Bruce Waltke interprets the language of Judges 11 when he speaks of Jephthah’s only daughter “whom he murders (An Old Testament Theology, pg.607).” He argues later that Jephthah breaks the sixth commandment by sacrificing his daughter, which the Prophets condemn (Jeremiah 19:5). Waltke contends that “in a case of a vow dedicating a child to I AM, the Law calls for monetary payment instead (Lev. 27:1-8).” Indeed if Waltke is correct that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, then God’s Law repudiates Jephthah’s abhorrent practice.
Lee Irons on the Law of God
I confess I enjoy reading Lee Iron’s blog. It is one of the thirty blogs I read frequently on my google reader. But my interest in Irons is the interest Libertarians have for Republican propaganda: Once in a while they make a good observation. In fact, there may be some overlap and we may even agree with certain things like limited government and free market capitalism. But while we agree with certain things, we come to these conclusions for different reasons and through different routes. Whereas Irons and I concur with infant baptism, we disagree on the nature of infant baptism, its efficacy, and its role in covenant life. Whereas, Irons and I concur with covenant theology as a system, we have completely different perspectives on its nuances and application. He chooses the Klinean route and I the Bahnsen route.
But most significantly, our differences lie in our view of the law of God in this New Covenant era. Iron argues:
The Decalogue was the central, summarizing core of the Old Covenant, and therefore it cannot be the immediate standard of conduct for the New Covenant people of God. If it was, we would be required to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week (as the fourth commandment teaches: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God” (Exod 20:9-10).
For someone who claims to adhere to Biblical Theology, it is an odd statement to misunderstand the nature of the Sabbath in the New Covenant. As it has been understood for many centuries in Reformed exegesis, the Sabbath–which was on the sixth day–takes on new significance in the New Covenant as the Lord’s Day. The Sabbath is never abrogated in the New Covenant; what has been abolished are ceremonial celebrations and certain Old Covenant feast days, as Paul argues in the epistles. But what is most bothersome about such statements is Irons’ complete dismissal of how the early church and Reformed dogmatics has understood this simple connection. Just as circumcision takes on new significance in the New Covenant as the washing symbol of water, so too, the Sabbath becomes the Lord’s Day of exaltation to the great God of heaven and earth.
Irons continues by arguing thusly:
If the Decalogue per se, as given to Israel on Mt. Sinai and recorded on tablets of stone, were the immediate standard of conduct for the New Covenant people of God, then we must all move to modern day Israel so that our obedient children can live long in the land that the LORD our God is giving us (the fifth commandment).
Truly, I am saddened that Irons had to go through such difficulties in the OPC. He could certainly find a home in the PCA. I am aware–unfortunately–of many pastors who would take similar positions to Irons, perhaps not formally, but in their preaching and practical life. Or perhaps Irons would find an even better home in the Lutheran tradition, where it is common to dismiss the application of the Ten Commandments as archaic and part of a different dispensation. The arguments used by Irons and others are somewhat pristine, in that they want to see Christ as the fulfillment of the law, meaning that Christ has abolished the law. But while attempting to maintain such pure and noble motives, they make Christ an abstract being. One that demands no allegiance; One that is satisfied with a limited realm of glory; One that sees the world as neutral ground shared by believer and unbeliever alike; One that teaches if you love Me, then do not keep the commandments of my Father in the Old Covenant, but only my new commandment to love one another. But how is this love demonstrated? How can it be demonstrated without an absolute standard?
Another idea that is also erroneous is Irons’ assumption that God viewed Israel as a distinct piece of land and her laws as distinct Sinaitic laws meant only for a specific time and a specific people. Richard Pratt has argued persuasively that what God intended for Israel was the conquering of the Abrahamic promises. This Abrahamic promise guaranteed the whole world as an inheritance (Romans 4).There is no dispute as to the size of this inheritance. There may be dispute about the nature of the laws in the New Covenant and how they are to be properly applied using epochal adjustments, but Irons will not grant me even that. So, my fascination will continue with Irons and our ever continual list of disagreements.
Apologus Interviews Pastor Paul Michael Raymond, Part 2
Continuing interview…
Apologus:
Your definitions seem quite clear in light of the current political dilemma of the Christian community. Particularly, the Christian conservative movement seems to undermine the Biblical message of Christ’s Lordship by denying the authoritative Word to determine how we are to operate as Christians. In your opinion, what have been some practical failures of our modern church and the conservative movement in the last 20 years?
Pastor Paul Michael Raymond:
The way I see it Uri is that the Modern and Postmodern church of our day have a number of distinct problems.
Firstly, they have failed to understand what Christianity is, and to what vocation they are called to. Christianity is not “adding” Christ to secularism nor is it simply adding Him to an individual’s personal self fulfilling agenda. Christianity is an abandonment of self for the express purpose of advancing the Kingdom of God on earth. As Dr. greg Bahnsen rightly stated, “Christianity is not Christ against culture or is it the Christ of Culture, but rather Christ above Culture.” In other words, Biblical Christianity seeks to Transform Culture by the Preaching of the Gospel, the education of the people and the implementation of Biblical Law, Principles and Public policy. Too many professing Christians believe in a dualism Christianity where they refuse to engage the world since it is so evil. This elitist view is typical of Phariseeism and has no place in the realm of True Regeneration. To be sure Christianity is not to be OF the world. Nevertheless, the Christians ought to be doing battle IN the world and not retreating out of the world. Christ has made that abundantly clear. in John 17. To retreat from the battle the saints face daily in the world is to fall snare to a Manicheanism dualistic heresy.
The vocation of every regenerate is to do the will of Him who sent him in the realm of society. Not just on an individual plane but on a social plane as well, which includes politics, economics, science, philosophy, ecology, law, education et al. He is to take dominion authority by engaging and overcoming the secularism through Biblical arguments casting down every lofty argument and secular philosophy that exalts itself against the knowledge of Biblical Truth. Thus, we are to take every thought captive to the Word of God obeying His precepts and going out into the world declaring the Sovereign Universal Authority of Christ in every realm. Continue reading “Apologus Interviews Pastor Paul Michael Raymond, Part 2”
Apologus Interviews Pastor Paul Michael Raymond, Part 1
Apologus Interviews is the title of these interviews with distinguished guests.[1] In this first interview-conducted largely via e-mail, I interviewed Reconstructionist Pastor Paul Michael Raymond. Pastor Raymond is the pastor of Reformed Bible Church in Appomattox, Virginia. This interview will be divided into two parts for your convenience.
Apologus:
Pastor Raymond, it is a delight to interview you. I have listened to many of your sermons on sermonaudio.com and have learned much from your zeal and passion for the reign of Christ in all areas of life.
Let me begin this discussion by pointing to a short article you wrote entitled: Law and Community: By What Standard? In this article you point out that the structure of a community must be based upon the Order of God’s Holy Standard, or upon Humanistic zeal? Explain what you mean by both terms.
Pastor Paul Michael Raymond:
Without exception, in every position taken by men, and in every theory held by men, whether it is a position or theory concerning politics, economics, education, science, society or religion, there is a basic and fundamental presupposition structuring that position or theory and all of its subsequent arguments and conclusions. Mankind views everything through a pre-set, pre-determined idea. This starting point is determined by man’s pre-established view of reality. Every living human being holds to some form of presupposition by which he views and seeks to understand the world around him. It is that particular presupposition, which must determine how, and to what end, that individual formulates his basic worldview, and it is that worldview that formulates his ideas. These ideas in turn determine his basic action. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. Ideas must, and do, translate into action.
Of these presuppositions there are only two, Biblical and non-Biblical. In my 1999 article “Law and Community: By What Standard” I define these two positions as Theistic and Humanistic. To be more accurate however, we should actually divide the two positions into the Biblical Revelational Position and the Non-Biblical
Humanistic (or natural) Position.
Since all mankind is, in one form or another, theistic by nature[2], serving the god or gods of their own making, dividing these spheres into ‘Theistic and Humanistic’ needs to be refined so as to be more precise. Since there are only these two positions man can choose from, mankind must analyze, define and understand the world around him either through the lens of Scripture or the lens of secular humanistic reasoning. There is no neutral beginning point. If there is a synthesis or synergism of the two, and the Biblical position becomes watered down or compromised by the secular humanist position, many serious difficulties result. While many may disagree, the fact remains; the structure of life and society is built upon one or the other of these two fundamental presuppositions. In the realm of the individual, family and state either the Scriptures will reign supreme or non-Biblical humanistic reasoning will reign supreme. There is no middle ground. Continue reading “Apologus Interviews Pastor Paul Michael Raymond, Part 1”
The Disobedient Son in Deuteronomy 21
I have spent the last two days working on my final paper for Ethics. I have finally finished with the revision. My topic was on the Disobedient son1 in Deuteronomy. The text makes it clear that the son is to be put to death. But the question that arises is: What is the disobedient son? What does he do to earn the ultimate punishment in this life? These are the questions that I tackle in my paper that I will soon publish here on this blog.
The Word of Life and Death, Part 3
Deuteronomy is one of the most important books for modern society. It engages our minds in economic theory, ceremonialism, covenant sanctions, blessings and curses, penology, and every possible dimension for maintaining stability in our society.
Nevertheless, it falls under constant attack by those who wish to impose some form of abrogation on the validity of God’s word. But the prophet does not foresee any form of abrogation. Isaiah 46:7 tells us that the Word of our God will stand forever. Furthermore, Jesus himself confirms the eternal validity of God’s Law when He said that the law has not been abrogated.1
In Deuteronomy 30 we find a hard teaching for those who associate wealth and prosperity merely to the charismatics and Word of Faith Movement.2 Verses 9 and 10 read:
The Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
There is no promise of perfect health or perfect wealth, but God promises material prosperity associated with the blessing that comes with repentance, obedience and restoration. God does not appeal to Platonic dualism. Stuff is not bad, in fact God takes pleasure in giving stuff to His people as a reward for covenant faithfulness.
What most do not understand today is that these material blessings are granted to covenant keepers in the land. They will have their daily bread in the land and they will have a place to worship their God alone. The pagan idols will be destroyed and God will reign supreme in their midst. But beyond that, these material blessings and this is far greater than any riches, leads us to the Messiah Himself. In the end, He is the richness of His people. The people of God get the spoil–they serve their God alone and receive His blessings.
- Matthew 5:17 [↩ back]
- I do not agree with the way in which they have used the text of Deuteronomy to support their position, nevertheless, I believe that the text teaches what they propose, not the way and means they seek to come to that conclusion [↩ back]
The Word of Life and Death, Part 2
In Deuteronomy 30:19 God makes a sovereign promise. He calls heaven and earth as His witnesses. In the words of Gary North:
In this covenant lawsuit, God’s witnesses for either the prosecution or the defense were heaven and earth: the creation. He is the creator of heaven and earth. God is sovereign in His court.1
The covenantal promises or curses were not to be revoked because God’s witnesses could not lie, since they reveal what the Creator desires. The promises were real and concrete. God leaves no room for a supposed neutrality; only life or death.
- North, Gary. Inheritance or Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy, Chapter 70 on Life and Dominion [↩ back]
The Word of Life and Death
The text of Moses under the inspiration of God the Spirit presents a message often forgotten in our society. It presents to us the ultimate claims of God. The message as the Reformers claimed is perspicuous: Life or death? What will it be? The author of 
Deuteronomy summarizes all of life under two categories: Covenantal obedience to the God of Israel brings life and covenantal disobedience brings death. But where then do we search to find the ways of obedience? Is it under the earth or above the skies? The text tells us it is near. Much nearer than the atheist would ever expect, in fact so near that they are without excuse. Therefore, choose life.1
The Christian’s Role and the Role of the Law
In recent years my love for apologetics has grown immensely. I have dedicated many hours to studying ethics, logic, and apologetic methodologies. One person who has greatly influenced me by use of wit and theological precision has been Greg Koukl. He is president of Stand to Reason. This ministry has done tremendous service to the Kingdom. The ministry has a very qualified staff and focuses its attention on issues like homosexuality, abortion, and giving a reasonable answer in defense of the faith. Koukl has a tremendously affective way of reaching and communicating truth to people. Last year at the Evangelical Theological Society I had the opportunity to meet Greg and was elated to know that he was a gracious man with a heart for truth. I highly recommend their ministry and in fact, anyone can subscribe to their monthly newsletter called: Solid Ground.
In the latest edition of Solid Ground, Greg has written a piece on the role of morality in society. In the section entitled, The First Goal of Law, Mr. Koukl says that, “Laws are not primarily meant to change hearts, but behavior, and they accomplish that very well.” He elaborates further that laws can be a helpful tool in changing people’s hearts. As he puts it:
When someone tells me that laws can never change a fallen person’s heart, I ask them if they apply that philosophy to their children. Does the moral training of our children consist merely of preaching the Gospel to them? Wouldn’t we consider it unconscionable to neglect a child’s moral instruction with the excuse that laws can never change a child’s rebellious heart? Don’t we give them rules to obey, then threaten them with punishment for disobedience?
Koukl brings up an important point which is needful to discuss. The matter of morality and its application to society finds little time in modern pulpits. In fact, the truth of the matter is that some do not even believe we are called to proclaim God’s commandments. They have told us that morality only brings spiritual death and can cause no change whatsoever. In the Scriptures, of course, we discover that the law is our tutor to bring us to Christ, through whom our hearts can be transformed. But still the question arises: Can morality transform the heart? There are at least two ways to answer this question. First, laws can never bring redemption to the soul. The truth is the law is not intended to bring regeneration. The law (man-made law) will not be able to reach the heart of society with a message that brings life. Secondly, in a very real sense the law does bring life and sanctifies the heart. David speaks of the law as “perfect,” “lamp unto his feet,” “a light unto his path.” The law of the Lord is the law that changes the soul. It brings metaphysical conviction; one that shreds the human pride to misery for in the law of God people must live holy lives. The unbeliever must submit to the commandments of God and bow before Him. The law of God serves as a pre-evangelistic tool to bring depraved hearts to the mercy of God.
Greg Koukl speaks of the application of an active Christianity. He begins his article by noting that:
Since the Gospel alone transforms lives, some Christians wrongly conclude that political involvement is a waste of time. This myth of political passivity presumes that the Great Commission is our only responsibility. It’s not.
Greg is absolutely correct. Political passivity has caused the decline of many nations, including this one. In the 19th and 20th century, Christian inactivity in the face of utter injustice did not communicate that the church was pure because it didn’t get involved in politics, rather, it communicated an approval of slavery and racial prejudice. The same can be said of today while 30 million unborn babies die every year. Koukl states: “Our past unwillingness to be involved in ‘politics’ has been a blight on the Church ever since.” This unwillingness is the cause of so much damage and ungodliness in our society. The Great Commission demands that we teach “all things that I (Christ) have commanded.” This is not a reference to Jesus’ Sharing the Gospel 101 class, but directly and indirectly to the law of God. The law as it was exposed in the synagogues. The civil and moral sanctions required by our Lord to be observed and obeyed.
The law of God is not to be taught or proclaimed to believers alone, but to all in the world. The message of redemption is not separated from the message of the law. Both law and gospel are inseparable. They find fulfillment in the hearts of men and women who by God’s grace come to love their Creator. Further, they are also proclaimed to those who despise their Creator. Christians are looking for a distinctly Christian society (Societas Christiana), not an appearance thereof, but the very essence of Christian religion. The King is seeking to bring all His enemies under His feet (I Corinthians 15:24-26). They will come due to regeneration or due to submission to the law that shall encompass the whole world.
Christ as King of Kings is not entitled to a part of the land, but to all of the land (Romans 4:13). Both Church and State must submit to the requirements of the law of the King. There is no neutrality. One cannot love both God and mammon.
Greg Koukl’s call to Christian activity is a noble call and a Biblical call. However, it seems to me that he errs in limiting the rewards of this application. In the section where he speaks of the myth of “the separation of church and state,” he says that,
Freedom of religion is the goal, and non-establishment is the means. The only way to have true freedom of religion is to keep government out of religion’s affairs. This provides for what Steve Monsma calls ‘positive neutrality.’ This view ‘defines religious freedom in terms of a governmental neutrality toward religion in which no religion is favored over any other, and neither religion nor secularism is favored over each other.
Greg’s quotation falters in several ways here. First, as his approval of Monsma’s quotation states “Freedom of religion is the goal.” Here there can be no question that this is the majority of the Christian’s perspective on the matter (at least for those involved in the political sphere). This idea crumbles since pluralism is antithetical to the Scriptures. Freedom of religion assumes that other religions are to be in par with the Christian religion. It also assumes that the Kingship of Christ (Christ reigns now seated on the right hand of the Father) is to be shared with other Kings such as Buddha, Muhammad, Ceasar or any other. If the Christian message is exclusive by nature, then the church must proclaim the reign of one religion and of one King alone. As R.B. Kuiper so eloquently has stated:
It must require of men everywhere that they acknowledge Him as Head of all things, as King of every domain of their lives. It must insist on Christian marriage, Christian education, Christian Science, Christian industry, Christian labor, Christian relationships between labor and industry, Christian culture, Christian recreation, Christian politics, Christian internationalism, in short, on a Christian society as well as a Christian Church (The Glorious Body of Christ p. 276).
Kuiper states what God demanded of His people before and after the Fall: that man have dominion over all things. Calvin himself in his writings laid down very clearly the principle of the separation of the functions of Church and State. They are related and mutually supportive, but also independent of each other. Though Church and State operate in two separate arenas of society, yet they both must submit to the same God, and this is not the god proposed by some, but the God of Scriptures.
Secondly, the quote ends by stating that “…neither religion nor secularism is favored over each other.” Again, this same error indicates the idea of freedom of religion as an ultimate goal of Christian activity. However, this is not the desire of Christ when he stated that the “gates of Hell will not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18).” If by religion the author refers to any religion (pluralism), then I agree that neither pluralism nor secularism will prevail over one another for both must submit to the Christian message of salvation in Christ alone (Solos Christus).
Greg Koukl ends the article with a revealing quote. He quotes Philip Yancey in his article entitled The Other Great Commission, written in Christianity Today (p.136) that:
We have no mandate to ‘Christianize the United States – an impossible goal in any case. Yet Christians can work simultaneosuly toward a different goal, the ‘moralization’ of society. We can help tether the values and even the laws of society to some basis in transcendence.
Ask yourself the question as the end of this article approaches: What is the goal of ‘moralizing’ a society if society will be doomed? Yancey is not in any way referring to the use of God’s law to moralize society, but he is probably referring to bringing back prayers to public schools and things of that nature. But in either way, the idea of tethering “the values and even the laws of society to some basis in transcendence” is utterly absurd. Theism may be a prerequisite to Christian theism, but transcendent morality with no Trinitarian morality is no morality at all. Notice also his initial assumption when he says that “We have no mandate to ‘Christianize’ the United States – an impossible goal in any case.” Yancey is correct in affirming that we have no mandate to Christianize the United States, we as Christians who believe in the Triune Sovereign God have a mandate to Christianize the world by the power of the Gospel and the grace of the Holy Spirit. Micah 4:2 says: “‘. . . that He may teach us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths.’ For from Zion will go forth the Law Even the Word of God from Jerusalem.” May our hearts be encouraged that the Father has promised the nations as a gift to the Son and the end will not come until all his enemies are under His feet. In the words of the famous Advent song: Let earth receive her king!
The Beauty of the Law
Exodus 34:6-8
6 The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” 8 And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped.
Moses’ task took on great importance as he ascended into the heights of the mountain. There he would deliver to his Lord the two tablets that would seal the covenant God was to make with Israel. In his ascension to Mount Sinai, the Lord himself descended to meet the needs of an obstinate people. Though some would wonder how the needs of a people could be met by establishing laws, it is here in this magnificent event where grace would shine in greater light. The law itself would be a guide to all peoples of the earth. They would submit to the law of God and worship Him because of His law. Far from a forceful and legalistic duty, the peoples of the earth would worship their Lord out of gratitude and covenant loyalty.
The law did not only become their code for right living, but their code for right standing. This standing they had obtained by the gracious and merciful God who had delivered them from spiritual and physical bondage. As the shining sun of creation, the law would become a shining sign to a brilliant future reality. Jesus Christ, the exact image of God, condescended to take upon him human flesh and bring to fullness the law. In Him we abide; in him the law is not burdensome. Because of Christ, we bow our heads to the earth and worship and meditate on His law day and night (Psalm 119:15).