I have stated on many occasions that the Dispensationalist approach to Scripture, if consistently applied, would eventually lead one away from Christianity altogether in favor of Christ-rejecting Judaism. Rodney J. Decker's latest article (Why Do Dispensationalists Have Such a Hard Time Agreeing on the New Covenant?) related to the September 2008 Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, is a classic case in point. Decker has come to the conclusion that the church is not in covenant with God. Instead, Decker concludes, the new covenant is made only with the Christ-rejecting nation of Israel.
The disagreement between Dispensational and Covenantal Theology can be best solved by asking the following question. Whom shall we trust when it comes to the correct interpretation of Old Testament prophecy? Shall we trust the inspired writers of the New Testament, or should we trust Bible Baptist Seminary? Decker, Professor of NT and Greek at Bible Baptist Seminary, makes some surprising claims that put Dispensationalism clearly at odds with Scripture.
After assuming a priori that the Mosaic law has a "lack of legal standing in the church" (p.1), and that the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant is yet future1 (p. 1 - see Acts 2:25-32), Becker ask a series of questions concerning the method of Bible exegesis. "Does the text determine our theology or does our theology determine our understanding of the text? How does our hermeneutical framework - our theological system- affect (and sometimes effect!) our exegetical conclusions? Which takes priority, text or theology? We all know the "correct" answer to such questions: the text must determine our theology." (p. 2). All good so far, but this approach dissolves into mere rhetoric once he begins to delve into Old Testament Prophecy. He writes, “If God does not fulfill the promises of the new covenant with Israel exactly as he promised and as the prophet understood God’s promise, the God has failed.” (p. 20). This statement clearly begs the question. Becker never tells us how we are to determine the way "the prophet understood God’s promise". What insight does he have into the mind of the Old Testament prophets? Does he have any more than Jesus, John, Peter, or Paul? By rejecting the New Testament fulfillment as the actual fulfillment, Becker has clearly let his theology determine his understanding of the text. In addition, the Dispensational hermeneutic fails to focus on all of Scripture as a story of Christ's redemptive work. It pits Scripture against Scripture, and focuses on Old Testament shadows instead of the substance in Christ. (John 1:45, John 5:46, John 8:56, etc.). Furthermore, if we were to apply Becker’s standard to the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament, we would become Judaist, who were blind leaders of the blind (Luke 6:39).
If nothing else, Decker should get props for consistency in terms of the new covenant in Dispensational theology. He also soundly refutes the modern "dual covenant" heresy propagated by John Hagee and others. Perhaps I can answer the question as to why Dispensationalists have such a hard time agreeing on the New Covenant. Because, contrary to Galatians 3:28, they insist on erecting racial walls in order to separate fleshly Israel from the Church. As such, they cannot figure out how to include both in the New Covenant. Like other dispensationalists, Decker cannot come to grips with the fact that there is no covenant without Christ, and there never has been. Thus Decker concludes, based on his flawed hermeneutic, that the New Covenant is made only with the present nation of Israel, not the church. However, he does suggest that the church participates in the blessing “in some way” (p. 19). He further defends the exclusion of the church from the New Covenant by boldly telling us that “...the church is never mentioned in the OT" (p. 17). Hmmm...
The redemptive work of Christ is the center of both the Old and the New Covenant, both covenants being made with the elect and them only. As for the correct interpretation of Old Testament Prophecy, why do we need to go any further than the interpretation given us in the New Testament? Indeed, Dispensationalism has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.
Footnotes:
1 I give Becker the benefit of the doubt concerning this approach, as he was addressing fellow dispensationalist concerning his view of the new covenant. He didn't address Covenantal views, which I have done many times here.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Friday, January 09, 2009
The Marks of a True Church
How does one identify a true church? There are many groups of people today who refer to themselves as the ekklesia, the church (literally "called out"). For those who are new in the faith, or for those who get confused about the many factions that exist, there are ways to identify which is the true church and which is the false church.
Those things that are NOT Marks of a True Church
1.) CHURCH NAME - Some feel that the name "church" makes one a true church. Calling an organization a "church" does not make one a church. The church at Sardis had a name that they were alive, though they were dead (Revelation 3:1). Therefore, nothing in the "name" of a church can be considered the mark of a true church.
2.) AGE AND DURABILITY - Some suggest that that a true church is one who can establish a long history for its specific organization. However, the Devil's kingdom has been on earth since the fall. At the beginning of the "Reformation" of the church in New Testament times, age and durability were of no benefit to the false church of Judaism, who were agents of the Devil (John 8:44). Therefore, age and durability are no marks of a true church.
3.) NUMBER OF PROFESSING CONVERTS - This is especially apropos in light of today's church growth movement. A church that is growing rapidly in numbers doesn't necessarily correspond to a true church. In fact, more often than not, the reverse is true. In the first Century, Judaists and Pagans both outnumbered the true church. In Noah's Day, the true church failed to grow at all. In contrast, we read that the whole world followed after the Beast (Revelation 13:3). The New Testament Church is addressed as a "little flock" (Luke 12:32), as we are warned in Scripture that "the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few". (Matthew 7:14). Therefore, a large number of professing converts is no mark of a true church.
4.) APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION - Some have suggested that a line of succession for bishops and clergy is a mark of a true church. However, the Apostles themselves warned of false prophets and teachers in their own time (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1), and proclaimed that they would grow abundant in latter days, "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power". (2 Timothy 3:1-5). We have seen a multitude of churches in our own day, with a good succession, degenerate into heresy. Judas Iscariot was first in line in terms of Apostolic Succession, yet was a Devil (John 6:70). Therefore apostolic succession, even if it could be proven, is no mark of a true church.
5.) EXTERNAL LUSTER AND PROSPERITY - Some have suggested that fame, riches, and prosperity are a sign of approval from God, and therefore are marks of a godly faith and a true church. What a deceitful scheme that the Devil has laid at the feet of the simple! The church at Laodicea was rich, prospered, and in need of nothing in terms of temporal blessings, but did not realize that it was "wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked". (Revelation 3:17). Asaph was envious when he saw the wicked prosper (Psalm 73:3), until he saw their end (Psalm 73:17-19). In contrast, the Son of Man had no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), and the apostles were lacking in silver and gold (Acts 3:6). Therefore prosperity is not a mark of a true church.
Those things that are the Marks of a True Church
The Nicene Creed espouses belief "in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". The true meaning of these words have been misrepresented by false churches who, just by importing these words into their name, market themselves as rightful heirs to the kingdom. Therefore, we must gain a right understanding of what it means to be a holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
1.) HOLY - The term "Holy" is most accurately defined as "set apart". The true church consists only of Christians, those who are set apart from the world in Covenant with God. Those who are unbelievers are not of the church, although they may be in the church (1 John 2:19). The church is holy in the eyes of God, not by its own works, but because of the work of Christ, who is its sanctification (1 Corinthians 1:2). Those to whom Christ has joined himself were chosen “in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him” (Ephesians 1:4). As a result, Christians are commanded to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and to constantly pursue and grow in holiness (Ephesians 4:24, 2 Corinthians 7:1). The church uses of the Word to Instruct in Holiness (John 17:17, Ephesians 5:26), the sacraments to discern the Lord's Body (1 Corinthians 11:29), and Keys of the Kingdom to discipline those who are unholy (Matthew 16:19).
2.) CATHOLIC - This term is the cause of great confusion in modern times, and is used by papists to promote their organization as well as the accompanying fables as truth. The term means "universal" and was used long before Romanism began to ostracize those of the Apostolic Faith. The church is universal (Ephesians 2:12-13) in that it includes not only Israel, as was the case in the Old Covenant, but "the children of God that were scattered abroad". (John 11:52). The Roman Church, however, is not "catholic" in spite of its use of the term, nor ever has been.
3.) APOSTOLIC - Some have used this term to promote the myth of Apostolic Succession as being the mark of a true church. However, true meaning of the term "Apostolic" refers to adherence to Apostolic Doctrine, which is the Word of God as contained in the Holy Scriptures. Note that it is not merely the “use” of the Word that identifies the true church, for even the Devil uses the Word in corrupt ways to suit his own ends. (Matthew 4:6). Rather the true church rightly handles the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), for that Word is the only standard for life and practice. The true church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20), and cannot depart from "the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;" (Jude 1:17). Even the verbal preaching of the Apostle Paul was subject to testing by way of the Holy Scriptures (Acts 17:11), so that anyone who preached another gospel, including apostles or angels, was anathema (Galatians 1:8). Hence the church is Apostolic in terms of doctrine, not by "fables and endless genealogies" (1 Timothy 1:3-4). No pope or archbishop can claim Apostolic authority while shunning Apostolic Doctrine, for "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)
Those things that are NOT Marks of a True Church
1.) CHURCH NAME - Some feel that the name "church" makes one a true church. Calling an organization a "church" does not make one a church. The church at Sardis had a name that they were alive, though they were dead (Revelation 3:1). Therefore, nothing in the "name" of a church can be considered the mark of a true church.
2.) AGE AND DURABILITY - Some suggest that that a true church is one who can establish a long history for its specific organization. However, the Devil's kingdom has been on earth since the fall. At the beginning of the "Reformation" of the church in New Testament times, age and durability were of no benefit to the false church of Judaism, who were agents of the Devil (John 8:44). Therefore, age and durability are no marks of a true church.
3.) NUMBER OF PROFESSING CONVERTS - This is especially apropos in light of today's church growth movement. A church that is growing rapidly in numbers doesn't necessarily correspond to a true church. In fact, more often than not, the reverse is true. In the first Century, Judaists and Pagans both outnumbered the true church. In Noah's Day, the true church failed to grow at all. In contrast, we read that the whole world followed after the Beast (Revelation 13:3). The New Testament Church is addressed as a "little flock" (Luke 12:32), as we are warned in Scripture that "the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few". (Matthew 7:14). Therefore, a large number of professing converts is no mark of a true church.
4.) APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION - Some have suggested that a line of succession for bishops and clergy is a mark of a true church. However, the Apostles themselves warned of false prophets and teachers in their own time (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1), and proclaimed that they would grow abundant in latter days, "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power". (2 Timothy 3:1-5). We have seen a multitude of churches in our own day, with a good succession, degenerate into heresy. Judas Iscariot was first in line in terms of Apostolic Succession, yet was a Devil (John 6:70). Therefore apostolic succession, even if it could be proven, is no mark of a true church.
5.) EXTERNAL LUSTER AND PROSPERITY - Some have suggested that fame, riches, and prosperity are a sign of approval from God, and therefore are marks of a godly faith and a true church. What a deceitful scheme that the Devil has laid at the feet of the simple! The church at Laodicea was rich, prospered, and in need of nothing in terms of temporal blessings, but did not realize that it was "wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked". (Revelation 3:17). Asaph was envious when he saw the wicked prosper (Psalm 73:3), until he saw their end (Psalm 73:17-19). In contrast, the Son of Man had no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), and the apostles were lacking in silver and gold (Acts 3:6). Therefore prosperity is not a mark of a true church.
Those things that are the Marks of a True Church
The Nicene Creed espouses belief "in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". The true meaning of these words have been misrepresented by false churches who, just by importing these words into their name, market themselves as rightful heirs to the kingdom. Therefore, we must gain a right understanding of what it means to be a holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
1.) HOLY - The term "Holy" is most accurately defined as "set apart". The true church consists only of Christians, those who are set apart from the world in Covenant with God. Those who are unbelievers are not of the church, although they may be in the church (1 John 2:19). The church is holy in the eyes of God, not by its own works, but because of the work of Christ, who is its sanctification (1 Corinthians 1:2). Those to whom Christ has joined himself were chosen “in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him” (Ephesians 1:4). As a result, Christians are commanded to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and to constantly pursue and grow in holiness (Ephesians 4:24, 2 Corinthians 7:1). The church uses of the Word to Instruct in Holiness (John 17:17, Ephesians 5:26), the sacraments to discern the Lord's Body (1 Corinthians 11:29), and Keys of the Kingdom to discipline those who are unholy (Matthew 16:19).
2.) CATHOLIC - This term is the cause of great confusion in modern times, and is used by papists to promote their organization as well as the accompanying fables as truth. The term means "universal" and was used long before Romanism began to ostracize those of the Apostolic Faith. The church is universal (Ephesians 2:12-13) in that it includes not only Israel, as was the case in the Old Covenant, but "the children of God that were scattered abroad". (John 11:52). The Roman Church, however, is not "catholic" in spite of its use of the term, nor ever has been.
3.) APOSTOLIC - Some have used this term to promote the myth of Apostolic Succession as being the mark of a true church. However, true meaning of the term "Apostolic" refers to adherence to Apostolic Doctrine, which is the Word of God as contained in the Holy Scriptures. Note that it is not merely the “use” of the Word that identifies the true church, for even the Devil uses the Word in corrupt ways to suit his own ends. (Matthew 4:6). Rather the true church rightly handles the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), for that Word is the only standard for life and practice. The true church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20), and cannot depart from "the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;" (Jude 1:17). Even the verbal preaching of the Apostle Paul was subject to testing by way of the Holy Scriptures (Acts 17:11), so that anyone who preached another gospel, including apostles or angels, was anathema (Galatians 1:8). Hence the church is Apostolic in terms of doctrine, not by "fables and endless genealogies" (1 Timothy 1:3-4). No pope or archbishop can claim Apostolic authority while shunning Apostolic Doctrine, for "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)
Monday, December 29, 2008
Dual Fulfillment and a Future Tribulation
As an increasing number of Christians are beginning to recognize value of the historical context in interpreting Bible Prophecy, those who hold to a futurist view are pushing for a "Dual Fulfillment" principle. This enables Dispensationalists in particular to honor the imminent fulfillment recognized by Preterists, and yet apply them to future events at the same time.
The "dual fulfillment" principle is not new. At first glance there seems to be some basis for this methodology. There were certainly Old Testament prophecies that had dual fulfillments. One need look no further than the numerous Messianic prophecies in the Psalms, which applied to David's life as well as foretold of the Messiah. Isaiah 28:11 speaks of the Babylonian Conquest of the Holy Land, yet Paul uses it to describe Pentecost with the same type of judgment from the Romans (1 Corinthians 14:21). There is also a sense in which the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 is a picture of the final judgment. However, using such a principle to push specific New Testament Prophecies into the future is a questionable practice at best, especially when applied to the Great Tribulation.
For one, this principle ignores the fact that the focal point of all prophecy is the work of Jesus Christ. Because the Judaists of the First Century failed to see Christ in the Old Testament, they were blind leaders of the blind (Luke 6:39). Yet these things were revealed to the children of God, and a "dual fulfillment" of these events would demand a continued sense of blindness. Christ's first advent brought the gospel which was "to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (Ephesians 3:9).
Besides, it is impossible for certain prophecies to honor this principle. Will there be two Millenniums? Two Great Tribulations? Jesus' own words concerning the Great Tribulation demand that it can be only a one time event.
By this very description, a dual fulfillment of this prophecy would make it a false prophecy. The same is true for Daniel 2:44, as a kingdom that is established forever can only be established once.
Some prophecies, if pushed into the future, would require a triple fulfillment. Consider the charismatic application of 1 Corinthians 14:21 in regards to the Latter Rain movement. Since 1 Corinthians 14:21 is a dual fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11, any futuristic application would in fact be a triple fulfillment. The same is true with Daniel's "abomination of desolation". It was fulfilled during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but was also applied by Christ in the Olivet Discourse to the armed invasion of Jerusalem by Titus and the Romans (compare Matthew 24:15-21 with Luke 21:20-24). Thus any futuristic view of the abomination of desolation would require a triple fulfillment. The same can be said for the fall of Babylon in the Old Testament (Isaiah 13:1-22) applied to Jerusalem in the New Testament (Revelation 14:8, Revelation 17:5).
In short, using the "dual fulfillment" principle to warn of a future Great Tribulation is a practice of sensational desperation, not sound Biblical exegesis. Dispensationalism in any form is a theology with an exiled Christ, with no kingdom today relevant to the earth in which we live. While we may not know the exact order of events leading up to the Second Advent, we can know that the Great Tribulation, as well as the other events of the Olivet Discourse, is past history. They happened within the apostle's generation (Matthew 24:34), never to be repeated.
The "dual fulfillment" principle is not new. At first glance there seems to be some basis for this methodology. There were certainly Old Testament prophecies that had dual fulfillments. One need look no further than the numerous Messianic prophecies in the Psalms, which applied to David's life as well as foretold of the Messiah. Isaiah 28:11 speaks of the Babylonian Conquest of the Holy Land, yet Paul uses it to describe Pentecost with the same type of judgment from the Romans (1 Corinthians 14:21). There is also a sense in which the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 is a picture of the final judgment. However, using such a principle to push specific New Testament Prophecies into the future is a questionable practice at best, especially when applied to the Great Tribulation.
For one, this principle ignores the fact that the focal point of all prophecy is the work of Jesus Christ. Because the Judaists of the First Century failed to see Christ in the Old Testament, they were blind leaders of the blind (Luke 6:39). Yet these things were revealed to the children of God, and a "dual fulfillment" of these events would demand a continued sense of blindness. Christ's first advent brought the gospel which was "to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (Ephesians 3:9).
Besides, it is impossible for certain prophecies to honor this principle. Will there be two Millenniums? Two Great Tribulations? Jesus' own words concerning the Great Tribulation demand that it can be only a one time event.
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." (Matthew 24:21)
By this very description, a dual fulfillment of this prophecy would make it a false prophecy. The same is true for Daniel 2:44, as a kingdom that is established forever can only be established once.
Some prophecies, if pushed into the future, would require a triple fulfillment. Consider the charismatic application of 1 Corinthians 14:21 in regards to the Latter Rain movement. Since 1 Corinthians 14:21 is a dual fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11, any futuristic application would in fact be a triple fulfillment. The same is true with Daniel's "abomination of desolation". It was fulfilled during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but was also applied by Christ in the Olivet Discourse to the armed invasion of Jerusalem by Titus and the Romans (compare Matthew 24:15-21 with Luke 21:20-24). Thus any futuristic view of the abomination of desolation would require a triple fulfillment. The same can be said for the fall of Babylon in the Old Testament (Isaiah 13:1-22) applied to Jerusalem in the New Testament (Revelation 14:8, Revelation 17:5).
In short, using the "dual fulfillment" principle to warn of a future Great Tribulation is a practice of sensational desperation, not sound Biblical exegesis. Dispensationalism in any form is a theology with an exiled Christ, with no kingdom today relevant to the earth in which we live. While we may not know the exact order of events leading up to the Second Advent, we can know that the Great Tribulation, as well as the other events of the Olivet Discourse, is past history. They happened within the apostle's generation (Matthew 24:34), never to be repeated.
Friday, December 12, 2008
On the Incarnation
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2)
As the trees light up and the sounds of Carols resonate through the cold night air, millions worldwide will reflect upon a baby boy in a manger, a cultural icon of peace and good will towards men.
However, the real miracle of Christmas goes way beyond a mere human baby boy who was born in Bethlehem. The re
al miracle surrounds the hypostatic union of very God and very man. This is the ONLY orthodox Christology, that Christ was the very God (100%) and the very man (100%) in one person. To err in this area is to err to the destruction of your soul, for “...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24). The word “he” does not appear in the original Greek. Therefore the MKJV rendering of this passages correctly reads, “…if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins”, with the phrase “I AM” being a claim to Deity (Exodus 3:14). The temptation to worship Christ’s human nature is one of the most deceptive forms of idolatry.Jesus Christ was the very God, and was also very man. He was not “God changed into a man”, nor was He some mixture of God and man. Christ did not relinquish any of His Divine Attributes during his Incarnation (Colossians 2:9). Christ’s divine nature was “been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), for “before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58).
Christ’s human nature was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), the seed of a woman (Genesis 3:15), “God…manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). The idea of “celestial flesh”1 is an Anabaptist morbis mentis. Christ was not a created being, as the ancient Arians and modern Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, nor was He a “mode” of God, as the ancient Socinians and their modern Oneness deceivers would proclaim. Christ is one person with two natures, divine and human, being distinct from each other, yet clearly united to each other. Wilhelmus a’Brakel reflects the importance of meditating on the Incarnation of Christ.
“…let the incarnation of the Lord Jesus also be the frequent subject of your meditation, for the manifestation of God in the flesh is a “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16). All true godliness proceeds from the knowledge of, and a believing union with, the Lord Jesus. This generates love and all that proceeds from love. Whatever does not proceed from this source cannot be called godliness. Even though nature may give us an impression of God and religion, it does not reveal this mystery. He who has only been illuminated outwardly is also ignorant of the frame of heart which proceeds from knowing Jesus (that is, as both God and man).” (Wilhelmus a’Brakel – The Christian’s Reasonable Service, pp.512-513.)
This Christmas, let us not fall into the idolatry of worshipping a human baby, but let us wonder at the miracle of God, in all of His Glory, being united to human flesh.
Related Article – The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity
Footnotes:
1 “Celestial Flesh” is the belief among Mennonites and certain Brethren groups that Jesus did not derive his humanity from Mary, but from Heaven. The results are that Christ’s deity and His redemptive work become less important than His humanity, thus the focus is on Jesus as a good example as opposed to a Savior. The question for the Christian is not so much “What Would Jesus Do?” as opposed to “What Has Jesus Done?”
Saturday, December 06, 2008
The Law and Offices of Jesus Christ
“And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” (Matthew 2:11).A reflection on the gifts of the magi can give one an understanding of the offices of Christ, as well as how the law relates to these offices.
Gold represents the Kingship of Christ.
Christ is the Almighty King, superior to all others. “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:16). It is this particular office of Christ that is the most ignored today. If Christ is the Almighty King, then He should be obeyed. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46). What a travesty it is that professing Christians view God’s law with distain, implicitly deny Christ’s reign over their lives. “…You are not your own, for you were bought with a price...” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). The kingship of Christ flies right in the face of the spirit of our age, which focuses on the importance of self. Such self exaltation and self deception leads to antinomianism, and against such Christ duly warns us. “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” (1 John 2:3-4).A call to obedience is not legalism. Obedience to God’s commandments is legalistic only when it becomes the grounds by which we consider ourselves justified. Therefore, reflect on the authority that Christ has in both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), and, as His subjects, give Him the honor and obedience due an Almighty King.
On this point, we turn to the frankincense, representing the high priestly office of Christ. Just as antinomianism denies the kingly Office of Christ, legalism denies His priestly office. As high priest, Christ is superior to all other priests. “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:23-25). However, the high priestly office of Christ only merits value to those who understand their miserable condition, who feel the burden of sin, and perceive its due justice. For that, the law serves as a mirror (James 1:23), showing us that condition accurately. It is then and only then that one tastes the sweetness of Christ, who administers His priestly duties through His once for all sacrifice (Hebrews 9:12) and His intercession (Hebrews 7:25).
The prophetic office of Christ is confirmed by the myrrh, a rather strange gift to give to a child. It was a burial spice, confirming the prophecy of Christ's death and burial (Isaiah 53:8-9). Christ was confirmed as the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 by Acts 3:22. It is a proper understanding of this office that undergirds the authority of the written word, as the words of the prophet were directly spoken from the very mouth of God (Deuteronomy 18:18). As Christ is the very God Himself, He is superior to all prophets. He is the end goal of all prophecy (Hebrews 1:1-2), and today administers His prophetic office by the written Word, being preached and expounded. "This is my beloved Son; listen to him." (Mark 9:7)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)