The Psalter Headings–Infallibly Accurate Scripture, Correctly Ascribing Authorship to David, etc.
Many today question whether the headings of the Psalms are inspired Scripture, and whether they accurately ascribe authorship to David, Asaph, and so on. The headings to the psalms are inspired, just like the rest of the Bible, and when they say that a psalm was composed by David, Asaph, Heman, or Moses, they record God’s inspired truth. A “Psalm of David” was actually written by David. A “Psalm of Asaph” was actually written by Asaph.
Here are some reasons why the psalm headings should be trusted:
[Theological liberal] Brevard Childs says, “A wide consensus has been reached among critical scholars for over a hundred years that the titles are secondary additions, which can afford no reliable information toward establishing the genuine historical setting of the Psalms.”5 As a result, psalm studies for more than a century have been adrift in conflicting opinions about their dates and meaning[.] … Fortunately, the tide of academic opinion concerning the antiquity and reliability of the superscriptions is slowly changing under the gravity of evidence. … Sumerian and Akkadian ritual texts dating from the third millennium contain rubrics corresponding to elements in the superscription,8 and so do Egyptian hymns from the Eighteenth Dynasty and later.9 Some psalms ascribed to David contain words, images, and parallelism now attested in the Ugaritic texts (ca. 1400 BC).10 Though many technical terms in the superscriptions were obscure to the Greek and Aramaic translators (which suggests a loss of a living tradition and an extended gap of time between their composition and the Tannaitic period, 70–200 AD), they neither alter nor omit them. No ancient version or Hebrew manuscript omits them. With regard to the antiquity of some psalms, there can scarcely be a question. … Linguistic, stylistic, structural, thematic, and theological differences are so great between the Psalter and its imitative thanksgiving psalm at Qumran as to leave no doubt of the far greater antiquity of the Psalter. … Authorship of the Psalms and of their historical backgrounds depends in part on the meaning of the Hebrew preposition le with a proper name, usually David.11 Though le can mean “belonging to a series,”12 it commonly denotes authorship in the Semitic languages.13 Within other literary genres le in superscriptions signifies “by” (cf. Isa. 38:9; Hab. 3:1). In the Old Testament as in other ancient Near Eastern literature, poets, unlike narrators, are not anonymous (cf. Exod. 15:1; Judg. 5:1). The meaning “by” is certain in the synoptic superscriptions of 2 Samuel 22:1 and Psalm 18:[1].
Other Scriptures abundantly testify that David was a musician and writer of sacred poetry. Saul discovered him in a talent hunt for a harpist (1 Sam. 16:14–23). Amos (6:5) associates his name with temple music. The Chronicler says that David and his officers assigned the inspired musical service to various guilds and that musicians were led under his hands (i.e., he led them by cheironomy—hand gestures indicating the rise and fall of the melody—as pictured in Egyptian iconography already in the Old Kingdom; 1 Chron. 23:5; 2 Chron. 29:26; Neh. 12:36).14 The Chronicler also represents King Hezekiah as renewing the Davidic appointments of psalmody. Hezekiah directed the sacrifices and accompanying praises in which the compositions of David and his assistant Asaph were prominent (2 Chron. 29:25–30). J. F. A. Sawyer says, “In the Chronicler’s day … it can scarcely be doubted that the meaning was ‘by David.’ ”15 This was the interpretation of Ben Sirach (47:8–10), the Qumran scrolls (11QPsa), Josephus,16 and the rabbis.17 The interpretation is foundational for the New Testament’s interpretation of the Psalter as testimony to Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 22:43–45; Mark 12:36–37; Luke 20:42–44; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 34–35; 4:25–26; Rom. 4:6; 11:9–10; Heb. 4:7). …
This royal interpretation of the Psalter affects biblical theology in several ways. (1) It allows the reader to hear the most intimate thoughts of Israel’s greatest king. (2) It validates the New Testament attribution of select psalms to David as their author. And (3) it provides the firm basis of the grammatico-historical method of interpretation for the New Testament’s messianic interpretation of the Psalter. …
According to their superscriptions, Psalms 34, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 142 date from the time of David’s exile (1 Sam. 16–31); 18 and 60, from the time he is under blessing (2 Sam. 1–10); and 3, 51, 63, from when he is under wrath (2 Sam. 11–20). Psalms 7 and 30 are unclassified as to their precise dates (cf. 2 Sam. 21–24; for this threefold division of David’s career, see chaps. 22–23). In addition to the arguments given above for the credibility of the superscriptions, we ask, Why, if they are secondary additions, are the remaining fifty-nine Davidic psalms left without historical notices, especially when many of them easily could have been ascribed to some event in David’s life?22 Also, why would later editors introduce materials in the superscriptions of Psalms 7, 30, and 60 that are not found in historical books and not readily inferred from the Psalms themselves? Finally, why should it be allowed that psalms in the historical books contain superscriptions with historical notices (see Exod. 15:1; Deut. 31:30 [cf. 32:44]; Judg. 5:1; 2 Sam. 22:1; Jonah 2; Isa. 38:9) but those in the Psalter do not, even though the syntax is sometimes similar? (Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007] 871–874).
So don’t doubt the psalm inscriptions. Receive them as infallible truth, just like you do the rest of the Bible.
–TDR
5 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 520.
8 Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 13–24.
9 ANET, 365–81.
10 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1:1–50, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1995), xxix–xxx.
11 Moses (Ps. 90), David (73 times), Solomon (Pss. 72, 127), Korah, 42–49, 84–87), Asaph (50, 73–83), Heman (88), and Ethan (89).
12 BDB, 513, entry 5b.
13 GKC, 129c.
14 J. Wheeler, “Music of the Temple,” Archaeology and Biblical Research 2 (1989).
15 J. F. A. Sawyer, “An Analysis of the Context and Meaning of the Psalm,” Transactions 22 (1970): 6.
16 Josephus, Antiquities, 9.13.3.
17 Charles A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (New York: Scribner, 1906–7), liv.
22 Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), 28.
The link to Waltke’s OT theology is an affiliate link with Amazon.com.
Why is the Holy Spirit called the Holy “Spirit”?
Last Friday we asked some questions, including the following:
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
So what are the answers?
The third Person in the Godhead possesses a spiritual nature identical to that of the Father and the Son. He is denominated the Spirit with reference to his Person, not only with reference to His essence. He is no more or less spiritual as to his substance than is the Father or the Son, for He is one being–homoousios–with them, but is called the Spirit because of the mode in which the essence is communicated to him, namely, by procession from the Father and the Son or by the Father and the Son’s spiration: “Spirit, because spirated.” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, pg. 268) “The Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, but the Holy Spirit is emphatically the Spirit. Not that he is spirit in any higher or any different sense of the word spirit, but upon other accounts, the name of Spirit is emphatically and more peculiarly attributed to him” (Waterland, Second Defence Q. 2). The chart below comes from Bible Study #2, Who is God?, where the Scriptural evidence for it is found, as it is in the detailed study in my Trinitarianism college class:
The Father is most fundamentally Father not because in the work of God toward us–the economic Trinity–He adopts His people and make them His adopted children, but because considering God as He is in Himself–the ontological Trinity–He is eternally the Father of the eternal Son, and the Son is eternally begotten by the Father; in time the Son was sent by the Father to be born in Bethlehem because in eternity the Son’s “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), the Father’s begetting expressing the eternal relation between the eternal Persons. The Son is eternally Son because He is eternally begotten of the Father. (Lecture #7 in the Trinitarianism course discusses the Biblical evidence that the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s procession are eternal.) Likewise the Spirit is eternally the Spirit because He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) and the Son (cf. John 20:22) in a manner that is comparable in an ineffably exalted way to being breathed forth, rather than the way the Son is of the Father, in an ineffably exalted way that is comparable to being begotten.
John Owen helpfully writes concerning the designation of the eternal third Person as the “Spirit,” and how this differs from the spiritual essence possessed in common by all three Trinitarian Persons:
This, then, being the name of him concerning whom we treat, some things concerning it and the use of it, as peculiarly applied unto him, are to be premised:1 for sometimes he is called the “Spirit” absolutely; sometimes the “Holy Spirit,” or, as we speak, the “Holy Ghost;” sometimes the “Spirit of God,” the “good Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of truth” and “holiness;” sometimes the “Spirit of Christ” or “of the Son.” The first absolutely used denotes his person; the additions express his properties and relation unto the other persons.
In the name Spirit two things are included;—First, His nature or essence,—namely, that he is a pure, spiritual, or immaterial substance; for neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks can express such a being in its subsistence but by ruach and pneuma, a spirit. Nor is this name, firstly, given unto the Holy Spirit in allusion unto the wind in its subtilty, agility, and efficacy; for these things have respect only unto his operations, wherein, from some general appearances, his works and effects are likened unto the wind and its effects, John 3:8. But it is his substance or being which is first intended in this name. So it is said of God, John 4:24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός·—“God is a Spirit;” that is, he is of a pure, spiritual, immaterial nature, not confined unto any place, and so not regarding one more than another in his worship; as is the design of the place to evince. It will therefore be said, that on this account the name of “Spirit” is not peculiar unto the third person, seeing it contains the description of that nature which is the same in them all; for whereas it is said, “God is a Spirit,” it is not spoken of this or that person, but of the nature of God abstractedly. I grant that so it is; and therefore the name “Spirit” is not, in the first place, characteristical of the third person in the Trinity, but denotes that nature whereof each person is partaker.
But, moreover, as it is peculiarly and constantly ascribed unto him, it declares his especial manner and order of existence; so that wherever there is mention of the “Holy Spirit,” his relation unto the Father and Son is included therein; for he is the Spirit of God. And herein there is an allusion to somewhat created,—not, as I said, to the wind in general, unto whose agility and invisibility he is compared in his operations, but unto the breath of man; for as the vital breath of a man hath a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine emanation, still abiding one with them: for all those allusions are weak and imperfect wherein substantial things are compared with accidental, infinite things with finite, and those that are eternal with those that are temporary. Hence, their disagreement is infinitely more than their agreement; yet such allusions doth our weakness need instruction from and by. Thus he is called … Ps. 33:6, “The Spirit” or “breath of the mouth of the LORD,” or “of his nostrils;” as Ps. 18:15, wherein there is an eminent allusion unto the breath of a man. … And from hence, or the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in an eternal emanation from the Father and Son, as the breath of God, did our Saviour signify his communication of his gifts unto his disciples by breathing on them: John 20:22 … and because in our first creation it is said of Adam that God … “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” Gen. 2:7. He hath the same appellation with respect unto God, Ps. 18:15. Thus is he called the “Spirit.” …
Again; He is commonly called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord; so, in the first mention of him, Gen. 1:2, רוּחַ אֶלֹהִים, “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I doubt not but that the name אֶלֹהִים, “Elohim,” which includes a plurality in the same nature, is used in the creation and the whole description of it to intimate the distinction of the divine persons; for presently upon it the name Jehovah is mentioned also, chap. 2:4, but so as Elohim is joined with it. But that name is not used in the account given us of the work of creation, because it hath respect only unto the unity of the essence of God. … Now, the Spirit is called the “Spirit of God” originally and principally, as the Son is called the “Son of God;” for the name of “God” in those enunciations is taken personally for the Father,—that is, God the Father, the Father of Christ, and our Father, John 20:17. And he is thus termed … upon the account of the order and nature of personal subsistence and distinction in the holy Trinity. The person of the Father being [the font of the Trinity], the Son is from him by eternal generation, and is therefore his Son, the Son of God; whose denomination as the Father is originally from hence, even the eternal generation of the Son. So is the person of the Holy Spirit from him by eternal procession or emanation. Hence is that relation of his to God even the Father, whence he is called the “Spirit of God.” And he is not only called … the “Spirit of God,” but … “the Spirit that is of God,” which proceedeth from him as a distinct person. This, therefore, arising from and consisting in his proceeding from him, he is called, metaphorically, “The breath of his mouth,” as proceeding from him by an eternal spiration. On this foundation and supposition he is also called, secondly, “The Spirit of God” … to difference him from all other spirits whatever; as, thirdly, also, because he is promised, given, and sent of God, for the accomplishment of his whole will and pleasure towards us. The instances hereof will be afterward considered. But these appellations of him have their foundation in his eternal relation unto the Father, before mentioned.
On the same account originally, he is also called the Spirit of the Son: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts,” Gal 4:6;—and the Spirit of Christ: “What time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,” 1 Pet. 1:11. So Rom. 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The Spirit, therefore, of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same; for that hypothetical proposition, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” is an inference taken from the words foregoing, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” And this Spirit of Christ, verse 11, is said to be the “Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead.” Look, then, in what sense he is said to be the Spirit of God,—that is, of the Father,—in the same he is said to be the Spirit of the Son. And this is because he proceedeth from the Son also; and for no other reason can he be so called, at least not without the original and formal reason of that appellation. Secondarily, I confess he is called the “Spirit of Christ” because promised by him, sent by him, and that to make effectual and accomplish his work towards the church. But this he could not be unless he had antecedently been the Spirit of the Son by his proceeding from him also: for the order of the dispensation of the divine persons towards us ariseth from the order of their own subsistence in the same divine essence; and if the Spirit did proceed only from the person of the Father, he could not be promised, sent, or given by the Son. Consider, therefore, the human nature of Christ in itself and abstractedly, and the Spirit cannot be said to be the Spirit of Christ; for it was anointed and endowed with gifts and graces by him, as we shall show. … This, therefore, is the formal reason of this appellation: The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Son,” and the “Spirit of Christ,” upon the account of his precession or emanation from his person also. Without respect hereunto he could not be called properly the “Spirit of Christ;” but on that supposition he may be. He is so denominated from that various relation and respect that he hath unto him in his work and operations. Thus is the Spirit called in the Scripture, these are the names whereby the essence and subsistence of the third person in the Holy Trinity are declared. How he is called on the account of his offices and operations will be manifested in our progress. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 3 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.], 54-64)
So most fundamentally the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit,” Pneuma, because He is, as it were, “breathed forth” (pneo, cf. Psalm 147:7, “he will blow his breath, pneusei to pneuma autou,” [LXX]) in an eternal procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle, while the Son, by contrast, is eternally begotten by the Father.
That is why the Holy Spirit is most fundamentally designated the “Spirit”; it is because of His eternal relation to the Father and the Son. Why is He so frequently called “Holy”? Stay tuned–that will be the subject of an upcoming post (although it may not be next Friday; I’m thinking October 15th’s blogpost, probably).
–TDR
Why is the third Person in the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
Also, the Father is the “holy Father” (John 17:11), and the Son is the “Holy One” (Acts 3:14). The Holy Spirit is not in a higher degree morally pure or righteous than the Father or the Son–Father, Son, and Spirit are all infinitely righteous, possessing equal, immeasurable, infinite holiness.
So why “the Holy Spirit”?
What do you think?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
Lord willing, I’ll tell you what I think next Friday in my post then. But you can share your thoughts now in the comment section.
Here’s a clue–why is the “Father” the “Father” and the “Son” the “Son”?
By the way, for a simple overview of the Biblical teaching on the Trinity, see Bible study #2 here; for something with more depth, see the college class here.
–TDR
Are Christian Ministers “Reverend”?
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox religious organizations call their priests “reverend,” or “reverend Fathers.” So do the large majority of Protestants, and a surprising number of Baptists, even fundamental, independent Baptists. Are Catholic priests “reverend”? How about Christian ministers–are they the “Reverend John Doe” and the like?
There is only one verse in the King James Bible where the word “reverend” appears:
Psa. 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
In this passage Jehovah’s name is “holy and reverend,” because He is the Almighty Redeemer, who in faithfulness to His holy covenant promises, redeems His people by His power, chooses and sets them apart to Himself, and makes them like Himself, until He brings them to eternally be with Him in His holy presence. Truly, Jehovah’s name is holy and reverend!
But “Rev. Mr. Jones” does not do any of that. Mr. Jones does not have an infinitely holy name or character; Mr. Jones does not redeem God’s people by an almighty arm and by the blood of Jesus Christ. Simply looking at the English word, one would conclude that a minister calling himself “Rev.” is a form of blasphemy, taking the honor due to Jehovah’s name alone.
What about the Hebrew translated “reverend” in Psalm 111:9? The form is the Niphal (generally passive) participle of the verb “to fear,” nôrāʾ, hence, “to be feared.” Jehovah’s name is “to be feared” and it is holy.
The Niphal participle appears in 34 verses in the Old Testament. Significant examples include:
Ex. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
Deut. 7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
Mal. 1:14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
Psa. 47:2 For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.
Psa. 66:3 Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.
Psa. 66:5 Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.
Psa. 68:35 O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.
Psa. 76:7 Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry?
Psa. 76:12 He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.
Psa. 89:7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
Psa. 96:4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
Psa. 99:3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.
Job 37:22 Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.
Dan. 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
Neh. 1:5 And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
Neh. 4:14 And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.
Neh. 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.
1Chr. 16:25 For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods.
The strong majority of uses refers to Jehovah as the One who is to be feared / reverenced. An examination of the complete list of texts (Gen. 28:17; Ex. 15:11; 34:10; Deut. 1:19; 7:21; 8:15; 10:17; 28:58; Judg. 13:6; Is. 18:2, 7; Ezek. 1:22; Joel 2:11; 3:4; Hab. 1:7; Zeph. 2:11; Mal. 1:14; 3:23; Psa. 47:3; 66:3, 5; 68:36; 76:8, 13; 89:8; 96:4; 99:3; 111:9; Job 37:22; Dan. 9:4; Neh. 1:5; 4:8; 9:32; 1 Chr. 16:25; note that the Hebrew versification is sometime slightly different than the English) reveals not a solitary text where a godly person, or a priest, or a minister, or anyone of the sort is called “reverend.”
Jehovah is reverend. If you are a Christian minister, you are not reverend.
What about a Catholic priest? There are a small number of texts where “to be feared” or “terrible” has the sense of desolate judgment. Thus, in Habakkuk 1:7 the evil, pagan Babylonians, who come to lay waste, kill, and destroy the Lord’s people, are called “terrible” (Hab 1:7). Likewise, a desolate, life-destroying desert is called a “terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water” (Deut 8:15). So Catholic priests, as representatives of their pagan and Satanic false religion, in the sense that they are pagan, evil, destroyers of God’s people, are “reverend” in the sense that they are actually terrible, are life-destroying like a desolate desert full of serpents and scorpions, and are soul-murderers the way that the pagan Babylonians were “terrible.” After all, the pagan Baylonians are their ancestors as they are part of that great harlot sitting on many waters, the future one-world religion centered in Rome, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth (Revelation 17).
So let Catholic priests call themselves “reverend” or “terrible” if they wish–it is true, albeit not in the way that they intend, but in the same sort of way as when the Pope calls himself “vicar of Christ” he employs a title equivalent in Greek to “anti-Christ” (Latin vicarius = Greek anti).
So if you are a Baptist or a Protestant who claims to fear the true God, don’t call yourself reverend. In the good sense, it is true for the one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, alone–He alone is holy and reverend. In the bad sense, of something genuinely terrible and destructive, it is true of pagan murderers of God’s people, and so, in that sense, an appropriate title for a Roman Catholic priest or of other servants of religions that are drunk “with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6). You are unworthy of “reverend” in the good sense, and I rather think you don’t want to be called “reverend” or “terrible” in the bad sense.
So Jehovah is “reverend”–Hallelujah–and Catholic priests are “terrible/reverend”–to their everlasting shame. If you preach the true gospel and are a servant of Christ, you are emphatically not “reverend.” So stop calling yourself or others “Rev.” The title is either blasphemy, if intended as a compliment, or a statement that they are pagan enemies of God, in the bad sense.
Spurgeon well commented on Psalm 111:9:
“He sent redemption unto his people.” When they were in Egypt he sent not only a deliverer, but an actual deliverance; not only a redeemer, but complete redemption. He has done the like spiritually for all his people, having first by blood purchased them out of the hand of the enemy, and then by power rescued them from the bondage of their sins. Redemption we can sing of as an accomplished act: it has been wrought for us, sent to us, and enjoyed by us, and we are in very deed the Lord’s redeemed. “He hath commanded his covenant for ever.” His divine decree has made the covenant of his grace a settled and eternal institution: redemption by blood proves that the covenant cannot be altered, for it ratifies and establishes it beyond all recall. This, too, is reason for the loudest praise. Redemption is a fit theme for the heartiest music, and when it is seen to be connected with gracious engagements from which the Lord’s truth cannot swerve, it becomes a subject fitted to arouse the soul to an ecstacy of gratitude. Redemption and the covenant are enough to make the tongue of the dumb sing. “Holy and reverend is his name.” Well may he say this. The whole name or character of God is worthy of profoundest awe, for it is perfect and complete, whole or holy. It ought not to be spoken without solemn thought, and never heard without profound homage. His name is to be trembled at, it is something terrible; even those who know him best rejoice with trembling before him. How good men can endure to be called “reverend” we know not. Being unable to discover any reason why our fellow-men should reverence us, we half suspect that in other men there is not very much which can entitle them to be called reverend, very reverend, right reverend, and so on … we would urge that the foolish custom should be allowed to fall into disuse.
C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 111-119, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 4.
–TDR
Updated Seventh-Day Adventist evangelistic pamphlet
The evangelistic pamphlet for Seventh-Day Adventists, “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends,” has been updated to include Ellen White’s statement: “[T]hose who claim that their faith alone will save them are trusting to a rope of sand,” Adventism’s teaching that Christ’s blood is useless for those who have committed one wilful sin, and (relatively recently) the addition of their teaching that baptism forgives sin. If your church does not already have some good resources for members of this cult, I would like to commend this composition to you for your use. Your Baptist church can get its church name on it by downloading a Word doc of the pamphlet at the All Content page at FaithSaves and then personalizing it. Copies can be made through a Baptist printing ministry or by just making some on a copy machine.
–TDR
Shabir Ally / Thomas Ross Debate over Jesus and the New Testament with Reviews now on Rumble
The videos of my debate with Shabir Ally, and the reviews of the arguments made, are now on my new channel, KJBIBLE1611, on the video sharing platform Rumble. I created the channel on Rumble because I am concerned that YouTube might be censoring or reducing the viewership of the debate now, and if that is not taking place now that it might do so in the future. Please feel free to subscribe to my Rumble channel, which will help other people to see the video. It also helps if you subscribe to my YouTube channel. I intend, at this point, to keep posting content on both the KJB1611 YouTube channel and on the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel, Lord willing; Rumble because it does not censor Biblical or conservative content, the way YouTube tends to do, and also YouTube because so many more people watch YouTube at this point. I have also added links to the Rumble videos on the Shabir Ally debate post at FaithSaves. The evangelistic Bible studies are also going up on Rumble.
–TDR
The Church of Christ: Preach the Word of God, Preach Politics, or Preach Conspiracies?
Preach the Word or Politics?
In 2 Timothy 4:2, the Bible commands: “Preach the Word,” referring to the “all Scripture” of 3:16 with the Greek anaphoric article on the “the” of 2 Timothy 4:2. God commands His Word to be preached, and nothing else, in the church of Jesus Christ. Does this exclude preaching on political topics?
Sometimes preaching the Word means preaching what the Word says about politics. For example, the Bible condemns abortion and sodomy, teaches free market economics and a limited government instead of socialism or communism and an intrusive government, and favors republican government over monarchy or dictatorship. It is entirely appropriate to preach what Scripture teaches on these and related issues and to make appropriate contemporary application, whether through following what 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2 implies–expositional preaching through entire books of the Bible–or through topical messages on Biblical issues.
Do we see preaching on contemporary politics taking place in the New Testament? Matthew 14:1-4 reads:
1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, 2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. 3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
The first Baptist preacher made the clearly true, unquestionably verifiable statement that Herod should not have taken his brother’s wife. We have no other political statements at all from him, and it does not even appear that the Baptist declared the unlawful incest of Herod in a sermon–rather, John “said unto [Herod]” directly what the ruler had unlawfully done, also reproving Herod for all the evils he had done (Luke 3:19). So John made a clear Biblical application of a political matter in a personal way to the ruler in question.
What about the Lord Jesus? Christ called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32). This also was not in a sermon but in response to a question the Lord was asked. In every recorded sermon the Lord preached, and in all His teaching in the NT, there was nothing about the terrible political things going on in His day—which He could have used His omniscience to describe and warn about with perfect accuracy—but Christ did warn a great deal about false religion, the worst thing that was taking place in first century Palestine (and the worst thing happening in our day).
The sermons in Acts contain nothing about the dirty power plays in the Roman empire or other political events. The closest one gets is Paul proving that he was not a lawbreaker in court settings. Paul also used his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; Acts 22), so Christians should use the voting rights they have in free nations.
So we have one statement from John the Baptist, made directly to Herod and not in a sermon, one word, “fox,” from Christ on politics, here again not in a sermon, and nothing in the apostolic preaching in Acts. Paul used the political right he had to protect his life and advance the gospel (Acts 22), and also used his citizenship to protect the Philippian jailer and his household from their heroic, selfless, and extremely dangerous act of taking Paul out of prison into the jailer’s home (Acts 16:37).
What about the New Testament epistles? In the epistles, there are no warnings about current politics at all.
So is it lawful to make application to current political events in sermons? Based on what Christ and the first Baptist practiced, it is certainly lawful. However, it is also certainly not the emphasis of the New Testament. The balance found in the NT epistles is to spend 99% of the time on giving people God’s unsearchable truth; when naming evil men and evil deeds to focus on religious corruption; and occasionally as a legitimate application of Scripture to point out the evil in the secular political world. Indeed, God’s infallible truth, powerfully preached, will do far more long-term good, even politically, than changing God’s pulpit into a place of political commentary.
A congregation where people did not know that the Democrat party overwhelmingly opposes religious liberty and promotes abortion and sodomy would be poorly informed. Application of the Sixth Commandment would properly inform people of the indisputable facts right in the Democrat party platform. However, a congregation that does not know what the books of Zechariah or Ephesians are about (for example), but hears all sorts of things about contemporary politics from the pulpit, is also not following the New Testament balance. They should hear far more in the Lord’s house about the Joseph of Genesis than about Joe Biden.
It is true that the Old Testament prophets spoke more about the misdeeds of their rulers and of other nations than one finds in the New Testament. This fact should encourage us to be gracious rather than judging harshly that contemporary politics are alluded to too often by other pastors or other preachers. However, we should also keep in mind that Israel was a theocratic nation-state–a political nation among other political nations. The king was not just a ruler, but one with a religious position over God’s people. The surrounding nations were not just people groups, but idolatrous enemies trying to destroy the kingdom of God on earth and stop the coming of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s redemptive program by wiping out Israel. It may therefore be a better comparison if we consider Jeremiah warning the king to submit to Babylon as comparable to the harsh and specific NT warnings against false religion rather than the equivalent of someone preaching about the misdeeds of secular political rulers.
Furthermore, speech about political rulers must follow Romans 13:
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:7)
John the Baptist said nothing disrespectful to Herod. Even Michael the Archangel did not rail harshly against Satan, who indubitably deserved it (Jude 9). Even if a secular political ruler is very evil–as most of them are–and very hostile to Christianity–as many of them are–we must show them fear and honor in the same way that we must give them tribute or pay taxes–God requires it.
So preaching legitimate applications of Scripture on politics is right, but making politics central to the church is not, nor should the church follow politically conservative heathen in their reviling of those with liberal political views. Respect is required for all men, and especially for all rulers, even if they personally do not deserve it in the least. Remember that you don’t deserve respect in and of yourself, either. You deserve hell fire, but God gave you grace despite your unworthiness. He calls you to show respect in the same way to unworthy political leaders who He has ordained (Romans 13) for His own ultimate glory and wise purposes.
Preach the Word or Conspiratorial Politics?
What about political conspiracy theories? I have already addressed this to an extent in my posts “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.” (My thoughts on the COVID vaccine specifically are here, with some broader comments on medicine here.)
Notice that what John the Baptist said about Herod was 100% true, credible, and unquestionably verifiable. Herod had taken his brother’s wife and was openly living with her. The same holds true for the Old Testament prophets. The Moabites had certainly burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime (Amos 2:1). (Since the New Testament epistles do not deal with any political controversies, they contain no examples here at all, but their silence does still teach us something about proportion, as already noted.)
Contrast that with, say, the dangerous semi-religious cult, the QAnon conspiracy, which believes various political leaders in the USA are engaged in pedophilia and Trump was going to expose them and send them to Guantanamo Bay, and made many other false predictions coupled with unfalsifiable affirmations. Is there a deep state cabal of pedophiles, or whatever other conspiratorial affirmation? Before someone believes something of this sort on a personal level, he needs to make sure that he has carefully weighed the evidence, not just for such a conspiracy, but against it (Proverbs 18:17) lest he answer a matter before hearing the evidence properly, which is folly and shame (Proverbs 18:13). If, for example, QAnon is really a movement of Satanic slander, as many born-again Christians affirm, then affirming its truth would be displeasing to the Lord. Consider the principles in the post “Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories.” Do my affirmations in favor of the conspiracy meet Biblical standards of evidence? Certainly conspiracies should not be promoted in the pulpit in Christ’s churches unless they really have extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary assertions. It was easy to verify that Herod had an unlawful spouse. He did not deny who his consort was. It is much harder to prove that a particular person engaged in abominable acts with minors when nobody allegedly involved says it happened, there is no forensic evidence, etc., and nobody seems to care about it except some extremely fringe social media people who have very dubious evidence to back up their expansive claims.
Let us imagine that someone at one’s workplace told a lie one time out of every twenty statements that he made. We would consider such a person to have a severe lying problem. While conspiracy theories actually have a truth value that is far closer to 0% than to 95%, let’s imagine that a preacher starts preaching political conspiracy theories and is actually correct 95% of the time. He would still be breaking the Ten Commandments 5% of the time—a grave lying problem. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” does not have any exception for discussions of politics. It does not have a 5% exception. Slander is a grave sin, even if one is slandering a political leader with a terribly anti-Biblical worldview. Slander is still a grave sin, even if one is slandering someone as verifiably crooked as Hillary Clinton. If she is crooked in one way you are not lying to say it, but if you accuse her of something she did not do it is slander. Yep, it is still a sin to slander even her.
Preacher, let’s be much harsher on ourselves than on others as we evaluate these things, and make sure our own sermons are 100% accurate, respectful, and non-slanderous. Nevertheless, whoever makes an inaccurate statement, even if he is convinced it is true by slick-sounding misinformation and is sincerely beguiled by enticing words (Colossians 2:4), is still breaking the Ninth Commandment. We are not to engage in such behavior ourselves, because the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). We are not to tolerate it in our houses, because “he that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight” (Psalm 101:7). We must not bring it into Christ’s church, because that is the place to preach the infallible truth of the Word (2 Timothy 4:2) as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not the place to preach what is either verifiably false, or even only possibly true but uncertain, or even what is true but is not exposition and application of the Bible.
So preach the Word—not politics. Follow the pattern of the New Testament in how much politics is talked about in church. It is not 0%, but not that far away. It is very far from the emphasis. Following the New Testament pattern both honors Christ, the One who told the church what to preach, and also promotes liberty in the long-term in a far more effective way than an unbiblical lack of balance that turns the Lord’s church into a Super PAC.
So preach the Word—not conspiratorial politics, because preaching a conspiracy, unless it is absolute truth, risks committing the grave sin of slander in the place where only what has an infallible “thus saith the Lord” should be proclaimed, for that alone gives glory to Jesus Christ, the great Head of His church.
–TDR
Pre or Post Tribulation Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20? Part 2 of 2
In part one of this series, I mentioned that I was discussing last things–eschatology–with someone who strongly asserted that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 refuted the pre-Tribulation Rapture position. He argued that 1 Thessalonians states that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then the Rapture takes place, but the first resurrection, when the dead in Christ rise, takes place in Revelation 20 at the end of the Tribulation period; a post-Tribulation Rapture. Therefore, he concluded, the pre-Tribulation Rapture position was false. We looked at 1 Thessalonians last week. We will look at Revelation 20 now. Does Revelation 20 teach a post-Tribulation Rapture?
Rev. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev. 20:6 μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσουσι μετ’ αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη.
Pre or Post Tribulation Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20? Part 1 of 2
Recently I was discussing last things–eschatology–with someone who strongly asserted that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 refuted the pre-Tribulation Rapture position. He argued that 1 Thessalonians states that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then the Rapture takes place, but the first resurrection, when the dead in Christ rise, takes place in Revelation 20 at the end of the Tribulation period; a post-Tribulation Rapture. Therefore, he concluded, the pre-Tribulation Rapture position was false.
Some reasons 1 Thessalonians teaches a pre-Trib Rapture are covered in part one below. In part 2, next week, Lord willing, we will look at Revelation 20.
1Th. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th. 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th. 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1Th. 4:16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου, καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ καταβήσεται ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον·
1Th. 4:17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες, οἱ περιλειπόμενοι, ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτω πάντοτε σὺν Κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.
1Th. 4:18 ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις.
1Th. 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
1Th. 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th. 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
1Th. 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.1Th. 5:8 ἡμεῖς δέ, ἡμέρας ὄντες, νήφωμεν, ἐνδυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης, καὶ περικεφαλαίαν, ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας.
1Th. 5:9 ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ὀργήν, ἀλλ’ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
1Th. 5:10 τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα, εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν, ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν.
1Th. 5:11 διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους, καὶ οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα, καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε.
Luke 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.Luke 21:23 οὐαὶ δὲ ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις· ἔσται γὰρ ἀνάγκη μεγάλη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὀργὴ ἐν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ.Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Rev. 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?Rev. 6:16 καὶ λέγουσι τοῖς ὄρεσι καὶ ταῖς πέτραις, Πέσετε ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου·
Rev. 6:17 ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς δύναται σταθῆναι;
Rev. 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.Rev. 11:18 καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν, καὶ ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι, καὶ δοῦναι τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς δούλοις σου τοῖς προφήταις καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά σου, τοῖς μικροῖς καὶ τοῖς μεγάλοις, καὶ διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν.Rev. 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.Rev. 16:19 καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη εἰς τρία μέρη, καὶ αἱ πόλεις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔπεσον· καὶ Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη ἐμνήσθη ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, δοῦναι αὐτῇ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ.
Make Your Child a Millionaire With This American Express Platinum Roth IRA Loophole?
Before reading this post, please remember that the Bible forbids any “trust in uncertain riches” instead of in the “living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17). If you are reading this because of money, but you are not born again, nothing in this post will benefit you eternally. Click here to find out how you can be saved from sin, death, and hell through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also, please keep in mind that I am not a financial advisor, a tax advisor, or anything of the sort. What is below is just my opinion and I am not giving you advice about doing anything. If you want financial or tax advice, consult a professional, not me.
Also, if you have troubles paying off credit cards in full each month, maybe my opinion that you should stay far, far away from them is correct. I would encourage you to read my series on the dangers and rewards of credit cards here.
It also is not a good idea to go crazy with credit cards if you are about to try to get a home mortgage or something like that, although in my opinion the deal below is good enough to make it worthwhile even then.
There are two parts to this post. In my opinion:
1.) Contributing to a Roth IRA is a great financial vehicle
With the important caveats above in mind, in my opinion I believe there is a way to get more into your Roth IRA or a child’s Roth IRA without violating the $6,000 yearly contribution limit.
Why does this matter? Consider the Roth IRA calculator at the Biblical Financial Stewardship section at FaithSaves. Let’s say you add $1,000 into a Roth IRA at the age of 18 and never contribute to it again until (if God spares your life and the Rapture does not happen first) you reach the age of 65. If you got the average stock market rate of return of around 8%, the $1,000 would have become $37,000. Not bad to have your money grow to 37 times its original amount–all tax free at withdrawal. If you put $2,500 into a Roth IRA at age 18 and contributed $2,500 a year to it until you were 65, you would have over 1.2 million dollars with a average rate of return of 8%. If you put the same amount of money in the Christian-based, clean mutual fund the Eventide Gilead Fund, and earned the 18.63% lifetime rate of return it has earned since its inception (I am not saying that is realistic and you should not count on that), putting $1,000 in at age 18 and leaving it alone would net you $3,000,000, and $2,500 a year would get you over $48,000,000.
What if a five-year-old child was able to get $1,000 into a Roth IRA and never touch it until age 65? At 8% the $1,000 would become over $100,000! At 18.63% the $1,000 would become $28,000,000! At 8% the $2,500 / $2,500 scenario above would yield the five year old child over $3,000,000 at age 65, and the (likely too rosy) 18.63% rate of return on the Eventide Gilead Fund would leave the child with $450,000,000.
2.) A Loophole to Put More into a Roth IRA
It is, therefore, wise to max out a Roth IRA at the $6,000 limit if you can do it. However, there may be a way to get more than $6,000 a year into a Roth IRA without violating IRS rules. (Let me remind you again that I am not a tax professional nor a financial advisor.) You don’t want to violate IRS rules because the penalties are not very nice. So is there a loophole?
The American Express Platinum Card with Schwab allows you the option of redeeming the membership rewards points you earn from the card at 1.25 cents each. Points are deposited into your Schwab account (any ordinary citizen can open a Schwab checking or Roth IRA account). The Membership Rewards points you earn with Schwab are not cash–they are just points. The IRS has traditionally not recognized these as taxable income for that reason. Furthermore, when you redeem them into your Schwab account, you are not contributing income, but Schwab is depositing a bonus into your account. It is kind of like the way that sometimes brokerages give you a bonus if you roll money over from another institution to them; they sometimes add a bonus to your account, but it is not money that you contributed.
Right now the Schwab Amex Platinum card comes with an opening bonus of 100,000 Membership Rewards (MR) points. That can be deposited for $1,250 into a Schwab account–including a Roth IRA–and since you are not making a contribution, but Schwab is giving you a bonus that is not based on cash but on non-cash Amex Membership Rewards, it does not affect contribution limits (in my opinion, which I believe I have very good grounds to think is correct, but I am not a tax professional.)
A child can only put into a Roth IRA what his own income is–so if he makes $100 from mowing lawns, he can put that (or you can make him put it) into a Roth IRA. But since the Amex MR points are not cash, you could deposit them into his Roth IRA, and to the $100 he earned from mowing the lawn you could add $1,250 as a bonus. If you earned a lot of Amex MRs through other means, you could sock away a huge amount of money into his Roth IRA and secure your child’s financial future as much as it can be done with uncertain riches.
So let’s say you opened the Schwab Amex Platinum card and deposited the $1,250 opening bonus into his Roth IRA at age 5. You have just given your child $126,571 at an 8% rate of return at age 65. If the (high) rate of return on the Eventide Gilead Fund were to continue, at 18.63% just putting the bonus in from opening the Schwab Amex would give your child $35,300,000. Of course, the value of $1 is highly likely be less at that time because of inflation, but this is still a very, very good investment return–and you pay no tax at all when you take the money out at 65.
I don’t know the future and I have no way of knowing what will happen with investments as time moves on, but in my opinion it would be a wise financial decision to put as much as possible, as young as possible, into a Roth IRA.
The facts above were convincing enough for me to apply for the Schwab Amex Platinum, and to use practically the complete stash of Amex points that I had, not for amazing travel as I have been accustomed to using them, but for cash, specifically into a Roth IRA. I just got the opening bonus on my new Schwab card and, as I write this, have just moved the points from that opening bonus and practically all my other Amex Membership Rewards points into a Schwab Roth IRA. It was easy to do–maybe a five minute process to redeem, and about another five minutes to buy some God-honoring Eventide mutual funds.
The Amex Platinum card has a lot of extremely luxurious benefits. You get:
1.) $200 hotel credit
2.) $200 airline incidental credit
3.) $200 Uber / Uber Eats credit
4.) $240 Digital Entertainment credit (Audible, Peacock, etc.)
5.) $100 Saks 5th Avenue credit
6.) $100 Global Entry credit
7.) $179 CLEAR credit
8.) $300 Equinox credit
If you used all those credits, the card would save you over $1,500. Furthermore, they are calendar-year credits, so if you decided to open the card but then decided you didn’t want to keep it, you could use the credits this year and next year to get $2,000-$3,000 in savings before cancelling it, on top of the $1,250 opening bonus of 100,000 Amex MRs. You also get things like access to very nice airport lounges, Hilton gold status (free meal when you stay at a Hilton and room upgrades), and many other benefits.
For these ultra-premium benefits, Amex charges a nasty annual fee of $695. (If you keep a lot of money with Schwab they will refund you $100 or $200 off the annual fee, but that is only if you hold $250,000+ or $1,000,000+ with them.) Furthermore, the credits are not worth their face value but are worth what you would pay for them. For example, if you use Uber Eats once a month anyway, you might value the Uber Eats credits as near $200 in cash, but if you don’t care about the Equinox fitness credit (I don’t), you would value the Equinox credit as $0. Would I pay $100 for a Saks 5th Avenue $100 gift card? Nope. Most of their stuff is too expensive, although they do offer discounted items online. Would I pay $40? Maybe. If I paid $20 a month on Audible already for a subscription or audio books, then the $240 credit on digital entertainment is worth a straight $240. If I don’t, and have no use for the other options for the digital entertainment credit either, but I would pay half of that face value to buy audio books, then the credit is worth $120 to you. The $200 credits for their hotel collection is nice, but you can’t pick any hotel you want, so it is not quite worth a straight $200, although to me it is worth at least $100, I think, maybe more since when you book with Amex the hotel gives you nice things like expensive amenities, free breakfast, etc. In any case, that’s the sort of thing you have to do to value these credits.
In the first year, at least, getting 100,000 Membership Rewards (MR) points worth $1,250 makes the annual fee worth swallowing. Is the card a keeper after that? Perhaps, and perhaps not; it depends on how you value the credits and benefits.
The Amex Platinum has some bonus categories that earn 5 points per dollar spent. In non-bonus categories, it only earns 1 point per dollar. I therefore combine it with the Amex Gold card, which earns 4 MRs per dollar at grocery stores and dining, and the Amex Blue for Business card, which earns 2MRs per dollar on all spending categories where another card does not already give me something better. These can be redeemed into a Schwab IRA at 1.25 cents each–bypassing taxation and contribution limits (so take whatever rate you pay in income, social security, etc. tax on income and multiply the cash value of the points by that amount). The Blue for Business is a business card, but if you teach lessons, or sell things on Ebay, or do work as a handyman, etc. you have a business and can get a business card.
Membership Rewards can also be transferred to travel partners for very good travel redemptions–for example, you can transfer them to airline partners and fly, for example, in first class on ANA to Japan or to Europe and back for 60,000 MRs each way–which could be the cost of flying economy in cash, but instead you are flying in an amazing first class cabin that could cost you $20,000 if you paid cash. But this post is about Roth IRAs.
Schwab is reducing the cash redemption value of their points from 1.25 cents each to 1.1 cent each on September 1. I highly doubt that they are going to eliminate the cash redemption option entirely; I believe they will keep it, just at the lower value. But with that upcoming devaluation, now is the time to go crazy getting American Express Membership Rewards points and putting them into a Roth IRA at maximum value. If you have multiple Amex cards you can pool all your points and put them all into the Roth IRA. You could combine opening bonuses, for example, by getting a Schwab Amex Platinum (100,000 points, $1,250 tax-free into Roth IRA redemption value), an ordinary Amex Platinum (another 100,000 points, $1,250 tax-free into Roth IRA cash redemption value), an Amex Gold (60,000 MRs, $750 tax-free into Roth IRA redemption value) and an Amex Blue for Business (10,000 MR opening bonus, or $125, with no annual fee and 2 MRs per dollar, a good keeper card for the long term), and get $3,375 that you never have to pay tax on put into a Roth IRA to grow tax free. If you did those four cards, and put them into an IRA of an 18-year old and got 8% until 65, just the credit card bonuses, if you never contributed again, would be over $125,000 at 65. If you put them into a Roth IRA of a 5 year old, at 65 it would be $341,000. If you get more than one Platinum card you can then double up on all the credits (or for the first year you can both use the credits now and then again in the new year so that you can triple-up or quadruple-up on them if you and a spouse both get the cards; that could be $800 for use at hotels, as well as $800 at Uber Eats or Uber, $800 for airline incidentals, etc.; you could get enough credits for a nice trip as well as a financially beneficial Roth IRA contribution.)
The opening Membership Reward point bonus for each card requires certain spending in the first months after opening the card, but if you are not able to meet that requirement through ordinary spending (don’t just buy things you don’t need in order to meet the opening bonus, obviously) you can just do things like pay your taxes ahead of time with a credit card (and get refunded for an overpayment after you file), or pay utility or other bills ahead of time, or meet minimum spending requirements while helping the poor by getting Kiva loans, which probably gets you your money back in just a few months to around a year, etc. I have invested in a lot of Kiva loans and am thankful to be able to help needy people while meeting spending requirements, and I have had a default rate of under 1% over a long time frame. (Of course, that doesn’t mean that this very low default rate will continue into the future, nor that you will also have a default rate that low, but it is very possible.)
By the way, you can take out the principal that you put into a Roth IRA before age 65 without penalty. You just can’t take out the interest / gain before 65 (with certain exceptions) without a tax penalty.
In my opinion (again, not as a financial professional or a tax professional), this is a fantastic opportunity. You can apply for the cards below if you are interested. They are affiliate links except for the Schwab Platinum, which is not.
Click here to sign up for the Schwab Platinum Card and get points worth $1,250 along with lots of other benefits.
Click here to add another regular Amex Platinum to get another $1,250 worth of Amex MRs and another $200 in Uber / Uber Eats credits, airline credits, etc.
Click here to add an Amex Gold card to get another $750 worth of Amex MRs and 4 MRs/5% cash back on groceries, restauraunts, etc.
Click here to add an Amex Blue for Business card to get another $125 worth of Amex MRs and 2 MRs on all spending up to $50,000 a year.
Note: the offers above are the ones that I have; I have not checked to see if there are better ones for any of these cards, but if there are, by all means take them instead.
If you think I am crazy for getting all these credit cards, that is fine. In my opinion, if you pay cash for everything and just put a lot in a Roth IRA the more conventional way, while riches are uncertain, you will be very likely to be glad that you did. If you think all these cards are a very good opportunity, I agree, although, again, this is just my personal opinion, I am not a financial or tax advisor, and I am against using credit cards if a person pays high interest rates on them instead of paying them off.
Finally, please also consider the post here on tithing or giving more than 10% under grace on what you earn on investments.
–TDR
Recent Comments