BEHOLD THE DAYS ARE COMING

 

The prophecy of Jeremiah, written about 600 years B.C., is foretelling the eventual judgment of southern Israel, Judah.  The Northern tribes had already been sent into captivity.  Babylon's assault was pending.

Throughout the prophecy, Jeremiah includes phrases of hope -- hope of a restoration.  But none is as clear as is recorded in Jeremiah 23:5–6 (ESV)

⁵ “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. ⁶ In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’

There are some expositors that choose to leave the time of the prophecy's fulfillment as open. "The expression days are coming is very general and has no particular time reference." [1] There are others who are adamant that this prophecy will be fulfilled in a physical, temporal Millennial reign. For example: This is referring to "Israel’s regathering and the righteous Branch will occur during the millennial reign following the Great Tribulation." [2]

I believe "the days" refer to the time between Christ's advent and His Second Coming. I also believe that the time stamp is clear.  I hold to that belief for 3 reasons:

#1. The formula "Behold the days".

In this chapter, Jeremiah uses that phrase twice (v5 and v7).  He will use it again in the well-known chapter on the New Covenant. ““Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 31:31–32, ESV)

The writer to the Hebrews in chapters 8:8bff and 10:15 clearly applies that formula to the Christian Church. In classic Biblical hermeneutics, we interpret the Old by the New.  The author to the book of Hebrews would view Jeremiah's prophecy as applying to the Church, the true offspring of Abraham, all those who have faith in Jesus Christ.  Just as the New Covenant was inaugurated by Jesus, so the Messianic reign was inaugurated at His advent.

#2. The Branch of David.

The second time stamp in this passage is the reference to the Branch of David.  Thompson comments: "The metaphor is of a shoot (ṣemaḥ) bursting forth from the Davidic tree (i.e., the dynasty), which, though cut off, is not dead. English versions have generally translated the word as Branch. In postexilic times the term became the classic technical one for the expected ideal king (Zech. 3:8; 6:12) [3].

No one disputes that the Branch, or better, the Shoot, is referring to Jesus Christ, the expected Messiah.  Jeremiah likely got that hint from Isaiah who prophesied 100 years before.  “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.” (Isaiah 11:1–2, ESV).  Jesus Himself citing a parallel passage (“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;” (Isaiah 61:1, ESV) affirmed that this was about Him. (Luke 4:18-19).  Jesus believed that He was the One prophesied and He was currently engaged in the ministry foretold. 

#3. The Salvation of Israel.

In Romans 11:26 (ESV), Paul clearly tells us that he is thinking of the Old Testament restorative literature when he writes, "²⁶ And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”.  Certainly, when the audience read "in this way all Israel will be saved" they must have thought of: “In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’” (Jeremiah 23:6, ESV)

Paul was writing of contemporary things.  He describes how God has not rejected Israel, but in fact has a glorious plan of salvation based upon His electing mercies. "In this way all Israel" will be saved.  In other words, what is happening right now, as it happened to him, is how Israel will be saved.

Conclusion

Surely the authorial intent of the prophecy of Jeremiah 23:5-6, is to point us to the Coming of the Messiah at His birth and His ministry throughout the last days until His Second Return. “. . . Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:23–25, ESV)

So, it was with great cause and abundant joy that the father of John the Baptist would exclaim:

". . .“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.” (Luke 1:67–75, ESV)  

To God be the Glory.

___________________________________________________

1. Thompson, J. A. (1980). The Book of Jeremiah (p. 489). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2. Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M., eds. (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 1466). Thomas Nelson.

3. Thompson, J. A. (1980). The Book of Jeremiah (p. 489). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

It’s Not Fair I Had To Go Through This Disease.

The death of Matthew Perry on October 28, 2023, was tragic and brought real grief to many.  It ought to be considered tragic not because of his popularity but because Matthew Perry was a human being created in God’s image. Although tarnished in us all, this imago Deo is what made him a person of dignity, value and honour.  His death is a tragic loss.   He starred on TV’s popular show Friends. Matthew Perry, the Emmy-nominated actor died at 54.  Perry's 10 seasons on Friends made him one of Hollywood's most recognizable actors, starring opposite Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Matt LeBlanc, Lisa Kudrow and David Schwimmer as a friend group in New York City.

On the CBC National, October 29, 2023, a video clip of Perry being interviewed by __ was shown in part.  It can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/vrZsyBhmMro?si=yUhRity3Wu3clmHC.  It was in this interview that Perry left his saddest legacy.  It was in this interview that mental health as social condition was given its greatest setback.  This is not a condemnation of Perry, for he simply parroted what our culture teaches. Much of my concerns can be heard approximately at 29:25:00 minutes in the interview.

He talks about going into Rehab and says, “I was placed in some kind of spiritual guys office and we talked a little bit and as we were done talking he turned around . . . And said ‘just remember it’s not your fault’ . . . and I said ‘what do you mean it’s not my fault, I’m the one who’s doing it what do you mean’?  And he saved my life because I then knew that it wasn’t my fault that I it was that I wasn’t weaker.  It wasn’t my will that was screwed up. It was that I have this disease  and I need to get help . . .  It’s not fair.  It’s not fair that I had to go through this disease while the other five didn’t.” (Emphasis mine.)

The most pervasive and culturally acceptable paradigm to view addiction is to view it through the lens of a disease model.  The backstory to Perry’s condition was that as a 14 year old, he and several of his friends drank excessively.  His alcoholism and drug abuse continued but theirs didn’t.  His conclusion: they didn’t have the disease.  He did.  By his own story, the disease model gave him something to hang his hat on. But here’s the problem: the disease model didn’t heal the disease.  The other problem in his story is that the disease model proves it to be unfair and ultimately created a mentality of victimhood.  He was dealt a bad hand and he got the disease.

This blog is not to be dismissive of Matthew Perry. I felt nothing but compassion for him as I learned his story. He truly was a victim — but not of drugs and alcohol.  He was a victim of a health system that views non-organic crises as diseases rather than sicknesses of the soul.  Full disclosure, I am no expert in this field of discussion and I admit that the secular literature supporting the “disease model” is enormous.  My only claim is my view that the Bible is the inerrant authority and sufficient authority of matters of the soul.  My expertise is questionable. My God is irrefutable. 

The Bible describes the soul of human beings as broken.  It is malfunctioning.  The word ‘futile’ describes its ability, meaning that it cannot do what it was intended to do. The Bible is also clear that the cause of the soul’s condition is sin or stated otherwise rebellion from God.  Where the problem is “non-organic” or “a matter of the soul” the remedy can only be found in the Creator of the human soul.  Genesis 2:7 (ESV): “. . . then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”  That word “creature” in the ESV is from the Hebrew word translated into English to be “living being” or soul.

The Bible doesn’t avoid the matter of alcoholism or addiction.  Note:

Proverbs 23:29–32 (ESV): “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder.”

Without addressing matters of the soul it is impossible to resolve non-organic problems. Proverbial wisdom from the Scriptures remind us that issues of the soul determine vitality of life. We read in Proverbs 4:23 (ESV): “Keep your heart [= soul] with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.”

Again, I have nothing but sadness and compassion for Matthew Perry.  His story is a stark reminder that those who are afflicted non-organic horrors should seek the only true Physician of the soul. There are specific matters of human suffering that cannot be resolved by determination, discipline, doctors or drugs.  Matters of soul-sickness can only be healed through the Great Physician, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 11:28–30 (ESV): “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ‘Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’”

The Half-Baked Sermon: Missing Ingredients in Much Preaching

By Jeremy Walker, Desiring God.

“What is the problem? . . . He may be delivering a lecture rather than a sermon, even if warmer rather than cooler in tone. He may offer “hot systematics” — an accurate treatment of a theological topic delivered with deep conviction. He may provide a biblical-theological survey, tracing the sweep of revelation along a particular line, but not anchored to any one part of it . . .. Sometimes fire in the pulpit masks a lack of warmth in the material, like delivering a frozen pizza in a heated bag. Often the context is provided, all the words are explained, the strict sense is given. By the end of such a sermon, the congregation might know much of what a text says. At the same time, they may know nothing of what it actually means for them.“ (Emphasis Mine)

To read more click HERE.

An excellent example as how to resolve conflict.

 

https://www.9marks.org/conversations/on-pastoral-public-tone-with-kevin-deyoung-pastors-talk-ep-245/

In this Pastors Talk episode, Jonathan Leeman (9Marks) interviews Mark Dever (Baptist) and Kevin DeYoung (Reformed) on pastoral, public tone; and the correction of brothers. This interview also gives help to disagreeing in public.

Principles:

1. The offended acted quickly when he saw/heard something that was wrong.
2. The offended got counsel from others what to do. This is not gossip.
3. The offended wrote directly in a clear, honest way. He wrote because he could articulate his concerns clearly and carefully.
4. The offended was very gracious when the offender apologized.
5. The offender know that the one taking offence. should be happy that he grow and learn by this. 
6. They knew each other well, by character thus having confidence that their concerns would be handled graciously and seriously.
7. The offender called right away after receiving the rebuke and repented.
8. The offender, when realizing his error did what he could to make it right. 
9. The effectiveness of the resolution was directly based on the good relationship of the parties and the trust that they could speak of such things confidently. There is wisdom to know how a rebuke might land. 
10. To be able to communicate in such manner is to respect the other party and assume that they will hear what they’re saying.  He is assuming that the other will not take it out of context, make light of it, be resentful toward it.

Build the kind of relationships that this level of discussion can take place. Unfortunately I have experienced several significant issues that I feel unable to address with a person because their response to conflict has been defensiveness, counter-attack, failure to really listen to my concerns, making light of it, or oppositely becoming distant and resentful.

I pray today that if I am that way, the Lord will hear my repentance and give grace.

Are You Blessed, Or Are You Trying To Be Blessed?

Have you heard the Beatitudes preached this way:“If you are poor in spirit enough, if you are sad enough, if you are hungering and thirsting enough, THEN, you will be blessed.”

The sermon sounds like a conditional reward.  If you are this, you get that.  But “this word [blessed] affirms a state of blessing that already exists. Each beatitude declares that a group of people usually regarded as afflicted is actually blessed.” (TOW, Bible Commentary) The word blessed is an adjectival noun, meaning that it serves as an indicative and a descriptive. The Bible describes a people who are called. They are “the” called indicating who they are; and they are the “called” noting the action being done to them.  So it is with the Blessed.  They are THE blessed indicating who they are by description and they are the blessed indicating what is happening to them.  Matthew uses the word ‘blessed’ in both ways.  

One might successfully argue that we cannot be Christians unless we are poor in spirit, or mourn over sin.  Jesus simply declares that those people are already blessed.  Non-Christians would think otherwise.  To the contrary Jesus is saying to us as citizens of His kingdom that you are blessed, despite the fact of being poor in spirit, persecuted, hungry — hungering for righteousness, etc. You are a blessed people, not a cursed people.  And then He adds to each of the eight a promise connected with that assertion.  To personalize the text one might say: “My meekness is not the condition of the cursed, it is the condition of the blessed.  Therefore the promise to us (Blessed is in the plural) that we all who are meek will inherit the earth.”  

Perhaps you will read the Beatitudes differently and “rejoice and be glad”.

How Does Satan Steal the Seed on Sunday?

 

New Gospel or No Gospel

Introductory Essay to John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ by J. I. Packer[1]

 

This introductory essay is worth every moment the reader will take to digest every thought of the late Dr. J.I. Packer.  In these initial paragraphs Dr. Packer sets the stage by comparing two Gospels.  It is not a comparison of heresy versus orthodoxy, because both “Gospels” have the similar content and words.  The difference lies in what and how the “Gospels” are communicated.  In his own words he writes, “The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.” This new Gospel has been categorized as “attractional”, “user-friendly”, “relevant”, or “therapeutic”.  I have found that you have to attend or observe services of this type rather than try to categorize them.  But in Dr. Packer’s words they are centred upon this “new Gospel”.  Note Packer’s comparison:

 

“. . . Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. 

 

The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do.One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God.

 

The old gospel was “helpful,” too—more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God.

 

But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him . . ..”

 

As I have attended or watched these “new Gospel” churches I sense I have been drawn into a spiritualized Ted-Talk. However, in Pauline thought there is really just one Gospel.  So, this so-called “new Gospel” is actually no Gospel at all.  Attendees leave psychologically and emotionally pumped up devoid of God-centred thoughts, Christ-centred pursuits, or Word-driven behaviours. 

 

 

 

---

[1] https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/packer_deathintro.html