Reading with M'Cheyne Podcast

William Conley
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Christianity
  • Daily

Notes and comments on the M'Cheyne lectionary william296.substack.com

  1. 2d ago

    Above Reproach, Not Perfect

    This is the M’Cheyne Reading for November 2, 2026. Not exactly sure what is the best title maybe: Shepherds Need Shepherding Too The Qualifications of Elders and the Pastoral Care of Pastors Or Above Reproach, Not Perfect. We come now to the book of Titus, which is one of the pastoral letters of Paul. It deals particularly with the organization of the church and the qualifications of those who serve in pastoral ministry. Starting in verse 4, Paul writes: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” I think we see here a structure of ministers training other ministers. It’s something like an internship. Pastors need to be pastored into the pastoral office. There is a formation that has to take place. Titus had spent time with Paul, and Paul had prepared him for ministry. Now Paul entrusts him with a most important task: to put in order what was left unfinished in Crete and to appoint elders in every town, as Paul had directed him. Then come the qualifications: “If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” Paul continues: “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to refute those who contradict it.” Sometimes when you read this list, you think, Well, this sounds like a perfect person. Who qualifies? I think sometimes in ministry, when you consider all the qualifications and all the demands placed upon you, you begin to think, Well, I’m not it. I can’t do it. Let somebody else do it. Fortunately, we’re not left to do this on our own. This is something God has to work in us. But there are several things I want to point out about these qualifications. First, let’s take the requirement that an elder be the husband of one wife. Does that mean he must be a married man? That’s already a question of interpretation. Then there is the question of his children. Paul says that his children must be believers. But if you look at the Greek word there, pista, it can also mean faithful, reliable, or trustworthy. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they must be believers in the sense of having made a profession of faith. Notice what immediately follows: they must not be open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. Think about this for a moment. These are qualifications for entering the office of elder. It’s not as though we can determine with certainty whether someone’s children are actually believers. Many people enter the church, profess the knowledge of the truth, give all the right answers, and live outwardly holy lives. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are believers. At best, we can judge by what is outwardly evident. But let’s consider an actual case. Suppose Titus is interviewing a man in Crete for the office of elder. For the sake of illustration, we’ll call him Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones may have come to faith relatively recently. He has grown in his understanding of Scripture. He knows sound doctrine. He is married, but his children are already grown and out of the house, and they remain pagans. Would that disqualify him? Or suppose he had been in the church for some time, but his children had not yet made a profession of faith. Would that disqualify him? These are questions we need to ask. I think when we begin asking them, we realize that we have to be careful not to over-qualify someone for the office of elder. I’ve seen this discussed in Greek commentaries. Some interpreters have argued that we need to be careful about insisting that the word means believing children. The point may be that the man governs his household well, and that his children are faithful, orderly, and not rebellious. That is something we can actually observe. But now let’s ask another question. What happens after somebody qualifies for the office? Is this list a continuing checklist to determine whether he remains qualified to serve? We might be tempted to think so. But I think these are primarily qualifications for entering the office. That doesn’t mean they cease to matter afterward. Of course they matter. But are we going to put an elder under discipline every time there is some failure in his life or some difficulty in his household? Think about how difficult that would be. Are we going to review the life of every elder against every item on this list and say, Well, he’s not very hospitable. He hasn’t invited anybody to his house lately. His children aren’t particularly obedient. Some of them seem a little wild. Where does that lead us? I think we need to return to another important premise. The eldership is responsible for guarding and shepherding the church, but the elders are also responsible for working together and caring for one another. Let’s return to Mr. Jones. Suppose his children were already teenagers when he became a Christian. They had not received much formation in the Christian faith. Now one of his sons, Jimmy, wants to marry a pagan. Mr. Jones is deeply concerned. He doesn’t want his son to do that. He has tried to counsel him, but he doesn’t know what to do. Is that grounds for disqualifying him from the eldership? I don’t think so. What should he do? He should go to the other elders and say, Look, I’m having a problem with my son. I don’t know how to handle this. What do you think I should do? Can you help me? If the elders understand that they are responsible for helping one another, they will recognize that this man is working through a difficult problem in his family. That doesn’t necessarily mean he is negligent. It may mean precisely the opposite. He is a concerned father who wants to do what is right. Now, obviously, if a man is neglecting his duties, if he is greedy for gain, violent, arrogant, or living in a pattern of serious disobedience, that is another matter. The church must take these qualifications seriously. There may be circumstances that require discipline or even removal from office. But not every struggle is evidence of disqualification. Sometimes a man needs encouragement. Sometimes he needs correction. Sometimes he needs help from the other elders. This is a shared responsibility. I think there is a real danger if we turn these qualifications into a continuing performance review, as though every failure or difficulty in an elder’s life threatens his office. What will happen? Elders will begin hiding things. A pastor may think, I can’t tell the other elders that my son is going astray. If I do, they may decide I’m no longer qualified. I may lose my office. That is precisely the opposite of what we should want. We should want a pastor to be able to go to the other elders and say, I’m struggling with this. I don’t know what to do. My son seems to be moving away from the faith. I’ve tried talking to him. I’ve tried disciplining him. I don’t know what else to do. That is not necessarily a sign of weakness or negligence. It may be the confession of a faithful father who is genuinely concerned about his child. I think this is one of the strengths of the Presbyterian system of church government. There is a plurality of elders, and the elders are responsible not only for the congregation but also for one another. There is help within the eldership, and there is accountability beyond the individual pastor. It’s not a sign of weakness for a pastor to say, You know what? I don’t know how to handle this particular problem in my family. Bobby, can you help me? Give me some advice. What would you do in this situation? That is not a negligent father. That is a concerned father. He is also a human being. I think we sometimes forget that when we read these qualifications. At first glance, they almost seem to describe a perfect elder, someon… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

  2. 2d ago

    The Obedience of Faith

    Today’s M’Cheyne reading for the 1st of November 2026. The Obedience of Faith 2 Timothy 4 It is striking just how many imperatives Paul gives Timothy in 2 Timothy 4. He drops an entire list of commands: Preach the word. Be ready in season and out of season. Reprove. Rebuke. Exhort. Be sober-minded. Endure suffering. Do the work of an evangelist. Fulfill your ministry. Do your best to come to me soon. Get Mark and bring him with you. Bring the cloak, the books, and the parchments. Beware of Alexander. Do your best to come before winter. Greet Prisca and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus. When we think about the law-gospel distinction, we acknowledge that there is no obedience we can perform that earns our acceptance with God. But that doesn’t mean we don’t obey. Our obedience flows from our regeneration, from the fact that we are a new creation. These commands are given to the redeemed. They are doable, not because the natural man can obey them, but because the new man, renewed by the Spirit, can begin to obey. This is what Scripture calls the obedience of faith. There is nothing legalistic about teaching the third use of the law. When we obey God’s commands because we have been renewed, we are not earning favor with God. We are simply living out the Christian life. Paul is NOT a legalist. He simply teaching us the implications of God’s law for believers. Notice the pattern throughout Scripture: the imperative follows the indicative. We are not commanded to obey in order to obtain life. We are commanded to obey because we have life. This takes us back to Leviticus 18:5: “The one who does them shall live by them.” But we do not obey in order to get life. We obey because we have been given life in Christ. Salvation cannot be earned by obedience, but salvation always produces fruit. Moses was not teaching a system of salvation by the works of the law. The one who does the law then is the one who is redeemed. If you do the law because you are redeemed then you will live. Paul gives these commands to Timothy, his understudy, a pastor charged with proclaiming God’s Word. But the principle applies to all of us. God has given each of us a vocation, and in our vocations we are called to proclaim God’s truth, both in our lives and in our words. We do not obey to become redeemed. We obey because we have been redeemed. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

  3. Oct 28

    Antiochus Epiphanes and the Mystery of the 2,300 Days

    Antiochus Epiphanes and the Mystery of the 2,300 Days Daniel 8: The Ram, the Goat, and the Little Horn This is the M’Cheyne reading for the 23rd of October, but I am posting it today on the 28th. When we come to Daniel 8, we have Daniel’s vision of a ram and a goat. This one is actually pretty straightforward, particularly if we know something about ancient history. Let’s begin in verse 3: I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. This is clearly the Medo-Persian Empire. It is presented as one empire, even though the two parts were not entirely equal. One horn was longer than the other, but together they represented a single administrative and civil power. There were different aspects to the empire, but it was nevertheless one empire. Then, in verse 4, Daniel writes: I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. Now, who eventually conquered the Medo-Persian Empire?It was the Greeks under Alexander the Great. Notice what Daniel sees in verse 5: As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. That prominent horn is Alexander the Great. The image of the goat moving across the earth without touching the ground captures the extraordinary speed of his conquests. Then we come to verses 6–8: It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at it in great rage. I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering its two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it to the ground and trampled on it, and none could rescue the ram from its power. The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. From ancient history we know that Alexander the Great conquered an enormous portion of the known world, but he died at the height of his power. His empire did not remain united. Eventually, it was divided among his successors, producing four major Hellenistic kingdoms. They were Greek-speaking kingdoms, but they were nevertheless distinct political powers. The Little Horn and Antiochus Epiphanes Then we come to verses 9–12: Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. It set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the LORD; it took away the daily sacrifice from the LORD, and his sanctuary was thrown down. Because of rebellion, the LORD’s people and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. This is clearly talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He came to power through intrigue, manipulation, and cunning, and managed to secure control of the Seleucid Empire, one of the four kingdoms that emerged from Alexander’s empire. He then persecuted the Jews in the Beautiful Land, the land of Israel. He interfered with their worship, stopped the daily sacrifices, and desecrated the temple in Jerusalem. Antiochus prospered for a time, just as Daniel describes. How Long Will This Persecution Continue? Then Daniel hears a holy one speaking, and another holy one asks a question. In verses 13–14, we read: Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled, the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?” He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.” How long will Antiochus dominate the Holy Land? How long will the daily sacrifices be interrupted, the sanctuary desecrated, and God’s people trampled underfoot? The answer is 2,300 evenings and mornings, and then the sanctuary will be restored. The 2,300 Evenings and Mornings What are we to make of the 2,300 evenings and mornings? I take them to mean 2,300 actual days, approximately six years and four months. I don’t see any reason to turn them into 2,300 years. Remember the historical context. We have already identified the Medo-Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, and the four kingdoms that emerged after his death. We are talking about the Greek successor kingdoms, and particularly Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution of the Jews. Now, can we identify exactly when those 2,300 days began and ended? Perhaps not. We don’t have a complete chronology of everything that happened, and trying to translate these ancient dates into our own calendar introduces additional difficulties. But notice something in verse 13. The question concerns the entire vision of the sanctuary and God’s people being trampled underfoot. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the 2,300 days began on the very day the sacrifices stopped. It could include the larger period of persecution leading up to the restoration of the sanctuary. So trying to figure out the exact beginning and ending of the 2,300 days may not be necessary. What would we gain by knowing the precise dates? We are far removed from these events, and we don’t have all the historical records needed to reconstruct an exact timeline. Do we even need to? That’s the question. Those living closer to these events may have had a much better understanding of the chronology than we do today. The dates would have meant something to them, even if we cannot reconstruct them precisely. Continuing, we see that Gabriel says that the vision concerns “many days from now.” Is this a problem for us? Do we need to expand this prophecy to 2,300 years from the time of Daniel? Another way to look at this “many days from now,” is to look at it from Daniel’s time in history. Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes were still centuries in the future. There is no reason to suppose that Gabriel is suddenly moving the prophecy thousands of years beyond the historical events he has been describing. I also find the expression “evenings and mornings” interesting because it reminds us of the creation days in Genesis. We ordinarily understand evening and morning as referring to the rhythm of a day. Why should we suddenly turn that into a year? The fact that Daniel is describing symbolic animals in his vision doesn’t mean that every number or period of time must be symbolic as well. Note to the Reader Before I started working through Daniel, I had been influenced by people who interpreted these 2,300 evenings and mornings according to a day-year prophetic calendar. The more I read Daniel, particularly as we move into the later chapters, the more I wonder why we have to do that. It becomes a complicated exercise in trying to match numbers with historical events, and I think we can actually lose sight of what Daniel is telling us. We don’t have to be bound to that kind of prophetic calendar. People have spent an enormous amount of time calculating dates, looking for events in history, and trying to make everything fit. My question is simply this: Why not begin with the historical context Daniel himself gives us? I don’t see anything particularly symbolic about the number 2,300 either. We know that numbers such as three, seven, ten, and twelve frequently have symbolic significance in Scripture. But what are we supposed to do with 2,300? We could divide it up and try to find something significant in the smaller numbers. Gideon had 300 men in the book of Judges. Does that mean the 300 in Daniel has something to do with Gideon’s army? I don’t see how we could establish that. It seems… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

  4. Oct 27

    The End of Days

    This is the M’Cheyne reading for the 27th of October 2026. I have entitled it The End of Days, the Near Horizon, the Far Horizon and Prophetic Perspective. I think this last chapter is not easy, but if we continue using what I call the eclectic approach to this book, we have a framework that can at least put some guardrails on the interpretation so we can preach it effectively without making the text say more or less than what was intended. We need to keep the context, the genre, the original audience and the canonical reading all together if we are going to make sense of this. I am only offering the best reading I can at the moment. In time, I will probably adjust my interpretation as I interact with more and more commentaries and with recent scholarly treatments of this chapter. This is what I have right now. The first thing we need to discuss is what has been called prophetic perspective or prophetic telescoping. This is the characteristic presentation of future events in biblical prophecy in which events separated by substantial intervals of time are viewed together within a single prophetic horizon, without clearly distinguishing the intervening periods. Like distant mountain peaks that appear adjacent, near and distant fulfillments may be presented together even though they occur at different points in history. We see this elsewhere in biblical prophecy. We see it, for example, when we read Matthew chapter 24. Jesus is describing events that are near at hand, but the language also reaches forward to the final consummation. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus says, “When you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel, let the reader understand.” He then tells those in Judea to flee to the mountains. This is referring to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Luke’s parallel account makes the historical reference particularly clear: “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20). Notice what happens as we continue reading. In verses 29–31, Jesus speaks of the sun being darkened, the stars falling from heaven, the Son of Man coming on the clouds, and the gathering of his elect. This has been interpreted in ways that describe the coming judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70, but it also seems to include the gospel age, where the book of Acts describes the gospel going into all the world to gather the elect from the ends of the earth. This work is still continuing until it is complete, anticipating the final coming of Christ. So, on this reading of Matthew 24, you have the desolation of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the entire gospel age in the same prophecy. If we continue reading in Matthew 25, Jesus describes the Son of Man coming in glory, sitting on his glorious throne, gathering all nations, and separating the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31–46). That clearly brings the final judgment into view. So, we see in the Olivet Discourse two horizons. The near horizon is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The far horizon is the final coming of Christ and the resurrection and judgment at the end of history. The prophetic perspective brings these events together. The near judgment anticipates the final judgment. That is very much how I understand Daniel 12 as well. Let’s look at Daniel chapter 12 now. We have to connect it to that notoriously difficult section in Daniel 11:36–45. I’ll just read the last verse: “And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.” Daniel 11:45 I understand this in connection with what follows—the resurrection and final judgment described in chapter 12. There are many endings, but there is one final end. Then we read in Daniel 12: “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. “But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” Daniel 12:1–4 Now, the end envisioned here, I believe, is the end. You have some awakening to everlasting life and others to shame and everlasting contempt. This sounds like the final judgment. I think the language points us forward to that final end. Then we have Michael, the great prince who has charge of Daniel’s people. Who is this Michael? There are several ideas. Some believe he is an angel who is watching over Israel. Some have even identified Michael as possibly Jesus. I’m not going to settle that here, but what we can take away from this is that God uses heavenly means to care for and deliver his people. My inclination is to think of Michael as an angel tasked with watching over Israel. A Time, Times and Half a Time Now we come to another hard section to understand. Let us begin reading in verse 5: 5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?” What things? What was explained above—the end of all things or the consummation. Let’s continue reading to find out how long. 7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” Now, do we get a straight answer? Yes, we get “a time, times and half a time.” What does that mean? It is half of seven. It is the same period expressed in the book of Revelation as 1,260 days and 42 months. If we follow the historicist interpretation, which converts days into years, we get 1,260 years. Now, what are we to do with that number? Where does it belong? Many, many prophetic time schemes have come from this, but at the end of all this, we still find things that just don’t fit. I, along with many others, understand “a time, times and half a time” as a symbolic period of time. Seven signals completion, and here we have half of seven. It is a broken seven. So I understand this as indicating that the time of persecution is limited. It will not continue forever. This is what I think this time indicator means. On this reading, we are not given an exact calendar for the end. I believe there is wisdom in that. If we knew the end was thousands of years away, we might become careless. If we knew it was very near, we might be tempted to stand around and wait. When Jesus ascended, the disciples stood looking into heaven. It says in Acts 1:9–11: 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” God doesn’t want us to stand around and wait for his return. He has given us work to do. I believe God accommodated our frailty by giving us what we need. There is a coming end to the persecutions. They will not continue forever. Praise the Lord. Come, Lord Jesus! The relationship between this period and the 1,290 and 1,335 days later in the chapter needs more study. I don’t want … This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

  5. Oct 26

    The Coming Antichrist

    Today’s M’Cheyne reading comes from Daniel chapter 11. Now that we come to Daniel 11, if you know something about intertestamental history, and particularly if you have read the books of Maccabees in the Apocrypha, this chapter reads like fulfilled prophecy. It is remarkably accurate in describing what happened during this period of Israel’s history. I once heard a sermon by a young seminary graduate who was preparing for ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He was preaching on this chapter, and I remember thinking that he did an excellent job. He was able to bring in all the historical details and explain just how complicated life was for the people of Israel during this period. He may have lost a few people along the way because there was so much detail, but I thought he handled it remarkably well. There was so much intrigue, so many conspiracies, and so much political maneuvering. Israel was caught between two very powerful kingdoms, the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria, and the people of Israel were constantly under pressure as these kingdoms struggled for power. Eventually, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes came to power, and things became particularly difficult for the Jews. Antiochus interfered in the affairs of the Jewish priesthood, supported those who favored Hellenization, and eventually desecrated the temple in Jerusalem. It was a time of great apostasy within Israel, as some abandoned their ancestral faith and embraced Greek religious and cultural practices. It was also a time of terrible persecution for those who remained faithful to the covenant. This is the historical setting in which Judas Maccabeus and his brothers rose up in resistance against the Seleucid authorities. Their struggle, recorded in the books of Maccabees, eventually led to the purification and rededication of the temple in 164 BC. When you read Daniel 11 against this historical background, the correspondence is remarkable. The chapter describes the struggles between these kingdoms, their alliances, their betrayals, and eventually the persecution of God’s people under Antiochus Epiphanes. It is difficult to appreciate the extraordinary detail of this prophecy without understanding something of the history that unfolded between the Old and New Testaments. The King Who Exalts Himself Given that so many commentaries have done such a remarkably good job of explaining this period in history, I’m not going to elaborate on the first part of Daniel 11. What I want to come to is what happens when we get to verse 36. In my Bible, it has its own heading: The King Who Exalts Himself. Iain Duguid, in his commentary on Daniel, makes what I think is a very good observation. He notes that there is no clear transition in Daniel 11 from Antiochus Epiphanes to a future ruler. Nevertheless, the events described in verses 40–45, particularly the king’s final campaign and death, do not correspond to what we know historically about Antiochus. Duguid suggests that Antiochus serves as a type of a final Antiochus-like ruler whose appearance and defeat are still awaiting fulfillment. He compares this prophetic perspective to Matthew 24, where the destruction of Jerusalem and the events surrounding the end of the age appear within the same prophetic horizon. I think Duguid’s analysis is spot on. We can’t make this fit Antiochus Epiphanes. It seems to be talking about the next empire, which would be Rome. But even then, when you look at the details, people have tried to figure out how this exactly explains Rome. I think what we need to do in this particular passage is look at it as being written more symbolically, and not as though we’re reading history like we were in the previous verses. This is akin to what Ezekiel did when he gave the prophecies concerning Gog and Magog. They’re symbolic. They’re not necessarily meant to be taken as a one-to-one correspondence with particular historical events. Let’s read what Daniel says: This king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but exalt himself above them all. I think when you read this section, it seems to be almost like the office of a persecutor of the church, extending down through history to its final fulfillment, which I would say we see in the imagery of the prostitute, Babylon the Great, in Revelation 17 and 18. I don’t think we want to try to fit this into one particular historical institution. Is this Rome? Is this the papacy? Who exactly is Babylon the Great? I think you can simply look at the imagery and recognize a recurring pattern in history. You have Antiochus Epiphanes, who is a little horn, and then you have a constant repetition of that pattern. You can look at that and say the papacy fits some of it. But it shouldn’t be limited to the papacy. It repeats itself. Even when you get back to this particular image, we don’t see a little horn. We just see a persecuting power. I think that’s how we have to take this. We have to put this more in the register of symbolism than a wooden explanation of what each part means. For example, it says: He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it was literally Edom, Moab, and the leaders of Ammon. I think those could be used as symbols for people groups, for peoples that were close to Israel. If you treat it this way, I think you have a much better way of preaching this, because you don’t have to say the Beautiful Land is this, and somehow make it fit with Edom, Moab, and Ammon. You don’t have to fit every detail into a particular historical event to recognize that this prophecy points to something future to Daniel, and even future to us, while it also can be describing a recurring pattern throughout history. There is an Edom, a Moab, and an Ammon in every age, so to speak, but we don’t have to identify precisely who they are. The imagery has a certain plasticity that allows it to describe different historical circumstances, including the persecution and deliverance of God’s people, without requiring a one-to-one correspondence with particular nations or events. The Coming Antichrist: Who Is He? So what about the coming Antichrist? Who is he? Based on my aforementioned interpretation, I think we need to go back to the root meaning of the word. Antichrist refers to someone who opposes Christ or seeks to take his place. I remember reading Geerhardus Vos’s The Pauline Eschatology and thinking, this is supposed to be the best Reformed treatment of eschatology available at the time. I thought I was finally going to understand who the Antichrist was and have all my questions about biblical prophecy settled once and for all. Yet when I read it, I was disappointed. One of the points I took away from his discussion was that the man of sin, the Antichrist, and the little horn aren’t simply identified with one another in Scripture. Now, I don’t want to misrepresent Vos. He certainly believed in a final manifestation of evil. But one of the things I found particularly helpful in his discussion was his recognition that these prophetic descriptions cannot simply be laid over one another as though every detail corresponds. In fact, Vos explicitly says that the Danielic vision and Paul’s description of the man of sin cannot be laid over one another like transparent paper over a map. There are similarities, but there are also significant differences. I think it has taken me years to come to grips with the implications of that observation. Maybe we need to allow these descriptions to refer to real people and real institutions without requiring them all to be fulfilled in one partic… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

  6. Oct 25

    Without Church Mothers, There Are No Church Fathers

    Without Church Mothers, There Are No Church Fathers Today’s Reading with M’Cheyne comes from 1 Timothy 2:11–15. Tomorrow we will pick up again with Daniel chapter 8. There is probably no passage of Scripture more offensive to our modern Western cultural sensibilities than 1 Timothy 2:11–15. Paul writes: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. Feminism has reacted strongly against patriarchalism, and I suspect this passage has caused more difficulty for feminists than almost any other passage in Scripture.1 It contains just about everything the feminist movement objects to. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. Paul does not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man. Adam was formed first, then Eve. Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived. Then Paul says that women will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety. Strike one, strike two, strike three. Just about everything in this passage is unacceptable to modern feminist sensibilities. But what are faithful Christians supposed to do with it? This is our Bible. This is our teaching. How do we teach this passage without making it sound quite as offensive as it does to our modern culture? I think we have to begin by recognizing that God created an order. This passage is not teaching that women are inferior to men. It has to do with vocation. What is the vocation of mankind, male and female? One is not greater than the other. They are different. We can see that in our anatomy, in our capacities, and in the different ways men and women ordinarily respond to the world. I believe Paul is teaching that the pastoral office is not given to women. It is a particular, special office in the church. But that does not mean women do not teach men. Think about it. Every boy, every girl, every child is taught, to a very great extent, by his or her mother. Why do we call our first language our mother tongue? Because children ordinarily learn to speak from their mothers. Women are teaching men all the time. They teach in their homes, in their families, and throughout the many spheres of life in which God has placed them. It is certainly not because women lack the ability to teach that Paul reserves the pastoral office for men. Women have enormous teaching responsibilities already. Nor is Paul saying that a woman’s only job is to have babies. But childbearing is something women can do that men cannot. Men cannot bear children. We cannot carry a child in the womb. We cannot nurse a baby as a mother can. There are things women do that men simply cannot do, and we ought not to diminish the importance of those things. Consider the tremendous influence of mothers upon their children. Who teaches children their first words? Who teaches them so many of the ordinary things of life? Who shapes their earliest understanding of the world? Much of that work is hidden. It does not attract public recognition. But that does not make it any less important. Think about Monica, the mother of Augustine. She prayed for him. She taught him. She continued to pray for him, even when he wandered far from the faith. Look at the result. Her work was largely hidden, but what an extraordinary influence she had upon the history of the church.2 We read the church fathers. We study their theology. We quote Augustine. But without the church mothers, there are no church fathers. Indeed, without mothers, there is no humanity at all. I do not want to say much more about this passage because I think I have said enough. I understand why it is difficult in our culture. But I believe part of the difficulty is that we have lost something of a full biblical worldview. We need to recover an appreciation for the beauty of what God has created in mankind, both male and female. We are not supposed to be in competition with one another. We are supposed to dance together. Think about a dance. In order to dance, someone leads and someone follows. But the dance does not work if everything comes from one direction. The response of the one following is just as much a part of the dance as the movement of the one leading. There has to be a mutual responsiveness. There has to be harmony. There has to be an appreciation for what the other person brings to the dance. If you have not learned that, then you have not learned how to dance. Perhaps that is something we need to recover. Not competition between men and women, but the beauty of their different vocations, working together in the order God has given us. A Final Word to Men There is one more thing I want to say, particularly to men. I have heard women in the church make an interesting observation. If women were called to the special office of pastor, the men would eventually stop doing anything. They would simply leave the work to the women. If they take leadership roles as ordained deaconesses—men will stop “deaconing” altogether. There may be more truth to this observation than we care to admit. Let the women do it! We can see something of this problem even in the garden. Adam and Eve were called to exercise dominion together, but when temptation came, they failed to act together in obedience to God. I believe the fall involved a rupture of the good order God had established between the man and his wife. It was not that Eve was weaker and Adam was stronger. They were not working together in their God-ordained roles. Even today, men can fail in their responsibilities by becoming so occupied with their own projects, work, and personal interests that they neglect their calling to teach, lead, and care for those God has entrusted to them. If women assume the responsibilities of the pastoral office, I suspect many men would simply withdraw. Some might not even bother coming to church. They would rather go fishing, hunting, building something, or pursuing whatever else interests them. This is not an argument that women cannot have vocations outside the home. I am not saying that at all. Proverbs 31 should put that notion to rest. The woman described there is engaged in commerce, buying and selling, managing property, and conducting business. Her work extends well beyond the walls of her home, even as she continues to care for her household. What I am saying is that I believe crossing the boundary God has established for the pastoral office would have terrible consequences for men. It would give them another opportunity to neglect responsibilities they are already too inclined to avoid. Whatever harms men ultimately harms women as well. We were not created to live independently of one another. That is why I believe God’s order is always the best order. But men must understand something. The reservation of the pastoral office to qualified men is not a privilege. It is a service. Even men who are not called to the pastoral office are still called to teach, lead, and instruct in their homes, just as women are called to teach, lead, and instruct in their homes. Nobody gets out of the teaching role. Everybody has a responsibility to teach. There are different spheres and different vocations given to male and female, but they are mutually beneficial. One does not diminish the other. Both are necessary, and both are called to serve. Christ did not come to be served, but to serve. If men use this passage to assert their authority while neglecting their responsibilities, they have missed the entire point. The calling is not to be the macho man who rules over everyone else. The calling is to be a servant. That is how men are called to lead. That is how they are called to love their wives. That is how they are called to serve the church. The dance requires both to participat… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

  7. Oct 23

    The Sea Monsters and the Son of Man

    This is the M’Cheyne reading for October 23rd, although this passage is from yesterday’s reading. It is a day late, but that’s sometimes how I roll. So let’s begin. In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.” — Daniel 7:1–3 (NIV) Introduction Now, the first thing to recognize is that Daniel 7 is a vision. This is something Daniel saw. To understand his vision, I think it helps to have some familiarity with the ancient Near Eastern background. Both the Babylonians and the Canaanites had stories about the sea, chaos, and great battles between the gods and the powers of the sea. In Babylonian mythology, you have Marduk and Tiamat. Tiamat represents the primordial sea, and Marduk defeats her. He then divides her body and uses it to form the heavens and the earth. In Canaanite mythology, you have a somewhat similar story involving Baal and Yam. Yam is the god of the sea, who challenges the divine order and seeks supremacy among the gods. Baal battles Yam and defeats him. So you have these two stories. Marduk defeats Tiamat. Baal defeats Yam. In both, the sea is associated with chaos and threatening powers that must be overcome. Daniel is not simply retelling these pagan myths. He is speaking into a culture familiar with these Babylonian and Canaanite stories. I believe that maybe these myths themselves represent a corrupted understanding of something that is actually true about creation, order, and chaos. I will get to that later. The point is that this imagery of the great sea being stirred up, and these terrifying beasts emerging from it, was something that ancient readers would immediately recognize. We on the other hand, living in the 21st century, have no clue, and thus we need to familiarize ourselves with the ancient near eastern cultural context if we are going to understand what Daniel was trying to communicate. Reading Daniel Through Genesis Chapter 1 Now, that’s the ancient Near Eastern background. But if we look at the biblical background, and particularly if we read this through the first chapter of Genesis, I think we begin to see something else. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. This is the famous tohu va-vohu text that has produced voluminous scholarly literature as to what it meant in its ANE context. If we just take its lexical meaning, it is “without form and void.” It is unformed. It has not yet been ordered into a habitation for man. This is before the six days of creation, during which God forms and fills the heavens and the earth, making the world into a place where man can dwell in fellowship with God. Now, think about what Daniel is seeing. These kingdoms are coming up out of the sea. And in a sense, they are going backwards toward this pre-creation chaos found in Genesis 1. This is not mankind in the Edenic state. In fact, they are not even men. They are beasts. And remember the order of creation. On the sixth day, God creates the beasts, and then he creates man in his own image. Man is given dominion over the beasts. But here in Daniel, we see the opposite. Instead of men exercising dominion over the beasts, we have beasts exercising dominion over men. So everything about this vision is moving backwards. It is a reversal of the creation order. Instead of moving toward fullness and completion, these kingdoms are moving backwards toward chaos, toward the unformed condition of the world before God ordered it as a habitation for man. And I think that’s an important way to understand these four kingdoms. They are not simply political powers. They represent humanity becoming beastly, turning away from the purpose for which God created man in the first place. Now, when I speak of chaos, I am not suggesting that creation was evil in the beginning. God created the heavens and the earth, and his creation was good. The unformed condition of the earth was not sinful. It was simply not yet formed and filled. But sin is different. Sin is a privation of the good. It does not have a positive existence of its own. It is the corruption of something good that God has made. In that sense, sin moves in the same direction as uncreation and destruction. It moves away from order, away from fullness, away from the purpose for which God created the world. It is going backwards. That is what I see happening in Daniel’s vision. These kingdoms are not moving humanity toward its intended fullness. They are moving backwards toward chaos. Instead of becoming more fully what God created man to be, humanity is becoming beastly. Yet God will arrest this backward movement through a Redeemer. We see Him later in this chapter as the Son of Man, and he is given a dominion that will never be destroyed. He overcomes these sea monsters and moves all of creation toward its consummation, not toward chaos. This, I contend, is Daniel’s reversal of the Babylonian and Canaanite myths. God is not however actually fighting chaos monsters. He is destroying the works of Satan, the Dragon, the ultimate enemy of God’s good order. The Dragon seeks chaos and destruction. He is working to undo creation. He acts like a chaos monster, but he is not a rival to God, as we see in the Babylonian and Canaanite myths. He is a creature, entirely subject to God’s sovereign authority. The City of Man is A Beast Now, as we look at these sea monsters, these beasts coming out of the sea, and understand the ancient Near Eastern context, we must not think that whatever nations these beasts represent, and I am going to get to that in a minute, they are the only beastly kingdoms. Every kingdom is beastly because every kingdom is fallen. Every man born of Adam and Eve is fallen from what man was created to be. In that sense, fallen mankind has become beastly. So all the kingdoms are beastly, whether we are talking about the Aztecs, the Incas, China, India or any other kingdom in history. Wherever you find a kingdom and a civil government, you are dealing with fallen government, just as you are dealing with fallen man. All of them are fallen. The reason we have these four beastly kingdoms represented to us here in Daniel is that these are the particular kingdoms God is using as his servants to bring about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. God is working through these kingdoms in history to accomplish his redemptive purposes. They are the nations God uses in Redemptive History. But these kingdoms do not last. They are all destroyed, and ultimately their dominion is brought to an end by the coming of the Son of Man. This includes all kingdoms and not just the four represented here. Now, if we think about this in the context of fallen mankind, the coming of the Son of Man must not only destroy these sea monsters, these beastly kingdoms, but he must also slay fallen man so that man can be made anew. Nobody can be resurrected to new life unless he first dies. The Redeemer, the Son of Man must destroy the beastliness of fallen man. This is necessary in order for there to be resurrected life. He will destroy what the Dragon initiated in bringing about the fall of mankind. Thus the sea monsters and all fallen man are being conquered by the Redeemer. Some are raised to eternal life, and others are raised to judgment and eternal death. This is why the new birth is necessary. Fallen man must die in order to be made new. Redeemed man must die with Christ in order to be raised with Christ. Identifying the Beasts If we read this passage and look at the four beasts, there are two primary ways of identifying them. One is to see them as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. The o… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

    The Sea Monsters and the Son of Man

  8. Oct 23

    The Sea Monsters and the Son of Man

    This is the M’Cheyne reading for October 23rd, although this passage is from yesterday’s reading. It is a day late, but that’s sometimes how I roll. So let’s begin. In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.” — Daniel 7:1–3 (NIV) Introduction Now, the first thing to recognize is that Daniel 7 is a vision. This is something Daniel saw. To understand his vision, I think it helps to have some familiarity with the ancient Near Eastern background. Both the Babylonians and the Canaanites had stories about the sea, chaos, and great battles between the gods and the powers of the sea. In Babylonian mythology, you have Marduk and Tiamat. Tiamat represents the primordial sea, and Marduk defeats her. He then divides her body and uses it to form the heavens and the earth. In Canaanite mythology, you have a somewhat similar story involving Baal and Yam. Yam is the god of the sea, who challenges the divine order and seeks supremacy among the gods. Baal battles Yam and defeats him. So you have these two stories. Marduk defeats Tiamat. Baal defeats Yam. In both, the sea is associated with chaos and threatening powers that must be overcome. Daniel is not simply retelling these pagan myths. He is speaking into a culture familiar with these Babylonian and Canaanite stories. I believe that maybe these myths themselves represent a corrupted understanding of something that is actually true about creation, order, and chaos. I will get to that later. The point is that this imagery of the great sea being stirred up, and these terrifying beasts emerging from it, was something that ancient readers would immediately recognize. We on the other hand, living in the 21st century, have no clue, and thus we need to familiarize ourselves with the ancient near eastern cultural context if we are going to understand what Daniel was trying to communicate. Reading Daniel Through Genesis Chapter 1 Now, that’s the ancient Near Eastern background. But if we look at the biblical background, and particularly if we read this through the first chapter of Genesis, I think we begin to see something else. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. This is the famous tohu va-vohu text that has produced voluminous scholarly literature as to what it meant in its ANE context. If we just take its lexical meaning, it is “without form and void.” It is unformed. It has not yet been ordered into a habitation for man. This is before the six days of creation, during which God forms and fills the heavens and the earth, making the world into a place where man can dwell in fellowship with God. Now, think about what Daniel is seeing. These kingdoms are coming up out of the sea. And in a sense, they are going backwards toward this pre-creation chaos found in Genesis 1. This is not mankind in the Edenic state. In fact, they are not even men. They are beasts. And remember the order of creation. On the sixth day, God creates the beasts, and then he creates man in his own image. Man is given dominion over the beasts. But here in Daniel, we see the opposite. Instead of men exercising dominion over the beasts, we have beasts exercising dominion over men. So everything about this vision is moving backwards. It is a reversal of the creation order. Instead of moving toward fullness and completion, these kingdoms are moving backwards toward chaos, toward the unformed condition of the world before God ordered it as a habitation for man. And I think that’s an important way to understand these four kingdoms. They are not simply political powers. They represent humanity becoming beastly, turning away from the purpose for which God created man in the first place. Now, when I speak of chaos, I am not suggesting that creation was evil in the beginning. God created the heavens and the earth, and his creation was good. The unformed condition of the earth was not sinful. It was simply not yet formed and filled. But sin is different. Sin is a privation of the good. It does not have a positive existence of its own. It is the corruption of something good that God has made. In that sense, sin moves in the same direction as uncreation and destruction. It moves away from order, away from fullness, away from the purpose for which God created the world. It is going backwards. That is what I see happening in Daniel’s vision. These kingdoms are not moving humanity toward its intended fullness. They are moving backwards toward chaos. Instead of becoming more fully what God created man to be, humanity is becoming beastly. Yet God will arrest this backward movement through a Redeemer. We see Him later in this chapter as the Son of Man, and he is given a dominion that will never be destroyed. He overcomes these sea monsters and moves all of creation toward its consummation, not toward chaos. This, I contend, is Daniel’s reversal of the Babylonian and Canaanite myths. God is not however actually fighting chaos monsters. He is destroying the works of Satan, the Dragon, the ultimate enemy of God’s good order. The Dragon seeks chaos and destruction. He is working to undo creation. He acts like a chaos monster, but he is not a rival to God, as we see in the Babylonian and Canaanite myths. He is a creature, entirely subject to God’s sovereign authority. The City of Man is A Beast Now, as we look at these sea monsters, these beasts coming out of the sea, and understand the ancient Near Eastern context, we must not think that whatever nations these beasts represent, and I am going to get to that in a minute, they are the only beastly kingdoms. Every kingdom is beastly because every kingdom is fallen. Every man born of Adam and Eve is fallen from what man was created to be. In that sense, fallen mankind has become beastly. So all the kingdoms are beastly, whether we are talking about the Aztecs, the Incas, China, India or any other kingdom in history. Wherever you find a kingdom and a civil government, you are dealing with fallen government, just as you are dealing with fallen man. All of them are fallen. The reason we have these four beastly kingdoms represented to us here in Daniel is that these are the particular kingdoms God is using as his servants to bring about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. God is working through these kingdoms in history to accomplish his redemptive purposes. They are the nations God uses in Redemptive History. But these kingdoms do not last. They are all destroyed, and ultimately their dominion is brought to an end by the coming of the Son of Man. This includes all kingdoms and not just the four represented here. Now, if we think about this in the context of fallen mankind, the coming of the Son of Man must not only destroy these sea monsters, these beastly kingdoms, but he must also slay fallen man so that man can be made anew. Nobody can be resurrected to new life unless he first dies. The Redeemer, the Son of Man must destroy the beastliness of fallen man. This is necessary in order for there to be resurrected life. He will destroy what the Dragon initiated in bringing about the fall of mankind. Thus the sea monsters and all fallen man are being conquered by the Redeemer. Some are raised to eternal life, and others are raised to judgment and eternal death. This is why the new birth is necessary. Fallen man must die in order to be made new. Redeemed man must die with Christ in order to be raised with Christ. Identifying the Beasts If we read this passage and look at the four beasts, there are two primary ways of identifying them. One is to see them as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit william296.substack.com

See All (54)

About

Notes and comments on the M'Cheyne lectionary william296.substack.com

Information