hospitality our motives may be conflicted, even impure. We want those coals of fire coming down on the head of our enemies. But hospitality is the right thing to do, and we may be surprised by blessings in it, now or maybe not until glory.

 

Turn please to I Peter 4. The context is interesting. We’ll begin at verse 7. “The end of all things is near, so keep your minds calm and sober for prayer. Above all preserve an intense love for each other since love covers over many a sin. Welcome each other into your houses without grumbling.” Here God commands hospitality to friends, fellow saints in the church. That should be easy, easier than hospitality to enemies. So I love what Peter says: “without grumbling.” Why would we grumble? You know the reasons: buying food, cleaning house, some people may take advantage of our hospitality. Some people aren’t fun. We’re busy. We’re tired. I remember one young man in our church who just wouldn’t leave. He’d eat dinner with us Sabbath night, and then stay and stay. And Bill had to get up the next morning and go to school.

 

There are seasons in life for certain endeavors. One of our members, Fran Ashleigh, was the most hospitable person in the church twenty years ago. She kept single people in her home for months on end, sometimes whole families. She always had a bed. Now she has Alzheimer’s and she can’t do these things anymore, but she had showed us all how to use the best china and silver. She was an artist as a hostess and made it look easy and fun. She was always trying out new recipes, even for WMF or church dinners. Once she kept the whole soccer team from Geneva at her house, and all this while raising five children.

 

Most of us – I certainly speak for myself – are not as polished and artistic as Fran, but we don’t have to be. When we were in seminary, getting ready to go to Cyprus, I met Don and Boni Piper. First of all, they introduced me to Syrian and Mexican food. But also they taught me about hospitality by their example, that there is no shame in having friends over for a pot of soup. You are more likely to have them over if you use the food you already have in the house, be it hot dogs, macaroni and cheese, canned soup, or an Edgar favorite, waffles. That is our Sabbath evening meal, waffles with our jam, Latourette maple syrup, and peanut butter to go on them.

 

It is always the case in the church that the younger must watch and see when it is time to rise to responsibilities. I don’t think the issue is gifts and which ones you have and which ones you don’t have. The issue is what has to be done and can you do it, however you know. Hospitality is everyone’s duty and privilege, and it includes more than inviting people over to your house. I remember one young woman in our church in her twenties who acted to get the singles and others together for volleyball, bowling, or whatever. She put effort into getting the shy and awkward ones to come along too. MaryLou probably didn’t think of herself as hospitable, but that’s what she was. She did a lot of good.

     

The Bible is full of examples of hospitality. Abraham ran to meet three men. He was watching, he took the initiative. He followed the custom of offering water to wash their feet and went on from there, arranging and delegating until a meal could be served. He had no warning about these men coming. It was not written on his calendar: Tuesday, do some hospitality. He didn’t greet the men with, “I’ll see if I can fit you in next week.” He ran. And think how old he already was! Later, Lot invited two of these men into his house and protected them from a mob, and they then saved Lot’s life.

 

Rebekah invited Abraham’s servant to their house, a stranger whom she met at a well. Her father and brother Laban reiterated the invitation. Notice that Rebekah’s actions were an answer to the prayer of the servant. Doesn’t it excite you to see God answer prayer like this in your own life? One Saturday evening the phone rang. A young woman’s voice wanted to talk to the pastor. I handed the phone to Bill. She told her story. She was pregnant, only nineteen, and traveling with her husband from California to Florida. It was winter. Their car had broken down. Would we help? They were new believers, Cricket and Angel. They had prayed for help, and God sent them to us. So Bill went to get them from somewhere in Philadelphia, we fed them supper and gave them beds, took them to church the next day. Mike Lydon helped the husband on Monday get his car fixed. Then off they went. We never heard from them, but I’m waiting to meet them in heaven to find out what happened to them next. Entertain strangers like Abraham, Lot, and Rebekah did, and you never know what will happen.

 

Jethro and Moses next. I know, I’m skipping Jacob and Rachel. When Jethro learned that his daughters are home so soon because an Egyptian helped protect them and watered their flock, he demands, “And where is he? Why is it that you have left the man? Call him that he may eat bread.” There’s an example of training your children how to behave. Jethro sent them right back out to bring Moses home. He stayed and married one of the daughters, Zipporah.

 

Failure to show hospitality can bring down God’s curse. When Israel came to the Promised Land, they asked Moab and Ammon to let them pass through peacefully. But they refused and instead hired Balaam to come and curse Israel. So here is what the Law said about them: “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation...because they did not meet Israel with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired Balaam the son of Beor...to curse you.” (Deuteronomy 23:3-5)

 

In Joshua 9 we read of hospitality gone awry. The Gibeonites from close by pretended to come from far off and snared Israel into a covenant of friendship, which God had forbidden them to make with any city in Canaan. They “worked craftily,” and the leaders of Israel did not ask God’s counsel before making the covenant. When we’ve had total strangers in our house – not very often, by the way – we’ve taken care. Angel whom I told you about a moment ago had been in gangs in Los Angeles, it was a long story how he was converted, and was put on the testimony trail far too soon, but while Bill picked them up, I hid our valuables, such as they were, out of sight. And when they left, we gave them a self-addressed stamped envelope to tell us they got where they were going. We never heard.

 

Every good thing can be perverted to evil, hospitality included. In I Kings 13 we read a sad story. A man of God – I’ll call him “Mog” for “Man of God” – was sent to Bethel from Judah to pronounce God’s word to Jereboam at the new altar in Bethel. God commanded Mog not to eat bread or drink water, nor to return by the same way he went into Bethel. King Jereboam, rather oddly I’ve always thought, invited Mog to stay after he cursed Jereboam’s new altar. He refused and went on his way. But then a local prophet – we’ll call him “Lop” – sent his sons after Mog with a story that the Lord had told them to bring Mog to Lop’s house. But the prophet lied. The man of God accepted this invitation, turned around and went back to Bethel to the prophet’s house. Then the word of the Lord came to Lop for Mog: “Because you have disobeyed the word of the Lord...but ate and drank...your corpse shall not come to the tomb of your fathers!” Nice host! On Mog’s way back to Judah, a lion met and killed him. What were the local prophet’s motives? I don’t know. I guess there is a time for hospitality and a time not to press people. And do not invite people to our homes for the prestige it brings us.

 

Back to happier examples of hospitality. Rahab took in Joshua’s spies. Of course, they could stay at her place of business, no questions asked. But she had heard the news of God’s blessing Israel, and God moved her to throw in her lot with Israel. So she helped them, hid them, lied to protect them, and helped them escape. And from that hospitality, she became one of the ancestors of our Lord.

 

In Hebrews 13:2 God tells us to be hospitable, for some in doing so have entertained angels unawares. The reference is to Abraham, and also to Lot. Not to mention the parents of Samson. But look at another unexpected blessing we’ve seen so far that God has brought from hospitality: marriage. Rebekah and Isaac, Moses and Zipporah, and Rahab into Israel. Next we come to Boaz and Ruth, another ancestor of Christ. Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi was noticed in Bethlehem, and word got around. Boaz had heard of her, and he was generous in ways that seemed huge in that world. He let her work in her fields, he protected her, he gave her extra food. He knew the need of Naomi and Ruth and treated them with dignity. In the end, he marries Ruth.

 

One of my favorite examples of hospitality was shown by David after he became king. He asked if “there is still someone of the house of Saul to whom I may show the kindness of God?” David took the initiative, acting just as we’re told to in Romans 12:13. Ziba told him that Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth, lame in his feet, lived. So David brought him to his house and restored his grandfather’s lands to him, but he could stay in Jerusalem and “eat bread at my table continually.”

 

David, it would seem, got nothing by being hospitable to Mephibosheth. Or is there a connection in God’s Providence with what happened later in David’s reign? When his son Absalom rebelled against him so that David had to flee Jerusalem, a rich man named Barzillai with two others met David on the other side of the Jordan. He met them with “bedding, rugs, bowls and crockery; and wheat, barley, meal, roasted grain, beans, lentils, honey, curds, cows’ cheese and sheep’s cheese, which they presented to David and the people with him for them to eat. 'The army,' they said, 'must be hungry, tired and thirsty in the desert.' ”  (II Samuel 17:27-29)

 

What does the lack of hospitality result in? It brought down God’s curse on Moab and Ammon. In David’s day it started a war. The king of the Ammonites died, and David sent ambassadors to offer his condolences. But the new king Hanun’s advisors said, “They are spies.” So the Ammonites cut off their clothes at the waist and shaved their beards and sent them home. Then Ammon got ready for war by hiring an army to help them. War began.

 

One could write the history of Israel in terms of hospitality shown by one person to another. Solomon hosted the Queen of Sheba. Hezekiah boasted about his power and wealth to emissaries from Babylon. Obadiah, King Ahab’s governor, hid 100 prophets in a cave and fed them water and bread while Jezebel was massacring the Lord’s prophets. He risked his life and position. When Elijah announced a drought and had to flee for his life, the Lord eventually led him to a widow in Zarephath. She was preparing her last meal. Think how little she wanted to share with a stranger. But he promised her that her flour and oil would not run out until the Lord sent rain. Then the widow’s son died. But the Lord blessed her hospitality and through Elijah restored the son’s life. Elijah asked for hospitality and received it, but he also gave back blessing. Hospitality has a way of working in more than one direction.

 

A while back we got a call one evening from Joel Martin, Fred and Faith Martin’s son. He was traveling through Philly on his way to Princeton and had fallen ill. Could he stay at our house? Yes, of course. So Bill gave him directions. After what seemed a long time, the doorbell rang. There was a complete stranger, an older man in his fifties. He looked as surprised as we were, but we invited him in. He turned out to be Joe Martin, not Joel, and he was a friend of Bill Edgar, apologetics professor at Westminster Seminary. He knew nothing of Bill Edgar, pastor of Broomall. So he stayed with us, told interesting stories, took the boys out for ice cream the next night, and stayed with us again on his return the next week. We helped him, and he blessed us.

 

Back to Bible history through hospitality. Elisha on his travels passed through Shunem where a notable woman “constrained” him to eat some food. Think about the word “constrained.” Sometimes a hostess has to repeat an offer. We find that with visitors at church. “Do you want to stay for lunch with us?” usually evokes hesitancy and uncertainty. But asked the third time, if often meets with, “Yes, I think I will.” In some cultures, as we found out in Cyprus, a guest shouldn’t accept too quickly. It is impolite. You’re supposed to ask two or three times. But back to Elisha. The woman persuaded her husband to build a special room for Elisha to stay in. Her care was so impressive and determined that Elisha wanted to repay her, which led to the birth of a son, the sorrow of the young son’s death, and Elisha hurrying back to the house to call on God to restore the boy to life.

 

The story of Jesus practically begins with hospitality, in Bethlehem again. An inn had no more rooms, but they let a young couple stay in the stable. There Jesus was born, and shepherds came to visit. Next time you see a crèche at Christmas time, remember that the owner of the stable let Joseph and Mary stay there, even though Mary was very pregnant. He didn’t think about the legal dangers of a potentially complicated birth. He let them stay. Mary, Martha and Lazarus often hosted Jesus. So did the tax collector Matthew. So did a family in Capernaum who let Jesus teach in their house and for their kindness had their roof torn apart. I wonder what they thought as they repaired their roof? Zaccheus climbed a tree to see Jesus pass through Jericho, and Jesus invited himself home for dinner. A woman washed Jesus’ feet at the home of a Pharisee who had neglected to give him water to wash with. Jesus accepted hospitality from Pharisees and tax collectors alike. The Lord is no respecter of persons; he’d go to anyone’s house, and if he’d had a house, he’d have invited anyone over.

 

And on more than one memorable occasion Jesus was the host at a meal. The day grew late as he taught a huge crowd, so he told his disciples to feed them. It was too far to go to a city, they said, and besides the money needed would be huge. You feed them, he told them. Finally, Andrew found a boy with five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus told his disciples to seat the crowd by fifties, then he blessed the bread, broke it, and distributed it. Five thousand men ate, along with women and children.

 

Someone in Jerusalem gave Jesus and the twelve an upper room in which to celebrate the Passover. “Take, eat,” Jesus said. “Drink.” Every time we enjoy Communion, Christ acts as our host, giving himself in the bread and wine that we drink. Hospitality is at the heart of God’s giving us a home with him.

 

Cornelius in Caeserea hosted a crowd to hear Peter preach. In Philippi, Lydia, a businesswoman who sold purple dye, invited Paul to stay at her house. Actually, she begged and constrained Paul and Silas to come. In Corinth Paul lodged with Priscilla and Aquilla, fellow tentmakers and Christians. When the synagogue would not let him teach there any longer, he took the church with him to Justus’ house, right next door to the synagogue. During Paul’s tumultuous journey to Rome as a prisoner, he was shipwrecked on the small island of Malta. The natives showed them kindness, made a fire because of the cold. Then the magistrate Publius “received them and entertained them courteously for three days.” You see, hospitality is a universal virtue practiced even by the pagan Romans. And yes, since even a cup of cold water given in the Lord’s name will have its reward, God blessed Publius. When his father took ill, Paul healed him. The people of Malta honored them in many ways and provided them with such things as were necessary. Luke notes, finally, that on their way up Italy to Rome, they stayed with the brethren, for seven days in Puteoli, for example.

 

Some Christians are hospitable. All other Christians should become hospitable. The Bible commands it. It is rich. It is an adventure. The Bible is full of examples of hospitality. I’ve told only a few of the stories I could have chosen. From I Peter 4 again: “Be hospitable with one another without grumbling.” At the end, when we meet Jesus, what will he commend? What will he blame? It isn’t orthodoxy that he mentions, important as that is. What does the Word say? “I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in.” (Matthew 25:35) And to those he rejects, what does he say? “I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take me in....Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” (Matthew 25:42-45) And the crushing conclusion: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Be Hospitable!

Small Business Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

 

Paul Brace, Brace Land Nursery

Wapwallopen, PA (Hazleton RPC)

https://bracelandnursery.weebly.com/

         

          Nurseries (not 'garden centers') were deemed essential in Pennsylvania from the beginning – the plants keep growing regardless. That being said, Brace Land did shut down sales for awhile when the local county saw a spike of COVID-19 cases. They have eliminated profitable Friday and Saturday open sales, replacing them with a 'by appointment only' approach. Masks are worn. The cash register area was encased in glass, and the sales area wiped down repeatedly. While fruit trees sold out early, overall sales are down 40%, due in part to the mitigation efforts detailed above, and partly to a very cold spring. 

 

WHAT THE BUSINESSMAN WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW: The box stores have been open in his area, selling plants shipped in from states with minimal COVIDimpact. Local nurseries, meanwhile, were overlooked by many consumers. Members of the Atlantic Presbytery should understand, if you want to buy locally grown plants, go to a local grower, not the box stores. 

 

Ashlyn Miranda, poppies.and.pebbles

Flemington, NJ (Elkins Park RPC)

https://www.facebook.com/poppiesandpebbles-107149464185790/

 

          Ashlyn makes handmade sock dolls and sells them online. Business has picked up during the pandemic, perhaps because more people are at home and online, and perhaps because many people are intentionally supporting local small businesses. Ashlyn received so much interest that she had to stop taking orders briefly to catch up.

 

WHAT THE BUSINESSWOMAN WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW: Small businesses are often more expensive, but the money spent there directly supports a local family. Every purchase means a lot more to the seller.

 

Laura Edgar, Crumble Coffee

Bloomington, IN (Broomall RPC)

https://crumblecoffee.square.site/

 

          The pandemic lockdown has changed everything for Crumble Coffee. They have two locations, one at Indiana University, and one downtown. Both were deeply affected by the initial wave of panic, as ten of the twenty-six employees were pulled back home by nervous parents. The on-campus location saw its income drop by 50%. But they quickly received help from the Paycheck Protection Program, a part of the CARES Act implemented by the Small Business Administration. Despite the university closing, the campus location has recovered somewhat, while the downtown location seems to be back to its normal cash flow.

 

What is not normal is their new way of doing business. Where before there were students working all day at tables, now there is only one customer inside at a time, eyed politely but closely by an employee who will wipe down every place they touch. Crumble Coffee now offers four different ways to order, and can take the filled order out to the curb or send it via a delivery service.

 

The current challenge is how to open up. Employee concerns need to be respected; the county may delay the announced opening date. They need to plan, and be prepared to change the plan – as we all must do, at all times, whether we realize it or not.

-- John D. Edgar

Small Business & Covid

An Appetite for Work: A Proverbs Exposition

 

"A worker's appetite works for him;

his mouth urges him on." 

-- Proverbs 16:26

 

          People who passionately love their work think they eat to work, but were they to experience real hunger, they would realize that they work to eat. Even in Eden, Adam had to till the ground (Genesis 2:5, 15). The threat of hunger keeps us working, even when our work bores or exhausts us. Thus, a worker’s appetite for food and shelter works for him by urging him on to work.

 

What happens when people who are able to work can get food, shelter, and clothing without working? They become lazy, spending their time on gossip, quarrels, games, and trouble. The common saying, “The devil makes work for idle hands,” tells the truth, as does the next verse, “Idle hands are the devil's workshop; idle lips are his mouthpiece.” (Proverbs 26:27) Therefore, the Apostle Paul instructed the new Church in Thessalonica not to feed people who would not work, writing,  “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’ We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies (II Thessalonians 3:10-11).” Welfare, whether from family, church, or civil government, that does not urgently encourage work, or that is structured so as to make it irrational to work and earn money, sabotages the connection God made between working and eating. It keeps a person’s appetite from working for him.

 

Some people, of course, cannot work, and should be helped with food, clothing, and shelter by those who can. God commands, “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need (Ephesians 4:28).” Jesus warned that on the Day of Judgment he will welcome his disciples, saying, “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me… Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. (Matthew 25:35-36, 40).” He speaks of those who are truly in need of help, such as in our day war refugees, or the badly disabled, or those sick and unable to work.

 

Wise fathers and mothers, however, along with wise churches and societies, will not sever the relationship between work and eating that God has established. A worker’s appetite should be allowed to work for him, his mouth urging him on to work.

-- Bill Edgar

Proverbs 16:26

Religious Vocabulary I Carefully Avoid Using: Worldview

 

          New Testament Greek carefully avoids borrowing vocabulary from Greek and Roman pagan worship or philosophy. Instead, NT writers used words from the Hebrew Scriptures, usually via the Greek translation called the Septuagint, or from Greek political or common life. For example, the word for church, ekklesia, is the usual term for the meeting of the citizens of a Greek city-state to conduct business. It is used in that way in Acts 19:32, where ekklesia is correctly translated “assembly” rather than “church.” Similarly, when the Apostles in Jerusalem chose Greek-speaking men to handle the tables, they called them “deacons,” the ordinary Greek word for “servant.”

 

About the time that I finished college in 1968, I began hearing the sentence, “Christianity is a world and life view.” The point, I guess, was that our faith in Christ extends to everything that we do or think, something that the Christian Church has always taught. Why did we need a new term for that truth? Where did the term come from? What baggage might the term carry with it?

 

I knew where the term “world and life view” came from. It is the English translation of weltanschauung, a term coined by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He used it to mean the beliefs that allow us to make sense of the world and to act in it. Today it is used, rather loosely, to mean one’s all-encompassing philosophy of life. Why have I assiduously avoided using the term?

 

First, Christians don’t need the term weltanschauung! We already know that we owe the Creator and Redeemer obedience in all things.

 

Second, Christian faith is not a philosophy. It is the believer's reliance on the (1) testimony of God in his Creation, (2) the Scriptures which deliver to us the testimony of the God's prophets, Jesus, and his apostles, and (3) the testimony of the Holy Spirit calling us to believe in Christ. When we believe God’s testimonies, repent, and put our faith in Christ, we enter his Kingdom. A covenant of grace binds us to our Father in heaven who loves us and sent his Son for us, and through him, makes us sons of God, with Jesus Christ our elder brother.

 

Third, “world and life” views are said to be based on “presuppositions,” non-rational prior commitments to what constitutes truth, goodness, and beauty. This way of thinking suggests that there is no real point in trying to reason with unbelievers, and even Christians begin thinking of faith in Jesus Christ as one worldview among many. It is like thinking of faith in Jesus Christ as just being one religion among many, and to each his own.

 

Has the adoption of this new term for Christian faith strengthened the believing Church in Europe and America in the last sixty years? I see no evidence that it has. The attempt to “baptize” the term invented by Immanuel Kant has failed, and the term itself – unnecessary, misleading, and inherently relativistic – should be abandoned. I refuse to talk about “the Christian worldview.” I talk about Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, who died and rose again, who now rules all things, and who is the man appointed by God to judge all nations.

-- Bill Edgar

Don't Use Worldview
Closing of the Muslim Mind

Book Review:

 

The Closing of the Muslim Mind

by Robert R. Reilly 

Wilmington, Intercollegiate Studies Institute: 2010

 

          The first half of Reilly’s book makes considerable philosophical demands on the reader. You will profit by wading through it. Reilly’s book is the best account of Islam I have read. In brief, Reilly argues that when Arabic Bedouin conquerors encountered ancient Greek thought in the Christian lands they overran, they initially embraced its search for truth through reason, but finally rejected it in favor of an unknowable, all-determining god of pure will and power. Reilly gives a plausible explanation from Sunni Islamic theology for the deadness of Arabic culture after a century of flourishing achievement, for traditional Islamic fatalism, and for today’s violent Islamism. (He also unintentionally illuminates the seemingly strange affinity between Islam and contemporary Western Leftist thought, which also asserts that reason is a sham, and that all truth claims seemingly based on reason are mere camouflage for the exercise of power and will.)

 

Although such is not his purpose, Reilly’s book makes it abundantly clear that the Living God who revealed Himself in the prophets and last of all in Jesus Christ is not the same god as Allah, despite the claims of well-meaning but fuzzy-minded people that Islam is a third Abrahamic religion alongside Judaism and Christianity. Since Allah is all about power and will, there is no place in Islam for anything like, “In the beginning was the logos… (John 1:1),” or statements like “By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations (Proverbs 3:19).” Likewise, there is little in Islamic theology about Allah’s love for humanity. No statement in the Koran corresponds to “God is love (I John 4:8),” or “God so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son…(John 3:16).” Indeed, only by believing in the Trinity, which Islam so vehemently denies, can we understand the centrality of love to God’s very Being. “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed…  Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world (John 17:5, 24).” 

 

Reilly’s book furthermore makes clear the profound importance of the statement about God’s Providence and second causes in the Westminster Confession of Faith, a statement that owes much to Thomas Aquinas and before him Augustine. “Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly: yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (WCF 5.2, my italics).” In the reality of “second causes,” as well as in the doctrine of Creation according to God’s wisdom, lies the basis for science and confidence in the reality of cause and effect. Calvinists who overlook the Bible’s teaching about the reality of “second causes” become “hyper-Calvinists,” close to being Islamic fatalists who attribute everything to God in such a way as to evade human responsibility for the outcome of any choice or action.

 

To readers concerned about the sources of violent modern Islamism I highly recommend this book. I also highly recommend it to readers wanting to understand some of the most basic teachings of our Westminster Confession of Faith concerning God, love, Providence, and second causes by seeing how Islam denies them. But be warned: it makes big demands on your patience with philosophical hair-splitting in the alien context of Islamic thought.

-- Bill Edgar

Thoughtful Questions I've Been Asked During the Past Month

 

1. What does the Reformed Presbyterian Church teach about the length of the days in Genesis 1?

          The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that God created the world “in the space of six days, and all very good (4.1).” The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that God completed his work of creation “within the space of six days, and all very good (Q. 15).” The Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches that God created the world “in the space of six days, and all very good (Q. 9).” The wording in all three documents is nearly identical and non-specific about the length of each day.

 

The 1806 Declaration and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church condemns the error, “That this world is eternal, or caused by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, without the agency of an intelligent Creator (Chapter 1, Error 1).” It does not address the days of Genesis 1.

 

In 1969 the RP Synod appointed a committee to rewrite the 1806 Testimony. It did so in a column of glosses next to appropriate Confession chapters. After submitting a draft of its work to the 1976 Synod, the committee invited suggestions in the pages of the Covenanter Witness. The long-time missionary to Japan, Gene Spear, proposed this addition for Chapter 4, “Of Creation”: “We reject all theories of continuing creation. We also reject theories of organic or theistic evolution and any non-chronological interpretation of Genesis one, or denial that the days were ordinary days.” He cited Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 20:11. (Covenanter Witness, 4/20/77, p. 14)

The committee, Synod, and the whole Church by overture, adopted only Spear’s first sentence as gloss #5 on Chapter 4 of the WCF. It reads, “5. We reject all theories of continuing creation. Gen. 2:2. (A-20)” The Committee and the Church, therefore, chose not to condemn teaching that the days of Genesis 1 may be other than “ordinary days” as an error. (Committee members in 1970 were S. Ray Blair, E. Clark Copeland, D. Howard Elliott, Joseph Lamont, J. Paul McCracken, William H. Russell, G.I. Williamson, J. Renwick Wright, Jim Carson, Chair. By 1979, its membership had changed slightly: Roy Adams, S. Ray Blair, E. Clark Copeland, D. Howard Elliott, Joseph Lamont, William H. Russell, Wayne R. Spear, S. Bruce Willson, J. Renwick Wright, Jim Carson, Chair). 

 

In 2002, the Reformed Presbyterian Synod considered a committee report dealing with a paper from Midwest Presbytery concerning the length of the days in Genesis 1. It reviewed our present standards plus other materials and recommended that Synod not adopt a statement that “in the space of six days” means six “days of ordinary length.” Synod approved their recommendation and adopted their report. Fifteen members of Synod dissented. (Minutes of Synod 2002, pp. 136-39)

 

Sometimes elders and others assume that the RP Church teaches things that they ardently believe, but which the Church’s Confession and Testimony do not teach. They may even want to hold others to these things as tests of orthodoxy. (I have run into that in the case of the mode of baptism, for instance.) To guard against such mistakes, we have written statements of what we believe. The Reformed Presbyterian Church has no official teaching on the length of the days in Genesis 1, except that, as the Westminster Standards teach, God created the world “in the space of six days.” Given the chance in 1976-80 and again in 2002, the Church through its Synod chose not to specify the length of the days of creation. Members, elders, and candidates for eldership are therefore free to believe and teach that the days in Genesis 1 may be something other than six literal days.

 

Postscript: The most prolific theologian of the RP Church in the 20th Century, J.G. Vos, spent his life combating Protestant liberalism, or “modernism” as it was sometimes called. In 1960 he wrote, “There is considerable diversity of interpretation, however, with regard to the nature of the six days. Among orthodox theologians, some hold that six literal days are meant…while others hold that the six days represent long periods of time. A third interpretation advanced by some scholars holds that the six days have nothing to do with time, but are merely a literary pattern or framework in which the inspired writer of Genesis arranged his material (Blue Banner Faith & Life, April-June 1960, p. 107).” In 1962, he concluded, “In view of the difficulties of this problem and the lack of agreement among conservative scholars, we may be wise to reserve judgment and wait for more light on the subject before committing ourselves absolutely to any one of the three views that are held (Blue Banner Faith & Life, April-June 1962, pp. 81-82).” In 1966 he observed, “No less a theologian than St. Augustine held this literary framework view…. Augustine held that the whole creation was complete in an instant of time, and that it is only described under the six-day scheme to make it humanly apprehensible (Blue Banner Faith & Life, April-June, 1966, p. 78).” He himself preferred the literal view, but he consistently called those holding other views of the length of the days in Genesis 1 “orthodox.”

-- Bill Edgar

Thoughtful Questions

Authors in this Issue


Alex and Susan Edgar are members of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia). Alex is a new elder there.


Bill Edgar is a retired pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia).


Gretchen D. Edgar is Bill's wife, and a member at Broomall RPC (Philadelphia).


John D. Edgar is the pastor of Elkins Park RPC (Philadelphia).

Alex Tabaka is the pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia).

J.G. Vos was a former missionary to Manchuria, Bible professor at Geneva College, and editor of Blue Banner Faith and Life. Learn more about him at https://bluebanner.org/about

A Little Help?

          Your support helps keep the publication in print and online at ALittleStrength.org. The authors and editors enjoy our work, but aren't otherwise paid. If you appreciate what you read here and want us to encourage us and help us keep going, send your contribution to A Little Strength, 901 Cypress Avenue, Elkins Park PA 19027, or surf over to www.alittlestrength.org/donate.

Authors
A Little Help?
bottom of page