"Burnt Offerings to the LORD" -- Joshua 8:1-35

The Tenth in a Series of Sermons on the Book of Joshua

When Achan took silver, gold, and personal property from the ruins of the city of Jericho, his actions brought the entire nation of Israel under the covenant curse.  Because YHWH had devoted the city of Jericho for destruction, no Israelite was permitted to take anything from the city once it had fallen and its inhabitants put to death.  To do so was a sin against YHWH.  Therefore, Achan’s theft was also an act of treason against the nation and its people.  Israel was a theocracy–a holy nation unto the Lord.  This makes Achan’s sin a capital crime.  But when Achan was put to death by the citizens of Israel, and when all his possessions were destroyed–including those items he had taken from the ruins of Jericho–God’s anger was turned aside and the curse was lifted from the nation.  Israel would now be victorious over the city of Ai, which had inflicted a surprising and humiliating defeat upon Israel when Joshua attempted to take the city after Jericho fell.  After Ai is destroyed, all Israel will stop and renew their covenant with YHWH.

We are continuing our series on the Book of Joshua.  After the city of Jericho fallen, the way into the land of Canaan was wide open.  Joshua went ahead with plans to take the rest of Canaan, beginning with the capture of Ai, a small city a dozen miles or so from Jericho.  But to Joshua’s great surprise, the men of Ai thoroughly defeated the 3,000 soldiers Joshua sent, killing a number of Joshua’s men and chasing away the rest in a panic.  Not only was this an embarrassing defeat in its own right, but if news spread throughout Canaan that Israel’s soldiers fled in the face of stiff resistance, Israel would lose its greatest advantage–fear on the part of the Canaanites.  The fear which spread throughout Canaan at news of the fall of Jericho would give way to a new-found confidence that Israel could be defeated.  Paradoxically, the great confidence that the Israelites felt when Jericho fell, now became fear.  When news reached the people of Israel regarding the defeat at Ai, they were greatly dismayed, and it was the people of Israel who lost the will to fight.  The defeat at Ai was a national disaster.

When the Lord revealed to Joshua that it was Achan who took gold, silver and a Babylonian robe from the remains of Jericho–knowing full-well that the Lord had forbidden such a thing–Joshua learned why the defeat at Ai had come about.  Following the Lord’s instructions to the letter, Joshua led the people of Israel to the Valley of Achor where they carried out the sentence of death upon Achan and his entire family.  They burned all his property, including that which he had stolen, and heaped stones upon their remains, creating a huge pile which served as a lasting monument to Achan’s great sin and the severe penalty he paid for taking things devoted unto the Lord.  Once Achan had been put to death, the Lord’s anger toward Israel was turned away and God would once again ensure that Israel would be victorious and possess the land of Canaan.  This is what unfolds in Joshua chapter 8.

To read the rest of this sermon, click here

Academy Lecture Posted

The fifth lecture in my series "Amillennialism 101," has been posted.  The lecture is entitled "These Things Were Foretold" and deals with eschatology in the Old Testament.  It can be found here:  Click here: Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures)

Who Said That?

“I want to apologize to my wife for all she's had to go through.”

 Please leave your guesses in the comments section below.  No google searches!

Update on Friday, March 14, 2008 at 02:21PM by Kim Riddlebarger

This is Bishop Thomas Weeks III's apology to his soon to be ex-wife, televangalist Junita Bynum.   According to news reports, " Prosecutors alleged that Weeks beat Bynum - a prominent televangelist whose message of women's empowerment resonated with thousands of followers - in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel in August.  According to a police report, Bynum told officers that Weeks `choked her, pushed her down, kicked and stomped her ... until a bellman pulled him off of her.'  Weeks initially pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated assault and making terroristic threats. He pleaded guilty Tuesday to a single count of aggravated assault."

Easter Week Services @ Christ Reformed

Here's the schedule for Easter week services at Christ Reformed Church.   Click here: Christ Reformed Info - The Latest News - Holy Week Schedule

If you live in So Cal, you are cordially invited to join us for Easter week services -- Maundy Thursday (7:30 PM), Good Friday (7:30 PM) and Easter (10:30 AM).  Our focus this year is on Christ's three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king.

Some Interesting Links . . .

I don't think Barack Obama is necessarily responsible for the goofy (and probably racist) rants from his pastor, any more than members of Thomas Road Baptist Church were responsible for everything that Jerry Falwell said.  But I do think it interesting that a liberal mainline Protestant church leader can go on a rant in the pulpit,  take the Lord's name in vain while doing it, and virtually nobody mentions the shameless and public violation of the 3rd commandment.  Click here: Obama pastor: Not God bless, but God d--- America!

Speaking of feckless mainline Protestantism, ELCA can't decide what to do about homosexuality.  That, of course, comes as no surprise.  Apparently, neither side in this debate is willing to cause division in church.  I take this to mean that continuing peace and harmony in the institutional church is far more important than the principle they are debating--on either side.  Don't you just love it when church bureaucrats debate ethics!  Isn't interesting how they always make sure that these weighty decisions are framed in such a way as to keep those paychecks coming.  So, ELCA will keep "studying the matter" while the bureaucrats get paid, and the gay advocacy groups and conservatives continue to duke it out, yet remain in same the church.   Hmmm. . .  Click here: Evangelical Lutheran report on homosexuality attempts compromise (OneNewsNow.com)

Since mainline Protestantism is the tie that binds in these links, lets turn to ECUSA.  Those who support the openly-gay bishop Robinson, and current presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, have taken action to remove another bishop who dares to speak of homosexuality as a sin.   Amazing.   Click here: Episcopal leaders oust Bible-believing bishop (OneNewsNow.com)

Tonight's Academy Lecture

I am wrapping up the first part of my series "Amillennialism 101."   Tonight's lecture is entitled "These Things Were Foretold" and deals with eschatology in the Old Testament.  How did the prophets set forth the gospel in the Old Testament and how does that impact our understanding of eschatology from a Reformed amillennial perspective?

Our Academy lectures begin @ 7:30 p.m. and are free of charge.   They are followed by a time for discussion and refreshments are served.  Click here: Christ Reformed Info - Schedule of Academy Classes and Author's Forums

The Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Article Fifteen

Article 15: Reprobation

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision:

to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice.

And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
________________________________

If the biblical teaching about election is difficult for us to grasp, the biblical teaching about reprobation is that much more difficult.  Like it or not, we must face the fact that if God chooses to save some, and not all, of Adam’s fallen children, then God must also in some manner deal with those whom he has not chosen.  Although many try to avoid the subject at all costs, the fact of the matter is that we must wrestle with the biblical teaching about reprobation (cf. Romans 9:1-23).  This is a revealed doctrine every bit as much as is election.

It is good to begin by pointing out if sinful human curiosity is a problem when we talk about election, such speculation is a far greater problem when we come to the subject of reprobation.  Here, of all places, we must be very careful to teach only what Scripture teaches, and we must go no further.  

This limit is important for several very important and practical reasons.  For one thing, there are many in our midst who are weak in faith, or who, perhaps, are struggling with certain besetting sins.  Often times, such people, upon hearing any discussion of reprobation, will immediately wonder if, somehow, they are numbered among the reprobate.  They take their weak faith, or their struggle with sin, as a reason to assume the worst–they are not Christ’s and can do nothing to change that.  Sadly, such people are unduly robbed of the assurance of their salvation.  

A second group who must be cautioned, are those who are prone to speculation, and who, perhaps inadvertently, communicate to others that they take great delight in the fact that God has not chosen all, and that the reprobate will ultimately get what is coming to them in the end.  There are indeed people in our churches who seem to take some sort of smug satisfaction that they are numbered among the elect and others are not.  

But let us not forget that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11).  Although God’s justice and glory are manifest in the eternal punishment of those who have rebelled against him, and who willingly die in sin rather than confess “Jesus Christ is Lord,” the famous saying is indeed true–“there, but the grace of God go I.”  The biblical teaching about reprobation cannot be seen as a matter of pride on the part of the elect.  For apart from the grace of God, we too, would remain enslaved to sin and death.  The teaching of election and reprobation should absolutely humble us, because it removes from beneath our feet any and every ground for boasting.

What do we mean when we speak of reprobation?  Here it is important that we carefully define our terms.  There are three aspects to the biblical teaching about reprobation set forth in the Canons.  

First, as the Canons note, reprobation means that God does not chose all to receive eternal life, and these not chosen are left “in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves.”  This fact is important to grasp, because it means that God does not prevent those not chosen from believing.  This also means that God does not prevent people from coming to faith in Christ, who otherwise would do so.  The Canons have already established the fact that if left to themselves, all those fallen in Adam do not want to believe the gospel and come to faith in Christ.  When Jesus wept over Jerusalem, his lament was “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!  How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not” (Matthew 23:37).  God passes over the non-elect and he leaves them where they are—dead in sins and trespasses (cf. Ephesians 2:1).  He does not treat them unjustly.  In fact, all those not chosen get exactly that they deserve.  

The second aspect of this is that God does not “grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion.”  Again, by not choosing them, God is not preventing those already fallen in Adam from believing.  He is not robbing people of  something to which they would otherwise be entitled.  Rather, God wills not to incline their sinful hearts to believe the gospel.  He chooses not to effectively call them to faith when the gospel is preached to them.  God leaves them where they already are–in sin.  Such people will not believe because they remain sinful by nature and by choice.  They won’t come to Christ, because they do not want to come to Christ.  

Third, since such people are not chosen, nor are they inclined to believe, they are finally condemned.  God will “eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice.”  This point is vital to grasp because it means that those not chosen do indeed get what their actions deserve!  God does not treat them unjustly.  He does not show them mercy, nor in any sense is he obligated to do so–or else grace would not be grace (cf. Romans 4:16).

Finally, it should also be pointed out that this teaching in no way makes God the author of sin—which the Canons note would indeed be a blasphemous thought.  God is Holy.  In him there is no shadow of turning.  As James says (1:13-15), “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.  But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.  Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”  We must never even entertain the thought that God is the author of sin.  

And yet at the same time, we must clearly grasp the fact that God is the holy avenger of Sin.  The reprobate get is what is due them as a matter of divine justice.  The elect, on the other hand, do not get is due them, because God chose them in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ satisfied God’s holy justice on their behalf in suffering and dying for his elect upon Calvary’s cross.

Eschatology Q & A -- "What About Ephesians 2:11-22 and Dispensationalism?"

Robert Mosley (December 2006) asks:
    
I skimmed through your A Case For Amillennialism (reading most of it). It would seem to me that Ephesians 2:11-22 would be the clearest biblical answer to the dispensational claim of two plans of salvation.  But you make no reference (that I saw) to this passage.  Why?

_______________________________

Robert:

This should be a lesson to you not to skim my books!  I do indeed quote this passage on pages 120-121, and state that this passage (along with Galatians 3:28) “are clear challenges to the dispensational notion of two distinct peoples of God with separate redemptive economies" (A Case for Amillennialism, 120).  But your question gives me a chance to elaborate a bit more on this very important text, and the dispensational interpretation of it.

Dispensationalists obviously struggle with this critical Pauline passage because it so clearly states something completely different from the dispensational claim that although there is but one gospel, nevertheless, there are distinctive redemptive purposes for national Israel, as well as for the Gentiles.

It is helpful to see how various dispensational writers approach this passage.  Pentecost, for one, argues that this passage describes God’s purpose for the present age, but not for the millennial age.  Pentecost contends that this passage is indicative of God’s distinct program for his earthly people Israel, and for the church (J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, Zondervan, 1978, 528-529). 

John Walvoord sees the passage as referring to the “new program” for the church (which was a mystery in the Old Testament), in which a living union is formed so that Jew and Gentile are brought together so that all racial tensions are eliminated (Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies, Zondervan, 1991), 241-242. 

Charles Ryrie cites Ephesians 2:15 as proof that the church was a mystery in the Old Testament (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Moody, 1996), 125.  While Charles Dyer agrees with this, he gives the following caution.  “One must be careful in reading too much meaning into an analogy,” referring to Paul’s use for the phrase, “the new man.”  Dyer concludes, “the mere presence of an analogy does not automatically argue for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy” (Charles Dyer, “The Biblical Meaning of Fulfillment” in Issues in Dispensationlism, Moody, 1994, 60). 

Barry Horner contends that the Reformed interpretation of this passage--which he correctly acknowledges is to us a critical passage--completely eliminates any distinction between Jew and Gentile.  Horner sees this as a “fundamental error” because it supposedly obliterates any cultural distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, when the New Testament allows for such distinctions.  (cf. Barry Horner, Future Israel, B & H Academic, 2007, 269-275).

There are several things to say in response to the dispensational interpretation of this passage.  First, suppose, for the sake of argument, that this passage is indeed talking about God’s “new program” for the church age, and that Paul is describing what happens when God temporarily joins Jew and Gentile together in the church (his purpose in this present age).  But what happens when the Gentile church is raptured from the earth at the beginning of the seven-year tribulation period?  From that point on (according to dispensationalists), God’s redemptive purposes once again shift from salvation of the Gentiles, back to national Israel during both the tribulation and millennial age.  That which Christ came to do–make the two peoples one (Ephesians 2:11-22)–is now completely undone in the millennial age. 

If dispensationalists are correct, this means that redemptive history moves forward (from type and shadow to fulfillment and reality) until the tribulation.  Then, in one gigantic redemptive-historical U-turn, God's purposes now return to the same Old Testament types and shadows which existed before the coming of Christ, which pointed to him, and which he fulfilled!  This, of course, is not the case.

Second, as Charles Dyer points out, dispensationalists need to be clear that Paul is only using an analogy here, and that he is not speaking literally.  This is rather amusing, since dispensationalists often chide amillennarians about supposedly allegorizing clear passages and “spiritualizing" them.  Now, says Dyer, the heart of Ephesians 2:11-22 (v. 15) is a mere analogy about the "new man" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fulfillment of prophecy. 

Don’t you just love it when those (like Dyer) who claim to hold their view because they interpret the Bible “literally,” now fall all over themselves to deny the literal interpretation of a passage which largely serves to undo the entire dispensational hermeneutic.  Yes, Paul is using the new man analogy in verse 15 to explain to his readers the wonder of what has happened with the coming of Christ.  Gentiles, who were separated from Christ and aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, who were strangers to the covenants of promise, who were without hope, and without God in the world (vv. 12-13), have now been brought near by the blood of Christ (v. 13)!  Wasn't all of this prophesied in the Old Testament, and fulfilled by Christ during his messianic mission?  What I am missing?

More than that, God took these two different groups and made them one, making Jew and Gentile alike fellow citizens of the same spiritual house (the church--vv. 19-22).  This is why Paul can speak of the barrier wall, which separated the outer court of the Gentiles from the inner court in the Jerusalem temple, as being "torn  down" (v. 14).  This happened, in a theological sense, when Christ fulfilled the Mosaic economy (rendering it obsolete--cf. Hebrews 8:13), and united both Jew and Gentile into one "new man" (v. 15-18).  The ground of God's hostility toward us (our sin), as well as our hostility toward each other (Jewish exclusiveness and Gentile godlessness) have forever been removed.  That which was hidden in type and shadow in the Old Testament has been fulfilled, and now fully brought into the open through Christ's redemptive work.

Third, Horner completely misses the point Reformed amillennarians are making about this passage when we speak of God's purpose in Christ as making the two peoples (Jew and Gentile) one in Christ.  When God brings Jews and Gentiles together in the church, he never insists that Jews stop living as Jews (culturally or ethnically).  Rather, the apostles repeatedly warn Jewish Christians (cf. Galatians 1-3; Acts 15) that it is a condemnable error to insist that Gentile converts to Christianity live as Jews (and accept ritual circumcision, keep the dietary laws, and feast days) in order to be justified.  Paul's point is that God takes ethnic Jews (with all of their history and culture--indeed Paul himself lived as a Jew, although he was willing to become all things to all men) and then joins them together with Gentiles (of every race and tongue) into one church, the temple of the living God.  

In fact, God’s joining of Jew and Gentile together into one new man takes place on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work (v. 16), not because Jews give up their cultural identity.  Don't forget that it was the same Apostle Paul who tells us in Galatians 3:26-29, “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise?”

If Horner’s take on the Reformed hermeneutical principle is correct--that the joining of these two different peoples into one church requires us to deny any diversity whatsoever--then we as Reformed Christians would certainly argue that once we become Christians, men and women are to become androgynous, because the joining of male and female into one body (the church) obliterates all diversity.  There's a reason why we don't argue that way in Galatians 3:28.  There's a reason why we don't mean such a thing in Ephesians 2:11-12.  Surely, Dr. Horner ought to rethink that charge. 

Furthermore, as someone who is not Dutch (I'm a German) and yet who serves as a minister in a largely Dutch Reformed denomination, I can tell you that people of various cultures and ethnic backgrounds, get along just fine in the church, even if the ethnic and cultural differences remain.  Throw in several Asian cultures, some hispanics, and add a few Filipinos to the mix, and that's just part of what you'll find in our church.  What unites us is a common faith, not a common culture.  That is what was to unite the Ephesians as well.

In this passage, I take Paul to be making the following point.  Through the redemptive work of Christ (vv. 13, 16), God has brought Gentiles (formerly aliens and strangers, vv. 12-13) into God’s house (the church, vv. 19-22), along with those Jews who likewise embrace Christ through faith (vv. 14-19).  This was God's purpose from the beginning.  Indeed the church is God’s holy temple, indwelt by Christ's blessed Spirit.  This is not a temporary situation.  Rather, this points us in the direction of the final consummation, because that same indwelling Spirit guarantees the resurrection of our bodies (Ephesians 1:13-14), so that we dwell upon a new heaven and earth, the home of righteousness.

To insist, as dispensationalists do, that this glorious temple which Jesus is currently building is somehow torn apart when Christ returns to remove the Gentile church (which includes Jewish believers) and set up his millennial reign upon the earth, misses the whole point of Ephesians 2:11-22.  To argue that the point of this passage is but a mere analogy with no reference to fulfilled prophecy also misses (rather badly at that) Paul's point.  And to argue that the Reformed interpretation somehow requires a complete obliteration of the distinction between Jews (ethnically/culturally) simply cannot be sustained.

It is hard for me to see how this passage is anything but a serious challenge to the dispensational reading of Scripture. 

The Mystery of Gilligan's Island Solved?

I never was much of a fan of Gilligan's Island.  Even as a kid, I thought the premise for the show was pretty lame.  It did have a catchy theme song, however.

All the survivors did was sit around and eat.  They never worked on their boat--well, not very hard.  In fact, they didn't even seem much interested in getting off the island.  They were always kind of just hanging around . . . like a lot of the kids I went to high school with.

The professor always had weird ideas about what he could make from coconuts.  The Howell's seemed like they had a few too many gin and tonics--although there was no booze on the island.  Something was amiss. And then there was that weird shrub that looked vaguely familiar.  

But now it all makes sense . . .  It wasn't just Bob Denver.   Click here: FOXNews.com - Mary Ann of 'Gilligan's Island' Caught With Marijuana in Car - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News.  The years have not been kind to Mary Ann. 

"Thanks Be to God" -- Romans 7:14-25

The Eighteenth in a Series of Sermons on Paul's Epistle to the Romans

According to the Apostle Paul, the normal Christian life entails an intense struggle with sin.  Although there are times of great progress in the Christian life, these momentary victories serve to point us to that glorious day when we will completely triumph over sin.  But until that day comes–at the time of our death or the Lord’s return, which ever comes first–every Christian must certainly empathize with Paul when he laments that even though he delights in the law of God, he still does the very thing he knows is wrong.  Even though he has been set free from sin, death and the condemnation of the law, Paul knows himself to be a wretched man, sold as a slave to sin. 

Beginning in Romans 5:12-21, Paul contrasts what we are “in Christ” with what we were “in Adam.”  Thus all believers have been transferred from the dominion or realm of Adam to the dominion or realm of Christ.  But even though this transfer is a reality for all Christians (not just those who supposedly live victorious Christian lives), in Romans 7:14-25 Paul tells us that because we remain in “the flesh,” we will struggle with habitual (or indwelling) sin until we die.  Having been set free by Christ from those things that once enslaved us in Adam, the struggle that each one of us now faces is to act like the free men and women that we are.  We must stop acting like the slaves to sin we once were.  This is the essence of the struggle with sin described by Paul in Romans 7:14-25.  And this struggle is one important characteristic of the normal Christian life.

As you may recall, last time we tackled the critical question to be faced by all those who encounter this passage.  Is Paul talking about his own experience in these verses, or is he describing a hypothetical Jew struggling with the conviction of sin brought about by the law, which provides no relief from sin’s guilt and power?  If Paul is indeed talking about his own experience, then the question is whether or not Paul is describing that time before his conversion (as he did in Romans 7:7-13), or his present struggle with sin, even though he be an apostle.  Since we discussed this in some detail last time, let me simply state here that in my estimation, the evidence is overwhelming that Paul is speaking of his present experience as an apostle, and that the struggle with sin depicted in this passage is that of the normal Christian life.

Having addressed the critical interpretive question regarding this identity of the “wretched man” last time, we now turn our attention to the details of this passage and we will also address some of the ramifications of the inevitable struggle with indwelling sin.

To read the rest of this sermon, click here