The Restoration of the Jews in Jeremiah 30 and Romans 11

I have written before on the subject of the conversion of the Jews (here, here, and here), so this post will rehash some material from those earlier posts. However, it has been several years, so I feel a need to revisit the question, and from a different text. 

"Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and have compassion on his dwellings; the city shall be rebuilt on its mound, and the palace shall stand where it used to be. Out of them shall come songs of thanksgiving, and the voices of those who celebrate. I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will make them honored, and they shall not be small. Their children shall be as they were of old, and their congregation shall be established before Me, and I will punish all who oppress them. Their prince shall be one of themselves; their ruler shall come out from their midst; I will make Him draw near, and He shall approach Me, for who would dare of himself to approach Me, declares the Lord?: And you shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:18-22). 

The first part of these verses could be taken to refer to the restoration of Judah after the exile in Babylon, the same events we see described in Ezra and Nehemiah. However, that is just a launching point, used typologically for events we have yet to see either in Israel or among the Jewish diaspora. 

While modern Jews are mostly secular, often even agnostic or atheist, the people described in this passage are expressing thanks and celebrating God, because they are a people who are established in faithfulness before their God. 

The description of their prince is especially amazing to me, because it is couched in the same language as the davidic, messianic prince. Compare the words of Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord your God will raise for you a prophet like me [I. e., Moses] from among you, from your brothers...," and its explicit fulfillment in Acts 7:37. This is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David: "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" (Luke 1:32-33). 

Jeremiah is prophesying to Israel a hope, not merely of the restoration to the land after exile in Babylon, but restoration to the covenantal relationship with her God that she had eschewed in idolatry. He remained faithful, though she was faithless (II Timothy 2:13). As he says to Israel: "You shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:22), just as He first said to them in Exodus: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment [against them]. I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians" (Exodus 6:6-7).

See some historical views on the matter here and here. 

Is Rape a Justification for Abortion?

Rape is a horrible crime. Not only does it violate the physical wholeness of the victim, but it is also an assault on her mental wholeness. It often causes an unjustified sense of shame, and it always deprives her of a sense of security, especially around men. Some people claim that those consequences justify making rape an exception to the immorality of rape. Doesn't that baby cause the mother continuing emotional damage from the attack? 

And a moral person can agree with that statement. A baby resulting from rape is a constant physical reminder of the worst experience most people can imagine. However, the question of whether that justifies aborting the baby is a step beyond sympathy. 

"Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16). 

This verse is an expression of God's justice, one with which most people would otherwise agree. Contrary to the custom in the ancient world, no person is responsible for the criminal act of his kin. In the example before us, that applies to the child of a rapist. No one claims that there is any moral culpability in the child from the circumstances of his conception. It is the father alone who should receive the legal penalty for the crime of rape. 

Therefore, from the perspective of God, rape is no justification for the additional act of violence against an innocent preborn child. This would apply as well to babies conceived by incest. 

Abortion and God's Love of Life

"Do not boil a goat in its mother's milk" -Deuteronomy 14:21. 

I remember the first time I read this verse in an Old Testament course in college, a long time ago. It struck me as very odd. 

Another one was, "If you come across a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young" (Deuteronomy 22:6). 

Why, I wondered, would God put in His Scriptures such commandments about what we might have for dinner? And it has taken until now, my mature years, to understand what seems so plain now. 

There are many passages in Scripture that show God's concern for the family. They start with the creation mandate in  Genesis 1:28: "God said to them [i. e., Adam and Eve], 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" The welfare of the family is the concern of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments, and of such extended portions of Scripture as Ephesians 5:22-33. 

The two verses from Deuteronomy above reflect that concern. Notice that the command is not to avoid cooking a kid in milk, or to avoid eating eggs. In both cases the restriction is against the relationship between the animal mother and her offspring. The perpetuation of life is precious to God, both for mankind and for the animals. 

The reason that this has become clear to me in the past few years is because I have become more involved in the fight against human sacrifice in America, nicknamed euphemistically as "abortion." When a baby is aborted, that is the new generation murdered not just with his mother, as in the animal texts of Deuteronomy, but by his mother. What can more destroy the family than does mothers, often with the concurrence of fathers, who kill their preborn children. 

Is Pluralistic "Freedom of Religion" A Biblical Precept?

"These are the statutes and rules that you shall be careful to do in the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the high hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and burn their Asherim with fire. You shall chop down the carved images of their gods and destroy their name out of that place. You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way. But you shall seek the place that the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put His name and make His habitations there" (Deuteronomy 12:1-5). 

We in America brag of our freedom of religion. Not only are there Christian (real or not) denominations of every description, but we also boast of our Jewish synagogues, Islamic mosques, and Hindu and Buddhist temples. And that doesn't even include the various varieties of nonreligious or irreligious Americans, even including Satanists. 

I think the contrast between those two paragraphs should be clear to anyone. Yet the pietists and dispensationalists have eliminated any evidence or discussion of what God said in Deuteronomy, as if the pluralism of modern America were the case from the days of creation. 

The pietist claims that the Christian faith is a private affair, "a relationship, not a religion." So the less visible his religion is, outside of church and home prayer, the more spiritual he feels. 

On the other hand, the dispensationalist claims that God's commandment here was for Israel, and ended with the coming of Jesus. After all, does it not refer to their "land"? 

And it does. Do we have no references to the land given to Jesus, and His body, the Church? "Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession" (Psalm 2:8). That is the promise of the Father to the Son, in the intra-Trinitarian covenant, made before the world was created. And did Jesus ever claim that promise? "All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:18-19). The commandment was limited to the land, but the land was expanded to include the whole earth! 

As a Presbyterian, I am aware of the impact that this conflict has had on my own tradition. When the Westminster Standards were originally written, they included the presumption of establishmentarianism. However, after the US Constitution was adopted, American Presbyterians changed our standards to reflect the new political enthusiasm for religious freedom. I am disappointed that they chose a political justification over the requirements of Scripture. 

Neither political considerations nor pietistic latitudinarianism can override what God has commanded in His word. And that is that His truth is the only truth, and must displace all competing, but false, claims of truth. 

"Gods" in the Bible and Mormon Tritheism

"In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, prophets since Joseph Smith have taught clearly that there are three separate members of the Godhead, each of which is God. As Joseph Smith stated, 'These personages... are called God the first; the Creator, God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190). He further taught: 'I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods (Teachings, p. 370; see also History of the Church 6:474)." I quote this from this Mormon website. That is, it is their words, not my representation. 

Up until the last words, "and three Gods," a biblical Christian could be nodding his head, because the Bible does, indeed, indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, but, we insist, they are one God. We know this because each person, as Mormons will concede, is called in turn, God. Yet, the Bible also tells us, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides Me there is no god. Who is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before Me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are My witnesses! Is there a God besides Me? There is no Rock; I know not any" (Isaiah44:6-8, emphasis added). And elsewhere, "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides Him" Deuteronomy 4:35). Three persons called God, and only one God; that is the simple description of the triune God of the Bible, the creeds, and biblical Christianity. It makes no allowance for multiple deities, whether the three of Mormonism or the millions of Hinduism, or any number held forth in pagan religions. 

In response to the plain words of the Bible, Mormons claim that their belief is consistent with the Bible's references to "gods." Yet even that claim is refuted by the Bible itself. It must be granted, of course, that the Bible does refer to "gods." But the usage clearly forbids any conclusion that the reference is to real gods, as is the living God of the Bible. 

Consider another reference from the Old Testament: "There [i. e., in Babylon] you will serve gods of woods and stone, the work of human hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell" (Deuteronomy 4:28). That is, when the Bible refers to "gods," it means idols, as the deceived pagans see them, not in their real nature. 

In the New Testament, we see these words from the Apostle Paul: "What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God" (I Corinthians 10:20). He goes beyond Moses and says that pagan deities are not merely idols, but are actually demonic spirits. And that brings us back to the three gods of Mormonism. Not only are they not, any of the three, the God of the Bible, but they are, in reality, demonic spirits leading Mormons on a merry path to Hell. 

Government Money Policy and the Bible on Weights and Measures

Here is an article from a non-Christian economics think tank about the historical impact of profligate government printing of currency. As I write this, an estimated 80% of US dollars in existence have come into existence under the expansions of presidents Trump and Biden, partly, they claim, as economic incentive during the covid pandemic. The most famous example of such an economic program was under the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic of Germany, in which the currency was so debased that the inflation was part of the instability which inspired German voters to turn to the Nazi Party as an alternative. More recently, we have seen the same events in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Chavez's Venezuela. 

The result of such a policy is that the same currency loses value with the passage of time. The government benefits from this devaluation because it spends the money before it has entered the market, where it will lose its value. The same is true for businesses favored by government with access to the new money, such as Wall Street and the banks. They have access to the money before it has lost its value, giving them a benefit of privilege that unfavored businesses and the general public cannot have. 

In the Bible, God expresses His divine displeasure with such manipulations of money. In Leviticus 19:35-36, He tells Israel, "You shall do not wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt." He repeats this command in Deuteronomy 25:13-16: "You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God." The references to "weights" may seem strange to our modern ears, since we think of money not as weight but as slips of paper, or even just as a plastic card. However, in the days of Moses, exchanges occurred through the use of scales, which told the weight in specie for a certain weight of commodity. 

The wisdom literature, too, warns against financial cheating. For example, in Proverbs 20:10, the Holy Spirit tells us, "Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord." He repeats the warning in verse 23: "Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good." In both proverbs, cheating through monetary manipulation is named an abomination to the Lord. 

A policy of inflating the currency by government is a policy of theft, which is why it is an abomination to the Lord. it is government which should be the agent of God, not in stealing, but in suppressing theft. Yet our government has a continuing policy of such theft, especially from the poor and elderly. As such, it should be an abomination to every moral person. 

The Destiny in This World of the Godly and of the Wicked: Psalm 37

In Deuteronomy, Moses laid out for the Israelites the blessings and curses that would come from the obeying or disobeying of the commandments of God. In Psalm 37, David, the man after God's own heart, lays out the same dichotomy in poetic form. Even as poetry, though, the psalm has much to say to modern America regarding her growing devolution from biblical Christianity. 

On the plus side, the godly are shown a wonderful future. Though David speaks generally, not necessarily as to individual experience, the blessings should produce a delighted hope in the heart of the believer. 

"Trust in the Lord and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness. Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord; trust in Him and He will act... The meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace... The Lord knows the days of the blameless, and their heritage will remain forever; they are not put to shame in evil times; in the days of famine, they have abundance... 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. I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread. He is ever lending generously, and his children become a blessing... Wait for the Lord and keep His way, and He will exalt you to inherit the land; you will look on when the wicked are cut off... The salvation of the righteous is from the Lord; He is their stronghold in the time of trouble. The Lord helps them and delivers them from the wicked and saves them, because they take refuge in Him" (Psalm 37:3-5, 11, 18-19, 23-26, 34, 39-40). 

In these verses, we see the same blessings promised for obedience in Deuteronomy 28: agricultural bounty, happy and blessed children, wealth, and the inheritance of the land. 

The cursings promised to the wicked provide a stark contrast: "They will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb... In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there... The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the lord laughs at the wicked, for He sees that his day is coming. the wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose way is upright; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken... The wicked will perish; the enemies of the Lord are like the glory of the pastures; they vanish - like smoke they vanish away... The wicked watches for the righteous and seeks to put him to death. The Lord will not abandon him to his power or let him be condemned when he is brought to trial... I have seen a wicked, ruthless man, spreading himself like a green laurel tree. But he passed away, and behold, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found... Transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off" (Psalm 37:2, 10, 12-15, 20, 32-33, 35-36, 38). 

What we see of the wicked is a delusion of cleverness, but his ways lead only to futility and brevity of life. His posterity are cut off, and the land passes to the righteous. 

Is the Love of God Universal?

"Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished" (Proverbs 16:5). 

I continue to deal almost daily with people who proclaim that God loves everyone, or even that God loves everyone equally. This is supposed to be an appeal to the wicked, making them confident in trusting God. Yet such people never seem to consider how it sounds to the wicked: "God loves you unconditionally, in your wickedness." It is a statement to the unbeliever that his wickedness costs him nothing, because God is happy with him as he is. I don't doubt that is why there is so much unrepented wickedness in the church, especially sexual immorality and illegitimacy. God loves them; therefore, God loves their wickedness. If any Christian calls the wicked to repentance, he faces this prior false information, making true evangelism an even greater uphill battle.

Yet the scriptures say no such thing. Not ever. Not anywhere. If you ask for biblical justification you will usually get one of two verses. The universalist will often refer to I John 4:8: "God is love." But to whom is John speaking there? The first part of the sentence is rarely quoted: "Anyone who does not love does not know God." The love of God is explicitly named as something that the unbeliever cannot know! The other verse the universalist will toss out is Matthew 5:45: "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." See, we are told, God loves both the good and the evil. That is in spite of the observable fact that "love" never appears in the verse. Rather, it is a simple reference to the mixed nature of humanity, with God's people dispersed among the wicked, as is also described in the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). This is not a blessing intended for the wicked. They are merely enjoying their being in the proximity of the elect (Matthew 15:27). If anything, it is a curse, because it increases their judgment (Romans 1:21). 

The real issue is humanism, a philosophical commitment to the inherent goodness and autonomy of man. In the Bible, man is neither good nor autonomous. He is not a creature who can assume God's love, because that love cannot exclude God's love for Himself. That means that God is jealous of His holiness (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29). He hates that which is contrary to His holiness, so that every man is by nature a subject of wrath, not love (Ephesians 2:3). What the unbeliever needs is not to be told that God loves him unconditionally, but that he faces an eternity of wrath, unless he clothes himself in the righteousness of Christ (II Corinthians 5:21), which comes through faith alone. God loves the believer, not because he is naturally good, but because the Father sees the believer in His Son, who alone is inherently and unfailingly good (Romans 5:8). 

The Nature of God: Biblical Versus the Corporeal Deity of Mormonism

"The right hand of the Lord does valiantly!" (Psalm 118:15).

The reference above mentions the right hand of God. We also see references to His arm and His back. Orthodox Christians call these references "anthropomorphisms," that is, metaphorical references to God as if He is a man, as an aid to human understanding. In other words, we say that they are never to be taken literally (apart from the true body of Jesus, but only as the result of His incarnation). 

In contrast, Mormons claim that they references are literally true, such that the Father has a literal, physical body, with hands, feet, hair, etc., and that the Son also had a body, even prior to His incarnation. On the other hand, their Holy Spirit does not have a body. As their scriptures say, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's; the Son also" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). 

However, something else we see in the Bible is this: "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form - only a voice was heard... Give good care to yourselves, for you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest you corrupt yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female..." (Deuteronomy 4: 12, 15-16). These verses are significant because they explicitly state that God did not reveal Himself with any form. In fact, Moses says, to represent Him with a form would be corruption! What I find even more significant is that He calls Himself Yahweh (represented here by the English word "Lord"), which I consider to be, not the Father, but rather the preincarnate Son in His mediatorial role. Whether or not one agrees, these verses plainly negate the claims of Mormons. 

On the issue of anthropomorphisms, that chapter contains another relevant reference: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today..." (Deuteronomy 4:26). Moses calls on the physical creation to witness the commitment undertaken by the people of Israel. Taken literally, that would require that heaven and earth be sentient. Yet Mormons make no claim that anthropomorphisms are literal in this case. 

Does that not prove that they recognize the validity of the orthodox view? They must deny it, however, because to accept it would bring down the house of cards which is their manmade religion in a single stroke. 

The Most-Specious Argument Against Theonomy

Everyone knows the Fifth Commandment by heart: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" (Exodus 20:12). The apostle Paul refers to it as "the first commandment with a promise" (Ephesians 6:2). It is the basis of all human government, arguing from the least to the greatest. That is, if we should honor mother and father, then, obviously, we owe even more honor to the king. 

What few people consider, however, is the importance that God lays on this social order which He instituted: "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). 

We observe several things here. First, this is a son who is habitually rebellious, not one who is occasionally ill-behaved. Second, the parents have struggled with him, striving to bring him to order. If the parents are sinfully lenient, that is a different sin. Third, they go to the elders of their hometown for action. That is, men who are familiar with the family, and witnesses of both the efforts of the parents and the incorrigibility of the son. And fourth, most importantly, this son is not a child. He is living riotously, including the abuse of alcohol. At the very least, he is a teenager. He is to be removed from society because of his baleful actions and influence on others. Notice the last phrase, which indicates that one of the purposes of this law is to serve as an example to the rest of society. 

Yet, this is the one law which is immediately attacked by the antinomian whenever the proper role of God's law in society ("theonomy") is discussed. "So you want the government to stone children, huh?" Well, as I have already said, we aren't talking about children here. Nor do I want anyone to be stoned. Rather, they make that choice when they commit an act which is legal grounds for capital punishment. What is necessary is not the same as what is subjectively desired. 

Furthermore, look at what has happened to our society as a result of coddling wickedness in our young people! It is impossible to enumerate the crimes that would be prevented before they could happen if the incorrigible wicked were removed before they started their spree of violence. 

So, to answer the challenge of the antinomian: No, I don't want children stoned. I want a society in which children are brought up to respect their elders, society, and, most importantly, the God who rules over us all. 

By What Standard? New Testament Love and the Law

"[L]ove is not a replacement of the Law of God but rather its highest manifestation or fulfillment (Romans 3:10). In addition..., there is no biblical distinction between Old Testament commandments and New Testament commandments, Old Testament law and New Testament law; these distinctions are traditions and doctrines of men."

- Roger Hadad, "Apologia for the Law and the Sabbath," p. 60 

Part of the decay of American Evangelicalism has been the rise of antinomianism, the claim that biblical law has no role in the life of the Christian. While it is orthodox protestantism to say that the Law has no role in our

Moses with the Commandments

justification, it has always been considered heretical to say that it also has no role in our sanctification. 

What, according to these evangelicals, has replaced the Law for the Christian? The law of Christ, they answer. What is that? The law of love. 

In the New Testament, Jesus tells us the two highest laws: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40). And, as the antinomians say, there is much of love stated there. But then the antinomians stop. 

I understand why they stop. Those verses are a problem for the view which I oppose here. How so, you may ask? 

"And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Isn't that just quoting the verse again? No, it isn't. This verse is Deuteronomy 6:5. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And where is this found? Matthew 22:39, you answer, and correctly. However, before Matthew wrote, it was found in Leviticus 19:18.

Do you see the problem for the antinomian? He claims that love is the law of Christ, in opposition to the law of Moses. Yet, Jesus quoted the law of Moses in order to state His law of love! Unlike the American Evangelical, Jesus was no antinomian.

Social Disorder, Statism, and God's Law

I write this at a time when America is going through widespread social tumult over police shootings of black men and women. George Floyd and Breonna Taylor are names we hear on the nightly news almost every day. On one hand, we have the protesters, some of whom are committing wanton acts of violence and destruction, and on the other, politicians arguing over who better supports the police. Rather, I am asking whether Scripture tells us anything relevant to this crisis.

Do we see any solutions to this situation in Scripture? Some argue for more evangelism, saying that the Gospel provides an effective means of uniting people. While that is true, I don't think it is the only solution, and it is not my topic here. 

Rather, I am asking whether Scripture addresses government in a way that impacts this situation. And I think it does.

First, what is the source of law in the Bible? Is it the state? No, it isn't. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a basis for government promulgations regarding crimes or punishments. This isn't an argument for anarchy, but rather for a severely restricted state. If not the state, then what is the source of law? It is God alone. "See, I [Moses] have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?" (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Not the king's law, or the president's or Congress's, but God's law. 

Then who is to enforce the law? Nowhere in Scripture do we see a description of a police force or of inspectors or enforcers. Rather we see this: "On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst" (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). The enforcement of the law is not assigned to a separate enforcement class, but is instead the responsibility of the people themselves. 

Our social conflict is the result of our worship of the state, of our looking to the state for salvation, of our looking to the state to be the source of social order. Since that is not God's intended role for the state, the result of those expectations is not social order but social chaos.

The Covenant and the Children of Believers

One of the distinctive doctrines that I love about Presbyterianism is what is called "covenant succession," the belief that the children of believers are claimed by God and set apart from the children of unbelievers. 

There are a number of Bible verses that describe this special relationship. 

In the Old Testament, God chastised Israel for sacrificing their children to idols: "You took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured" (Ezekiel 16:20). As horrific as human sacrifice is, under any circumstances, Israel had compounded their sin by sacrificing the children that God claimed for Himself by covenant.

In that covenant, God had promised a blessing to His children: "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deuteronomy 30:6). The same promise is repeated in Isaiah 54:13: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children." And again in the New Testament: "The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (Acts 2:39).

It is important to understand that these promises are covenantal. The children of believers are placed in the visible church. It is not an absolute promise that the children of believers will themselves be believers. We know this from experience. We also have the explicit statement of God to Abraham: "Abraham said to God, 'Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!' God said, 'No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful, and multiply him greatly'" (Genesis 17:18-20). Abraham had a son by his servant Hagar, Ishmael, and begged God to grant him salvation. Yet, God explicitly refuses, promising material blessings, but not eternal life. The distinction would be made again with Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob. The Apostle Paul would use their example to illustrate God's sovereignty in grace (Romans 9:6-13). He applies the principle to the children of Christians in I Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but, as it is, they are holy." That is, federally holy, not personally holy.

While it isn't my topic here, this is the basis for infant baptism, just as it was the basis for the circumcision of Israel's children.

The Nature of Unbelief and the Necessity of the Omnipotent Power of the Holy Spirit

 As Moses approached the end of his life, he faced the prospect of leaving his people to the leadership of someone else, Joshua. Under such circumstances, it is natural for the outgoing leader to believe that his successor will be unable to match the leadership that he had given. It is just part of the fallen nature of men to think that no one else can do the job as well as we could. 

He gives a sermon to Israel, warning them of consequences if they failed to be faithful to God, or, in contrast, the blessings that would come from faithfulness. In that sermon, we find this paragraph (Deuteronomy 29:2-9): "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But, to this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the Lord your God. And when you came to this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon and Og the king of Bashan came against us to battle, but we defeated them. We took their land, and gave it for inheritance to the Reubenite, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of the Manassites. Therefore, keep the words of this covenant and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do."

Moses gives a partial recapitulation of the miraculous events that Israel had seen, ranging from God's judgments on the Egyptians, sustaining them in the wilderness, and, most recently, the defeat of Sihon and Og, powerful Canaanite kings. But, in the midst of that recapitulation, he says something odd: "But, to this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (verse 4). 

God had given Israel every possible evidence that He was real and that He had chosen Israel as His special covenant people. We read this passage and assume that any rational people would understand that Jehovah is God, with absolute power over the nations. Yet, we know that Israel quickly descended into idolatry. In Judges 17:6 (and repeated in 21:25), we are told, "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

How could there be such a disconnect between the evidence of their eyes and the unbelief in their hearts? 

Moses tells us how: "To this day the Lord has not given you heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (Deuteronomy 29:4). The same characteristic would later be addressed by the prophets (e. g., Isaiah 6:9 and Jeremiah 5:21), and even by Jesus Himself (Matthew 13:14-15). Contrary to our view of ourselves, fallen men do not have a natural ability to see the hand of God and give Him the thanks that he deserves. Rather, we love sin more than God, and, therefore, suppress our knowledge of His reality and goodness (Romans 1:18-22). 

This inclination has significant implications for apologetics and evangelism. When we explain the Gospel to unbelievers, their inclination to reject it is not because of a lack of evidence. They already know that the Gospel is true! Rather, their consciences tell them that recognizing the reality of the Gospel would require that they repudiate sin. And they love sin more than they love God! It is not within the power of the Christian to break that addiction in the unbeliever. It is only the Holy Spirit who can do that. Yes, belief requires the power of omnipotent God to triumph over unbelief.

Apostolic Usage Demonstrates the Continuing Authority of the Law

One of the greatest errors of dispensationalism has passed to a wider audience of evangelicalism. It has become to claim that the moral law is not authoritative for the Christian. Except when quoting Leviticus 18:22 in conversations regarding homosexuality, the evangelical will dismiss quotations from the Pentateuch with a dismissive, "That's Old Testament," or "We're under grace, not under law." 

But, wow, do those same evangelicals turn mean when you cite particular examples in the New Testament of apostolic application of those laws. I have already discussed Paul's application of a law from Leviticus (and repeated in Deuteronomy) to the church at Corinth (I Corinthians 5:1).

I want to bring up another example today. In I Timothy 5:18, Paul write, "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.'" And in I Corinthians 9:9, he writes again to the church at Corinth, "It is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" So, from where does that quotation come? From Deuteronomy 25:4 (his other quotation to Timothy is from Luke 10:7). That is an Old Testament law. 

These usages should make it clear that the doctrine of the dispensationalists and the attitude of evangelicals toward the Old Testament moral law is not that of the Apostles. The Apostles took Jesus at His word: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).

Does God Have a Body Like Men Have?

One of the distinctions between Mormonism and biblical Christianity is the insistence by Mormons that God the Father has a body such as humans have. They also believe this of the preincarnate God the Son. They justify this belief by the statement in Genesis 1:26-27 that God made Adam in His own image. Mormons say that this must be in His physical image. 

There are three arguments against this Mormon claim.

The first I have discussed before, that the image consists of spiritual attributes, not physical. Since I have already dealt with argument, I will not repeat it here. 

The second argument regards the birth of Seth (Genesis 5:3): "When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." There is a marked change here! Where Adam had been created in the image of God, Seth is conceived in the now-fallen image of Adam. Mormons do not claim that the physical image of men changed from Adam to Seth. That leaves only a spiritual change from Adam's original status to his spiritual status in chapter 5. Therefore, there can be no physical image involved in the creation of Adam. 

And thirdly we have the statements of Moses to Deuteronomy 4. He is reminding did to the idolaters at Baal Peor (described in Numbers 25), and at the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20): "You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice" (Deuteronomy 4:11-12). This is Jehovah, who is identified as the preincarnate Christ by Mormons. I agree with that identification. In His mediatorial role, the preincarnate Son mediated the giving of the Ten Commandments to the covenant people. 

Moses continues (Deuteronomy 4:15-18): "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth." 

In both sections of the chapter, Moses emphasizes the lack of physical form of Jehovah. And to bring the point home even more strongly, he warns the people not to make anything as a physical representation of that divine presence. Notice that he also doesn't make what would be a rational suggestion if the Mormon doctrine were true, to look at themselves as the representations of a supposed divine image. That would have been the rational argument, rather than to warn them against the images of animals, if the divine nature had had a physical image! 

Together, these three arguments from Scripture show that the doctrine of the Mormons has its origin in the same pagan mindset described by Paul in Romans 1:20-23: "His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." There is nothing of a biblical basis in it.

God's Judgment on Christendom for Child Sacrifice

Before starting, I want to mention that this post represents a major moment. It is my 800th post!

"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I Myself will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make My sanctuary unclean and to profane My holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set My face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.'"
- Leviticus 20:1-5

Molech was a prosperity deity of the Canaanites, worshiped by human sacrifice. In particular, a worshiper sought prosperity for himself by sacrificing his own infant by fire (see, e. g., Jeremiah 32:35). The Israelites absorbed this practice from the surviving Canaanites among them after they settled in the Promised Land. This was exactly the reason that God had ordered that no survivors were to remain of the Canaanites after the Conquest: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following Me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and He would destroy you quickly" (Deuteronomy 7:1-4).

What made this crime of Israel particularly heinous, even more so than among the Canaanites, was that God claimed the Israelite children as His own (Ezekiel 16:20). As evil as human sacrifice always is, the Israelites were sacrificing the children of God to a demon (Deuteronomy 32:17)! What greater act of sacrilege could there have been?

Roughly 70% of Americans profess to be Christians, yet almost three-thousand babies are killed by abortion every day in that same America. Why? Because the parents of those children believe that their lives will be better iF those children are dead. How is that not the same crime described by Moses roughly forty-three centuries ago? I see no significant distinction.

And that should bring each of those professing Christians bolt upright in his seat, because the God they profess warns of dire consequences for that ritual of child sacrifice. More importantly, He also warns of consequences for those who sit idly by as the crime of child sacrifice occurs around them. Silence is not innocence. Silence is complicity, and God judges it as such. In God's eyes, the silent Christian is the accomplice in every child sacrifice.

What Is the Fear of God?

To the modern reader, there may be nothing written in Scripture more bewildering than one short phrase: "the fear of God." For example, believers are given this commandment: "You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God, for I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 25:17). In contrast, the fear of God is described as the one thing that unbelievers lack: "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18).

Then we have this verse: "Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of Him may be before you, that you may not sin" (Exodus 20:20). Do not fear, but fear?

Ah, but then we see some light at the end of this tunnel: "That you may not sin."

Consider also this verse: "You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him" (Deuteronomy 13:4).

From our own cultural perspective, we naturally see "fear" as meaning "be afraid." And the example from Exodus shows that it means that in the Bible sometimes, too. However, it has a broader meaning than we give it today.

We Americans have never had a king, so we sometimes miss some of the imagery of the Bible, which unreservedly portrays God as an absolute king, even calling Him, "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (I Timothy 6:15). The God of the Bible is King in such an absolute sense that He is king of all kings, and lord so absolutely that He is lord of all lords. We are to understand His rule as so singularly absolute that we have no higher words by which to name it.

Now think of the average person on the street who randomly runs into the President, or Prince William, or some TV or sports celebrity. In such a circumstance, the person is often struck dumb with awe, trembling even. He isn't afraid of the personage in the sense that he fears that he will be hurt. Rather, he is struck with such an awe that he cannot conceive of any other thought or action.

To a greater extent, that is the fear of God described in Scripture. The believer is so in awe that he cannot be distracted by any lesser concern or influence. That is why Moses can say that it is fear of God that inspires us to serve Him and hold fast to Him. This isn't a fear of punishment. Rather, it is an awe that precludes any lower considerations. Moreover, the hard part for an American is that it leaves no room for personal autonomy. God is the absolute sovereign, not me. This is not a democratic concept!

Jesus, Justice, and the Woman Caught in Adultery

There is a strange and controversial story found in John 7:53-8:11. In the story, the Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman who was caught in adultery. They say, and correctly, that the Law required those convicted of adultery to be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22). Yet, we notice at least one problem with their presentation: Where was the man caught with her? So, the Pharisees ask Jesus, what do You say that we should do with her?

Jesus does not respond with law. Rather, His response is to point at the character of the woman's accusers. Rather, He says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (verse 7). In our popular culture, this has been taken to mean that any person with any sin has no grounds for criticizing the actions of any other person. Well, we know that Jesus meant no such thing, because He had prescribed righteous judgment just before this story (John 7:24). And that indicates the problem that He had with the Pharisees in this case. Their accusations did not come from righteous grounds, regardless of their pious citation of Moses. Note that these are men who had allowed a guilty man to depart without punishment, while they were prepared to punish the woman with death! I think that this was the specific intent of the response of Jesus, quoted above. These men had justified the man because they shared his same proclivities for illicit sex, but they still wanted to play at being righteous! They all walked away in shame because Jesus had torn off the bandage with which they had been hiding their perversion. 

If the text is a legitimate part of John, a question which I am not qualified to answer, then why is it here? 

I started thinking about this story because of something I read in my private Bible study this morning: "I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14). Doesn't that sound a lot like the story from John? And in it I found what I surmised about the story that I described above. Jesus was exemplifying the same redemptive purpose that He, in His preincarnate state, had inspired in the prophecy of Hosea. 

Jesus was not, and is not, opposed to true justice. After all, He was also the source of the Law. He was the Yahweh who revealed the commandments to Moses in Exodus 20:1. However, He is also our compassionate Redeemer who went to the cross on behalf of His people. Notice how He deals with the repentant thief on the cross next to Him (Luke 23:40-43). He promised the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise in just a few hours. However, He did not take the thief down from the cross. The thief was redeemed and forgiven, but still received the due temporal, legal consequence of his wicked acts (Luke 23:41). There is no sign here of the sentimental supposition that no one can judge the sins of someone else.

The Knowledge of Election: Avoiding the Effort to Be Wise Above What is Written

When dealing with even professed Christians on Facebook, I get a continuous stream of questions about hypothetical issues. Today someone asked, "What if Noah were really the Archangel Gabriel?" I am not making that up. 

This is especially true when discussing the doctrines of grace with people not from a Reformed background. They are constantly demanding an answer -  i. e., one that will satisfy them - as to why God chooses one person over another. Other than according to mercy alone (Romans 9:16) for His glory alone (Ephesians 1:6), Scripture does not give us an answer. Rather, we are given this rebuke: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:20-21). The answer is simple, Paul tells us. God makes His decision on the basis that he chooses because He is God and we are not, so stop prying into things above your station!

And Paul is answering on the basis of a longtime Biblical tradition, going back to Moses: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29; see also Paul's remarks in I Corinthians 4:6 and Colossians 2:8). Moses tells us that God has given us everything we need to know for salvation and sanctification in the Bible. Beyond that revelation, whatever imaginations arise from our inordinate curiosity are to be cast aside. "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (Westminster Confession of Faith, I:6).

"Men of inquisitive and speculative minds are apt to forget that there are limits set to human investigation and research, beyond which it is impossible to pass with safety or satisfaction. To intrude with confidence unto the unrevealed secrets of God's wisdom and purpose manifests an arrogance and haughtiness of intellect which cannot fail to incur the marked disapprobation of heaven, and should always meet the prompt reprobation of the pious.Whatsoever is useful to be known, God has kindly and graciously revealed, and it argues no less ingratitude than presumption to attempt to be 'wise above what is written'" (I Corinthians 4:6, James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").