Sound of Grace, Issue 187, May 2012

7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 187, May 2012

1/20

the Spirit. The church begins to spread. The apostle Paul

plants a church in Galatia, but false teachers come in. They

are trying to say that the old covenant is still in force. They

are trying to make the Gentile Galatians obey the Jewishlaw. So Paul writes to sort it all out.

One of the reasons why returning to the law was at-

tractive to the Galatians was because it gave very specific

details on how to live in everyday life. They must have

been a tad uncomfortable with the freedom of the new age.

This is why Paul says, It is for freedom that Christ has

set us free. Standfirm, then, and do not let yourselves be

burdened again by a yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1). In chap-

ters 5 and 6, Paul wants to show them that the Spirit and

the example of Christ are

This is the fifth article on a discussion of hermeneutics. We are trying toestablish whether there is, or is not, such a thing as a specific and unique New

Covenant Theology (here after NCT) hermeneutic. All agree that it is not pos-

sible to believe both Covenant Theology and NCT. The basic presuppositions of

those two systems are totally antithetical. The question we have been trying to

answer is whether the same thing is true of Dispensational Theology and NCT. Is

it possible to biblically hold to Dispensationalism and NCT at the same time, or

are Dispensationalism and NCT, like Covenant Theology and NCT, antithetical?

At the moment, there are people who call themselves New Covenant theologians and also embrace some form of Dis-

pensationalism. Some of the regular contributors to Sound of Grace hold to some form of Dispensationalism. Are these

people inconsistent, or do they have a biblical warrant for their convictions?

One of the basic presuppositions of NCT is our insistence that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament.The question we want to look at in this article is central to our overall discussion.

Issu e 187 May 2012

It is good fo r the heart to be stre ngthened by grace Hebrews 13:9

New Covenant Theology

and Prophecy #5

John G. Reisinger

Are you fulfilling the pattern of the Messiah?

Where are we in the story (Galatians in context).

God created the earth and all that was in it. Adam andEve rebelled against his rule, and the world has never been

the same because of it. God graciously called a pagan

named Abram and promised to bless him with land and

offspring, and he and his family would in turn bless the

nations. His family (Israel) was unfaithful from the start.

God promised them that their king, David, would have a

Son whose throne would be eternal. He also promised a

new covenant where the people would be faithful, and his

people would not be limited to Israel alone but would in-

clude the nations. Jesus died and rose again and poured out

Cruciform Love Part V

The Pattern of the Messiah (Gal. 6:2)

A. Blake White

ReisingerContinued on page 2

WhiteContinued on page 12

In This Issue

New Covenant Theologyand Prophecy #5

John G. Reisinger1

Cruciform Love-Par t V ThePattern of the Messiah (Gal. 6:2)

A. Blake White1

Postmodernism and Christianity,

Enemies? Part 1Steve West

3

The Doctrines of Grace

Fred G. Zaspel5

Strong Convictions vs.Stubborness

John G. Reisingerr7


2/20

Page 2 May 2012 Issue 187

Sound of Grace is a publication of SovereignGrace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Soundof Grace are deductible under section 170 ofthe Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year.The subscription price is shown below. This isa paper unashamedly committed to the truthof Gods sovereign grace and New Covenant

Theology. We invite all who love these sametruths to pray for us and help us financially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular personis not an endorsement of all that personbelieves, but it merely means that we thoughtthat a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger,John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden andJacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: [email protected].

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to:Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,Frederick, MD 21703-6938 Phone 301-473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial mater ial and questionsto: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16,Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org orSOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are takenfrom the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION Copyright 1973, 1978,1984 by International Bible Society. Used by

Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are takenfrom the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used byPermission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are fromThe Holy Bible, English Standard Version,copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, adivision of Good News Publishers. Used bypermission. All rights reserved.

ContributionsOrders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribu-tion to Sound of Grace, please mail a checkto: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to findthe expiration of your subscription. Pleasesend payment if you want your subscriptionto continue$20.00 for ten issues. Or if youwould prefer to have a pdffile emailed, that isavailable for $10.00 for ten issues. If you areunable to subscribe at this time, please callor drop a note in the mail and we will be gladto continue sending Sound of Grace free ofcharge.

ReisingerContinued from page 1


How do the New Testament writ-

ers interpret the kingdom promises

of the Old Testament? Do the New

Testament writers give a literal, or

natural, meaning to the kingdom

promises in the Old Testament, or do

they spiritualize those prophecies? Inprevious articles, we have seen that

both Abraham and David clearly spiri-

tualized the kingdom promises made

to them. Is this the normal method

used by the NT writers, or are these

examples exceptions? Is a literal

interpretation the method used? We

will look at how several other Old

Testament kingdom passages are inter-

preted in the New Testament.

As I mentioned in the last article,it seems to me that the basic presup-

position of Dispensationalism cannot

be reconciled with the basic presup-

position of NCT. Dispensationalism is

based on applying the literal, gram-

matical, historical methodology of

interpretation to all of Scripture. NCT

uses this method to interpret history

and normal narrative but not symbolic

(apocryphal) sections (see our last

article).

We will first look at the passage

describing the temple in Ezekiel

40-48. John Whitcomb has a clear

and concise article defending the

historical and classical Dispensational

interpretation of this passage (google

The Millennial Temple of Ezekiel

40-48.). He sees this passage as a

continental divide between amil-

lennialists and premillennialists. All

Dispensationalists do not agree with

Whitcomb, especially modern Dispen-sationalists.

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel

serve almost as a test case for Gods

people. In the words of Charles Lee

Feinberg, a great Old Testament

scholar of the 20th century, Along

with certain other key passages of the

Old Testament, like Isaiah 7:14 and

52:13-53:12 and portions of Daniel,

the concluding chapters of Ezekiel

form a kind of continental divide in

the area of biblical interpretation. It is

one of the areas where the literal inter-

pretation of the Bible and the spiritual-

izing or allegorizing method diverge

widely. Here amillennialists and

premillennialists are poles apart. When

thirty-nine chapters of Ezekiel can be

treated detailedly and seriously as well

as literally, there is no valid reasonapriori for treating this large division

of the book in an entirely different

manner (The Prophecy of Ezekiel.

[Chicago: Moody Press, 1967], p. 233,

quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb then proceeds to give

seven arguments to support his posi-

tion and answers three major objec-

tions. Here is his first argument.

A careful reading of Ezekiel 40-42

gives one the clear impression of afuture literal temple for Israel because

ofthe immense number of details

concerning its dimensions, its parts,

and its contents (see Erich Sauer,

From Eternity To Eternity, chapter

34). Surely, if so much space in the

Holy Scriptures is given to a detailed

description of this temple, we are safe

in assuming that it will be as literal

as the tabernacle andthe temple of

Solomon.Ibid

I agree there is a defi

nite literalring to the many clear and spe-

cific measurements of the temple and

courts described in Ezekiel 40-48. I

will go further and agree that if all we

had on the subject of a future temple

was Ezekiel 40-48, we would accept

the Dispensational view. The readers

to whom Ezekiel wrote would have

every reason to take everything in

chapters 40-48, along with everything

else in the book, literally. However,

the problems that a literal interpreta-tion of the passage presents, when

compared with the New Testament

Scriptures, dulls this argument. Whit-

comb admits there are problems and

tries to answer them. The first objec-

tion he discusses is from J. Sidlow

Baxter, a widely known exponent of

Dispensationalism.

The area of the temple courts


3/20

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 3

WestContinued o n page 8

coffee during a service has absolutelyno conceptual ties to postmodernism

whatsoever.

I remember hearing a young song

leader at a Bible camp tell me he was

a postmodern song leader. As we

discussed what this meant, it came out

that he was a postmodern song leader

because: a) he played the guitar in a

band that had drums; b) he liked it

when the audience raised their hands

and danced; and c) he liked contem-porary songs and not hymns. Oddly

enough, none of those reasons have

anything to do with postmodernism.

Regrettably, for many young people

in Christianity, postmodern and its

cognates have come to mean little

more than new or different from

what I grew up with, or what I imag-

ine church being like one hundred

years ago. People have the right to

use words any way they want, but this

way of usingpostmodern is just, well,vacuous. I suspect that if you substi-

tutedtrendy forpostmodern in most

of the contexts in whichpostmodern

appears, you wouldnt alter the mean-

ing of the statement at all. And since

postmodern does not mean trendy (or

anything even like trendy), this way

of using the word is simply confused.

What is extremely problematic is that

if you usepostmodern when you mean

trendy, a thoughtful person who hears

you will charitably think you mean

postmodern when you saypostmod-

ern. In such a case, you are acciden-

tally endorsing an entire philosophical

position which is ultimately inimical

to Christianity.

Another evangelical error in

speaking about postmodernism comes

from the theological conservatives.

If one group of evangelicals are in

Although the prospect may not becheery, evangelical Christians need to

take a serious look at postmodernism.

This is partly because the church is of-

ten a generation behind the times, and

were always playing catch-up with

intellectual trends. It is also partly ow-

ing to the fact that even though many

people in society have never read an

ounce of postmodern philosophy, they

have imbibed a pound of ethical and

religious relativism. Christians need

to be informed about the worldview ofthose to whom they seek to bear wit-

ness to the gospel of Christ. Beyond

this, postmodernism, when it is on the

radar of evangelicals at all, is often

either navely embraced orflippantly

denounced. Both of these responses

are woefully inadequate. In this short

series of articles, I want to lightly

sketch some points of agreement and

disagreement between Christianity

and postmodernity.Now, at one level you can be

forgiven for never wanting to hear the

wordpostmodern again, but it de-

pends on your reasons why. If its be-

cause of its ubiquitous over usage, you

are absolved on the spot. It is weari-

some, more than words can say, to

continue to hear cultural pundits talk

about our postmodern times and us

postmodern people. It is even far more

grating, however, to keep hearing

about postmodernism in the context of

churches being relevant. In these set-

tings,postmodern is usually annexed

to an emergent style of church plant,

wherepostmodern seems to mean:

We drink coffee from our caf and sit

on sofas while someone shares about

God, or we just dont want to judge

anyone; God is bigger than what our

minds can think about him. I would

want to insist, however, that drinking

a tremendous rush to embrace post-

modernism (after all, who doesnt

want to be trendy and relevant), other

evangelicals are in a rush to condemn

all postmodern thoughts, thinkers,

and sensibilities out of court. The

stated reasons for this are diverse,

but usually present a caricature ofpostmodern thought. For example,

I have heard numerous times (and

repeated numerous times) that post-

modern relativism is self-defeating

and contradictory, which, of course, it

actually is. The most common ex-

ample is taking the proposition, there

is no absolute truth, and pointing out

that that statement is incoherent. If

there is no absolute truth, then even

that proposition is not absolutely true;

but the proposition makes a universal,

absolute truth claim. In the same way,

the statement, all truth is relative,

gets harpooned for failing to measure

up against its own standard. If all truth

is indeed relative, that particular state-

ment is relative as well. Internally,

however, the proposition makes a

universal claim as to what all truth

is like, which means it is an absolute

as opposed to relative claim.

Before turning to what I take to be

the major mistake in this sort of re-

sponse to postmodernism, it is worth-

while to try to take one step beyond

the level of caricature. For example,

if you expect to meet a postmodern

person on the street and have them

parrot out the phrase, there are no

absolute truths, I think you are likely

to be disappointed. Maybe some

people do think and talk that way, but

I suspect they are in the minority. Youare far more likely to meet someone

who says something along the lines

of: Who do you think you are to

know whats right and to say everyone

who disagrees with you is wrong? Re-

ally, thats just your opinion. We cant

judge other peoples views, since wha

we think is just a reflection of our

cultural biases, as is what they think.

Postmodernism and Christianity

Enemies? Part 1

Steve West


4/20


those describing the measurements.

18 And he said unto me, Son of

man, thus saith the Lord God; These

are the ordinances of the altar in

the day when they shall make it, to

offer burnt offerings thereon, and to

sprinkle blood thereon. 19 And thou

shalt give to the priests the Levitesthat be of the seed of Zadok, which ap-

proach unto me, to minister unto me,

saith the Lord God, a young bullock

for a sin offering.20 And thou shalt

take of the blood thereof, and put it

on the four horns of it, and on the

four corners of the settle, and upon

the border round about: thus shalt

thou cleanse and purge it.21 Thou

shalt take the bullock also of the sin

offering, and he shall burn it in the

appointed place of the house, without

the sanctuary.22 And on the secondday thou shalt offer a kid of the goats

without blemish for a sin offering; and

they shall cleanse the altar, as they did

cleanse it with the bullock.23 When

thou hast made an end of cleansing it,

thou shalt offer a young bullock with-

out blemish, and a ram out of the flock

without blemish.24 And thou shalt

offer them before the Lord, and the

priests shall cast salt upon them, and

they shall offer them up for a burnt

offering unto the Lord.25 Seven days

shalt thou prepare every day a goat fora sin offering: they shall also prepare

a young bullock, and a ram out of the

flock, without blemish.26Seven days

shall they purge the altar and purify it;

and they shall consecrate themselves.

27And when these days are expired,

it shall be, that upon the eighth day,

and so forward, the priests shall make

your burnt offerings upon the altar,

and your peace offerings; and I will

accept you, saith the Lord God(Ezek.

43:18-27).

The Scofield Study System has a

side-bar at Ezek. 43:29 titled The

Problem with Sacrifices.

A problem is posed by this

paragraph (vv. 19-27). Since the N.T.

clearly teaches that animal sacrifices

do not in themselves cleanse away sin

(Heb.10:4) and that the one sacrifice

of the Lord Jesus Christ that was made

at Calvary completely provides for


(500 x 500 reeds, or about one

square mile) would be larger than the

entire ancient walled city of Jerusa-

lem, and the holy portion for priests

and Levites (20,000 x 25,000 reeds,

or about 40 x 50 miles) would cover

an area six times the size of greater

London today and could not possibly

be placed within present-day Pales-

tine, that is between the Jordan River

and the Mediterranean Sea (Ezek.

47:18), to say nothing of the portion

of the prince on either side of this

area (45:7, 47:21). The millennial

Jerusalem would be about 40 miles in

circumference and thus ten times the

circumference of the ancient city (J.

Sidlow Baxter,Explore the Book, IV,

32, quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb answers this objectionthis way:

Israel will have the only sanctuary

and priesthood in the world during

the millennial age, so the temple

courts and sacred area will need to be

greatly enlarged to accommodate the

vast number of worshippers and the

priests who will serve them (Isa. 2:3,

60:14, 61:6, Zech. 8:20-23). Various

Old Testament prophecies speak of

great geological changes that will oc-

cur in Palestine at the time of Christssecond coming, so it is not impossible

to imagine a 2,500 square mile area

for the temple and city fitted into a

reshaped and enlarged land. See Isaiah

26:15, 33:17, 54:2, and especially

Zechariah 14:4-10 (Whitcomb).

The Scofield Bible has a side-bar

at 40:3 titled Difficulties of Interpre-

tation. Scofield gives five different

explanations. The one he accepts is

number 5.

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel

have posed numerous problems for

expositors.

(1) Some feel these chapters

describe the Solomanic temple before

the destruction in 586 B.C.

(2) Some hold it is a description

of the restoration temple completed in

the sixth century

(3) Others maintain that the

chapters portray an ideal temple never

realized

(4) Still another view is the claim

that the picture is one of the church

and its blessings in this age

(5) The preferable interpretation is

that Ezekiel gives a picture of the mil-

lennial temple. Judging from the broadcontext of the prophecy (the time

subsequent to Israels regathering and

conversion and the testimony of other

Scripture (Isa. 66; Ezek. 6:14), this

interpretation is in keeping with Gods

prophetic program for the millennium.

The church is not in view here,

but rather it is a prophecy for the

consummation of Israels history on

earth (Scofield Study System, Oxford

University Press, New York, 2003, p.

1096).

Both Whitcomb and Scofield set

forth the classic historical Dispensa-

tional view of Ezekiel 40-48. Also

both acknowledge there are serious

problems with their interpretation.

The size of the temple and courts is

not the only problem. God can, if he

so chooses, build a temple complex

that is 200 square miles, or six times

the size of modern London in Eng-

land, but it certainly is very unlikely.A more difficult problem is raised

by the reinstitution of a priesthood

that offers blood sacrifices. A literal

interpretation of Ezekiels temple

is essentially a return to Judaism. A

return to Judaism raises the question:

What has Jesus Christ actually ac-

complished with his birth, life, death

and resurrection?

Both Scofield and Whitcomb

acknowledge and make note of thisproblem, but Whitcomb insists on

the consistent literal view. Scofield

proceeds to cop out of a consistent ap-

plication of the good and necessary

consequences of Dispensationalism.

In Ezekial 43:18-27, he acknowl-

edges there is a serious problem.

Here are the texts and the response of

both Whitcomb and Scofield to the

problem. These verses seem, on the

surface, to be every bit as literal as ReisingerContinued on page 6


5/20


man will not have God.

Whats worse: this problem is

universal. The Lord looks down fromheaven upon the children of men to

see if there are any who understand,

who seek God. They have all turned

aside, they have together become cor-

rupt (Psa. 14:2-3). And even a quick

glance over our society will provide

the evidence for this. Mankind has

rejected God.

Now this might seem unnatural.

If God created man in his own im-

age, we might expect man to havemore favorable opinions of God! But

something has happened, and that

something is sin. Through our father

Adam, sin has entered into all of

humanity, and this in such a way that

all men are inherently sinful (Rom.

5:12). By nature children of wrath,

the apostle Paul describes them (Eph.

2:3). Worse yet, Jesus describes them

as children of the devil who both will

and act like their father (John 8:44).

Put another way, natural man lives ina state of spiritual death (Eph. 2:1);

when it comes to truly spiritual things,

he is lifeless.

All this universal disobedience,

then, is not an odd coincidence. All

men have not somehow become sin-

ners simply because they have all

sinned. We all sin because we are sin-

ners. It is our natural disposition, our

spiritual deadness.

As a result, the things of God are

foolishness to natural man and

altogether beyond his grasp (1 Cor.

2:9, 14). He gropes in the noonday

sun (Job 5:14), recognizing neither

his blindness nor his tragic fate. Satan

has blinded their minds, effectively

preventing the light of the glorious

gospel from shining in (2 Cor. 4:4).

Spiritual death brings an insensitivity

to the things of God. It is a spiritual ZaspelContinued on page 9

The Doctrines of Grace

Fred G. ZaspelTotal Depravity

When the apostle John writes that

when the Lord Jesus came to hisown, his own did not receive him

(John 1:12), his observation is more

than a historical one. The history of

mans refusal of Christ is a matter of

theological significance: man rejects

God.

Mans natural aversion to God is a

fact of history, theology, and everyday

experience. There is none that seek

after God (Rom. 3:11). Owing to

God his very existence and receivingfrom him daily his life and health and

joys, man still has not found it in his

heart to seek God; he rebels. Religion

he has and even wants, but God he

would rather do without (Rom. 1:21;

cf. John 5:42).

The apostle Paul describes man

in his natural condition as a child of

wrath who lives only for himself and

Satan (Eph. 2:2-3; cf. 4:17-18). That

is to say, he has no time for God; he

is a rebel. His desires run contrary to

Gods. Gods will is but an obstacle to

his freedom.

So the problem is not with Gods

willingness. Indeed, God stands, as it

were, with outstretched arms in will-

ingness to receive the sinner (Rom.

10:21). He stoops even to begging

sinners to come, as a street vendor

hawking his goods (Isa. 55:1-2). The

invitation is both free and universal:

he will take all who come (Matt.

11:28).

No, the problem is not that God is

unwilling; the problem is that man is

unwilling. I would, but you would

not, Jesus said (Matt. 23:37). You

are not willing to come to me that you

may have life (John 5:40). Loving

their sin more than God, men refuse

him (John 3:19-20). Foolish as it is,

slavery, the prisoners of which are

helpless.

Helpless slavery? No man cancome to me, Jesus said, except the

Father draw him (John 6:44; emphasis

added). The carnal mind is enmity

against God; for it is not subject to

the law of God, nor indeed can it be

(Rom. 8:7). No man can say that Je-

sus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit

(1 Cor. 12:3). Once more, man can-

notcease from sin (2 Pet. 2:14).

This is the doctrine of total deprav-

ity. It does not mean, as many havemisunderstood, that man is as bad as

he can possibly be. It means that man

is as bad offas he can possibly be. He

is a sinner. He has sinned. He is guilty

and deserving of divine wrath. And for

this he can provide no remedy him-

self he is the sinner! And the one

remedy which is offered in Christ he

will not take. Indeed, he cannot under-

stand it. Simply put, man is without

ability to remedy his condition, and he

is unwilling to be otherwise. He is asbad off as he could possibly be.

The bottom line is this: our hope

does not lie in our own will. It is our

will that has gotten us lost. We are

all sure for condemnation unless God

would somehow incline our wills

in the opposite direction. We must

have a Savior who is mighty enough

to rescue us from ourselves. Clearly,

God must do something. Weve made

our choice; our will has spoken. Weare hopelessly lostunless God will

choose otherwise.

Unconditional Election

By the very nature of the case, our

salvation depends upon Gods choice

of us. Our choice is naturally against

him; we are sons ofdisobedience

(Eph. 2:2) who refuse to seek God


6/20



just because God will have finished his

work of sanctification in the church by

the time of the rapture, is no warrant

for assuming that he will have finished

his work of instruction, testing, and

sanctification of Israel. In fact, one of

the main purposes of the thousand-

year earthly kingdom of Christ will be

to vindicate his chosen people Israelbefore the eyes of all nations (Isaiah

60, 61). It is obvious that the book of

Hebrews was written to Christians,

and we have no right to insist that

Israelites during the millennium will

also be Christians, without priests,

without sacrifices, and without a

temple.3 Saints like John the Baptist

who died before Pentecost were not

Christians (John 3:29, Matt. 11:11);

and those who are saved following the

rapture of the church will likewise be

excluded from membership in the

bride of Christ, though they will be

made perfect like all the redeemed

(Heb. 12:23) (Whitcomb).

Whitcomb is to be admired for his

consistency. He consistently and logi-

cally applies the literal, grammatical,

historical methodology of interpre-

tation of classic historical Dispensa-

tionalism to Ezekiel 40-48, including

the blood sacrifices. If that method of

interpretation is biblical, then Whit-combs interpretation is correct.

All Dispensationalists, both today

and in Whitcombs day, do not agree

that Ezekiel 40-48 was to be under-

stood literally. Whitcomb chides some

of his contemporary Dispensational-

ists for their inconsistency in cop-

ing out on a literal interpretation of

Ezekiel 40-48. He chides some of his

contemporary Dispensationalists for

saying the passage should be under-stood symbolically.

So widespread is this type of in-

terpretation that even some prominent

Dispensationalists have been influ-

church have two different gospels, dare I

say two different saviors?

3 This is a most revealing statement. It

is statements like this that seem to justify

the charge of holding two kinds of salva-

tion.

such expiation (compare Heb. 9:12,

26, 28; 10:10, 14), how can there be a

fulfillment of such a prophecy? Two

answers have been suggested:

(1) Such sacrifices, if actually of-

fered, will be memorial in character.

They will, according to this view, lookback to our Lords work on the cross,

as the offerings of the old covenant an-

ticipated his sacrifice. They would, of

course, have no expiatory value. And

(2) the references to sacrifices is

not to be taken literally, in view of the

putting away of such offerings, but is

rather to be regarded as a presentation

of redeemed Israel, in her own land

and in the millennial temple, using

the terms with which the Jews were

familiar in Ezekiels day.

This is an amazing cop out.

Scofield wants a literal temple and a

literal priesthood, but the offerings of

the priest are not literal. When push

comes to shove with regard to the sac-

rificial system, Scofield is willing to

deny his basic literal hermeneutic.

Whitcomb argues differently. He

quotes the objection, It is unthinkable

that a system of animal sacrifices will

be reinstituted after the one perfectsacrifice of Christ has been accom-

plished, especially in the light of

Hebrews 7-10, and he then proceeds

to answer it:

Just because animal sacrifices and

priests have no place in Christianity

does not mean that they will have no

place in Israel after the rapture of the

church;1 for there is a clear distinc-

tion made throughout the Scriptures

between Israel and the church.2 And

1 This means that Christianity is not the

religion of the Dispensational millen-

nium.

2 This is one of the foundation blocks

of Dispensationalism. This quotation is

classic historical Dispensationalism. It

must separate Israel and the church and

insist that Israel and the church are under

two different covenants with two differ-

ent goals. It is easy to infer, even if not

explicitly stated, from statements like

those in this paragraph that Israel and the

enced by it. Dr. J Sidlow Baxter, for

example, tells us that the main mean-

ings of the striking symbols are clear...

The various cube measurements

symbolize theirdivine perfection. In

the description of the sacrificial ritual

we see the absolute purity of the

final worship (Explore the Book IV,

34, Academie Books, Grand Rapids,1966). We shall leave it to the reader

to decide, after studying Ezekiel 40-

42 again, whether these are clear

meanings of these symbols. We are

also very disappointed to see that even

Dr. Harry Ironside, whose prophetic

insight was usually very clear, fell

into the same spiritualizing tendency.

Notice how he attempted to spiritual-

ize the temple river of Ezekiel 47:

Ezekiels guide measured a thousand

cubits, that is, fifteen hundred feet,

and he caused the prophet to enter into

the waters: they were up to his ankles.

May this not suggest the very begin-

ning of a life of fellowship with God?

If we live in the Spirit let us also walk

in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). The feet were

in the river and the waters covered

them, but the guide measured another

thousand cubits and caused Ezekiel

to pass through the waters, and they

were up to his knees. Who will think it

fanciful if we say that the waters up to

the knees suggest praying in the HolySpirit? But the guide measured another

thousand and caused the prophet to

pass through the waters, and now they

were up to his loins, suggesting the

complete control of every fleshly lust

in the power of the Spirit of God. He

measured another thousand, and that

which had begun as a small stream

was a river so that Ezekiel could not

pass through, for the waters were

risen, waters to swim in. Surely this

is to live in the fullness of the Spirit

to which every child of God shouldaspire (Ezekiel the Prophet, pp. 327,

328, Loizeaux Brothers, 1949, quoted

by Whitcomb).

A non-Dispensationalist can say

what Baxter and Ironsides said, but

a consistent Dispensationalist cannot

believe the literal, grammatical, his-

torical methodologyof interpretation

and say the same thing. I do not agree



7/20


Strong Convictions Continued on page 19

Other people are stubborn, but I

have strong convictions. You may

not be prepared to admit the truth of

the above, but it is often our attitude

when someone differs from us. I am

sure you have met some stubborn

people, and I hope you have been

fortunate enough to meet some good

men and women of strong convic-

tions. The obvious problem is, How

do I know when I am being stubborn

or when I am being strong in a right

conviction? When am I honestly re-

thinking in the light of new evidence,

and when am I merely rearranging myprejudices? How does one know the

difference? When should we give

in for the sake of peace, and when

would it be the sin of compromise?

When does standing firm violate the

law of love, and when is it essential to

the cause of truth? These are difficult

questions that every true Christian

must face. We who hold to the doc-

trines of grace are going to be more

and more faced with them.

I am sure we all despise the argu-

mentative dogmatist who wants to

argue about every jot and tittle. Every

i must be dotted just so, and every

t must be crossed in a precise man-

ner, or else there is cause for a major

split. However, we must never think

that every person who refuses to con-

form to the majority is of this temper-

ament. We must not think it is a virtue

to accept everything from everybody

without question. Many pious com-promisers have caused more trouble

than the worst of the dogmatists, even

if they have never been blamed by

others or felt guilty themselves.

The man who will not honestly

face real problems is the churchs

biggest enemy. Vance Havner is right

when he says, The appeaser does

more harm than the opposer. J. C.

Ryle is also right when he blames the

appeaser for ruining the church and

losing the truth. The appeaser will

not attempt to discern the difference

between stubbornness and convic-

tion. Why? He wants to be known as

an open and gracious man of all

seasons. He thinks he acts as he does

because he loves God and all of his

fellow men, but such is not really the

case. Either he does not care which

is right, or else he does not have the

courage to side with true conviction

when he does see it. This person loves

peace above all else, but actually his

love of peace is fear of getting hurt ina battle. The peace at any price gen-

tleman (and he is almost always the

nicest of all gentlemen) will do any-

thing and sacrifice everything to keep

from getting involved in a situation

that requires choosing a side, defend-

ing a position, and making enemies

of those who disagree. He is neither

stubborn nor a man of strong convic-

tions. He is a moral coward who sells

the truth by walking away and thereby

allows the stubborn person with theloudest mouth to rule the situation.

As I write these lines, I think of

two different men that I learned to

know in very intimate relationships.

One was more feared than he was

liked. He had few, if any, enemies

who hated him, but he also had few

real friends. Those who really knew

him dearly loved him. He was an

extremely gentle man, but as firm

as steel when it came to the truth ofGods Word. He cared for no mans

applause or approval, but ordered his

entire life by the Word of God. Many

professing Christians ridiculed his

narrow attitude. He often had the

charge of bigot come down on his

head. He was excluded and shunned

by the generation of open-minded

Christians. I never once knew him to

yield to pressure and knowingly

violate his conscience or what he

believed was his duty in the light of

Gods Word in order to be accepted.

The second fellow was just the

opposite. He was liked by all but

feared by none. His personal life was

beyond reproach as far as worldli-

ness was concerned. He loved and

cared for his family. He was respected

by neighbors and friends. He was

also a gentle man, but not in the same

sense as the other man. The second

man was not directly concerned about

mans approval, but he was afraid

of mans disapproval. He lived byone rule, peace at any price. He

would willingly endure any hardship

or abuse without a word. Under no

circumstance would he take another

person to task or force an issue that

might cause hard feelings. He was

not excluded and shunned by others,

nor was he called narrow-minded and

bigoted. It is with sadness that I must

say that this man could, and often

did, violate both his conscience and

known truth. He sinned, not by doing

what he believed was wrong, but by

refusing to do what he knew was right

if he felt that such a course of action

would cause trouble of any kind. He

withdrew from every fight and almost

always allowed the wrong side to win

the argument. Rabble-rousers often

used him to steal their horses.

I remember how I used to pity both

of these men. I pitied the first one be-

cause he did not seem to enjoy a lot of

the good times that other people did

He would refuse to participate in any-

thing that was questionable. He felt

it wiser to always give God and his

personal testimony the benefit of any

doubt than to accept the easy answer

that all Christians do this or the

times have really changed. Other

things were skipped, not because they

Strong Convictions versus Stubbornness

John G. Reisinger


8/20

Page 8 May 2012 Issue 187WestContinued fr om page 3

Again, the desire is to immediately

show this claim to be self-refuting: af-

ter all, if everything we think is a mat-

ter of cultural bias, the postmoderns

thoughts and views is only a reflection

of culture too, and as such, have no

authority over anyone elses views.At one level this type of analysis

is correct, and there is a time and

place to point it out. At another level,

such analysis tremendously misses

the point. Like it or not, there are

cultural, societal, linguistic, historical,

and personal reasons why we think

the way we do. But worst of all, the

quick dismissal of postmodernism is

often belittling of persons, arrogant,

and smug. Postmodernism is dumb,we crow to ourselves, and we are

so smart and clever to see that it is

self-referentially incoherent. There

are no absolute truths is an absolute

truth claim: so we reject postmodern-

ism because we are smarterthan they

are. Embracing the wordpostmodern

because you think it means trendy is

silly; rejecting postmodernism with

flippant arrogance is sinful.

I fully grant that one can reject

postmodernism with grace, humility,

and tact. I also fully grant that one

can refute the idea of postmoder-

nity while maintaining genuine love,

respect, and relationships with post-

moderns. My contention, however,

is that this is wonderful theoretically,

but in concrete life, the church has

not been overwhelmingly successful

at this in practice. Too often Chris-

tians act like twits and then complain

theyre being persecuted for Christssake. It is a very easy dodge to say

that postmoderns accuse the church

of being arrogant because the church

stands for the absolute truth of God.

Sometimes that is true, but many

times postmoderns accuse Christians

of being arrogant because Christians

are arrogant. Many times people claim

Christians are judgmental and proud,

and many times those people are

right. Paul did not lie when he said,

knowledge puffs up, but loves builds

up. Sometimes it seems like those

who love to study really dont believe

that; sometimes it seems like those

who love to grow in knowledge find a

way to exempt themselves from that

inspired claim. But there is a very realconnection between knowledge and

being puffed up, and Christians must

not forget it. Arrogance does not nec-

essarily follow knowledge, just like

it doesnt necessarily follow riches;

but there are very real dangers, snares,

and temptations common to human

beings, and knowledge engendering

arrogance is one of them.

Ironically, one of postmodernisms

most perceptive ideas is that knowl-edge claims are more a manifestation

of pride and power than objective

correspondence to reality. Although

they overstate it, and do so in a self-

contradictory fashion, can you read

Romans 1 and not see how the ar-

rogant human heart controls what the

mind calls knowledge? Isnt it just

obvious that postmodernism would

have to say a lot more than there are

no absolute truths to be as influential

and transformative as it has been?Isnt it obvious that there has to be a

lot more to the foundational structure

than that to hold up the claim? What

kind of claims would have to go ahead

of the all truth is relative claim for

anyone to accept it? Even if you think

all postmodern thought is reducible to

those types of easy slogans, how did

the argument get to the point where it

could be sloganized? (I am skeptical

sloganizedis a real word, but it works

beautifully.)

I want to argue that postmodern-

ism, if not reduced to the point of

distortion, is actually a very fine

ally of genuine Christianity in some

particular ways. Now, lest I be misun-

derstood, I want to insist that both of

these systems are ultimately totali-

tarian. In other words, postmodern-

ism tries to account for Christianity,

and Christianity tries to account for

postmodernism. The explanation

postmodernism offers for Christianity

will be very different from the expla-

nation Christianity offers for itself,

andvice versa. But both systems have

an explanatory nook where they fit

the other system; both have certainconceptual parameters by which they

interpret and make sense of the other.

So I am not claiming that postmod-

ernism and Christianity can coexist

in philosophical harmony, each fully

intact in the presence of the other.

On the contrary, one of these systems

must be subsumed into the interiority

of the other system. Now I know that

this is intellectual imperialism, but it

is here where I would urge thatpost-modern protestations to the contrary

postmodernism is just as intellectually

imperialistic as any other worldview.

That is not a statement of condemna-

tionI think it is an inescapable given

of the way we think. Postmodernism

does offer an explanation for Christi-

anity, and Christianity does offer an

explanation for postmodernism, and

only one of the given systems can

ultimately be right.

My argument is that there are

elements of postmodern thought

which are extraordinarily profound,

right, and accurate, and as such, they

can be very helpful to the church. In

fact, I would go so far as to say there

are elements of postmodern thought

which are definitely biblical. One of

the problems with postmodernism is

that it detaches itself from the Chris-

tian worldview, and as such, ends

up with claims that it cannot supporton internal grounds with any consis-

tency. But, these same claims, when

located in the Christian worldview, are

startlingly clear, humbling, and true.

In the next article, we will see one tre-

mendous point of agreement between

postmodernism and Christianity in

its relationship to knowledge and the

Enlightenment. m


9/20


ZaspelContinued on p age 13

ZaspelContinued from page 5

(Rom. 3:11). It naturally follows, then,

that if we are to be saved, Godmust

choose to do it.

This is precisely what the Scrip-

tures tell us. Salvation comes to us

because God has graciously chosenus. Believers in Christ are people who

were chosen in him [Christ] before

the foundation of the world (Eph.

1:4). Jesus said this to his disciples:

You have not chosen me, but I have

chosen you (John 15:16). Now Jesus

is not denying here that his disciples

had, in fact, decided themselves to fol-

low the Lord; very obviously, they had

heartily agreed to do so. But what was

it that made them so agreeable? Were

they not sons of disobedience also?Of course, and this is what Jesus ad-

dresses. It was not their choice of him

that determined his choice of them;

that could never be. Rather, it was his

choice of them which preceded and

determined their choice of him. You

have not chosen me, but I have chosen

you. Their election involved a call to

service and holiness (to bear fruit),

yes, but it did not rise from it. It was

his choice that made the difference.

And well it should. Men fallen and

enslaved in sin cannot make their

way to Christ (John 6:44, 65). But

Gods mercy is such that he did not

leave us in that condition. He sover-

eignly and graciously and freely chose

men and women from all over the

globemen and women from every

tribe under heaven, a great multitude

which no man could number (Rev.

7:9)and for these people he sent

his Son on a mission of rescue. Our

refusal of him was no deterrent to his

grace.

Jesus refers to this again in John

6:37All that the Father gives me

shall come to me. Who are these

whom the Father gave to the Son?

In the following verses, Jesus identi-

fies them as the objects of his saving

mission. The Father gave them to him,

and he came to save them.

This is how Jesus explains it all in

his prayer to the Father: I have mani-

fested your name to those whom you

have given me out of the world. They

were yours, you gave them to me

(John 17:6). Gods gracious choice of

those whom he would save defined

Jesus mission. God in grace chose a

people to be saved and sent his Son

to accomplish that salvation for them.

Indeed, the universal authority given

to the Son is for this purpose exactly:

that he should give eternal life to as

many as you have given him (v. 2).

In John 10, Jesus refers to these

people as his sheep whom he will

bring into the sheepfold (v. 16). Note

that they are not sheep because theyare brought into the fold; they are

brought into the fold because they are

sheep. Jesus further clarifies this later

on in the same chapter. It is only his

sheep who come to believe in him; the

others refuse him (vv. 26-27). It is to

his sheep that he gives eternal life (v.

28). These are special objects of the

Fathers electing love and the Sons

saving mission.

In other words, God did not leaveus to our own will. He saved us

despite our contrary will. Nor did he

save us by accident; he did it on pur-

pose. If we are saved, we owe it to his

electing grace.

The apostle Paul argues this at

length in Romans chapter 9. His

whole purpose here is to show that

salvation comes by grace and by grace

alone, and this he sets out to prove by

an exposition of the doctrine of elec-tion. But after citing as example the

statement from the prophet Malachi,

Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have

hated (Rom. 9:13), he realizes that

he has just said something that will

not sit well with many; and so he

anticipates the objection: What shall

we say then? Is God unfair? (v. 14).

His answer, curiously, was not to back

up. He does not play down the idea of

divine sovereignty. Instead, he pushes

the matter further: Who are you to

question the prerogatives of Deity?

Who are you to define for God what

is fair? Is he not free to do as he wills

with his creation? And after all, was

there anyone who deservedsalvation?

And if not, then how can you objectto his gracious choice of anyone?

(cf. vv. 15-24). To the biblical way of

thinking, it is not Esau I have hated

that presents the problem. That God

should hate Esau is very understand-

able. The problem is, rather, how

could God love Jacob. Jacob was

not deserving of Gods love. Nor was

the nation which came after him. But

Pauls point is just that: Gods choice

of whom he will save is not at all de-

termined by anything in the individualhimself. It is an election of grace

(Rom. 11:5).

Does this election sound like a

stuffed ballot box? Indeed it does. And

this is precisely our hope. Satan had

cast his ballot for us. And our vote had

been gladly cast with him. But God in

grace overruled both.

Many have misunderstood this

wonderful truth. They see election as anegative thing. They reason as though

there were many people who all want

to be saved but cant because God

hasnt chosen them. But, of course,

this is all wrong. It is not that some

want in but God bars the door. The

reality is that the door is wide open

for any to enterbut none will! But,

happily, God did not leave the matter

there. He could have, and if he had, he

would have been entirely just in doing

so. But he didnt. He instead madehis own choice, one which overruled

our own madness. And in his gracious

choice, we find the grace that brings

salvation.

This is grace at its best. God did

not wait for us to come to him. He

chose us in keeping with his own

purpose (Eph. 1:5, 11; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9;

Rom. 8:28). Thankfully, he came to


10/20


Definite Atonement Long $10.95 $8.76

The Doctrine of BaptismSasser $3.50 $2.80

Full Bellies and Empty HeartsAutio $14.99 $12.00

Galatians: A Theological InterpretationWhite $15.95 $12.76

GraceReisinger $13.95 $11.16

The Grace of Our Sovereign GodReisinger $19.99 $16.00

Hermeneutical Flaws of DispensationalismGeorge $10.75 $8.60

In Defense of Jesus, the New LawgiverReisinger $23.95 $15.95

Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?Wells $4.25 $3.40John Bunyan on the SabbathReisinger $3.00 $2.80

Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the

Covenant of GraceGilliland$3.95 $3.16

The Law of Christ: A Theological ProposalWhite $14.95 $11.96

Limited AtonementReisinger $7.00 $5.60

Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. ReisingerSteve West, Editor $14.85 $11.88

The New Birth Reisinger $5.50 $4.40

The New Covenant and New Covenant TheologyZaspel $11.99 $9.60

New Covenant TheologyWells & Zaspel $19.95 $15.96

The Newness of the New CovenantWhite $12.99 $10.39

The New Perspective on Justification West $9.99 $8.00

The Obedience of ChristVan Court $2.50 $2.00Our Sovereign God Reisinger $4.45 $3.56

Perseverance of the Saints Reisinger $6.00 $4.80

The Priority of Jesus ChristWells $11.95 $9.56

A Prisoners ChristianityWoodrow $12.99 $10.39

Saving the Saving GospelWest $12.99 $10.39

Sinners, Jesus Will ReceivePayne $9.99 $8.00

Studies in GalatiansReisinger $19.99 $15.96

Studies in EcclesiastesReisinger $19.99 $15.96

Tablets of StoneReisinger $10.95 $8.75

The Sovereignty of God and PrayerReisinger $5.75 $4.60

The Sovereignty of God in Providence Reisinger $4.45 $3.56

Total Depravity Reisinger $5.00 $4.00Union with Christ: Last Adam and Seed of AbrahamWhite $11.95 $9.56

What is the Christian Faith? Reisinger $2.50 $2.00

What is New Covenant Theology? An IntroductionWhite *NEW* $12.99 10.39

When Should a Christian Leave a Church?Reisinger $3.75 $3.00

Total Price

See Rate Charts on Page 11 Shipping

Total

TITLE LIST SALE QTY COST

Abide in Him: A Theological Interpretation of John's First Letter White $13.95 $11.16

Abrahams Four SeedsReisinger $10.95 $8.76

The Believers SabbathReisinger $3.75 $3.00

Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and CovenantalLong $15.75 $12.60

But I Say Unto YouReisinger $10.95 $8.68

Chosen in EternityReisinger $5.50 $4.40

Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the ChurchReisinger $2.50 $2.00

The Christian and The SabbathWells $11.99 $9.59

Continuity and DiscontinuityReisinger $12.95 10.36


11/20


TITLE LIST SALE QTY COST

Warfield on the Christian LifeFred G. Zaspel *NEW* $17.99 $14.39

The Theology of B.B. WarfieldFred G. Zaspel $40.00 $29.95

Philosophical Dialgoues on the Christian FaithSteve West $12.00 $9.50

What Jesus Demands from the WorldJohn Piper $19.99 $13.25

The First London Confession of Faith-1646 Edition

Preface by Gary D. Long

$7.99 $6.50

All Things NewCarl Hoch $19.98 $15.95

Context! Evangelical Views on the Millenium ExaminedGary D. Long $25.00 $17.50

The Doctrine of ChristWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of SalvationWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of ManWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of GodWilliam Sasser $4.00 $3.00

The Atoning Work of Jesus ChristWilliam Sasser $5.00 $4.00

The New Covenant and the Law of ChristChris Scarborough $10.95 $9.50

Should Christians Fear God Today?John Korsgaard $6.95 $3.50

Justification by FaithJames White $6.95 $2.75Answers to Catholic ClaimsJames White $9.95 $2.00

The Fatal FlawJames White $11.95 $2.50

Gods Sovereign GraceJames White $8.95 $3.50

Behind the Watchtower CurtainDavid A. Reed $10.95 $2.00

How to Share Christ with a Jehovahs WitnessPatrick J. Campbell $5.95 $2.50

The Reformers and Their StepchildrenLeonard Verduin $9.95 $9.50

The Pilgrims Progress (The Accurate Revised Text by Barry E. Horner) $12.00 $9.75

Biblical EldershipAlexander Strauch $14.99 $9.30

Biblical Eldership Study GuideAlexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50

Biblical Eldership Mentors GuideAlexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50

Total Price

See Rate Charts Below Shipping

Canadian ordersDiscover, Visa or MasterCard onlyplease. Total Order

Postage & Handling RatesUnited States

Up to $20.00 $3.95

$20.01$50.00 $6.00

$50.01 and Up 12%

Postage & Handling RatesOverseasDiscover, VISA or

MasterCard

Please call or e-mail for rates

Postage & Handling RatesCanadaDiscover, VISA or

MasterCard

Up to $30.00 $7.50

$30.01 and Up 25%

Ship to: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __

Street address: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __

City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ____

Country: ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __

My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed

Charge to my: Discover VISA MasterCard

Expires __ ___ __/_____ __

Account Number: __ ____/______/______/______

Signature: ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___

S h i p p i n g R a t e C h a r t f o r B o o k s


12/20

Page 12 May 2012 Issue 187WhiteContinued from page 1

sufficient as guides to life. In these

chapters, he lays out what behavior in

Gods new world should look like.

I want to quote Galatians 5:13-6:2

to get a feel for the context of 6:2,

where we will focus. I will be mak-

ing a case for a certain understandingof the phrase, law of the Messiah.

So walk with me as we think Pauls

thoughts after him:

You, my brothers and sisters, were

called to be free. But do not use your

freedom to indulge the flesh; rather,

serve one another humbly in love.

For the entire law is fulfilled in keep-

ing this one command: Love your

neighbor as yourself. If you bite and

devour each other, watch out or you

will be destroyed by each other. So I

say, walk by the Spirit, and you will

not gratify the desires of the flesh. For

the flesh desires what is contrary to

the Spirit, and the Spirit what is con-

trary to the flesh. They are in conflict

with each other, so that you are not to

do whatever you want. But if you are

led by the Spirit, you are not under the

law. The acts of the flesh are obvi-

ous: sexual immorality, impurity and

debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft;

hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage,selfish ambition, dissensions, factions

and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the

like. I warn you, as I did before, that

those who live like this will not inherit

the kingdom of God. But the fruit of

the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbear-

ance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

gentleness and self-control. Against

such things there is no law. Those who

belong to Christ Jesus have crucified

the flesh with its passions and desires.

Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep

in step with the Spirit. Let us notbecome conceited, provoking and en-

vying each other. Brothers and sisters,

if someone is caught in a sin, you who

live by the Spirit should restore that

person gently. But watch yourselves,

or you also may be tempted. Carry

each others burdens, and in this way

you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal.

5:13-6:2)

What is the law of the Messiah?

There are really two main options:

it is the law of Moses or something

different? Virtually all of the 30

preceding uses of law in Galatians

refer to the Mosaic law.1 This being

the case, we must have a good reason

to say this is nota reference to the

Mosaic law, and we do; here are three:

First, all the negative references to

the law in Galatians:

2:16 A person is not justified by

the works of the law, but by faith in

Jesus Christ

2:19 Through the law I died to

the law

2:21 If righteousness could be

gained through the law, Christ died for

nothing

3:2 Did you receive the Spirit

by the works of the law, or by believ-

ing what you heard?

3:10 For all who rely on the

works of the law are under a curse

3:11 Clearly no one who relies

on the law is justified before God

3:12 The law is not based on

faith

3:13 Christ redeemed us from

the curse of the law

3:18 For if the inheritance de-

pends on the law, it no longer depends

on the promise

3:21b For if a law had been

given that could impart life, then righ-

teousness would certainly have come

by the law

3:23 We were held in custodyunder the law, locked up until the faith

that was to come would be revealed

3:24 So the law was our guard-

ian until Christ came

4:5 God sent his Son to redeem

those under the law

1 The references are: 2:16 (3X), 19 (2X),

21; 3:2, 5, 10 (2X), 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19,

21 (3X), 23, 24; 4:4, 5, 21 (2X); 5:3, 4, 14,

18, 23; 6:2, 13.

5:4 You who are trying to be

justified by the law have been alien-

ated from Christ

5:18 But if you are led by the

Spirit you are not under the law

5:23 Against such things there

is no lawSo far, Christ and the law have

been presented as being in sharp op-

position.2 Only here in Galatians 6:2

are the two used together positively.

This fact suggests that Paul has some

other law in mind here.

Second, Paul adds three extremely

important words to the word law:

of the Messiah (tou Christou)! Paul

has in mind something distinct from

the law of Moses here.3

Third, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

shows definitively that the law of

Christ is something distinct from the

law of Moses. There we read:

Though I am free and belong to

no one, I have made myself a slave to

everyone, to win as many as possible.

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to

win the Jews. To those under the law I

became like one under the law (though

I myself am not under the law), so asto win those under the law. To those

not having the law I became like one

not having the law (though I am not

free from Gods law but am under

Christs law), so as to win those not

having the law. To the weak I became

weak, to win the weak. I have become

all things to all people so that by all

possible means I might save some. I do

all this for the sake of the gospel, that

I may share in its blessings.

Notice that Paul clearly distin-guishes the law of Moses from the law

of God. Then he defines the law of

God as being in-lawed to Messiah

2 Richard B. Hays, Galatians, The New

Interpreters Bible (Nashville: Abingdon,

2000), 333.

3 David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Dif-

ference (New York: T & T Clark Interna-

tional, 2005), 227.



13/20


us even while we were running away

from him. All this is to affirm that

salvation is of God and to his glory

alone.

Limited Atonement

Election is not enough to save us.There is this matter of divine justice

which must be satisfied. That is, God

cannot merely take sinners into his

fellowship. Their sin must be dealt

with first. In fact, they must be pun-

ished.

But this is the very heart of the

gospel, that Christ came and, in the

place of sinners, offered a sacrifice to

God for their sin. In Jesus words, I

lay down my life for my sheep (John10:11). Because his death was in their

place and for their sin, they will go

free. They are punished in him, their

substitute. This, again, is the whole es-

sence of the gospel, the very hallmark

of Christianity. Golgotha was no mere

place; it was an event. There Christ

took our sin and died for us. There he

saved us.

It is for this reason that we say,

further, that Christ died with the inten-

tion of saving his elect. He gave his

life for his sheep (John 10:11). To

be sure, the value of Christs person

and work is infinite. His death there-

fore was entirely sufficient to atone

for all the sins of all the men who

ever lived. But, of course, it was not

designedto do that. We know this,

very simply, because not all are saved.

His mission, as he defined it, was

to save those whom the Father had

given him (John 6:37-39). On hisway to the cross, it was for the elect

that Jesus prayed and not the world at

large (John 17:9). He came on a gra-

cious missionto save those whom

the Father had chosenand it is with

this intention that he offered himself

for sin. Put another way, by his death

Jesus gathered together in one the

children of God who were scattered

abroad (John 11:52).

ZaspelContinued from page 9

ZaspelContinued on page 17

The apostle Paul speaks of this in

similar language. Christ bought the

church with his own blood (Acts

20:28). He loved the church and gave

himself for it (Eph. 5:25). Perhaps

more significantly, he speaks of the

final number of the redeemed as a

purchased possession (Eph. 1:14);they have been bought, and so their

salvation will come to full number and

to fruition. And in Romans 8:32, he

explains that those for whom Christ

diednecessarily receive all of the at-

tending blessings; there are none for

whom Christ died who do not receive

salvation in its fullness. In short, every

last person for whom Christ died will

enjoy its benefits (2 Cor. 5:14-15).

Or, to view it from the standpoint of

justice, none for whom Jesus diedcan ever be condemned (Rom. 8:34);

because Christ has died in their place,

justice demands their acquittal.

The song of the redeemed in Rev-

elation 5:9 likewise glories in Christs

particular redemption: Worthy are

you to take the scroll and to open

its seals, for you were slain, and by

your blood you ransomed people for

God from every tribe and language

and people and nation. Notice thelanguage from (ek, out from). It

is selective redemption by Christs

blood that we sing of Christ has

redeemed us by his blood out from

those who are lost.

The writer to the Hebrews is just as

explicit, emphasizing the certain ac-

complishment of Christs death. Some

have mistakenly thought that in dying,

Christ attempted to save everyone.

But that is plainly not the case. Christdid not attemptanything; by his death,

he obtainedeternal redemption

(9:12), not in theory but in fact. He

died so that those who are called may

receive the promise of eternal inheri-

tance (v. 15). Who are these who

are called? They are the many for

whose sin Christ was offered (v. 28).

At issue here is not the value but

the efficacy of Christs death. Did he

in dying try to save everyone? Did

he in dying merely make salvation

possible for everyone equally? Was

this his intent? If so, then in the end,

it was not his death that secured our

salvation. And if that is so, then his

death was not enough. This is why

the biblical writers emphasize sostrongly that in dying, Jesus secured

andaccomplishedthe salvation of his

people. He did not die in hopes that

someone somewhere might make his

way to somehow make his atonement

efficacious. Not at all. He died to save

He came to save his people from

their sins (Matt. 1:21), and so he did.

In his death, the work that saves was

finished (John 19:30).

This is precisely why we speakso confidently of our good stand-

ing before God in Christ. What God

demanded of us in terms of justice,

the Lord Jesus did for us. Jesus paid

it all! we sing, and for good reason.

Even in heaven, this will be our song.

You were slain, and by your blood

you have redeemed us to God (Rev.

5:9). Our assurance does not lie in

anything less. We do not suppose that

he did so much and left something

else to us. No, we believe that he didenough all by himself, and in this we

take refuge. Accordingly, our only

glory is in the cross of our Lord Jesus

Christ (Gal. 6:14).

Spurgeon puts the matter into right

perspective.

We are often told that we limit

the atonement of Christ, because we

say that Christ has not made a satis-

faction for all men, or all men would

be saved. Now, our reply to this is,that, on the other hand, our opponents

limit it; we do not. The Arminians say,

Christ died for all men. Ask them what

they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to

secure the salvation of all men? They

say, No, certainly not. We ask them

the next questionDid Christ die so

as to secure the salvation of any man

in particular? They answer No. They

are obliged to admit this, if they are


14/20


WhiteContinued from page 12

(ennomos Christou). In other words,

one fulfills the will of God not by put-

ting oneself under the law of Moses,

but by being under the jurisdiction of

Jesus.

These three points lead me to be-

lieve Paul has something different inmind here, but what is it? He is using

an ironic, rhetorical wordplay here,

like he does with faith working

(Gal. 5:6).4 Throughout the letter, Paul

has also contrasted faith and works,

but then towards the end he says that

all that matters is faith working.

Paul is very clever. This is not the

only time that Paul has used the word

law metaphorically. Consider the

following instances: Gal. 5:23 - Against such things

there is no law

Rom. 3:27 - Where, then, is

boasting? It is excluded. Be-

cause of what law? The law that

requires works? No, because of

the law that requires faith.

Rom. 7:23 - But I see another

law at work in me, waging war

against the law of my mind andmaking me a prisoner of the law

of sin at work within me.

Rom. 7:25 - So then, I myself

in my mind am a slave to Gods

law, but in my sinful nature a

slave to the law of sin.

Rom. 8:2 - Because through

Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit

who gives life has set you free

from the law of sin and death.

It is absolutely true that Paul usu-

ally has the Mosaic law-covenant in

mind when he uses the word law

(vomos), but not always. They want

to be under law so Paul grants it. In

Galatians 6:2, Paul cleverly coins the

phrase law of the Messiah to refer

4 Richard Hays, Christology and Ethics

in Galatians: The Law of Christ, The

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49.1 (Jan.

1987), 275.

to the pattern of the Messiah.5

What is that pattern?

We have seen what the law of the

Messiah was not. We have seen that

Paul has something distinct from the

Mosaic law in mind. He means the

pattern of the Messiah, but we did notanswer what that pattern is. He has

already shown what this pattern is in

the letter. We are called to carry one

anothers burdens, and in this way,

we will fulfill the pattern of the Mes-

siah. Paul has presented Christ as the

ultimate burden bearer.6 His readers

would have already seen this in the

letter:

1:3-4 Grace and peace to you

from God our Father and theLord Jesus Christ, who gave him-

self for our sins to rescue us from

the present evil age, according to

the will of our God and Father.

2:20 I live by faith in the Son

of God, who loved me and gave

himself for me.

3:13-14 Christ redeemed us

from the curse of the law by

becoming a curse for us.

4:4-5 But when the set time

had fully come, God sent his

Son, born of a woman, born

under the law, to redeem those

under the law, that we might

receive adoption to sonship.

Notice the pattern: Jesus gives of

himself for the good of others. This

is his law, his pattern. One New

Testament scholar paraphrases: Bear

one anothers burdens, and in this way

you yourselves will repeat Christs

deed, bringing to completion in your

communities the law that Christ has

already brought to completion in the

sentence about loving the neighbor.7

5 Ibid., 276.

6 Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 423.

7 J.L. Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New

York: Doubleday, 1997), 547-48.

So doing justice to the fact that

Paul is using a wordplay on the word

law here, a better translation may be

basic principle,8 or regulative prin-

ciple, or structure of existence,9 or

normative pattern.10 Law could

be translated as main principle since

this burden-bearing, self-giving loveis seen as the essence of what Christ

was about.11 This is the Torah of the

Messiah. It is his instruction. This is

the way of Jesus. This is the Jesus

mindset. This is cruciform love.

The pattern of the Messiah is

fulfilled by a mode of operation that

seeks the good of others even at cost

to oneself. The story of Jesus must

become the story of the community.

The pattern of Christs self-sacrificialdeath on a cross has now become the

rule for our experience.12 As another

New Testament scholar puts it, The

pattern of Jesus character the way

he loved me and gave himself for me

(Gal. 2:20b) is now to be the pattern

of the Christians life.13

It is a pattern of self-enslaving

love. In Galatians 5:13, he exhorts us

to become slaves of one another in

love. We use freedom as an opportuni-ty to become slaves of others. We are

servants. We put the needs of others

above our own. This is the same thing

Paul says in Philippians 2:3-8:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition

or vain conceit. Rather, in humility

value others above yourselves,notlooking to your own interests but each

of you to the interests of the others. In

your relationships with one another,

have the same mindset as Christ

8 Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 230.

9 Hays, Christology and Ethics in Gala-

tians: The Law of Christ, 276, 286.

10 Horrell, Solidarity and Difference,

230.

11 Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 424.

12 Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians,

Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox

Press: 1997), 154.

13 Luke Timothy Johnson,Living Jesus

(New York: HarperOne, 1999), 46.


15/20

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 15Jesus: Who, being in very nature

God, did not consider equality with

God something to be used to his own

advantage; rather, he made himself

nothingby taking the very natureof a servant,being made in humanlikeness. And being found in appear-

ance as a man, he humbled himselfby becoming obedient to deathevendeath on a cross!

We are to give of self for the good

of others. We put them first, just as

Jesus put us first by becoming human

and dying on a cross. He did not come

to be served, but to serve. This fulfills

the law of the Messiah.

From Galatians we learn that this

activity also fulfills the law of Moses.

Jesus taught the same thing. In Mat-

thew 7:12, he said, So in everything,

do to others what you would have

them do to you, for this sums up the

Law and the Prophets. In Matthew

22:40, he said All the Law and the

Prophets hang on these two command-

ments. Paul also teaches that love

fulfills the law in Romans 13:8-10.

Through the Spirit and the cross, we

bring to fruition what the law always

pointed to.14

Love is so important for the ethicsof the New Testament. In Galatians

we have seen that the only thing

that counts is faith expressing itself

through love (5:6). We are called

to serve one another humbly in

love. For the entire law is fulfilled in

keeping this one command: Love

your neighbor as yourself. (5:13-

14). We are told that the fruit of the

Spirit is love (5:22). Love is a fruit

of the Spirit, and it is characterizedby service and carrying one anothers

burdens.

14 As Gordon Fee puts it, The aim of

Torah, which Torah was helpless to bring

off, was to create a loving community in

which Gods own character and purposes

are fulfilled as Gods people love one an-

other the way he loves them. The Spirit

has replaced Torah by fulfilling the aim

of Torah, Gods Empowering Presence

(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 426.

In Galatians 5:13, he calls us to

serve one another humbly in love. In

love is a favorite phrase of Pauls:

do everything in love (1 Cor.

16:14), being rooted and established

in love (Eph. 3:17), be completely

humble and gentle; be patient, bearing

with one another in love (Eph. 4:2),speaking the truth in love (Eph.

4:15), and walk in love, as the Mes-

siah also loved us and gave himself

for us (Eph. 5:2 CSB), my goal is

that they may be encouraged in heart

and united in love (Col. 2:2).

New Testament scholar Bruce Lon-

genecker writes, These are qualities

that enhance corporate life. Moreover,

it may not be coincidental that love

appearsfi

rst in the list, giving it prideof place. Paul has emphasized love on

three occasions thus far in his letter,

and all of them in important contexts.

Not only is love (as opposed to cir-

cumcision) the characteristic of those

in Christ (5:6; cf. 5:13), it is so pre-

cisely because Christians are joined

in union with the one who himself

demonstrated love (2:20). The love

that Christ exhibited is defined further

in 2:20 as his self-giving, the same

quality that Paul highlights at the startof his letter (1:4). This quality of self-

giving love seems, to Pauls mind,

to be a wholly eschatological phe-

nomenon, an eschatological quality

reproduced in the lives of those united

with Christ by means of the Spirit of

Christ. It is little wonder, then, that

it appears first in the list, since Paul

considered it to be the fundamental

characteristic of Christs own life and

imagined it to be the context out of

which all other Spirit-generated char-

acteristics arise.15

Paul wants the main principle

of Jesus to become the main prin-

ciple of the church. This is what he

is getting at in Galatians 4:19: My

dear children, for whom I am again in

15 Bruce Longenecker, The Triumph of

Abrahams God(Nashville: Abingdon,

1998), 71.

the pains of childbirth until Christ is

formed in you.

This is Pauls Master Story.

Notice the pattern, the law of the

Messiah, found in other passages:

Eph. 5:2 says, Follow Gods

example, therefore, as dearlyloved children and walk in the

way of love, just as Christ loved

us and gave himself up for us as

a fragrant offering and sacrifice

to God.

John 13:14-15: Now that I, your

Lord and Teacher, have washed

your feet, you also should wash

one anothers feet. I have set you

an example that you should do as

I have done for you. John 13:34-35 reads, A new

command I give you: Love one

another. As I have loved you, so

you must love one another. By

this everyone will know that you

are my disciples, if you love one

another.

Rom. 15:2-3 says, Each of us

should please our neighbors for

their good, to build them up.

For even Christ did not pleasehimself. Do you see the paral-

lel? Christs pattern of burden-

bearing establishes a law we

are called to fulfill.16

1 Cor. 10:32-11:1 reads, Do not

cause anyone to stumble, wheth-

er Jews, Greeks or the church

of God even as I try to please

everyone in every way. For I am

not seeking my own good but the

good of many, so that they maybe saved. Follow my example, as

I follow the example of Christ.

2 Cor. 8:9 For you know the

grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,

that though he was rich, yet for

your sake he became poor, so

16 Hays, Christology and Ethics in

Galatians: The Law of Christ, 287.



16/20


with Whitcomb, but I do agree that

his view is the honest application of

the literal, grammatical, historical

methodologyof interpretation.

When we apply the NCT principle

of allowing the New Testament to in-

terpret the Old Testament, Whitcombs

view seems to lack biblical support.

When we ask, What does the New

Testament say about the temple God

would build, about the priests who

would serve in that temple, and about

the sacrifices they would offer, not a

single New Testament text literalizes

the temple, the priesthood, or the sac-

rifices. Each of these three is spiritual-

ized in the New Testament Scriptures.

If the Old Testament prophecies areunderstood as interpreted and applied

by the writers of the New Testament,

the church is now Gods temple4 or

dwelling place. All New Covenant

believers are his priests5 and our

sacrifices are spiritual6. There is no

room in the least for a temple made

with brick and mortar, no room for a

physical priestly order, and surely no

4 1 Cor. 3:16-17: Do you not know that

you are Gods temple and that Gods Spir-

it dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys

Gods temple, God will destroy him. For

Gods temple is holy, and you are that

temple. ESV

5 1 Peter 2:9-10: But you are a chosen

race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a

people for his own possession, that you

may proclaim the excellencies of him

who called you out of darkness into his

marvelous light. 10 Once you were not

a people, but now you are Gods people;

once you had not received mercy, but nowyou have received mercy. ESV

6 Rom 12:1: I appeal to you therefore,

brothers, by the mercies of God, to pres-

ent your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy

and acceptable to God, which is your

spiritual worship. ESV

room for a blood sacrifice intended

to gain acceptance with Godand

Ezekiel specifically notes that animal

blood sacrifices would be the ground

of acceptance with God.

The temple that God is building in

his kingdom is not made out of bricks

and mortar; it is made out of living

stones. It is described in 1 Cor. 3 as

a temple and in Hebrews 4 as Gods

house. As the ultimate dwelling place

of God, it can by no means be made

to fit a literal interpretation of Ezekiel

40-48.

The New Covenant priesthood is

made up of every believernot just

the men from one Israelite tribe. Gods

New Covenant priests do not offer

bulls and goats; they offer spiritualsacrifices (I Peter 2:5). It is impos-

sible to imagine a New Covenant

priest being in a different class than

any other believer. It is even more im-

possible to imagine a New Covenant

priest shedding the blood of an animal

as sin offering. We will say more

about this when we look at other New

Testament passages.

For now, we must see that the New

Covenant principle of allowing theNew Testament to interpret the Old

Testament will not allow a literal,

grammatical, historical methodology

of interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. We

must also see that it would seem that

it is not possible to hold a literal,

grammatical, historical methodol-

ogy of interpretation of Scripture and

not also believe that some time in the

future there will be a 500 cubit square

temple complex with Israelite priests

offering burnt and sin offerings.

In our next article, we will look at

how the New Testament writers inter-

pret some additional Old Testament

passages. m


that you through his poverty

might become rich.

To fulfill the law of Ch

Documents

Sound of Grace, Issue 187, May 2012