Friday, November 30, 2007
Riddlebarger's Recent Blog Article
Below is Kim Riddlebarger's (one of the hosts of the White Horse Inn) recent blog article on Eric Clapton's autobiography.
Providential Perspectives
Regardless of God's revelation to us, our perception of God is bound up in time; the fact that our senses and perceptions are limited by our temporal existence is perhaps a reminder that men's descriptions of God are always abstractions of the reality of God’s being—we can’t help it. In the same way, a photograph—however realistic—is still an abstraction of the reality which it attempts to represent.
Below is a quote from Mike Horton's "God of Promise
"While much of the debate over God's sovereignty and human freedom turns on endless speculation about philosophical possibilities, the covenantal structure of God's relationship to creaturely reality is a much safer and profitable resource. The covenant is always the site where the Great King and his servants are recognized for what they are: unequal partners with their own way of existing, knowing, willing, and acting--one as Creator, the other as creature."
We must all be very careful when we meditate on the knowledge of God and how He has that knowledge. I am aware that we have Scriptural precedence to delve these depths somewhat, by those precedence are also boundaries.
On the Absence of Confession
It is one thing to say, as a Christian, that "I'm not confessional". A surface understanding of such a statement would have most of us take it to mean that the person does not hold strictly to one of the historic confessions, Heidelberg, Westminster, London Baptist, Savoy, New Hampshire, etc, but it is another thing all together to say that Christians need not confess their sins. Though the discussion of that type of confessionalism involves a great deal more, it is not what I ran into on the truthtalklive blog yesterday. No, over the past couple days I have been engaged in a discussion under the heading of, "How Do You Reach Your Jewish Friends for Christ?". My involvement began when I heard the host on Tuesday November 27, 2007 use the pejorative term, "replacement theology" and immediately following, the guest mention the atrocities (and they certain were that) welded by the hands of those who held to that theology in the past.
If you have spent any time reading this blog you would probably have noted that I am a covenant theologian who used to be a disepnsationalist. Now, the guest last Tuesday, a believer who is Jewish, does not refer to himself as a dispensationalist but the conversation that ensued on the blog under the same title as the radio show does have a participant who calls himself a "Classic Dispensationalist", after the tradition of Darby and Chafer.
If you have spent any time reading this blog you would probably have noted that I am a covenant theologian who used to be a disepnsationalist. Now, the guest last Tuesday, a believer who is Jewish, does not refer to himself as a dispensationalist but the conversation that ensued on the blog under the same title as the radio show does have a participant who calls himself a "Classic Dispensationalist", after the tradition of Darby and Chafer.
The most shocking of the tenets to which he holds, born out of his system of Dispensationalism--which I 'm sure he would confess--was that, Christians don't need to ask forgiveness for their sins because that forgiveness has already been bought. You can look at the blog yourself to read the interaction. The Classic Dispensationalist referred everyone to two websites that represent his view, WithChrist.org and realanswers.net.
One thread of the discussion in particular involved 1 John 1:9, and in the link above, realanswers offers an explanation which you can read for yourself.
The last thing I want to do is call the salvation of these individuals into question, but I do believe that the system called Classic Dispensationalism has very little in the way of scriptural accuracy to offer the Church. I hope that you will take a look at their work on 1 John 1:9 and contrast it with the orthodox view below
Here is a reasonable exegesis of 1 John 1:9 offered by John Gill.
"Ver. 9. If we confess our sins,.... Not to one other; for though it is our duty to confess our faults to our fellow creatures and fellow Christians which are committed against them, yet are under no obligation to confess such as are more immediately against God, and which lie between him and ourselves; or at least it is sufficient to confess and acknowledge in general what sinful creatures we are, without entering into particulars; for confession of sin is to be made to God, against whom it is committed, and who only can pardon: and a man that truly confesses his sin is one that the Spirit of God has convinced of it, and has shown him its exceeding sinfulness, and filled him with a godly sorrow for it, and given him repentance unto salvation, that needeth not to be repented of; and who, under such a sight and sense of sin, and concern for it, comes and acknowledges it before the Lord, humbly imploring, for Christ's sake, his pardoning grace and mercy; and such obtain it: he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins: forgiveness of sin here intends not the act of forgiveness, as in God, proceeding upon the bloodshed and sacrifice of Christ, which is done at once, and includes all sin, past, present, and to come; but an application of pardoning grace to a poor sensible sinner, humbled under a sense of sin, and confessing it before the Lord; and confession of sin is not the cause or condition of pardon, nor of the manifestation of it, but is descriptive of the person, and points him out, to whom God will and does make known his forgiving love; for to whomsoever he grants repentance, he gives the remission of sin; in doing of which he is faithful to his word of promise; such as in Pr 28:13; "and just"; in being "true", as the Arabic version adds, to his word; and showing a proper regard to the blood and sacrifice of his Son; for his blood being shed, and hereby satisfaction made to the law and justice of God, it is a righteous thing in him to justify from sin, and forgive the sinner for whom Christ has shed his blood, and not impute it to him, or punish him for it; though the word here used may answer to the Hebrew word qydu, which sometimes carries in it the notion and idea of mercy and beneficence; hence mercy to the poor is sometimes expressed by righteousness; and the righteous acts of God intend his mercies and benefits unto men; see Da[n] 4:27; and so forgiveness of sin springs from the tender mercies of our God, and is both an act of justice and of mercy; of justice, with respect to the blood of Christ, and of pure grace and mercy to the pardoned sinner: the following clause, and to cleanse us, from all unrighteousness, is but the same thing expressed in different words; for all unrighteousness is sin, and to cleanse from sin is to remove the guilt of it, by an application of the blood of Christ for pardon. The antecedent to the relative "he" in the text, is either God, who is light, and with whom the saints have fellowship; or his Son Jesus Christ, who is the nearest antecedent, and who, being truly God, has a power to forgive sin."
Now I want to offer a few practical observations of my own.
If believers have no need of confession or "asking forgiveness", then in what way--if any--is God displeased with our sins as believers? If God has forgiven us by the cross of all the sins we will ever commit as Christians in such a way that no application of forgiveness is necessary when we sin, then the sins we commit as believers can not be displeasing to God at all, because He has already set His displeasure for those sins on Christ in the past, therefore God NEVER chastens His children because that chastening has already been accomplished in Christ.
As for Old testament believers, when God saved them, would the Classic Dispensationalist say the same thing about their life of sanctification, that they too had no need to ask forgiveness when they sinned as believers? If so, then why would Christ have told His disciples--being Old Testament saints--that they needed to ask their Father in heaven to forgive them?
Classic Dispensationalism confuses the aspects of personal atonement: regeneration, justification, and adoption. Regeneration has to do with being reborn and being made spiritually alive; justification has to do with being made right in light of God's Law, and adoption has to do with being brought close to the inheritance.
Classic Dispensationalists also tend to confuse our redemption accomplished and redemption applied. When God regenerates us he applies the righteousness of Christ to us by faith, but confession is the means of the application of Christ's work to us by faith, daily--in sanctification.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #8: Who are the Children of Abraham?: A discussion of Romans 9
Who are the Children of Abraham?
At last, the final installment regarding the above question…
Romans 9
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
Verses 4 and 5 set up the obvious Jewish question, “if the gentiles can be saved apart from being made a physical Jew (through the ritual of circumcision) and an observant of the ceremonies and Sabbaths, then what of the promises of God to the Jews (those who are observants)?” We see here in the question assumed and the answer given by Paul that, the Jews had believed that those to whom the promises of the Mosaic Covenant were made were the Children of Abraham, thus they receive those promised blessings. That is why they asked if the promises of God had failed, because Paul was telling them that just because they were born into the Mosaic Covenant they were not necessarily going to receive the promises of God for eternal life—rest in the land. Paul’s answer is this, God has not failed because the promises made to Abraham were never made only to the ethnic Jew but have always been for the spiritual offspring of Abraham not his physical offspring.
Paul is speaking specifically of his kinsmen according to the flesh. He reminds all the members of his audience that the adoption, covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises belong to his kinsmen (the Jews) but the belonging mentioned here is not the belonging of exclusive possession, the idea he is pursuing here is that all of those things had been disclosed in history through their culture and practices. The Jews no more owned those things as their exclusive possessions than they owned Jesus Himself, but there obviously is a sense in which all those things did belong to the Israelites (because it is in the text and the NASB translates it the same). It is in fact the same sense in which Christ belongs to the Jews. So the dispensationalist might argue from verses 4 and 5 that the fulfillment of the entire collection of covenant promises that God made belong exclusively to the Jews; the physical nation of Israel, but we can see that this argument would be invalid because of the nature of Paul's use of this statement and further reasons we will now explore. Another fact to be seen here is that the “belongings” Paul mentions in verse 4 are all parts of the Old Covenant that God made with Moses on Mount Sinai. The promises that Covenant Theology says are attributed to all believers are the ones made to Abraham in that unconditional covenant.
In what I believe was a moment of clarity, one day I read through this passage again, and having the debate over dispensational and covenant theology loosely fit in my mind, I read verse 6 and heard Paul say that, though all the things mentioned in the few preceding verses belonged to the Israelites, and understanding that not all of the Israelites were “in Christ” and that they remained under the thumb of the Roman empire even after their Messiah had come, God’s word had not failed! For Paul to make such a statement we must assume that is what many mistaken Jews were thinking and even expressing in their frustration. As I read this statement for myself once again, I was struck by the absence of the obvious dispensational explanation Paul should have given at this point. Shouldn’t Paul have inserted his thoughts in Romans 11 at this point; had the manuscripts been mixed up? Certainly not! I think that if Paul had believed that God’s “primary” plan has always been with ethnic Israel and His plan with the church was just a parenthesis within this plan, then he would have finished verse 6 this way: “It is not as though God’s word has failed—He has not put away His people forever. Because you did not receive Him as your king, He has sent your Messiah to save the gentiles as well, but He has not forsaken His chosen people, He has only postponed His dealing with you and He will resume it when He is finished dealing with the church”. But Paul doesn’t do that, instead of proving God’s faithfulness by reassuring the ethnic Jews of God’s future dealing with them, he proves God’s faithfulness by telling them their physical ancestry is not the issue, it is their spiritual ancestry; not all who are physically descended from Israel are spiritually descended from Israel; not all who are physically descended from Abraham are spiritually descended from Abraham…it is not the physical nation of Israel who are the children of God, but it is the spiritual nation of Israel who are His children.
At last, the final installment regarding the above question…
Romans 9
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
Verses 4 and 5 set up the obvious Jewish question, “if the gentiles can be saved apart from being made a physical Jew (through the ritual of circumcision) and an observant of the ceremonies and Sabbaths, then what of the promises of God to the Jews (those who are observants)?” We see here in the question assumed and the answer given by Paul that, the Jews had believed that those to whom the promises of the Mosaic Covenant were made were the Children of Abraham, thus they receive those promised blessings. That is why they asked if the promises of God had failed, because Paul was telling them that just because they were born into the Mosaic Covenant they were not necessarily going to receive the promises of God for eternal life—rest in the land. Paul’s answer is this, God has not failed because the promises made to Abraham were never made only to the ethnic Jew but have always been for the spiritual offspring of Abraham not his physical offspring.
Paul is speaking specifically of his kinsmen according to the flesh. He reminds all the members of his audience that the adoption, covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises belong to his kinsmen (the Jews) but the belonging mentioned here is not the belonging of exclusive possession, the idea he is pursuing here is that all of those things had been disclosed in history through their culture and practices. The Jews no more owned those things as their exclusive possessions than they owned Jesus Himself, but there obviously is a sense in which all those things did belong to the Israelites (because it is in the text and the NASB translates it the same). It is in fact the same sense in which Christ belongs to the Jews. So the dispensationalist might argue from verses 4 and 5 that the fulfillment of the entire collection of covenant promises that God made belong exclusively to the Jews; the physical nation of Israel, but we can see that this argument would be invalid because of the nature of Paul's use of this statement and further reasons we will now explore. Another fact to be seen here is that the “belongings” Paul mentions in verse 4 are all parts of the Old Covenant that God made with Moses on Mount Sinai. The promises that Covenant Theology says are attributed to all believers are the ones made to Abraham in that unconditional covenant.
In what I believe was a moment of clarity, one day I read through this passage again, and having the debate over dispensational and covenant theology loosely fit in my mind, I read verse 6 and heard Paul say that, though all the things mentioned in the few preceding verses belonged to the Israelites, and understanding that not all of the Israelites were “in Christ” and that they remained under the thumb of the Roman empire even after their Messiah had come, God’s word had not failed! For Paul to make such a statement we must assume that is what many mistaken Jews were thinking and even expressing in their frustration. As I read this statement for myself once again, I was struck by the absence of the obvious dispensational explanation Paul should have given at this point. Shouldn’t Paul have inserted his thoughts in Romans 11 at this point; had the manuscripts been mixed up? Certainly not! I think that if Paul had believed that God’s “primary” plan has always been with ethnic Israel and His plan with the church was just a parenthesis within this plan, then he would have finished verse 6 this way: “It is not as though God’s word has failed—He has not put away His people forever. Because you did not receive Him as your king, He has sent your Messiah to save the gentiles as well, but He has not forsaken His chosen people, He has only postponed His dealing with you and He will resume it when He is finished dealing with the church”. But Paul doesn’t do that, instead of proving God’s faithfulness by reassuring the ethnic Jews of God’s future dealing with them, he proves God’s faithfulness by telling them their physical ancestry is not the issue, it is their spiritual ancestry; not all who are physically descended from Israel are spiritually descended from Israel; not all who are physically descended from Abraham are spiritually descended from Abraham…it is not the physical nation of Israel who are the children of God, but it is the spiritual nation of Israel who are His children.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sanctification by Faith Alone
Sanctification is the fruit of justification; it is the byproduct, not the end.
I think it was Warfield who said that the only victorious Christian life that has ever been lived was that of the Lord Jesus Christ. I agree with that assessment, and with that in mind, why do we still have a great majority of the visible church fighting in an intramural wrestling match, if you will, to gain various crowns which represent the fulfillment of promises that God has actually made to ALL believers; to every member of His elect body?
Many (at least American believers) have been sold a poor bill of goods which includes the idea that once we are saved we must then maintain God's favor toward us by obedience to His commands. This flies right in the face of grace and works itself out in at least two ways:
- When we sin we lose our justification and we must repent and be saved once again.
- We remain saved when we sin but our disobedience is actually punished in eternity by loss of possible "rewards" .
The first option, in my estimation, is barely Christian at all. I do insist though that there are Christians who hold this view and defend it theologically (not just traditionally) but it is also important to recognise the far reaching implications of such a theology. It goes back to one's understanding of what happens at regeneration/conversion/the new birth; the reformed view states that at that event, an individual is "counted righteous"--he is justified in the eyes of God because of Christ's accomplishments. If this view is correct, then how strange it would seem to have God justify an individual on account of what God did on the cross only to have that individual later "unjustify" himself by breaking God's Law?
The second opinion, although much more palatable to the Christian tongue, is strangely misguided about the faithfulness of God to keep His promises to His people and about just what promises were fulfilled in the cross; further, this opinion accentuates the desire for eternal rewards besides God Himself--I believe that when the desire for these rewards outweigh our desire for God Himself, it is idolatry.
Conclusions:
At the moment of our justification we are counted righteous before God. Beside our sanctification, also procured by faith, what more could one really want? It is God's faithful distribution of His benefits to us that fuels our sanctification even after He has graciously justified us. It is not the fear of the potential loss of our crowns or of our salvation that should drive us to obedience but rather, it is the reiteration of the gospel that should drive us to delight in Christ; Christ raised for us, our newness in Him; sin no longer has dominion over you, therefore your obedience only makes sense. The gospel creates faith, and the sacraments of communion and baptism present the gospel tactily for the strengthening of our faith--the faith through which we were once justified and through which we are continually being sanctified.
The Law could never save us, and obedience to the Law is also never the road to sanctification, but the destination...the road of sanctification is also the gospel road.
The Law could not justify me and it also cannot sanctify me.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #7: Who are the Children of Abraham?: A discussion of Ephesians 2: Part Two
Who are the Children of Abraham?
Part 2 of the discussion of Ephesians 2
I submit that, if at any time in the future a physical temple is set up and sacrificial worship (as either an honorarium or memorial) is reinstituted, then that building and those sacrifices will be a blasphemy to Christ. If dispensationalism is correct in claiming that the ceremonial laws, rights and rituals of the Mosaic Covenant (the Old Covenant) will be reinstituted, then shouldn’t the sign of circumcision as a sign of corporate covenant obedience also be reinstated? And if so, then this teaching flies in the face of the Word of God that the Holy Spirit delivered through Paul, to the Galatians.
Galatians 1
Galatians 1
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 2
3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
I believe that the advocate of a future temple Judaism must endorse a sort of digressive revelation because the whole of the New Testament is just that, a new testament, or a new covenant, and the old has passed away. Is it suggested that in this future epoch the words written to the Romans, the Galatians, in the book of Hebrews and elsewhere are voided? No, I’m certain no self respecting dispensationalist would say so, but how else is such a view of the temple supposed to be interpreted? Paul was obviously chastening the Galatian church because they had been fooled by false brothers that obedience to Old Covenant rituals was part of sanctification, and in the worst cases, part of justification—Paul called this another gospel; he didn’t say it was another preference, he didn’t say that they were simply imprudent, he called the Galatians fools! The new covenant plainly brings the Jewish man and the gentile man together in one group, not separated by ceremonies, ritual sacrifices, moons and Sabbaths, but identified together with Christ, and this is accomplished in a better covenant. Are we to believe that in God’s plan for redemptive history, He made a covenant with Abraham (which he planned to fulfill in Christ) then He had the old covenant set up to picture the coming Messiah, which would be put aside for the better, new covenant which was in Christ’s blood (which would eventually begin to see fulfillment in Christ) only for the new and better covenant to later, also be put aside so He could finish what He had only begun with ethnic Israel in the old covenant? I know that to say that the reinstitution of circumcision, ritual sacrifices and the temple will be for a memorial appears to be a clean and sharp answer that dispensationalism gives when it attempts to answer the critique of future animal sacrifices after Christ has been sacrificed himself, (once and for all, as put in the book of Hebrews), but it is neither clean nor right; you don’t have to have a memorial for a person who is not dead, and especial not for a person who is alive and who is in your presence.
The ordinance of communion is what Christ told us to practice until He returns, and what of the Jew in that dispensational future who reads the Word and hears Col. 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ, or the words of Romans 4, Galatians 3, Hebrews 8, etc? The Jew in any future age will been given no authority subsequent to the writings of the New Testament to make him believe that those words will not also apply to him, but only to those who had passed in the age before. I know that we, present, new testament saints look at the commands of the Mosaic ceremonial and civil law and say, “…that is not for us…”, though Paul and others must look at it the same way we do, unless we are to believe that God will reveal more words in later years.
You might say that those Jews have precedence for rebuilding the temple and reinstating temple sacrifices because of the words of Ezekiel and other texts tell them to do this in the future, but this denies the New Testament interpretation of Ezekiel in specific and the Old Testament as a whole. The problem for dispensationalism remains, that revelation is progressive and there are many New Testament texts that explain how we should understand Old testament texts—even if that understanding is that they are not to be taken "literally"—as dispensationalists count things literal.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #6: Who are the Children of Abraham?: A discussion of Ephesians 2: Part One
Who are the Children of Abraham?
In this article I continue my attempt to answer the question once again posted above.
Part 1 of the discussion of Ephesians 2
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Paul tells the Gentiles in the flesh (that is us) that we were at one time far off, but we have now by Christ, been brought near to the commonwealth of Israel, no longer strangers to the covenants of promise, and now having hope. The dividing wall in the temple which separated gentiles from Jews, even circumcised Gentiles from Jews, was broken down by Christ on the cross. It was a wall of hostility; a wall of violence which cause division and animosity between the Jews and the Gentiles; a wall which caused the Pharisees to hate the Samaritans. Paul tells us that this wall has been broken down because Christ abolished the law of commandments and ordinances, and He did this by fulfilling all righteousness and making the debt payment for sin which is death; Christ has fulfilled the consequences God demanded of us because of Adam’s failure in the covenant God made with that first man (not that in His victory Christ destroyed the immutable commandments of God) but rather, He destroyed the ordinances of that Old Covenant and thus God fashions the individual recipients of the New Covenant as new men—not like the old man in the Old Covenant, and not like the old man who was far off from the Old Covenant, but a new man who receives the benefits of the covenant God made with Adam and which He reiterated in the covenant He made with Abraham and which He now, finally and forever, has fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant, in order to bring together in one new group, all of the saints through all time: those who before were strangers to and those who were familiar with the covenants of promise.
In light of the declarations in this passage, it is backwards to take the prophesy of Ezekiel’s temple and an interpretation of Romans 11 (which affirms some sort of future for ethnic Israel) to mean that, at some time in the future God will measure the obedience of the nation of Israel by their faithfulness to rebuild a physical temple, and sacrifice bulls and goats. Even if the purpose of this practice in a future age were only for memorial, the advocate must maintain that Christ is present and ruling on an Earth while the “people of God” are not focused on the substance to which those sacrifices pointed but rather, they would center their worship around the shadows and the types while the substance of the shadows and the archetype is there—it’s scandalous! Can you imagine trying to honor your brother in eulogy while he is still alive, and even in the same room? This is paramount to going to the beach and instead of gazing out into the vastness of the ocean to marvel at its size, you stand on the sandy shore, turn your back away from the ocean, pick up a seashell and put it up to your ear—proclaiming the greatness of the sounds of the ocean; smelling the shell and delighting in how much like the beach it smells; touching your tongue to the inside of the shell and likening its flavor to the salty taste of ocean water, when all the while the object to which the shell is only a sign, is right there before you. The pre-incarnation Saints only had the shell to lift to their ear to hear the echo of the waves; to lift the shell to their nose to see how the sea smelled; to taste what the salty sea was like by touching their tongue to the shell. Those of us after the birth of Christ can bask in the glory of the presence of the Sea itself and can stand before it and smell His misty waves as they crash on the shore, and we have the privilege of tasting the salty flavor of His waters in the flesh, and this is done in communion; not now nor at any time in the future will we trade that covenant feast for a lesser sign of physical sacrifice, but we will one day trade it for the physical presence of our Lord Himself.
In this article I continue my attempt to answer the question once again posted above.
Part 1 of the discussion of Ephesians 2
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Paul tells the Gentiles in the flesh (that is us) that we were at one time far off, but we have now by Christ, been brought near to the commonwealth of Israel, no longer strangers to the covenants of promise, and now having hope. The dividing wall in the temple which separated gentiles from Jews, even circumcised Gentiles from Jews, was broken down by Christ on the cross. It was a wall of hostility; a wall of violence which cause division and animosity between the Jews and the Gentiles; a wall which caused the Pharisees to hate the Samaritans. Paul tells us that this wall has been broken down because Christ abolished the law of commandments and ordinances, and He did this by fulfilling all righteousness and making the debt payment for sin which is death; Christ has fulfilled the consequences God demanded of us because of Adam’s failure in the covenant God made with that first man (not that in His victory Christ destroyed the immutable commandments of God) but rather, He destroyed the ordinances of that Old Covenant and thus God fashions the individual recipients of the New Covenant as new men—not like the old man in the Old Covenant, and not like the old man who was far off from the Old Covenant, but a new man who receives the benefits of the covenant God made with Adam and which He reiterated in the covenant He made with Abraham and which He now, finally and forever, has fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant, in order to bring together in one new group, all of the saints through all time: those who before were strangers to and those who were familiar with the covenants of promise.
In light of the declarations in this passage, it is backwards to take the prophesy of Ezekiel’s temple and an interpretation of Romans 11 (which affirms some sort of future for ethnic Israel) to mean that, at some time in the future God will measure the obedience of the nation of Israel by their faithfulness to rebuild a physical temple, and sacrifice bulls and goats. Even if the purpose of this practice in a future age were only for memorial, the advocate must maintain that Christ is present and ruling on an Earth while the “people of God” are not focused on the substance to which those sacrifices pointed but rather, they would center their worship around the shadows and the types while the substance of the shadows and the archetype is there—it’s scandalous! Can you imagine trying to honor your brother in eulogy while he is still alive, and even in the same room? This is paramount to going to the beach and instead of gazing out into the vastness of the ocean to marvel at its size, you stand on the sandy shore, turn your back away from the ocean, pick up a seashell and put it up to your ear—proclaiming the greatness of the sounds of the ocean; smelling the shell and delighting in how much like the beach it smells; touching your tongue to the inside of the shell and likening its flavor to the salty taste of ocean water, when all the while the object to which the shell is only a sign, is right there before you. The pre-incarnation Saints only had the shell to lift to their ear to hear the echo of the waves; to lift the shell to their nose to see how the sea smelled; to taste what the salty sea was like by touching their tongue to the shell. Those of us after the birth of Christ can bask in the glory of the presence of the Sea itself and can stand before it and smell His misty waves as they crash on the shore, and we have the privilege of tasting the salty flavor of His waters in the flesh, and this is done in communion; not now nor at any time in the future will we trade that covenant feast for a lesser sign of physical sacrifice, but we will one day trade it for the physical presence of our Lord Himself.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #5: Who are the Children of Abraham?: A discussion of Galatians 4:22-26
Who are the Children of Abraham?
Galatians 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Here Paul formally states what he said in the previous chapter of Galatians, that there are two covenants in mind: the one of promise and the one of flesh. Interestingly enough Paul uses an Old Testament text and allegorizes it to illuminate his audience to the fuller meaning of the text. Paul and his readers certainly believe that the two literal women existed in history and that the literal account of their lives was written down in scripture, but God had a bigger, fuller purpose with those women, and the events spoken of here are meant to do more than merely establish ancestral integrity or historical validity. So we have a contrast of two covenants, a tale of two cities, if you will:
Hagar ------- Sarah
Moses ------- Abraham
Sinai/Jerusalem ------- Heavenly Jerusalem (the Jerusalem above)
Slavery and law ------- Promise of Freedom
Flesh ------- Spirit
Sons of flesh ------- Sons of promise
There are two items in the study of this text that I believe argue against dispensationalism, and they are:
- Paul contrasts the blessings of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.
- Paul allegorizes the historical/grammatical interpretation of an Old Testament event.
It is my understanding that both of these items above are contrary to rudimentary dispensational hermeneutics, which states that the meaning of the Old Testament text to its then, contemporary audience is the only meaning of that text, thus rendering it the so called “literal” interpretation. Also (according to dispensational theology), the promises God made to Abraham (land and many seed) were reiterated and expanded in the Mosaic Covenant and given even more strenuous stipulations; and even today they have not been realized, thus they cannot be arrogated by the gentile/Jewish “Church” because God never made those promises to that group and He still plans to fulfill those promises of physical seed and land to a group strictly made up of believing Jews in the future in a literally physical way.
As I close this post, take a look at another statement that clearly associates Old and New Testament believers in the same covenant.
Philippians 3:3 For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
In Paul’s mind there were two circumcisions, one made with hands and one made by the Spirit (the real one). Obvious from more passages than can be listed, Abraham was of the real circumcision, and according to Galatians 3:29 we are Abraham’s spiritual children, but what makes us so? It certainly isn’t our physical Jewish heritage because in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. We are grafted into the Abrahamic Covenant and made fellow recipients of the promises thereof, because it is an overarching covenant, one which is ultimately fulfilled in the New Covenant and which affords gracious provisions for all of God’s children throughout the entirety of redemptive history.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #4: Who are the Children of Abraham?: A discussion of Galatians 3:7-29
Who are the Children of Abraham?
Galatians 3
I realize this is a very lengthy passage, but please bear with me—it is after all, Scripture.
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
In this passage Paul refers to us, those of faith, as the Abraham’s offspring (v 29) because of our relationship with Christ—being in Christ; Abraham is the man of faith, and we are those who are of faith, and if Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to promise (v 29) then we are obviously part of the same spiritual family—now and in Heaven, in eternity because he is not referring to us as the physical descendants of Abraham, and if we are the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise, then we are also sons of Abraham. If so, then by what line of reasoning can we conclude that we will be of a different group or family or kingdom in eternity? For further support that we are in the same group as Abraham consider that the blessing which comes to all the nations through Abraham was the same good news (gospel in v 8) that was preached to Abraham by the scriptures, which foretold of the gentiles being justified by faith and they are in the company of Abraham because he is the man of faith, not the man of law and not the man of circumcision. We are blessed along with Abraham, and this cannot merely be the blessing of physical land because that was the blessing of the Mosaic covenant. We know that our blessing is not limited to that of a physical place in an unredeemed earth, but our blessing, our inheritance is the redeemed Heaven’s and Earth, as Christ said, “the meek shall inherit the Earth”, so too must Abraham’s ultimate blessing be spiritual because, according to this passage we are blessed together with him.
Verse 16 tells us that Christ is The Seed of whom God was speaking to Abraham; the promise is to Christ, and those counted in Christ are joint heirs, thus receiving the inheritance promised to Abraham’s seed. But the question might be posed, “but the Law of Moses came after the covenant with Abraham so it must fulfill it or cancel it out, right?” But Paul answers this question by telling us that the Law, though it did come 430 years after Abraham does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God. These two covenants are separate and the promises of the covenant God made with Abraham are not appropriated when the stipulations of the covenant made on Mount Sinai are fulfilled or Paul would not have to answer the question about the law, and the question would not have been pressing in the minds of his contemporaries if they had not confused the two covenants. Paul does go on to explain that the Law is not therefore useless, but that it was put in place because of sin, and elsewhere, Paul tells us that the law points out the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Perhaps the phrase that best explains the existence of the law though the promises were received by faith is in verse 22, “But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin”; that is what the Law did, it imprisoned all our works under sin so that it would be very clear that even our “good works” would not purchase the promises of the Abrahamic covenant for us.
Paul says that if the inheritance came through Law, then it can’t also come through a promise. In other words, if the covenant of Moses came to hold out the same promises as the covenant with Abraham, then its blessings and benefits are no longer by the promise, but by Law, and Paul maintains that this is not the case. So one of the conclusions we must make regarding verses 16-19 is that the promises made to Abraham were neither fulfilled or annulled in the covenant with Moses, but that the previous covenant continues and the Mosaic Covenant, though it was good to point out sin, was the parenthesis inside the timeline of the promise and fulfillment aspects of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul further explains the differences of the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants by contrasting one as law and the other as promise, not that they are fighting against each other, but that the Mosaic Covenant was never put in place to accomplish the same thing. The Mosaic Covenant was only ever typical of the Abrahamic Covenant. Though there may have been a temporal aspect to the promises made to Abraham, the greater fulfillment of them would be spiritual and granted unconditionally, and the blessings of the Mosaic covenant were strictly temporal and conditioned upon the corporate or federal obedience of the nation “…all this we will do.” (like the covenant God made with Adam, who was the representative of all). If the law (which was never given to provide life) had not imprisoned us in sin then life could not be given by faith alone in Jesus Christ. A few verses later Paul concludes the section by telling his listeners that there is no difference between Jew and Greek regarding the promise and blessing to Abraham because if you are in Christ then you are Abraham’s offspring because it is by promise, not by ethnicity or law or circumcision.
Galatians 3
I realize this is a very lengthy passage, but please bear with me—it is after all, Scripture.
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
In this passage Paul refers to us, those of faith, as the Abraham’s offspring (v 29) because of our relationship with Christ—being in Christ; Abraham is the man of faith, and we are those who are of faith, and if Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to promise (v 29) then we are obviously part of the same spiritual family—now and in Heaven, in eternity because he is not referring to us as the physical descendants of Abraham, and if we are the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise, then we are also sons of Abraham. If so, then by what line of reasoning can we conclude that we will be of a different group or family or kingdom in eternity? For further support that we are in the same group as Abraham consider that the blessing which comes to all the nations through Abraham was the same good news (gospel in v 8) that was preached to Abraham by the scriptures, which foretold of the gentiles being justified by faith and they are in the company of Abraham because he is the man of faith, not the man of law and not the man of circumcision. We are blessed along with Abraham, and this cannot merely be the blessing of physical land because that was the blessing of the Mosaic covenant. We know that our blessing is not limited to that of a physical place in an unredeemed earth, but our blessing, our inheritance is the redeemed Heaven’s and Earth, as Christ said, “the meek shall inherit the Earth”, so too must Abraham’s ultimate blessing be spiritual because, according to this passage we are blessed together with him.
Verse 16 tells us that Christ is The Seed of whom God was speaking to Abraham; the promise is to Christ, and those counted in Christ are joint heirs, thus receiving the inheritance promised to Abraham’s seed. But the question might be posed, “but the Law of Moses came after the covenant with Abraham so it must fulfill it or cancel it out, right?” But Paul answers this question by telling us that the Law, though it did come 430 years after Abraham does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God. These two covenants are separate and the promises of the covenant God made with Abraham are not appropriated when the stipulations of the covenant made on Mount Sinai are fulfilled or Paul would not have to answer the question about the law, and the question would not have been pressing in the minds of his contemporaries if they had not confused the two covenants. Paul does go on to explain that the Law is not therefore useless, but that it was put in place because of sin, and elsewhere, Paul tells us that the law points out the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Perhaps the phrase that best explains the existence of the law though the promises were received by faith is in verse 22, “But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin”; that is what the Law did, it imprisoned all our works under sin so that it would be very clear that even our “good works” would not purchase the promises of the Abrahamic covenant for us.
Paul says that if the inheritance came through Law, then it can’t also come through a promise. In other words, if the covenant of Moses came to hold out the same promises as the covenant with Abraham, then its blessings and benefits are no longer by the promise, but by Law, and Paul maintains that this is not the case. So one of the conclusions we must make regarding verses 16-19 is that the promises made to Abraham were neither fulfilled or annulled in the covenant with Moses, but that the previous covenant continues and the Mosaic Covenant, though it was good to point out sin, was the parenthesis inside the timeline of the promise and fulfillment aspects of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul further explains the differences of the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants by contrasting one as law and the other as promise, not that they are fighting against each other, but that the Mosaic Covenant was never put in place to accomplish the same thing. The Mosaic Covenant was only ever typical of the Abrahamic Covenant. Though there may have been a temporal aspect to the promises made to Abraham, the greater fulfillment of them would be spiritual and granted unconditionally, and the blessings of the Mosaic covenant were strictly temporal and conditioned upon the corporate or federal obedience of the nation “…all this we will do.” (like the covenant God made with Adam, who was the representative of all). If the law (which was never given to provide life) had not imprisoned us in sin then life could not be given by faith alone in Jesus Christ. A few verses later Paul concludes the section by telling his listeners that there is no difference between Jew and Greek regarding the promise and blessing to Abraham because if you are in Christ then you are Abraham’s offspring because it is by promise, not by ethnicity or law or circumcision.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #3: Who are the Children of Abraham?: A discussion of Romans 4:9-12
Who are the Children of Abraham?
Romans 4
9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
In all of Romans 4 Paul is talking about how Abraham’s faith was given to him before he obeyed any stipulations that God had set up in a covenant; faith even then was the instrument God used to rescue individuals from the wrath to come, not the individual’s personal piety or obedience to the “rule of life” for that particular dispensation—salvation has never been granted any other way by grace alone, through faith alone, in The Christ (future or come) alone.
Covenantal obedience in Romans 4 is specifically characterized by the act of circumcision. In the Apostolic age the gentile Christians might have questioned their legitimate claim on a Jewish Messiah, but in Paul’s letter to a gentile city and church, he writes about how faith is given apart from or before the obedience to a peculiar Jewish custom—which in this case was circumcision.
The peculiar act of circumcision pictured the curse by which God Himself would be defecated if He did not uphold the unconditional promises He made to Abraham in that covenant. It was a sign of the animals cut in two when God “cut” that covenant with Abraham, and a seal to all the children of Abraham afterward that God would remain faithful, not that all those who were circumcised were the spiritual children of Abraham, but that it pictured the promises God made to him and his offspring, thus the removal of his foreskin is typical. On the cross, Christ was “cut off” in the place of Abraham and all his spiritual children. He was the cut off foreskin in the place of those who couldn’t fulfill the law for righteousness. It was a strange ritual, but it makes sense when you consider the nature of the promise, that it would come through Abraham’s Seed (Christ), to Abraham’s offspring (those counted “in Christ”). The misunderstanding of many, because it was formerly a mystery, was that the spiritual blessing that came to Abraham and will come to his offspring through Christ is not only for those who were circumcised in the flesh, but for those who were circumcised in their heart; those who were and are spiritually circumcised, and Paul establishes his claim by telling us that Abraham was counted righteous before he was circumcised, not after, and the purpose of God doing it in that order was so God could count both the physically circumcised and the physically uncircumcised righteous—by faith alone, not by faith plus circumcision. Just consider the harsh words Paul had for the Galatians.
Furthermore, if Abraham is the Father of all those who have faith and are counted righteous, then he is obviously in the same redeemed group as all of those who are counted righteous; all those who are counted as his children. He cannot be “the father of all who believe without being circumcised” and at the same time, the member of a completely different group in eternity. Paul places Abraham in the same group as all who believe (circumcised or not); who “walk in the footsteps of the faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised”.
In Galatians 3:29 Paul calls all of those in Christ Abraham’s seed or offspring. We can logically and biblically equate the term “Abraham’s offspring” with the term, “children of Abraham”. Every redeemed person is counted in Christ instead of being counted in Adam, and if counted in Christ, then counted as the seed or offspring or children of Abraham. How then can anyone say that Abraham is the father of all of those in Christ, and yet he is not part of that same eternal group? We cannot!
Romans 4
9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
In all of Romans 4 Paul is talking about how Abraham’s faith was given to him before he obeyed any stipulations that God had set up in a covenant; faith even then was the instrument God used to rescue individuals from the wrath to come, not the individual’s personal piety or obedience to the “rule of life” for that particular dispensation—salvation has never been granted any other way by grace alone, through faith alone, in The Christ (future or come) alone.
Covenantal obedience in Romans 4 is specifically characterized by the act of circumcision. In the Apostolic age the gentile Christians might have questioned their legitimate claim on a Jewish Messiah, but in Paul’s letter to a gentile city and church, he writes about how faith is given apart from or before the obedience to a peculiar Jewish custom—which in this case was circumcision.
The peculiar act of circumcision pictured the curse by which God Himself would be defecated if He did not uphold the unconditional promises He made to Abraham in that covenant. It was a sign of the animals cut in two when God “cut” that covenant with Abraham, and a seal to all the children of Abraham afterward that God would remain faithful, not that all those who were circumcised were the spiritual children of Abraham, but that it pictured the promises God made to him and his offspring, thus the removal of his foreskin is typical. On the cross, Christ was “cut off” in the place of Abraham and all his spiritual children. He was the cut off foreskin in the place of those who couldn’t fulfill the law for righteousness. It was a strange ritual, but it makes sense when you consider the nature of the promise, that it would come through Abraham’s Seed (Christ), to Abraham’s offspring (those counted “in Christ”). The misunderstanding of many, because it was formerly a mystery, was that the spiritual blessing that came to Abraham and will come to his offspring through Christ is not only for those who were circumcised in the flesh, but for those who were circumcised in their heart; those who were and are spiritually circumcised, and Paul establishes his claim by telling us that Abraham was counted righteous before he was circumcised, not after, and the purpose of God doing it in that order was so God could count both the physically circumcised and the physically uncircumcised righteous—by faith alone, not by faith plus circumcision. Just consider the harsh words Paul had for the Galatians.
Furthermore, if Abraham is the Father of all those who have faith and are counted righteous, then he is obviously in the same redeemed group as all of those who are counted righteous; all those who are counted as his children. He cannot be “the father of all who believe without being circumcised” and at the same time, the member of a completely different group in eternity. Paul places Abraham in the same group as all who believe (circumcised or not); who “walk in the footsteps of the faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised”.
In Galatians 3:29 Paul calls all of those in Christ Abraham’s seed or offspring. We can logically and biblically equate the term “Abraham’s offspring” with the term, “children of Abraham”. Every redeemed person is counted in Christ instead of being counted in Adam, and if counted in Christ, then counted as the seed or offspring or children of Abraham. How then can anyone say that Abraham is the father of all of those in Christ, and yet he is not part of that same eternal group? We cannot!
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #2: Who are the Children of Abraham?: A discussion of Romans 2:26-29
Who are the Children of Abraham?
Romans 2
26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Three statements must first be made: the Jews in Paul’s day considered themselves the children of Abraham by virtue of their covenant relationship through Moses and Sinai; for Paul, “keep[ing] the precepts of the law” is the same as one having been regenerated, which is the same as one having had the law of God written on his heart; and last, those “who have the written code and circumcision” are those to whom Moses gave the Decalogue; the members of the Old Covenant; those who in Paul’s day, considered themselves Jews exclusively.
Paul clarifies here what God has been doing throughout history: that which was once veiled as a mystery but is now revealed more clearly after Christ (the Lamb of God, the Seed of Abraham) has come, that the ethnic Jew (the Jew by sole virtue of his family heritage) is not necessarily the one blessed to receive the promises of God even if, along with that heritage, he obeyed the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant and received some of the physical promises of God with the covenant community as a whole but rather, the true Jew is the one who is circumcised of heart, not just circumcised of flesh; the one who has the precepts of the moral law written on his heart by God’s elective work, not the one who only obeys the precepts of the civil and ceremonial law of Moses as a member of the Old Covenant community.
When Paul mentions circumcision here he is referencing the outward obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is why he draws the contrast between the one who is merely circumcised and the one who has the law inwardly; the one who has had the law written on his heart; that one is the one who is regarded as actually having been circumcised.
Having the law written on the heart of an individual, as is mentioned in Jeremiah 31, is not the futuristic portion of that prophesy, the future aspect of it was that one day, all those in the covenant God has made will have the law written on their hearts. There were many under the Old Covenant who were members of that community but who had not had the law written on their hearts, likewise there were individuals in the Old Covenant who did have that law written on their hearts—they were saved, they were born again—but the law had not been written on the hearts of the community at large. One day in that New Covenant, all its members will have that blessing; all of those covenant members will be the spiritual children of Abraham. We will discuss this a bit more when we deal with the Jeremiah passage in particular, as we attempt to answer the question: who are the partakers of the New Covenant?
Romans 2
26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Three statements must first be made: the Jews in Paul’s day considered themselves the children of Abraham by virtue of their covenant relationship through Moses and Sinai; for Paul, “keep[ing] the precepts of the law” is the same as one having been regenerated, which is the same as one having had the law of God written on his heart; and last, those “who have the written code and circumcision” are those to whom Moses gave the Decalogue; the members of the Old Covenant; those who in Paul’s day, considered themselves Jews exclusively.
Paul clarifies here what God has been doing throughout history: that which was once veiled as a mystery but is now revealed more clearly after Christ (the Lamb of God, the Seed of Abraham) has come, that the ethnic Jew (the Jew by sole virtue of his family heritage) is not necessarily the one blessed to receive the promises of God even if, along with that heritage, he obeyed the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant and received some of the physical promises of God with the covenant community as a whole but rather, the true Jew is the one who is circumcised of heart, not just circumcised of flesh; the one who has the precepts of the moral law written on his heart by God’s elective work, not the one who only obeys the precepts of the civil and ceremonial law of Moses as a member of the Old Covenant community.
When Paul mentions circumcision here he is referencing the outward obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is why he draws the contrast between the one who is merely circumcised and the one who has the law inwardly; the one who has had the law written on his heart; that one is the one who is regarded as actually having been circumcised.
Having the law written on the heart of an individual, as is mentioned in Jeremiah 31, is not the futuristic portion of that prophesy, the future aspect of it was that one day, all those in the covenant God has made will have the law written on their hearts. There were many under the Old Covenant who were members of that community but who had not had the law written on their hearts, likewise there were individuals in the Old Covenant who did have that law written on their hearts—they were saved, they were born again—but the law had not been written on the hearts of the community at large. One day in that New Covenant, all its members will have that blessing; all of those covenant members will be the spiritual children of Abraham. We will discuss this a bit more when we deal with the Jeremiah passage in particular, as we attempt to answer the question: who are the partakers of the New Covenant?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #1: Introduction
I am beginning a series on my thus far accumulated thoughts on the dispensational system and why I think the bible teaches otherwise. I am dreadfully aware of the controversy that might result from the title alone, but to call this series by any other name would be to betray the very nature of its content.
There will be four major sections in the series:
1. Who are the Children of Abraham?
2. Who are the partakers of the New Covenant?
3. The types and shadows of Christ
4. A few exposing questions for dispensationalists
I look forward to any discussion which may result from this series and I pray that my rhetoric is not hurtful and in no way misrepresents those from the dispensational camp.
There will be four major sections in the series:
1. Who are the Children of Abraham?
2. Who are the partakers of the New Covenant?
3. The types and shadows of Christ
4. A few exposing questions for dispensationalists
I look forward to any discussion which may result from this series and I pray that my rhetoric is not hurtful and in no way misrepresents those from the dispensational camp.
Discussion on this topic has been all the rage this year and I believe it was kicked off by John MacArthur’s polemic against Amillennialism at this year’s Shepherd’s Conference. Many blogs are still periodically posting articles relating to the topic, even though the frequency has diminished. I do see much of what has transpired in the last 7 months or so as useful (excepting the harshness of some of the discussions) and I agree with John Piper when he says in his book, Contending for Our All, that, “The witness of church history is that seasons of controversy have often been seasons of great growth and strength.”, and as he wrote concerning Athanasius’ stand for the deity of Christ that, “Without controversy there would have been no gospel, and therefore no church.” J. Gresham Machen also spoke wisely about the controversies of his day, “Every true revival is born in controversy, and leads to more controversy. That has been true ever since our Lord said that he came not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword.”
So with that introduction behind us, let’s delve into the realm of controversy and pray that a revival might break out locally and abroad.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
An Illustration of the Concurrence of Our Plans and God's Plans
This morning I considered an illustration of the way our wills and choices coincide with God's will and eternal decrees.
I work in the design field where I am drawing on a daily basis. We often find ourselves tracing over the lines of an existing drawing using tracing paper (a translucent paper). With that in mind, imagine that the lines of the existing drawing are the lines of God's decree; the lines of God's eternal plan. Now imagine that the tracing paper represents the Word of God, so we are suppose to interpret God's plan through the tracing paper (the Word of God). As we trace the lines on the existing drawing, because we are imperfect and affected by the curse, we don't see through the tracing paper as we ought, so we sometimes misinterpret the lines on the existing drawing underneath, thus we often do not trace over the lines properly. The less understanding we have of the scriptures, the thicker the tracing paper seems to be and in that case it is more difficult for us to see the lines of the existing drawing through the tracing paper.
So it also is with the concurrence of our plans and God's plans. Often, we lay out our plans on the tracing paper without tracing over the lines of God's plans because we do not see them clearly, but God's plans exist objectively and they do not change. Other times we do see the line of God's plans clearly through the tracing paper of scripture and we line the drawing of our own plans up with the lines of God's plan; God's glory is magnified and our joy results. Still other times we do see the lines of God's plan clearly and yet we rebel against those clearly draw lines and we scribble off in another direction, noticing that our scribbling has not changed the lines on the existing drawing underneath but instead, we find that our scribbling has driven us to joyless despair and fear, and as God's children we eventually and enevitably repent of our sinful misdirection, and by God's grace, once again we trace the existing lines of the plan God has drawn.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Mighty Savior of All Creation
Holiness be to the Lord our God;
The Mighty Savior of all creation!
He resists the pride of haughty men,
but He comforts the weak and afflicted.
Oh, how we praise His name;
how we lift it up before the lords of earth.
Hallelujah He will save us!
Hallelujah praise His name!
The name of the All Mighty we will proclaim;
sovereign over all His creation!
He is good and wise and powerful,
yet He stooped down to share our distress.
Oh, how we praise His name;
how we lift it up before the lords of earth.
Hallelujah He will save us!
Hallelujah praise His name!
He came and died and He rose again;
all creation must worship The Anointed!
He was seen by many in resurrection body,
then to His Father’s right side He ascended!
Oh, how we praise His name;
how we lift it up before the lords of earth.
Hallelujah He will save us!
Hallelujah praise His name!
The Mighty Savior of all creation!
He resists the pride of haughty men,
but He comforts the weak and afflicted.
Oh, how we praise His name;
how we lift it up before the lords of earth.
Hallelujah He will save us!
Hallelujah praise His name!
The name of the All Mighty we will proclaim;
sovereign over all His creation!
He is good and wise and powerful,
yet He stooped down to share our distress.
Oh, how we praise His name;
how we lift it up before the lords of earth.
Hallelujah He will save us!
Hallelujah praise His name!
He came and died and He rose again;
all creation must worship The Anointed!
He was seen by many in resurrection body,
then to His Father’s right side He ascended!
Oh, how we praise His name;
how we lift it up before the lords of earth.
Hallelujah He will save us!
Hallelujah praise His name!
Friday, November 2, 2007
Another Example of Equivocation
I heard an interesting example of equivocation this morning:
The host of a Christian radio show introduced their topic while he was interviewing the speaker. The topic was, "myths about evangelism", and the host labeled the first one, "people do not want to hear about Jesus." The speaker then began to elaborate on the myth by stating its converse, "people are open to the gospel".
All other errors aside, it is one thing to suggest that people do want to hear about Jesus; this statement could be considered true if one qualified it by saying that a person wanting to hear about Jesus is not the same as a person seeking after God, which Paul in his letter to the Romans explicitly states as not being the case, but to liken the idea that, "people want to hear about Jesus" with the idea that "people are open to the gospel", is to equivocate a potentially true statement with an out-right error.
The context on the program was this: we as Christians tell ourselves lies (myths) about unbelievers and about the nature of evangelism so that we might not feel so guilty about not proclaiming the gospel. But in that context, we can never say that persons (ones we should be evangelising) are open to the good news, which is that Christ has born the penalty of our sins, and raised from the dead to placate the wrath of the Father. If anyone believes that then they do not need to be evangelised...they need to be discipled.
As a result of, what I believe is a disregard for what have historically been considered biblical categories: evangelism, seeker, and the gospel, and for what has been the historical understanding of the human condition, i.e., depraved, persons often think that unbelievers are open to the gospel, or that they are even seeking it or seeking Jesus for salvation prior to being regenerated, when we know from scripture that all of us who once were, and all present unbelievers not only are not seeking the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, but in their hearts we hated Him; those considered "seekers" by many evangelicals may very well want to know more about Jesus the person who existed in history, they may even want to know more about the historical truth claims of Christianity, but unless they are called by The Spirit of God, they are never open to the gospel...at least not until one is regenerated is he open to the gospel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)