God's War on Idolatry

"On the day after the Passover, the people of Israel went out triumphantly in the sight of all the Egyptians, while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom the Lord had struck down among them. On their gods also the Lord executed judgments. [And God said to Moses] 'Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places. If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.'"
- Numbers 33:3-4, 51-52, 55-56

The main focus in the story of the Exodus is God's redemption of His people out of slavery in Egypt. It is a glorious story to every Christian, because it serves as a type of our rescue from slavery to sin by the atoning cross work of Jesus Christ.

However, that is not the whole of the story.

I want to point especially at the words of Numbers 33:4, included above: "On their [i. e., the Egyptians'] gods also the Lord executed judgments." The ten plagues are seen to be on the Egyptian people, yet, somehow, they were also judgments on the deceiving spirits that they considered to be gods.

Jehovah continues in His exhortation to Israel: "Just as you saw Me destroy the gods of Egypt, so shall you do the religion of the Canaanites" (paraphrased from Num. 33:52). This demonstrates that the conquest of the Promised Land by the Israelites was not the capricious, vindictive act portrayed by liberal theologians. Rather, it was an act of judgment, one that was deserved by the Canaanites. Why? Because God is jealous of His divine prerogatives: "You shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exodus 34:14). Worshiping any god but Jehovah is to steal from Him what is properly His alone, an act of severe treason. That's why the abolition of it is the first of the Ten Commandments. Is the violation of the Prime Directive (to borrow a Star Trek term) not sufficient reason for capital punishment? I don't believe that any person can say that it is not, except as a self-serving effort to protect his own idolatry (Romans 1:18).

Righteous Judgment: The Judge's Gavel in the Hands of the Church

Most Christians understand that God normally works through means. For example, when He heals our illnesses, He usually does so through doctors, medications, surgeries. When He converts an unbeliever, He does so through the means of the Christian who shares the Gospel with that unbeliever. This is not to deny that he also works miraculously, that is, directly, without means. It is merely a belief that miracles are necessarily the exceptions, not our daily experience.

The number one means that God uses in achieving His purposes in this world is His Church. For example, Psalm 149:6-9 describes the role of the Church in applying God's judgment in an unbelieving world:
"Let the high praises of God be in their throats
     and two-edged swords in their hands,
to execute vengeance on the nations
     and punishments on the peoples,
to bind their kings with chains
     and their nobles with fetters of iron,
to execute on them the judgment written! 
     This is honor for all His godly ones."

This is the downside of evangelism. As Paul says, our message is "to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life" (II Corinthians 2:16, compare the words of Jesus in John 9:39). While the Gospel is a source of life to the elect, those who are being made alive by the Spirit, it is a message of death to the reprobate, those who remain in their spiritually-dead state.

Jesus repeats the Psalmists message in Matthew 19:28: "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The Apostles, who had suffered, and who were to suffer much more, even martyrdom, at the hand of the apostate Jews, were given this comfort, that someday they would sit in judgment on those very persecutors. 

What means will we use in applying that judgment? The Psalmist tells us "two-edged swords," a phrase which is explained in Hebrews 4:12: "The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." We also have the description of Jesus: "In His right hand He held seven stars, from His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and His face was like the sun shining in full strength" (Revelation 1:16). Thus, this judgment will not be by any prejudices of men, but rather by the applying of God's infallible word. And that word was given by Jesus Himself!

We live in an age of syrupy Christianity, a Christianity which must only speak sweetness and light, never the truths of sin and judgment. I call it the Osteenification of the church. But that is not the Christianity or the Church of Scripture. Shall we live by the standards of a self-esteem world? Or shall we apply the truth of God's Word, and warn of the judgment to come?

The Ordo Salutis: Justification Before Repentance

The contrast between Calvinists and Arminians is most visible in our understanding of the ordo salutis (theological terminology for "the order of salvation"). In what order (whether logically or chronologically) do the steps occur when a person is converted. Specifically, I want to address the place of repentance in that order: does justification precede repentance, as Calvinists hold? or does repentance precede justification, as the Arminians insist?

To my mind, there is an obvious logical requirement that justification must precede repentance. And in saying that, I mean logically, not that there will be a time gap between them. My question to the Arminian is, How can a man turn from his sin to a God whom he does not yet know? The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews addresses that same question: "Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). If repentance precedes justification, i. e., saving faith, then, by definition, it cannot have merit before God, because He rejects anything that is not of faith! The person must have the assurance by faith that God is now favorably disposed toward him, and will receive him as redeemed in Christ. Therefore, repentance cannot precede that act of grace.

The Old Testament also teaches us this truth.

Through the Prophet Isaiah, God tells us, "I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to Me, for I have redeemed you" (Isaiah 44:22). In the application of Christ's blood, the sins of the elect are blotted out, the meaning of "justification." We have been redeemed. Therefore, He says, return to Him, the definition of "repentance." God Himself makes explicit that repentance is not the basis of justification. Rather, just the opposite, justification must be the basis of repentance!

The Counterfeit Tongues Movement

When discussing the issue of tongues, the primary text used by Pentecostals is Acts 2, the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit at the first Feast of Pentecost (the origin of the Pentecostal name) after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They point especially to the first four verses: "When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Pentecostals still claim that a first or early sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in every individual is a repetition of this experience. They often describe it as a "prayer language."

But that isn't what you see if you continue in Acts 2.

The passage continues (verses 5-11): "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." This is not the description of some unknown gibberish. Rather, those upon whom the Spirit has come are speaking known languages, though they were unknown to the speakers.

The Apostle Paul talks about this same experience in his first epistle to the Corinthian church, especially in chapters 12 and 14.

Paul says this: "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me" (I Corinthians 14:10-11). As did Luke in Acts, Paul here talks about tongues, again not as random noises, but rather as known (though not by the speaker) foreign languages.

It is on this basis that I have issued a challenge several times to Pentecostals, especially of the Oneness variety, to prove that their "tongues" are real languages, and not merely random animal noises. While I have heard plenty of protestations of offense, I have yet to get even one effort to meet the challenge. Which, I think, proves what I have said elsewhere, that today's tongues movement is a counterfeit version of the original.

God's Sovereign Grace: His Gift to the Church

In Psalm 148, an anonymous poet exhorts nature and all classes of men to praise Jehovah. I especially want to emphasize the last two verses:
"Let them praise the name of the Lord,
     for His name alone is exalted; 
His majesty is above earth and heaven.
      He has raised up a horn for His people,
praise for all His saints,
for the people of Israel who are near to Him. 
     Praise the Lord!"
     - Psalm 148:13-14

My emphasis is on the line, "He has raised up a horn for His people."  As most of my readers will be aware, "horn" is a Hebrew metaphor for power, or strength. That is, the Psalmist tells us that we have a special reason to praise Jehovah because He has exercised His strength on behalf of His people, the Church. 

The Apostle Paul described the same principle in his literate prose: "We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). It is sad that this verse has been turned into a truism. Every time someone is suffering, we can depend on someone's quoting of the first half of this verse, but rarely the second. It is true that God always brings all experiences to some good purpose. But for whom? The touchy-feely types would have us believe everyone. However, Paul excludes that misrepresentation by limiting the principle to God's chosen people, the elect, those who love Him, i. e., to the Church. He was even more explicit in Ephesians 1:22: "He [the Father] put all things under His [the Son's] feet and gave Him [the Son] as head over all things to the church." That is, the glorified Christ rules over every thing, not just as God, but for the benefit of His church!

This is a big part of why I am a Calvinist. Even without the positive reinforcement, I would acknowledge it as a summary of biblical truth. However, my commitment is strengthened by the additional awareness of the assurance that He rules all things, not just for Himself (though that would be sufficient justification), but also for me!

The Book of Acts: The Record of Leadership, from Jesus to the Apostles

One of the basic rules of biblical hermeneutics, i. e., the proper interpretation of a document, is that a text must be considered according to the type of literature it is. The Bible contains all of the forms of literature that we see in any other context of written communication, such as poetry, narrative, law, etc. And one form of literature cannot be interpreted the same way as another. Poetry communicates in a way that narrative does not, for example.

The Book of Acts is a book of history, covering a period of about thirty years from the resurrection of Christ to the imprisonment of Paul. It is not primarily a book of doctrine, in contrast to the epistles, or a book of eschatology like the book of Revelation. Rather, it is a description of the historical events that happened at a certain time. Therefore, any doctrine that depends inordinately on Acts as its basis is likely to lead in an unorthodox direction. We see this in the Pentecostal movement, especially in its Oneness aberration. Acts is the Word of God, requiring that any doctrine in it must be infallible. However, to put undue emphasis on doctrinal statements in Acts, without vetting it with the rest of Scripture, will always lead to trouble.

What was Luke's purpose in writing Acts? We see where he gave some indications. Look especially at the first two verses (Acts 1:1-2): "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen." Luke's first book, that which is called by his name, was devoted to the person and direct teachings of Jesus. The second, on the other hand, was dedicated to His leaving and the growth of the new church under the care of His lieutenants, the Twelve Apostles (with Matthias in the place of Judas, and then augmented by His brother James and the converted Paul). So, according to Luke's own words, his intention was to describe a particular historical situation, not to give doctrinal tutoring. And that makes sense, since Luke was the companion of Paul. Paul's ministry was, in part, to develop the theology of the church. Luke, therefore, provides the historical complement to the ministry of Paul.

We immediately see Jesus's carrying out this program in verses 8 and 24 of the same chapter. In Acts 1:8, Jesus gives another version of His Great Commission: "You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." The rest of the book would be a record of the first steps in the fulfillment of this commission. Verse 24 is the Apostles profession that they understood their offices to be, not an opportunity for power, but rather that same assignment from their Lord. 

We see the continuing development of this post-Jesus church government in chapter 6, where the Apostles this time, not Jesus by direct act, in the appointment of the seven deacons (Acts 6:1-6). The Apostles are now acting in their own authority (under the headship of Christ), a maturing of their sense of responsibility. We see this again in Acts 10:42: "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead." The Apostles, emboldened by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (chapter 2), now took a personal responsibility for the ministry assigned to them by Christ, on which the rest of the organized church would be built: "The household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).

The logical conclusion from all of this is that Acts is a book of history, a description of events at a particular point in history, and not (speaking in general) a record of how things are supposed always to be. Compare the Old Testament. Only a lunatic would claim that the command given to Israel to conquer Canaan was intended to be normative for the rest of history. Is each generation of believers supposed to go conquer the land that is now Israel? No. In the same way, the tongues and other miraculous signs of Acts were intended for a particular point in the history of the church, that of its passing from a body in the physical presence of Jesus, to a body spiritually headed by Jesus, but organized by men appointed to that end, as evidenced by special abilities given to them, as Luke himself tells us (Acts 14:3): "They remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (see also Mark 16:20, II Corinthians 12:12, and Hebrews 2:3-4).

Is Trump Your Savior?

In every presidential election season since I have been old enough to follow (which would be since Reagan's initial election), I remember so many voices proclaiming that we must "save America" by voting for one candidate, or by voting against another. This was especially apparent in the 2016 election. "The only hope for America is to elect Trump!"

In conscience, I must deny that such a concept is any way biblical.

An anonymous Hebrew poet recorded God's words on this subject in Psalm 146:3-4:
"Put not your trust in princes,
     in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; 
     on that very day his plans perish."

There is no salvation in a king or a president? Why? Because he dies and turns to dust just like any other man. On that day, his political plans, as wonderful as they might have been, are buried in the grave with him.

However, that Hebrew poet didn't stop there, as if he saw no hope in the world of men. Rather, he continued, in Ps. 146:5-7,
"Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
     whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth,
     the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
     who executes justice for the oppressed, 
     who gives food to the hungry."

First, notice what he does not say. It is common to say about any problem, "You just have to have faith." Not faith in, but just faith. Faith in faith. No, the Psalmist says. Rather, we must have faith in God, the triune God of the Bible. It isn't faith as such that saves, but rather faith in the proper object, the one true God.

Why is God the only proper hope? Because, unlike human kings - or presidents - He is eternal. Men die, and they and their plans rot into dust. Not so with God. He is eternal, as are His purposes, as is His sovereignty. 

And this isn't simply a practical issue, one of depending on a resource that can sustain that dependency. Rather, for the Christian, this is a matter of faithfulness. How easily we forget the First Commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). "I don't think Trump is God," you are no doubt saying. However, whatever you depend on for salvation is your god, whether you use that word or not. As Jesus Himself said (Matthew 6:24), "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." He speaks of God or money, but it is just as true of God or government. "I, I am the LORD, and besides Me there is no savior" (Isaiah 43:11).