Category: Uncategorized

This is my final post in my series on C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity ( All 17  posts on Mere Christianity are found here). I have tried to point some salient features in this timeless classic. I believe I have been fortunate in some ways in my evaluation of Lewis. Further, I have tried to give him credit, though in crucial areas he strays from the Reformed tradition and beyond that, as far as a I know, Lewis was not an exegete. Hence, some of my criticism has been generally on an exegetical level. I confess I may have jumped to conclusions unwarranted by the immediate context, nevertheless, I have tried my best to expound on the brilliance of C.S. Lewis both as a writer and a thinker.
In this last post, I would like to conclude on Lewis’ discussion on faith picked up briefly on post XVI. In this final section Lewis comments on the nature of faith. In this instance, Lewis appears to be more consistent with Reformed theology than at any other section. His concern, which must be ours as well, is that generally faith has been seen as an emotional roller-coaster followed by some verbal utterance. Lewis writes:

What matters is the nature of the change in itself, not how we feel while it is happening. It is the change from being confident about our own efforts to the state in which we despair of doing anything for ourselves and leave it to God. ^a

This is the heart of Ephesians 2:8-9. What happens as faith is given to us (Philippians 1:29) is that we abandon all our feeble efforts to be pleasing before God. As the Scottish theologian Eric Alexander once stated: “The only thing we bring to our salvation is our sin which makes it necessary.”

In his final section, he writes:

Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that faith in Him good actions must inevitably come. ^b

The despair of seeking to please God by our works is the climax of the unregenerate state. Only God can bring about true and genuine faith. This faith in turn, as the Reformers have pointed is not alone. Faith without works is dead, says James. Hence, Lewis concludes the exact same way Paul does in his discourse on Ephesians 2. Though salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, we are created for good works, which follow true faith in Messiah. Lewis notes that they “inevitably come.” It is not a matter of choice or willingness. if true faith abides, then, good works also follow.

1. Mere Christianity, pg.130  (back)
2. pg.131  (back)

Please let me keep dreaming with Ron Paul as my president in 2008. After all, when was the last time you have EVER heard a presidential candidate being asked why he wants to run for president and hear this answer: “I wanna be President because I have this dream, I’d like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.” Hear it yourself!

Some have tried to argue that Christ only upholds the continuing validity of the Decalogue; yet this cannot be the case, as the judicial case laws are expositions of the moral law (for example, we need to go to the case laws to understand what constitutes adultery as the seventh commandment does not specifically define it). Moreover, Christ explicitly put the death penalty for reviling one’s parents on a par with the fifth commandment itself (Matt. 15:4). Therefore, the death sentence for stated crimes must be every bit as perpetually binding today as the Decalogue itself. ^a

1. Reformed Covenanter  (back)

I am a profound admirer of Henry Nouwen. His reflections on the ministry have been life-transforming to me; perhaps this quote may do the same for you:

More and more, the desire grows in me simply to walk around, greet people, enter their homes, sit on their doorsteps, play ball, throw water, and be known as someone who wants to live with them. It is a privilege to have the time to practice this simple ministry of presence. Still, it is not as simple as it seems. My own desire to be useful, to do something significant, or to be part of some impressive project is so strong that soon my time is taken up by meetings, conferences, study groups, and workshops that prevent me from walking the streets. It is difficult not to have plans, not to organize people around an urgent cause, and not to feel that you are working directly for social progress. But I wonder more and more if the first thing shouldn’t be to know people by name, to eat and drink with them, to listen to their stories and tell your own, and to let them know with words, handshakes, and hugs that you do not simply like them, but truly love them. ^a

1. Henry Nouwen  (back)

Let us turn our attention to the text itself. This law in Deuteronomy 21 gives the classic formulation for a case law, “if…then.” If this happens, this is the necessary consequence according to God’s Law. ^a Here are a few preliminary comments concerning this law. The first thing to note is that this child is rebellious and stubborn. The Hebrews words sarar (rebellious) and marah (stubborn) are very similar. ^b They have a range of meanings. They can refer to one who provokes or disobey. Since both adjectives are together, the author conveys a very negative attitude. At the outset, the reader is aware that the death penalty is not being given to a son or daughter because they have simply disobeyed their parents. This is far beyond mere disobedience. After all, this is why the rod is needed, so that a child will never get to the point of Deuteronomy 21:18.

This is exactly the point of verse 18. It presupposes that there has already been a firm attempt to bring the son into reconciliation with the parents and with society. Verse 18 reads, “though they discipline him, he will not listen to them.” Here is where a careful reading of the text may bear much fruit. The text reads, “stubborn and rebellious son.” ^c The Hebrew word for “son” ben is indefinite. It is used to refer to both sexes elsewhere (Exodus 21:5), but most often it refers to man, in particular this may be the reference in this text. But what is the age of this son? In other passages, it may refer to a child or a young man. However, the text in Deuteronomy gives us clues to the age of the rebellious and stubborn son. In this context, it is impossible to conclude that the son is view is a 6-10 year old. In fact, we can be clear that he was probably a young adult. Einwechter summarizes:

The sins brought forth in testimony to show his contumacious manner are gluttony and drunkenness (v. 20), hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old! The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. Furthermore, the parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the “son” in question is no mere child, but, rather, a young man at least in his middle teens or older. ^d

The rebellious and stubborn child is not a little child or a naughty child who hits his little brother because his toys were taken, nay; this refers to a mature teenager (at least mature in physical strength) who has severally rebelled from the teachings of their parents.

Notice also that he is a “drunkard” and a “glutton.” These are two of the most contemptible sins in the Bible. As a drunken young man, he is uncontrollable. He is harm to society ^e and puts at risk every one that comes in his way. He may be violent, threatening his parents ^f and other family members. He curses his brothers and sisters and curses his parents out of contempt for them. ^g As a glutton, he causes financial stress to his parents and is also constantly sick due to excessive eating. Furthermore the idea of “gluttony” in this text is much more than just excessive eating. The Hebrew word “zalal” indicates that the son is “worthless.” His existence serves only to bring turmoil and sadness. He does not add one iota of good to society or family. The point of these descriptions is that repeated attempts to bring him to accept the authority of his parents over his life have failed. The only solution, the last solution, is to bring him before the courts.

After all this, the parents have no option, but to bring him before the magistrates. The parents bring him before the magistrates; they are the authoritative two witnesses. They are the ones who have suffered and have seen everything first hand. In verses 19 and 20 the parents present their case before the judges, and if they are convinced of the evil done ^h the men of the city are to stone him to death. ⁱ All this so evil may be purged and the parents may once again live in tranquility being free from the threats within the household.

1. The penalties for adultery and homosexuality, which are reasons for the death penalty in the Older Covenant, are not reinstated in the New Covenant. This to me is no reason to deny those civil penalties either. However, in the case of the rebellious child, our Lord Himself in Matthew mentions that particular case law. This is not the proper place to discuss those laws, or to engage John Murray and his arguments.  (back)
2. It is used in the Old Testament of a wild, untamed heifer (Hos. 4:16  (back)
3. By Biblical implication we note that the daughter is also in view, though in this text and throughout the Old Testament, the son is the disobedient one.  (back)
4. Rev. William Einwechter, Stoning Disobedient Children.  (back)
5. In our modern day, he would be a harm on the road driving.  (back)
6. Exodus 21:15  (back)
7. Exodus 21:17.  (back)
8. At this point I am not sure that if the son shows any remorse. I would assume that even if he did, it is too late. He had every opportunity to repent and obey and abandon his evil ways.  (back)
9. Since stoning is an old practice, it may need to be adjusted to our modern situation. However, some theonomic scholars like Gary North gives convincing reasons to use stones, as opposed to modern methods of execution.  (back)

Dutch New Testament scholar Herman Ridderbos has died. Read about his life and death.

After Noah landed, a new constitution was written for this new people in a new land. Before the flood God told Adam to be a) fruitful and multiply ^a b) to eat of all the trees, except the tree of good and evil, ^b and c) forbade the death penalty. ^c After the flood, God re-affirmed a) the dominion mandate to be fruitful and multiply, ^d b) gave access to all the trees and animals, ^e but c) affirmed the death penalty. ^f God was intent in making sure that what happened before the Flood would never happen again.

In Genesis 9:6 we find the Divine support for the death penalty: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” ^g Before the flood God maintained that the exercising of the death penalty belonged to Him alone, but in the New World, God grants that responsibility to humanity. We may find here the first glimpses of an organized civil government clearly stated later in the nation of Israel and affirmed in the New Covenant in Romans 13.

In order to defend the position that the death penalty for incorrigible children must be applied today, it is important that the Biblical idea of the death penalty is established. It is clear that without the death penalty, any society is bound to destruction. In the words of Gordon Tullock, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute: “Eighty percent of the people who seriously think about crime think of punishment as a deterrent – except for the sociologists, and they wrote all the textbooks. Statistically speaking, for each prisoner executed there are 50 murders averted. This has been documented in the U.S. between the years 1967-1984. During these years, capital punishment was abolished in most states and then reinstated with new guidelines. During the years that capital punishment was not allowed, murders began to rise.” ^h The reason it is so effective is because it is God’s Law. ⁱ Only His righteous laws can judge a nation.

The uniqueness of God’s Law (Theonomy) is that it is comprehensive. It may not deal with modern crimes in particular, but the penology associated with the case laws given may prove to be applicable in just about any situation. This does not mean it is always easy to determine what penalties go with what, but nevertheless, God has provided a just system of punishment. The law provides a lex talionis for each crime.

It is because of the uniqueness of this law, that the attention is now turned to the incorrigible child. What is the just punishment for the delinquent juvenile? The Older Covenant provides for us grounding for the execution of the incorrigible child. In Deuteronomy 21 we read:

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.

Unlike humanism, which seeks to improve depraved man by unbiblical techniques of recovery, the Bible offers a unique solution for certain crimes.

At this point, the idea of fairness and justice may be brought to question by some. After all, the law of God is too harsh and strong on this issue. Some say that it has no more validity in light of this particular sanction concerning rebellious children. This, for them, proves that the Old Testament laws died with the “theocracy” of Israel and has no permanent validity for us today.

Rev. William Einwechter states in his authoritative article on this case law ^j :

…this objection to the use of the Old Testament case laws is based on a shallow reading of the law, a misunderstanding of the actual case law requirement, and an attachment to sentimental impulses as opposed to a commitment to the high ethical provisions of Biblical law. When this case law, which applies the moral law of the Fifth Commandment to a specific circumstance, is understood it will prove to be “holy, just, and good,” a delight to the heart of God’s true people (Rom. 7:12, 22).

1. Genesis 1:28.  (back)
2. Genesis 1:29.  (back)
3. Genesis 4:15.  (back)
4. Genesis 9:1-2.  (back)
5. Genesis 9:3-4.  (back)
6. Genesis 9:6.  (back)
7. English Standard Version  (back)
8. Tullock, Gordon. Capital Punishment,” Biblical Principles, (Plymouth Rock Foundation), 1984, p. 17.  (back)
9. Dr. Mark Ross, from Erskine Theological Seminary argues persuasively that in an imperfect world, there will be cases where the unjust will go free and the just will be punished. Professor Ross argues that God could have chosen 7 witnesses as his model (in this case little conviction would take place) or He could have chosen only one witness to convict of a crime (in which case many would go unpunished), but he chose 2 to 3 witnesses as the universal standard.  (back)
10. Rev. William Einwechter, Stoning Disobedient Children, see link: http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Stoning_Disobedient_Children.htm. I will be using his exegesis at a few points.  (back)

Gene Cook interviewed comedian Tim Hawkins. I checked out his site and saw some of the samples he had there. Here’s some good clean humor.

I have been inactive in the last three days due to an exegetical paper and a review of Vander Zee’s book on the sacraments. I will take some of these papers I have written recently and add them to the blog as the days go by. I will start tomorrow with my paper on the Incorrigible Son.

On another note, one of my heroes Ron Paul, has a high-quality video interview on C-SPAN speaking concerning his views on the war, abortion, FEMA, government abuse and much more. If you are a constitutionalist, this video will be an encouraging sign of things to come.

Here is the link: Ron Paul interview

Reformed Seminary this morning honored two of the greatest theologians alive: Drs. Bruce Waltke and Roger Nicole. Roger Nicole spoke of an experience he had over 70 years ago as he applied for a professorship in the University of Paris. Though he felt lacking in the abilities to take the position, he proved to us that when God has called a man to the ministry, He will be faithful to His servants.

Dr. Waltke followed with a brief sermon on Psalm 131. He stressed the perplexing pilgrimage of Christians. For instance, what is to be our response to theodicy? Waltke argued from Psalm 131 that we live in that theodicy, and our experiences in light of the absurd shows the mercifulness of God.