Latest / Reformed Thinking / From Translatio to Change: Hebrews 7:12 and the Problem of “Transmutatio” in the English Bible

Transcript

From Translatio to Change: Hebrews 7:12 and the Problem of “Transmutatio” in the English Bible · Reformed Thinking

0:00
You know, usually when we talk about a medical diagnosis, there
0:03
is this expectation of precision, like engineering.
0:06
Oh for sure. Like looking at an X-ray.
0:08
Right. You break your arm.
0:09
The X-ray shows that jagged white line, and the doctor just
0:12
points and says, well, there it is.
0:14
It is binary. Broken or not broken, it is
0:17
clean and it is comforting, I think, because we like things to
0:22
be visible, to be categorized neatly.
0:24
Yeah, we want the hard data right in front of us.
0:26
We do, but then you step into the world of human theology in
0:29
the condition of the human soul, and suddenly that X-ray machine
0:32
is broken. We are looking at a diagnostic
0:35
landscape that is, well, honestly pretty murky to the
0:38
natural eye. But the Scriptures offer a
0:40
different kind of precision. Welcome to reformed thinking.
0:43
Glad to be here today. We have a lot of ground to
0:44
cover. We really do.
0:45
Today we are basically tearing up the blueprints for you
0:48
listening today. The mission for this deep dive
0:50
is vast. Our stack of sources focuses on
0:53
a single massive concept, which is the nature of biblical
0:57
change. And we are going to trace that
0:59
from a very specific, highly debated translation choice in
1:02
Hebrews Chapter 7, verse 12. Right all the way to the
1:05
internal metamorphosis of the Christian believer.
1:09
But right away we need to establish the theological lens
1:12
for our discussion. Operating from the framework of
1:14
the Westminster Confession, we recognize that humanity is dead,
1:18
in sin and entirely incapable of self rescue.
1:23
Which is a heavy reality, but a necessary one to stayed upfront.
1:26
Absolutely. So what we were talking about
1:29
today is not a superficial moral makeover.
1:32
We are not talking about adjusting your habits or reading
1:34
a self help book. We are talking about a sovereign
1:36
monarchistic work of grace. And to set the specific
1:40
historical and textual stage for the Hebrews 7 text, I will hand
1:44
the floor over to you to layout the Greek.
1:46
Thank you. Let us look directly at Hebrews
1:48
7, verse 12. The text reads the priesthood
1:50
being changed. Of necessity, there is also a
1:53
change of law. OK, so that sounds pretty
1:55
straightforward in English. It does, but what is fascinating
1:58
here is the absolute stability of the Greek text.
2:02
Sometimes, you know, when we examine ancient manuscripts, we
2:05
find missing fragments or competing valiance that cloud
2:09
the reading. Right, where textual critics
2:11
have to make those really tough judgement calls about what the
2:15
original author actually wrote. Precisely.
2:17
But that is not the case here at all.
2:19
The debate is not driven by competing manuscript readings.
2:23
At the crucial point, we know what the original words are.
2:26
Oh wow, so the text is locked in?
2:27
It is. Instead, the debate centers on
2:29
lexical judgement, specifically how to render 2 related terms
2:34
built on the identical verbal route.
2:36
We are looking at the participial form metatheminus
2:39
and the noun metathesis. Metathesis OK, so how does the
2:42
writer of Hebrews use those two words together?
2:45
Well, the writer creates A deliberate lexical pairing here.
2:48
The first word describes the priesthood as being shifted or
2:50
transferred, while the second stage, that a corresponding
2:53
alteration of the law comes about.
2:55
South. It's a cause and effect
2:56
basically. Yeah, the Greek wording itself
2:58
establishes that the author is Speaking of a necessary relation
3:02
between priesthood and law, executed through a tightly
3:05
coordinated repetition of the same root idea.
3:08
OK, let's unpack this semantic range.
3:11
Because when you say metathesis, my modern brain immediately
3:14
wants to associate that with chemistry or linguistics, not
3:19
necessarily a biblical priesthood.
3:22
Right. It sounds very clinical to us
3:23
today. It does, and the word metathesis
3:26
is quite rare in the New Testament.
3:28
So where else do we see it and how does that help you, the
3:30
listener, understand what is happening in Hebrew 7?
3:33
That is a crucial question. We only see this noun 3 times in
3:37
the entire New Testament, and looking at those other two
3:39
occurrences illuminates the meaning perfectly.
3:42
I love when scripture defines scripture like that.
3:44
Where are the other two? Well, in Hebrews 11 verse 5 it
3:46
describes Enoch being taken up, and then in Hebrews 12 verse 27
3:50
it describes the removal of shakeable things.
3:53
OK, so taking up and removing that is strong language.
3:55
It is. This wider usage shows that the
3:58
term is not a flat synonym for a mild revision.
4:01
Its semantic field includes movement, displacement, and
4:05
reordering. Meaning it's not just a quick
4:07
edit to the rules. Exactly.
4:09
When Enoch is taken up, he is entirely removed from one sphere
4:12
of existence and placed into another.
4:14
He is relocated by divine mandate, and when the shakable
4:19
things are removed, it is a permanent displacement, making
4:22
room for the unshakable Kingdom. That pays a very clear picture
4:26
of what is happening to the priesthood it.
4:28
Does and grammatically, the verse in Hebrew 7 is compact but
4:32
incredibly forceful. It uses a genitive absolute
4:36
which reads the priesthood being changed and that creates A
4:40
definitive condition. Wait, let me stop you right
4:42
there. The genitive absolute.
4:43
That sounds like a military rank or I don't know, a brand of
4:46
vodka. What does that actually mean for
4:48
the sentence structure? I can see that, but no, it is a
4:52
grammatical construction in Greek that functions almost like
4:54
a standalone premise. It sets the condition for
4:57
everything that follows. So it's the bedrock of the whole
4:59
sentence. Right from that established
5:02
premise, the rest of the statement flows.
5:04
The main clause then asserts ex anonkeys, which means of
5:09
necessity. So, of necessity, there is also
5:11
a change of law. Ex.
5:13
Anonkeys. And that phrase gives the logic
5:16
of the sentence. It's gravity.
5:18
It really does. This is no incidental
5:20
adjustment. It is an unavoidable
5:22
mathematical consequence. I love that phrase.
5:25
Ex anonkeys of necessity. It's like writing a line of code
5:29
that says if the priesthood changes, then the law crashes.
5:33
It's a hardwired dependency. That is a great way to think
5:35
about it. Think of this like removing a
5:37
load bearing wall in a house. You, as the homeowner cannot
5:41
simply swap out the structural support that holds up the entire
5:44
2nd floor. Without entirely redrawing the
5:47
architectural blueprints. That house will collapse.
5:49
You would be catastrophic to just leave it right?
5:51
The priesthood is that load bearing wall.
5:53
It supports the entire weight of the old covenant system.
5:56
The law is the blueprint. If you pull out the ironic
5:58
priesthood and replace it, of necessity you must redraw the.
6:01
Blueprints you have no choice. You cannot leave the old laws
6:05
concerning lineage, altar service, and Tabernacle access
6:09
intact when the very structural column holding them up has been
6:12
displaced. The legal order is inseparably
6:15
bound to the former priesthood. That analogy captures the
6:18
structural reality perfectly. If we connect this to the bigger
6:22
picture, we can look at how early translators handled this
6:25
structural reality. I would love to see how they
6:27
grappled with this text historically.
6:30
Well, the Latin Vulgate is incredibly helpful here.
6:33
Jerome translated the Vulgate in the late 4th century, and his
6:37
lexical choices preserve an early and influential judgment
6:40
about how the Greek should be represented to the Western
6:42
Church. So what did Jerome do with
6:44
Hebrews 712? At that verse the Vulgate reads
6:48
Transletto and M Sacordocio necesis ET alleges translatio
6:53
Fiat. Jerome's structure mirrors the
6:55
Greek very closely. Translato and translacio.
6:58
Those words stand out immediately.
7:00
They do the opening ablative absolute translator sacordocio
7:04
corresponds to the Greek genitive absolute you just
7:08
compared to a load bearing wall. The noun translatio answers to
7:12
metathesis, and the phrase necesa reproduces the sense of
7:16
necessity signaled in the Greek by X Anon case.
7:20
Wait, so when I hear translation I immediately think of plugging
7:23
Spanish into a language app on my phone or maybe translating a
7:27
novel from French to English? Which is how almost everyone
7:30
uses the word today. Yeah, but it sounds like Jerome
7:32
is talking about moving physical furniture or moving an entire
7:35
Kingdom. Why did he choose that specific
7:38
word when he had other options? He certainly had options.
7:40
He could have chosen the word mutacio, which implies A
7:43
mutation or a general alteration, but he did not.
7:46
So he purposefully avoided a word that just meant generic
7:48
change. He did.
7:50
He chose the verbal and nominal forms of transfer, translator
7:53
and translaccio. The Latin therefore preserves
7:56
the element of movement or transfer explicitly.
7:59
OK, that makes sense. A transfer from one to another.
8:01
But we must be careful not to reduce this to a spatial
8:04
transfer, like moving a chair across A room.
8:07
In this context, the translation of the priesthood is inseparable
8:11
from the legal consequences attached to it.
8:13
It is a legal transfer of authority from one institution
8:16
to another. A transfer of legal authority.
8:19
That is a massive concept. It is.
8:21
The Vulgate stands very close to the Greek in both structure and
8:24
conceptual force. A priesthood has been
8:27
transferred, and therefore the law bound to that order
8:30
undergoes A corresponding translatio.
8:33
That sets up a fascinating historical trajectory because
8:36
that Latin choice directly influenced the early English
8:40
Bibles. It had a huge impact on the
8:42
English translation tradition. Right when we look at pre modern
8:45
English translations like Wycliffe, Tyndale and the Douay
8:47
Reims, they all utilize the words translated and translation
8:52
for this verse. They kept that Latin flavor.
8:54
They did, Wycliffe wrote. For why when the priesthood is
8:57
translated, it is needful that also the translation of the law
9:00
be made? Which sounds a bit strange to
9:03
modern ears. It really does.
9:05
If you were sitting in the pews back then, hearing the word
9:08
translation meant something entirely different to you than
9:11
it does today. In early English, it carried
9:14
that broader Latin weight. It meant the transfer of an
9:17
entire institutional order. It meant moving something from
9:21
one place or status to another. Yes, those older versions let
9:24
the reader hear that one priestly order has been carried
9:27
over, transferred, or displaced. They forced the reader to hear
9:31
an older, broader meaning, a movement from one constituted
9:35
order to another. The structural shift again.
9:37
Exactly. The priesthood is removed from
9:39
its former legal and unilogical arrangement and set within
9:42
another order. Because the verse itself binds
9:45
law to priesthood, the law associated with that priesthood
9:49
is likewise said to undergo translation.
9:51
So they were trying to capture that institutional displacement.
9:53
They were. These renderings preserve an
9:56
interpretive insight. They show early English
9:58
translators heard a transfer of institutional location and
10:01
authority, not an abstract modification.
10:04
But as the English language evolved over the centuries, the
10:07
semantic range of translation narrowed.
10:09
It shrunk down to just language. Right, it became almost
10:13
exclusively associated with linguistic conversion.
10:16
So the language changes beneath the feet of the translators.
10:19
How did they handle that evolution when putting together
10:23
the modern phrasing we read today?
10:25
Well, the King James Version really solidified the shift.
10:28
The KJV translators and later those who worked on the
10:31
NKJVESVNIV and NASB shifted to the word change.
10:36
So they dropped translation entirely.
10:38
They did. The KJV states that the
10:40
priesthood has changed and that this brings about a change also
10:43
of the law. The NIV says the law must be
10:46
changed also, while the NASB says a change of law takes place
10:49
of necessity. They all sort of gravitated
10:51
toward that central idea of change.
10:53
Yes, the translators broadly agreed on the semantic center of
10:56
the verse. They wanted the everyday reader
10:58
to understand plainly that a real alteration happened.
11:02
This modern choice gained clarity for the everyday reader,
11:04
avoiding the linguistic confusion of the word
11:06
translation. But there is a trade off there,
11:09
isn't there? We gained clarity for the modern
11:11
reader, but we lost the vivid, concrete imagery of an
11:15
institutional displacement. We lost a bit of the punch.
11:17
Yet change is broader. It indicates that something has
11:20
become different, but it does not specify whether that
11:23
difference should be imagined primarily as transfer,
11:26
replacement position, or institutional relocation.
11:30
It leaves it a bit vague. It does.
11:32
The later English tradition gains clarity while sacrificing
11:35
some conceptual sharpness. We do see a few minority
11:38
translations try to fix this though.
11:40
Oh, like which ones? Well, the Common English Bible
11:43
specifies the order of the priest changing, making the
11:46
institutional dimension more explicit, but the dominant
11:50
consensus remains change. This brings us to a critical
11:54
point of analysis regarding how we interpret the verse
11:56
doctrinally, because out of that tension between translation and
12:00
change, a much stronger interpretive label rises.
12:04
Transmutatio. Transmutation.
12:06
Right. Bill Mounts's lexical definition
12:08
of Hebrews 7, verse 12 calls it an abolition of one thing and
12:12
the substitution of another. Whoa.
12:14
That goes way beyond a simple change that sounds like total
12:17
replacement, like burning the house to the ground and building
12:19
a new one on the lot. It is a theological linguistic
12:22
intensification. Interpreters reached for a
12:25
stronger label when change or translations seemed too weak to
12:28
capture the consequence they believed the verse announced.
12:31
So they cranked up the volume of the Greek.
12:33
Word they did, but we must push back critically against using
12:37
transmutatio as the primary definition of the Greek.
12:40
JE Allen's analysis of Hebrews is very helpful here.
12:43
What does Allen point out about that?
12:45
Allen explicitly observes that across several standard lexical
12:49
authorities, the dominant theme in the definitions of metathesis
12:53
is not destruction or abolition. So mounts is a bit of an
12:56
outlier. There he is.
12:58
The dominant definition is alteration, modification,
13:01
transfer, or transposition. It is only the Baxter Lexicon
13:05
that gives the unusually strong wording of transmutation by the
13:08
abolition of one thing and the substitution of another.
13:11
So Mounts is relying on a minority lexical tradition.
13:14
There he is injecting A theological conclusion back into
13:17
the dictionary definition. Spot on, and Allen makes a
13:20
compelling point regarding the writers available vocabulary.
13:23
The writer of Hebrews had access to much more destructive Greek
13:27
words for abolition. Oh, like what kind of words?
13:29
Words like aesthetis, afanismos, and anario.
13:34
The writer does in fact use such language elsewhere in the
13:36
epistle when wishing to communicate a more overtly A
13:39
prerogative idea. So if the author wanted to say
13:42
abolished, he knew the word for abolish.
13:45
Precisely if the writer had meant straightforward abolition
13:49
at this exact point, those stronger lexical resources were
13:53
available, but the writer deliberately chose not to use
13:56
them here in verse 12. Which means transmutatio is a
13:59
hermeneutical compromise. It is a later theological label
14:02
used to heighten the decisiveness of the shift, but
14:05
it is not the actual text. It is a theological gloss.
14:08
Right. And why does that matter to you,
14:10
the listener? Because if the writer
14:12
deliberately chose a softer word, a word of transfer rather
14:16
than a word of absolute destruction, it preserves the
14:19
continuity of God's redemptive plan.
14:21
The old law wasn't a mistake that had to be eradicated.
14:24
It was a shadow that had to be transferred to its solid
14:27
reality. That is a beautiful way to
14:29
phrase it. It is a secondary descriptive
14:31
choice that sharpens one possible construal of the text,
14:34
but we must acknowledge its derivative status.
14:37
We have to stick to the actual words given to us.
14:39
We do. The text gives us metathesis,
14:42
the Vulgate gives us translusio. The later lexicography sometimes
14:47
heightens the force into transmutation.
14:49
We cannot confuse a later theological descriptor with the
14:52
original words of the biblical text itself.
14:55
OK, let's step back and look at the theological argument of
14:58
Hebrews 7. To see why this lexical debate
15:00
matters so much. We need to set the literary
15:03
scene. It's quite a scene to set.
15:04
It is. We are looking at Genesis 14 in
15:06
Psalm 110 verse 4. In Genesis 14, Abraham, the
15:10
great patriarch, gives a 10th of his spoils to a mysterious
15:14
figure named Melchizedek. And the writer of Hebrews points
15:18
out a very basic biblical principle there.
15:20
The lesser is blessed by the greater.
15:22
Exactly. Abraham, who carries the seed of
15:25
Levi within him, is paying tithes to Melchizedek.
15:29
That means Melchizedek's priesthood is superior to the
15:31
Levitical priesthood that would eventually come from Abraham.
15:34
Which creates a massive theological attention.
15:37
It really does, because here is the problem with the old system.
15:41
Jesus descends from the tribe of Judah.
15:43
Judah is a tribe with 0 Mosaic authorization for altar service.
15:47
The load bearing wall of the Auronic priesthood specifically
15:51
excludes Jesus. This necessitates the shift the
15:54
levitical system failed to achieve the ultimate goal.
15:57
It was fundamentally limited. Yes, it could regulate worship,
16:01
it could provide ceremonial forms, but it could never bring
16:05
perfection or secure final access to God.
16:08
Because the blood of bulls and goats can't take away sins.
16:11
Right. If perfection had come through
16:12
the Levitical priesthood, there would have been no need for
16:15
another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek.
16:18
But God had already promised a new priest.
16:20
He did. Psalm 110, verse 4, written long
16:23
after the establishment of the Levitical Order, announces a
16:26
divine oath. The Lord has sworn and will not
16:28
relent. You are a priest forever
16:30
according to the order of Melchizedek.
16:32
Christ is a priest according to the indestructible vitality of
16:35
an endless life. Think about the gravity of that.
16:38
For God swears an oath to establish a new priesthood,
16:41
because the old one could not clear the conscience.
16:44
And we must tie this back directly to the listeners
16:46
assurance of salvation. How so?
16:48
Well, the shift from Aaron to Melchizedek is the exact
16:52
mechanism that allows a sinful person to draw near to a holy
16:56
God. Without this legal alteration,
16:59
without this massive transfer of authority, you would have no
17:02
mediator. You'd be stuck on the outside of
17:04
the Tabernacle. Exactly.
17:06
The Old Covenant could not save you.
17:08
The change in the law is not an arbitrary rearrangement of
17:11
religious offices. It is the necessary reordering
17:14
of God's redemptive administration so that true and
17:17
final access to Him may be secured in His Son.
17:21
So if the legal blueprint of the cosmos had to be entirely
17:25
rewritten just to give us access to God, well, what happens when
17:28
that new reality actually makes contact with the human soul?
17:31
That is where the theology gets intensely personal.
17:34
Because it can't just remain a legal abstraction.
17:38
We have seen how the legal structure of the priesthood
17:41
experienced a massive external alteration.
17:45
Now let's look at how that external legal shift guarantees
17:48
an internal sovereign change within the believer.
17:51
The two are intimately connected.
17:53
They are the objective work of Christ, as the Melchizedekian
17:57
priest secures the subjective application of grace in your
18:01
soul. And here is where we must
18:03
explicitly reclaim the Latin term transmutatio.
18:06
Sir, coming back to that word. Yeah, while we noted it was a
18:10
secondary label for Hebrew 7, it perfectly captures the internal
18:14
metamorphosis we are about to discuss, but we must reclaim it
18:17
from Roman Catholic doctrine. That is a vital distinction to
18:20
make. It really is based on the reform
18:22
sources we are examining. We explicitly reject the
18:25
intrusticious physical transubstantiation in the mass.
18:27
The change God works in a Sinner is not the physical turning of
18:30
bread into flesh, it is the sovereign regeneration of a dead
18:34
human spirit. To understand this true
18:36
doctrine, we must anchor our discussion in the 16th century
18:39
Reformation. Where so much of this theology
18:41
was recovered? Right.
18:42
This is the era when the English Bible emerged as a direct
18:46
assault on the religious and social realities of a papal
18:49
system that kept the common man in spiritual darkness.
18:52
It was a very dangerous time to be a translator.
18:54
It was lethal. Men like William Tyndale and the
18:57
Geneva Exiles labored under intense persecution to translate
19:01
the Greek text into the English tongue.
19:04
They did this to rescue the common man from the false
19:06
teachings of Rome, which had obscured the glory of Christ
19:09
through a misunderstood physical interpretation of the Mass.
19:12
Tyndale paid the ultimate price for that.
19:14
He was literally strangled and burned at the stake for his
19:17
efforts to put the Scriptures into a language the plowboy
19:20
could understand. Their labor stands as evidence
19:23
that true internal metamorphosis is always tethered to the
19:26
unadulterated preaching of the gospel.
19:28
And from a reformed perspective, we tie this internal
19:31
metamorphosis directly to the covenant of grace.
19:34
Which is the heartbeat of Reformed theology, it really.
19:36
Is Chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith makes it
19:40
clear that we were looking at the climactic transition from
19:43
the types and shadows of the Old Testament to the substance of
19:46
the new. Moving from the shadow to the
19:48
reality, yes. The administration, the covenant
19:51
of grace, ensures that those whom God predestines, he also
19:55
calls, and those he calls He gives a new nature.
19:59
He breathes life into dry bones. Which brings us to the
20:02
grammatical reality of Romans 12, verse 2.
20:05
A verse I think a lot of our listeners probably have
20:07
memorized. Most likely, the Apostle Paul
20:09
commands the covenant community to be renewed in the mind.
20:13
Let us perform a rigorous grammatical breakdown of this
20:16
command, because the grammar here is the theological engine.
20:19
I'm ready. What are we looking at?
20:21
The verb here is a present passive imperative.
20:24
Each of those 3 grammatical markers carries massive
20:27
theological weight. OK, let's take those one by one,
20:30
starting with the present tense. What does the present tense tell
20:33
us here? The present tense means this is
20:35
an ongoing continuous action in the life of the justified
20:38
believer. It is not a one time event that
20:40
happens at conversion and then stops.
20:42
It is a sustained daily reality. So it's a marathon, not a
20:45
Sprint. Exactly.
20:47
Then you have the imperative mood, which means it is a divine
20:50
mandate. It is a non negotiable duty for
20:53
the Christian. It's a command from the king.
20:55
Yes, but crucially, the passive voice proves monarchism.
21:00
The believer receives this action.
21:02
The believer does not initiate it or power it by their own
21:05
will. The Holy Spirit performs the
21:07
action upon the believer. So if this is completely
21:10
passive, if the Holy Spirit is the one performing the action
21:13
upon us, how do we avoid falling for the world's cheap imitations
21:18
of change? That is the constant struggle of
21:20
the Church. Right, because the world is
21:21
constantly telling us to reinvent ourselves.
21:24
We are bombarded with messages about self optimization, hacking
21:28
our habits, manifesting our destiny.
21:30
How do we distinguish the Spirit's monarchistic work from
21:33
secular self help? We find the answer by
21:36
contrasting the Greek verbs Paul uses.
21:38
But Paul gives us a linguistic map here.
21:40
He does the holy Metamorphu, which refers to an internal
21:43
change of nature and essence. Level renewal stands in sharp
21:46
contrast to two other specific Greek words.
21:49
First there is saskematizo which is translated as conform.
21:52
Do not be conformed to this world.
21:54
Right. This word refers to an outward,
21:57
fleeting mold. The world offers a schema, A
22:01
godless scheme or pattern. The world seeks to press the
22:04
believer into its mold, offering a superficial outward conformity
22:09
that lacks internal life. Is like pouring liquid concrete
22:13
into a wooden form. That is a great.
22:15
Visual. You know the concrete takes the
22:16
shape of the wood, and from the outside it looks perfectly
22:18
square and solid, but it is just conforming to external pressure.
22:24
The moment you take away the wooden frame, if the concrete
22:27
hasn't cured internally, it all collapses.
22:29
That is suka matizo. That is exactly the distinction,
22:32
and the second contrast is even more dangerous.
22:35
Metasca Matizo. Tascontizo, that sounds
22:37
sinister. It is.
22:39
This word means a disguise or a counterfeit.
22:42
The Apostle Paul uses this specific word in 2nd Corinthians
22:45
11, verses 13 through 15 to describe Satan masquerading as
22:49
an Angel of light. Oh wow, so it's a deliberate
22:52
deception. Yes, it denotes a mere change in
22:54
appearance, A deceptive disguise.
22:56
We must apply this directly to the modern church context.
22:59
How does that play out today? Well, according to the Reform
23:01
framework we are following today, we firmly reject the
23:04
false signs and wonders of continuationist and charismatic
23:07
movements. Those practices often represent
23:10
a dangerous metaskamazo, A counterfeit disguise of
23:14
spirituality rather than true spirit wrought renewal.
23:18
So it looks spiritual on the outside, but it's a disguise.
23:20
Correct. Within this theological lens,
23:23
the Apostolic gifts have ceased and seeking novel revelations or
23:27
ecstatic physical manifestations is a departure from the mind
23:30
renewing work of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures.
23:33
That is a stark warning. Let's take a break from the
23:36
grammar books for a moment and go to a specific geographical
23:38
location to see this play out. I love looking at the biblical
23:41
geography. It adds so much flavor.
23:44
Imagine standing on Mount Hermon.
23:45
It rises 9000 feet high, its peaks covered in snow.
23:49
This is the likely site of the Transfiguration, where the word
23:52
Metamorphu is used in the Gospel accounts to describe Jesus.
23:56
It is a stunning visual to imagine.
23:58
Think about the geographical significance of that in the
24:02
ancient Near East. These isolated high places were
24:05
historically used for the worship of Pagan deities.
24:08
There were sites of idolatry, places where people went to seek
24:11
false spiritual experiences. The high places were always a
24:14
snare for Israel. They were.
24:17
Yet Christ reclaimed this summit.
24:19
He reclaimed an isolated high place far away from the
24:23
corrupted, institutionalized religious center in Jerusalem to
24:27
unveil his intrinsic eternal glory.
24:29
The setting is packed with meaning.
24:32
It shows that the true metamorphosis we seek does not
24:35
originate in the lowlands of human effort or within the
24:37
polluted courts of an apostate religious system.
24:40
It has to come from above. Yes, it descends from the
24:42
sovereign heights of heaven. If we connect the
24:45
Transfiguration to 2nd Corinthians 3 verse 18 and the
24:48
story of Moses in Exodus 34, we see a brilliant theological
24:53
contrast. Moses coming down from Sinai.
24:55
Right in the Hebrew text of Exodus, when Moses descended
24:58
from Mount Sinai, his face shown.
25:00
The Hebrew word used there is core.
25:02
And Quran is related to the root word for horn, right?
25:05
It is, which is a very interesting linguistic quirk.
25:08
Which led to a very famous historical mistake that I still
25:12
cannot help but laugh at. Yes, that linguistic connection
25:15
led to a famous mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate.
25:18
Jerome translated it in such a way that it depicted Moses with
25:22
literal horns on his head rather than rays of light emitting from
25:26
his face. So Jerome struck out on that
25:28
one. He did.
25:30
This is why Michelangelo's famous statue of Moses includes
25:33
horns protruding from his head. You can imagine the confusion of
25:37
Renaissance art students trying to figure out why the great
25:40
patriarch of the Exodus looks like a mythological creature.
25:44
It is incredible how a single linguistic error created
25:47
centuries of bizarre art. It really shows the weight of
25:50
translation. It does, but beyond the humor,
25:53
the theological difference Paul highlights in Second Corinthians
25:55
is what matters most. Moses had a fading external
25:59
reflection of glory. He had to put a veil over his
26:02
face because the glory was passing away.
26:04
It was a temporary arrangement. Yes, the Old covenant types were
26:08
temporary, but the new covenant believer experiences a permanent
26:12
internal glory. We are being changed from 1° of
26:16
glory to another. This suggests is a progressive
26:19
celestial trajectory that honors the distinction between the
26:22
fading Old Covenant shadows and the enduring New Covenant
26:26
reality. So we have this progressive
26:28
sanctification happening right now.
26:30
The Spirit is renewing our minds, giving us a new nature
26:32
day by day. It's an ongoing process.
26:34
But where is all of this progressive sanctification
26:37
leading? What is the final destination?
26:40
We have to look to the end of the story.
26:41
Right, the destination is the eschatological climax.
26:45
We turn to 1st Corinthians 15, verses 51 and 52.
26:49
Here the Apostle Paul introduces another Greek verb, elasso.
26:53
Elasso, what does that signify? This word describes an
26:56
instantaneous alteration. We shall not all sleep, but we
27:00
shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an
27:03
eye. This points to a sudden
27:05
alteration of the physical body. A complete physical
27:07
glorification. Yes, according to the sources we
27:11
are looking at, it is vital to assert the dispensational pre
27:14
tribulational rapture distinction here.
27:17
This instantaneous physical glorification is a distinct
27:20
promise given to the Church, the Body of Christ.
27:23
Differentiating it from other prophetic events.
27:25
Correct. It separates God's future
27:27
dealings with national Israel during the millennial Kingdom
27:30
from the specific eschatological hope of the covenant community
27:33
we belong to today. Our progressive sanctification
27:37
is the precursor to the sudden, blinding moment of physical
27:40
glorification. OK, let's bring all of this
27:43
soaring theology right down to earth.
27:45
Let's look at the application. Think about what that means for
27:47
your Tuesday morning. If the Holy Spirit is renewing
27:51
your mind, and if you are eagerly awaiting the bodily
27:54
glorification at the Rapture, well, what does that mean for
27:57
your daily life? What must this renewed mind
28:00
actively reject? That is the question every
28:03
believer has to answer. Based on our sources, a renewed
28:07
mind must categorically reject the world's intellectual molds.
28:11
That means rejecting evolutionary theory.
28:13
Why? Because a renewed mind processes
28:16
the concept of human origins through the lens of a sovereign
28:19
creator, it refuses to view humanity as a cosmic accident,
28:23
which evolutionary theory asserts.
28:25
It changes your entire origin story.
28:28
It does. It also means rejecting secular
28:30
humanism, which places man at the center of the universe
28:33
instead of God. And it means rejecting the
28:35
egalitarian spirit of the age, which seeks to erase God-given
28:39
distinctions. The world schema is very
28:41
aggressive on those fronts. Very aggressive according to the
28:44
Westminster Framework, A Renewed Mind joyfully embraces biblical
28:48
complementarianism. It recognizes and honors the God
28:51
ordained roles for men and women in the home in the church,
28:53
seeing them as an expression of loyalty to Christ's created
28:56
order rather than a cultural oppression.
28:59
This practical obedience is validated through the
29:01
Westminster Confession, specifically Chapter 19, which
29:04
details the third use of the law.
29:05
The third use of the law is so helpful here.
29:08
It is the law no longer condemns the justified believer.
29:11
The curse has been borne by Christ, our Melchizedekian
29:14
priest. However, the law now directs the
29:17
grateful believer. It shows us how to live as those
29:20
rescued from the Kingdom of darkness.
29:22
It becomes a guide instead of a gavel.
29:24
Exactly. We are motivated by gratitude
29:27
for sovereign grace, not by a legalistic fear of punishment.
29:31
This directly strikes down our minion claims of free will,
29:34
which boast of a human ability to cooperate with grace.
29:37
It removes all the boasting. It does.
29:39
It also strikes down the seeker sensitive movements, reliance on
29:42
psychological gimmicks to produce behavioral modification.
29:45
So if we reject the gimmicks and we reject the ecstatic
29:48
experiences, how does a believer actually experience this ongoing
29:52
renewal? I mean, how do we access this
29:54
grace if we aren't chasing after emotional highs or new church
29:58
growth strategies? We are pointed directly to the
30:00
ordinary, divinely appointed means of grace as outlined in
30:03
WCF Chapter 21. The ordinary means of grace.
30:06
Yes, we do not need novel methods.
30:09
The Holy Spirit works through faithful expository preaching,
30:13
where the Word of God is proclaimed with authority.
30:15
The Spirit works through corporate prayer, where the
30:18
covenant community gathers to seek God's face.
30:21
The simple things, really. And the Spirit works through the
30:23
proper administration of the sacraments, baptism, and the
30:26
Lord's Supper. These are the quiet, steady
30:29
streams through which God nourishes the soul and executes
30:33
His sovereign metamorphosis within us.
30:36
So let's tie this entire deep dive together.
30:39
We have traced an unbroken thread today.
30:41
It has been quite a line of thought to.
30:43
Follow It started with the absolute necessity of a legal
30:46
alteration in Hebrew 7 the load bearing wall of the Auronic
30:50
priesthood had to be removed and replaced by the superior endless
30:54
life of Melchizedek, fulfilled in Jesus Christ at.
30:56
The X and anchors the necessity of the shift.
30:59
Right. That massive historical external
31:02
shift in the legal blueprint is what secures your salvation.
31:05
And because that objective work is finished, the Holy Spirit now
31:08
applies A sovereign internal metamorphosis within you, as
31:12
seen in Romans 12. You are passively receiving that
31:14
grace. Yes, you receive a new nature, a
31:18
renewed mind that rejects the world's disguises and joyfully
31:22
submits to God's law. And all of this culminates in
31:25
the eschatological hope of First Corinthians 15, the
31:28
instantaneous physical glorification at crisis return.
31:33
As we conclude, consider the heavy reality that the entire
31:36
legal blueprint of the cosmos had to be rewritten from Aaron
31:39
to Melchizedek, just so you could have a mediator.
31:41
Knowing that this massive historical shift is what secures
31:44
your salvation, how does engaging with the ordinary,
31:47
quiet means of grace this Sunday prepare your physical body for
31:50
that sudden, blinding moment of final glorification?
31:53
That is a staggering thought to Curie with you.
31:55
Thank you for joining us today for Reformed Thinking.
31:57
We will see you next time.