Part of an elect nation

Dispensationalists frequently defend their view by saying something like, "God has made promises to Israel that He has not fulfilled. Therefore we trust that He will fulfill them at some future date." That seems to be a recurring theme among dispensationalists. And I agree with that whole-heartedly.

At the same time, I recognize that there is an issue we need to address in this argument. There is an elephant in the room.  When we consider Romans 9–11, we find that Scripture also recognizes there's an issue. The issue is something like this: we know that God has made promises to Israel that went unfulfilled to those specific people. For example, very few of the children of Israel that came out of Egypt made it into the promised land. Most of them died in the wilderness.

So did God really fulfill His promise to them?

Romans 9:6–8 addresses this question with the assertion that, "not all [are] Israel which [are] of Israel; nor because they are seed of Abraham [are] all children."  So this is a guiding principle when it comes to God's election: it's possible to be part of an elect people, without being an elect individual. Notice Romans 9:15 quotes Exodus 33:19. That's the story of the golden calf, the first time the Scripture talks about Israelites falling in the wilderness.

That's a point worth repeating: it's possible to be part of a chosen nation and not yourself be chosen. 

So when it comes to Israel, dispensationalists calmly assert that God will, indeed, restore Israel, but that doesn't mean that any specific Jewish person will be included in that.  And I fully agree with that statement.

Of course this has application to us. If we object to amillennialism on the grounds that we believe God can be trusted, then surely we need to consider carefully how His trustworthiness is displayed in light of Romans 9–11. Which is a really clumsy way of saying, if it's possible for individual Israelites to fall short of what God promised the nation, is it also possible for individual Christians to fall short of what God promised the church?

Without diving too deep into controversy, let's just say that everyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit has a claim to call themselves "Christian." That doesn't mean everyone baptized has been born again, or that they're truly regenerated. But it's reasonable for them to think of themselves as Christian.  And we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking all of the unregenerate baptized were baptized as infants!

And we don't really even need to talk in terms of baptism. What about those who were born into Christian homes and so think they're Christians? What about those who grew up in Sunday school, but were never born again?  I really don't think they're entirely wrong to think of themselves as "Christian."  But it doesn't at all mean they're born again.

So yes, there are lots of people who are part of the elect nation, but aren't themselves elect.

When the Lord Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, He told him point-blank, "you must be born anew" (John 3:3–8). There's no question that Nicodemus was part of the elect nation, but he still needed new birth.

So if you're part of an elect nation, if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you still need to be born again.  The question for you isn't, "Was I baptized?" The question for you is, "Do you believe God?" Because in the end, God justifies the one who does not work, but believes (Romans 4:5).

And notice, Scripture doesn't tell us we have to be sure we're elect before we come to Christ. 

By exactly the same token, Scripture doesn't say that God justifies the one who can remember a conversion experience. It says God justifies the one who believes. So let's not fall into the trap of telling people they need to have a "salvation experience." 

But the fact remains, being part of the elect nation doesn't mean that you will receive that God has promised. God doesn't work that way: it's the children of promise, not the children of flesh, who receive what He promises (Romans 9:8). 

 

Unconvinced

Yesterday I heard someone make an argument for Amillennialism that started with John 5:28–29. I admit my first thought was, "here we go..." I've heard this argument from Amillennialists more than once.

The argument goes something like this:  Revelation 20:1–10 is the only passage in Scripture that specifies a 1,000 year reign of Christ. Revelation 20:4–6 describes the 1,000 years beginning with "the first resurrection," and tells us "the rest of the dead" aren't raised until the 1,000 years are finished.

But in John 5:28–29, the Lord says there is "an hour" coming in which there is a resurrection to life, and a resurrection to judgment.

Thus, we conclude that the 1,000 year reign in Revelation 20 isn't to be understood literally, as the Lord specifies those two resurrections happen in the same hour – not necessarily 60 minutes, but at least closely in time.

This isn't a terrible argument, but I don't find it very convincing.

First, the context (John 5:24–30) makes it difficult to argue that "hour" precludes a literal 1,000 years. Consider John 5:25, "an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that have heard shall live." 

The Lord is describing His ministry of regeneration – calling the [spiritually] dead to life.  The "hour" in John 5:25 was already underway at that time ("and now is"), and has been going on for almost 2,000 years now.

So given the Lord described the last two millennia as an "hour" just three verses earlier, there's no reason to believe the "hour" in John 5:28–29 can't encompass all the events of Revelation 20:1–10.

Second, it's a strange hermeneutic that insists a detailed passage (Revelation 20:1–10) must be understood symbolically because of a much less detailed description in an earlier passage (John 5:28–29). By that logic, we should insist the Gospel accounts are purely symbolic, because the prophets didn't describe the entire three-year span of the Lord's earthly ministry.

Of course that's ridiculous. We understand that the prophets gave terse summaries of events to come. The Gospel writers, describing the actual events, give significantly more detail.

Similarly, the Lord's one-sentence description of the "hour" of two resurrections is a terse summary of coming events that Revelation 20:1–10 describes in more detail and precision. Yes, the Lord combines two events into a single "hour" in His summary, just like the Old Testament prophets combined several events into a short summary in their writings.

Finally,  Scripture is consistent in its use of time spans like "hour" and "day" to indicate longer periods of time. Genesis 2:4–5 describes the seven days of creation as the "day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens," and everything in them. We don't then interpret Genesis 2:4–5 as contradicting the entire first chapter of Genesis, but we understand it uses the word "day" to describe a period of time that's characterized by a single thing.

The Lord uses the word "hour" to describe whole eras: the era of worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23), and the era of persecution of the Apostles after His ascension (John 16:2ff). Again, He is using the term "hour" to describe a period of time characteristically.

The Lord describes His death as an "hour" (Mark 14:35, Luke 22:53, John 7:30, John 12:27). We don't thus conclude that the Gospel descriptions of the Crucifixion lasting several hours are to be understood symbolically. Rather, we understand that He is using the term "hour" to describe a period of time characterized by that single awful event.

Insisting the Lord's use of the term "hour" in John 5:28–29 must mean the first and second resurrection cannot be spaced 1.000 years apart ignores His own repeated use of the word "hour" to describe very long periods of time.

Now, I'm not making the claim that Amillennialism cannot be argued from Scripture. I am pointing out that John 5:28–29 provides no meaningful evidence against a literal 1,000 year reign in Revelation 20. To read John 5:28–29 that way is to ignore how the Lord uses the same word just three verses earlier (John 5:25), how He uses the term "hour" throughout John's gospel, and how Scripture as a whole uses terms like "hour" and "day."

 

There is a less-obvious lesson here for our Dispensationalist friends, and we need to be careful not to miss it. I have sat in many a Bible reading where Christians spent a great deal of effort to differentiate between the Lord's "coming" and His "appearing."  I've heard Christians go through the epistles with a fine-toothed comb to separate and distinguish between coming events.

That's not necessarily sin, but I have to ask the question: why didn't the Lord Jesus do that? Why did He sum up a 1,000 year period as an "hour"?

The Son of God saw value in discussing two events that are separated by 1,000 years in a single sentence. So yes, the epistles distinguish between these events. But the Son of God did not. We should ask ourselves why.

I would suggest that if the Holy Spirit sees value in discussing these events distinctly in Revelation 20:1–10 and indistinctly in John 5:28–29, then there is wisdom in us not seeing them only in one light or the other. There is wisdom in meditating on them in both lights.

Paul's epistles consistently point us to the Lord's imminent return for us (Philippians 3:20–21). Peter's epistles point us beyond that, to new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13). I've actually heard "brethren" use that as some sort of argument that "Paul's ministry" is greater than Peter's.

To be clear, that is sin.

When the Spirit of God gives us two different perspectives, that's not so we can choose between them. That's so we can subject ourselves to God's word, and meditate on both of them.

So when Paul's epistles draw distinctions between coming events, and Peter's discuss them all as a single large event, that's so we can see the mind of God in both the big picture and the fine details. That is not so we can think of ourselves as wiser than the Spirit of God who inspired both.

When Revelation 20:1–10 gives in much greater detail the expanded view of the two resurrections in John 5:28–29, that's not license to sin by discounting the words that the Son of God spoke. That's so we can learn both the "big picture" lessons of John 5 and the "fine detail" lessons of Revelation 20.

(Yes, I am aware that the Lord's crucifixion is a rejection of Him as King, so that the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20:1–10 could not, in a sense, be discussed in John 5. Peter's offer of "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19–21) would seem odd if the Lord had already publicly discussed the details that Revelation 20:1–10 give. But I still maintain that the Lord's willingness to view the "big picture" and view that entire chapter as a single "hour" must mean it's a worthwhile perspective for us to consider.)

Dispensationalism (again)

All Christians believe that the Lord will come again. We don't all agree on what that will look like. Where I live, Christians appear to be divided into two groups: the convinced Postmillennialists, and those with no real conviction on the issue. 

It seems to me that the majority view in the 70s and 80s when I was growing up was a Dispensationalist Premillennialist view, but that may have been more a reflection of where I was than of the time itself.

I remain convinced of the Dispensationalist Premillennialist view, and I think it might be useful to explain some of the reasoning behind that. To be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone else, merely to explain what convinces me.

It seems to me that we can learn a great deal about the Lord's return by looking at His first coming. That was paradoxically a strictly literal fulfillment of prophecy that looked nothing like what people expected. 

When the wise men came to Herod to learn where Christ had been born, the "chief priests and scribes" were able to predict exactly where He had been born based on "the prophet" (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1–6). The prophet had said He would come from Bethlehem Ephratah, and the chief priests and scribes took that as a literal reference to a literal place. And, of course, they were right. 

At the same time, the story continues on to say that His parents were told to flee to Egypt; and this, too, was fulfillment of prophecy (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:13–15). So we have two prophecies that are both fulfilled literally,  perhaps not in a way that we'd have expected: the Son of God was born in Bethlehem, but came out of Egypt.

Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of  the Lord both run through David, but through two different sons (Matthew 1:1–16, Luke 3:23–38). I take Matthew's record to be the "legal" genealogy through the Lord's adoptive father Joseph, while Luke's is the "biological" genealogy through the Lord's mother Mary. (I realize not everyone agrees on that point.) Again, the prophets had predicted that the Lord would be the "Son of David," the Branch out of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1–5),  and that was fulfilled literally. The pharisees admitted they were looking for David's Son (Matthew 22:41–46).

After the Lord's resurrection, after He had spent six weeks with the disciples, they asked Him, "Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel? " (Acts 1:6–9). This question reveals that the disciples were aware there were large chunks of Old Testament prophecy about the coming of the Lord that hadn't [yet] been fulfilled. And the Lord's answer is oblique: "It is not yours to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in his own authority, " but they would receive power when the Holy Spirit had come upon them (Acts 1:7–8).

I draw several inferences from these verses. First, the Lord's first coming was a literal fulfillment of prophecy. He was born in Bethlehem. He came out of Egypt. The prophets named these specific places, and those prophecies were fulfilled literally. Now, it's true that it would have been difficult for us to predict just how that fulfillment would work out, but there's no question that it was fulfilled literally.

Second, the Lord's genealogies both literally run through David. There is no sense in the Gospels that David is used symbolically or "spiritually" to describe the Lord. He is literally David's descendant.  Again, it might be been difficult for us to predict Luke's genealogy beforehand, but there's no question it is a literal fulfillment.

Third, the Old Testament prophecies are to be fulfilled in more than one coming. Now, I realize that not everyone will understand Acts 1:1–9 the way I do. I expect some Postmillennialists or Amillennialists would point out that the Lord doesn't actually say, "I'm going to restore the kingdom to Israel when I come back." Indeed, they likely see the promise of the disciples receiving power after the coming of the Holy Spirit as the prediction that the coming kingdom would be through them. Let's address that shortly. Let's just say at the moment that as of Acts 1:6, the disciples expected the Lord to do a good deal more, and were wondering when (not if) He would do it.

I take the Lord's answer in Acts 1:7–8 to mean that He will, indeed, restore the kingdom to Israel, but it's not their (our) place to know God's timing. Rather, the Holy Spirit's descent will bring power to equip us for the tasks He has for us until He comes back to restore the kingdom. 

I think Acts 3:19–21 clarifies Acts 1:6ff. In Acts 3, Peter urges the Jews to repent, promising that God would send Jesus Christ and "times of refreshing" if only they'd repent. Of course they did not. Notice how this parallels Daniel's prediction that the Son of Man would descend with clouds to receive a kingdom (Daniel 7:13–14). What Peter is describing here is a literal kingdom involving the physical return of Christ at the outset, and it was available to them immediately.

We notice that the disciples' expectation was that the Lord would restore the kingdom to Israel. Maybe that's worth a lot more digging, but I want to keep on the main point for now...

From the perspective of the Old Testament prophets, the Lord's coming was one event. From the perspective of the disciples in Acts 1, it would be split into two. To me this entirely justifies the Dispensationalist view that we expect the Lord to come again for His saints, and them to come again with His saints. In other words, I have no problem with a "secret rapture," because we know already that what the Old Testament prophets saw as a single event was at least two, separated by at least two thousand years. I have no trouble accepting that this second coming would itself be split in two.

Again, I am not in any way trying to convince anyone else. I am merely outlining what convinces me. I see that the Lord's first coming was marked by literal fulfillment of prophecies: He was born in the exact geographical place Micah named, He was born to the physical descendant of David. I see no reason not to expect His coming again will be fulfilled just as literally: I expect Him to stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:1–4). I expect Him to come from Edom (Isaiah 63:1). I expect Him to come down to Armageddon (Revelation 16:16, Revelation 19:11ff). I expect those three prophecies will be worked out in a way that's as obvious in retrospect as the Bethlehem/Egypt prophecies were worked out the first time He came.

I'm expecting that the Lord will gather up all twelve tribes of Israel, and return them to the land. And I expect He will make the New Covenant with them when Ephraim repents (Jeremiah 31:31ff, Ezekiel 36:24ff, Hosea 14:4ff). I expect all this will be fulfilled just as literally as His first coming fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.

 

Looking for another country

I'm still half-way through Calvin's Institutes, having been reading it now for several years. That's not as atypical of my reading habits as I'd like to believe.

I was struck by Calvin's comments on the hopes of the patriarchs, and have been contemplating them for several years:

If these holy Patriarchs expected a happy life from the hand of God (and it is indubitable that they did), they viewed and contemplated a different happiness from that of a terrestrial life. This is admirably shown by an Apostle, “By faith he [Abraham] sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he has prepared for them a city,” (Heb. 11:9, 10, 13–16). They had been duller than blocks in so pertinaciously pursuing promises, no hope of which appeared upon the earth, if they had not expected their completion elsewhere. (Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 10)

That caught my eye, because I have heard some well-known Dispensationalists claim that the hopes of the Old Testament saints were for this life, while the hopes of the Christian are for the next. "Israel's blessings were physical, ours are spiritual." But it's not that simple, is it?  Hebrews 11:9–16 explicitly and specifically contradicts it. Hebrews claims that Abraham and Sarah were both looking for blessings beyond the physical.

Now, I realize there is a lot of nuance I'm ignoring here. Maybe the case could be made that Abraham isn't Israel per se. Perhaps we might want to distinguish between the patriarchs and the nation that came from them.  But even that seems problematic in the light of Hebrews 11:32–40.

Those verses intrigue me, because there is a shift in tone right at the start of v. 35. In that verse, the tone pivots from miraculous deliverance (by faith),  to faith under persecution. Suddenly we go from those whose faith was vindicated in this life to those who still await vindication. And we're told, "these all... did not receive the promise... that they should not be made perfect without us" (Hebrews 11:39–40). 

So no, we can't just say that their hope was for this life, while ours is for the next. By that reasoning, virtually all the prophets were faithless: "which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?" (Acts 7:52).  Either all the prophets were wicked sinners, or blessing in this life wasn't a measure of faith, even in the Old Testament.

Now, I'm not trying to kick at Dispensationalists here. I think Dispensationalism is essentially correct. I am merely pointing out that scripture doesn't support some of the conclusions we draw from it.

When I started reading Darby, one of the immediate effects was that I became much less of a Dispensationalist. I had so thoroughly bought into Dispensationalism, I was determined to see as many differences between the Old Testament and the New as I could. But reading Darby forced me to see there is a great deal of continuity between the Old Testament and the New: it's not all contrasts! The central figure is that same in both, and He doesn't change.

There are genuine differences between the Old Testament saints and us today. We are united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection; they were not. The Holy Spirit has been given by the risen, ascended, glorified Christ to us in an entirely new way from His dealings with them in the Old. 

Those differences are there, and they are real.

But we have to return to this point again and again: the Word of God is perfect, my understanding of it is not.

 

Dispensationalism

It's popular to hate on Dispensationalism these days (although I've seen faint glimmers of its coming back into fashion). Some of the criticisms I have seen are valid, most are a bit of a reach, some are entirely outside the realm of reasonable.

In my experience, the term "dispensationalism" generally means the Scofield version, with seven ages that each begin with a covenant and end with a judgment. I'm not a huge fan of that system, although I understand its appeal. Clarence Larkin taught a version with eight ages, rather than seven. I'm sure there are many other versions of Dispensationalism, but the Scofield version seems to be the one people think of first, and the one people are attacking when they claim Dispensationalism is wrong.

Reading Darby cured me of Scofield's brand of Dispensationalism. Scofield does a good job of seeing and calling out discontinuities between the Old and New Testaments (for example), but not such a great job of recognizing continuities. The immediate effect reading Darby had on me was to make me step away from a lot of the Dispensationalist ideas I had grown up believing.

But I digress. 

Dispensationalism seems to me to be particularly strong in its hermeneutic. It's not perfect, but it's based on a remarkably consistent hermeneutic. Dispensationalists tend to view things in context (perhaps to a fault), and are very consistent across passages. I'm frequently surprised by the inconsistent hermeneutic in conversations with Christians from other backgrounds.

One of the more common criticisms of Dispensationalism is that it teaches that man was justified by works under Law in the Old Testament, and is now justified by grace through faith.  That's a common enough criticism that it deserves a detailed answer.

Let's be clear that God has only ever justified fallen men and women by grace through faith. That's the plain teaching of the Epistles. But I admit that I have met some (not all, not most, not even many) dispensationalists who weren't very clear on that. I can't recall ever speaking to a dispensationalist who didn't quickly realize the truth when pressed on the point, but I should be fair and say that I have actually met dispensationalists (not many, but some) who weren't very clear on that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone teach error on that point, and I've certainly never read it anywhere that I can recall.

But there is another "line of truth" to consider: the Epistles teach that the Law was given to reveal man's sinfulness (Romans 3:20, 5:12–21, Galatians 3:19). God was testing the human race. It wasn't to educate God, but to reveal what fallen men and women are.

What God knows (and has always known) is that Adam's descendants aren't merely guilty, but are lost. When Romans 8:7 says the mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God and cannot be, it's giving God's verdict of our race. We're not merely guilty, we are also lost.

The testing of our race reaches its climax in the life and death of Jesus Christ. God Himself comes to live as a Man, is hated, persecuted, and murdered. In the rejection of Christ, we have the very worst thing the human race has ever done. There is no sin worse than Deicide.

Is God surprised by the death of His Son? Of course not! It was by the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" that He was killed (Acts 2:22–23). But that doesn't mean it wasn't the lowest point in human history. That doesn't mean God isn't going to judge the human race for this greatest of all crimes.

So Dispensationalism recognizes not only the individual need for redemption (only by the blood of Christ) and justification (only by grace through faith). It also recognizes God's testing of the human race. This is brought out especially by Darby and other "brethren" writers:

Man was lawless; then, when the law came, there was the transgression of the law; and when the blessed Lord in wondrous love and grace came into the world and went about doing good, they could not stand God's presence ("Our Portion in Christ," Collected Writings, Volume 21, pp. 317–326).

By nature, man was simply lawless (anomos), with a conscience, or the sense of good and evil. But he, being lawless in nature, was expressly put under law. If he had fulfilled it, he was righteous; but the flesh is not subject to it, nor can it be. ("The Pauline Doctrine of the Righteousness of Faith," Collected Writings, Volume 7, pp. 349–386).

Men had been sinners, lawless sinners and law-breaking sinners, before Christ came. His coming brought an additional element of sin. God came into this world in goodness. What did it do to Him?  ("The Law, and the Gospel of the Glory of Christ", Collected Writings, Volume 34, pp. 416–429)

One of the tragedies of Dispensationalism is that it has become characterized by charts and tables, rather than by a deep appreciation of God's ways with our lost race, but I digress. I love charts and tables, by the way. But the real meat isn't in the charts and tables.

It's fair to say dispensationalists believe that God put Israel – as representatives of the entire human race – under Law at Sinai as a test. It was a test He knew they (we) would fail, but it was a real test. And so we believe if they had passed the test (they did not and could not), then they would have been righteous based on their own merit. But that's not at all the same thing as saying they were justified by their works. They were not, as Romans 4:1–8 shows.

So yes, in a way, all dispensationalists believe that if men and women had kept the Law, they would have been righteous before God. But that would mean they were not lost. The Law doesn't prove man's guilt, but his lostness. And the impossibility of lost men and women being subject to the law of God is precisely what the law proved.

We don't believe that God has justified lost men and women any other way than by grace through faith. That is universally true: it was true of Abraham before the Law, and of David under it (Romans 4:1–8). 

Only one Man is just in God's sight on His own merits.

 

 

 

 

 

My Lord, the King

I was listening to someone speaking about the relationship between Christ and the church. He said that Christ isn't king over the church: the church is His bride, not His subject. I didn't spit out my coffee when he said that, but I wanted to. 

I understand where that idea comes from. Perhaps the most important distinction between believers on this side of the Cross and the Old Testament saints is union with Christ.  David and Abraham were both justified freely by faith (Romans 4:1–10). But not a verse of Scripture even hints that either of them had died with Christ, was buried with Him, or was risen with Him. All of these things are true of us today (Colossians 3:1–5). Of course this is all individual.

There is something new that God has done now, corporately, compared to the Old Testament. There is the assembly, the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22–23), the habitation of God through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19–22). Scripture tells us the assembly is not only the Body of Christ, but also the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:24–33). And it's entirely Scriptural to emphasize the intimacy of this relationship. Ephesians 5 does exactly that.

But there's a danger here: so many who want to emphasize the intimacy of the relationship between Christ and His bride, fall into the opposite error. The idea that "the church is His bride, not His subject" is just plain foolish. It doesn't have to be one or the other: it's both.  

Scripture tells us quite plainly that the wife of the king isn't exempt from his authority. Yes, the assembly has a distinct and intimate relationship with Christ, but I can't find a single example in Scripture where the king's wife isn't one of his subjects.

Let's consider the case of David and Bathsheba (1 Kings 1:11-31). What does she call David? She calls him "my lord King David" (1 Kings 1:31). She calls him "my lord the king" (1 Kings 1:21, 27).  She calls him "my lord" (1 Kings 1:17). Some people seem to have decided it's appropriate to use this last title for Christ, but not the others. Is there any reason the bride of Christ shouldn't address Him as "my Lord, the King?"

Let's consider the case of Esther. She refers to her husband as "the king" (Esther 5:1-4), and "O king" (Esther 7:1–4). 

It seems to me like this is an example of folks allowing their theology to push them past what Scripture actually teaches. Both in Israel (David and Bathsheba) and in the nations (Ahasuerus and Esther), Scripture presents the queen as addressing the king as "king". 

So we should be really careful about condemning someone for calling Christ the King. Let's not make someone a transgressor for a word, especially when the Scripture seems to support it.
 

 

 

The Synagogue

Sometime in the past couple years, I was struck by the fact that both the Lord and Paul appear to have regularly attended the Synagogue. Luke 4:16 tells us it was the Lord's custom to attend the synagogue. Acts 18:4 tells us Paul visited the synagogue every sabbath in Corinth.

What struck me is, the synagogue isn't in the Law of Moses. It was an invention of post-captivity Judaism; we generally credit Ezra with inventing the tradition of the synagogue (Nehemiah 8:1–12). In fact, the first sabbath day commandment – given before the children of Israel reached Sinai – commands against leaving your home (Exodus 16:29).  But the Lord respected the synagogue tradition, and appears to have attended faithfully.

I've spent a lot of time with folks who take very seriously any and all commands in the New Testament about the church and its order. We don't always agree on what that means – for example, "open" assemblies generally have elders, while "exclusive" assemblies take a "not for today" position on elders –, but it's not taken lightly. There is a tendency among some groups almost to attempt to reset the ecclesiastical clock and go back to Acts 2, like the last two millennia can just be ignored. And while I personally hold views along the lines of J. N. Darby and William Kelly, I see no less conviction on the part of others who might hold slightly different views.

So you can imagine my surprise when I realized that the Lord went to the synagogue. And He didn't apparently go there to accuse them of following a man-made tradition, He didn't go there and tell them that there's no mention of the synagogue in the Law, He didn't go there to remind them that they were to worship only in the place where God had put His name (Deuteronomy 12:1–14). He went there and read the scriptures.

And that made me question a whole lot of things.

Now's a good time to remind ourselves that the Lord did, indeed, call out the Pharisees for things they had added to Scripture (Matthew 15:1–9). We should remind ourselves that He went back to "the beginning" when it was a question of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:1–9). So the Lord didn't just act like adding to the Word of God was OK. But we can't honestly say He followed a regulative principle either.

Now, it's true that the Lord is eternally God. It's true that He has every right to do whatever He likes, because He is God. But that doesn't appear to be what's going on here. The fact is that the Lord submitted to the Scriptures, treating them like they were the written record of God's words. But here's a case where He accepted the traditions of Judaism, apparently without any qualms at all.

I don't doubt that the Lord's life as a man on earth was entirely characterized by a moment-by-moment obedience to the Father (Isaiah 50:4; John 5:16–20).  I don't doubt that He was led by the Spirit of God every single step He took (Luke 4:1, etc.). There's no doubt in my mind that the Lord wasn't just doing what He felt like doing at the time.

But at the end of the day, here's a case where He accepted the traditions Judaism without making a point of reminding everyone that they weren't (in this case) strictly obeying the Law. He wasn't calling everyone to follow the "Old Testament pattern."

And the Apostles seemed to have a similar attitude. I've spend many years contemplating Acts 15, but without getting too side-tracked, I'll just say that when a dispute about the Law arose, the Apostles weren't shy about making a decision. Was it a godly decision? Apparently it was (Acts 15:28).

So I've been making a conscious effort not to get too hung up on a regulative principle. I've spent many years doing exactly that. I'm not saying "anything goes," not at all. I haven't forgotten that the Lord accused the Pharisees of allowing the traditions of the fathers to make the Word of God of none effect (Mark 7:9–14). But I'm also realizing that the Lord was led by the Spirit of God to participate in things that fail the to meet the standards of a strict regulative principle. And I'm not going to claim to be better than Him.

Sovereignty

I've been reading another book by R. A. Huebner recently: God’s Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men. What an amazing book! I highly recommend downloading it and giving it a look.

Old Testament Salvation

What is the difference between an Old Testament saint and a New Testament saint? How does the Gospel of the New Testament differ from the Gospel of the Old? These are worthwhile questions, and we wouldn't want to overlook them. Here are a few of my [incomplete] thoughts, based on Scripture:

Old Testament saints were justified by faith alone. This is the doctrine established in Romans 4, based on Genesis 15. This is essentially the main point of Romans 4:1–5, that justification by faith alone is not a new doctrine. And so the chapter begins with an appeal to the Old Testament record of Abraham, "What shall we say then that Abraham our father according to flesh has found?" (Romans 4:1). God has never justified anyone on the basis of anything other than faith.

Old Testament saints had forgiveness of sins. This, too, is the plain teaching of Romans 4, based on an appeal to Psalm 32. Romans 4:6–8 establish that David was a man "to whom God shall not at all reckon sin" (v. 8). This is an interesting statement, because in many ways Christendom has actually fallen lower than the Old Testament saints. Where David said that God would "not at all reckon sin" to him, Christians today seem to believe that sins they have have not confessed are reckoned to them. Of course this essentially means that God forgives based on works: confession becomes meritorious in this twisted theology.

This comes from confusing God as Father with God as Judge. We can (and do!) confess our sins to our Father (1 John 1:9), but we don't confuse that with our standing before God as Judge. Acting inconsistently with my place as a son of God might strain our relationship: it might make it difficult for me to enjoy Him and His company... but it doesn't in any way change the fact that God is my Father. A disobedient son is still a son. The Old Testament saints were children, but they weren't sons.

Old Testament saints were born again. I think a lot of people miss this, but it is what the Lord Jesus specifically taught. Consider His words to Nicodemus: "Except any one be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). No one can get into the Kingdom of God without being born again; but "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Matthew 8:11) will be in the Kingdom, along with "all the prophets" (Luke 13:28–29). So we can be sure they were born again, can't we?

To take it even further, the Lord Jesus told Nicodemus he ought to have known about new birth, because he was a "ruler of Israel" (John 3:10). So the need for new birth was a truth the Lord Jesus expected a "ruler of Israel" to know, presumably based on the Old Testament. Johnny D. suggests this is an allusion to Ezekiel 36:25–31. Perhaps this is the portion the Lord Jesus was thinking of, but regardless: it's clear He considered the new birth to be Old Testament truth.

So if the Old Testament saints were born again, if they were forgiven of their sins, if they were justified by faith alone; what is the difference between the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saints?

The Holy Spirit wasn't given in the Old Testament. John 7:38–39 explicitly state that "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." Of course we don't understand that to mean the Holy Spirit did not yet exist! That is clearly untrue, because He was there at the creation (Genesis 1:2). Of course the Holy Spirit existed, but He was not yet given. The giving of the Spirit was dependent on the exaltation of Christ, and Peter used the manifestations of the Spirit on earth to prove the exaltation of Christ in Heaven (Acts 2:33–36).

The New Testament saints have "no more conscience of sins." Hebrews 10:1–5 contrasts believers in the New Testament with the Old Testament saints under the Law. The first point of contrast is that the Old Testament saints did not have a once-for-all sacrifice for sins. Instead, they had repeated sacrifices. Those sacrifices reminded the people over and over that they had sinned. But our High Priest has offered One Sacrifice forever for sins, and so we should have "no more conscience of sins" (v. 2). Of course, I don't think this is very clearly taught or very clearly believed in Christendom as a whole: but the truth of the New Testament is that we have "no more conscience of sins".

Old Testament saints were justified looking forward to a future work: we are justified looking back on a completed work. This is the teaching of Romans 3:21–26. In the Old Testament, God justified men and women who believed Him, looking forward to the payment He knew He'd receive from Christ. But now that Christ has actually died, been buried, been raised from the dead, and ascended into Heaven; God justifies us based on historical fact. That doesn't mean we're any more justified, but it does mean that we are conscious of what the Old Testament saints couldn't know. And this is what Romans 3:21 says: what the Law and the prophets bore witness to, we now have manifested. There is, in a sense, an advantage to us, because we have the privilege of seeing what God foreknew. We have, in this sense, a more complete view into the heart of God than they did.

The Old Testament saints did not have the adoption of sons. This is the whole point of Galatians 4:1–7. The Old Testament saints were children of God (cf. John 11:52), but they weren't sons. Sonship is different from childhood. A child, Galatians tells us, differs not at all from a slave (v. 1), but the Lord Jesus came so that "we" could receive sonship (vv. 4–5). Sonship is characterized by a close relationship with the Father. It implies familial rights, it implies a claim on the Father. The Old Testament saints didn't cry "Abba, Father" that requires the "Spirit of His Son" (v. 6). Galatians 4:1–4 agrees with John 7:38–39, the Spirit of God couldn't have come here until the Lord Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (1 Corinthians 15:3–8).

I'm flagrantly ripping off Johnny D. here, but this is a huge point. The spirit of adoption is characterized by a confidence in God as Father. Servants don't have confidence in God as Father: they might love and respect God as Master, but they don't have the confidence in the Father's love. This is a new thing: this began in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit descended.

The Old Testament saints were not united to Christ. The New Testament saint has been united to Christ in His death (Romans 6:3; Colossians 3:3), His burial (Romans 6:4), and His resurrection (Colossians 3:1). The Old Testament saints we not. The Lord Jesus said that there could be no union with Him until He died (John 12:24). We feed on Christ as dead (John 6:53–57), we eat His flesh and drink His blood: you can't do that unless He has died.

Now, this isn't a complete list. But it's something I've been thinking about recently, and discussing with friends. I thought it would be worthwhile to post a few of those thoughts here.

Ruin (Part 4)

We've considered the idea of "the Church in Ruin". We haven't examined it fully, of course. We've mainly been looking to understand the basic idea. The whole idea of "the Church in Ruin" is based on two postulates:

1. the Church was infiltrated by apostates early in its history: before the Apostles had died out
2. this will continue until the Lord Jesus comes back to judge: the damage is irreparable

We've looked to Scripture to see what it has to say about this, and we've seen that the Lord Jesus predicted there would be "tares" mixed in with the wheat until the "completion of the age". We saw, too, that the Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders of apostates arising from among the leaders in Ephesus. We also considered some of the later epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, and 1 John) and found they are consistent with the testimony of the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul: they contemplated apostasy as a present fact within the Church. What's more, they contemplate the apostasy as being irreversible: it will continue until the Lord Jesus comes to judge.

I have very deliberately only looked at Scripture to this point. I've been careful not to appeal to empirical evidence in the Church around us.

There's a lot more to write about. We've not even really addressed Revelation 2–3, which are very important chapters in understanding the dispensational responsibility of the Church. And we haven't talked at all about the post-captivity books in the Old Testament, which have some bearing on the issue. But right at the moment I want to address some more practical concerns.

I'm going to come right out and say this: many "brethren" groups have found in this doctrine an excuse for their own fleshly actions. The flesh is really, really good at taking the truth of God and turning it into an excuse. Liberty can become a cloak for malice (1 Peter 2:16). Grace can become an excuse to sin (Romans 6:15).

I believe the Church is in ruin. I don't believe that because of what I see around me: I believe that because I think that's what Scripture teaches. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to have a heart that's cold towards God's children. It doesn't mean I can arrogantly claim the Lord's presence and accuse others of sitting at the table of demons. It doesn't mean I can see myself as separate from the Ruin. Truth is a poor excuse for sin.

Ruin (Part 3)

Well, we've been looking at the ruin of the Church. We started out in Part 1 by establishing that God sees the assembly from two perspectives: from an eternal, "God is sovereign" perspective, He sees the assembly as perfect. But from a temporal, "Man is responsible" perspective, He sees that the assembly has failed in its responsibility on earth. In Part 2 we went on to demonstrate that apostasy began very early on in the assembly: by the time Jude was written, it was an accomplished fact. Finally, we demonstrated that the testimony of Jude is corroborated by the testimony of the Apostles and of the Lord Jesus.

In this section, we'll attempt to demonstrate that apostasy is a fixture in the assembly. Not (although I've said it before) that the assembly is "characterized" by apostasy, but that Scripture contemplates it is something that won't be "cured" until "the completion of the age". In other words, we want to demonstrate the Scripture teaches the apostasy is irreparable.

We've already looked at the parable of the darnel of the field (Matthew 13:24–30) and the interpretation the Lord Jesus gave for it (Matthew 13:36–43). So we can ask the question: did the Lord Jesus expect things to get better and better? No, He didn't. He predicted that there would be darnel (or tares) sown in the field "while men slept". So He predicted that there would be false professors mixed in with true believers. Further, He specifically predicted that they wouldn't be sorted out until "the completion of the age". In fact, in the parable the farmer specifically forbids the pulling up of the tares, because it's possible that genuine wheat would be pulled up in the process.

So we can ask the question, did the Lord Jesus expect things would get better and better until He comes back? The answer, of course, is "No". He predicted false professors would come in, and would stay mixed in with the true believers until the end of the age.

So what about the epistles? Don't they teach things are generally going to get better and better? Not really. We've already considered Jude's epistle, let's reconsider what it has to say about the "ungodly persons" (v. 4) who've infiltrated the assembly.

14 And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment against all; and to convict all the ungodly of them of all their works of ungodliness, which they have wrought ungodlily, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14–15)

We noticed before that Jude's epistle doesn't warn apostasy is coming, rather it warns that it already has come. The ungodly persons in Jude 4 were already in the assembly. At the same time, Jude's epistle tells the end of those ungodly persons. It says the Lord will come and judge them. So as far as Jude is concerned, those ungodly persons are in the assembly, and they're there to stay until the Lord comes in judgment.

This is essentially what we expect based on the parable of the darnel of the field. The main point of that parable is that the Son of Man has no intention of differentiating between the wheat and the tares until the "completion of the age".

As an aside, I find Jude 14 is interesting with respect to the question of the "rapture". The "ungodly persons" will be judged when the Lord comes to execute judgment. On the other, the Lord is coming with His saints. That seems to me to fit in nicely with the whole idea that the Lord will come and get His saints, then come in judgment as a sort of a second stage. Is it a slam-dunk? Nope. But I think it fits.

But the point is that both Jude and Matthew predict an ongoing infiltration that will continue until the Lord comes back.

What about the other epistles? Not all the epistles discuss the issue of ruin, but those that do agree in at least the general outline. We might consider 1 Timothy 4:1, "the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons". 2 Timothy 3:1–9 says something similar, "in the last days difficult times shall be there; for men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, etc." Both 1 and 2 Timothy explicitly teach that "the last days" are characterized by apostasy. That is to say, it's not going to get better and better. It's going to get worse and worse. But we have to look over to 1 John to fit the puzzle pieces together: "Little children, it is the last hour, and, according as ye have heard that antichrist comes, even now there have come many antichrists, whence we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18). So the "last hour" has already begun. It began in the time of the Apostles. And (this is significant), 1 John produces the presence of "many antichrists" as evidence that the "last hour" has already begun. In the next verse, it is clarified what these "many antichrists" are: they are apostates (1 John 2:19).

What do these epistles say about the resolution to this apostasy? Do they predict a repentance? No, they don't.

The first few verses of 2 Timothy 4 might shed some additional light on our contemplation:

1 I testify before God and Christ Jesus, who is about to judge living and dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom, 2 proclaim the word; be urgent in season and out of season, convict, rebuke, encourage, with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time shall be when they will not bear sound teaching; but according to their own lusts will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear; 4 and they will turn away their ear from the truth, and will have turned aside to fables. (1 Timothy 4:1–4)

We notice there is a connection with the return of Christ "who is about to judge the living and the dead". The connection is apocalyptic: "and by his appearing and his kingdom". And what does the epistle say? That there is a time coming when "they" will not bear sound teaching. Once again, we see a picture of decline. The Scripture doesn't contemplate things getting better and better. The Lord Jesus asked, "when the Son of man comes, shall he indeed find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). It is important for us to understand this: the entire testimony of Scripture is moral decline between Christ's first and second advent.

So the testimony of the Lord Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the epistles is that apostasy has set in. It set in early: Jude considers it was an accomplished fact, 1 John says it [was] already "the last hour". And the Scripture presents this apostasy as continuing until the Lord Jesus comes back to judge "at the completion of the age".

We've now considered the basic idea of the "church in ruin". Scripture teaches that apostasy would set into the church early; and, having set in, it would be irreparable. We must bear in mind that this is only from one particular perspective. God's eternal purposes are not frustrated by man's failures. But the assembly has dispensational responsibility on the earth. We are here on Christ's behalf, and we've not been faithful. We'll discuss that in more detail in another installment.

Ruin (Part 2)

Last time we established that the assembly ("Church") is presented from two perspectives in Scripture. In one perspective, it is God's building: God places living stones in it, building it up into a holy temple. But in the other perspective, God has fellow-workmen. They build with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble. God's work cannot be less than perfect, but man's work can.

We might say that this is yet another "God is sovereign"; "man is responsible" paradox. If we look at the assembly only as God's work, then we see His sovereign hand in it, and we understand that the assembly is turning out exactly as He wants. On the other hand, if we only see man's responsibility in the assembly, then we understand that the Lord Jesus walks in the midst of the candlesticks, judging our work. And of course both are true. Just like God is sovereign in saving sinners, but sinners are still responsible for their choices, God is at work in the assembly, but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for how we build on that One Foundation.

What I want to demonstrate this time, is that Scripture teaches that apostasy set into the assembly even before the Apostles died. Next time we're going to attempt to show that the apostasy in the assembly is irreparable: there might be isolated and localized reformations and revivals, but Scripture shows that, the apostasy having begun, it generally gets worse and worse until judgment.

The epistles warn that apostasy had already set into the assembly when the Apostles were still alive. We could demonstrate this from 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 John, and Revelation 2–3. It would take a lot of time to look into all those passages, so let's consider Jude:

4 For certain men have got in unnoticed, they who of old were marked out beforehand to this sentence, ungodly persons, turning the grace of our God into dissoluteness, and denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. 5 But I would put you in remembrance, you who once knew all things, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed those who had not believed. 6 And angels who had not kept their own original state, but had abandoned their own dwelling, he keeps in eternal chains under gloomy darkness, to the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them, committing greedily fornication, in like manner with them, and going after other flesh, lie there as an example, undergoing the judgment of eternal fire. (Jude 4–7)

14 And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment against all; and to convict all the ungodly of them of all their works of ungodliness, which they have wrought ungodlily, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him (Jude 14–15)

There are two things we notice in Jude. First, there were "certain men" who'd already come into the assembly. They are apostates, and they're compared to three great apostasies in the Old Testament:

1. the unbelieving Israelites who were destroyed in the wilderness
2. the angels who fell, and are kept in "eternal chains" until judgment
3. the men of Sodom and Gomorrha, who are under the judgement of "eternal fire"

It's important to note Jude doesn't warn about apostates "out there", it warns against apostates who are in the assembly.

Second, the apostates are the object of God's judgment. It's interesting to note that the three Old Testament apostasies in Jude 4–7 are mentioned in connection with judgment. But the case is made more explicitly in vv. 14–15, where we're told that these men are the subject of Enoch's prophecy: the prophecy that the Lord is coming "to execute judgment" against them.

What is very interesting in Jude is that there's no word of these apostates repenting. I don't doubt that God saves the ungodly sinner who believes, regardless of whatever sin or wickedness he has done; but Jude doesn't present these "ungodly persons" as needing to repent, it presents them as reserved for judgment.

We might notice, too, that Jude is silent about removing these people from the assembly. It doesn't present this as a problem that can be fixed. The "solution" in Jude is

20 But *ye*, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life (Jude 20–21)

As far as Jude's concerned, the response of the faithful is to rest in God, "awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ".

We might look to the testimony of the Apostles as well. Let's consider Acts 20

28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. 29 For *I* know this, that there will come in amongst you after my departure grievous wolves, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I ceased not admonishing each one of you with tears. 32 And now I commit you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give to you an inheritance among all the sanctified. (Acts 20:28–32)

Here Paul is addressing the Ephesian elders at Miletus. And he warns them that "grievous wolves" will come in after he leaves (v. 29). But the interesting statement is in the next verse "from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them" (v. 30). So he warned them that apostasy would set in after he leaves, and that it would particularly come from among the overseers, in this case in Ephesus.

That might remind us of Diotrephes (3 John 9–10).

So the testimony of the Apostle Paul was the apostasy would arise "after [his] departure". But when we come to 3 John, we find that the apostasy has already begun, and there was a man who had gained some power over the assembly, so that he rejected Apostolic authority. But it wasn't only that he personally rejected Apostolic authority, he had "the brethren" put out of the assembly (v. 10).

We might consider Revelation 2–3 as well, but the testimony of Scripture is consistent on this point: apostasy had set into the assembly even in the time of the Apostles.

What did the Lord Jesus say about it? Did He predict the state of things would get better and better? Or did He predict that things would get worse and worse until He came to judge? Let's consider Matthew 13:

24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man sowing good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel amongst the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade shot up and produced fruit, then appeared the darnel also. 27 And the bondmen of the householder came up and said to him, Sir, hast thou not sown good seed in thy field? whence then has it darnel? 28 And he said to them, A man that is an enemy has done this. And the bondmen said to him, Wilt thou then that we should go and gather it up? 29 But he said, No; lest in gathering the darnel ye should root up the wheat with it. 30 Suffer both to grow together unto the harvest, and in time of the harvest I will say to the harvestmen, Gather first the darnel, and bind it into bundles to burn it; but the wheat bring together into my granary. (Matthew 13:24–30)

This is a most interesting parable, and I've heard it "expounded" in all sorts of interesting ways. But the Lord Himself interpreted it to the disciples later in the chapter:

36 Then, having dismissed the crowds, he went into the house; and his disciples came to him, saying, Expound to us the parable of the darnel of the field. 37 But he answering said, He that sows the good seed is the Son of man, 38 and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom, but the darnel are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who has sowed it is the devil; and the harvest is the completion of the age, and the harvestmen are angels. 40 As then the darnel is gathered and is burned in the fire, thus it shall be in the completion of the age. 41 The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all offences, and those that practise lawlessness; 42 and they shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that has ears, let him hear. (Matthew 13:36–43)

So the parable of the darnel of the field teaches us this: the Son of Man has sown good seed in the world. The devil as also sown seed, "while men slept". (Notice it wasn't the Son of Man who slept, it was "men" who slept.) When it became apparent that there is a mixture of darnel and wheat, the question was, should we pull up the darnel? No, the Son of Man says, wait until the harvest (the completion of the age).

What do we learn from the parable of the darnel of the field? We learn that there is an intermingling of true believers and false professors, and they are really, really hard to tell apart. But it's not the Lord's intention to sort it out until the "completion of the age," when He will cast the darnel into the "furnace of fire".

There is a significant difference between the parable of the darnel and the book of Jude. The Lord Jesus explicitly says that "the field is the world" in the parable of the darnel of the field. But Jude is written to warn of apostates who'd "crept in unawares". They weren't in the world, they were in the assembly.

So what have we demonstrated? Neither the Lord Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the Epistles looked to see things get better and better. In every case, the expectation is that we see things get worse and worse, until judgment. I don't doubt the Lord is working, and there will be local revivals, renewals, and reformations. But the whole arc of the narrative of the New Testament is that apostasy will increase until the Lord Jesus comes to execute judgment.

Ruin (Part 1)

I'm sitting at home sick, so I thought I'd update this blog. Recently someone asked me about "the Church in Ruin", and I found had trouble giving a concise answer. So I'm going to use this blog as a scratchpad to see if I can articulate this idea a bit.

The Ruin of the Church is the teaching that the Church has failed in its dispensational (governmental) responsibilities on the earth. As a result, it is irreparably "ruined" as far as dispensational responsibility is concerned. There is no repairing the damage, we are left merely waiting for judgment.

So I got it down to three sentences, but they're not very good sentences. And while that's not a terrible description, there's no way I'd expect anyone to agree without some reference to the Word of God. So let's look at the Scriptures and see what they say.

First we're going to look at the Old Testament, because there is a subtle, but important, principle brought out there. Three incidents stick out in my mind with respect Israel in the wilderness. The first is in Numbers 23:

18 Then he took up his parable and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear! hearken unto me, son of Zippor! 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither a son of man, that he should repent. Shall he say and not do? and shall he speak and not make it good? 20 Behold, I have received [mission] to bless; and he hath blessed, and I cannot reverse it. 21 He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen wrong in Israel; Jehovah his God is with him, and the shout of a king is in his midst. 22 God brought him out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a buffalo. 23 For there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel. At this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought! (Numbers 23:18–23)

The second is in Exodus 32:7–8:

7 Then Jehovah said to Moses, Away, go down! for thy people, which thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt, is acting corruptly. 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them: they have made themselves a molten calf, and have bowed down to it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, This is thy god, Israel, who has brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!

The last is a single verse, Deuteronomy 23:14:

14 For Jehovah thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; and thy camp shall be holy, that he see nothing unseemly with thee, and turn away from thee.

There are two different perspectives between the first passage and the second and third passages. In the first, the Lord says He doesn't see any iniquity in Israel. Which is a remarkable statement, given the entirety of the history of Israel's travel from Egypt to Canaan. There certainly was a great deal of iniquity in Israel! But the Lord looks down and sees not a bit of it.

In the second and third verses, the Lord definitely sees iniquity in Israel. In the passage in Exodus, He looks down from Sinai and tells Moses to leave Him, because of Israel's sin. The third passage is actually part of the commands about sanitation: they weren't to foul their camp, but they were to "turn aside" and keep the camp clean. But the remarkable statement is that the Lord would walk in the camp, and if He sees anything unseemly in it, He might turn away from them.

So which is it? Did God see iniquity in Jacob? Was that what the second and third passages say? Or perhaps He was just making empty threats when He looked down from Sinai, or when Moses commanded the people not to foul the camp? Well, both are true. God saw Israel from two different perspectives. When He looked down from Heaven and spoke to Balaam, He saw a perfect people. But when He walked through the camp, He saw their sin.

Now, perhaps we see something akin to Galatians 4 when we introduce Sinai vs. the "high places of Baal". Perhaps there is something there for us to learn about the Accuser. Perhaps we should point out that God saw their sins at Sinai, but there was an intercessor there to plead for them. And really, Moses stands as a type of our Advocate in this story. But we're not going to consider all the implications here. We're merely going to point out that there are two different perspectives from which God saw Israel.

When viewed from the perspective of God's eternal purposes, He saw no sin in Israel. But when He was walking in the camp, He saw everything that defiles.

Similarly, the Lord sees the Church in two different perspectives. There is the perspective of God's eternal purpose, but there is the perspective of man's responsibility. From the one perspective, Christ sees no sin in the Church. But from the other, He judges everything, and there is no hiding from His sight.

Those two perspectives are contrasted in 1 Peter 2 and 1 Corinthians 4.

4 To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, 5 yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4–5)

9 For we are God's fellow-workmen; ye are God's husbandry, God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which has been given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation, but another builds upon it. But let each see how he builds upon it. 11 For other foundation can no man lay besides that which [is] laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one build upon [this] foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, 13 the work of each shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare [it], because it is revealed in fire; and the fire shall try the work of each what it is. 14 If the work of any one which he has built upon [the foundation] shall abide, he shall receive a reward. 15 If the work of any one shall be consumed, he shall suffer loss, but *he* shall be saved, but so as through [the] fire. (1 Corinthians 3:9–15)

In 1 Peter, God Himself does the building, and He works with only one building material: "living stones" (v. 5). But in 1 Corinthians 3, although it's still God's building, it is now men who are working on it. These men need to take care how they build, because they can make mistakes; God can't. And while God works exclusively with "living stones", men have more options: gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw. Men build with six materials, God with only one.

Need I point out that the Lord Jesus, as both God and Man, builds the assembly as well? (Matthew 16:16–18). Need I mention that His work doesn't fail? Of course it doesn't!

But the point is that there are both perspectives in the New Testament, just like there were both in the Old Testament.

Now, Revelation 2–3 brings us to the end of one of those two perspectives. God's eternal, heavenly perspective doesn't come to a close. How God sees us now is how He'll see us through eternity. But there is a dispensational responsibility, which is connected to this earth. Here on this earth, we have a responsibility as the House of God. And 1 Peter 4 reminds us that the House of God is where judgment will begin (1 Peter 4:17). So Revelation 2–3 gives us a prophetic look into that judgment. And notice how it starts, the Lord Jesus is described as the One who "who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps" (Revelation 2:1) the previous verse tells us exactly what those lamps are: they are the seven assemblies in Asia (Revelation 1:20).

So we're right back to Deuteronomy 23 in a sense: when the Lord looks down from Heaven, He sees His eternal purpose, but when He walks in the camp, He sees every defiling thing.

When we look at what the Scripture says about the Church, we need to bear these two perspectives in mind. God's eternal purpose for us is nothing but blessing. But while we're here waiting for His Son to come and get us (Philippians 3:20–21, 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10), there is responsibility connected with this earth.

There's a lot more to say, but I think I'll save it for next time.

God's King

I want to spend some time considering God’s King. The Scripture spends a good deal of time discussing Christ as King, and I can’t help but think that indicates it’s worthwhile to spend some time meditating on it.

The first mention Scripture makes of a kingdom is Nimrod's in Genesis 10:8–10. It says that Nimrod's kingdom began in Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in Shinar.

8 And Cush begot Nimrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah; therefore it is said, As Nimrod, the mighty hunter before Jehovah! 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

The first person called "king" in Scripture is Amraphel the king of Shinar (Genesis 14:1). Whether we consider Nimrod the first king, or whether we consider Amraphel the first king, it's apparent that the Scriptural record of kingship begins in Shinar, or Babylon. This is significant, as it is from Babylon that the great Gentile kingdoms begin.

Jeremiah 27 contains the remarkable statement that God gave all the kingdoms of the earth to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (vv. 27:5–11). While there are many Gentile kings in Scripture that precede Nebuchadnezzar, this statement is remarkable insofar as it is the beginning of what we might call the Times of the Gentiles, when God Himself made the center of power on the earth to move from Jerusalem to the Gentiles.

Daniel 2 gives us a further view into this transfer: in it Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar the meaning of his dream,

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings, unto whom the God of the heavens hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; 38 and wheresoever the children of men, the beasts of the field, and the fowl of the heavens dwell, he hath given them into thy hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all: thou art this head of gold.

So Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that God had given him power over the whole earth, and he confers a title on Nebuchadnezzar, "King of Kings". This title is echoed in Ezekiel 26:7, also with respect to Nebuchadnezzar. Then in Ezra 7, Artaxerxes addresses a letter to Ezra and refers to himself as "King of Kings." So "King of Kings" is really a title of the Gentile kings, and it's conferred by God Himself upon Nebuchadnezzar.

Israel was God's chosen people (and will take that title up again some day), and they had their own kings. There is a remarkable statement in 1 Chronicles 5:1–2, which says that Rueben was Israel's firstborn, but the birthright was given to Joseph because of Rueben's sin. But the prince, we are told, is reckoned from Judah. We recall that Joseph's younger son was Ephraim, and Jacob blessed him as the elder (Genesis 48:13–20). So we see the Israelites leaving Egypt under Moses (a Levite), but they enter the Land under Joshua (an Ephraimite): Ephraim had the leadership among the tribes. When they entered the Land, the Tabernacle was set up first in Gilgal, then Shiloh---both in Ephraim.

But Psalm 78 tells us in some detail how what we might call the Ephraimite order of things fell, so that God "forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh... he rejected the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah" (vv. 60, 67–68). And so Judah took the lead among the tribes. And we've considered this in an earlier post ("The Tabernacle at Gibeon"): that the Ark of the Covenant was taken from the tabernacle in Shiloh under Eli's sons and captured by the Philistines, then returned to Israel at Kirjath-Jearim, in Judah; but the tabernacle, sans Ark ended up in Gibeon, in Benjamin.

The Israelite kings began with Saul, who was a Benjaminite. Saul's kingdom was taken away from him and given to David, from Judah. David's reign began the longest dynasty in the Old Testament record, continuing through his son Solomon and finally ending in Zedekiah.

But the prophets declare that God will once again set up a king in Jerusalem. Psalm 2 gives this probably the most clearly: the nations chafing under the reign of God's king, whom He will establish in Zion. And to this King God says, "ask of me and I will give thee the nations for an inheritance". That is, this King will be set up not only over Israel, but over the nations too.

The Scripture is consistent in its declaration that Jesus Christ is the Son of David. But David's line ended with Zedekiah's captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 25:1–7). Luke 3 gives us the solution to this apparent contradiction: Christ's lineage traces through David's son Nathan (rather than Solomon) to Mary. Joseph's line traces from David as well, but Joseph was descended from Jechoniah (Jehoiachin), and God had cursed Jehoiachin, saying no descendent of his would ever sit on the throne (Jeremiah 22:24--30). So Christ is indeed David's Son, but He is not of the royal line that traced through Solomon. That line has been explicitly ended by God, both in Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.

God has appointed Christ as King both as heir of the Gentile kings and as heir of David, the Jewish king. He is David's Son, and He will sit on David's throne, reigning from Zion (Psalm 2, Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32). But Revelation 19:16 introduces Him as the King of Kings, the title God gave to Nebuchadnezzar. So we might consider Christ to be both the heir of David and the heir of Nebuchadnezzar.

And really this is the whole point of the book of Daniel: the Most High rules in the kingdoms of men and gives them to whomsoever He wills. But Daniel tells us that there will come a day when the transitory nature of the kingdoms of men will end: both in chapter 2 and in chapter 7 he says that there will be another kingdom set up that will never end. I believe this kingdom is seen (prophetically) coming to fruition in the first few verses of Revelation 19, where heaven rejoices because God takes the kingdom. And what does John see? He sees the Word of God coming from Heaven, with the title "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" written on His robe and His thigh.

I really think this is the point of Christ's brief conversation with Nathanael in John 1:

49 Nathanael answered and said to him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. 51 And he says to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Henceforth ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man. John 1:49–51

Nathanael (correctly) understands Christ is the One described in Psalm 2: the Son of God who will reign in Israel. The Lord Jesus responds by asserting He's not only the Son of God who'll reign in Israel, He's the Son of Man who'll inherit the Gentile kingdoms as well. He is the heir both of David and Nebuchadnezzar: the Son of God as well as the Son of Man.

The Kingdom

About two-and-a-half years ago, I started reading The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva J. McClain (see "New Book"). A friend had recommended it, so I picked up a copy and started working on it.

I finished the book this morning. It is, without a doubt, one of the best books I've ever read. I whole-heartedly encourage you to buy a copy and read it. It's amazing.

Now, the fact that it took me more than two years to read is suggestive.  Some of that is because I was reading a lot of other things at the time. Some of it is that I tend to do everything inconsistently, especially reading: it's not at all uncommon for me to read several hundred pages of a book, then put it down for months or even years before picking it up again (I've got bookmarks in at least a half-dozen books at any given time). But in this case, I found the book bogged down significantly in the middle. It seemed to get a little dry, and it took months for me to work through it, sometimes no more than a page in a day. But once I got to around page 300, I found I had trouble putting it down.

I've been interested in the Biblical teaching about the Kingdom for many years. I spend a lot of time around Dispensationalists, who seem to fear the word "kingdom." But at some point I realized my reticence to study the Kingdom was not based on Scripture. The Scripture spends a good deal of time discussing the Kingdom, indeed the book of Acts ends with this description of Paul's ministry:

 30 ¶ And he remained two whole years in his own hired lodging, and received all who came to him,

 31 preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom unhinderedly. (Acts 28:30 & 31, JND)

So certainly the Apostle considered the Kingdom of some importance.

What I love about this book is, it studies the Kingdom from a dispensational perspective. While unapologetically premillenialist and dispensationalist, it's also a passionate and enthusiastic study into Christ as King.  McClain doesn't shy away from the place the Church has as part of the Kingdom: indeed, he almost exults in it.

McClain's book is a study of the Kingdom from Genesis to Revelation. It's written as a text-book, and it's very matter-of-fact. That's probably why I found the middle of it quite dry. But it's not a boring book: not by any means.

What I found most amazing in the book was McClain's study of the four Gospels in relation to the Kingdom. There's no doubt that the Kingdom was the main focus of the Lord Jesus' earthly ministry, and McClain expounds it brilliantly and clearly. His discussions of the Triumphal Entry and the Olivet Discourse are well worth the time, effort, and expense of getting a copy and reading it through.

I've now read three of McClain's books: The Greatness of the Kingdom, Law and Grace, and Daniel's Prophecy of the 70 Weeks.  The Greatness is by far the longest book I've read by McClain: Law and Grace is  a very short book, while Daniel's Prophecy is little more than a pamphlet. Nevertheless, I've become a real fan of McClain's. He does an excellent job of arguing simply and carefully from Scripture, without becoming too abstract or theoretical.

If you're going to read The Greatness of the Kingdom (and you should), I recommend you check out either his book on Daniel's 70 weeks, or even The Coming Prince by Sir Robert Anderson first.  An understanding of Daniel 9 will be helpful to McClain's treatment of the Lord's earthly ministry.

I made the comment quite some time ago that McClain is kind of like Darby, but a lot easier to read. I meant that as a compliment. But where Law and Grace is almost a précis of JND's teachings on the subject, and Daniel's Prophecy of the 70 Weeks is a sort of summation of The Coming Prince,  I haven't read anything that goes into this of depth on the Kingdom of God.  The book is a masterpiece, and everyone should read it.

Interesting...

I mentioned this at the Bible reading last night:

Matthew 11 makes a strange and powerful statement. The Lord Jesus is speaking, and He says:

23 And *thou*, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down even to hades. For if the works of power which have taken place in thee, had taken place in Sodom, it had remained until this day. 24 But I say to you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in judgment-day than for thee. (Matthew 11:23--24, JND)

Certainly the point the Lord Jesus was making is, His presence in Capernaum robbed them of any excuse before God. God had reached into the world in a way unknown even to Abraham, God's friend. And so even though the sin of Sodom was so great that God rained fire on it from Heaven, the sin of Capernaum was greater. They had rejected the Son of God.

There is a more subtle point: God knew exactly what it would take to drive the Sodomites to repentance, and He chose not to do it. This is worth consideration.

God is sovereign. It is because He is sovereign that He reaches out in love to us. It was an act of sovereignty to send His Son to die for our sins. God's sovereignty extends to His judging the world. He owes us absolutely nothing. God is perfectly within His rights to pour out love on wicked sinners. He is perfectly within His rights to pour wrath on them too.

God has declared that He will judge the earth by raising Christ from the dead (Acts 17:31). It is not our place to judge God, He judges us. We ought not to think that God owes us anything. We would do well to remember the God judged Sodom.

Kingly Titles

We had an open meeting yesterday, and one brother gave an address on the three groups of people in Scripture: Israel, Gentiles, and the Church (1 Corinthians 10:32). Another brother gave an very short little talk (really more of a homily) where he pointed out that all three failed equally in their responsibilities on the earth (Isaiah 5, Daniel 5, Revelation 3).

This got me to thinking.

Christ is shown to be King over all three groups in Scripture, but with a different title for each group. So Nathanael told the Lord Jesus, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." (John 1:49, NASB). The Lord Jesus responded, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (v. 51, NASB). Notice the Lord Jesus used a different title than Nathanael used: Nathanael talked about the Son of God, the Lord Jesus talked about the Son of Man. Both apparently were referring to the Old Testament: Nathanael seems to have been thinking about Psalm 2, the Lord Jesus was apparently referring to Daniel 7. There is, right away, a difference between these prophecies. Psalm 2 is the Son of God as King in Israel. He does rule over the nations, but He's the King in the Holy Hill of Zion. Daniel talks about the Son of Man descending from Heaven, receiving an everlasting kingdom. Daniel uses Gentile imagery and terminology to describe the rule of the final King: and here the Son of Man isn't really seen as the King of Israel, but as the King of the whole earth.

This is something I don't fully understand, but it's worth mentioning. The titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" both refer to Christ, but they carry subtly different meanings. The Lord Jesus uses the title Son of Man frequently in the Gospels, but He only uses it after He's rejected by the Jews. In John's Gospel He uses it in the first chapter, but in John's Gospel the Lord Jesus is rejected in the 11th verse, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him." (John 1:10 & 11, NASB).

Two prophets in the Old Testament use the title Son of Man, as well as several of the Messianic Psalms. The two prophets are Ezekiel and Daniel. Daniel refers to Christ as "Son of Man" in chapter 7, but he himself is addressed as "son of man" in ch. 8:17. Ezekiel is addressed as "son of man" something like 90 times. It is interesting to note that neither Daniel nor Ezekiel is referred to as "the Son of Man." That title is for Christ alone.

It is further interesting to note that of everyone in Scripture who has a vision of God, only Daniel and Ezekiel describe what they see. Isaiah (ch. 6) had a vision of God in the Temple, but describes only the throne He sits on and the angels around Him. Moses and the elders of Israel had a vision of God on Sinai (Exodus 25), but the description is merely what He was standing on. John's vision of "Him that sits on the throne" (Revelation 4) is a little more detailed, but not much. Ezekiel and Daniel both describe in detail what God looks like when they see Him. I can't help but think this is because they are "son of man". It is the Son of Man alone who can reveal God (John 1:18).

So the "Son of God" is the King of Israel, the "Son of Man" is the King of the nations. Where does that leave the Church? Well, Colossians 1 answers that question: "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Colossians 1:13). The Christian has been delivered from the "kingdom of darkness" into the "kingdom of the Son of His [God's] love." As far as the Church is concerned, the Lord Jesus is "beloved Son."

There is at least one contrast between this last kingly title and the two former. As "King of Israel", the Lord Jesus succeeds his father David (Luke 1:32). As "King of Kings", the Lord Jesus will succeed Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 26:7). God chose both David and Nebuchadnezzar and conferred those titles on them. But as the "beloved Son" Christ succeeds no one. The "kingdom of His beloved Son" is (as far as I can tell in Scripture) a totally new thing, beginning with Christ.

There is a whole subset of dispensationalists who object to the idea of Christ as King of the church. After all, they reason, if the Church is the Bride, then Christ is really much closer to her than a King to the kingdom. There is a shade of truth to that, but they miss the point. Sarah called Abraham "lord" (1 Peter 3:6). Bathsheba referred to David as both "lord" and "my lord the king" (1 Kings 1:15--21, 31). The idea that somehow the because we are the Bride He isn't our King is nonsense: it flies in the face of the clear testimony of Scripture. Colossians 1:13 ought to completely stamp it out, we've been transferred into "the kingdom of [God's] dear Son." 1 Timothy 6:14--16 is an even stronger statement: "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords".

The day is coming when the Lord Jesus will come and take control of the earth. I don't at all believe that's the next item on God's timeline: I believe He's coming to get the Bride first, then He'll come and take over. As a Christian I look forward to His transforming my vile body to be like His (Philippians 3:21). But there's a sense where the greater hope is to manifested with Him in glory (Colossians 3:4). Perhaps a higher and holier hope is for Him to be vindicated publicly as God's Man. And so we look for the day when He reigns as God's Son from Zion, and as Son of Man with the everlasting kingdom.

But day to day, we have the privilege of acting now like it's then and acknowledging Him "voluntarily". This, I believe, is what it means to be "translated into the kingdom of His dear Son."

Grace and Government

I've gotten several comments over the years about not losing sight of the whole principle of human responsibility when I talk about Divine sovereignty. That's a fair criticism in one sense, we are absolutely responsible in our behaviour down here, and we all will be manifest at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

On the other hand, I've been very aware that the Gospel is a message of pure grace. God, who justifies the ungodly, freely justifies all who believe from all things (Acts 13:38--39, Romans 4:5). Our Christian life begins and ends with God's sovereign grace. He acts toward us the way He wants to, with no consideration for what we earn. This is, after all, pretty much the definition of grace.

In my experience, there is a real fear of grace among Christians. It's almost like they're afraid that if we give the Gospel as Scripture gives it, people will see that as a license to sin. And I suppose that's true in some sense: Romans 6 begins with the question, if we really believe that grace over-abounds where sin abounds, why not just live in sin and get more grace? (Romans 6:1).

But if we don't teach the Gospel as Scripture teaches it, we're not doing anyone any favours. The danger that someone might see the Gospel as license to sin (and it's not really hypothetical: there are plenty of people who do just that) doesn't give us the right to fall short on giving God the glory for who He is. We're really casting aspersion on the Person and Work of Christ if we don't teach a complete, full, free, and abounding forgiveness of all our sins.

But Scripture goes on from the Gospel to teach a human responsibility as well. Yes, we can just go out and sin, but we shouldn't. Why not? Well, there are a few reasons:

• because we're dead to sin (Romans 6)
• because the one who sins becomes a slave to sin (Romans 6:15--18)
• because we weren't saved from sin just to dive back into it (Colossians 3:1--17, 1 Thessalonians 4:1--7)
• because we're to walk worthy of our high calling (Ephesians 4:1--3)
• because we're to represent Christ on earth (John 17:13--21)
• because we're called to come into God's presence as worshipers, and sin can't come in there with us (Hebrews 10:19--22)
• because we all must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in our bodies (2 Corinthians 5:9--11)
• because we are subject to the discipline of our Father (Hebrews 12:5--13), and the discipline of the assembly (1 Corinthians 5)

As much as we don't believe it, God's desire for us to walk free from sin is for our own good. Sin has a corrosive affect on us: it rots our souls. When we play fast and loose with sin, we're not escaping the consequence it has on us. When we sin, we become a slave to sin. Sin damages the one sinning as much as it damages the one(s) sinned against. But this is not always easy to believe: it seems pretty abstract.

But there's more than just the Father's desire for the best for His children: there is also the principle of God's government.

The whole issue of government is that God has created the heavens, the earth, and everything in them. He asserts His rights as Creator to be honoured in and by His creatures. And it's important to understand the God's government is quite a distinct thing from His saving sinners. I don't mean to say they're quite separate, but they're certainly not the same thing. God saves individual sinners, and has in all ages. He came and found Adam when he sinned, He saved Abel, and He is still saving sinners. And He's going to be saving sinners right up until the end.

And God only saves sinners on the principle of grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8--9). That's the plain teaching of Romans 4. Neither Abraham (without Law) nor David (under Law) were justified by works: they were both justified by faith (Romans 5:1). Sinners from Adam until the end are justified by faith on the principle of grace. This is the only saving principle: the principle of God's giving freely, looking for nothing to recommend us to Him. There is no other way a sinner could possibly be justified. If God were to act on any other principle, there would be no one justified, because we are all hopelessly lost. Only God acting in His own character and on the principle of what He is, with no regard to what we are, can possibly reach someone as lost as we all are.

But the other, parallel truth is that God will be vindicated in His creation. He will eventually have all creation bow to Him (Philippians 2:9--11; 1 Corinthians 15:20--28; Hebrews 2:5--9). So a day will come when there will be judgment, when God will judge the world through Christ Jesus (Acts 17:30--32).

When Paul preached judgment to the Athenians, he spoke in general terms of one day; but if we're to examine Scripture on the subject, we find that there are several judgments that are coming:

• the judgment of the dead at the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11--15)
• the judgment of believers at Christ's seat (2 Corinthians 5:9--11)
• the judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31--46)
• the judgment of the Church (Revelation 2--3)
• the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 18)

There are others, but these demonstrate that there is not a single Judgment Day coming. In fact, Scripture teaches that judgment will happen in several stages, as God brings His Son to the head of the Kingdom, and the Son subdues all things, then hands them over to God (1 Corinthians 15:24).

So when the Lord Jesus said that the one who doesn't believe will not come into judgment (John 5:24), we understand that He was talking about a specific judgment; because Scripture teaches that even "we" (that is, believers) will appear before Christ on His judgment seat. In fact, the Lord Jesus was specifically talking about the judgment of condemnation. There is no condemnation to the one who believes (Romans 8:1). But there is a judgment not to condemnation: this is the judgment of His servants. This isn't a criminal judgment, it's the assessment of the Christian life. As I understand it, there is no possibility of our sins coming up at that judgment, because Christ has taken them away. They're gone forever from God's sight. The one who believes is one to whom God does not at all reckon sin (Romans 4:6--8). If God does not at all reckon sin to me, then they certainly won't be brought up at Christ's judgment seat. But He will judge the life I've lived: there will be a judgment of the deeds done in the body. As someone else has said, it's very possible to have a saved soul and a lost life. It's possible to be justified once-for-all, with no fear of condemnation, but then to squander our life, having nothing to show for it when we are manifested before Christ.

So there is a sense where all will meet Christ in judgment. Those who believe will meet Him at the judgment seat of Christ, those who don't will meet Him in the second resurrection (Revelation 20:11--15).

Now, God's purpose is to see all men honour the Son (John 5:21--23), and then the Son will subject all things to God. The subjection of all to the Son is inevitable: either you can bow now, or you can bow then. If we don't bow now, when we have a choice; then we'll be made to bow then, when we won't.

But aside even from every creature bowing, there is the whole purpose of God in human government over the earth. It is not the God deals with men only as individuals, He also deals with groups. This is really the whole point of Revelation 18: God is judging not the individuals, but the system they set up. Similarly, there is a judgment of the Church in Revelation 2--3. This isn't the judgment seat of Christ, this is the judgment of the Church in her responsibility as the habitation of God on earth. It's not individual, it's corporate.

Where God has put His creatures in a place of responsibility, He will judge them with respect to that responsibility. This isn't a matter of eternal salvation only, but a matter of God's character. God is Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25), and He must be seen to be just. So He will come and require an account of His creatures in the responsibilities He has given them.

Notice, this is all quite aside from the consequences of our sins. In addition to the governmental issues of God, there is the very real fact that our actions (and words and thoughts) matter: they produce effects. If a true believer were to go out and murder someone, he or she is justified freely from it: God won't hold that sin against him or her. But the murder victim is still dead. Similarly, if a true believer were to go out and fornicate, he or she might end up with some gnarly disease. This isn't God's punishment for that sin, it's just the way the world works. God has created this world to be an orderly machine: when you push something it generally moves; when you drop something it falls. Our actions have consequences: those aren't God's judgment, they're just the rules of this creation.

Sadly, a lot of Christians have used the term "consequence" as a euphemism for "punishment", and that has led to some heretical and even blasphemous teachings. Consequences aren't imposed by God, they're just what happen as a result of our actions.

Now, in addition to consequences, there is God's discipline (Hebrews 12:5--13). We notice the Scripture doesn't teach that there is discipline for our sins: Christ has born the punishment for our sins, and God doesn't at all reckon sin to those He has justified. Discipline is what God does because of what we are, not what we have done. Consider Job: the Scripture insists that Job didn't sin (Job 1:22), even when Satan attacked him. It wasn't that Job was sinning, it was that Job was a sinner. So when God came and spoke to Job, Job began to understand who God is, " I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:5--6, JND). God's discipline on Job wasn't a result of Job sinning, it was a result of His desire to reveal Himself to Job, and a desire to reveal Job's own faults (not sins, faults) to himself.

It is a frequent misunderstanding that God disciplines us for a specific sin we've committed. That is really a denial of the Gospel. Discipline isn't about our sins but our sin. It's about God molding us, shaping us, and making us into what He wants us to be.

There's a whole lot more we could say about God's government in our lives, just like we could say more about His grace: I've already written a lot more than I'd intended. But when we consider God's ways with us, it's helpful not to conflate ideas that are really distinct. The principles on which God acts aren't always revealed the same way: there are different aspects to God's dealings. And the consequences of our confounding them can be much greater than we realize.

The Judge of all the earth does what's right. We ought not to lose sight of that as we bask in His grace. Indeed, it's because we recognize what He is, and what we are, that we understand something of His grace.