The church’s job is not to grow. The church’s job is not to thrive or even to survive. The church’s job is to be the church.

Tim Suttle, Shrink: Faithful Ministry in a Church-Growth Culture, 30.

53. — All these powers are the attributes of Church discipline proper, which the Church herself exercises. But parallel to them is to be considered the power which belongs to the State in Church matters, the State or worldly government; the gubernatio ecclesiae civilis [civil government of the church = “that power which the civil magistrate exercises with respect to the church within his jurisdiction; specifically, a responsibility to protect true worship and the law of God. The power of the magistrate is defined as circa sacra, around the holy, not in sacra, in the holy” (Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 133). — [Johann Heinrich] Heidegger (Med. XXVII, 43): “The government of the Church has been ecclesiastical in the past. It is civil, so far as the believing magistrate, armed with the sword, also cares for the Church along with the State and furthers and protects the pure worship of God, as the custodian of the two tables.”

54. — The State has the right to make laws and to watch over their observance; and all that the State ordains without conflicting with the Law of God, obligates the individual to obey and binds him in his conscience, because government is of God. — [Benedict] Pictet (XIII, 13, 2): “What are the functions of the magistrate? Ans. (1) To institute equitable and just laws and to sanction them with penalties that fit the crime; (2) to administer justice according to the law.” — [Johann Heinrich] Heidegger (Med. XXVII, 46): “The power of the magistrate consists in legislation and in the dispensing of judgments. — But the human laws of the civil power have no validity at all in regard to anything enjoined or forbidden by divine law. They are only valid for things which, where divine laws are not explicit, make for the preservation of order in human society. And so long as they do not sanction anything base or dishonorable, any laws of this kind bind conscience, because obedience depends not only on wrath but also on conscience, Rom. 13. 5 (not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake). Not because conscience of itself is subject to human laws, but because the magistracy is a divine ordinance and so receive from God who ordains it the power to pass laws. And since the power to legislate is invalid without judgments, judicial power also belongs to the magistrate.”

55. — But the government’s power extends still further. It comprises not only the sphere of civic life but also extends into the Church sphere — but here within quite definite limits, which the government must not pass without hurting the Church. — [Benedict] Pictet (XIII, xiii, 3): “The magistrate deals not only with things civil but also with things sacred, whence to him is entrusted the custody of God’s law.” — [Francis] Turretin (XVIII, xxxiv, 3): “The orthodox — lay it down, that the godly and believing magistrate cannot and ought not to be excluded from all care of religion and things sacred; such care is demanded of him by God; but that this right must be circumscribed within certain limits, to avoid confusion between the functions of ecclesiastical and political order.” — The Christian government, as all dogmaticians agree, is the “custodian of the two tables.”

56. — Church government proper does not belong to the State. — [Francis] Turretin (XVIII, xxix, 20): “The power of the magistrate in sacred things ought not to abrogate the power which belongs to the rulers of the Church, because although they deal with the same object materially, it is not the same formally. The power of the magistrate is outward, that of the pastor inward. The former is compulsory and corporal, armed as it is with the right and power of the sword; the latter is spiritual, coercing and convincing with spiritual weapons, i.e., with the word of God, and with censures applied to conscience. The former includes dominium, the latter only ministerium. The former is concerned with the Church and holy things kata to exo [according outside], the latter resides in the actual Church and is concerned kata to eso [according inside]. The former is called ecclesiastical objectively only and improperly; the latter formally and strictly.”

57. — The civil government’s power extends only circa sacra (not in sacra); as God’s servant it is entitled, or more correctly, bound to further the well-being of the Church in every connection; especially to give her the outward means for achieving her purposes, to support the Church’s outward means for achieving her purposes, to support the Church’s servants in the exercise of their office, to take measures for upholding Church order, to remove unworthy servants of the Church, to lead the more comprehensive Synods, to found schools, to take up oppressed communions of related faith: on the other hand to prevent the outcropping of false doctrines, and also to give protection against the misuses of Church authority. — [Johann Heinrich] Heidegger (Med. XXVII, 52): “Anything but simple is the care and power which belongs to the magistrate in religion and the Church. In that case the magistrate’s power as such regarding the Church consists in his being able and not able only but also bound to do that, by which he can serve Christ and His kingdom by the power granted him by God and to expand that kingdom. He is God’s minister alike to the individuals under him and also to the Church subjected to his imperium. — Therefor as regards Christ it is not power but diakonia [service] and kedemonia [guardianship] (ministerium et procuratio, ministry and delegated rule).

Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 691-694.

Ps 82 opens abruptly, without an introduction, with an immediate focus on God (Yahweh) having taken his stand in the midst of a council, or assembly, of divine beings while he pronounces judgment (v 1). He is clearly in charge, presiding over the meeting. “God” is not further identified, but he is surely Yahweh, the “Great God” who is designated as the “Great King over all the gods” . . . The “gods” . . . are the divine beings who function as his counselors and agents. cf. v 6; Pss 8:6; 29:1 (“sons of gods”); 89:6–7; Exod 15:11; Job 1:6; 2:1; Gen 6:2. The scene is pictured as that of a divine assembly in which the great king pronounces sentence on some of the gods who have failed in their duties. . . .

Yahweh expects judges and leaders to protect the marginalized people in society: the poor, the oppressed, and those without family support. Thus Job in his days of power and wealth testified that he went into the gate (where legal cases were tried) and “delivered the poor who cried, / and the orphan who had no helper. / The blessing of the poor came upon me, / and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy” (Job 29:12–13, NRSV). Further he declared: “I was eyes to the blind, / and feet to the lame. / I was a father to the needy, / and championed the cause of the stranger. / I broke the fangs of the unrighteous / and made them drop their prey from their teeth” (Job 29:15–17, NRSV).

MARVIN TATE, PSALMS 51-100, VOLUME 20 (WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY), 334, 336.

[Psalm 58] is a vehement denunciation of the corruption of leaders and judges and an equally vehement call for their judgment. It concludes with an affirmation of the justice of God. . . . The background of the address to the . . . “mighty ones/gods,” in v 2 is that reflected in Deut 32:8–9 and Ps 82, which is the concept of the apportioned assignment of divine beings, or angels, to support and establish justice among the people to whom they were assigned. In Ps 82, the divine beings are put under the judgment of Yahweh because of their failure to maintain justice for the weak and dependent people of their realms (see Comment, Ps 82). The actual functions of the divine beings were exercised, of course, by human agents: kings, leaders, judges. It is clear in Ps 58 that immoral leaders are attacked and that they are the . . . “mighty ones/gods,” of v 2a. Thus the expression is sarcastic, addressing leaders who are supposed to function as agents of divine beings (probably claiming divine ordination for their powers) but who are in reality . . . “wicked ones” (v 4), whose true nature is described emphatically in v 3. There is probably an intended contrast between the “Mighty Ones” and the “sons of mankind” (translated “people” above). The leaders have the means and the responsibility to care for the common people, who have little defense against the oppression of those who have power. The Mighty Ones plot evil in their minds (“hearts”) and then carry it out in the land (v 3; cf. Ps 36:5), as in Mic 2:1:

Woe to those who desire wickedness and work evil upon their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand. (RSV)

The condemnation of unjust judgments and the evasion of the responsibility for justice on the part of leaders is a rather common subject in the prophetic literature: e.g., Amos 5:7; 6:12; Isa 1:23; 5:23; 10:1–4; Mic 3:11; Jer 5:26–29.

MARVIN TATE, PSALMS 51-100, VOLUME 20 (WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY), 83-85.

The message of the story is the message of beauty, as effective as that message in marble or paint. Its part in the economy of life is to give joy. . . . To give joy; in and through the joy to stir and feed the life of the spirit: is not this the legitimate function of the story and education?

Sara Cone Bryant, How to Tell Stories to Children, 3.

[A repeated theme in The Spreading Flame is F. F. Bruce’s contention that “Christianity was organized for catastrophe” Bruce notes:] The story of the Christian Church of the first three centuries is largely a commentary on this [Christ’s promise of triumph to those who persevere]. In the fiercest of tribulations Christianity proved its capacity for survival, and not for mere survival but for actual victory. And the victory was won by spiritual weapons alone. . . . We review the history of Christianity up to the year 313 with no sense of shame, but with a sense that here is something to evoke gratitude and inspire courage. The qualities that triumphed then are the qualities which still transmute disaster into victory.

F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, 288-289.

I, do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approved by the General Assemblies of this National Church, and ratified by law, in the year 1690, and frequently confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament since that time, to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith; As likewise, I do own the purity of government and discipline now so happily established therein; which doctrine, worship, and Church government I am persuaded is founded on the Word of God, and agreeable thereto; And I promise that through the grace of God, I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same, and to the utmost of my power, shall in my station assert, maintain, and defend the said doctrine, worship, discipline, and government . . . I shall in my practice conform myself to the said worship, and submit to the said discipline and government, and never endeavor, directly nor indirectly, the prejudice or subversion of the same; and I promise, that I shall follow no divisive course from the present establishment in this Church, renouncing all doctrines, tenets, or opinions whatsoever, contrary to or inconsistent with the said doctrine, worship, and government of this Church.

DAVID HALL, ED., THE PRACTICE OF CONFESSIONAL SUBSCRIPTION, LOC. 486-487.

Every year at the opening of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, the wife of the moderator is presented a silver brooch that was created in 1843 to commemorate the Disruption, which gave birth to the Free Church [see images below]. Fashioned into a wreath of thistles, a central section depicts the burning bush, a symbol of the Church of Scotland, and it has five tombstones etched on it with the names of those the founders believed were important historical figures. The brooch heralds Andrew Melville, John Knox, David Welsh, James Renwick, and Alexander Henderson, and it is symbolic in multiple ways. The passing of history has dulled Henderson’s name, which is barely visible even with a magnifying glass, and it is time to revive his memory. With his image fading even among small groups of those who cherish his memory, my hope is that this updated biography will help to revive an interest in Alexander Henderson and the covenanting movement he led.

L. Charles Jackson, Riots, Revolutions, and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson, 256.

His last statement to the Glasgow Assembly indicated his high degree of hope in the peace and harmony that presbyterian ecclesiology would bring to Scotland and perhaps even the world. . . . Henderson must be studied with a careful and nuanced reading of his view of covenant theology as well as an understanding of how he connected eschatology with presbyterian ecclesiology. A closer look at the relationship of eschatology and ecclesiology in early modern Scotland ought to encourage more fruitful inquiries and foster scholarly conversation in this often-overlooked area of modern theology.

L. Charles Jackson, Riots, Revolutions, and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson, 173.

As a presbyterian, Henderson believed that his mission in guiding the kirk to classical presbyterian ecclesiology was like that of Athanasius, who stood at times against the world. He believed that godly polity provided not merely ecclesiastical order but the eschatological hope of entering a new stage of redemptive history that would usher peace and security into the world as Antichrist fell in defeat.

L. Charles Jackson, Riots, Revolutions, and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson, 253.

The grammar of this last statement [Titus 2:13] clearly demonstrates that Jesus Christ is God. We have what is called the Granville Sharp rule, named after the person who first proposed it. When there are two singular personal nouns that are not proper nouns, and there is one article with the two nouns that are joined by the word “and,” then the two nouns refer to the same entity. We have this construction in verse 13, and thus it is clear that Jesus Christ is identified as God and Savior.

Thomas R. Schreiner, Handbook on Acts and Paul’s Letters, 415.

Not counting the christologically significant passages, there are 80 constructions in the NT that fit the requirements for Sharp’s rule. But do they all fit the semantics of the rule — that is, do the substantives always refer to one and the same person? In a word, yes. Even Sharp’s opponents could not find any exceptions; all had to admit that the rule was valid in the NT

Below are listed several representative passages of Sharp’s rule, including nouns, participles, and adjectives. [Mark 6:3; John 20:17; Acts 3:14; Ephesians 2:14; Philippians 2:25; Hebrews 3:1; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 22:8]

For Christologically Significant Texts [Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1]

Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax, 120-122.