My Top Ten Christmas Carols

I recenly posted a "Top Ten" Christmas carols countdown on my personal Facebook page as a countdown to Christmas and a gentle work of evangelism among my non-Christian friends. Here are my choices along with good performances of each carol.

Number 10 - While shepherds watched their flocks.

 

With ten days to go to Christmas, I thought I'd do a "top ten" Christmas carols counting down from today to Christmas Eve. These are my personal choices. With so many available, narrowing it down to 10 was hard. Your favourites might or might not feature in this list.

 

Coming in in 10th place is "While shepherds watchehd their flocks" (also published as "While humble shepherds watched" in some hymnals, including the ones I grew up with in the Church of Scotland).

 

The words were written by Nahum Tate (1652-1715) and they are a fairly straightforward paraphrase of the nativity story found in Luke's Gospel chapter 2. Tate was born in Dublin and was an Anglican clergyman, who also became Poet Laureate in 1692.

 

Although a number of tunes have been used with these words, the most common tune used in the UK at least is called WINCHESTER OLD which dates at least from the 1630s when it was published though it may predate being written down.

 

Here it is performed by the choir of King's College Cambridge in an arrangement by Sir David Willcocks.

 

Number 9 - It came upon the midnight clear

 

Coming in at 9th place on my top ten carols is "It came upon the midnight clear".

 

This is the first of two American carols in the top 10 and also one of those carols that are best known by different tunes on each side of the Atlantic.

 

The words were written in 1849 by Edmund Sears, who was actually a pastor in the Unitarian church. However, there is nothing in his words that would make them unacceptable to orthodox Trinitarians. 

 

Unlike many of the great carols that focus on the incarnation of the Son of God, Sears' words focus on the message of peace that the angels sang "Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth, good will to men" particularly the idea of "peace on earth" and considers not the events of Bethlehem but the sweep of history and how the world has not accepted the message of peace in "our time" whether that is the 19th century of the author or the 21st century in which we live.

 

In a year that been marked by wars and strife in different parts of the world, the words of the third verse are as poignant as ever:

 

But with the woes of sin and strife

The world has suffered long;

Beneath the angel-strain have rolled

Two thousand years of wrong;

And man, at war with man, hears not

The love-song which they bring; –

Oh hush the noise, ye men of strife,

And hear the angels sing!

 

As far as the music goes, as I said, the most common tune in the United States is known simply as CAROL or WILLIS which was written for this hymn by Richard Willis.

 

Personally, I have always found the American tune a bit syrupy. For that reason, I much prefer the tune composed by Arthur Sullivan (of Gilbert & Sullivan fame) and usually called NOEL. It is Sullivan's tune which is usually sung in the UK and other Commonwealth countries.

 

In this recording, the carol is performed by the choir of Winchester Cathedral.

 

Number 8 - As with gladness, men of old

 

I suspect this one might not be on everyone's list of favourites, but it has always been one of mine, both for the words and the tune, which is perfect for congregational singing.

 

The words were written by William Chatterton Dix (1837-1898). Unlike most hymn writers in Victorian Britain who were mainly clergymen, Dix was a businessman, and actually worked for a time in Glasgow as manager of a marine insurance company.

 

Many hymns about the visit of the magi focus on the gifts, but Dix's hymn draws a number of parallels between the visit of the wise men (the "men of old") and how we should seek to live as Christians now. In the first three verses there is a recurring pattern: "As they did..."/ "So may we..."

 

In verse 1, as the wise men were guided to Christ by the star, so may we be led to Jesus. In verse 2, as they travelled joyfully to Bethlehem, so may we seek the place of propitiation or "mercy-seat" found at the cross. In verse 3, As they offered gifts, so may we present our best to King Jesus in our lives.

 

The whole hymn is a prayer really and this is most evident in verse 4 which is addressed to Jesus directly:

 

Holy Jesus, every day

keep us in the narrow way;

and, when earthly things are past,

bring our ransomed souls at last

where they need no star to guide,

where no clouds Thy glory hide.

 

Transitioning from the prayer for heaven in verse 4, the hymn ends with a triumphant last verse about heaven and how Christ himself will be everything we need there.

 

Almost the only tune used with this hymn is known as DIX, originally a German tune by Conrad Kocher. Although not written for this hymn specifically, it was later adapted for it by William Monk in the 1861 edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern and has been used ever since with this hymn, the tune being re-named after the hymn's author.

 

Here it is, sung by Salisbury Cathedral Choir with a rousing descant in the final verse by Sir David Willcocks.

 

Number 7 - See, amid the winter's snow

 

At number 7 on my list is another Victorian carol, "See, amid the winter's snow" by Edward Caswall first published in 1858. The tune was later written for the words by John Goss in 1871. He called the tune HUMILITY which fits very well with the theme of Caswall's words.

 

Caswall converted from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism not long before he wrote this carol and the final verse he wrote, which includes a prayer to the Virgin Mary, is dropped from Protestant hymnals. 

 

Also, in some hymn books, the first line is changed to "See in yonder manger low" which I think misses something of the fact that in the UK and much of the northern hemisphere we do contemplate the events of Christmas in the cold and sometimes the snow of wintertime.

 

I chose this one partly because I love the tune with the quieter more reflective verses and the triumphant chorus, and also for the words, especially of two of the verses:

 

Lo, within a manger lies

He who built the starry skies

He who throned in height sublime

Sits amid the cherubim.

 

Sacred infant, all divine,

What a tender love was Thine,

Thus to come from highest bliss

Down to such a world as this.

 

To begin to grasp the truth of who this baby was and why he came into the world is to glimpse at the mystery of the incarnation and the grace of the good news.

 

Each verse sung in unison is followed by the powerful chorus in four-part harmony:

 

Hail, thou ever blessed morn,

Hail redemption's happy dawn,

Sing through all Jerusalem

Christ is born in Bethlehem.

 

Here is the carol performed by the choir of Guildford Cathedral.

 

Number 6 - Silent Night / Still the Night

 

This carol is probably many people's favourite and comes in at number 6 on my list. This is the first of two carols on the list not originally written in the English language.

 

The carol is from Austria and was originally written in German. The story goes that it was first performed on Christmas Eve 1818 in a little town called Oberndorf bei Salzburg, with words by Father Joseph Mohr and music by his organist, the local school teacher, Franz Gruber.

 

The English words exist in more than one version. The most commonly sung translation is by John Freeman Young, who was an Episcopal priest in New York City. It reads:

 

Silent night! Holy night!

All is calm, all is bright

Round yon virgin mother and child!

Holy infant, so tender and mild,

Sleep in heavenly peace!

Sleep in heavenly peace!

 

Silent night! Holy night!

Shepherds quake at the sight!

Glories stream from heaven afar,

Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!

Christ the Saviour is born!

Christ the Saviour is born!

 

Silent night! Holy night!

Son of God, love's pure light

Radiant beams from thy holy face

With the dawn of redeeming grace,

Jesus, Lord, at thy birth!

Jesus, Lord, at thy birth!

 

However, anyone familiar with the Church of Scotland hymnary in any of its editions, knows that we usually sing a slightly different version, translated by Stopford Brooke, an Irish-born Anglican cleric who served as a royal chaplain to Queen Victoria. It’s a matter of personal preference, but I like these words a little better:

 

Still the night, holy the night!

Sleeps the world; hid from sight,

Mary and Joseph in stable bare

watch o'er the child belovèd and fair,

sleeping in heavenly rest,

sleeping in heavenly rest.

 

Still the night, holy the night!

Shepherds first saw the light,

heard resounding clear and long,

far and near, the angel-song,

'Christ the Redeemer is here!'

'Christ the Redeemer is here!'

 

Still the night, holy the night!

Son of God, O how bright

love is smiling from thy face!

Strikes for us now the hour of grace,

Saviour, since thou art born!

Saviour, since thou art born!

 

There are few recordings of this alternative version, many of the “Silent Night” version, but here is St Thomas Choir (Thomanerchor) in Leipzig, singing in the original German version and what a pure sound they create.

 

Number 5 – O come, all ye faithful

 

We now enter the top five of my personal selection of top ten Christmas carols. As the lyrics say, this carol is indeed ‘joyful and triumphant’ and ‘O come, all ye faithful’ takes the number five spot.

 

Although one of the best-known carols, the origin of its words and tune are shrouded in mystery. There's even a conspiracy theory that the words are actually a Jacobite coded message!

 

A number of people have been suggested as authors of the words. By the way, this is the second of our carols that were not originally in English, the original language in this case being Latin. The opening words in Latin are Adeste Fidelis. The main candidates for authorship include King John IV of Portugal, a 17th century musician called John Reading, and an 18th century writer called John Francis Wade. Wade is usually considered the most likely writer, but we do not really know. The first published version was by Wade in 1751.

 

The English translation was made by a Catholic priest, Frederick Oakeley in 1841, with additional translations by William Thomas Brooke.

 

The tune, known as ADESTE FIDELIS, is also of uncertain origin with many suggestions over the years including Wade himself, John Reading, King John IV, as well as a number of famous composers such as Handel, Gluck and Thomas Arne.

 

The arrangement by David Willcocks is justly celebrated with its descant on the “Sing choirs of angels” verse and his re-harmonisation of the final “Yea Lord we greet Thee” verse.

 

The words themselves touch on many of the central truths of the incarnation of Christ. The hymn is often used as the penultimate carol at Nine Lessons and Carols services following the reading of the ninth lesson, John 1:1-18. The words in the final verse “Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing” are a paraphrase of John 1:14.

 

In normal church Christmas services, the hymn is often used as the opening hymn as God’s people gather to worship.

 

Here is the hymn, in the Willocks arrangement, sung at the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols at King’s College. Cambridge.

 

Number 4 – Once in royal David's city

 

As we reach the top four of my personal choices of Christmas carol, it is very difficult to put these in order.

 

"Once in royal David's city" was written originally as a poem by Cecil Frances Alexander (née Humphreys) and then published in 1848 as one of her "Hymns for Little Children." I think it is important to remember that this is a children's hymn and when you read the words that way it makes a lot of sense.

 

Mrs Alexander was an Anglo-Irish hymn writer born in Dublin and was married to William Alexander in 1850. He was later Bishop of Derry and Archbishop of Armagh in the Church of Ireland. Among her other well-known hymns are "All things bright and beautiful" and "There is a green hill far away".

 

The words are simple enough for a child to understand, yet cover the profound truths of the incarnation, that Jesus was fully God:

 

He came down to earth from heaven

Who is God and Lord of all" (v.2)

 

And at the same time, he was fully human like any one of us:

 

For he is our childhood's pattern;

Day by day like us he grew,

He was little, weak, and helpless,

Tears and smiles like us he knew." (v.4)

 

My favourite verses are the final two (verses 5 and 6) where the writer reflects on the fact that we will one day see Jesus. In verse 5 she explains that it is by Christ himself and his work that we are saved and in verse 6 she points out that when we see him it will not be as a baby in the manger, but as the King of heaven.

 

And our eyes at last shall see him

Through his own redeeming love,

For that Child so dear and gentle,

Is our Lord in heaven above:

And he leads his children on

To the place where he is gone.

 

Not in that poor lowly stable,

With the oxen standing by,

We shall see him: but in heaven,

Set at God's right hand on high,

Where like stars his children crowned,

All in white shall wait around.

 

The hymn was set to music a year after it was written by Henry John Gauntlett. His tune is called IRBY.

The hymn is traditionally the first one sung at many Lessons and Carols services, most famously at King's College Cambridge, with a boy treble singing the opening verse solo and unaccompanied.

 

Here it is in a performance by Trinity College Choir, Cambridge.

 

Number 3 – O little town of Bethlehem

 

Some of the carols we have looked at are shrouded in mystery as to their exact origins, but the very opposite is the case for "O little town of Bethlehem" where we know a great deal about its composition.

This is the second American carol on our list. It was written in 1868 by Phillips Brooks (1835-1893), an Episcopalian clergyman who was rector of Trinity Church in Boston, Massachusetts. He was inspired to write the words after visiting Bethlehem on a tour of the Holy Land.

 

The words reflect on how the most significant event in history, the birth of the Son of God came so quietly that most the world never even knew it happened. Yet for those who "receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in."

 

The final verse is a prayer that Christ would come and make his home in our hearts as we respond to the gospel:

 

We hear the Christmas angels,

the great glad tidings tell;

O come to us, abide with us,

our Lord Emmanuel!

 

As with the other American carol on this list ("It came upon the midnight clear") the carol is usually sung to different tunes in the USA and in the UK.

 

In a way, the American tune is the more "authentic" one. It was written by Brooks's own organist, Lewis Redner, for the hymn and with the author's approval. The tune is known as ST LOUIS.

However, in the UK, we normally sing the hymn to an English folk tune, FOREST GREEN, which was paired with the words by the English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams.

 

It probably depends a lot on what you are used to, but I like both tunes, though I think the American tune is definitely of its time and can sound overly sentimental, which is fine if I'm feeling overly sentimental myself!

 

So we have two renditions to share on this one. First, we have the American tune sung by the Trinity Choir. Second, the choir of Ely Cathedral singing the hymn to FOREST GREEN.

Number 2 – In the bleak mid-winter

 

The second top place goes to "In the bleak mid-winter" and it was a close thing between this and the number one. This carol is simply perfect and makes it feel like Christmas any time I listen to it or sing it.

 

The words were originally written as a poem by the English poet Christina Gabriel Rossetti (1830-1894), though perhaps with prescience she titled the poem "A Christmas Carol" when it was first published in 1872.

 

The original poem has five stanzas. Verse one focuses on the weather around Christmas time, at least in the cold northern hemisphere, and hints at the fact that it was (and is) a harsh world that the Christ child was born into.

 

Then in verse two the focus switches to the incarnation itself with the God who reigns over all becoming a poor baby born in a stable.

 

Verse three (which is omitted in some versions of the sung carol) focuses on the child's human needs ("a breastful of milk and a mangerful of hay") yet even then he received the "worship" of "the ox and ass and camel which adore."

 

The fourth verse imagines the angels and archangels gathering to worship, but Mary worshipping Jesus with a tender kiss.

 

The final verse creates a challenge for the poet and us today. "What can I give Him, poor as I am?" And her answer, which ours should be too, is to give Him our hearts.

 

I have always had a deeply emotional experience when singing these words.

 

And that brings us to the music. It is sad that Rossetti never lived to see her words set to music. She died in 1894. There are two equally good and famous settings of the words to music. The first one was by the English composer Gustav Holst (he of "The Planets" fame) in 1906. He called his hymn tune CRANHAM. This is maybe the best-known version and certainly the one suitable for congregational hymn singing. It is a beautiful tune which matches the mood of the words perfectly.

 

As with many of the carols we have looked at, there is more than one setting of the words. The second tune was written by Harold Darke in 1909. Darke's version is more suited as an anthem for a choir to sing as each verse has a different arrangement, some with solo voices, some unaccompanied. It is also a lovely tune which is well-matched with the text.

 

There are at least five or six other settings with other tunes, but these are the "big two".

 

We present both versions, first the Darke version with the Cambridge Singers, with City of London Sinfonia conducted by John Rutter. Second the Holst setting to the tune Cranham sung by the choir of King's College Cambridge conducted by Stephen Cleobury.

 

Number 1 – Hark! The herald angels sing

 

So we arrive at our number one choice this Christmas Eve and I've chosen "Hark! the herald angels sing" as my favourite Christmas carol of all.

 

The original words were written by Charles Wesley (1707-1788) in 1739, although Wesley's original is a bit different from the version we normally sing today. Wesley's opening words were "Hark! how all the Welkin rings, Glory to the King of Kings" ("Welkin" is an archaic word for "heaven"). The first words were revised by Wesley's colleague, George Whitefield, to "Hark! The herald angels sing, Glory to the new-born King" as well as a few other changes, and more tweaks to the words occurred in later years. Wesley also wrote several more verses than we normally sing today.

 

The great words of this carol really get to the heart of the Christmas message and the Christian gospel.

In verse one the message of the angels in Luke 2 are the focus:

 

Hark! The herald angels sing,

"Glory to the newborn King;

Peace on earth and mercy mild,

God and sinners reconciled."

 

In verse two, the words reflect on the fact that the baby Jesus is God incarnate, God made flesh:

 

Christ, by highest heaven adored

Christ, the everlasting Lord,

Late in time behold him come

Offspring of a Virgin's womb:

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,

Hail the incarnate Deity,

Please as man with man to dwell,

Jesus, our Emmanuel.

 

The third verse is a great hymn of praise to Christ:

 

Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace!

Hail the Sun of Righteousness!

Light and life to all He brings

Risen with healing in His wings.

But the verse also comes back to the gospel message of salvation:

Born that man no more may die

Born to raise the sons of earth

Born to give them second birth.

 

Each verse ends with the same refrain as the hymn's opening:

 

Hark! The herald angels sing,

"Glory to the newborn King!"

 

It is hard now to even read the words without also hearing the tune for this carol. Yet the words and music are separated by a century. The tune for this carol is usually kunown as MENDELSSOHN or sometimes as BETHLEHEM. It was written by Felix Mendelssohn in 1840 for a completely different piece, a secular cantata called "Festgesang" about the printer Gutenberg. It wasn't until 1855 that William Cummings, organist at Waltham Abbey Church paired Mendelssohn's tune (with slight amendment) with Wesley/Whitefield's words, and the rest is history.

 

Incidentally, before that, Wesley himself in his lifetime, preferred "Hark! The herald" to be sung to the same tune he used for "Christ the Lord is risen today" which is Handel's tune MACCABAEUS usually used today with "Thine be the glory". Confused yet? As with one or two other carols on the list, it is strange to think that Wesley never heard his hymn sung to the tune we can't imagine it without nowadays.

 

The hymn is often sung with a rousing descant and reharmonsiation on the final verse by Sir David Willcocks which was written in 1961.

 

So, here is "Hark! the Herald angels sing" in Willcocks' arrangement. As befitting our number one choice, this version also has a brass fanfare to introduce it. Here it is sung by the Choir of King's College, Cambridge conducted by David Willcocks, with organ and the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble.

What does it mean to be a Disciple of Jesus?

Christians—those who believe in Jesus Christ—are called not only to be believers but disciples of Jesus. Jesus commanded:"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19, NIV). We have a responsibility not only to reach out to others, but to be discipled ourselves. The question is: What does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus Christ?

To answer this, the first question is what is a "disciple"? A disciple who follows and lives by the teachings of another, a teacher. A disciple is someone who studies under another, who learns from another, and who seeks to live by the teachings of the one from whom they have learned. It should be emphasised that a disciple is more than a student who gains mental knowledge or insight. There is a practical element to being a disciple or follower. Our word "apprentice" is close to the meaning of disciple. Like an apprentice, the disciple seeks to learn in order to live according to the teacher's insights and wisdom. Yet beyond this, the disciple also has the aim of reaching a position where they can themselves pass on the teacher's knowledge and insights to others.

A Christian disciple, or follower of Jesus Christ, is therefore someone who seeks to get to know Jesus, learn from him, put his teaching into practice, and help spread his message others so that they too will become disciples.

The Bible teaches that this whole process is beyond the ability of human beings by nature. From beginning to end, becoming a Christian, obeying Christ, and spreading the good news about Christ is not something we can do for ourselves. Saving faith itself is a gift from God (Ephesisans 2:8-9) and every part of our lives as Christians depends on the Holy Spirit who comes to reside in us when we come to faith.

Yet the Bible also teaches that there are things God expects us to do as Christians and though we need the Holy Spirit to give us the power to do them, God does not do them for us. The tasks are still for us to do.

Some of the things expected of Christian disciples include the following, though a comprehensive list would require us to read the whole of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments (see Matthew 5:17-20, 2 Timothy 3:16).

1. Learning the truth about Jesus and His Work

We cannot be followers of Jesus Christ without getting to know the truth about who Jesus is and what he has accomplished for us.

2. Getting to Know Jesus

However, being a Christian is more than learning stuff about Jesus. It means getting to know Jesus personally for ourselves. We do this by reading the Bible, prayer, reflection on the Bible and meditation in which we spend time with Jesus.

3. Putting Jesus First—Jesus is Lord

A Christian confesses that Jesus is Lord, which means among other things, that Jesus comes first in life. The direction of our life is set with reference to Jesus Christ and the way he wants us to live.

4. Obeying Christ 

Jesus said to his disciples: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). A key part of being a Christian disciple therefore consists in obeying Christ's teachings, living the way Jesus taught us to live. These teachings are found not only in the four Gospels of the New Testament, but in the letters of the New Testament where Christ's apostles continue Christ's teachings.

5. Doing Good

Christ calls on his disciples to do good works (see Ephesians 2:10), which he sometimes called "bearing good fruit" (John 15:5-8).

6. Being People of Love

Christ taught that the two greatest commandments are to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind and all our strength, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. We are, above all, to be people of love.

7. Prayer and Worship

Jesus prayed all the time and expects those who follow him to also be people of prayer. He lived in close communion with God. Christians must therefore be people devoted to the worship of God.

8. Evangelism

As we have already seen, Christ commands us to go and make more disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). Therefore, as well as living as Christ's followers ourselves, we are also called to seek to reach others with Christ's message so that they too can be saved and become disciples themselves. 

Women in Ministry - Prof. Craig Keener

I thought this was a good lecture by Craig Keener explaining why women should be permitted to hold offices in the Church.

The 'All Israel' of Romans 11:26

One of the more controversial texts in the New Testament, at least as far as the range of interpretations it has generated, is Romans 11:26. The verse reads: 'And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come from Zion, and he will remove ungodliness from Jacob".'

The disputed interpretation concerns the meaning of 'all Israel' in the verse.

There are essentially three interpretations as follows:

1. The first and most common interpretation is that 'all Israel' means that ethnic Israel as a whole (or the vast majority of the Jewish people) will be saved at some point in the future. This view envisages a future conversion of the mass of Jewish people. There is a minority view within this position that the Jews as a nation will be saved in the future, irrespective of turning and accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Yet most people who hold to this position believe in a future conversion of the Jewish people to faith in Christ. This view is common among premillennialists and postmillenialists and was the majority view of the Puritans and also of many commentators on Romans such as Charles Hodge, John Murray, and John Stott.

2. Another view,  held by William Hendriksen, Louis Berkhof, Antony Hoekema, R. C. H. Lenski, O. Palmer Robertson and others, agrees that there is no 'future conversion' of the Jewish nation in view, but rather 'All Israel' means all elect Jews—the sum of all the believing remnants down through history. This view points to the fact that there has always been a believing remnant within ethnic Israel and believes this will continue all through time. 'All Israel' is therefore the sum total of all the believing remnants both in New Testament times and right through to the end of time. This view seems most common among Dutch Reformed theologians and commentators.

3. A third view agrees with the second view in part, in that it agrees the passage does not point to a future mass conversion of the Jewish ethnic nation, but differs from the second view in that it sees in Romans 9-11 a Pauline redefinition of  'Israel' so that 'all Israel' means all the elect, both Jew and Gentile together. The third view therefore sees 'all Israel' as a reference to all of God's elect people, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, throughout the ages. This view has been held historically by figures such as St Augustine and John Calvin, and in our day by the Pauline scholar, N. T. Wright.

For a number of reasons, my own view is that the third option is the correct interpretation, although it is definitely a minority view.

For a full discussion and argument why 'All Israel' means all the elect, both Jew and Gentile, I thoroughly recommend the commentaries by Calvin and N. T. Wright on this verse and passage. In addition, I recommend an essay by Lee Irons, "Paul’s Theology of Israel’s Future: A Non-Millennial Interpretation of Romans 11" which can be found here.

Calvin's comments on this verse are worth quoting: 

Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, - "When all the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God's family." This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Gal. vi. 16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (translated and edited by John Owen; Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1955), p. 437.

My reasons for accepting Calvin's view (and N. T. Wright's) can be summarised as follows:

1. The verse says all Israel will be saved in this way. It does not say and then all Israel will be saved. The future national conversion view requires the verse to mean "and then" but this is not what the Greek means. There is nothing in this verse that points to this as being a future prophecy. The arguments of those who take the second interpretation such as Hendriksen and Robertson also support this, as do the arguments of Calvin and Wright.

2. If the verse does mean that all Israel will be saved in this way this must refer back to what verse 25 says - that a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the full number of the Gentiles comes in. The 'until' here should be viewed as a terminus ad quem and not a terminus a quo. Just as in Psalm 110:1 where we read that Christ must reign 'until' he has put all his enemies under his feet, this does not imply that Christ will cease to reign at that point, so here 'until' does not imply that the hardening will cease when the full number of Gentiles comes in, but rather that the hardening will continue right through to when Christ returns and this world ends.

3. Throughout the Bible, God only has one covenant people. In the Old Testament the covenant people are usually called Israel; in the New Testament the covenant people are usually called the Church, but they are one people - Israel is the Church and the Church is the true Israel. Paul makes this point throughout his writings.

4. Paul's argument in Romans 11 is that believing Jews and believing Gentiles are both branches - natural and grafted - into the ONE olive tree - which is a symbol of Israel or the covenant people. Verse 25 says this process will go on until the full number of Gentiles come into the covenant people and IN THIS WAY all (the true) Israel will be saved. This is entirely in line with Paul's arguments throughout Romans (and similarly in passages such as Ephesians 2:11-20). This view is also in line with Paul's key verse in Romans 9:6 where he begins to flesh out what he has already hinted at in Romans 2, that there is a "true Israel" of which not all ethnic Jews are a part: "For not all those who are descended from Israel truly belong to Israel."

5. One of the main arguments against this view that 'all Israel' means both the Jewish and Gentile elect is that it is hard to believe Paul could use 'Israel' meaning 'ethnic Israel' in verse 25, but in a different way in verse 26. However, this objection does not stand up to scrutiny. Paul clearly uses Israel in two different ways in Romans 9.6 which literally says 'not all Israel are Israel' meaning 'ethnic Israelites' in the first use and 'God's covenant people' in the second use.

These points are made more fully for those who want to probe deeper into these issues in the writings of Hendriksen, Robertson, Hoekema, Calvin, Wright and Irons' essay. Although not all of these scholars agree that 'all Israel' means all elect Jews and Gentiles, they do give reasons to reject the first view that the verse means 'and then [at some future point] all [ethnic] Israel will be saved'. Of the two remaining views, I think it makes most sense in Paul's argument - particularly since he describes this as a mystery - that he is not merely describing the salvation of all elect Jews throughout time - but that in God's purpose both Jews and Gentiles are brought together into God's covenant people (Israel) to bring about the salvation of both.

Modified Supralapsarianism

I have recently been thinking about the order of God's decrees and after much thought, I have decided that the correct view is probably what I would term a modified form of supralapsarianism. Though infralapsarianism is certainly the view taught in the Reformed confessions, such as the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession, it is also true that these confessions, particularly the Westminster Confession, certainly leave room for supralapsarianism as well, particularly as I will outline it in this post.  

As we will consider, there are significant problems with aspects of both the standard infralapsarian presentation and the standard supralapsarian view. As a result, I propose a modified view, which we will now discuss as a modified form of supralapsarianism which builds on the best points of both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism.

It was only after forming this view independently that I came to understand that something very like the view presented here was held historically by some who identify as supralapsarians such as the Dutch theologian, Peter van Mastricht (as explained here by Geerhardus Vos).

The differences between the two views should not be overemphasised anyway. Both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism agree that the creation, fall, election and reprobation are all included within God's all-encompassing decree. The only differences concern the logical order of the elements within the eternal decree, not a chronology as such. In both views, all the parts of the decree—creation, fall, election and reprobation—are eternal.

The view advocated here suggests a pre- or supralapsarian aspect to God's decree, a discrimination in the mind of God, so to speak, between one group who would ultimately be saved and another who would ultimately be lost, prior to the logical decision to create or permit the fall, but this is combined with a post- or infralapsarian view of the election of individuals into the two groups, the elect for salvation in Christ and the preterition or rejection of individuals and the decision to punish them for their sins.

The standard infralapsarian order of the decrees (or of the logical moments with a all-encompassing decree) is as follows:

• Decree to create humanity 
• Decree to permit the fall 
• Decree to elect some of the fallen mass of humanity to salvation and decree to reprobate the remainder of humanity to condemnation 
• Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.
  

This order tracks the same order as the events play out in time and history beginning with creation then fall then election then salvation.

Though this is by far the most common presentation among Calvinists, it has significant problems, which we can list as follows:

1. The planning of God appears to follow exactly the same as the historical order plays out in time, but in planning a final goal the end point is decided first and then the steps to reach the end goal. A analogy would be a baker. He first decides to bake a cake and then assembles the ingredients, weighs them out, mixes them before putting the mixture in the oven to achieve the final aim. He does not take out ingredients and begin to mix them up and then finally decide to bake a cake!
   
2. What is the purpose of God in creation and permitting the fall if the decree of salvation only comes in after these two decisions have already been made? The normal infralapsarian order does not account for why God permitted the Fall to take place.
   
3. This order of decrees does not include the overarching purpose of all things being for the glory of the triune God in the display of his attributes of justice and grace.

The most common supralapsarian order of the decrees is as follows, and though this helps answer these questions, it is not without issues of its own difficulties: 

• Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.
• Decree to elect some for salvation and reprobate others to condemnation
• Decree to create the elect and the reprobate
• Decree to permit the fall

This answers the problems of infralapsarian. Here creation and fall serve a prior and higher purpose to have elect to save and reprobate to condemn which will bring God glory. Here the order is the reverse of the historical playing out of the decrees. This order ties in better with God’s primary concern to display his own glory and the final state of the elect and the non-elect is foremost in God’s mind. However, the traditional supralapsarian scheme also has its own significant problems.

1. If the decree to create comes after the decree of predestination of individuals, how can there be individuals to elect or reprobate if their creation has not even been contemplated. This would seem to be a significant problem. Yet if the separation of elect and non-elect only happens after contemplation of their creation, then their creation must have been contemplated with another purpose in mind which seems contrary to the spirit of supralapsarianism.
   
2. The supralapsarian view has more difficulty avoiding charges of God creating people and then predestining them to damnation without first regarding them as sinful, indeed without any reference to sin, potentially making the purpose of God unjust, which cannot be.
3. The supralapsarian view tends to see creation merely as a means to an end, rather than having any independent divine purpose for the display of the divine glory in its own right.
   
4. The supralapsarian view posits a divide between elect and reprobate individuals that precedes and overrides any other consideration. This can make it difficult for supralapsarians to account for biblical passages that speak of God's love and goodness for all shown in common grace and mercy.
5. The supralapsarian view can sometimes be presented in a way that lacks nuance in presenting the elect as the recipients only of grace and the reprobate the recipients only of wrath and justice, when the reality of the divine decree is that the elect were children of wrath as much as the non-elect prior to their conversion and the non-elect remain recipients of divine benevolence and goodness despite their rejection for salvation.
   

A modfied supralapsarian position, which seeks to take the best of both traditional positions, could be set forth as follows: 

• Decree to glorify the triune God himself in the display of all his attributes and in the works of all persons of the Trinity in creaton, providence, the fall, salvation and condemnation.
• Decree to have two groups of people, one in covenant with him through Christ and the Holy Spirit and receiving salvation and the other outside of covenant with him and receiving condemnation and punishment (but without any individuals in either group). 
• Decree to create the world and humanity in God’s image – displaying God’s greatness, wisdom, glory, imagination, creativity, etc.
• Decree to permit the fall. 
• Decree to elect some individuals of the fallen mass of humanity to salvation and decree to reprobate the remainder of the individuals of humanity to condemnation (this part of the decree does concern individuals viewed as sinners)
• Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.

It will be noted that the additional two points helps explain the purpose of the creation and the permission of the fall, while the remaining points follow the traditional infralapsarian order, all to God's primary purpose of glorifying himself and sharing the life of the Godhead with his image bearers in covenant with himself in supralapsarian manner. 

  

The key distinction in this scheme lies between God decreeing to have a saved covenant people and a non-saved group outside the covenant and this distinction and part of the decree is made prior to contemplating the fall and God determining which individuals will be elected for salvation, leaving others to be reprobated and condemned (which occurs only after the individuals are considered as fallen and sinful individuals). We could call this scheme a kind of hybrid with a kind of supralapsarian corporate election and reprobation, but a logically subsequent infralapsarian individual election of individuals and the reprobation only of sinful individuals. For this reason, I believe this remains a modified form on supralapsarianism, though it could equally be viewed as a modified form of infralapsarianism. It is distinct from either traditional presentation of the two views after all.

The fundamental objections to infralapsarianism are answered in this scheme without falling into the harshness of the traditional supralapsarian scheme because at the point individuals are elected or reprobated they are viewed in the divine mind as sinners, undeserving of salvation and deserving damnation:

1. That creation and the fall do serve a prior purpose of God in glorifying himself, displaying certain of his attributes and bringing about individuals to be elected and reprobated.
   
2. The order of events in time occur to bring about prior determined aspects of the decree (to have a covenant people in Christ and a non-covenant remainder of humanity to God's own glory)
3. This view is clear that any individual is only elected to salvation or passed by and condemned when viewed as a sinner, not merely a creature.
4. This view makes it clear that although there is double predestination, there is no equal ultimacy between the choosing of the elect and the reprobation of the non-elect. Election is a positive act; reprobation is a passive passing by and only an active judicial condemnation for sin.
5. Although this view sees a distinction between two groups from the first, there is not reason to reject a universal love and common grace to all humanity under this scheme, nor does it affect the free offer of the gospel being made to all.
   

This view recognises that what the ultimate goal is first in logical order and then the steps to reach the goal follow in the plan in historical order. It recognises that in the planning, the planner must also consider what the correct historical order of events needs to be to reach the goal.

It will be interesting to see what other Reformed theologians have made of this issue where they are infralapsarian but seek to address some of the objections to this view. I know that the great Dutch Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck, rejected both supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, believing that God's decree is one organic whole. I would agree with this to a point, except that it seems necessary to account within the single decree for the logical decisions God must have made. As with the previous cake analogy, it is difficult to see how God would not first choose the ends he wants and then the means to achieve those ends (this is the essence of the supralapsarian view of course), yet the cake recipe also requires the steps to be ordered in the correct way that leads from assembling and weighting ingredients to the final cake. Most importantly, this view is clear that God elects and rejects actual fallen individual human beings, not just created human beings. 

Therefore, though sovereign, God cannot be regarded as unjust or arbitrary. His grace and mercy to the elect is truly grace and mercy shown to undeserving sinners and His justice and wrath to the reprobabte is truly justice and holy wrath shown to hell-deserving sinners. Thus the harsher aspects of supralapsarianism are avoided, but also the weakness of the traditional infralapsarian view which struggles to explain God's purpose in the creation and the permission of the fall.

The "Suitable Helper" in Genesis 2:18

With God himself speaking, in the creation account in Genesis 2, God says it is not good for Adam to be alone and so he will make "a helper suitable for him" (NASB).

This expression is two words in the Hebrew. The first word is "ezer" which is a noun meaning "a help" or "a helper" and the other word is "neged" which is generally an adverb or a preposition meaning "in front of", "in sight of" or "opposite to". By extension from this last meaning "opposite to", in this context it means "different yet corresponding to", "different yet fitting for", or indeed "opposite yet suitable for".

The English translations of Scripture translate the words in many different ways, but they all have the same flavour. The one God created for Adam was to be a companion or helper who would be different to him yet suitable or fitting for him. Among the translations are the following (taken from English versions available on www.biblegateway.com and versions available to me on e-Sword:

• "an help meet for him" (Geneva, KJV, RV) 
• "an helper to bear him company" (Coverdale)
  
• "a help meet for him" (ASV)
• "a helper corresponding to him" (CSB)
• "a helper that is perfect for him" (CEB)
• "a companion suitable for helping him" (CJB)
• "a helper as his complement" (Concordant Literal Version)
  
• "a suitable partner for him" (CEV)
• "a suitable partner for him" (EHV)
• "a helper fit for him" (RSV, ESV)
• "a helper who is right for him" (GW)
• "a suitable companion to help him" (GNT)
• "a helper as his complement" (HCSB)
• "a helper suited to him" (LITV)
  
• "a helper suitable for him" (LSB, NASB, NIV, MKJV)
• "a helper as his counterpart" (LEB)
• "a helper suited to him" (NABRE)
• "a companion for him who corresponds to him" (NET)
• "a helper comparable to him" (NKJV)
• "a helper who is just right for him" (NLT)
• "a helper as his partner" (NRSV)
• "a partner suited to him" (REB)
• "a helper as his counterpart" (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) 

The translations differ a little, but the meaning is obviously the same. God created the woman to be a helper, companion or partner who would be suitable for, fitting for or complementary for the man.

In these two words is a wonderful picture of the relationship between the husband and wife as far as God is concerned. 

I am so grateful to God for the blessing and gift he sent me in the form of my own wife, who is truly a helper, companion and partner suitable for me, different but complementary to me and "just right" for me.

Translation of the 'Dikaiosune' Word Group

As I have mentioned before, there is a difficulty in most English translations which tend to use two different word groups ("righteous" and "justify") to translate what is one word group in the original Greek ("dikaiosune"). This issue can lead readers in English to fail to see the connection between rightesouness and justificaiton.

A previous suggestion considered resurrecting an old English word, "rightwise", but that was never likely to be practical, I realise.

Instead, I would suggest we might base all translations around the "righteous" word group rather than the "justification" word group. This would give us the following array of terms, all related to righteousness so that the link with the single dikaiosune group in Koine Greek.

Noun – righteousness
Adjective – righteous
Adverb – righteously
Verb – to declare righteous (participle: to have declared righteous; gerund: declaring righteous) or "to be declared righteous"
Actor – the one who declares righteous
Process/Event – declaration of righteousness or declaring righteous.

This approach would result in translations such as the following (based on the ESV but with amendments as appropriate to remove the "justify" word group terminology):

Romans 3:21–28: 

(21) But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— (22) the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and are declared righteous by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show the rightesouness of God, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (26) It was to show his rightesouness at the present time, so that he might be righteous and the One who declares righteous the person who has faith in Jesus. (27) Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. (28) For we hold that one is declared righteous by faith apart from works of the law.

16 Christian Principles of Government and Politics

1. Government is a good gift given by God to humanity. (Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17)

2. God gives governments authority over people. However, in a democratic form of government this means that the people choose the government, which then has limited authority over the people for a limited period until the next election. This means that both the government and the electorate have authority from God in their roles. (Romans 13:2)

3. Human beings are imperfect sinners by nature. Politics needs to recognise that no one—neither rich nor poor—always acts selflessly or from pure motives. (Romans 3:10-12; Romans 3:23)

4. It follows that the power of human government must be limited because governors themselves are also imperfect sinners. There must be checks and balances to ensure that no person can wield too much power. (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 33:22; Jeremiah 17:9)

5. The primary function of government is to protect the country and the people from evildoers. This means that government has a duty to protect the national territory and people from attack, invasion or other external or internal threats. It includes the authority to punish criminals and to wage war or other military action. The government, and not individuals, has the right and duty to be God’s agent of wrath to wage just war and take retribution against criminals, which is called the 'power of the sword.' (Romans 13:3-4)

6. The secondary function of government is to promote, encourage, and reward what is good, to maintain peace and social harmony, and to promote the common welfare of the people. This specifically includes protecting God-given liberties, peace and justice. (Romans 13:3-4)

7. To fund these activities, government has the right to implement taxation and citizens have a legal and a moral duty to pay their taxes. (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 22:17-21)

8. Taxation must be clear, proportionate, fair, just, reasonable and as low as possible in accordance with national needs and the proper limits on government power and activity. (Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18:21-28; Amos 5:11; Luke 19:1-10).

9. Government must be organised so that the rich and powerful cannot abuse their position so that the welfare of the weak, the poor, the disadvantaged and the outsider is defended. (Leviticus 19:15; Psalm 82:3; 1 Corinthians 9:9-11)

10. Private property is a legal convention instituted by God and is a good part of human society. Unjust removal of a person's property is theft. (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:21; Proverbs 10:4)

11. Freedom is a good gift from God and our laws ought to treat us as free citizens. The only justifiable limits on freedom are those which God has instituted, which includes protection of other people's lives, persons and property. (Genesis 2:15-17; 1 Peter 2:16)

12. As we are to love our neighbour and our enemies, all actions must be motivated by wanting what is best for others, not by hatred, malice or envy. This also applies in terms of government policy, even in terms of how criminals are punished or how war is waged. (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5:43-48; Romans 13:9)

13. Government should support societal relationships which help form a stable and civil society. This includes the family as the key institution in any nation, as well as charities, community groups and other civic bodies dedicated to the general good of the people. (Genesis 2:18-25; Ecclesiates 4:12; Romans 12:1-21)

14. Government should regulate business and commerce to make sure it is honest, fair and responsible. (Leviticus 19:36; Deueronomy 25:15; Proverbs 11:1; Proverbs 6:16-19)

15. As government has power to defend the people from criminal or military attacks, so government can legitimately seek to defend the people from other harmful forms of 'attack' such as disease, destitution and dangerous ignorance. Government is therefore justified in ensuring the provision of healthcare, education and welfare for the poor. This does not mean that a full ‘welfare state’ is mandated; it is certainly possible to ensure provision exists without the state being the direct provider. The defence of the nation can also extend to maintaining the culture and way of life of the people.

16. Although government cannot legislate to change people’s hearts and cannot force love or compassion, it can seek to influence behaviour by encouraging good and discouraging evil, whilst leaving room for people to freely choose to do what is good and right. (Psalm 49:7; Romans 13:3-4).

Note: I cite various Old Testament laws not because I believe that that modern states must live by these same rules in order to be acceptable from a Christian standpoint, but to show that since God gave these rules to the human government of the people of Israel, they demonstrate that, in biblical terms, it must be within the legitimate authority of modern governments to do the same. In other words, the Old Testament laws indicate what governments may do and not what all governments must do.

Our Questions and God's Answers

I am happy to say that I have a new, short, e-book published on Kindle. This one is a basic presentation of the gospel in a series of questions and answers, mainly using the Bible directly to answer the questions

The book was very much inspired by an old tract written for soldiers during World War II by the American Presbyterian minister, Gordon MacLennan. I have re-written, modernised and expanded MacLennan's work in this new e-book. Longtime readers of this blog will know that I have previously written about and shared the original tract because it was what led be to become a Christian when I read it some 35 years ago.

I had hoped to make this book available for free, but Amazon insists on a minimum price being set. 

You can find the e-book here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Questions-Gods-Answers-James-Miller-ebook/dp/B0C28RVHBH/

Cleansing the Temple

Yesterday was Palm Sunday, the day in the Christian year marking the start of Holy Week and on which Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem as the Messiah is celebrated. The next day, the Monday of Holy Week, Jesus visited the temple complex in Jerusalem and drove out the money changers and merchants who were turning the house of God into a marketplace for trading ordinary money for the special temple currency (at profitable rates of exchange) and selling animals for sacrifice (at inflated prices).

The incident is recorded in the three Synoptic Gospels at Matthew 21, Mark 11 and Luke 19. Interestingly John's Gospel records a similar event right at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (some believe this is the same incident with the story told out of chronological order, but I think this was likely a different event as the chronology is completely different). This could mean Jesus had to do the same thing at the beginning and end of his public ministry.

What seemed to anger Jesus was two things. First, people exploiting those who wanted to worship God for financial gain. Secondly, God's house being for purposes it was not intended for.

I was thinking about what would be the equivalent to this in our churches today. 

Are there churches that exploit people financially? I am sure that there are organisations calling themselves churches that are more like businesses run for profit. At the obvious end of the spectrum are those who preach "the prosperity gospel". In crude terms, give money to the church and you will receive even more back from God. What a travesty of the truth! It can be dressed up in more subtle ways, but that's the basic message. I am sure Jesus is angry now with those who would directly pervert the gospel for financial ends.

Maybe there are more subtle ways though in which we can set up barriers to worship for people, even if financial gain is not the motive. If we send out a signal that only those with the right kind of education or job, or those with the right accent, or the right hobbies and interests are welcome, we can be putting up barriers to people who don't fit the expected mould. That's why I think those who welcome people to church on a Sunday are absolutely vital in outreach work. All the effort to invite new people to church can be wasted if the welcome people receive is not genuine, warm and friendly when they actually step inside the church building. I believe the skill of welcoming people is vastly underrated as a talent. Churches should treasure those who do it well.

The second aspect to the cleansing of the temple is using our buildings in ways they were not intended for. The situation in the Jerusalem temple seems to have been that the merchants had set up in the "Court of the Gentiles" - the outer precinct of the temple provided by God for non-Jews to come and pray. There is an important point being made here about the extent of the Messiah's mission to take the gospel to all the nations. But what about our church buildings? Does any of this have anything to say about how we use them?

I think it is important to point out that this is not a criticism of churches who make a wide use of their buildings for various purposes. I know that some churches let out halls or rooms to outside groups. That's not really what I'm criticising, at least it is not automatically covered by Jesus' criticism, depending on the circumstances.

The key question is whether some activity the church should be doing or would like to do is being prevented by the building being used for some other purpose. To give an example, suppose a church would like to run an evening service on a Sunday or a prayer meeting on a Wednesday but they decide they can't because that's when some other group has a let to use the church. I would argue that the priorities of the church should always to be a church and any other activities should come far behind if they take place at all. Never should the church's key tasks of worshipping God, prayer, discipling believers and evangelising non-believers be prevented because the church building is being used for something else. How that plays out in practice is for church leadership to wrestle with and sometimes there will be difficult cases that need prayer and wisdom to sort out. 

 Yet the general principle is clear. The church building exists to let the church better be the church first and foremost in its tasks of worship, nurturing the people of God and reaching out to those outside with the gospel. If something is preventing that, it has to go. When we have it any other way, our "temple" needs to be cleansed.

 

(Image: Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple by Theodoor Rombouts)