James vs Paul, again

Today’s topic is a difficult area, but one in which there are fine lines all over the place.  We are going to discuss the classic Paul vs. James false dichotomy. 

The starting point for this discussion is a conversation in which there is a hypothetical person whose normal temperament is bitter, angry and hostile.  The question is whether this behavior is evidence, in of itself, that the person who displays this unfortunate behavior habitually is lacking in the fruit of the spirit in accordance with both Paul and James.  My response in person lacked the depth necessary to tackle such a difficult issue.  The issue is the classic Liberal Hymn that we all know from our youth, “…they will know we are Christians by our Love.” Is that a fair statement? 

I like to begin this discussion with Luke 23:39-43.  In this example from Luke’s Gospel, we have a man who has clearly NOT demonstrated the fruits of the Spirit.  While we can argue that the Holy Spirit has not yet come into the world, there is another line of argument as well.  We can clearly state, based on the fact that he fully admits that he has earned his crucifixion by his less that wonderful works, that his righteousness before God is NOT based upon his works.  His righteousness is completely based upon his faith, a faith that he articulates at his death.  How do we make sense of this episode in light of James?  James seems to say that since a faith without works is dead, then this guy should have been damned.  But he is proclaimed righteous by none other than Jesus Himself.  All that he has demonstrable in his favor is his faith.

Paul and James have a history together.  Remember the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.  The question before the apostles concerns the gentiles.  Do you have to be Jewish first to be Christian?  Notice first what Peter says in verses 7-11.  This clearly becomes the interpretation of the whole group.  Now, notice what James says in verses 12-21, quoting Amos 9:11-12.  What we MUST assume at this point is that James passes off on the notion of justification my faith alone.

Now, in their epistles, it is very important to keep in mind to whom each apostle is writing, when, and why.  Paul is usually writing to fledgling churches who are struggling with various issues, after the Jerusalem Council.  Paul never assumes the Gospel.  He always repeats the Gospel, restates the Gospel, teaches the Gospel, refers back to the Gospel, over and over again.  James, on the other hand, is believed to have written his letter prior to the Jerusalem Council.  What is amazing, therefore, is that reformed scholars do not believe that James is either disagreeing with Paul in his letters or with himself in Acts 15.  Here is why.

James argues that faith without works is dead.  But James is assuming that these Jewish Christians to whom he is writing already know the Gospel.  The question here is about antinomianism.  Neither Paul nor James believes that antinomianism is possible, but they go about discussing it from opposite sides of the argument.  Paul in Romans 6 argues that since we are dead to sin, should we go on sinning so that Grace may abound?  By no means, he says.  If you follow his argument through to the end of chapter 8, you will see that Paul does not believe that true faith will yield a person who lacks obedience.  But at the same time, because our bodies remain IN ADAM, we continue to sin despite our desire to be obedient.  And this forces us back to Christ in repentance.  This is Christian living according to Paul.  James argues in his second chapter that faith without works is dead.  But look carefully at the grammar of that passage.

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

The proposition is that someone says he has faith.  James is questioning, not Paul’s definition of faith that justifies, but rather the supposition that the someone in question had true saving faith in the first place.  James says that there is no such thing as an antinomian because that sort of faith is dead; in other words, it does not lead to life.  Remember that when these guys are talking about life, they are talking about eternal life, and therefore justification.  So, James is in agreement with Paul on the subject of people who do not express the fruits of the spirit.

Now, two questions remain.  First, what are the fruits of the Spirit?  Second, how do recognize the fruits of the spirit in others and in ourselves?  The first question we often forget to ask, and yet it is the important precursor to the second question.  What does the Holy Spirit do?  The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of the Gospel and brings true and saving faith to believers as a free gift.  Therefore, it follows that the fruit of the spirit is true and saving faith in Jesus Christ and His work for His followers on the Cross.

The second question is then about recognition.  Before we talk about others, let’s consider ourselves.  Do we believe that we are fallen and sinful creatures, completely without hope for salvation?  Do we believe that we need to obtain some sort of righteousness before God or else we are going to hell, and we have no avenue to do this on our own?  Do we humbly repent and come before God as broken and defeated creatures?  Do we believe that God in His mercy sent Jesus to be our only mediator and advocate, to live the life that we could not live, to die the death that God requires on our behalf, to impute His righteousness to us, His elect, to give to us, a free gift of Grace, this belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His work for us on the Cross?  Then, yes, we have true and saving faith.  Now, relax for a second.  How does that make you feel?  Grateful?  Humbled?  In awe of His mercy and Grace?  Desperate to please Him?  Good.  Now, follow the commandments.  When you mess up, and you will, repent, turn back to Him and receive His Grace and do it again.

What about your neighbor?  How do know that he has true and saving faith?  If works have nothing to do with it, how can you tell?  The truth is that you can’t tell.  That is the point.  We are not given the job of fruit inspector.  Jesus is the fruit inspector general, not us.  We might suspect one way or another, but let me give you two examples.  The Dali Lama is a rather pious sort.  He is generally regarded as righteous before man.  But he has no righteousness before God, unless he believes in the redeeming work of Jesus on the Cross.  Some would claim that he is a better Christian than most of us because of his civic righteousness.  Now look again at the thief in Luke 23.  He had so little civic righteousness that the Romans killed him for his works.  This is the danger of fruit inspection.  We just do not know.

Therefore, keep your own efforts in front of you.  Be obedient to the Lord in Gratitude and Obedience.  Love God and Love your neighbor.  Do these things because you are one of the elect, you understand the Gospel, and now you want to spread the good News about what Jesus Christ has done for you.  What did he do for you?  For me, He lived the perfect life that I couldn’t.  He died the death that I deserved.  He has declared me righteous before God on the Last Day.  He did all of this to save me from the Wrath of God in His infinite mercy and Grace.  Through the Blood of Christ, I live.  They will know we are Christians because we declare the Gospel of Christ, not because we actually lived in a way different from them.

--Troll--

Categories: Law and Gospel, the 3 uses of the Law

When the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics talked about God’s moral law (lex moralis), they taught that there are three basic uses of the law (usus legis).  They are:
1) The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis).  That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin.  This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).
2) The pedagogical use (usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus).  That is, the law also shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves.  In Muller’s summary, this is “the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ” (p. 320).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 2-4.
3) The normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus).  That is, this use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works.  It “acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good” (p. 321).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.
Note: “In this model, Christ appears as the finis legis, or end of the law, both in the sense that the usus paedagogicus leads to Christ as to a goal and in the sense that the usus normativus has become a possibility for man only because Christ has fulfilled the law in himself” (Ibid.).  In other words, in both the pedagogical use and the normative use Christ is central as the one who has saved his people from the law’s demands and the one who has merited the gift of Spirit-wrought obedience.

And now in plain speak.  We have discussed in the past that there is a clear and distinct difference between Law and Gospel.  This is one of the two main category distinctions that we get from Martin Luther.  The other main category distinction is between the two kingdoms, which we will discuss in the next post.  The Law consists of commands.  It is always tied to a blessing and curse principle.  Do this and you shall live; do it not, and you shall perish.  One of the most important things to develop at the outset is the context of that last sentence.  When discussing do this and you shall live, we are not talking about the here and now.  This is a statement concerning Judgment Day.  We are in the realm of eschatology again, and we are talking about eternal life.  So, in terms of the Law, Do this and you shall live means do this and you shall have eternal life.  Obviously, the second part of the clause is the curse that damns the person to eternally suffering the Wrath of God, i.e. hell. 

The key feature of the Gospel is that it is in the indicative mood.  We can call this the present perfect tense as well, because it is completed action in terms of the present.  The Gospel events have finished.  It is a declaration of the condition of things based upon events that are finished.  This is NOT present progressive tense.  This is NOT ongoing action.  This is completed action.  The Gospel is News.  It is not dependent upon how we react to it.  The World Trade Center towers have fallen.  They fell regardless of how we feel about it, or how we reacted to it.  That event is outside of us.  That event occurred independent of our interaction with it.  That was news.  The Gospel is news.  The Gospel is in the indicative mood.  The Gospel is in the present perfect tense.  The Gospel is NOT about how we feel.  The Gospel is about what Jesus has done for us.

The Law, then, is imperative.  The Law is a command.  The Law tells us what to do.  Let’s break down Luther’s three uses of the Law and see what they mean.

The first use of the law is the civil use.  This means that the law restricts how we behave towards one another.  All people are aware of this use of the law.  We receive this form of the law by general revelation or natural revelation.  Natural revelation is the law as we have imprinted upon our hearts.  We, in creation, are hard wired for natural revelation.  Adam and Eve did not yet have the stone tablets of Moses, and yet they were aware of the Law.  The Law was obvious to them by observing creation.  Natural revelation is available and known to all people, even atheists.  Natural revelation gave Adam and Eve the Law under which humanity fell.

Specific revelation is more specific than natural revelation in that it uses words.  Specific revelation is the Law as written in the Torah.  Specific revelation was given to Moses.  Whether we are Christian, Jew or neither, some form of natural or general revelation is known to us.  Under these terms, we know the difference between right and wrong.  We know generally how to behave towards one another.  This is the Civil use of the Law.  When governments make civil laws, they are using general and natural revelation, which are right kingdom items, to mandate behavior in the left kingdom, the kingdom of man, the kingdom of the here and now.  The Civil use of the Law is a government of man using the Law of God to restrict behavior and enforce some ethical code.

The second use of the law is the pedagogical use of the law.  This is a vastly important point that must be clearly understood in order to understand the Gospel.  The second purpose of the Law is to show people that we are sinful.  I didn’t know what it meant to covet; I had to look that up.  Now, I know what it means to covet, and I realize that I do, indeed, covet.  The Law has made me aware of my sin.  This goes much deeper than mere definition, however.  The Law carries reward and punishment.  The wage of sin is death.  The Law teaches us that we have all earned death.  The Law finally teaches us that we are all fallen creatures in Adam.  The purpose of the Law is to condemn man.  The second purpose of the Law is to bring man to his knees in the realization that we cannot possibly uphold the Law.  The second purpose of the Law is to turn us away from ourselves, outside of ourselves, to the Gospel.  The second purpose of the Law is to turn us towards the redemption and salvation offered to believers through Christ’s life, death, resurrection and ascension.  The second purpose of the Law is to show us that we cannot do it, and turn us toward the One who, not only could do it, but did do it, and He did it for His people.

The third use of the law is normative use of the law.  This use is for believing Christians.  It has no applicability to non-Christians.  Once we understand that we are completely incapable of fulfilling the law, that we are therefore left in a wholly desperate predicament, that we have therefore turned outward towards Christ and His alien righteousness through the Blood of the New Covenant, then the Law serves a very different purpose.  Jesus has fulfilled the Law in terms of the Blessings and the Curses of the Old Testament Covenants of Law.  We are reborn through Christ’s blood in the Sacrament of Baptism into the New Covenant as believers.  We have been given the gift of faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, we are no longer under the Law.  That is Christian Liberty.  Now, we have a new master that is not the Law.  Our master is Christ Jesus, our Lord, our Savior, our King.  We have an obligation of obedience to Him.  We are expected to follow the moral law, the Decalogue, not under the blessing and curse principle, but out of our obedience and gratitude for the intervention of Grace on our behalf.  We freely accept this obligation as our duty to Christ as one of His people, chosen before time to receive from the Holy Spirit the gift of faith.

In summary, the three uses of the law are the civil, the pedagogical and the normative uses.  The civil use of the law is the use of general and natural revelation by civil authorities to mandate behavior that avoids sin.  The pedagogical use of the law is to cause believers to realize that they are sinners incapable of the standard of perfection required for salvation, and to therefore turn them away from themselves towards Christ.  The normative use of the law is for believers who understand and believe that their righteousness before God is independent of their works, based completely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ for us, and is therefore a freely accepted normal standard for behavior.  I hope that you found this helpful.

--Troll--

Progressive Revelation: Connecting the dots part 3

In this post, developing on some of the types and shadows mentioned thus far, I want to expand these images in the same way that these Old Testament images are expanded in the New Covenant.  
 

Water

There is no question that water figures prominently in the Bible.  It is through water both that God delivers his judgment upon the unbeliever, while at the same time He delivers His people through the same water.  Two notable Law Covenants have this pattern.  The Noahide Covenant is introduced by the flood, a flood through which Noah and his family, and all of creation is delivered, based up the faith of Noah in the promise of God.  The Mosaic Covenant is introduced by the parting of the sea, and the simultaneous deliverance of Israel and defeat of Egypt by the same water, based upon the faith of Moses in the promise of God.  Jonah was delivered into the raging water and into the belly of the whale for three days.  Then he emerged from the whale, through the calm waters to be delivered upon the land.  His sacrifice saved the boat and the crew, but he was delivered to a new life through the water after three days.

If you can’t see the sign of Jonah to which Jesus Himself refers, then pause and consider for a while.  Finally, water is the seal of the New Covenant.  Upon our Baptism, we inherit justification and sanctification.  After we pass through death, we receive salvation.  The water of our Baptism is not just symbolic, it is the covenant seal of the New Covenant in Christ.  The Old Testament water events were types and shadows of the more important event, Baptism, that seals our membership in the elect of Christ for those who are given the gift of true faith.  Notably, it also seals the doom for those who are Baptized through a false faith.  Again, the same water that saves also condemns.

Passover

Passover is a type and shadow of Judgment Day.  How is this the case?  Consider the events of Passover.  The Wrath of God was delivered upon the Egyptians.  Who was to say that the wrath of God would be delivered upon only the Egyptians that night?  What made the difference?  Through the blood of an innocent sacrifice of thanksgiving, the chosen people were passed over by the Wrath of God because they believed in the promise of God as delivered by Moses, who truly believed the promise.  Likewise, through the blood of Christ, believers are passed over on Judgment Day by the Wrath of God.  But of course, the Blood of Christ is much more than the blood of a sacrificial lamb.  The Blood of Christ does much more than just cause God to turn away from those covered by His blood.  His blood actually cleanses them of sin in the eyes of God so that they may be Justly judged as Righteous.  The Blood of Christ reconciles those same believers to God, propitiating Him on our behalf.  Passover is merely a type and shadow of the real deal.

Fire

Fire consumes, except for one fire.  When God presents Himself as a burning bush, the bush is not consumed.  When God presents Himself as a flaming pot or torch, they are not consumed.  Only the one who believes may approach God in this form.  All others are consumed.  Notice God’s warning to Moses concerning the rest of Israel.  The Wrath of God was clearly taken seriously by God.  The issue that needs to be addressed is the appearance of the Holy Spirit as tongues of fire upon the Apostles.  The best way to look at this is that the Holy Spirit does not consume the believer.  But the Wrath of God as manifest by Hell is always depicted as fire.  Fire is dangerous.  Fire is the sign of God, but not the covenant seal.  Nonetheless, God in a pot was much more than a type and shadow of the Holy Spirit.  They are of the same type.  Baptism by fire is not covenantal reference, it is a Law reference.

When John the Baptist states that one who comes afterwards will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, he is discussing the topic of repentance.  Remember that John the Baptist was all about repenting.  His reference to fire is that the one who comes after him, Who is mightier than he, can wield fire, a fire that will consume those who fail to repent, while at the same time bringing faith to those whom He chooses as His own.  Baptism by fire in its idiomatic form is no less daunting.  Being in the line of fire destroys many of those thrown into it.  Fire is not a covenant seal, it is a judgment.

Circumcision and Baptism

Circumcision is discussed in great detail by Paul.  He clearly makes the point that Abraham was declared righteous by his faith before he was circumcised.  Therefore, gentiles and Jews alike have access to this faith and this covenant.  Since circumcision is an Old Testament covenant seal, we can guess that it is a type and shadow of something else.  Paul tells us that this is Baptism, the Covenant seal shown to us by Jesus.  In addition, the covenant seal of the New Covenant is written upon both men and women, not just the men.  The covenant seal of circumcision is written upon the very flesh of the men of Israel.  Much more than this, the covenant seal of baptism is written upon the very flesh of Jesus.  He was not only scarred by the seal, but he was crucified.  We are crucified with Christ in our Baptism, and then we emerge from the water as new creations in Christ.  Notice how bent out of shape Paul gets with the Galatians over this issue.  If you revert to ceremonial circumcision, then you are claiming to be under the Law, and you will be judged JUSTLY under the Law, and may God have mercy on your soul.  Baptism is much more than circumcision is so many ways.

Blood and Sacrifice

Finally, there is the issue of the types of sacrifices in the Old Testament.  We have basically two types.  There is a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, and there is a sacrifice of Atonement.  Learning about the scapegoats in Exodus 24 is an interesting exercise that we’ve done before.  The point is that all of those sacrifices in the Old Covenants point to the ultimate sacrifice of the New Covenant.  Jesus, by His work on the Cross, accomplishes many things for us.  First, He is both fully God AND fully human.  Therefore, he is both born without sin AND he is born under the Law.  He fulfills the Law by living a sinless life, being the first and only person to do so.  Therefore, as a sacrifice, He is much more than a lamb.  He is God.  He is perfect.  He is a human who has fulfilled the Law.  Therefore, He is in a position to offer himself as a perfect sacrifice of thanksgiving, much more than a mere lamb.  Second, because of the Great Exchange, where His righteousness is imputed to all believers, we also can offer our lives to God as offerings of thanksgiving.  Since we are new creations in Christ through baptism, we can now make this just and full offering of ourselves to God in His service.  Third, because our sin is imputed to Christ, He is also the perfect sacrifice of atonement, because He not only turns God away from us and our sin, His blood actually washes away our sin, declaring us righteous before God. Fourth, because we are now pure as snow through the Blood of Christ and we are clothed in His righteousness, we are now reconciled to God to receive our full inheritance:  Sanctification and Resurrection on the Last Day.  Therefore, how much more than the Old Testament sacrifices is the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross! 

This was not intended to be an exhaustive review of this topic, but merely an introduction.  The point is to demonstrate that through progressive revelation, we learn about the New Covenant by reading and studying the Old Testament.  We learn about the Holiness of God, the Fall of man, the Wrath of God, God’s plan for our Salvation, the details of the New Covenant,  the importance of the seal, the importance and necessity of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, the inheritance, and a rough outline of the timeline of redemptive history.  That is a whole bunch of information that is both pertinent and applicable to our situation today.  So, now, read the Old Testament again, as the disciples did after the visitation from Christ on the road to Emmaus and in the upper room in Jerusalem.  Let Christ unfold the mysteries of All of His Scripture for you.

--Troll--

Gospel Quiz Comments

1. All people are basically good, but there might be a few exceptions.
2. All good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell.
3. The most important teaching of the Bible is to live your life as an example to others.
4. Jesus summarizes the gospel as Love God and Love your neighbor.
5. God understands that we are not perfect, but he just wants us to do our best.  He will do the rest.
6. God helps those who help themselves.
7. The blood of Jesus gives me healing and blessings.
8. The Holy Spirit gives me healing and blessings.
9. You must make a decision to follow Christ to be saved.
10. Jesus saves us from ourselves and our sins.
11. If you make Jesus your savior, you become a carnal Christian.  You can then obtain one of the spiritual gifts and receive your full inheritance, jewels in your crown.
12. Free will is a gift of God.  We must factor in our free will when discussing salvation.

These questions have been asked in many ways over the years and the answers have been changing, usually in a cycle from orthodoxy to liberal drift to reformation to liberal drift.  I have heard 12 yes’s or agrees on these questions recently.  Most people seem to be splitting the difference and averaging about a 6.  Now, I will tell you my own score.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  And now, I will go through each of these and explain why I do not agree.

(1)  According to the Bible, all people are evil, corrupted by sin.  In this present evil age, only two people have entered this world uncorrupted by sin, Adam and Jesus, and only one successfully exited this world without sin.  The condition of sin was not understood by the Pharisees, nor the whole Jewish nation with the exception of the remnant elect, all through the Old Testament.  This is what the prophets kept complaining about.  Remember how Ezekiel laments that he is the last person who believes in the promise of a messiah and God tells him, no, there are 7000 others that He has held back for Himself.  Read Romans 3:1-20 from a good word-for-word translation; ESV, NKJV, NASV all do justice to the passage.  All men are under the law.  All men have evil hearts.  All men will be convicted of sin on the last day if left to the works of Law.

(2)  Christ came into the world, lived, died and was resurrected to save sinners.  He did not come here to save the righteous (or self righteous, as none is truly righteous,) for the righteous do not need saving.  Based upon the answer to comment 1, no one is righteous, no one is good, and no one is going to heaven by the works of Law.  So, actually, since my heart is evil, and I believe that I AM going to heaven, evil people WILL go to heaven.  Of course, there is far more to this than God overlooking my sin.  Of course, He will never overlook my sin.  That would violate His Holiness and Infinite Righteousness.  There has to be another way.  Luckily for us, there is.

(3)  Most nominal Christians, you would think, would recognize the folly in this statement.  Alas, this is not the case.  So many people believe that their best testimony is to live pious lives as an example to the world.  Hello, people!  I’m not putting my life up against the average Mormon, and they are not Christian.  Change that to Hindu if you like, and the answer is the same.  Piety and righteousness before men is not an exclusive province of Christianity.  If you put all of your marbles on your righteousness before men, you will be judged based upon your own righteousness.  Before God, as we are developing in these questions, your own righteousness is, well….  Paul says that his own righteousness that he thought he had was dung.  Surely, there is more to the message of the Bible than living piously before man.  Maybe the real story in the Bible is His rescue of His people for eternity.

(4)  Jesus summarizes the Law as Love God and Love your neighbor.  Love is a verb in this sentence and it is in the imperative tense.  Imperative means command.  Command means Law.  This is not the Gospel.  Jesus was trying to explain to the Jews that their righteousness that they claimed under the law was woefully insufficient.  He takes the Law and raises it to the fourth power.  Sure, I can avoid murdering my neighbor and stealing his wife and his boat.  But can I avoid thinking bad thoughts about him?  Paul says that his heart and mind sin before his body ever gets around to it.  No, this summary is not the Gospel; this summary is the Law.  Jesus came to fulfill the Law because we can’t.

(5)  God does understand that we are not perfect, and frankly, He’s not very happy about it.  In fact, He banished us from Eden and convicted us all to death.  He doesn’t just want us to do our best; He expects us to be perfect!  Since we can’t be perfect, in fact, there is absolutely nothing that we can contribute at all to our own salvation, God, in His infinite Mercy, sent His Son into the world to save us all, all of those to whom He would give the free gift of Grace and Belief.

(6)  Amazingly, most people these days think this is a Bible verse.  It is, of course, from Benjamin Franklin.  God judges those who help themselves; He judges them under the Law.  The verdict is guilty, and the penalty is eternal separation from our God.

(7) (8)  These two are the same.  The blood of Jesus is not some magic talisman, nor is the Holy Spirit a cosmic butler.  The blood of Jesus is not an object to be wielded.  Jesus’ Blood was spilled in sacrifice of atonement to propitiate believers to God.  When we speak of the Blood of Jesus, we need to keep in mind why it HAD to be spilled, for whom it was spilled, and what it purchased for us.  The Blood of Jesus is a shorthand for the reconciliatory and atoning work of Jesus on the Cross; nothing more and nothing less.  The Holy Spirit came into the world to give the gift of faith to His people.  He testifies about Jesus; nothing more and nothing less.  Without the work of the Holy Spirit, we are all lost.

(9)  This one will get a resounding yes from most Americans, unfortunately.  If you follow the logical arguments above, there is no possibility of agreeing with this proposition.  The only decision of which I am capable on my own is to deny the Truth of Scripture and to choose that which I perceive is the best available option.  The problem is that my perception is tainted by sin, thus I cannot ever choose God.  The Holy Spirit is the solution of God to this problem.  The Holy Spirit is sent to testify about the Truth of the work of Jesus, in His life, death and resurrection, and to give the gift of faith to those whom He would choose.  The Pelagian heresy is anathamized even by Rome.

(10)  It is amazing to me that people don’t get this one right.  Sin is the problem, the consequence of sin is the Wrath of an Angry God.  The Wrath of God for sin is the main issue.  We have gravely offended the Holy, Almighty and Just God.  Justice will be served.  We are saved FROM the Wrath of God.

(11)  This is the standard Pentecostal formula.  They assert that there are two levels of believer: the carnal Christian verbalizes belief while the fully vested Christian manifests some “spiritual gift” and conforms to some man imposed ethical standard.  The brute damage that this theology does to the Gospel, to the Crucifixion of Christ, is beyond all limits.  This is truly that “other gospel” to which Paul associated the super apostles in Corinth.  As C.S. Lewis says in the Screwtape Letters, just get them to believe the Gospel and….  And anything, it doesn’t matter.  Just add anything on to the Gospel and it is no longer the Gospel.

(12)  Free will is of man.  Free will is nothing more than our mind choosing between the best options available as we perceive things.   The gospel is alien to us, outside of us.  We cannot perceive the Gospel without the gift of Grace from the Holy Spirit.  We are free to choose whatever we like from the options available to us.  But as Paul says in Romans 3:1-20, we are completely incapable of choosing God; we don’t want to choose God; we would not have made a different choice than Adam.  Free will does not help us in the least with our salvation.

I’m sure I’ve been treading on some toes with heavy steel tipped work boots.  I might respond to comments on this thread, or I might respond by email, depending on the tone of the comment and my view of the comment as a teaching point.  I have presented the reformed position.  If you are not Roman Catholic, this is your Christian heritage.  Why are you giving back the farm?  There was a time when Protestants held these positions, believed these Biblical doctrines.  This alien righteousness that Christ provides to His flock by the free gift of faith in Him through the power of the Holy Spirit is the thesis of the Bible.  This is the purpose of that rescue mission.  This is the Gospel.

--Troll--

Gospel Quiz

Answer the following 12 questions yes or no, agree or disagree.  Total up all of your yes or agree answers and we will discuss the answers in the next post.

1. All people are basically good, but there might be a few exceptions.
2. All good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell.
3. The most important teaching of the Bible is to live your life as an example to others.
4. Jesus summarizes the gospel as Love God and Love your neighbor.
5. God understands that we are not perfect, but he just wants us to do our best.  He will do the rest.
6. God helps those who help themselves.
7. The blood of Jesus gives me healing and blessings.
8. The Holy Spirit gives me healing and blessings.
9. You must make a decision to follow Christ to be saved.
10. Jesus saves us from ourselves and our sins.
11. If you make Jesus your savior, you become a carnal Christian.  You can then obtain one of the spiritual gifts and receive your full inheritance, jewels in your crown.
12. Free will is a gift of God.  We must factor in our free will when discussing salvation.

Write down your total and, if you like, post the number here or on the Facebook starting link.  We’ll talk about it on Monday.

--Troll--

Women in Church, another discussion

An interesting debate was developing elsewhere on the worldwide web concerning the place of women in the church.  As always, Paul becomes a stumbling block in these discussions.  Very often, I find that we attempt to rationalize passages that say things that we don’t like.  I certainly don’t like Paul’s commentaries on the roles of women.  But as you know, I am a firm advocate of the Five Solas, and this includes Sola Scriptura.  Therefore, in applying a hermeneutic to interpret a passage, it must be consistently applied.  The following is a comment from that debate elsewhere about which I will be commenting.

This is where the understanding of the customs of the day MUST get into our Bible interpretation. It was both Jewish and Gentile custom (just like slavery, which the Bible does not condone and yet made clear allowances for in Paul's letters and the Law of Moses) for women to sit separately from their husbands in synagogues (Jews) and for women to be prohibited from the learning experience by-and-large (Sparta was virtually the only "liberated" culture among the Gentiles, allowing an agoge educational experience for women). The Jewish rabbinic tradition forbade women from even owning a copy of the Torah. The tradition actually said, "It would be better for the Torah to be burned, than to fall into the hands of a woman." Further still, Paul's use of the "Adam and Eve" example in the 1 Ti. 2 passage sets the learning/speaking experience for women in the context of marriage, not a woman's interaction with the Church. The 1 Co. passage instructs the Church on order in prophesying, how a woman should wear a head cover (which was a custom of the day), and then makes the emphatic statement in v. 16: "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such CUSTOM, NOR DO THE CHURCHES OF GOD!" HELLO. Titus 2:1-5 has no ammunition at all for this fallacious doctrine that paralyzes church ministry in tradition that nullifies the Word of God. (Mk. 7:13)

In the discussion mentioned above, the following assertion was made.  We must understand the customs of the day in order to properly interpret passages of the Bible.  I must say at the outset, that this sets a very dangerous precedent that the reformers would absolutely pummel with abuse.  The mantra of the reformers is that scripture interprets scripture.  Never do they allow culture of that day or ours to have a higher authority over scripture than scripture itself.  The authority of scripture must remain sacrosanct.  Therefore, from the outset, we can assume that I will have grave reservations about the line of reasoning that followed.

The next assertion, which was presented as a parenthetical, was slipped in equating Paul’s view of women with Paul’s view of slavery.  First of all, this is preposterous.  Paul never condones the Roman practice of slavery, nor does he endorse it.  To be quite sure, the Roman practice of slavery was vastly different from the American version centuries later that was evil through and through.  The image of slavery is used throughout the New Testament in discussion of our active obedience to Christ in response to the gift of faith in the redeeming work of Jesus on the Cross.  You cannot understand the Gospel properly without dealing with these images and the cultural bias that we bring to the passages.  In the sense that we need to understand slavery in the context of slavery in first century Roman culture, the original assertion was correct.  However, the application of that assertion was wide of the mark.

The commentary went on to compare the Roman practice of slavery with the rabbinical law that dealt with men and women in synagogues.  This is problematic on many levels, apples and oranges leaps to mind.  Rabbinical Law is enscripturated.  Slavery was a social practice of the culture of the time.  The idea that because slavery was a practice that Moses and Paul did not condemn means that any aspect of rabbinical law that we deem obsolete can be disregarded is a very poor, and false, logical construct.  We have ample reason to disregard the whole of rabbinical law save the moral law from Jesus, and I will use this approach to deal with Moses.  But this is scripture interpreting scripture.  Jesus tells us that the rabbinical law is fulfilled in Him, and the New Covenant of Christ requires only the moral law as he summarizes.  Paul certainly reinforces this point in his Epistle to the Galatians.  Jesus does not deal with slavery either, by the way.  He really doesn’t need to address it, when you think about it.  The Gospel handles slavery without specifically calling it out.

The next assertion is that the 1 Timothy 2 passage is in the context of marriage.  Really?  Verse 8 says “in every place” as clearly as I can imagine.  Paul talks specifically about husbands and wives in at least two other places, Ephesians and Colossians, so why would he be so vague about his meaning here?  I’m afraid Paul’s statement is regrettably far more broad in this instance.  Paul asserts exactly that women should not teach men in church in exactly this place in 1 Timothy.  While we can argue that he states that he desires this behavior, what is unfortunate is that we now have this in scripture and it is unavoidable. 

This issue of head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is argued quite a bit more strongly than just as a custom of the day.  Paul gives theological argument for this behavior and practice.  While one can perhaps argue that long hair on a woman is a sufficient head cover, I do not understand leaping to the notion that the meaning of verse 16 is that everything that Paul has stated in the first 15 verses he just brushes away with a word.  Here is a great place to point out that head coverings in that day in Greece signified marriage for the woman.  Therefore, actually, this passage IS about married women.  What Paul is saying in verse 16 is that no other church outside of Corinth practices differently than what he has just spelled out in the first 15 verses.  This is exactly the opposite from what was asserted.

Finally, I would state that the assertion made concerning Titus 2 is just flat wrong.  Paul says that older women should be teaching younger women how to do a lot of things in the household that end with being submissive to their husband.  That is a pile of ammunition to this fight.

Now, I want to conclude with two points.  The first is this: if you come to a theological discussion with me with mere assertions and poorly constructed logic, I will not ignore your error.  The second is this: I don’t like what Paul says, but Peter calls Paul’s words the gospel.  What am I to do?  I can choose to not like it all that I want, but there it is.

The only sound argument made in all of this against Paul is not about tradition, but about only the moral law remaining in the New Covenant, and that both men and women are now Baptized in the New Covenant rather than just men being circumcised in the Abrahamic Covenant.  But that argument was not made.

--Ogre--

Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited

"Just how different are we today from Sodom and Gomorrah?" Why did God find no redeeming qualities in the men of that time. Is it because of Christ, today, that He withholds his wrath?

This is a comment from the Old Testament Covenants post, and I thought it worthy of a full answer.  In order to answer this fully, there are several aspects to consider.  What are the points of redemptive history for the events in question?  What is the particular relationship of all of the people in each era in question to God?  Does God actually withhold his Wrath today?  That should be a good starting point.

Sodom and Gomorrah are reported in Genesis 18-19.  This is the first action after the discussion of Circumcision and the Abrahamic Covenant.  At this point in redemptive history, man has demonstrated his utterly evil nature and fallen heart badly enough to be destroyed by a flood.  Remember that Noah is still IN Adam and still possesses a fallen heart.  Therefore, all of man still possesses a fallen evil heart.

So, why pick on Sodom and Gomorrah?  By God’s standard of sin, all sin being equal, surely Sodom and Gomorrah are no more or less sinful the rest of humanity?  By the same token though, why not Sodom and Gomorrah?  It is important to understand that this is not necessarily a pietistic commentary so much as an object lesson on the wages of sin.  The question put before Abraham concerns righteousness, not piety.  Find a righteous man in Sodom is his instruction.  If you understand original sin, you know that this is impossible.  In the end, Abraham is declared righteous based upon his faith and belief in the promise.  The lesson here is that there is no righteousness in Sodom and Gomorrah because no one there believed the promise of God.  Abraham is taught an object lesson about the wage of sin being death.  Abraham is taught that the Law only brings condemnation.  Remember, Moses hasn’t even been born yet.  This is the Law as it is engrained upon our hearts.  We know the Law empirically.  Because we continue to fail to understand that we are offending God, He decided to give us the Law in Word, so that we would fully understand our sin.

So, why did God level Sodom and Gomorrah?  Because He decided that they were a good object lesson on Law and sin.  Unfortunately, man still didn’t get it.

Today, the situation concerning our fallen nature is no different.  All men are still fallen.  All men are still IN Adam.  What is different?  The point in redemptive history is different.  We already know about God’s redemptive plan.  There are thousands and thousands of people who are transformed by faith in the propitiating work of Jesus through the Cross.  The Gospel has already been revealed.  It isn’t as if people are any less evil.  God just doesn’t have any particular need to teach another lesson.  He has revealed His plan for His people.  The Holy Spirit is busy about the work of gathering His sheep.  The only part of the plan that remains is Judgment on the Last Day.

Therefore, I would argue that God has no need to give any further examples or object lessons.  He can just sit back and watch His elect come into the world until He is ready to bring us to Judgment on the Last Day.  When the last of the elect is born, we will be within a lifetime of the Last Day.  It isn’t because there were no redeeming qualities in men then, but the situation now is different.  That just isn’t the case.  There is simply no purpose to another Sodom and Gomorrah at this point in redemptive history.

--Ogre--

Progressive Revelation: Connecting the dots, part 2

In part 2, we will discuss the nuts and bolts of how we are able to receive this righteousness that is apart from works, based on faith alone, so that none can boast (Romans 3:21-31.) I have laid a pile of doctrine upon my friends in the past few days, and this will be similar and connected to much of what has gone before.  The key passage for this discussion is about this righteousness that we will require in order to pass through judgment on the Last Day with the Not Guilty verdict.  This righteousness is alien, external, independent of our merits.  Let’s see how Paul puts this together for us.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Before we dive in deeply, I want to address a structural element.  At the end of verse 21, you will notice a dash.  What is going on here is that Paul, in mid-sentence is making an aside.  That thought is being clarified and will be resumed in verse 27.  This is why there is a dangling phrase.  This aside, of course is the key to the Gospel, so we are grateful that Paul makes it.  But because of this, I’m going to skip to verses 22-26, then I’ll come back to verses 21, 27-31.

The Law and the Prophets bear witness to it: the righteousness of God, which has been manifested apart from the Law, through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.  The Old Testament bears witness to this revelation!  The progressive revelation through the Covenants, the Law and Prophets finally bear witness to this righteousness that is apart from the Law.  Look at that again.  The Law bears witness to the righteousness of God apart from the Law.  How does it do that?  Paul answers for us: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  What he means in there being no distinction refers to between Jews and Gentiles.  Both groups are equally condemned under the Law.

Now, Paul tells us how we can have access to this righteousness that we need.  We are justified by our faith that is a gift from God through the redemption that is in Jesus.  We are going to come back to verse 21 later, but bookmark this thought now.  Our faith is a gift.  Now, Paul is going to tell us about that faith.  We believe in our justification through the redemption that is in Jesus, who God put forth as a propitiation by His Blood, to be received by faith.  The theological density of this passage is approaching a singularity (physics reference.)  God puts forth Jesus to us as a propitiation.  Propitiation is a word I’ve defined in the past, but basically, there are two parts to it.  Jesus’ Blood turns away the Wrath of God by cleansing us of our sin and clothing us in His righteousness.  But also, Jesus’ Blood reconciles us to a right, or just, relationship with God.  This restores us to our inheritance.  Can you think of a parable that talks about this issue?  Again, Paul reminds us that this gift is received by faith.  This is a large point that he is about to expand even more.

Why does God do all of this?  Here is Paul’s answer.  This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Paul says that God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Basically, God gives us the Law to show us that we are not worthy.  Once we understand that point, He turns around and gives us the justification the we need so that He can remain just.  All people are going to face judgment on the Last Day.  God will be just.  We will be judged based upon our merits.  The point of this whole passage is that God has provided a righteousness apart from our merits for those to whom He gives the gift of faith.

Am I applying these doctrines to the text, or is plain reading of the text providing these doctrines?  If this doesn’t just scream election and predestination to you, just wait until you read Romans 9.  Paul is laying it down, explaining the doctrine to all who will listen and receive the Gospel.

Back to verse 21, 27-31.  Allow me to group them together for you without the aside.  So what does become of our boasting?  Who might boast?  Jews might boast because they are Jewish.  Gentiles might boast because they have been given the gift of faith.  Paul says that boasting is excluded by the law of faith.  What?  For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.  Oh, I see.  If faith is a gift apart from merit, who then may boast?  No one may boast.  God justifies the circumcised (Jews) by faith and He also justifies the uncircumcised (Gentiles) by faith.  Same mechanism.  No boasting allowed.

I left verse 31 in here to link to future posts.  Don’t let it bog you down for now.  Paul is going to talk about the benefits of the Law in later chapters of Romans.  Instead, let’s move on to Romans 4.  Paul spiritualizes the Covenant of Abraham in two very important ways.  First, he links the inheritance of Abraham to Jesus.  Second, he links the beneficiaries to all who believe in Jesus like Abraham believed in the promise.  The people of God are from both Jews and Gentiles, but not all of either group, and the Holy Land becomes the whole world.  Please reread this chapter again and again.  The Romans Road approach to this book is to omit all of chapters 4, 7 and 9.  Therefore, many of us haven’t read this or even realize that it is there.  The Romans Road carefully omits verses 3:21-22.  I would put this forward to you: the canon is the canon.  We have to deal with all of it.  If there are passages that we cannot understand, then we have work to do.  The Canon is not the problem; we are the problem.

And finally, we come to Romans 5.  I have said much about the first five verses elsewhere, so let’s move on.  For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  Christ died for the ungodly.  Really, now, why would He bother to save the righteous?  The righteous have no need of salvation through Christ’s blood.  The rest of that paragraph is fantastic reading.  While we were still sinners, He died for us.  While we were enemies of God….  I will leave you to the rest of chapter 5.  Paul really does speak more eloquently than I concerning these issues.

In closing of this section of posts, I will leave you Romans 5:11.  More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.  You will know by now to check the context, specifically, to find out what Paul means by “more than that.”

--Troll--

The Old Testament Covenants

Another great topic from last week was that there are five Covenants in the Old Testament.  This post will review each covenant and discuss how it is a type and shadow of what Jesus would do later in redemptive history.  As we have said often, every word of the Old Testament is about Jesus in much the same way that every word or the New Testament is also about Jesus.  The Old Testament presents types and shadows of the New Covenant in Christ.  What does this phrase mean?

 

Let’s look for a moment at cars.  The regrettably named Smart Car is a type of thing in the group that we call cars.  Yes, this is debatable, but that helps make the point.  There are other types of cars that we place in this group that we call cars.  Let us take for example the Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4.  This even sounds like a more impressive car.  Look how impressive the name of the car is.  Now, let’s look at the car itself.   Now that’s a car!  It has a 396 cu. in. V12 engine with 700 horse power.  It goes from 0 to 60 m.p.h. in only 2.9 seconds.  To give you some perspective, the Smart Car comes in blue; the Lamborghini comes in red.  While the Smart Car was a type of car, it was only a shadow of the Lamborghini, and a poor shadow at that.

In much the same way, we can say that Jerusalem is a type and shadow of heaven.  It was meant to give us a vague idea of what heaven might be like.  The Jewish people were a type and shadow of what God’s people would be like.  The Old Testament goes a step farther than this.  It compares a wagon or a skateboard to a Lamborghini.  The type and shadow is so vastly inferior to the real thing that we sometimes do not realize that the skateboard was actually pointing towards the Lamborghini.  And yet, some people mistake chapters and verses and even books of the Old Testament wanting to talk about skateboards instead of Lamborghinis.  Every word of the Old Testament is pointing forward to Jesus Christ and His redeeming work for His people.

Now, let’s move on to the Covenants.  All five of these Old Testament covenants point forward to an aspect of the New Covenant in Christ, but each has a different purpose in redemptive history.  Some of them are still intact and some have been broken.  Let’s start with a table and then fill in some details as we go.

Covenant	Lesser King	Blessings	Curses
Creation	Adam	Remain in Eden	Banishment from Eden; Sin; Death
Noah	Noah	No further cataclismic distruction	More trouble
Abraham	God	People the planet	?
Moses	Jewish people	Land promise	Destruction of Temple; dispersal
David	God	King will come from his line	?

The Creation Covenant, Genesis 2-3 is unlike all other covenants in the Bible in one aspect.  This covenant is not specifically spelled out as such in the text.  The covenant is understood.  We know that it is a covenant because it has the characteristics of a covenant.  There were blessings, curses and conditions.  This conditional covenant had the provision that Adam should never eat of a particular fruit.  He broke this covenant and suffered the consequences of that action.  The curse of this covenant was that sin and death entered the world.  The curses of covenants remain intact, while the blessings are lost.

At this point in redemptive history, God looks at His creation and it is doomed.  His creation is totally incapable now of passing judgment.  Since I am handling the doctrine of original sin elsewhere, I will not belabor the point here.  For our purposes, God needs to create a scheme by which He can save some of His creatures for the Age to Come.  We are not told why He chose progressive revelation or why He didn’t just wipe us out and start over.  We are given a series of covenants that point to the New Covenant in Christ.

When we come to Noah, the situation is that God was angry again and had just wiped the slate nearly clean.  Notice Genesis 6:5.  I would ask what is different now.  Paul’s answer is that nothing has changed.  It is interesting that man sort of receives a second punishment for the creation covenant here.  God saves Noah and then he makes a new covenant with Noah.  In Genesis 6:9, Noah is accounted as righteous, blameless in his Age.  By what means was Noah accounted as righteous?  Was Noah accounted righteous based upon his works?  Noah was still in Adam.  We are given his genealogy in chapter 5 to prove this.  His condition was still of sin.  He was included in the statement of God in Genesis 6:5.  Why was he accounted as righteous by God?  Noah believed in the promise of God.  He believed in the flood and the promise of God to deliver him from this peril.  Noah was accounted righteous based upon his faith in the promise of God.  In Genesis 8, we see that while God had decided not to punish the whole earth again on account of man, the condition of man has not changed.  The intension of man’s heart is evil from his youth.  We still have a sin problem.

Let’s examine the actual covenant in Genesis 9.  First, what are the conditions?  There are two.  Don’t eat live animals.  Don’t murder.  What are the blessings?  God promises never again to use a flood to wipe the earth clean.  The issue and imagery of water both here, in the Exodus and with Jonah makes for an interesting issue, but I will return to that later.  Remember that everything here is a type and shadow.  What are the curses?  If you violate this covenant, you will die by the hand of man.  One can also argue that the curses came first in the form of the flood, but that line of thinking is fairly thin in my view.  With whom is this covenant made?  Noah’s offspring and all living creatures are included in the covenant.  The sign of the covenant is the rainbow.  Now, for the tough question: is this covenant still intact?  Of course it is.  We have empirical evidence of this in the sky.  Has man violated this covenant?  Absolutely.  But as we have said before, God never breaks covenants.  Man is the one who breaks covenants.

At the end of the first two covenants, here is the situation.  God has cursed man through Adam and his sin.  This curse is the remnant of that covenant and it is intact.  God has not flooded the whole earth again and we still have rainbows, but man commits murder with alarming regularity.  Both the blessings and the curses are intact for this covenant, although man continues to violate it.  God is indeed merciful.  But man still has a problem: man is still evil in his heart and not worthy to stand before God in judgment and receive a verdict of righteousness.  With Abraham, God will get the ball rolling in the righteous direction.

Abram was deemed righteous before God.  The Abrahamic Covenant sort of tumbles out over 7 chapters and has several parts.  I will ask the covenant questions and then go get the answers.  By what means was Abram accounted as righteous?  From Genesis 15:6, we see that it was due to Abram’s belief in the promise of God.  This is an enormously important point.  Abram had already deceived Pharaoh concerning his wife.  This was not exactly righteous behavior.  His righteousness is specifically attributed to his belief in the Promise.  Who guarantees this covenant?  This is the most amazing section of Genesis, and perhaps the most important of the whole Old Testament.   The smoking fire pot representing God passes through the pieces first, as usual.  However, the flaming torch, representing the Son of God passes through second.  They are both fire, of the same substance.  One, the torch, comes from the fire pot, the father.  The guarantor of the covenant, therefore, is God!  The blessings and the curses will therefore fall upon God Himself.  He creates the covenant in Abraham through which Salvation will finally be possible.  He does all it.  He takes all the responsibility on Himself.  He demonstrates infinite Mercy and Grace.  Who benefits?  Clearly, there is a land promise that has to do with Abraham’s offspring.  Read this part of Genesis 13.  Now, it will be Paul who will spiritualize this land promise both in terms of the land itself and the beneficiaries.  That discussion will be in the Progressive Revelation series, part 2.  Who carries the curses if the covenant is violated?  The torch does. 

Now for the confusion, let’s go to Genesis 17. “Walk before me and be blameless.” The grammar of this sentence is a declaration.  There is no work of Abraham involved in this declaration of righteousness.  We already know that Abraham is adjudged righteous based upon his belief in the promise.  What do we make of verse 4?  Do we take this at face value?  Will Abraham be the direct patriarch of a multitude of nations?  Perhaps.  Paul will answer this question.  Now, we move to verse 10 and circumcision.  The male will have the covenant seal on his body.  I will make mention of a modern Jewish commentary on Paul and circumcision in the Part 2 post to which I have referred above.  In the lines of Genesis, the seal of circumcision is required for covenant benefits.  Again, Paul will have much to say on this topic.

Now, let us move on to Moses.  The problem is that God’s chosen people, the Israelites, do not realize that their behavior is an affront to God.  God needs to teach them the meaning of sin.  God needs to spell it out for us.  Moses was deemed righteous before God.  As another aside, I will come back to the Passover when we discuss the water issue of the Red Sea.  God gives Israel the Law through Moses.  The Covenant of Mount Sinai is sealed with the blood of a sacrificial animal.  Notice upon whom the blood is poured in Exodus 24.  Half is poured out on the altar and half is sprinkled upon the Book of Law and the people themselves.  This is not just a random ceremony.  The burden of obedience to the Law is attached to the people of Israel through the blood of the ceremonial sacrifice.  The curses of the Covenant will fall upon them if they break the Covenant.  The blessings of the Covenant were deliverance from captivity in Egypt and a new homeland.

Notice at this point something vastly important.  Circumcision is associated, not with Moses, but with Abraham.  Many Jewish scholars throughout time have viewed the Mosaic Covenant as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, and that the Mosaic Covenant supersedes or replaces the Abrahamic Covenant, but this cannot be the case for two very important reasons.  First, a Covenant that involves different parties than the original cannot supersede the original.  It wouldn’t make any sense.  Secondly, the terms of the Mosaic Covenant have clearly and obviously been broken by Israel, bringing about the curse portion of the covenant, while the Abrahamic Covenant is still completely in force at this point, unbroken by either party.  The purpose of the Covenant of Law is to demonstrate to Israel that they cannot possibly keep the Law, and they should therefore be repenting and begging God for Mercy.  Unfortunately, man doesn’t see things as they are intended.  Israel actually believes that they can keep the Law.  They create more and more rules to protect the actual Law from being in danger.  They do not see or understand the spirit of the Law, much less the letter of the Law.  But this was the purpose of the Law: to teach man of his sinful nature.

David’s Covenant was similar to that of Abraham.  David, whose highlights include arranging the death of Uriah and taking Bathsheba as his own although after the covenant is made, is reckoned righteous.  Look at the actual Covenant blessing in 2 Samuel 7.  The key word is the word “offspring.” In many places, this is read as meaning a collective noun implying family.  It is often translated as such.  But the Hebrew is in the singular number, not plural.  There is one seed, one offspring.  Notice the language of the rest of the passage.  I will establish the throne of His Kingdom forever.  I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son.  This is all singular.  We are talking about one man in this passage, one king, one messiah.  It is clear that David believes that Israel is ethnic Israel over whom he is king.  But Paul will, again, take this in another direction, spiritualizing this Covenant as well.

In summary, we have looked at the five Covenants of the Old Testament.  I have hinted at some of the types and shadows that we will find in the Old Testament.  In order to fully understand what it is that Christ did for us, in His life, in His death and in His resurrection, we must fully understand what it was that God did in redemptive history in the Old Testament.  Although we are in Covenant with God through Christ and His blood, we are still the wild vines, grafted into a Jewish family by adoption.  It behooves us to learn about our adoptive family.

--Troll--