The Sovereignty of God Leaves No Autonomy for Men

 Sometimes it is funny to talk to people not well-versed in sound biblical theology. When I ask them, "Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?," they always answer, "Of course!" Then, however, the footnotes start coming out, like the small print in a credit card commercial. "But He gives us free will, to choose to sin or not, to believe or not, to do good works or not." So, in reality, those people consider themselves to be sovereign, not God. That causes me to wonder if they have skipped over the large portions of Scripture that say otherwise. 

For example, in II Samuel 24:1, we read these words: "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them." The account in I Chronicles adds an additional detail: "Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David" (I Chronicles 21:1). So, we have two different writers in their respective books telling us that God had determined to punish Israel but inciting David to sin. God is sovereign over the sins of men. Furthermore, the two books tell us that God uses means to bring about that sin. II Samuel just tells us that David himself is the means. I Chronicles gives us the additional information that He used Satan to incite David. Thus we know that God is sovereign over not just the sins of men, but over the temptations of Satan, as well. 

The story continues: "So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel from the morning until the appointed time. And there died of the people from Dan to Beersheba 70,000 men. And when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people, 'It is enough; now stay your hand.' And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, 'Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done?'..." (II Samuel 24:15-17). The parallel in I Chronicles 21:14-15 says, "So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel, and 70,000 men of Israel fell. And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it." The important thing to see here is that God had sovereignly incited the sin, yet still punished Israel for it. Also, it was David's sin (as he acknowledges in II Samuel 24:17), but God punishes the entire nation. That is simply because David was the covenant head of the nation; therefore, his sin was imputed to all of those who were covenantally represented by him. We are also again told of God's use of means, this time an angel (probably a parallel to the curse on Egypt in (Exodus 12:23, "destroyer"). 

The issue is very simple: fallen man wants to keep some of the autonomy promised to him by Satan in the fall of Adam (Genesis 3:5). Even the professing Christian struggles to relinquish his false sense of self-ownership. yet, God claims absolute sovereignty, over man, over sin, over Satan, and even over salvation. We must come to see that God's worldview is God-centered, no matter how much we want Him to be us-centered.

Covenant Theology and the Imputation of Sin and Righteousness.

Paul gives us this description of the Gospel and man's need of it: "Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the One who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one Man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one Man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one Man’s obedience the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:12-19). 

This is covenant theology in one paragraph. Paul tells us that, in the sin of Adam, all of his posterity became sinners. That means every man, woman, and child, except Jesus, from conception to the end of his or her life, is a sinner. Theologians call this the Covenant of Works, because life and death, both physical and spiritual, were based on the perfect obedience of Adam. If he had remained faithful, his faithfulness would have been imputed to his posterity. However, since he fell, his sin was imputed to his posterity instead. 

Americans hate this biblical teaching, because it violates our cultural belief in the sovereignty of the individual. And I don't mean just atheists. Even professing Christians will hold to some form of individualistic religion, in which every person is responsible only for his own sin and for his own salvation. 

But let us continue with Paul in Romans. 

Paul also tells us that Jesus has a posterity, a posterity which, in Him, receives salvation because of His perfect sinlessness and substitutionary atoning act on the cross. Theologians call this the Covenant of Grace, exactly because it is graciously applied by imputation to all those who receive it by faith alone, which faith itself is a gracious gift of God. 

Strangely, this part of Paul's message is quite popular. Somehow, those individualists who object to sin by imputation don't see their personal sovereignty as violated by the imputation of righteousness! 

We can see the cultural role of this covenant headship in the history of Israel. In Second Samuel 24, the Bible gives us the story of David's census of the people of Israel, without God's command. In verse 1, we are told that it was because God planned judgment against Israel. However, in I Chronicles 21:1, we are told that Satan stirred up the idea in David's heart. Obviously, it was the purpose of God, which He worked through the means of Satan. 

The key verse, though, is II Samuel 24:16: "So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel from the morning until the appointed time. And there died of the people from Dan to Beersheba 70,000 men." It was David who sinned, as he himself admits in verse 10, yet it was those 70,000 men who suffered the consequences. How can that be just? Well, if it is the individual who is primary, then it wasn't just. But that isn't the case. As king, David was the covenant head of the people of Israel, just as Adam and Jesus of their respective peoples. Therefore, when David sinned as king, the sin and its judgment fell on all who were in covenant with God through David. 

This covenant mentality is very different from our modern American culture. We cannot judge it according to our cultural values. Rather, we must understand and accept it on the basis of God's values. To reject the imputation of sin logically requires the equal rejection of the imputation of righteousness.

Government Is to Be the Tool of God, Not a Tool Against Him

The Signing of the Mayflower Compact

Conservatives like to talk about the United States as "a Christian nation." And I do not doubt that her original settlers had such a concept for the new land. However, when our current Constitution was adopted in 1787, Article VI, section 3, included this provision: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This provision has now been expanded also to apply to state and local government. Therefore, no atheist, Jew, Pagan, Muslim, or any other spiritual reprobate can be barred as such from rule anywhere in the United States.

The problem is with the assumption that government is supposed to be "neutral" when it comes to religion. Even if neutrality were truly possible, that assumption is contrary to Scripture: "He [i. e., God the Father] put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1:22). The Father has given to the Son to rule over all things. There is no exception given there for government. Also, if God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), how can it be rational to exclude one collection of men, i. e., government, from that command? We also have the explicit command to kings in Psalm 2:10-12: "Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him." Scripture does not allow us the luxury of believing that one group of men, or one human activity, is exempt from the royal rule of the ascended Jesus Christ.

Scripture is not neutral regarding God's instructions regarding the spiritual qualifications that He has set for governors in a Christian nation: "Look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people" (Exodus 18:21). "The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me: When one rules justly over men, [he must rule] in the fear of God" (II Samuel 23:3). God's standard for any level of governor is that he fear God, be capable, trustworthy, and have integrity. Has that been our experience under our "neutral" government? I wouldn't say so.

The moral disintegration of our country isn't something for which I hold the government responsible. After all, the government is acting consistently with the moral basis it has been given, that of "neutrality." Rather, I hold Christians responsible for disobedience to God and His word. Christians dismiss so many of God's commands with an unthinking, "But that's Old Testament." Ephesians 1:22 is certainly not Old Testament! But, even if it were, where does the Bible say that accountability to God's standards ended with Malachi? Nowhere! It is only the bad theology that assumes the end of God's laws, leaving "neutral "government to become the tool of the anti-Christian. The anti-Christian has no qualms about making religious use of government, and Christians have capitulated to that conquest without any effort at resistance.

Men and the Politics of Abortion

"David therefore sought God on behalf of the child. And David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground, but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, 'Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us. How then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm.' But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. And David said to his servants, 'Is the child dead?' They said, 'He is dead.' Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate. Then his servants said to him, 'What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.' He said, While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, 'Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?'"
- II Samuel 12:16-22

These verses are from the passage that describes David's sin with Bathsheba. He had seen her bathing and desired for himself, even though she was a married woman. He got her pregnant, and tried to arrange circumstances that would make it appear that her husband was the true father, a scheme which failed. That husband, Uriah, was in the army, and David arranged to have him killed. Thus, David compounded the sin of lust with adultery and then with murder. Horrific under any circumstances, but especially in God's anointed king over His people..

After Uriah was killed, David took Bathsheba into his palace, where she gave birth to a son. However, God was displeased, and the infant died.

I see this as applying to our own day in the holocaust of abortion. So many men are impregnating women who aren't their wives. Then they are avoiding responsibility for those women and their children by sending them to the abortionists. Where David murdered the husband of the object of his lust, today's men murder the babies who are victims of their lust. Victimized women, compounded with victimized children, and the men avoid any accountability. In the story of David and Bathsheba, David accepted responsibility for his sins. Today's men rarely do.

Perseverance by the Hand of the Lord Alone

As a Christian, I can testify of my own weakness. I know, without a doubt, that I would fall in a micro-second if my perseverance depended on me. However, I am thankful beyond words, that Jesus has undertaken, not just to redeem me, but to redeem me forever. In this case, it is the buyer who insists that "all sales are final -no refunds."

"The steps of a man are established by the Lord,
     when he delights in His way;
though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, 
     for the Lord upholds his hand."
- Psalm 37: 23-24

In these four lines of poetry, we learn so much about God's promise of faithfulness to His people. There is no cheap grace, no "once saved, always saved" nonsense here. For the promise isn't, "If you raise your hand, you will be set for life, no matter what you do." Rather, it is a promise that the Christian will be sustained in his walk, that is, in His life as a Christian. Furthermore, there is no prosperity-gospel promise of "now I am happy all the day. On the contrary, it explicitly states that a part of the Christian walk is to stumble, as David did, in his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (II Samuel, chapters 11 and 12). However, there is a promise here that such a stumble, though it may be severe or for a long time, yet it will not be permanent. Why? Because we are so spiritually-resilient that we will bounce back on our own? No, but rather because it is His hand, not our own strength, that upholds us (compare John 10:27-30). 

I don't understand that opposition of Arminians to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Well, actually I do. They misrepresent it, and then reject it, what logicians call a "strawman argument." However, I find it of such comfort that I could not live without knowing it. My hope is in the hand of Christ, not my own strength.

The Osteenification of American Evangelicalism: The Smiling Face of Apostasy

American evangelicalism has been taken over by what I call Osteenism, a gospel of self-esteem, with a Jesus as the great psychotherapist and Santa Claus in the sky. We aren't to talk about sin and God's holiness; God is to be presented only and always as a God of syrupy love, never of wrath. This has resulted in professing Christians with an ignorance of doctrine, of the Bible, of truth, and who are utterly incapable of dealing with adversity or addressing our humanistic culture. Since there is nothing wrong with people, according to this teaching, then there is no transformation, either of individuals or of churches, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This not the faith of the Bible.

We see Jacob, the grandson of Adam and founder of the nation of Israel, saying of himself (Genesis 32:10): "I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that You have shown to Your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps." He was blessed by God, enriched in fact, and acknowledges that fact. However, he also recognizes his unworthiness. These gifts have come from the hand of God, not because of Jacob's merits, but in spite of his demerits!

We see the same attitude in II Samuel 7:18: "Then King David went in and sat before the Lord and said, 'Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that You have brought me thus far?'" King David, one of the most-prominent figures in the Old Testament, had experienced many blessings and protections from God. Was it because he avoided recognizing any failures on his own part? Not at all! Rather, he professes those very inadequacies (compare Psalm 51), and praises God for giving him the exact opposite of what he deserved (II Sam. 7:21): "Because of Your promise, and according to Your own heart, You have brought about all this greatness, to make Your servant know it." In giving His blessings, God never intends for David, or for us, to congratulate ourselves for our magnificence. Rather, it is to cause us to recognize our unworthiness and His magnificence.

In following the prophets of Osteenism, a professing Christian may develop an astounding self-esteem. However, he will never learn proper esteem for God, his mercy, and His gifts.

What the Bible Says About Its Own Inspiration: Old Testament

I understand that an atheist, for example, won't be convinced by the Bible's description of itself as the Word of God. However, I'm not addressing that question here. Rather, I am presenting the Bible's testimony about itself as a first step. After all, if the Bible makes no claims of inspiration and inerrancy, then there is nothing to defend.

I want to look at three Old Testament passages.

First, Numbers 1:1: "The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt." This is a very simple profession. The Bible says of itself that it is a record, not of men's words about God, but of God's words to men about Himself. That is the essential starting point, and what separates the Bible from traditional myths of, for example, Greece and Rome. Those myths come from plays or poems written by professionals, and make no claim or pretense of supernatural origin. They are men's stories about their ideas of the spiritual reality, not even claiming to be from that reality. In contrast, the Bible sets forth an unequivocal claim to be the words of God, though recorded by men.

Second, turn to Deuteronomy 18:18-19: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put My words in his mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And whoever will not listen to My words that He shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." This is a prophecy to Moses, predicting the coming of Christ, in His prophetic office (applied to Him in Acts 3:22). But that isn't my point in mentioning it here. the reason I cite it is because of its description of the inspirational process. What is the source of Moses's words (as he is the prophet to whom the words are given)? They are from the mouth of God. That is, as in Numbers 1:1 above, they do not have their origin in the mind of the prophet, but are rather given him by God to be recorded. So, again, the Bible claims for itself to have a divine origin (compare II Peter 1:21).

And third, turn to II Samuel 23:2-3: "The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; His word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me." So we see for a third time that an Old Testament figure, in this case King David, claims that the words that are recorded are not from his mind, or his imagination, but rather are from God.

This is far from an exhaustive list. Rather, I chose three examples to represent the consistent testimony of the Old Testament. The testimony to what? To its own divine inspiration. The implication of that is, first, that the professing Christian who denies the inerrancy of Scripture is denying the basis of the faith that he professes. It is a self-refuting profession, and proof that he is either ignorant of his faith, or that he is irrational. Furthermore, it puts the professing unbeliever on notice. There is no such thing as agnosticism, some vague profession that one is noncommittal. We must be flexible, our culture says! But Scripture says, "This is what God says. Believe it, or accept the consequences." There is no in-between, neutral position (Matthew 12:30). To the professing unbeliever, the Bible doesn't congratulate you on your sophisticated scepticism. Rather, it says that you are commanded to believe (Acts 17:30). If you refuse, then you are saying that you accept the consequences. Don't deceive yourself: unbelief is not a form of immunity, as if refusing makes you free of the requirements of God.

The Pre-Incarnate Sonship of Christ: A Message for Oneness Believers

According to Oneness Pentecostals, the baby in the Bethlehem manger was the revelation of God the Father in the flesh as Son. That is, there is no separate Person of the Son. The Son is the flesh, while the Father is the deity. They challenge orthodox Christians to show where Scripture reveals a pre-existent Son. That is the question I wish to address.

In the Old Testament, I would refer first to Psalm 2:7-9: "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.'" This passage is applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:5. And secondly, II Samuel 7:14: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son." This text is also referred to Christ in Hebrews 1:5, though it was originally spoken of Solomon, as a type of Christ.

In the New Testament, we can look at Galatians 4:4: "When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law." Notice that God sent His Son; He didn't come forth as His [own] Son! Thus, not only must the Son have already existed, but there is a distinction between the Father Who sends and the Son Who is sent.

Thus, we can see in just these three places, two in the Old Testament (but cited in the New) and one in the New Testament, that the Sonship of Christ didn't begin at His incarnation, but was an eternal aspect of His existence. This is not an exhaustive list, but suffices to demonstrate that the Oneness view misrepresents the teachings of Scripture.

The Faithfulness of God, Seen in the Covenant with David

My fourth biblical-theology paper.

    David, son of Jesse, the second King of Israel, is the foremost character in the second half of I Samuel, beginning in chapter 16, all of II Samuel, and in I Kings, up to chapter 2, as well as their parallel passages in I Chronicles. He himself authored authored a large, though indefinite, portion of the Psalms. Thus, he rivals his descendant Jesus in the amount of Scripture devoted to his person.

    The first King, Saul, rebels against God in I Samuel 15. As a result, God removes His anointing from Saul and his line. In his place, in chapter 16, the Prophet Samuel is commanded to anoint a replacement. Samuel examines the son’s of Jesse, going down the line from eldest down, rejecting them one by one, until David, the youngest is brought before him, and God commands him to anoint David as king-elect. We next see him in chapter 17, as Israel is standing intimidated by the champion of the Philistines, the giant Goliath. David, too young to be a soldier, is sent by his father to carry food to his elder brothers. At the front, he is appalled by the failure of any Israelite to answer Goliath’s challenge. Then David, still a beardless youth, a mere shepherd, volunteers. He approaches, not as a swaggering warrior as God’s appointee. He tells Goliath (17:45), “I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, Whom you have taunted.” He strikes down Goliath with his shepherd’s sling, cuts of his head, and the now-inspired Israel drives away the rest of the disheartened Philistine army.

    Saul is jealous of David, as he listens to the people sing, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (18:7). He knows that he has been rejected by God in favor of David, now his son-in-law (18:20-30), and resents him for it, especially in the face of the close friendship between David and Saul’s son Jonathan (ch. 20). Saul persecutes David in chps. 21-30, during which time David marries his second wife, the widow of Nabal (ch. 25). Saul and his sons, including Jonathan but not Ishbosheth. Ishbosheth becomes king of eleven tribes, while David is crowned over Judah. The divided kingdom lasts seven and a half years (II Sam. 5:5), until Ishbosheth is assassinated, and David is then crowned king over the reunited kingdom (v. 3). The only surviving member of Saul’s family, Jonathan’s lame son Mephibosheth (v. 4:4), was to remain an honored guest in David’s household (ch. 9).

    The most important segment of David’s history is in chapter 7:8-17 (I Chronicles 17:1-15), the Davidic covenant. As was standard in such covenants, it begins with a rehearsal of God’s past blessings on David (vv. 8-9), then promises blessings (vv. 13-16). God promises peace, and a lineage on the throne of Israel forever. Verse 16 is the culmination: “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.” David responds in a prayer of thanksgiving in vv. 18-29, ending with a confidence in God’s promises: “For You, O Lord God, have spoken, and with Your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever.”

    The next major event in David’s life is his sin with Bathsheba (ch. 11). After seeing her bathing on the roof of her house, David has her husband, Uriah the Hittite, exposed in battle with the Ammonites. With Uriah out of the way, David then takes the now-widow as his third wife. The sin is rebuked by the Prophet Nathan in chapter 12, and the newborn son of David with Bathsheba is struck down (vv. 15-23). However, their next son is Solomon, destined to be David’s heir. This demonstrates the human sinfulness of this man, of whom God said, “This is a man after my own heart” (I Sam. 13:14). As a result, David deals suffers from the sins of his own children” Amnon with Tamar, and the rebellion of Absalom. We see his nature again in his census of chap. 24, resulting in God’s striking down of 70 thousand of his people. I Kings 1 and 2 are the account of the transfer of the kingdom from David to Solomon, and then David’s passing (vv. 10-12).

    David’s son, Solomon, as the newly-anointed king, relies of God’s covenant with his father in I Kings 3:6-14: “You have kept for him this great and steadfast love, and have given him a son to sit on his throne this day.” This suggests that David made great effort to teach Solomon what God had promised and done for him. But 5:3 indicates that he was also aware of the consequences of David’s bloody hands. We see both sides of David’s relationship with God in 8:15-20. But Solomon continues confident in God’s covenant promises (vv. 24-26). And that confidence is shared by all of Israel in verse 66.

    God explicitly repeats the promises of the Davidic covenant with Solomon in 9:4-5. This is similar to the pattern of the Abrahamic covenant, with the terms renewed with each succeeding generation. However, unlike David, Solomon did not keep his side of the covenant. In 11:4-6, the writer of Kings shows Solomon following after the pagan deities of his multitudinous wives. Yet, God continues faithful (vv. 12-13), not for Solomon’s sake, but for David’s. Later in the chapter, God punishes the apostasy of Solomon by dividing the kingdom with a rebellion against his son, Rehoboam. Yet, even here, God remembers his covenant, and reserves the tribe of Judah to David’s line (vv. 32-39). This pattern is repeated with Rehoboam’s son, Abijam. In 15:3, the writer explicitly tells us that Abijam did not share the faith of his ancestor David, but vv.4-5 show us God acting out of faithfulness to David: “because David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord…” This is what Paul refers to, in II Timothy 2:13: “If we are faithless, he remains faithful - for He cannot deny Himself.” In II Kings 8:16ff, when Jehoram follows the apostate path of his Israelite kinsmen, even here, the writer tells us, “Yet the Lord was not willing to destroy Judah, for the sake of David His servant, since He promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.”

    The writer of Kings continues to use David as the standard against whom to compare his posterity. His lineage rates badly in 14:3 and 16:2, but well in 18:3. God again recalls His covenant in 19:34 (parallel in Isaiah 37:33-35), as Assyria, after eliminating the northern kingdom, now attacks Jerusalem:  “I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake and for the sake of My servant David.” As Paul said to Timothy, God acts according to His covenant promises because He is watchful over His own truth and reputation, as well as the welfare of His elect.

    David himself writes of God’s establishment of His covenant. In Psalm 18:20-24, he wrote, “The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands… The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in His sight.” He does not claim that his righteousness is inherent for (v. 32), “[God] equipped me with strength and made my way blameless.” He remembers the particular elements of the covenant, as he credits God with “making me the head of the nations” (v. 43) and “subduing peoples under me” (v. 47), promises “to David and his offspring forever” (v. 50). Asaph sings of the covenant in Psalm 78:67-72: “He chose David His servant… to shepherd Jacob His people… [And] with upright heart he shepherded them.” Ethan the Ezrahite has the voice of God recalling (89:19-37), “I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him, so that My hand shall be established with him… My faithfulness and My steadfast love shall be with him… He shall cry to Me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation’... My steadfast love I will keep with him forever, and My covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever, and his throne as the days of the heavens… I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to My faithfulness. I will not violate My covenant or alter the word that went forth from My lips…” Ethan claims this faithfulness for all of God’s people (v. 49): “Lord, where is your steadfast love of old, which, by Your faithfulness, you swore to David?”

    The unnamed writer of Psalm 132 applied the same principle of prayer. In verse 1, he starts with, “Remember, O Lord, in David’s favor…” He claims God’s faithfulness to david for the benefit of all of Israel. Verses 11-12: “The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which He will not turn back: ‘One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne. If your sons keep My covenant and My testimonies that I shall teach them, their sons also forever shall sit on your throne.” The writer asks, “If Jerusalem is destroyed, how can You fulfill Your promise that there shall always be a son of David to rule there?” The promise to David, in his eyes, has positive implications for the whole nation.

    The Prophet Isaiah also applied the Davidic covenant to the people of God, as the promise according to which the Messiah would come. In Isaiah 9, the famous Christmas story, he writes (vv. 6-7): “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder… Of the increase of His government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it…” So, we see an expansion of the vision of the covenant. Where David had seen it as a political promise, with his dynasty established over ethnic Israel, Isaiah now expands that vision to point to a particular King, yet unnamed, who shall take that kingdom to a far greater glory. He repeats that vision in 16:5, “A throne will be established in steadfast love, and on it will sit in faithfulness in the tent of David one who judges and seeks justice and is swift to do  righteousness.” Again, he moves the covenant from a promise of a lineage of men to a particular One.

    Isaiah also makes use of the covenant to encourage the faithful remnant of Israel. In 55:1-5, he calls the people to repentance, assure of the faithfulness of God, as seen in His covenant with David. Verse 3: “Incline your ear and come to Me; hear, that Gsoul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, My steadfast, sure love for David.” David, the sinner of Bathsheba and Psalm 51 relied on the faithful mercy of God. If he did it, can’t I?

    God Himself made the same comparison through Jeremiah (17:24-25). Using the Sabbath as a test case, He calls the people to repent, and “then there shall enter by the gates of this city kings and princes who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And this city shall be inhabited forever.” Or, if they refuse (21:12, repeated in 22:2-4), “Hear the word of the Lord, O house of David! Thus says the Lord, ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest My wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’” Repent and enjoy the blessings of David, but do not presume on them to excuse your wickedness.

    Then, as Isaiah 9, Jeremiah turns to the One who will ultimately fulfill God’s promises to David. 23:5: “I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and He shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In His days, Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which He will be called: The Lord is our righteousness.” Where the writer of Kings lamented that king after king failed to evidence the faith of David, the One Davidic king to come will do so. And, on the side of the people (30:9): “They shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, Whom I will raise up for them.” Just as the One king will demonstrate the best of David’s faith, under His rule the people will do so, as well.

    The Branch appears again in 33:14-26. The content of the Davidic covenant is repeated in verse 17: “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel…” (and again in verses 21 and 26). The passage also adds a new element (v. 18): “The Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence…” (also verse 21). David wasn’t a priest, so this aspect of the Branch is an expansion, perhaps from the reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek in David’s Psalm 110:4. It isn’t relevant here, but Christ fulfilled this in His union of the offices of priest and king.

    The Prophet Ezekiel prophesies a coming Messiah as the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to David in 34:22-24: “I will set up over them one Shepherd, my servant David, and He shall feed them; He shall feed them and be their Shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them.” Ezekiel continues this theme in 37:24-28: “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one Shepherd… David My servant shall be their prince forever… My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God. and they shall be My people…” Notice his resurrection of the servant theme of Isaiah.

    This Davidic king also makes a brief appearance in the prophecies of Hosea (3:5): “The children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to His goodness in the latter days.” And in Amos 9:11-12: “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches,... that they may possess… all the nations who are called by My name.” And in Zechariah 12: 6-13:1, especially that last verse: “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness.”

    In the New Testament, David plays a prominent role in the apologetic efforts of the Apostles to prove that Jesus was the expected Messiah and Branch of the prophets.

    In the genealogy of Jesus as given by Matthew (1:1-17), not only is the line of David prominent, but the author emphasizes the number fourteen, even skipping generations to create the three sets of fourteen. Why? Because, in hebrew, the letters also represented numbers. The consonants of David’s name (daledh-waw-daledh) add up to fourteen. Thus, not only is Jesus a lineal descendant of David, but Matthew adds that name symbolically three more times to multiply the emphasis on that fact. Not only is Jesus addressed or referred to as the “Son of David” eleven times (e. g., 9:27 and 12:23), but He Himself uses David’s words from the Psalms to express the connection in His teachings (e. g., 22:43).

The words of the David covenant appear in Mark  11:10: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David.” And again in Luke 1:32-33: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” And again in verse 69: “[The Lord God of Israel] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David.” And finally in John 7:42: “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” Thus, the Gospel writers confronted the Jews with their own covenantal expectations as pointing to this Jesus, whom they were to reject and crucify. This would serve as a direct apologetic against the claims of unbelieving Jews that the Messiah is still to be anticipated, because Jesus did not fulfill that role as they expected.

In Acts, Luke turned to David again, but with less of the covenantal emphasis. In 1:16, 2:25-30, 2:34-35, and 13:33-38, he borrows from Jesus own strategy, using David’s words to emphasize the connection between David and Jesus. He explicitly makes Jesus the hair of David in 13:23: “Of this man’s [i. e., David’s] offspring, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as He promised.” This language is reminiscent of th Branch terminology of the Prophets. See also 15:16-17.

Paul also borrows this apologetic theme, such as in Romans 4:6-8, 11:9-10, and II Timothy 2:8. Yet, he never follows up on the covenantal theme, a role he gives, instead, to Abraham.

Jesus again picks up His “Son of David” role in Revelation 3:7: “The words of the Holy One, the True One, Who has the key of David…” And, in the words of an elder in 5:5: “Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered…” And in Jesus’s words again, in 22:16: “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

So, the story of David min the Bible is the story of God’s faithfulness, both to him and to the people of God as a whole. Through His words to him, God establishes a theme of promised redemption, peace, and prosperity, not as the result of merit, but because of God’s covenantal promises of grace, justification, sanctification, and glorification. The New Testament writers continue the story of David, both in their own words and in the words of Jesus, to point Israel to Him. Here is the man promised for a thousand years! Here is the promise of God incarnate! All that we have waited for is here, standing embodied before you. And even in the last verses of the Bible, Jesus Himself points to His purposes as bringing to pass God’s faithfulness to David, and to all Israel in him.

Psalm 51:10-12, a Dividing Line between Hypocritical and True Believers

"Create in me a clean heart, O God,
     and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from Your presence,
     and take not Your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
     and uphold me with a willing spirit."

In an earlier post, I defined a hypocritical believer as a professing, but false, Christian who has hidden from himself the reality of his spiritual lostness. I believe that the text before us reinforces that contrast.

In it, we see David after II Samuel 11. In that story, he had been looking out over the city of Jerusalem from his palace. He saw Bathsheba bathing on her roof. Stirred by lust, he had arranged for the murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite, so that he could gain her for himself. After the Prophet Nathan rebuked David (II Samuel 12), David was overcome by sorrow over what he had done. Psalm 51 is the prayer he wrote, confessing his sin, and seeking a restoration of his damaged relationship with Jehovah, his God.

Consider also Psalm 38, another psalm by David. In verse 3, he describes the physical trauma caused by sin. In verse 6, "all the day I go about mourning." And verse 8, "I groan because of the tumult of my heart."

In both of these psalms, we see a man traumatized, sorrowful and cast down, because he is aware of his sin. That doesn't happen in a hypocrite. The hypocritical believer is self-satisfied with his spirituality, and would be quite insulted if anyone were to suggest that he isn't as holy as he imagines himself to be. He wears blinders, so he won't see the reality within him (though, of course, those blinders don't prevent him from seeing faults in others).

Further, even if a hypocrite were to recognize that maybe he isn't so spiritual after all, another aspect of his condition is that he won't consider his shortfall something to be concerned about, something that needs to be dealt with. And he certainly isn't going to respond positively if someone were to confront him about his complacency! Since he has no real relationship with God in Christ, he isn't conscious of lacking that relationship.

Prophets like Nathan make a true believer change. But they merely reinforce the blindness of the hypocrite. With just one exception: if the sovereign Lord sees fit to grant the hypocrite repentance (Acts 5:31 and II Timothy 2:25).

Shall We Be Guided by Feelings? Or by God's Word?

"David built houses for himself in the city of David. And he prepared a place for the ark of God and pitched a tent for it. Then David said that no one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, for the Lord had chosen them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him forever. And David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem to bring up the ark of the Lord to its place, which he had prepared for it. And David gathered together the sons of Aaron and the Levites..., and said to them, 'You are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites. Consecrate yourselves, you and your brothers, so that you may bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel, to the place that I have prepared for it. Because you did not carry it the first time, the Lord our God broke out

against us, because we did not seek Him according to the rule.' So the priests and the Levites consecrated themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. And the Levites carried the ark of God on their shoulders with the poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord."
- I Chronicles 15:1-15

The background of this passage is a prior attempt by David described in chapter 13 (and the parallel in II Samuel 6) to move the Ark of the Covenant from Kiriath-Jearim to Jerusalem. In that effort, the procedures of the Law for handling the Ark were ignored in the enthusiasm of king and people. As a consequence (verse 10), "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and He struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God." This was occasioned by the failure of David to follow the procedures specified by Moses in Exodus 25:12-15 and Numbers 4:15. In a renewed respect for God's holiness, David commands the second effort to proceed "according to the rule."

Paul makes a similar point in II Timothy 2:5: "An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."

How often have you heard a Christian justify his decisions with sentences that begin with "I feel" or "I think"? Or perhaps the more spiritual form, "I feel led." Rarely are choices made with an explanation that begins with "The Scripture says," or "God has said..." It isn't a matter of the lack of sincerity or enthusiasm, but rather an error of authority. As David discovered to his chagrin, God is not compelled to honor our sincerity. Rather, He honors His word, because He is God and we aren't. As He says in Isaiah 48:11, "My glory I will not give to another."

Deuteronomy 20:1-9, Rousas Rushdoony on Biblical Warfare

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, Who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. And when you draw near to the battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people and shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, today you are drawing near for battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint. Do not fear or panic or be in dread of them, for the Lord your God is He who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.’ Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.’ And the officers shall speak further to the people, and say, ‘Is there any man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own.’ And when the officers have finished speaking to the people, then commanders shall be appointed at the head of the people."
[Note that this is from The ESV, while Rushdoony originally used the KJV. The passage below is from Rushdoony's commentary on Deuteronomy. I reproduce it here because of my fear of the current support among conservative American Christians for imperialistic wars around the world.]

J. A. Thompson has cited the biblical texts governing godly warfare. First, no such war could be conducted apart from God's word or orders (I Sam. 28:5-6; 30:7-8; II Sam. 5:19, 22-23). Second, there had to be a consecration to the task by the men of Israel (I Sam. 21:5; II Sam. 11:11; Isa. 13:3). All that would offend God must be separated from them (Deut. 23:9-14), because God dwells in the camp with His people (Deut. 23:14; Judg. 4:14). Third, the Lord can deliver His people by many or by few (Judg. 7:2ff; I Sam. 13:15ff; 14:6, 17). Fourth, God can and does send panic into the ranks of the enemy, and thereby bring about their defeat (Josh. 10:10; Judg. 4:15; I Sam. 5:11; 7:10; etc.). Fifth, the spoils of the war belong to God, not to man. [J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, IV Press, 1978, pp. 2187-219]

One of the Dead Sea Scrolls is entitled, The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Its concern was with the great war with God's enemies at the end-time. These laws had their influence. Throughout the Christian era, much has occurred in the way of efforts, both successful and unsuccessful, to limit injustices in wartime. Although the history of Western warfare is not good, it still is different from the ferocity of most pagan conflicts, until recently.

In v. 1, God stresses through Moses that He is with them: therefore, "be not afraid of them." This is a command: to believe in God means to trust in His word.

As a result, two kinds of exemption from military service are granted. First, all those whose minds are distracted and preoccupied by their affairs at home, i.e., a new house as yet not dedicated nor used, a bride betrothed but not taken, or a new vineyard finally producing but as yet unharvested. All such men, however willing to fight, are to be sent home, both as a merciful act and also to eliminate distracted minds (vv. 5-7). Second, all who are fearful and fainthearted are to be sent home. Their presence in the army is a threat to their fellow soldiers.

These exemptions are to be declared by a priest. They are religious exemptions and are therefore to be set forth by a priest. According to numerous texts, a campaign was to be preceded by burnt offerings (Judg. 6:20-21, 26; 20:26; I Sam. 4:3; 7:9; 13:10ff; 14:18; 23:4, 6, 9; 30:7ff). These verses also tell us that attempts to replace obedience with the presence of the ark led to disastrous results.

The exemptions applied to all ranks of soldiers. If, therefore, clan leaders dropped out because of some kind of exemption, then captains of armies were to be made out of the remaining men. The officers were thus named by the men of courage.

The army must then trust in God, not in the size of the army. Wars are not outside of God's providential government, and the most necessary equipment for battle is a trust in God.

It is clear from all of this that military service was voluntary, not compulsory. The covenant people were to place their hope in God, to use godly soldiers, and to eliminate from the ranks of the volunteers all men who might be for any cause double-minded.

[Joseph] Morecroft noted, "When wars are fought in the defense of justice, in the suppression of evil, or in defense of the homeland, they are godly, and are part of the work of restoration. Such wars are 'wars of the Lord," Num. 21:14.'" [A Christian Manual of Law]

Again citing Morecroft, v. 2 indicates that the priest accompanied the army; this was the origin of chaplains. Moreover, the exemptions make it clear that the family has priority, together with exercising dominion over the earth under God.

Deuteronomy deals with warfare in chapters 20:1-20: 21:10-14: 23:9-14; 24:5, and 25:17-19. Even a modernist like Anthony Phillips has called the laws "humanitarian." [Deuteronomy, 1973]

In v. 9, the officers speak "unto the people." Instead of a drafted army, the soldiers are the people, come together to defend their cause or their homes. This is basic in Deuteronomy. Instead of a state decreeing war as a matter of policy, we have a people ready to fight for their cause. Instead of men drafted, made soldiers by compulsion, we have a gathering of the clansmen to defend their cause. The first step before battle is to send home some of these men.

The captains or commanders were, according to A. D. H. Mayes [Deuteronomy, 1981], apparently chosen on the same basis as were elders in cities and in the temple life of the people, captains over tens, twenties, hundreds, and thousands. The original commandment for this in cited in Deuteronomy 1:9-15.

P. C. Craigie's [The Book of Deuteronomy, 1976] comments on this text are very telling. He states, "Israelite strength lay not in numbers, not in the superiority of their weapons, but in their God. The strength of their God was not simply a matter of faith, but a matter of experience." The legitimate wars were godly wars because their purpose was to remain secure in their possession of the land and their exercise of godly dominion therein. Again quoting the admirable Craigie, "The basis of these exemptions becomes clearer against the background of the function of war in ancient Israel. The purpose of war in the early stages of Israel's history was to take possession of the land promised to the people of God; in the later period of history, war was fought for defensive purposes, to defend the land from external aggressors. The possession of the promised land, in other words, was at the heart of Israel's wars, and the importance of the land, in the plan of God, was that Israel was to live and work and prosper in it. The building of homes and orchards, the marrying of a wife, and other such things were of the essence of life in the promised land, and if these things ceased, then the wars would become pointless. Thus, in these exemptions from military service, it is clear that the important aspects of normal life in the land take precedence over the requirements of the army, But this somewhat idealistic approach (in modern terms) was possible only because of the profound conviction that military strength and victory lay, in the first resort, not in the army, but in God."

Israel's military muster included all men between ages twenty and fifty, but not all were used. In Judges 7, we see how Gideon reduced his army in terms of this law. Our Lord applied this in selecting His army, the apostles and other disciples, and He sent home all who were not totally dedicated (Luke 9:57-62). In Luke 14:18-20, our Lord makes it clear that the law of exemptions from military service did not apply where men are summoned into the Kingdom.

Verse 4 states that "God is He that goeth with you." This has also been rendered as "God who marches with you."

We see here as elsewhere that there is nothing outside of God's government. Work, worship, war, eating, sanitation, and all things are subject to His laws. He is totally the Governor of all things. The marginal note to this text in the Geneva Bible tells us, "God permitteth not this people to fight when it seemeth good to them." We are in all things totally under His government.

God's laws of warfare view legitimate warfare as the defense of the family and the land. Modern warfare is waged for political, not covenantal, reasons. Moreover, nonbiblical wars are waged more and more against civilians, as were pagan wars. Thus, there is a great gap between political wars and those permitted by God's law.

Stumbling Down the Path to Sin

"Do not enter the path of the wicked, and do not walk in the way of the evil. Avoid it; do not go on it; turn away from it and pass on. For they cannot sleep unless they have done wrong; they are robbed of sleep unless they have made someone stumble. For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence. But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day. The way of the wicked is like deep darkness, they do not know over what they stumble."
- Proverbs 4:14-19

When a godly man falls into serious sin, it is rarely a matter of being caught by surprise. Usually, he has dwelt on it, planned it, and made sure that his hand is hidden in it.

Consider David's son, Amnon, in II Samuel 13. He was pining after his half-sister Tamar, the full-sister of Absalom, and takes to his bed in a juvenile funk. Then verses 3-4, "But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother. And Jonadab was a very crafty man. And he said to him, 'O son of the king, why are you so haggard morning after morning? Will you tell me?'" Notice the steps that led to this place: Amnon was already a conspirator with his cousin Jonadab, a "very crafty man," or a man who is practiced at figuring out how to commit evil. Then Amnon pines after his own half-sister, the sin of incest. Then he works out a plan with Jonadab to satisfy that sinful lust. This leads to verse 14, "...being stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her." His steps in planning evil have led to his rape of his own sister. He wasn't suddenly overcome by sexual desire, and fell to it; he planned it out carefully, with the assistance of his wicked cousin.

The rest of the story is that Tamar's full-brother Absalom kills Amnon in revenge. Tamar is violated, Amnon is dead, Absalom becomes a fugitive, and the family of David is ravaged as a result of Amnon's scheming.

Man or woman of God, take warning from this case from history. Cut off your scheming at its first steps, while it is still harmless, lest it lead to evil far beyond what you currently imagine.