FLEE FROM IDOLATRY

Genesis 1:27:  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 9:6:  "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

Exodus 20:4:  "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

Isaiah 46:5:  "To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?”

Romans 1:22-23:  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

It may fairly be said that, before the fall, man – that is, Adam – was an ideal finite representation of God, for God pronounced man “very good” in that state (Genesis 1:31 – it is to be noted, however, that it was the entirety of His creation which received this commendation from God, not just man).

After the fall, we are told of the state of man, both pre-flood, and post-flood (Genesis 6:5; Genesis 8:21). Despite various men being pronounced good, righteous, perfect in all their ways, etc., throughout the rest of the divine Writ, we are assured that this goodness in no manner derives from or depends upon their own merit, for our Lord stated such in no uncertain terms (Romans 3:9-18 as a synthesis of Romans 1-3, notwithstanding those who receive grace to eternal life by the free gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord).

By notwithstanding, we do not mean that there is any goodness in those saved sinners, called saints, that does not derive from our Lord Jesus Christ, and we trust, such is shown plainly and completely in the apostolic statement in Romans 3:9-18, for when the apostle says in v.9, by the Spirit of God,  “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,” it is to show that vs. 10-18 apply to all mankind, as the division of the first three chapters is considered to be inclusive of first, the Gentiles, secondly, the Jews, and so representative of all of mankind, for that was the common manner in which the apostle, moved by God’s Spirit, recorded the words in His epistles, though he would elaborate on this point in other contexts (regarding the redeemed and the unredeemed). The point is, the Imago Dei, though not to be thought ill of or trifled with, as stated of man after the fall in Genesis 9:6, is no longer a proper representation of God, marred as it was by the fall, and so, in no fashion whatsoever are we to think of it as the perfect finite representation of God which is was pre-fall.

Nevertheless, we have those who, today, in their theology, seek to use various anthropomorphisms of the human heart and mind as analogous to the divine heart, and, we submit, this is none other than comparing God to man; worse, it takes the form of imaginations – thoughts which are not founded in substance – not even the substance of faith (or, rather, especially not in the substance of faith) – but in the ether of comparing God to man, a formless void of idolatry which only exists in the hearts (speaking of the thoughts, affections and will) of men. This is, as the apostle speaks to quite plainly, becoming futile in their thinking, for it is an empty thing to compare God to the marred creature, even if that marred creature happens to have been gifted with the righteousness and goodness of God in Jesus Christ in finite form by the new birth. The flesh is still marred terribly, until such a time as God perfects that which He alone began in us (Philippians 1:6), for we know that such goodness and righteousness derives only from the only One who is good (Mark 10:18; Philippians 3:9).

To go beyond the Second Commandment – that is, to form idols which purport to accurately represent the infinitely holy God – is to go too far, and this has taken the place of expounding upon that which God has revealed to us by the use of not only anthropomorphisms, but also by the use of finite philosophical terminologies posing as theology.

This is not to say that there is not a valid use of either anthropomorphisms or philosophy in discussions of man, God, and reality, for indeed there is; however, we must be careful not to go beyond that knowledge that God has allotted to us when doing so (Deuteronomy 29:29; Romans 11:33-36).

It is a sad but truthful statement that there are those teachers, among the churches which comprise the universal church of our Lord Jesus Christ, who actually do seek to state more than what is given us in Scripture. They use analogies that go beyond the analogy of the faith, and as a consequence, idols are carved into the vain imaginings of some of God’s people, we dare say.

Our God declares “To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?” and these men, well-intentioned as they may be reply, “Well, by way of analogy, I will compare You to Your creatures.”

This simply will not do – citing uses of the anthropomorphisms in Scripture is no excuse for erecting such idols of analogy, for our God uses such limited linguistic comparisons to Himself simply because of the weakness of our flesh (Romans 6:19). Such analogies go beyond Scripture, regardless of how they try to use the language of man’s philosophies and logical constructs, for the fact is that they are using an analogy of themselves, or man, as that upon which to base the inmost workings of God; to enter into the secret things that are the Lord’s, those inscrutable things which do not belong to us, and this is the very essence of idolatry. Whether one builds up a false image from clay, wood, metal, or in the mind, idolatry remains the same.

The overarching theme of God’s attributes, as related to us in Scripture, consistently runs with the theme I AM your God; I AM holy; even thrice Holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). While we are said to be partakers of the divine nature and to have the mind of Christ (2 Peter 1:4; 1 Corinthians 2:16), this in no way is stating that we are to infer what God is like from the remaining likeness of the Imago Dei in even those He has redeemed, despite themselves; quite the opposite is true. We gain whatever intrinsic value we now have, which will show extrinsically, from our standing in our Lord, and from that alone (Colossians 3:3-17; Ephesians 2:10; Galatians 2:20). Our behaviors, while still in this house of sinful flesh, are to mirror those behaviors that reflect and emanate the perfection and holiness that God infinitely is, thus, we are directed to look to those things above where our infinitely perfect Savior and Lord sits enthroned; yet in being told to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect and to be holy, for I am holy (Matthew 5:48; 1 Peter 1:16), it is always realized that we are the created creatures who, at this time, still must deal with the sin that remains in our flesh (1 John 1:8-10), and thus, acknowledge the great bridge that exists between the effectual witness of God’s infinite perfections from and through us (which is only possible by His Spirit indwelling us – Romans 8:13-17), and the actuality of He who is that infinite perfection.

Now, the point of mentioning God’s holiness is to state His transcendence; his otherness, His absolute and infinite perfection in all of His attributes. If we are to isolate any of His attributes alone, and say there is God, we are at an utter failure; if, however, we are to comprehend any and all of His attributes rightly, it must be within that infinite, as-far-as-the-east-is-from-the-west, as-far-as-the-heavens-are-above-the-earth, rainbow of His holiness. If we take any one – any one at all – of His other attributes and seek to elevate them beyond the comprehension of them within the context of His holiness, right there, at that very point, we fail to comprehend both that attribute of God, as well as all the other attributes of God – we make Him less than transcendent – we commit an idolatry of the imagination, for we strip His holiness down by just that much.

Though this has gone on through the church throughout the ages of its history, we hope we are not those who continue to promulgate such idols of the imagination, while at the same time, we must ask forgiveness, knowing that we have failed in this sense, for such is the nature of grace: it reminds us of who we are, and presents God in His immeasurable, glorious otherness, that holiness we must seek (and we trust we are seeking it) to know that He will present us spotless before Himself without blame, keeping us from the final stumbling of those who have not found their own resources devoid of anything regarding salvation or holy living, and so throwing our trust entirely upon the only good God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Hebrews 12:14; Matthew 5:3; Jude 1:24-25).

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. (Romans 16:25-27).

To God ALONE be the glory. – Bill

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones (Man's Sinful Condition)

There is a tendency to regard man’s essential trouble as being a sickness. I do not mean physical sickness only. That comes in; but I mean a kind of mental and moral and spiritual sickness. It is not that; that is not man’s real need, not his real trouble! I would say the same about his misery and his unhappiness, and also about his being a victim of circumstances.

These are the things that are given prominence today. There are so many people trying to diagnose the human situation; and they come to the conclusion that man is sick, man is unhappy, man is the victim of circumstances. They believe therefore that his primary need is to have these things dealt with, that he must be delivered from them. But I suggest that that is too superficial a diagnosis of the condition of man, and that man’s real trouble is that he is a rebel against God and consequently under the wrath of God.

Now this is the biblical statement concerning him, this is the biblical view of man as he is by nature. He is ‘dead in trespasses and sins’, that means, spiritually dead. He is dead to the life of God, to the spiritual realm and to all the beneficent influences of that realm upon him. We are also told that he is ‘blind’. ‘If our gospel be hid,’ says Paul in 2 Corinthians 4: 3– 4, ‘it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not’. Or as Paul puts it again in Ephesians 4: 17ff., man’s trouble is that ‘his understanding is darkened, because he is alienated from the life of God through the sin that is in him.’ Another very common biblical term to describe this condition of man is the term ‘darkness’. You have it in John 3: 19: ‘This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.’ And in the First Epistle of John you find the same idea worked out. Writing to Christians he says that ‘the darkness is past and the true light now shineth.’ The Apostle Paul uses the same idea exactly in Ephesians 5. He says, ‘Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord.’ These are the terms that express the biblical diagnosis of man’s essential trouble. In other words we can sum it up in one word by saying that it is ignorance. All the terms such as ‘blindness’ and ‘darkness’ are indicative of ignorance. And according to this biblical view of man all these other things, such as unhappiness and misery, even physical illness, and all the other things which torment and trouble us so much are the results and the consequences of original sin and the Fall of Adam. They are not the main problem, they are consequences, or symptoms if you like, and manifestations of this primary, this ultimate disease.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn (2012-01-17). Preaching and Preachers (Kindle Locations 496-517). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Calvin's Complaint Of Luther (To Melanchthon)

CXXXVI.—TO MELANCHTHON

He complains of Luther’s tyranny, and affectionately exhorts Melanchthon to manifest greater decision and firmness.

28th June 1545.

Would that the fellow-feeling which enables me to condole with you, and to sympathize in your heaviness, might also impart the power in some degree, at least, to lighten your sorrow. If the matter stands as the Zurichers say it does, then they have just occasion for their writing. Your Pericles allows himself to be carried beyond all due bounds with his love of thunder, especially seeing that his own case is by no means the better of the two. We all of us do acknowledge that we are much indebted to him. Neither shall I submit myself unwillingly, but be quite content, that be may bear the chief sway, provided that he can manage to conduct himself with moderation. Howbeit, in the Church we must always be upon our guard, lest we pay too great a deference to men. For it is all over with her, when a single individual, be he whosoever you please, has more authority than all the rest, especially where this very person does not scruple to try how far he may go. Where there exists so much division and separation as we now see, it is indeed no easy matter to still the troubled waters and bring about composure. But were we all of that mind we ought to be, some remedy might, perhaps, be discovered; most certainly we convey a mean example to posterity, while we rather prefer, of our own accord, entirely to throw away our liberty, than to irritate a single individual by the slightest offence. But, you will say, his disposition is vehement, and his impetuosity is ungovernable;—as if that very vehemence did not break forth with all the greater violence when all shew themselves alike indulgent to him, and allow him to have his way, unquestioned. If this specimen of overbearing tyranny has sprung forth already as the early blossom in the springtide of a reviving Church, what must we expect in a short time, when affairs have fallen into a far worse condition? Let us therefore bewail the calamity of the Church, and not devour our grief in silence, but venture boldly to groan for freedom. Consider, besides, whether the Lord may not have permitted you to be reduced to these straits in order that you may be brought to a yet fuller confession upon this very article. It is indeed most true, as I acknowledge it to be, that which you teach, and also that hitherto, by a kindly method of instruction, you have studiously endeavoured to recall the minds of men from strife and contention. I applaud your prudence and moderation. While, however, you dread, as you would some hidden rock, to meddle with this question from the fear of giving offence, you are leaving in perplexity and suspense very many persons who require from you somewhat of a more certain sound, on which they can repose; and besides, as I remember I have sometimes said to you, it is not over-creditable to us, that we refuse to sign, even with ink, that very doctrine which many saints have not hesitated to leave witnessed with their blood. Perhaps, therefore, it is now the will of God thus to open up the way for a full and satisfactory declaration of your own mind, that those who look up to your authority may not be brought to a stand, and kept in a state of perpetual doubt and hesitation. These, as you are aware, amount to a very great number of persons. Nor do I mention this so much for the purpose of arousing you to freedom of action, as for the sake of comforting you; for indeed, unless I could entertain the hope, that out of this vexatious collision some benefit shall have arisen, I would be utterly worn out by far deeper distress. Howbeit, let us wait patiently for a peaceable conclusion, such as it shall please the Lord to vouchsafe. In the meanwhile, let us run the race set before us with deliberate courage. I return you very many thanks for your reply, and at the same time, for the extraordinary kindness which Claude assures me had been shewn to him by you. I can form a conjecture what you would have been to myself, from your having given so kind and courteous a reception to my friend. I do not cease, however, to offer my chief thanks to God, who hath vouchsafed us that agreement in opinion upon the whole of that question about which we had both been examined; for although there is a slight difference in certain particulars, we are, notwithstanding, very well agreed upon the general question itself.

[Calvin’s Lat. Corresp.—Opera, tom. ix. p. 33.]*

*Bonnet, J. (2009). Vol. 1: Letters of John Calvin, Vol. I-IV (466–468). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Missions: Meaning and Practice

There is a fact that is tacitly recognized regarding Christian evangelism: It has often come to be spoken of in various terminologies; the most prevalent (that this writer is aware of), from the time of the Protestant Reformation, has been conceived of, organized and communicated as “Missions”.

Not only lately, but at various times in the many-storied history of the church, such terminology has been said to wrongly interpret the focus of evangelism; however, we contend that such is not only wrong, but places an undue emphasis upon “quarrel(ing) about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers” (2 Timothy 2:14).

To expand upon that mentioned immediately above, it should be noted that the word mission merely means certain things, in the secular sense, such as found on Dictionary.com (and we could expand this from other dictionary sources, but find such to be superfluous):

mis·sion  [mish-uhn] noun

Also called foreign mission ( for defs. 3, 6 ) .

1. A group or committee of persons sent to a foreign country to conduct negotiations, establish relations, provide scientific and technical assistance, or the like.

2. The business with which such a group is charged.

3. A permanent diplomatic establishment abroad; embassy; legation.

4. Military . an operational task, usually assigned by a higher headquarters: a mission to bomb the bridge.

(Definitions 5 and 6 were not relevant to the topic at hand, therefore, we did not include them.)

Obviously, we, as the covenant people of God, are involved in establishing relation, by the Holy Spirit and His Word, with those who do not know God, and that is not only our business, but it is the prime focus of every local community of the covenant people of God, as set forth in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Peter 3:15, etc. Such is not mere business, however, for it is the greatest matter which any who live have to consider, regarding their Creator, our Lord and Savior, who Himself gave us our marching orders, to tie into the military metaphor. It is a permanent establishment abroad, in the sense that, even in our own localities, we are in the world, but not of the world (John 15:19; John 17:6; John 17:14-17; 1 Corinthians 5:10; 1 John 3:1); we are diplomats of the Lord Jesus Christ, not that we seek to persuade others of His grace by underhanded and devious methods, as with the secular sense of that term, but that we are indeed ambassadors of God’s great grace in salvation through repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and in that, we speak of trusting in Him alone for that salvation which only He can sovereignly grant and hold all who place their trust in Him regarding (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).

Therefore, rather than niggling over such a terminology which incorporates words used to define the substance and focus of evangelism, it is better that we define those terms according to the Biblical record, which brings up another issue (perhaps, a series of issues): Since we spoke of the fact that we are in the world but not of the world, it follows – as we also stated – that the mission field is, first of all, in our own backyard, as it were – what has (at least in recent times) been indentified as domestic missions – that is, the concentration of sharing the message of the free grace of the sovereign God for salvation in Jesus Christ from the penalty and power of those sins confessed and repented of through faith in His name (Romans 3:19-26; Romans 6:23; Romans 10:9-13) – with those, first of all, in our families, among those we were formerly friends with in the lifestyle of the world, our immediate neighbors, extending outward to our communities.

The issue is that such has been so sadly neglected by many local churches who call themselves by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; again, the issue (or an additional issue) might be further stated that the message of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ has been so grossly misrepresented in modern evangelicalism (which is a term coined to speak of the very misrepresentations of the gospel it holds, and that, by its proponents), that it is not missions, in the Biblical sense of evangelism, at all, but rather, much like the secular counterparts in the dictionary definitions we looked at, promotes and emphasizes the well-being and centrality of man rather than that condition of sin which the Fall placed man into, and his reliance, or trust, needing to be unequivocally placed into the merciful hands of his omnipotent, omniscient, good and holy Creator, because, in his fallen state, man has not the resources to save himself by any means, as the Scriptures cited show clearly.

The centrality of man in sharing various perversions of the gospel is shown in the mixing of the pure, unadulterated wine of God’s truth with the tainted water of man’s desires, thus demoting God to either just one of His attributes, or an unholy mixture of a few of His attributes, making Him the servitor to His creatures, begging them on bended knee to please accept Him, because He would appreciate it oh so much!

Obviously, this is not the God of the Bible, who must be considered in the harmonious union of all His attributes, which are always summed up in the fact that He is wholly transcendent and sovereign (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8), yet intersected the creation He made to give salvation by means of His Son’s sacrifice for the sins of all who will place their trusting faith in His power and provision to save alone, for only such salvation as this, which is the only salvation mentioned in the Bible, truly saves eternally (Matthew 1:21; John 6:40; John 10:7-18; John 10:22-29; 2 Timothy 1:8-10; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 7:25).

Now, the reason we say perhaps issues is because, firstly, the focus was shifted away from domestic evangelism to foreign evangelism, and secondly, as the focus was taken off God’s sovereign gift of grace in Christ Jesus in domestic missions, so it has been taken off the same in foreign missions; thirdly, there has been an emphasis to alleviate the burdens of mankind on social and economic fronts, while downplaying their need of salvation from their sin, which spawned the social gospel of the 19^th Century that continues to spread its poisonous seeds throughout the world to this day, both in our own localities and among the nations; fourthly, these things are done on a short-term basis which does not even meet these temporal needs of mankind in any meaningful relief, while robbing them of the free grace of God’s salvation in Christ Jesus, His Son, and affirming them in their standing of being able to save themselves, if they simply have the proper tools and materials for bettering their social and economic conditions.

Consequently, what passes as Christianity among the peoples of the world – both locally and in foreign lands – is a gospel that is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-11). The gospel which we are to spread to the world, in our own families, among our friends, and among the nations, is not man’s gospel, but God’s, and it is only God’s gospel which saves, for God’s gospel is the only one that is the power of salvation to all peoples of all ethnic groups throughout the world (Romans 1:16).

The further problem of the perverting of God’s gospel – or an additional issue – is that, with the focus on what man desires, instead of speaking of reconciling him to God through trust in God alone for forgiveness of his sins and eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, the spotlight is taken off the gospel vehicle, which is His church. Evangelism that is no evangelism at all has been fostered by telling people to speak of God’s love without God’s wrath, to the neglect of His holiness and the diminishing of that glory which speaks of all that is good being in Him and coming from Him. Sin is reduced to having one’s material and emotional needs met, instead of being seen as the universal problem of being out of union with God, and to the almost complete neglect of the manner in which He has remedied that problem through the death and resurrection of His Son.

Others have written of the expectations of those peoples in foreign countries who have been recipients of this (and other) type of watered down and perverted gospel – many times, they set their agenda to take advantage of the material needs being met by promoting some that are not even real (not that there are not real material needs to be met), marketing that which will most greatly appeal to the so-called missionary groups sent to help with housing, food, water, and finances by showing a lack in these areas which is only apparent at the time the missionary groups (or rather, the facade of what a true missionary group would be) are scheduled to be in their areas. So far has the meaning and focus of what Christian missions truly is (evangelism of the lost by the proclamation of God’s gospel), that many of these so-called missions groups/organizations are bamboozled into serving material needs that only exist when they visit, and in many cases, the results of what they give and do are used by certain groups to the exclusion and detriment of those who truly do need help, and all this goes on without the proclamation of God’s gospel of free grace in Jesus Christ.

Yet, God still has His true evangelists working, preaching the gospel, and they are those who experience the hatred of the world (for the world will not hate that which caters to its needs, but to those who conform to God’s will in Christ Jesus by His Holy Spirit without perverting the truth of His Word – 2 Corinthians 4:1-2). These are true missionaries, as has ever been the case, and their work is carried out in the context of being of the covenant people of God, in association with Bible believing, New Testament churches which do not compromise the gospel of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ – therefore, as spoken throughout the Scriptures – some of which we have cited in this article – they are hated by those who hate God; yet, in His sovereign grace and mercy, just as with all men, some of those who hate Him will be saved (Romans 5:8).

To think that true missions can be carried out without the support of one or more of the local assemblies of God’s covenant people is only something one holds by having bought into the gospel of man, for God’s gospel always stresses His covenant community, and those who truly do missions (whether foreign or domestic) do so within that fellowship in the light which is true union with God and one another (1 John 1:5-7). If we look upon any evangelism undertaken in the New Testament, we see it is a joint effort of the local covenant communities comprising the universal church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that all successful efforts throughout the history of the church have been in such spiritual associations – some more, some less, but always, to some degree, there – with the accompanying material needs of the missionaries being met by these covenant communities of God’s people, the church of the Living God, Jesus Christ.

As in New Testament times, there are varieties of methods: Open Air preaching, person-to-person sharing of the gospel, settling in a community and teaching and preaching to them the good news of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, and preaching and pasturing local flocks of our Great Shepherd. These are all Biblical, and being of God, have stood the test of time and history, as they always will. Such Biblical methods, partaking of that which each part of the body from every local covenant community involved in the efforts received from the Head, cannot be thwarted (Acts 2:38-47; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5; Ephesians 4:11-16; Colossians 1:1-6).

We praise and thank God for His grace in the lives and through the efforts of these who are doing the work of missions both domestically and among other peoples than their own, and pray that He yet again abundantly supply many of His saints to partake in this work, whether in support of those engaged in missions, or as those doing the evangelism and receiving the support. These are those whom our God has appointed and gifted to do the true work of missions, and we know that our Lord Jesus Christ has said that “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

SDG – Bill

For those who are interested in supporting some of those who are involved in various aspects of missions from evangelism to maintenance roles please consider the two options linked below:

South Africa Volunteer Service

Josh Williamson

Obamamania- A Thing Of The Past

Four-years ago things were different. Obamamania was rampant. People all over the country (mostly the young) were enamored with an inexperienced senator from Chicago. He was charismatic, comical, and played basketball (that's changed as of late). And most importantly, to his benefit, he was black (okay, he's half-black). At that point, the country was ragged by wars, and as a result, there was an increasing distrust of the elitists.

Fast forward four years later, and it is now that same senator who people distrust. A lot has changed since then, even the Obama girl. President Hussein now deals with a middle east in flames, a private sector which is "doing just fine", and high gas prices. Of course, there are still those who drink the kool-aid very happily. And why not, Obama in their eyes is the coolest president ever.

Obamamania has certainly died. But so will any movement that glorifies any politician as though he was deity. Psalm 146:3 tells us not to do exactly what the Obama-freaks did. There is no salvation in the hands of Obama, Mitt, or any other politician who speaks well with a teleprompter.

-awretchsaved

The Fruit Tree Problem in Leviticus 19

Question: Leviticus 19:23-25 -The Lord commands Israel that all planted fruit is forbidden for 3 years, to be given to the Lord in rejoicing on the fourth, and eaten on the fifth. This seems like an obscure and arbitrary command. Why were the fruits “forbidden” and why did the Lord command this so specifically?

Text:  When you come into the land and plant any kind of tree for food, then you shall regard its fruit as forbidden.Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it must not be eaten. And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. But in the fifth year you may eat of its fruit, to increase its yield for you: I am the Lord your God.

Answer: The book of Leviticus is filled with propositional commands that pertain to ceremonies, rituals, regulations for worship, prescriptions to not sin and to do good, punishments, curses and consequences, so this verse ought to be read in the context of God’s holiness, the sinfulness of all humans, and the necessity for purification and obedience. So much of Hebrew culture revolves around covenant in all its fullness, and so there are things prescribed to be obeyed and things forbidden. The term “forbidden” could be equated with the idea of being uncircumcised. Here, the law of the land, being in a sense symbolic of the commandments of Sinai, is compared to circumcision. Since the tree is part of the land, it is being treated as a possession of God although for the people to enjoy as well. Some commentators suggest that just as an 8 day old male infant is to be circumcised, a fruit of a tree is not to be taken off it until after three years. But wouldn’t it take less time for a fruit to grow?

From a “natural” standpoint, young trees need to keep their strength to preserve themselves instead of garnering said strength for the purpose of fruit-bearing. A person in charge of a tree would maybe have snapped off the blossoms that would bear fruit for the first three years so that the tree would not bear fruit in the same way that a parent would prevent a child from being circumcised until the 8^th day, as prescribed. Just like in the account of Cain and Abel, there was a need to give one’s firstfruits to God, here there is the requirement that since God was the true owner of the tree and to be honored and revered, He would receive the fruits grown during the fourth year. But the Lord does not need to eat, so this is more of an act of love and obedience, such as how one would offer the first and best animal to be sacrificed for whatever reason. God, then, being the sustainer of the tree, would reward the people with a fifth year of good fruit in turn for their obedience to this Levitical stipulation. The idea of this is to respect the created order (God, trees, and then humans). God would naturally receive the fruit of the tree He caused to bear fruit on, and then His people would enjoy it.

The true laborer, Yahweh, would receive the first instance of provision, and then He would Sovereignly provide for the people whom He sustained and gave the energy to tend the trees. No autonomous credit is given to humans, but there is a reward by God’s common providence to His covenant people. Perhaps the heathen would have taken the fruit for themselves the first year, not thanking God for their produce, but rather bowing down to idols. Not so for God’s people! They are to be set apart from the gentiles, set to enter a land flowing with milk and honey, where the fruits were very large. Not so the wicked! They would undoubtedly have given part of the first year’s produce to Molech or Astaroth, probably taking the best for themselves.

The tree belongs to the Lord, therefore the firstfruits belong to the Lord. Yahweh, to test the people’s patience, often makes them wait. It took Him at least 400 years to deliver the people from Egypt, and now it will take them several years before any of their trees would bear fruit. This is a difficult test, and the temptations to take the firstfruits of the fourth year probably ran high, especially after such a delicious produce was seen to grow over time to be ripe for the Lord. This is very sacrificial, but not nearly as much as God’s sacrifice to forgive the people’s sins.

 

Felipe Diez III

Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

 

The Reformed Presbyterian Testimony and the U.S Government

A couple of months ago, my pastor charitably handed me a copy of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. Being the Confessional geek that I am, I read through it voraciously. The book included the Westminster Standards and the whole of the RPCNA polity, side by side. Due to the fact that we no longer live in 17^th century Europe, there are some items such as the power of the civil magistrate and the duties of his office, that many Presbyterian denominations have added or edited in order to reflect more plainly how the denomination understands contemporary America. But here are some snippets of the RPCNA Testimony (written in the 1980s) having to do with the role of the church and government in society. I will make some comments so as to interact with the quotes:

Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate – Testimony comment: “We reject the belief that civil government is unnecessary or essentially evil.”

Christian Anarchists may not like this portion of the Testimony, but Rom.13:1-4 precludes the whole of their position. Just because evil men run a hierarchical institution does not mean that the hierarchy in and of itself is evil, although it may be wasteful in some instances and could use an improvement in management. I understand that some of us Presbyterians have Theonomic impulses, and even strong ones, but even the strongest of Christian Reconstructionists will admit that God is omnipotent over governmental matters, and it is not so much the “civility” of the government that makes it evil (as some Anabaptists have claimed), but that the particular civil government that is in place is constituted by men who by and large are reprobate. So just because the government is made of evil men does not make government evil.

But, the RPCNA Testimony does not leave our governors inexcusable before God. Every person in a position in civil government still has a responsibility to obey Christ, whether they are saved or not, for God’s standard of perfection does not change.

“The negligence of civil government in any of these particulars [ruling in accordance with the will of God] is sinful, makes the nation liable to the wrath of God, and threatens the continued existence of the government and nation.” –Testimony

It is a sad affair when our leaders willingly reject the will of God and rather serve themselves, deluding the people in many ways. This means that whoever wins the 2012 elections is bringing wrath upon himself by not governing by and for the will of God – in his excitement, therefore, we mourn, as we know that only an act of glorious repentance granted by God to that man would convert him, and even then, not too many things would change. It seems as though, in order for our government to even begin doing the will of God (that, is, his will of precept / command), many in office would have to repent of their sins – God being the gift-giver of faith to them. This seems exceedingly unlikely.

“We reject the view that nations have no corporate responsibility for acknowledging and obeying Christ.” –Testimony

This is where federal responsibility comes in. Part of the idea of covenant is to establish the corporate nature of guilt incurred by people. The reason why parents become ashamed of their children when the children destroy their lives is because it makes them look bad as parents, and vice versa (with more than one caveat). If our president blunders during a United Nations event, this affects the people of the nation. And with more explicitly biblical issues, all of us have blood on our hands as a country for failing to acknowledge Christ as head of it – so not only do the rulers of our country have buckets of the hot, white, wrath of God ready to destroy them on the day of the Lord, but every son and daughter of Adam not found in Jesus Christ will suffer as well, because there is not only individual guilt, but a corporate one. Christ is king and must be acknowledged as king - and will be acknowledged as King on the great and terrible day of the Lord.


Felipe Diez III
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com