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

The Vision (3.14.25): Introductory Thoughts on Ephesians

 

Note: We began a new Sunday morning exposition last Lord’s Day at CRBC through the book of Ephesians. Listen to sermon here.

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:1).

Today, we begin an exposition of this first of three “churchly” prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians), Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus. This letter is filled with some of the most profound and most practical teaching in all of Holy Scripture.

The great Welsh minister David Martyn Lloyd-Jones who preached through this book over the course of eight years from his pulpit in London, from 1954-1962, and whose sermons were later published in eight volumes, states in the introduction to the first volume: “The epistle to the Ephesians is the most ‘mystical’ of Paul’s epistles, and nowhere does his inspired mind soar to greater heights” (Ephesians Vol. 1:6).

Let me sample a bit of the content to whet our appetite:

It contains the “magna charta” of the Biblical doctrines of grace and the Biblical view of good works in Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace are ye saved through faith….”

It contains the great household code, including the teaching on the relationship between Christian wives and husbands in Ephesians 5:21-33 (esp. vv. 22, 25).

It contains a great metaphor for militancy in the Christian life in Ephesians 6:11-17, exhorting Christians to “put on the whole armour of God” (v. 11).

There is indeed some of the most foundational teaching in the whole NT, the whole Bible, in Ephesians, and we will get to study it together, God willing, in the coming months.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Thomas Watson on the Preservation of Scripture

 

Note: Another X post:

A pastor in California recently sent me this quotation from Thomas Watson's commentary on the Shorter Catechism, touching on the divine preservation of Holy Scripture:

"We may know the scripture to be the word of God, by the miraculous preservation of it in all ages. The holy scriptures are the richest jewel that Christ hath left; and the church of God hath kept these public records of heaven that they have not been lost. The word of God hath never wanted enemies to oppose, and, if possible, to extirpate it. They have given out a law, concerning scripture, as Pharaoh did the midwives concerning the Hebrew women’s children, to strangle it in the birth; yet God hath preserved this blessed book inviolable to this day. The devil and his agents have been blowing at scripture light, but could never prevail to blow it out,—a clear sign that it was lighted from heaven. Nor hath the church of God, in all revolutions and changes, only kept the scripture that it should not be lost, but that it should not be depraved. The letter of scripture hath been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongues. The scriptures were not corrupted before Christ’s time, for then Christ would never have sent the Jews to the scriptures; but he sends them to the scriptures, John 5:39., 'Search the scriptures.' Christ knew these sacred springs were not muddied with human fancies." I told the sender I had not run across it before but will add it to my Puritan "armoury" of citations regarding that doctrine of providential preservation so often neglected in our day. N.B.: Watson upholds not merely the preservation of Scripture's doctrinal content (matter) but also its words (form): "The letter of scripture hath been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongues."

JTR

Response to a Pastor's Recent Question on Erasmus and the Confessional Text

Note: Post taken from twitter/X:

A pastor messaged me this week on X who has been working through issues related to text and translation of the Bible and considering the Confessional Text position.

He noted, “One hangup I have is that it seems that Erasmus was in some way engaging in a form of text criticism that confessional text folks would reject in the modern day.” Part of my response to him: Here are some things to consider: 1. Erasmus was providentially used to recognize the canonical text, but we should also remember that his efforts were reviewed, slightly edited, and affirmed by Protestant scholars like Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs, etc. So, it does not all depend on Erasmus. 2. These men were living in the pre-modern era. They were not affected by the Enlightenment, hyper-rationalism, etc. 3. They were not doing "modern" textual criticism. They were not attempting to "reconstruct" the text merely using empirical methods to "weigh" the empirical evidence. 4. They were taking into consideration the doctrine of Scripture, ecclesiastical usage, providential circumstances, etc. Modern text criticism would reject all these things. They [modern critics] want a religiously neutral approach. As one prominent "evangelical" scholar (Tommy Wasserman) has put it: "I want to do text criticism as if God did not exist." Hope this helps and may the Lord be with you as you continue prayerfully to consider these things.

JTR

The Vision (3.7.25): Put away the strange gods

 

Image: "The Theraphim of the Hebrews," from Oedipus Aegypticus, Athanasius Kircher, 1652-1654.

Note: Devotion based on last Sunday's sermon on Genesis chapters 35-36.

Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments (Genesis 35:2).

After his sons took vengeance on Shechem for the abuse of their sister Dinah, Jacob worried that he would be made “to stink” among the inhabitants of that land, and they would destroy him and his house (Genesis 34:30).

The LORD graciously intervened and directed Jacob to return to Bethel, “and make there an altar unto God” (Genesis 35:1).

Jacob then called for spiritual reformation in his family, starting in v. 2. He had gone to Padanaram to find a wife among his extended kinfolk, from those who knew Jehovah. He found there Leah and Rachel and remained 20 years.

Though Laban had known Jehovah, he was spiritually compromised and had also taken up household gods (the teraphim), which Rachel had stolen in their flight from Laban (30:19). Paganism had been mixed in with the worship of the one true God. The God of the Bible, however, is a jealous God. He will share devotion with no one or nothing.

Jacob exercised spiritual leadership and offered three commands to his household in v. 2:

First, “put away the strange gods that are among you.” The apostle John will echo this when he concludes 1 John exhorting, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).

Second, “be clean.” This is a call for spiritual purity. David will later write in Psalm 24 that those who approach the LORD in worship must have “clean hands, and a pure heart” (v. 4).

Third, “and change your garments.” This was to be a spiritually symbolic gesture. In the Old Testament it is common to hear that those who repented put on “sack cloth and ashes.” Here, however, they were apparently called to take off their old dirty garments and put on new, clean garments. The apostle Paul will later offer a similar metaphor in Ephesians 4 to illustrate the transformation that takes place in the life of believers, calling for the Ephesians to “put off… old man” and “put on the new man” (vv.21-24).

We, who were once not a people, have been made, by grace, part of the family of God. We are called to personal reformation, to remove idols, to be clean, and to change our garments. Salvation also means sanctification.

We may be discouraged at times by our slow progress and even our outright failures. Let us remember, however, that we have been saved by the one who never bent a knee to any idol, who knew no sin or uncleanness, and who has given to his saints his own righteous life to cover them.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

WM 324: W. H. Auden: Stick to Cranmer and King James

 

JTR