Christ’s Burial
Christ’s burial is usually regarded as part of His humiliation. Acts 2:24 shows why. It was not until He was raised that “the pains of death” were “loosed.” Until then He remained in the state of the dead and under the power of death.
His burial was a necessary part of His work because by it He showed that He had suffered and conquered all our death. Only because He was buried and laid in the grave can we say, “O grave, where is thy victory?” (I Cor. 15:55), and be assured that we shall not be forgotten in the grave (Ps. 31:12).
It is in His burial, too, that His victory over sin and death begins to appear. Acts 2:31 points to this when it says, “Neither his flesh did see corruption.” These words mean that when Christ was in the grave His body did not begin to decay as ours do. Acts 13:36-37 makes this clear in contrast to David and all others: “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.”
From this perspective, His three days in the grave show that He had conquered the power of death by His death on the cross. He did this because He paid the penalty of sin. “The sting of death is sin” (I Cor. 15:56); apart from sin, death and the grave have no power. That is why death could not hold Him (Acts 2:24).
In Acts 13:38 the apostle Paul declares that, because He saw no corruption, forgiveness of sins is proclaimed through Him. We do not have to wait until the resurrection to know that His work was finished and that full atonement was made. His burial itself declares it.
Because He was buried and saw no corruption in the grave, we may be certain that we also shall be raised incorruptible. “This corruptible must put on incorruption.” When that takes place, the saying will be fulfilled, “Death is swallowed up in victory” (I Cor. 15:53-54).
We must not forget that Jesus died on the cross and was raised the third day. But neither must we forget that He was “crucified, dead and buried.” In that, too, He reveals Himself as our Saviour. What a Saviour He is, that even the corrupting power of the grave—the decay, the ugliness and all that they represent—is overcome by Him! And not only that, but He has also destroyed the spiritual corruption of sin, so that even in physical death we shall be asleep in Jesus! Rev. Ron Hanko
The Decisive Character of Preaching
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” (Rom. 10:13-14).
We received a lengthy and thoughtful letter from a reader of our News who expressed disagreement with an article on winning souls. In that article (found in Volume IV, Issue 4) it was stated that the preaching of the word is absolutely necessary for salvation. In support of that statement, I quoted the passage from Romans 10 cited above.
The reader, well aware of the implications, took exception to this interpretation of Romans 10 and argued that the text had been taken out of context and therefore misinterpreted.
The letter was insightful and worthy of being printed in full. However, due to space constraints, we can only address its central claim, namely, that God is pleased to use other means besides the preaching of the gospel to save. The reader cited several instances of acquaintances or relatives who, it is claimed, were saved apart from preaching.
Before addressing this question in detail, it is helpful to consider the Westminster Confession.
In Chapter 10, “Of Effectual Calling,” the first paragraph connects effectual calling with predestination and says that God calls His elect “by his Word and Spirit.” That this calling is outwardly connected with the preaching of the gospel is evident from the fact that the confession later speaks of those “outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” (10:3), and of others who “may be called by the ministry of the Word” (10:4).
In Chapter 14, “Of Saving Faith,” the confession states that faith is “ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word” (14:1). The word “ordinarily” may be taken by some to imply exceptions, that is, that God sometimes gives faith apart from the ministry of the word. However, it may also refer to those mentioned in 10:3: “Elect infants, dying in infancy,” who “are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,” and “all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”
The Reformed confessions teach the same.
The Heidelberg Catechism asks, “Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence does this faith proceed?” The answer is, “From the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel …” (Q. & A. 65).
The Belgic Confession states, “We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man …” (24).
The Canons of Dordt likewise: “But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect … [He] causes the gospel to be externally preached to them …” (III/IV:11).
It is my judgment that the context of Romans 10:14-15 supports this interpretation rather than refutes it. Beginning at verse 9, it is clear that the apostle teaches that salvation is the same for both Jew and Gentile. All are saved in the same way, namely, by calling upon the name of the Lord, for “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (13).
But the crucial question is this: how does one call upon the Lord? The apostle answers in verse 14 that men must first believe in Him. This accords with verses 9-11. If a man does not believe, he will not call upon the Lord.
But how does a man come to believe? The apostle answers that as well: he must hear the Lord: “How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?” (14). And how do they hear? By means of a preacher: “How shall they hear without a preacher?” (15).
This leads to the next question: who is a preacher? The answer is: one who is sent by the Lord. He sends His preachers through the church, in the midst of which and in the service of which they labour.
The argument is therefore clear: When preachers preach, Christ is heard. When Christ is heard, men believe. When they believe, they call upon Him. And when they call upon Him, they are saved, for “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Thus preaching is a marvellous reality, for through it Christ Himself is brought into the hearts of men in such a way that He is heard. No wonder the apostle exclaims, quoting Isaiah 52:7, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”
At the same time, it must be acknowledged, as Paul himself does, that not all who hear believe. He adds in the next verse, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?”
Nevertheless, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (17).
This, it is hoped, makes clear that Romans 10 emphasises the decisive character of preaching in the work of salvation. If further discussion is desired, readers are encouraged to write in. Prof. Herman Hanko
Did Luther and Calvin Believe in Tongues?
We recently received the following question and would like to answer it: “Benjamin Warfield believed that ‘tongues’ were a special gift for the apostolic age which ceased with the completion of the canon of the New Testament. Luther and Calvin, however, are said to have believed that ‘tongues’ were gifts of the Holy Spirit valid for all times, according to I Corinthians 12-14. Who is right?”
While it is true that Warfield held that the gift of tongues was limited to the apostolic age, it is not true that Luther and Calvin taught their continuation beyond that time.
Warfield’s position is clear. He writes:
These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctly the Apostolic Church, and they necessarily passed away with it. Of this we may make sure on the ground both of principle and of fact; that is to say both under the guidance of the New Testament teaching as to their origin and nature, and on the credit of the testimony of later ages as to their cessation (Counterfeit Miracles [New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918], p. 6).
This was also Calvin’s position. In his commentary on Acts 10:46 he makes clear that he believed tongues, which he understood to be real languages, had ceased: “Therefore, no marvel if God took away that shortly after which he had given, and did not suffer the same to be corrupted with longer abuse.” His commentary on I Corinthians 12-14 reflects the same understanding. Though he does not explicitly state in so many words that tongues had ceased, he consistently refers to them in the past tense, indicating that he regarded them as belonging to that earlier period. He held the same view regarding miracles.
Luther likewise upheld this position in connection with the Reformation principle of “Scripture alone.” He wrote, “Believe and you have it,” referring to Pentecost, the fullness of salvation, and the Holy Spirit. In contrast, Pentecostalism teaches that the fullness of the Spirit is something beyond faith, and that one does not receive the Spirit in His fullness until one is “baptised in the Spirit” after believing. Concerning signs and miracles, Luther spoke even more directly: “But now that the apostles have preached the Word and have given their writings, and nothing more than what they have written remains to be revealed, no new and special revelation or miracle is necessary” (Luther’s Works, 24:367).
We conclude, therefore, that Luther, Calvin and Warfield were in agreement on this matter. Our rejection of the continuation of tongues, however, does not rest on their authority, but on the teaching of Scripture itself. It is to that teaching that we will turn in the next article. Rev. Ron Hanko
