“Why Can’t I Own Canadians?” Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

by Dr. Michael Horton at the White Horse Inn blogOn her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, an Orthodox Jew, said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, which was posted on the Internet. It creates a great opportunity to talk about how we interpret the Bible (especially the Old Testament). We need to have good answers—better than Dr. Laura would have—to the frequent criticism that if we’re going to follow Leviticus on one thing (like the vileness of homosexuality), we have to take the rest (such as stoning homosexuals and rebellious children—not to mention, the ban on pork, etc., and holy war in defense of a holy nation).

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination …. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)

Although the responses aren’t usually this clever, the “Do you really want to go to Leviticus?” argument packs a punch in contemporary debates. Often, the critic assumes that every biblical command is a timeless and universal law. They really can’t bear the blame by themselves for this misunderstanding, since it’s common to a lot of Christian preaching through the ages. Medieval popes invoked these “holy war” passages for the crusades and appealed to Leviticus for prohibiting the charging of interest on loans to Christians.
In fact, John Calvin took aim at medieval canon law on just these very points, explaining that while the moral law is indeed universally binding for all time and places, the civil and ceremonial laws attached to it in the Old Testament covenant code were given uniquely to the only nation that has ever been chosen and separated as holy to the Lord. Anticipated by John the Baptist’s fiery announcement of a judgment in God’s house, Jesus pronounced his covenant curses on the religious leaders and in word and deed replaced the Temple. The only holy land after Jesus’ resurrection is his body, those who are united to him through faith, “from every tribe, kindred, tongue, people, and nation” (Rev 5:9). Already in Hebrews 8:13, the old covenant could be called “obsolete.”
The commands in the old covenant law (viz., Leviticus and Deuteronomy) are specific to that remarkable geo-political theocracy that foreshadowed the universal kingdom of Christ. The deliverance of Israel in the exodus anticipates a far greater exodus through the waters of death and hell in Christ. The holy wars pale in comparison with the judgment of the nations that Christ will execute at the end of the age. Even if Israel had been faithful to this covenant, Canaan would have only been a type or small-scale model of the extensiveness and intensiveness of God’s reign at the end of the age. Moses could not give God’s people rest in the land of everlasting Sabbath. As the prophets proclaim, this would only come when one greater than Moses would rescue his people and lead them victoriously into the perfect peace, love, and joy that he would win for his co-heirs.
Sure, we learn from Leviticus 18:22 that God considers homosexuality an abomination. Yet our critics (at least the clever ones) will point out that the same code threatens excommunication for eating any meat with blood in it (Lev 17:10) and eating animals that chew the cud or part the hoof (like pigs) is strictly forbidden as “unclean” (Lev 11). The responder above points to many other examples.
Few of these commands can be explained in terms of general wisdom for hygiene, sanitation, and gastronomic health. They focus attention on God’s act of separating Israel (“clean”) from the unclean nations. Each set of prohibitions is a facet in the diamond of an old covenant system that sparkled with anticipation of the coming Messiah. It takes a good knowledge of the covenantal context and import of these commands for Israel to recognize their unique significance in this history of redemption. It also requires that we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, allowing the fulfillment to guide our understanding of the typological promise.
A good place to start in digging deeper is M. G. Kline’s Kingdom Prologue, especially where he talks about “Intrusion Ethics”: that is, the suspension of ordinary providence in favor of miracle, ordinary wisdom in favor of God’s direct word through the prophets, just war among common nations in favor of holy war on behalf of God’s holy land and nation. Homosexuality is still a violation of God’s moral law for all times and places, but the sanction for it under the old covenant (death by stoning) was theocracy-specific.
Living in an era that foreshadowed the last judgment, the Psalmist properly offered imprecatory prayers calling for God’s judgment on the ungodly. Nevertheless, in Jesus’ ministry this identification of heaven with a geo-political nation was declared no longer in effect. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes some of these passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: “You have heard it said, ‘…..’ But I say,….” These old covenant commands were not wrong; they had their place in the theocratic government that God exercised directly over his people. However, Jesus rebukes James and John when they seek to call fire down on the Samaritan village that rejected the gospel. I offer a summary of this argument in The Christian Faith (chapter 29).
In the moral law that runs not only through the whole Bible but throughout the codes of so many civilizations across the ages, God reveals his righteous character. In the specific legislation that God attaches to this moral law for Israel alone, however, God’s moral will is in service to his saving will in Jesus Christ. These Israel-specific laws are not intended to regulate the constitutions of common nations, but ultimately to play their part in a theocratic system that leads us ultimately to Christ and his everlasting kingdom. So you can’t invoke the old covenant passages for common nations in this era in which Christ’s kingdom is not identified with any geo-political nation. It’s an era of forgiveness, a stay of execution before the dreadful day of judgment. In this in-between time, the kingdom of Christ (regardless of what the secular kingdoms of this age determine) announces God’s righteous judgment and gracious salvation. It calls all people everywhere—gay, straight, gossips, and the pious grandmother who trusts in her own righteousness—to repent and embrace God’s only Son.

Said the Spider to the Fly

When the Constitution first came out of the convention, the opposition to it (as it then was) was identified with the anti-Federalists, led by men like Patrick Henry. The support for it was called Federalist, led by men like James Madison. In the resulting clash between the two factions, the Federalists compromised enough to agree to a Bill of Rights, which was enough to secure passage. This means that it is not too much to call the Constitution a (moderate) anti-Federalist document. The steady encroachments of federal power since that time simply show us that the moderation should have been a little less moderate, and a little more suspicious.

Speaking of suspicion, there are two approaches to constitutional law, each having to do with where the default suspicions lie. One side is suspicious of citizen, who might be off in a corner, you know, making a profit or something. The other view is suspicious of the power of government, which always wants to play the game and be the ref at the same time.

In the founding era, the basic orientation was this: "How can we protect our rights from Congress?" Today, the assumption for many has become: "How can we have our rights protected by Congress?" Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly.

This basic division of thought is shaking out again in our own time. A generation ago one party thought the government should solve our problems by doing x and the other party thought the government should solve our problems by doing y. Now things are quite different. Now one faction believes that the government should solve our problems by doing x and the other believes government is the problem.

And of course, a number of Republicans want to get the support and energy of this latter group . . . so they can get in office and do y.

 

Church Discipline

Dr. David Murray, president of HeadHeartHand, is the Professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. He lives in Grand Rapids with his wife, Shona, and four children.

Church discipline is an often englected subject in the life of the Church. Historically, that was not the case. The Reformers noted three marks of a true Church: (1) the preaching of the Gospel; (2) a right administration of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper); and (3) the use of Church disipline.
There are good reasons for the people of God to be made aware of what Church discipline actually is, how it is to function in the life of the local Church, and how it can be very useful to them personally to make the experience of life in the community of God a safe place for them.
I found the following two articles by Dr. Murray to be both wise and practical. I will put the two articles together in the one place here.
(1) PREPARE FOR CHURCH DISCIPLINE
Prevention is better than cure, especially in the sphere of church discipline. As discipline cases can very easily consume a pastor’s time and energy, and even consume the pastor and his congregation, the prevention of church discipline should be a high pastoral priority.
And how do we do that?
We do it, first, by preaching, by regularly setting forth clear standards of Christian confession, character, and conduct in our regular preaching ministry. Our flock needs to know where the fences are, where the no-go areas are, and what to expect if they cross them.
Second, we prevent church discipline by pastoral visitation. We need to keep in close and regular contact with the sheep to gauge where they are in their walk with God. In those one-to-one situations we may detect small changes in belief, attitude, spirit or character that can be addressed before they become big and irreversible problems.
However, no matter how well we preach and pastor, no matter how much we try to prevent it, church discipline problems are going to arise. It’s therefore best to prepare the congregation, and especially the officebearers, before it arises.
Early in a pastor’s ministry (not the first sermon, of course, but certainly within a few months) he should preach a sermon on church discipline, before he has to deal with any cases. That keeps the subject objective and avoids personalizing it. Points to make may include:
The necessity of church discipline
One Church order book puts it like this: “Any institution or society which is to function effectively must be well-ordered: it must have recognised means of correcting aberrations which threaten its integrity. This is true pre-eminently of the Church of Jesus Christ, whose witness in the world depends so intimately on the godly behavior of its members.”
The warrant for church discipline
This is not something thought up by legalistic control-freaks. Rather, it has divine warrant (Matthew 18:15-19). So important did the Reformers see church discipline that they included it as one of the marks of the church along with preaching and the sacraments.
The benefits of good church discipline
Listen to this comprehensive list of benefits from a Scottish book of Church order: “Church discipline and censures are of great use and necessity in the Church, that the name of God, by reason of ungodly and wicked persons living in the Church, be not blasphemed, nor his wrath provoked against his people; that the godly be not leavened with but preserved from the contagion, and stricken with fear; and that sinners who are to be censured may be ashamed, to the destruction of the flesh and saving of the spirit in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
The procedure for church discipline
The roolz! Don’t we just love ‘em!! Well, whether we love them or not we’d better get to know them, and get to know them fast. I know it is far more edifying and enjoyable to read the latest books from Reformation Heritage Books, but knowing the intricacies of the church’s discipline procedures could save a pastor’s ministry, and even save a soul.
As so many of the problems associated with church discipline arise from a lack of procedure, a failure to follow it, or an abuse of it, we must familiarize ourselves with the principles and the practice. If your church does not have any formal procedures, then find one that does, get their protocols, and copy or adapt their methods. Train the elders in this and also communicate to the congregation what they can expect, so that they are not taken by surprise or think that they are being unfairly treated.
Whatever we do, we must not abuse, shortcut or override the stated procedures, however tempted we are to do so. When some people are accused of sins, they train their sights on the procedures rather than their sin, and can easily turn the focus away from themselves, away from what they have done, and to what we have done or not done in the process.

The consequences of failed church discipline
If church discipline is not practiced, or if it is inconsistently or poorly practised, it can destroy a ministry, a congregation, or even a denomination. Paul says that failure to discipline can result in congregational sickness and even death (1 Corinthians 11:29-32). Jesus warns the church in Thyatira that his frown is upon them because of their failure to discipline a false teacher in their midst (Rev. 2:20-23).
The positive aim of church discipline
The ultimate aim of church discipline is not punishment but restoration (Gal. 6:1). Robert Murray McCheyne describes how he came to see the value of church discipline despite his initial reluctance to practice it.
When I first entered upon the work of the ministry among you, I was exceedingly ignorant of the vast importance of church discipline. I thought that my great and almost only work was to pray and preach. I saw your souls to be so precious, and the time so short, that I devoted all my time, and care, and strength, to labor in word and doctrine. When cases of discipline were brought before me and the elders, I regarded them with something like abhorrence. It was a duty I shrank from; and I may truly say it nearly drove me from the work of the ministry among you altogether. But it pleased God, who teaches His servants in another way than man teaches, to bless some of the cases of discipline to the manifest and undeniable conversion of the souls of those under our care; and from that hour a new light broke in upon my mind, and I saw that if preaching be an ordinance of Christ, so is church discipline. I now feel very deeply persuaded that both are of God – that two keys are committed to us by Christ: the one the key of doctrine, by means of which we unlock the treasures of the Bible; the other the key of discipline, by which we open or shut the way to the sealing ordinances of the faith. Both are Christ’s gift, and neither is to be resigned without sin.
(2) PRACTICE CHURCH DISCIPLINE
Let’s take a closer look at the practice of church discipline, not so much at the procedures and rules, but the attitude and spirit with which we should go about this.
We need great love
Notice that the context for the church discipline passage in Matthew 18:15-19 is of caring for Christ’s little ones (vv. 1-10), and of the shepherd pursuing the lost sheep (vv. 11-14). We need a loving motive (to win back the brother or sister to Christ), and a loving manner – saying the right words in the right place at the right time. If at any time we find ourselves lacking a loving motive and manner, it is time to pause and go no further as without love we will do a lot of damage. Remember, Christ says that if we offend one of His little ones, it would have been better for us to have a large millstone hung around our necks and we be cast into the sea (Matthew 18:6; c.f. v. 10).
We need great carefulness
Again I want to emphasize the need for extreme care in following the three-step biblical process (Matthew 18:15-19) and however our particular church has understood this in its own particular circumstances. The person making the complaint should first approach the offender. If that fails to result in repentance or adequate explanation, then the concerned person should ask an elder, the pastor, or a mature Christian to come with them to speak to the person. If that fails to produce the desired response, then the matter should be brought before the “church” (either the elders or the members, depending on the government of the church).
The benefits of this three-step process are that the offended person is made to ask themselves, “Is this serious enough to warrant the next step?” The accused person is made to realize the increasing gravity of the matter. And witnesses to the earlier steps are able to testify to the church courts at the later stages if required. But perhaps the greatest benefit is that it stops frivolous matters being brought before the elders, especially by those who lack the Christian love and courage to approach fellow Christians first before going public.
Of course, if the sin is public knowledge then the Matthew 18 instructions about private offenses does not necessarily apply. However, as some people whose sins are well known will still try to use non-compliance with Matthew 18 to criticize their pastor or church, it is often wise to at least try a private approach first.
We need great courage
I don’t know anyone who looks forward to church discipline. Surely most, if not all of us, have an aversion to the mental, emotional, and spiritual demands of dealing with sin in someone’s life. Most of us draw back. Some will do anything rather than deal with these situations. And often the motive is not love for the person, but fear of them, or of their family, or of the consequences in the congregation.
We need the Lord to give us courage to face sin, do something about sin, do it in the right way, persevere through the stress, effect appropriate sanctions (admonish, rebuke, censure, suspension, excommunication, etc.), and to take appropriate actions.
We need great humility
If we could be humble enough to realize that we ourselves could fall into the worst sin (Gal. 6:1), it would give a much more loving flavor to all our attitudes and actions.
We need great wisdom
I’ve never been involved in a straightforward church discipline case. They have always involved complicating factors like counter-accusations, denials, excuses, lack of evidence, etc. We need so much wisdom to know how to proceed, what questions to ask, where the truth lies, etc. How much we should be praying for the wisdom that God has promised to His perplexed people (James 1:5). Which brings us on to our next point.
We need great prayer
We often quote Matthew 18:19 about the Lord’s promised presence where two or three are gathered in His name. However, we often fail to realize that the immediate context is that of church discipline. It’s not people met in a weekly prayer meeting or worship service, but people met to exercise church discipline, and they do so with prayer and the promised presence of God’s Spirit.
We of course pray for prevention, but also for love, courage, carefulness, humility, and wisdom in all that we say and do. We need help to be perfectly and consistently just, showing neither favoritism nor prejudice. And of course we pray for a successful outcome, where sin will be confessed and repented of, and the sinner will be encouraged and helped to a more holy and useful life again.

Dealing with Disappointment

“During the period when lotteries were unhappily allowed to flourish in this country, a gentleman, looking into the window of a lottery office in St. Paul’s Churchyard, discovered to his joy that his ticket had turned up a 10,000 pound prize. Intoxicated with this sudden accession of wealth, he walked round the churchyard, to consider calmly how he should dispose of his fortune. On again, in his circuit, passing the lottery office, he resolved to take another glance at the charming announcement in the window, when, to his dismay, he saw that a new number had been substituted. On inquiry, he found that a wrong number had at first been posted by mistake, and that after all he was not the holder of the prize. His chagrin was now as great as his previous pleasure had been.” — W. Haig Miller’s “Life’s Pleasure Garden”
When you and I experience a disappointment far more grievious than the failure to win the lottery, what is our anchor? When the sea billows roll, what keeps us from drifting far from the safe refuge of His presence?
The answer is found in what we choose to think about. What we choose to believe.
The Psalmist David wrote, “I believe that I shall look upon the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living! Wait for the LORD; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the LORD!” (Psalm 27:13, 14)
Hebrews 6:19 tells us that hope is “a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul.” It is a certain expectation of future blessing and favor.
When you have lost something precious, perhaps even someone precious, even the most precious relationship you have ever had in this world, just remember, the same Sovereign One who has ordered your events in time is the all wise and Omniscient One too.
As much as a finite mind ever could ever be given access to even a measure of His thoughts and to know what He knows about you and the situation that greatly troubles your heart – if you could look beyond your present disappointment and see things as He does, you would have ordained the events of your life just as He did – you would have chosen what He has chosen for you. This indeed is the supreme comfort of the saints in their trials. God in His providence has ordered all the events of time and though the One who gave might have chosen to taken away, we should always say, “Blessed be the Name of the Lord.”
He is worthy of our trust, even as the tears roll down our faces. He is altogether good. He is altogether gracious. He is Love Himself. He is the Faithful One, steadfast and true.
When the answer to our prayers is simply God telling us “NO,” what we know about God should provoke our trust in Him, even when the only thing our frail and limited understanding would conclude is that the answer should have been “yes.” Our mind screams out, “God if You only knew what I know, You would have chosen something different.” Yet the moment we even voice such a thought, we realise that this thought must be recognized as the most futile and fallacious thoughts imaginable. God knows all we know and a billion more things besides, and He has taken all things into consideration when He ordained all the events your life will ever encounter.
There is no testimony without a test. There is no need for trust when all is understood. Trust in the dark what He revealed to you in the light.
Trust in the Lord, wait patiently for Him. The Lord has His plan for you, precious child of God, and all His plans for you are good.
We may lose our gold, but we can never lose our God. The expectation of the righteous is from the Lord, and nothing that comes from him shall ever fail.
C. H. Spurgeon once recalled, “I knew one who had made an idol of his daughter, and when she sickened and died, he was exceedingly rebellious, and the result was that he died himself. Expectations which hang upon the frail tenure of a human life may fill our cup with wormwood if we indulge them. Could this father have owned the Lord’s hand in the removal of his child, and had he beforehand moderated his expectations concerning her, he might have lived happily with the rest of his family, and have been an example of holy patience.”
What is your idol? What vain thing do you allow to come before yourself and your God? Is it a certain job? A certain place to live? Is it wealth? Health? A relationship? Companionship? Is the idol a “who” rather than a ‘what”?
L. B. Brown once wrote, “Who has not muttered “Marah” over some well in the desert which he strained himself to reach, and found to be bitterness? Have you found no salt waters where you thought to find sweetness and joy? Love, beauty, the world’s bright throngs, marriage, home, the things which once wooed you, and promised to slake the thirst of your soul for happiness, are they all Elims, sweet springs and palms? Oh, what fierce murmurings of “Marah” have I heard from hearts wrung with anguish, from souls withered and blasted by a too fond confidence in anything or any being but God! Believe it, no man, with a man’s heart in him, gets far on his wilderness way without some bitter soul-searching disappointment; happy is he who is brave enough to push on to another stage of the journey, and rest in Elim, where there are twelve springs, living springs of water, and threescore and ten palm trees.”
… disappointments in time are often the means of preventing disappointments in eternity. — William Jay
Rise up O precious one. Yes, rise up from what you think are the ashes of your dreams. Remember Christ. Fix your thoughts on Him. He has never let you down. He has never left you nor will He ever do so. Remember His true and certain love for you. Let all the vain things that have charmed you most, now be surrendered to His Providential hand. Yes, rise up even now and sing with me:
When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.
Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.
See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were an offering far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

John Stott Quotes on the Cross

For the past several weeks, Tim Challies has been encouraging visitors to his blog to read “the Cross of Christ” by Dr. John Stott. Its a truly marvellous book.

This week, chapter 8 of the book is in view and the quotes Tim picks out for further consideration are well worth reading several times.

Truly, when Christ died and was raised from death, a new day dawned, a new age began. This new day is “the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2), and the blessings of “such a great salvation” (Heb 2:3) are so richly diverse that they cannot be neatly defined. Several pictures are needed to portray them. Just as the church of Christ is presented in Scripture as his bride and his body, the sheep of God’s flock and the branches of his vine, his new humanity, his household or family, the temple of the Holy Spirit and the pillar and buttress of the truth, so the salvation of Christ is illustrated by the vivid imagery of terms like propitiation, redemption, justification and reconciliation, which form the theme of this chapter.

Those four terms form the theme and the structure, allowing Stott to progressively reveal the salvation accomplished at the cross.

“They are not alternative explanations of the cross, providing us with a range to choose from, but complementary to one another, each contributing a vital part to the whole. As for the imagery, propitiation introduces us to rituals at a shrine, redemption to transactions in a marketplace, justification to proceedings in a court of law, and reconciliation to experiences in a home or family.” Substitution is not a theory of the atonement but the foundation of all of these words and concepts.

And so Stott turns to each of them. Let me share just three great quotes.

The reason why a propitiation is necessary is that sin arouses the wrath of God. This does not mean (as animists fear) that he is likely to fly off the handle at the most trivial provocation, still less that he loses his temper for no apparent reason at all. For there is nothing capricious or arbitrary about the holy God. Nor is he ever irascible, malicious, spiteful or vindictive. His anger is neither mysterious nor irrational. It is never unpredictable, but always predictable, because it is provoked by evil and evil alone. The wrath of God … is his steady, unrelenting, unremitting, uncompromising antagonism to evil in all its forms and manifestations. In short, God’s anger is poles apart from ours. What provokes our anger (injured vanity) never provokes his; what provokes his anger (evil) seldom provokes ours.

Tim writes: That last sentence gives us all an “ouch” moment, I think. Here is another good quote:

Our body has not only been created by God and will one day be resurrected by him, but it has been bought by Christ’s blood and is indwelled by his Spirit. Thus it belongs to God three times over, by creation, redemption and indwelling. How then, since it does not belong to us, can we misuse it? Instead, we are to honor God with it, by obedience and self-control. Bought by Christ, we have no business to become the slaves of anybody or anything else. Once we were slaves of sin; now we are the slaves of Christ, and his service is the true freedom.

In conclusion, at the end of the chapter, he says this:

Substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to takes its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.

 

Revivalism and the Danger of False Conversions — J.C. Ryle

 J.C. Ryle (1816-1900)
J.C. Ryle,
For true revivals of religion no one can be more deeply thankful than I am. Wherever they may take place, and by whatever agents they may be effected, I desire to bless God for them, with all my heart. “If Christ is preached,” I rejoice, whoever may be the preacher. If souls are saved, I rejoice, by whatever section of the Church the word of life has been ministered.
But it is a melancholy fact that, in a world like this, you cannot have good without evil. I have no hesitation in saying, that one consequence of the revival movement has been the rise of a theological system which I feel obliged to call defective and mischievous in the extreme.
The leading feature of the theological system I refer to, is this: an extravagant and disproportionate magnifying of three points in religion,-viz., instantaneous conversion-the invitation of unconverted sinners to come to Christ,-and the possession of inward joy and peace as a test of conversion. I repeat that these three grand truths (for truths they are) are so incessantly and exclusively brought forward, in some quarters, that great harm is done.
Instantaneous conversion, no doubt, ought to be pressed on people. But surely they ought not to be led to suppose that there is no other sort of conversion, and that unless they are suddenly and powerfully converted to God, they are not converted at all.
The duty of coming to Christ at once, “just as we are,” should be pressed on all hearers. It is the very corner-stone of Gospel preaching. But surely men ought to be told to repent as well as to believe. They should be told why they are to come to Christ, and what they are to come for, and whence their need arises.
The nearness of peace and comfort in Christ should be proclaimed to men. But surely they should be taught that the possession of strong inward joys and high frames of mind is not essential to justification, and that there may be true faith and true peace without such very triumphant feelings. Joy alone is no certain evidence of grace.
The defects of the theological system I have in view appear to me to be these: (1) The work of the Holy Ghost in converting sinners is far too much narrowed and confined to one single way. Not all true converts are converted instantaneously, like Saul and the Philippian jailor. (2) Sinners are not sufficiently instructed about the holiness of God’s law, the depth of their sinfulness, and the real guilt of sin. To be incessantly telling a sinner to “come to Christ” is of little use, unless you tell him why he needs to come, and show him fully his sins. (3) Faith is not properly explained. In some cases people are taught that mere feeling is faith. In others they are taught that if they believe that Christ died for sinners they have faith! At this rate the very devils are believers! (4) The possession of inward joy and assurance is made essential to believing. Yet assurance is certainly not of the essence of saving faith. There may be faith when there is no assurance. To insist on all believers at once “rejoicing,” as soon as they believe, is most unsafe. Some, I am quite sure, will rejoice without believing, while others will believe who cannot at once rejoice. (5) Last, but not least, the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, and the absolute necessity of preventing grace, are far too much overlooked. Many talk as if conversions could be manufactured at man’s pleasure, and as if there were no such text as this, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” (Rom. 9:16.)
The mischief done by the theological system I refer to is, I am persuaded, very great. On the one hand, many humble-minded Christians are totally discouraged and daunted. They fancy they have no grace because they cannot reach up to the high frames and feelings which are pressed on their attention. On the other side, many graceless people are deluded into thinking they are “converted,” because under the pressure or animal excitement and temporary feelings they are led to profess themselves Christians. And all this time the thoughtless and ungodly look on with contempt, and find fresh reasons for neglecting religion altogether.
The antidotes to the state of things I deplore are plain and few. (1) Let “all the counsel of God be taught” in Scriptural proportion; and let not two or three precious doctrines of the Gospel be allowed to overshadow all other truths. (2) Let repentance be taught fully as well as faith, and not thrust completely into the background. Our Lord Jesus Christ and St. Paul always taught both. (3) Let the variety of the Holy Ghost’s works be honestly stated and admitted; and while instantaneous conversion is pressed on men, let it not be taught as a necessity. (4) Let those who profess to have found immediate sensible peace be plainly warned to try themselves well, and to remember that feeling is not faith, and that “patient continuance in well-doing” is the great proof that faith is true. (John 8:31.) (5) Let the great duty of “counting the cost” be constantly urged on all who are disposed to make a religious profession, and let them be honestly and fairly told that there is warfare as well as peace, a cross as well as a crown, in Christ’s service.
I am sure that unhealthy excitement is above all things to be dreaded In religion, because it often ends in fatal, soul-ruining reaction and utter deadness. And when multitudes are suddenly brought under the power of religious impressions, unhealthy excitement is almost sure to follow.
I have not much faith in the soundness of conversions when they are said to take places in masses and wholesale. It does not seem to me in harmony with God’s general dealings in this dispensation. To my eyes it appears that God’s ordinary plan is to call in individuals one by one. Therefore, when I hear of large numbers being suddenly converted all at one time, I hear of it with less hope than some. The healthiest and most enduring success in mission fields is certainly not where natives have come over to Christianity in a mass. The most satisfactory and firmest work at home does not always appear to me to be the work done in revivals.
There are two passages of Scripture which I should like to have frequently and fully expounded in the present day by all who preach the Gospel, and specially by those who have anything to do with revivals. One passage is the parable of the sower, That parable is not recorded three times over without good reason and a deep meaning.-The other passage is our Lord’s teaching about “counting the cost,” and the words which He spoke to the “great multitudes” whom He saw following Him. It is very noteworthy that He did not on that occasion say anything to flatter these volunteers or encourage them to follow Him. No: He saw what their case needed. He told them to stand still and “count the cost.” (Luke 14:25, etc.) I am not sure that some modern preachers would have adopted this course of treatment.
cited in: J.I. Packer, Faithfulness and Holiness: The Witness of J.C. Ryle (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), pp. 256,257  (Including the Full Text of the First Edition of Ryle’s Classic Book, Holiness, 1877)

Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures

Dan Phillips is known for his writing on the Pyromaniacs blog and has served as a teacher, pastor, seminar speaker, newspaper columnist and radio talk show host. I have often enjoyed his fresh insights into the Scriptures, the fruit of his firm grasp of the original languages.
Just recently, he taught two sessions at the 2011 Ashford Bible Conference in my homeland of England. His theme was “Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures.”
I am sure that if you enjoy rich and in depth Bible teaching, you will be very much blessed by watching the two videos below.

I’d been very anxious in my preparations… poring over reams of volumes and articles on Messianic prophecy, as well as reviewing the Scriptures themselves. How to approach it? How even to touch such a massive, vital topic, over which my betters have labored for millennia with such varying results and degrees of success?
Through it all, my fundamental driving conviction came from passages such as John 5:39-40, 45-47:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life…. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
You could say this is a subsection of my overall conviction, based on passages such as Hebrews 1:1-2, that the Bible is not a secret codebook. It is a communication, from God, to His people, commencing (always) with the original authors and hearers.
These and other passages give me the very strong impression that our Lord believed that the OT, in and of itself, bore witness to Him so directly and overwhelmingly that to reject that witness is to damn oneself. Never does He say anything even approaching, “You know, boys, I can’t really blame you for not recognizing Me. Nobody could! The OT is a book of impenetrable mystery. In fact, nobody could fairly be expected to see Me in it. But just you wait: after Pentecost, the Spirit will help My guys read Me into it. Then we’ll have a whole different ballgame.”
Rather, in saying that Moses himself would condemn His rejectors, He is clearly asserting that Moses knowingly wrote of Him. Not wrote-of-something-else-that-later-was-deflected-to-Him, but of Him, Jesus.
So my challenge was multifold:
1.How to read the Scripture as it should be read; which is the same as saying…
2.How to read the Scripture as Jesus read it.
3.How to show that the Scripture in its entirety pointed to Him.
4.How to set this forth intelligibly in two sessions of finite length.
5.How to do all this freshly, persuasively, accessibly, helpfully, and memorably.
Whether or not I succeeded, God is judge, and you can judge for yourself. But trying was a joy and an education.
In the first talk, I introduce the entire subject of Messiah and of Messianic prophecy, and endeavor to show (in one talk!) how the whole OT points to Jesus Christ. My dear wife says I talked too fast, and I’m sure she’s right. My excuse is that I had a truckload to say, and leaned on the fact that folks could (if they wished) listen to the recording or watch the video. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
In keeping with my conviction, I approached the session not by expounding NT passages that talk about Messianic prophecy, but by going straight to the OT text itself, literally beginning at the beginning.

The second talk was really a continuation of the first, and a specific demonstration of ways in which one particular book (Genesis) points to Christ.