The End of the Wicked

“Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin. How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors!” (Psalm 73:18-19)


We are thankful to God for His patience, for indeed, “The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.” (Psalm 145:8). Unfortunately the patience and longsuffering of God has been misinterpreted by some to be non-existence. Brian "Sapient" is one of the new, bolder atheists, in the proud and arrogant mold of Richard Dawkins. In fervent evangelistic zeal, Brian has issued a Blasphemy Challenge, especially targeting teens, in an attempt to get fellow atheists to “come out of the closet”.

It takes an especially confident infidel to present such a challenge. Per Mark 3:29, the costs of being wrong are great.

Do Brian or Kelly worry their rhetoric and antics might land them in hell?

"No, because hell doesn't exist," Kelly says.

Even if there was a one in a million shot that Hell existed, would they still be so unconcerned?

Brian's response? "That would stink, huh?"

I am optimistic that such a movement by these militant atheists will cause the church to return to Biblical preaching and faithful theological studies, realizing that the silly games they play won’t cut it anymore. However, from the other perspective, one has to wonder why this is referred to as a “challenge”, like it is some sort of sporting event or reality TV show. What exactly is the challenge? Can they prove that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable in the next life? Will they offer evidence for these assertions? Do they intend to prove, after death, that they are not in Hell? They set their mouths against heaven, and give testimony of their own folly at the risk of their own soul. Indeed, their eyes have been blinded, as they have considered not their end.

O foolish humanist! Why will you hate your own soul? Though you may boastfully attempt to raise yourself above the throne of the God of Heaven, your pride is a chain that binds you into outer darkness. Though you may have thoughts of clothing yourself with resolution and firmness of mind, your courage will be as that of an infant when God’s wrath approaches. What will you do then? To whom will you appeal when the Most High laughs at your calamity, and mocks when your terror comes? Can your hands be strong when God thrusts you into everlasting torment? Repent, and flee from the wrath to come. Blasphemy is NOT a game.

Of Apes and Men

There is an increasingly popular defense of immoral behavior that is being pushed by certain groups. Studies have shown that certain bonobo chimps, in nature, participate in homosexual activity. Of course, this is set forth as evidence that homosexuality is natural. There are a multitude of directions that we can take with such a study, but the way that this study is presented raises serious questions concerning human ethics, especially in an atheistic worldview. Even if these apes are “genetically” homosexual (and that is doubtful at best), does that justify the same behavior in humans? The underlying assumption is, yes. Apes do it; therefore it must be a natural thing to do.

Michael Bronski, in his book The Pleasure Principle: Culture, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom, writes, “Humans have created the myth that sexuality can be justified only by reproduction, which by definition limits it to hetero sex. But here is an animal society that uses homosexuality to improve its social life.” Clear enough? Atheists like Dawkins and Harris, in their struggle to justify the existence of morality, need to fret no longer. Bronski has solved the dilemma. Apparently man is to get his moral standards from bonobo apes.

First of all, it is clear from numerous studies that human homosexuality does NOT improve social life. Homosexuality destroys people. Homosexuals live shorter, less healthy lives. However, aside from these facts, we must deal with the question of ethics in general. Those who promote homosexuality based on the activities of bonobo chimps are quite selective in their ethical studies. Jane Goodall’s original studies of apes show that they participate in “warfare," "gang attacks," "killing and cannibalism". An article in Discovery Magazine shows that chimps exhibit “disturbingly high levels of battering, rape, sexual harassment, and murder”.

Now no sane person will pass a moral judgment on these apes for their horrendous behavior. After all, they are apes, and apes are going to do what apes are going to do. The quandary that non-believers face is when they wish to pass moral judgments on humans for similar offenses. How can this be? According to some in the world of Darwin, chimps share 98% of their DNA with us (though such claims really cannot be substantiated). If this be so, then where in the remaining 2% do we account for morality? To what biochemical process in the “evolution” of man can we attribute the rise of moral absolutes? Did these absolutes exist in our so-called “ancestors” (which we still haven’t found)? If so, when did our “closest relatives” lose them? In the end, an atheist cannot justifiably appeal to morality of any kind. At the very least, he must write off all behavior as the product of genetics, including atheistic pet peeves such as “homophobia” and “religion”.

So why is homosexuality morally wrong? The Christian worldview is clear regarding this issue.

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…” (Leviticus 20:13)

Clear, simple, and straightforward. It is wrong because God said so. He alone is the standard of righteousness. Despite the best efforts by liberal theologians and their would-be super-exegetes, there is no getting around the Bible’s commandments regarding homosexuality. Homosexuality is a rejection of God, changing the truth of God into a lie.

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” (Romans 1:26-28)

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

The good news is that there is forgiveness, even for the chief of sinners.

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11)

The moral choice is clear. Either we look to God’s Word as the final authority, or we live the life of apes, and simply do what apes do.

Gospel and Law

Following hot on the heels of Puritan Lad, I want to add some clarity around the law, and how it relates to Christians today.

There is no difference between OT law and NT law, it is the same law, just as the Gospel is the same gospel in the OT and NT. The unique function of the law is to convict us of our sin:
Romans 7:7 (NIV)
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Biblical law can be divided into 3 parts:
1. Civil Law - those laws that were applied to Israel to ensure the proper running of their society, and relevant to their specific place and position in history. This is where the laws regarding Israels conduct towards other nations and their traditions were, and were put in place to ensure the survival of the Israelites at that point in history. Our society today is different, therefore these laws do not specifically apply to our society today, but the principles behind them stand, as demonstrated by Jesus.
2. Ceremonial Law - related specifically to the way Israel was to worship, and pointed forward to the coming of Jesus. This is also where the Pharisees added their traditions, which were condemned by Jesus as opposed to the Commandmentss of God. While we are no longer bound by the ceremonial laws, since the prophesies regarding Jesus in this part has been fulfilled, the principles of worshipping and loving a Holy God still apply.
3. The Moral Law, such as the 10 commandments, are the direct commands of God, and should be strictly obeyed. The moral law reveals God's will and nature, and was obeyed by Jesus completely. These laws call us to righteousness, and into strict obedience, along with the acceptance of God's grace through faith in Jesus. It is not a call for legal compliance, but righteousness that comes from what God does in us, be God-centered and not self-centered, be based on worship and reverance for God, go beyond keeping the law to the principles of God's law.

We cannot know that we are in sin, and therefore in need of someone who has fulfilled the laws demands, without Biblical law. The law crushes any hope that the sinner has to reach eternal salvation, but shows the reliance we have on Jesus, the only one who could fulfill the law. The law proclaims judgment and death, the gospel justification and life through Jesus, and knowledge of the nature and charactersistics of our sin.

Jesus did not in the gospel dissolve the moral law, but strengthened it.
Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [19] Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The fulfillment Jesus speaks about here is the ceremonial law that related to Lev 17:11, which he thus fulfilled, and we are no longer subject to. He also kept God's moral law perfectly, but did not come to abolish it. In fact, He teaches that one who teaches the commands of God will be called great in heaven. The Pharisees added their traditions to the law:
Mark 7:6-8 (NIV)
He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
[7] They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
[8] You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

This is what is widely condemned throughout the NT, by Jesus and by His disciples, and is interpreted as abolishing all so-called OT law. In the ceremonial and civil law, they added to God's commandments, and therefore was called hypocrites and worse by Jesus. In fact, Paul calls these traditions "old wives tales".

So how does all of this relate to life today? How is it determined what is right and what is wrong?

God is the ultimate power over all authorities. He alone has the power and right to appoint those who will oversee His creation. The Bible talks about 4 levels of authority:
1. In the home, authority is to the husband, and together with the wife, over the children.
2. At the workplace, managers, owners or employers are given the authority.
3. In church, the elders and pastors have the authority.
4. In society, the authority is with civil governments.

Each of those have the obligation to do God's will, since they were appointed by Him. This means complying with His moral law, as described in the Bible. All of these authorities are secondary to God's will, and we are implored to do God's will first.

Civil governments rule as agents of God. They answer to God and must submit to all of His laws as they carry out their duties. No government has any authority to infringe upon the authorities given to other levels of leadership assigned in scripture in the home, work place and church, except where abuses of those endanger the civil order.

Romans 13:1 (NIV)
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

To disobey government, is to disobey God Himself. Even the Jews found this out the hard way, when they did not submit to Roman authority, and were expelled from Rome, and ancient Jerusalem destroyed.

The Bible doesn't prescribe a specific form of government or political system. Whether its a monarchy, an empire, a republic, a social democracy, tribal elders, or a dictatorship God uses the civil authorities for his own purposes, even if they don't recognize that what they are doing fits into God's plan. God uses even our always imperfect and sometimes corrupt governments to maintain limits on social behavior, and to ensure a common peace and safety.

The duty of civil governments is clear in the Bible:
Romans 13:3-4 (NIV)
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

It is clear that civil governments have the God-given duty to protect citizens from evil and wrongdoing, and that those who obey the laws have nothing to fear. Civil governments must administer good in the public sphere, and keep the civil order for those who obey the laws. Those who break the laws must not only fear the justice of the civil government, but also the wrath of God.

Governments have a right to use physical force against criminals. Bearing the sword is most often connected with the execution of capital punishment. It's not murder when the state executes a convicted murderer. God's word makes murder a capital crime because of the absolute dignity of human life. This is how God ordains to carry out his wrath in this world.

So government, through its courts and under the limits of due process and the laws of evidence, are the only rightful avengers in society. No one may take the law into his own hands.

Even Paul, when under arrest, agreed with that principle as it applied to his own case:
Acts 25:11 (NIV)
"If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

We further see that Paul instructs us to submit for the sake of being wise:
1 Peter 2:13-15 (NIV)
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, [14] or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
[15]For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Therefore government has specific areas of proper God-given authority. They are to ensure public safety and to preserve life and property.

For example, they enact laws against: robbery, theft, assault, murder, rape, incest, perjury. For safety against irresponsible citizens they regulate traffic with speed laws, they license drivers, mandate us to register our vehicles and to keep them safe for use on the public roads.

If we think some laws are unwise, we can work to change them. But like it or not, we must obey them exactly as long as they don't require us to sin.

(Some information from the Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies)

Dispensationalism and the Law

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

“It is a harmful perversion of the truth of God to teach (as did the Puritan theologians) that while we are not to keep the law as a means of salvation, we are under it as a ‘rule of life.' Let a Christian only confess, ‘I am under the law,' and straightway Moses fastens his yoke upon him, despite all his protests that the law has lost its power. Men have to be delivered from the whole legal principle, from the entire sphere where law reigns, ere true liberty can be found.” – Dispensationalist William R. Newell

Introduction

Man is naturally rebellious against God’s Law (Jeremiah 17:9). When the law is preached in churches today, cries of “legalism” abound. Seeker-sensitive church goers want a religion without rules, a salvation without repentance, and a Savior without a Lord. In short, they want to have their itching ears scratched, hoping for a cheap grace that will guarantee an eternal inheritance while leaving their hearts as wicked as ever. In my course of examining Dispensationalism, I must need deal with the worst ramification of this theology, the Dispensational treatment of God’s Law. A mild difficulty exists in this matter surrounding how to define a Dispensationalist. The broad definition of a Dispensationalist is one who considers certain portions of Scripture to be relevant only to certain ages (or dispensations). Like many theologies, there are degrees to Dispensationalism. I consider myself a theonomist, but do not agree wholeheartedly with the Bahnsen/North school concerning civil law in this regard. The majority of Dispensationalists hold that the “law” was relevant only to a certain “age of law”, and since Christ’s death, we are now living in a new “age of grace”. Some, recognizing the inconsistency of this view with Jesus’ words in the Great Commission (which we’ll examine later), go so far as to take a “Paul-only” approach, suggesting that the gospels themselves are not relevant today, as well as the books written by Peter, John, and anyone besides Paul. (We’ll examine how Paul himself viewed the law in this discourse). Still others take the racial approach, considering the law to be relevant only to Jews, whereas Gentiles are allegedly recipients of grace. John MacArthur has called himself a Premillennial Dispensationalist, focusing on his view of Israel in eschatology, but certainly does not agree with Newell’s antinomianism. Arthur Pink seemed to be very dispensational in his eschatological beliefs. However, concerning the way dispensationalists divide up scripture to certain ages, Pink correctly observed that Dispensationalism “is a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned.” (A.W. Pink – A Study In Dispensationalism).

Israel and the Law

“The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.” (Psalms 119:160)

When God gave the Law to Israel, He commanded them to observe the words of this law forever (Deuteronomy 29:29). He made it very clear that it was never to be added to or taken from (Deuternomy 4:2). Nor did God ever once suggest that His law was for once particular race of people. God's law was for both Jew and Gentile (Leviticus 18:26, Leviticus 24:22). In fact, the reason God drove out other nations from the Promised Land is because they “would not obey the voice of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 8:20; Deuteronomy 9:4). They were disobedient to the very same laws that God gave to Israel (Leviticus 18:24). As Greg Bahnsen writes, “what was sinful in Israel was not tolerated just over the state line”. This is why God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their "lawless deeds" (2 Peter 2:8). God has one law for all people (Exodus 12:49; Numbers 15:16, 29) at all times (Psalm 89:34, Psalm 119:160). Jesus taught His Disciples to obey the law (Matthew 5:17-18), and that which Christ taught His disciples was to be observed by “all nations” (Matthew 28:19-20).

The Bible knows nothing of an “age of law” and an “age of grace”. Charles Ryrie, one of the godfathers of Dispensationalism, writes, “Another important benefit of the death of Christ was the inauguration of the faith-righteousness principle to replace the law-works principle. However, Paul's statement in Romans 10:4, that Christ is the end of the Law, might be understood as either signifying termination or purpose. In other words, either Christ terminated the Law, or the purpose of Christ's coming was to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). However, the termination seems clearly to be the meaning in this context because of the contrast (beginning in Rom. 9:30) between the Law and God's righteousness. Paul's argument that follows is not that the Jew was incomplete and needed the coming of Christ to perfect his position before God, but that his position under the law-works principle was absolutely wrong because it sought to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting God's gift of righteousness. Though it is true that our Lord fulfilled the Law, this passage is not teaching that, but rather that He terminated the Law and provided a new and living way to God”¹. How does one reconcile this nonsense with the clear scriptural teaching that God law never changes? (Psalm 89:34, Isaiah 40:6-8, 1 Peter 1:22-25). Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17-18 are very clear. Not one stroke or letter shall be removed.

Furthermore, if “the death of Christ was the inauguration of the faith-righteousness principle to replace the law-works principle”, as Ryrie states, then we have to consider whether or not the Old Testament saints were actually saved by the “law-works principle”. Paul, however, was very clear that “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Romans 3:20). As we shall see, the Old Testament saints were saved by the same grace that we are, yet they were required to obey the law.

Paul and the Law

Did Paul view the law as old, archaic, and irrelevant? Hardly. Paul quotes the Old Testament over 90 times, mostly to support his own teachings. He uses the law on several occasions to define sin (see Romans 7:7), for he writes that “…through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). As John writes, "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). Indeed, the law will become irrelevant on the day that sin becomes irrelevant.

Paul’s entire theology is built on the Old Testament. Speaking at his trial, he tried “to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets” (Acts 28:23). He encourages the New Testament church to study the Old Testament, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans 15:4). Such a view of the Old Testament would be labeled by most Christians today as “legalism”. In like manner, Paul tells Timothy that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Thus Paul himself knew nothing of a New Testament only theology.

But aren't we justified by faith, not law? Yes. But this was also true of the Old Testament saints (Habakkuk 2:4), yet they obeyed the law. True faith does not make the law void, but rather establishes it (Romans 3:31). Likewise, “Love fulfills the law (not ignores it)” (Matthew 22:37-40, 1 John 2:3-6). This was true in the Old Testament as well. (See Proverbs 25:21, Romans 13:8-10)

What about grace? Aren't we under grace and not under the law (Romans 6:14)? True. But many Christians take this out of its context, ignoring the first part of the verse as well as verse 15. Paul was teaching freedom from sin as defined by God's law. He never said that the law had been revoked or made invalid. What he said was...

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!"

Paul was not saying that grace made the law irrelevant. He was saying that, because of grace, sin, as defined by the law, no longer has dominion over us. This is a powerful grace, which effectively causes us to walk in His statutes (Ezekiel 36:27), not to ignore them. Grace and Law are not opposites, but compliment each other. (Proverbs 3:21-23). The Old Testament saints were not saved by the law (Romans 3:20), but by grace (Genesis 6:8, Romans 4:1-3). No verse in the Bible exemplifies God’s grace better than Psalm 130:3.

“If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Psalms 130:3)

King David certainly knew something of the grace of God, which was in full force in Old Testament times.

The Necessity of the Law

How then shall we live? Is the life that a Christian walks different then that of a non-Christian? Does not the New Testament command us to live righteous and holy lives (Romans 12:1; 1 John 2:29)? By what standard will we measure such righteousness? Jesus said that we are to live “by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). If we ignore the standard that God Himself has given us in His law, the results are confusion and nothing else. For example…

Paul tells the Gentile, New Testament church to “flee sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). He does so no less than a dozen times. The problem for the New-Testament-only Christian is that the New Testament never defines sexual immorality. What exactly did Paul expect the Corinthian believers to flee from? Paul himself never defines it for them. He didn’t have to. Leviticus 18 does a more them adequate job of defining sexual immorality. This is why the New Testament, as shown above, clearly defines sin by using the law. Otherwise, we are left to guide our lives, as many charismatics do, by some vague "leading of the Spirit", which usually means that the person doesn't like what the Bible says about an issue, so will pray until he feels better about disobeying it.

There are verses, particularly in Hebrews, which seem to contradict the above verses. But these were dealing with Judaists in the church who were commanding obedience to ceremonial laws such as circumcision, animal sacrifice, etc. These were fulfilled in Christ. In reality, the sacrificial laws are still valid, but Christ, the eternal sacrifice, has “…entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12). These ceremonial laws have been fulfilled, but have hardly been made irrelevant.

The fact is that man will always be under some sort of law. The question, then, is whose law will we be under? While God’s commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), man’s laws are truly oppressive (Matthew 23:2-4).

One of the most popular myths abounding in today’s antinomian churches is that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for obeying the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus chided the Pharisees for their “hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:28), because they “neglected the weightier matters of the law” (Matthew 23:23), and for twisting the law to suit their own needs, such as using the civil ordinance requiring judges to exercise fair judgments (Deuteronomy 19:18-21) to justify personal vengeance (Matthew 5:38-42).

The Right Use of the Law

Most Reformers believe that the law has three proper uses.

1.) To restrain evil in a wicked world.
2.) To illuminate and make a sinner aware of his slavery and bring us to Christ.
3.) To give believers a rule of life.

We must be careful to put the law in it's proper place. God's law cannot save (in fact, it does just the opposite - Romans 3:20). We are saved by God's grace, not by law. However, this was also true in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:8). Keeping God's commandments is the result, not the cause of salvation (1 John 2:3-4). This is important, seeing as those who claim to know God yet disobey His commandments are emphatically called “liars”.

As we saw above, it is the law that defines sin, makes us guilty, and requires us to have a Savior. Indeed, without the law, the gospel itself becomes expendable. Without the law, Christ would have, in affect, died for nothing.

The Results of Lawless Theology

“The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42)

The Bible knows nothing of lawless Christianity. It is the law that defines unrighteousness, the likes of which those who practice it “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9). Anyone who claims to know Christ, but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in Him (1 John 2:3-4). One who “practices”² lawlessness is not a child of God, but of the Devil (1 John 3:4-10). One cannot separate the commandments of God from faith in Jesus Christ (Revelation 14:12, Revelation 22:14). Thus Jesus gave a solemn warning to Christians who think they are OK in ignoring God’s law.

“"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:21-23)

True Christian Liberty includes obedience to the Law. (Galatians 5:13). In this, I’ll hold with J. Gresham Machen who wrote, "A low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail”³. New Testament Christians are to live by every scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), every command (James 2:10), even the least command (Matthew 5:19), every word (Matthew 4:4) and every letter (Matthew 5:18) of God's Law. Oh Christian, do not think that you will ever see the light of the heavenly Jerusalem if you practice a lawless faith, “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:14). Instead, like David, hold to a high view of the law, that you may constantly behold your need for grace, an effectual grace that changes the heart, and causes us to walk in His statutes and be careful to obey His rules (Ezekiel 36:27).

Footnotes:

1 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology - A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth, 1986, SP Publications Inc., Victor Books, Wheaton IL, pp. 302-303.

2 The key word here is “practice” (Greek ποιέω). It specifically means “to agree with” or “to abide in”. This does not undermine the seriousness of sin in the life of a Christian, but also does not mean that Christians lead purely sinless lives.

3 J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1925), p. 142.

Who are God’s Chosen People?

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22-23)

This past week, I was treated to a wonderful slide-show presentation by a man who recently visited Israel. The pictures were beautiful. It must have been thrilling to see the sights and walk the paths that Jesus himself may have seen and walked. However, the speaker, obviously a premillennial dispensationalist, was obsessed with the Eastern gate in his presentation, telling how Christ will once again pass through this gate to set up His “millennial” kingdom. For “Jerusalem”, he said, “is the city that God loves. They are his chosen people”. The last slide was an encouragement for us as Christians to “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalms 122:6).

Actually, the complete verse of Psalms 122:6 says, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! May they be secure who love you!” This begs the question as to the identity of Jerusalem, as well as “God’s chosen people”. The New Testament gives us two Jerusalems, the earthly Jerusalem, the cursed fig tree (Matthew 21:18-21) which “is in slavery with her children” (Galatians 4:25), and the new, heavenly Jerusalem, which is the free and the mother of all the saints (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22-24, Revelation 3:12, Revelation 21:1-10). Which Jerusalem can rightly be described as those who love God? The answer to that question has huge ramifications, both theologically and politically.

I think that everyone is aware of the political ramifications of Christian Zionism, so I’ll focus here on the theological issues. Should Christians bother to send missionaries to Israel? Believe it or not, many notable Christian leaders have discouraged believers from trying to convert Judaists. John Hagee, the poster boy of Christian Zionism, says that trying to convert Jews is a "waste of time”.

“Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha'i, needs to believe in Jesus, he says. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced with Christianity…The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law of God as given through Moses…I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption.” (Julia Duin, "San Antonio Fundamentalist Battles Anti-Semitism," The Houston Chronicle, 30 April 1988).

Showing who he believes to be Sovereign, John Hagee writes, “We support Israel because all other nations were created by an act of men, but Israel was created by an act of God.” (See Supporting Israel). Hagee goes on to say that “The Royal Land Grant that was given to Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob with an everlasting and unconditional covenant.” He seems to forget that the Scriptures plainly teach that “…by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight…” (Romans 3:20). He seems to forget Jesus’ own words concerning the Real Estate in the New Covenant.

“The woman said to him, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."” (John 4:19-24).

Hagee also seems to forget that God’s covenant with fleshly Israel was not unconditional. It required their obedience (Deuteronomy 28:15, 63). Hagee ignores that fact that the Abrahamic Covenant was already fulfilled, both physically (Joshua 23:14) and Spiritually (Galatians 3:8).

More importantly, however, is the issue dealing with the identity of God and His New Covenant. David Klinghoffer writes, “Both Jews and Christians worship the same God and both have a place, for believers, in God's scheme of things. Jews are the people of the Covenant while Christians approach God through Jesus.” What is this covenant that Klinghoffer is speaking of? It certainly isn’t the New Covenant, to which Jesus is the sole mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24). It is foolishness to recognize Judaism as a religion of the covenant. There is no covenant without Christ, as even the Old Testament saints “all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:3-4). So how has God kept His promises to “His chosen people”?

The Identity of Israel

The common Dispensationalist cry is “the Jews are God’s Chosen people”. That begs the question, “just what exactly is a “Jew”?” Is it a nation, a race, or a religion? Are American Jews in covenant with God? What about European proselytes living is Israel? How about Hebrews who practice Buddhism? Dispensational Zionists have a difficult time answering that question consistently. Covenantalists, however, can take their definition of Israel straight from Scripture.

God promised Abraham that he would make of him a “great nation” (Genesis 12:2), and that “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 22:18). This nation was to be a “holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).

What does it mean to be a Holy Nation? Is a nation holy simply because the DNA of its citizens matches Abraham’s (which, by the way, would eliminate most of the people living in modern day Israel)? Does the term “holy nation” fit some godless country that exists in the Middle East founded by the United Nations in 1948? Hardly. God never saved anyone based in his or her genealogy, in either the Old or New Testament. If that were the case, then Esau (whom God hated – Malachi 1:3, Romans 9:13) and Ishmael would have a claim on God’s Covenant Blessings. So would King Saul, Judas Iscariot, and the modern day Palestinians. Likewise, Ruth (a Moabite), Rahab (a Canaanite), and Urriah (the Hittite), (two of which were Christ’s ancestors) would never have experienced sanctification. Physical circumcision made one a part of God’s visible church, but in the light of eternity, profits nothing (Galatians 5:6).

A holy nation is set apart by God based on obedience to His Covenant. In the Old Testament, a Hebrew who was disobedient was to be “cut off from the congregation of Israel” (Exodus 12:19). Does this mean that God changed the person’s genetic code so that he was no longer a Hebrew? Of course not. It means that he was no longer part of the “holy nation”, God’s visible church here on earth. The same is true in the New Testament (ex. 1 Corinthians 5:1-12). Sadly, the judicial powers of the modern church are almost non-existent.

In the same Exodus passage, God tells Moses “And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." (Exodus 12:48-49). Again, God does not make this person’s DNA match that of Abraham, but instead sets him apart “as a native of the land” in His holy nation. Thus, even in the Old Testament, God never considered anyone a “Jew” based on race alone. Both Jew and Gentiles were to have “one law”.

This is even more obvious the New Testament. The Pharisees took pride in their linage, but were not members of God’s “holy nation”. John the Baptist gave them this warning.

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10).

The Judaists even bragged to Jesus about their heritage, proclaiming “Abraham is our father” (John 8:39). But Jesus was very clear with His response. Contrary to popular dispensational belief, Judaism is not “Old Testament religion”, but a demon-inspired, Talmudic cult. When the Pharisees rejected Christ, they rejected Moses (John 5:46). Furthermore, contrary to the above claims of David Klinghoffer, Judaists and Christians do NOT worship the same God. The god of Judaism is the Devil (John 8:44). The Christian God is the only true God, and the Christ of the Covenant is the only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5 – See August’s blog “Only One Mediator”). Those who reject Christ are neither Abraham’s children nor God’s (John 8:39-42). As Christ rejecters, they are no longer “God’s Chosen People”. Jesus told them, "… the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” (Matthew 21:43). This nation is His “holy nation”, the Church of Jesus Christ, the new “Israel of God”, and the Galatian church was so called (Galatians 6:16). Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews (Philippians 3:5), was clear “that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.” (Galatians 3:7)

The Church is God’s “Israel”

Preterist are often accused of hold to “Replacement Theology”. The truth of the matter is that we do no such thing. Replacement theology is a misnomer. No one has been “replaced” in regard to the blessings of the Covenant. The church is “Israel” (Galatians 6:16), and always has been, even in the Old Testament.

No one can deny Paul’s tender feelings toward his own countrymen. He is clearly dismayed over their stubbornness, and even wishes that he could sacrifice his own soul for their conversion (Romans 9:3). But then Paul clearly contrasts God’s Israel from “Israel after the flesh”. He writes “…for they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Romans 9:6), “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and whose circumcision is that of the heart…” (Romans 2:29). “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29). In Christ, all ethnic, cultural, economic and generational walls have been removed. “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” (Galatians 3:28). If Jesus Christ removed these barriers, who are we to try and build them back up?

While the modern dispensational church keeps it’s eyes glued to the Middle East, awaiting some sort of Theological Extravaganza, Paul clarified that the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 22:18) is being fulfilled through the church, (and the Galatian Gentile church at that). “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed.” (Galatians 3:8). God’s everlasting Covenant is not concerned about a 10-mile strip of real estate in the Middle East. As Christians, we are members of the New, Heavenly Jerusalem which is the one and only bride of Christ, and the mother of us all (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22).

So what should be the mindset of Christians toward Israel? Politically speaking Israel is a strong ally of the United States and of western society in general, therefore, they have my support, as long as they aren’t the aggressors of conflict. However, we must make it clear that, theologically speaking, Judaism and Christianity have nothing in common. We need not attempt any ecumenical alliances with Judaists, “…For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). We are commanded by our Lord to make disciples of ALL nations (Matthew 28:18-20), and that includes Judaizers, who cannot be saved apart from Christ, no matter what John Hagee says. Therefore, while my dispensationalists friends are praying for the peace of Jerusalem, my prayer is different. I’m praying for the conversion of Jerusalem.