Skip to content

Keeping track of times and seasons (Hebrews 8)

29-Aug-10

One of the big divisions in the world of evangelicals concerns the law of Moses and how it should be regarded.  Those who follow a branch of theology called “Covenant Theology” tend to regard the advent of the New Testament as a bumpless glide forward in the progress of revelation.  The more forceful proponents of this view see the law and the Gospel as two “faces” of the same underlying covenant of grace through which God moves to save his people.

The alternate view goes under the tongue-twisting name of dispensationalism.  The root word, to dispense, has to do with how things are administrated.  In Christianity, this refers to the rules, terms, and conditions of a covenant between God and men.  In brief, dispensationalism is the view that God deals with men through various covenants, each one further revealing himself and establishing the rules for the people that covenant addresses.

Those who hold the dispensational view say that when Christ died and rose again, the covenant called the law of Moses abruptly ended and the age of the New Testament abruptly commenced.  The Hebrew writer quotes from Jeremiah 31 noting that a new covenant has been foretold which is different from the old one and (Heb 8:6) established upon better promises:

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.  (Heb 8:13)

The Gospel, which is eternal (2 Tim 1:9), never changes in any respect.    But the writer of Hebrews explains that the administration of man’s affairs has changed.  The old covenant is “obsolete,” he says, and a new covenant has been put in place.

This has the effect of clarifying matters as man relates to God.  The writings of the New Testament explain what God expects of us.  The Old Testament, which is no less the word of God, reveals God’s character, remembers the history of God’s people, illumines God’s dealings with us, and provides us with reasons for our hope in God.  (Rom 15:4)

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

King of Righteousness

22-Aug-10

The Hebrew writer compares Christ to Melchizedek, the ancient priest identified in Genesis 14.  Melchizedek is the King of Righteousness and the King of Salem, which is the King of Peace.

In the field of mathematics there are certain basic truths called axioms.  An axiom is a truth so basic that it cannot be derived from anything else.  It’s a truth that stands alone, isn’t supported by other truths, and serves as the starting point for other truths.  For example, Euclid stated that it’s possible to draw a straight line from any point to another point.  This is true yet can’t be derived from some other truth.  It is what some call a brute fact.

For the Christian, the righteousness of God is the most basic statement of all that is right.  Whatever conforms to the character of Christ is right, and whatever contradicts it is wrong.  We don’t derive this from more basic principles because there is nothing more basic than God.  Without him was not anything made that was made.  (Jn 1:3)  God isn’t declared righteous by some third party that judges him against a preexisting law and credits him with reaching the standard.  Rather, God is the standard, and the law is just an expression of what he is like.  He isn’t just a righteous individual.  He is the King of Righteousness.

If there’s any essential ingredient missing from the human condition, righteousness is it.  Try to imagine a world where everyone just did what was right, and you’ll be imagining heaven and the eternal state.

Kings have authority to grant things within their kingdom.  Jesus told his disciples, “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”  (Luke 12:32)  Note: this is not half the kingdom, like Herod giddy with lust over a belly dancer.   This is the entire scope of his kingdom — good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, and he who overcomes will inherit all things.  Among the chief treasures of God’s kingdom is righteousness, and that is granted to us by his grace, given freely, abundantly, overflowing to his children.  Happy are the ones who hunger and thirst for it, for they will be filled.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Speed limit

22-Aug-10

In Florida there is no messing around with speed.  The limit is 13, not 14.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Just asking

17-Aug-10

Work with me here.  Suppose it’s 1942, and many Japanese still worshipped Emperor Hirohito as a god.  And suppose the Japanese decided to open up a temple of Hirohito worship a couple of blocks from Pearl Harbor — in the name of religious understanding, of course.

Do you suppose America would have allowed that?  Would we have let liberals beguile us with oily words about the first amendment?  Or would Americans have had the good sense to recognize the Hirohito cult for what it was, a fifth column intent on doing the enemy’s bidding?

Just asking.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Faithful and true

17-Aug-10

I knew a friend who was betrayed by his wife.  The phrase found in the Bible is that she had “done him shame;” that is, she committed sin that wrecked his life and brought him embarrassment.  He was innocent of any kind of wrongdoing that would have justified her divorcing him.  She was faithless and could not be trusted.  It was a lack in her soul.  In an older idiom, people would say that faithfulness was “just not in her.”  It would not be too much to say that she was treacherous, and we would say this not looking back on her deed but rather looking in on her character.

Revelation 19:11 ascribes two names to Jesus, Faithful and True.  To say that Christ is faithful combines the divine virtues of honesty and love.  If God has promised a thing, will he not make good on it?  (Nu 23:19)  His word is an immutable thing.  Once he has spoken, heaven and earth may pass away, but his word never shall.

And further, God loves his children with a perfect, pure, holy, and eternal love.  Every human love, no matter how sweet, is tainted by sin and has flecks of evil stirred in.  But God’s love for us seeks only our good, seeks it forever, seeks it with the ardor that is willing to sacrifice the Son for us, and seeks it with a loyalty that can never be dissuaded.  Christ loved us while we were still sinners (Ro 5:8) and gave himself for us foreknowing every transgression we would ever commit.  And having loved his own, he loved them unto the end. (Jn 13:1)

It is a grief for many people in this world that they never have a friend who is faithful.  But Christ Jesus is faithful.  The Bible says to receive him, and he will receive you, and you will discover that he is faithful who has promised never to leave you nor forsake you.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

The Ground Zero mosque, or why we need a Savior

14-Aug-10

Doug Wilson does a superb job of explaining why America needs a living Savior instead of the menagerie of gods offered by the prevailing secularism.  Islam, in contrast to secularism, makes transcendent claims about its deity.  It does not matter that no actual Allah exists, says Wilson, because secularism’s response is to walk away from anything that resembles transcendency with its lame attempts to equalize all gods, cultures, and truth claims.  Heck, you could beat that with tales of the Great Pumpkin.

No, to get the better of aggressive Moslems, you need to fight transcendent claims with the transcendent truth of the Gospel, and you need to compare Mohammed the false prophet with Jesus Christ the Redeemer.  Secularism simply has no weapons with which to resist the Islamic menace.  It’s about time the Christians started deploying ours, yes?

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Israel

13-Aug-10

Wishes

It’s increasingly popular among non-evangelical Christians to say that Zionism equals racism and is therefore just another form of organized evil.  On that basis, they would categorize Israel as an apartheid state to be punished into conformity with the pluralistic West.  If I were to judge Israel on Gospel principles alone, I could almost see that.  I wish everybody were born again, washed in the blood, Bible taught, and Spirit-led.  And I wish everyone could cheerfully hop aboard the Gospel train where there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female, Israeli or Arab.  That’s how I wish things were.

Facts

Fact is, the Israeli-Arab conflict affects us.  Harry Truman immediately extended formal recognition to Israel upon their founding as a nation, putting the USA front and center in this conflict.  America has financially supported Israel and defended her militarily and diplomatically for the last six decades.  That represents a considerable investment of American prestige.  It not only weights our history but strongly guides our trajectory going forward.  The anti-Israel doctrine being peddled by Pat Buchanan and other self-described American nationalists is blind on this point.  The doctrine borrows heavily from Ayn Rand’s acrid philosophy of self-interest which doesn’t work for nations any better than it works for individuals.  Israel, despite problems, errors, setbacks and (some may argue) even crimes, is an ally in whose fortunes we share.  Anger can’t change that.

Domestic American Politics

Why America continues to side with Israel is a matter of dispute.  There is much paranoia out there about a Jewish lobby pulling strings in Washington and making America do things against her own interests.  Personally, I think that’s ridiculous.  Every country lobbies foreign governments on its own behalf.  Of course Israel does this too, so denouncing this as the plot of a sinister Jewish cabal is to mix malice with ignorance of how nations conduct affairs with each other.

Besides, from my little window that faces the American South, conservative, evangelical Christianity looks like the bigger political influence. These folks point to the promises in Genesis 12 of God’s blessing on America if we bless Israel, and a curse if we don’t.  Their reading of world events tends to confirm that in their minds.  So they support Israel strongly, and they vote that way.  It’d be hard to find a successful politician in the American South who is vociferous in his rejection of Israel.

Beyond the evangelical South, there are huge numbers of Americans with a purely secular outlook who also tend to favor Israel.  They do so because Israel is a democracy reflecting, however faintly, our sort of society.  Israelis elect their governments and even allow Moslem citizens to participate in elections.  Secular Americans see Islam damning and warring with all of Western civilization including Europe, Israel, and the United States.  Thus they see Israel as our natural ally and fellow soldier resisting Islam’s long war against the West.  They may not know jack about biblical end time stuff, but they know that if Moslems destroy Israel as they have sworn to do, it’ll be a victory for an enemy that is coming after us too.

Yet there remains this small but growing sect of people who view our involvement with Israel as inimical to American interests.  These folks have their reasons, not all of them bad, for thinking that America would be better off with an isolationist stance, especially when it comes to Israel.    The danger for Christians in this category is that they have to operate in close political proximity to people who just hate Jews.  No, I’m not saying post-millennial folks are anti-Semitic, just that they’re standing in the same political queue with people who are.  It’s an ugly fact of life that you’ll get known for the company you keep.  And standing that queue also puts them in the company of people who would like to destroy America for the same reasons they’d like to destroy Israel.  I should not be necessary to say that this does not make them anti-American.  I should also not have to add that anti-Americans will not pause to absorb the nuances.  They’ll just look at proponents of replacement theology, shout Allahu Akhbar, and that will be that.

Finally, make no mistake: There’s an anti-Israel lobby in Washington, too.  No word yet on whether that is an anti-cabal cabal.

And then there are the Palestinians

Who could fail to feel sorry for the Palestinians?  In 1948 their leaders persuaded them to flee Israel under the false promise of a successful re-invasion and conquest.  Successful re-invasion never happened.  Then they were kicked out of Jordan.  They’ve been refused entry into other Moslem states.  The Lebanese have confined them to settlers’ camps.  Gaza itself is not far from the condition of Mogadishu, a squalid failure with a collapsed economy dominated by armed gangs, Islamic fanatics, drug lords, war lords, smugglers, terrorists, and assassins.  Much of the aid sent to Palestine has been stolen by leaders such as Yasser Arafat who socked away billions in secret Swiss bank accounts.  Palestine has had a very long, very raw deal.

But most Americans honestly feel that a lot of that is their own fault and that of their Moslem allies.  There’s a sense that the Palestinians are trying to operate an Al Sharpton style grievance racket in a market where there are no buyers.  If they’d get over it and start building their own fortunes as others have done (think Taiwan, for example), they’d have a chance at building a decent state.  I wish they’d do that.  I’m confident they won’t.  Shifting blame and nursing resentment are just too sweet to sinners.  Besides, it merges with the general sense of wounded pride among Moslem nations.  Islam is more than a religion.  It’s also a political and economic system.  So where is there a Moslem nation that’s keeping up with Asia or the West in terms of liberty, lifestyle, and how the general populace shares in the national prosperity?

Where to Go from Here?

You may wish that America could step into the Middle East and settle it all in a way the Palestinians and Israelis could accept.  But we cannot.  The Jews will not stop existing, and the Palestinians will never stop trying to get them to.  You tell me: where is there a space for compromise in there?  Trying to fix this with words on paper is a fool’s errand for sure.

Getting back to facts rather than wishes, it’s a fact that America has no vital, secular interest in what happens to Gaza or the West Bank area.  If Israel conquered all of it and circumcised every Moslem male, this would have no harmful effect on America’s vital secular interests.  We’re talking about what would happen if the fighting went red hot and Israel won it all, which they would (at least until Iran goes nuclear).  Mostly nothing bad would happen to America.  Pro-Palestinian terror groups would threaten us, but they already do that anyhow.  They would bomb our stuff, but they already do that, too.  OPEC might cut off our oil for a while, but oil company execs are watching their backs and have been reducing their dependence on Middle Eastern oil for a long time.  We get much of our oil from non Middle East suppliers like Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, and so on.  If Middle Eastern countries cut us off entirely, it’d require some belt tightening, and that’d be it, I suspect.

Those whose sentiments run with the Palestinians may wish the United States had a vested interest in helping their side, but we don’t.  Ditto that for the considerable number of people who just hate Jews and wish they’d all drop dead.  But again, we’re talking about how things are versus how people wish they were.  And how they are is like this: The Palestinians have a quasi-nation with hopelessly crooked leadership and holds nothing of vital interest to the USA.  By contrast, Israel is a legitimate nation for the most part representing Western values, has been a reliable American ally, and is invested with considerable US prestige and treasure.

All that leaves us pretty much where we are today.  More than with most allies, Israel’s friendship costs us.  But it’s a cost we should pay because the alternatives – either neutrality or joining the Moslems – are very much worse.  With either one, we abandon an important ally with deep historical connections, and that would leave us with no allies anywhere who would grant us a speck of credibility.  The latter option, siding with the Moslems, compounds dishonor with folly, for there is no arrangement the United States could make short of dhimmitude that would satisfy them.

The borrower becomes servant to the lender

12-Aug-10

While we’re talking about the debt crisis, I thought you might like to know what our principal creditors are saying about us.  And that would be the Chinese.  They seem to be expecting an equity swap to settle our debts.  The American federal government came into possession of a gigantic pile of stocks with the various financial bailout programs.  And remember, there are trillions of dollars out there for which no public account has ever been given.  Were those dollars used to inflate the stock market by buying up sagging stocks?  The Chinese seem to think so, and they’re suggesting that a good way to settle America’s massive debt to them might be for Uncle Sam to hand over ownership of all those American companies to China.  Read about it in the People’s Daily.  So General Motors could become General Mao-tors.  Or something like that.

Congressional incapacity to say no to America’s burgeoning parasite class is getting to be a bigger problem than anyone foresaw.  It is not in China’s interest to push the United States into default.  China would prefer a prosperous USA as a customer for its goods.  But if the Chinese can’t have that, it seems they might be willing to settle for a really big piece of the American pie.  Maybe it would be interesting to see the Chinese deal with the UAW for a while.

You’re thinking the same Congress that lacks the courage to refuse American borrowers will man up and refuse Chinese lenders?  Color me skeptical.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

You owe me…

11-Aug-10

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the federal deficit grew last month by $165 billion.  That’s billion with a ‘b.’  Dividing the amount by 300 million Americans, give or take, that comes to about $550 for every man, woman, boy, and girl in this U.S. of A.

If the Democrat nightmare of borrowing on your credit to grease their voters keeps up, the average family of four will take on $26,400 of additional debt in just this year.

We keep hearing the word “unsustainable.”  It does not mean that conservatives are hard hearted, nor that they hate anyone, nor that they don’t love their fellow man, nor that they are all racial bigots against Mr. Obama, nor that they are merely spoiled sports who are mad because they are out of power just now.

This is what “unsustainable” means.  It means there isn’t enough credit in the whole, wide world for America to keep government spending at this level for very much longer.  The government long ago outran the tax base.  Now they’re about to run out of what they can borrow.  If history is any guide, the government will next turn to what it can steal.  And they won’t be able to steal much because people are watching the government, and as soon as the serious stealing gets started, those who have anything to steal will immediately spend it all up, or else they’ll hide it in a foreign country.  And that’s the point where a real economic collapse will occur, complete with lawlessness, food and fuel shortages, and a breakdown of civil order.

We are truly approaching an emergency situation, and everyone in America knows it except the Democrats.  They seem cheerfully oblivious to the economic calamity they are creating.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

A guy you might wish to learn more about

11-Aug-10

Jason Sager is running for Congress as a conservative GOP candidate.  His candidacy interests me because of what he professes was his motivation for getting involved in politics.  He spent time learning about the law and the Constitution, he said in an interview on WSKY 97.3.  He now does something I find rare and refreshing.  He speaks as if it matters whether the Congress has the authority under the Constitution to do things like ObamaCare.

Well, it certainly does matter.  And I’ll be paying closer attention to Mr. Sager as November approaches.  As I’ve said before, I want a congressman who will reassert constitutional rule in Washington or die trying.  Here’s hoping Mr. Sager is our man for that.

Check him out here.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Hypothetical case

08-Aug-10

Suppose a string of terror incidents were committed by the Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist Liberation Front.  Do you think it would take leftists this long to start noticing the identities of the perps?  If the Fundies had bombed a big Planned Parenthood clinic, boasted about it on the internet, and then tried to plant a church next door to the smoking crater, do you suppose Michael Bloomberg might have a problem with that?  Or would leftists be all over the TeeVee pleading with everyone not to paint all the Fundies with a broad brush, defending Fundamentalism as the Religion of Peace, and complaining that evil wack-jobs had “hijacked” peace-loving Fundamentalism and converted into something that is not real Fundamentalism?

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

It is impossible (Hebrews 6)

08-Aug-10

The phrase, “it is impossible” from Hebrews 6:4 has troubled people of tender conscience since it was first written.  John Bunyan wrote about it in his autobiography Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners.  He wrote as though demons were trying to get him to renounce his faith in Christ, and under the torment he said something like, “Let Christ depart if he will.”  He was immediately struck with the most horrific sense of having sold out his Savior whereupon the words “it is impossible” gave him a sense of absolute despair.

Streams of ink (and now electrons) have been spilled over the interpretation of the “falling away” passage in Hebrews 6.  I won’t belabor it much further except to say two things of interest to you.  First, the phrase “if they shall fall away” is hypothetical.  It really doesn’t say that anyone has or even could actually possess eternal life and then lose it.  I believe the writer is simply speaking in what grammarians call the subjunctive mood.  From dictionary.com, the subjunctive means “a mood of verbs used when… the clause is being doubted, supposed, feared true, etc, rather than being asserted.”

The reason the hypothetical phrase is spoken here is that it fits with the argument the writer is advancing.  He’s convincing doubtful Jews that there is no other Savior.  The argument therefore is not primarily about individuals being saved and lost again, but about the fact that there is no other savior to be found, not in the Judaism they were thinking about reverting to, certainly not in the gods of the Greeks or barbarians.  If there is hope of eternal life, Christ alone is that hope.

The second thing I should say about the “falling away” statement is that it’s true at its face value.  If a person did fall away from the faith so as to be actually lost again — unsaved, no longer regenerated, having not the Spirit — then that person could never be saved again.  That is, in fact, what the text says whether it’s in the subjunctive or not.  To my readers whose denominations teach that Christians can fall away and be — what’s the word? — re-lost, then re-salvation is impossible.  And here Greek word for “impossible” means just that.  A person cannot be saved repeatedly.  The inspired writer says it’s it’s not going to happen.  Denominations that teach the possibility of losing salvation should be forthright with their people and teach the rest of the story: Cross this line, and forever there is no returning.  And I would add that they need to be very explicit about that line.  What exactly does it take for a person to be lost again?

As for me, I continue to believe that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Ro 11:29)  What’s given to us is not a status with conditions we have to satisfy on a continual basis.  Rather, God has given us his Son, and eternal life is in his Son. (1 John 5:11)  John Bunyan responded to his apparent demon tormentors, if Christ wants to depart, and he found to his everlasting joy that Christ is good to his word, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”  (He 13:5)

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Homosexual judge okays homosexual marriage

04-Aug-10

Duh.

Vaughn Walker, publicly known homosexual and federal judge, ruled in favor of his own personal interests by striking down California’s constitutional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  He obviously should have let a disinterested judge rule on the case.  Did anyone honestly expect good judicial ethics from a guy like this?

Walker was appointed by George H. W. Bush, showing yet another reason (as if we needed another) why the solution to too many Democrats is not more Republicans.

There’s no need to cite the text of the judge’s decision.  The Word of God defines what marriage is.  No reasoning from the judge can convince me God was mistaken.

We have only now to look back and recognize something important.  The “slippery slope” arguments were true.  When it became acceptable to divorce for light and transient reasons, and then it became acceptable to shack up, and then it became acceptable to hook up, and then it became acceptable for people to commit sodomy, and then it became acceptable for homosexuals to parade themselves in public.  Now it’s well on its way to being the law of the land that two sodomites can call themselves husband and… well, whatever.  Spouse and spouse, I guess.

But we’re not at the bottom of the slope, I’ll wager.  When I check the Leviticus 18 list of pagan abominations, I find bestiality and incest there.  It’s the same slope, my friends, and that’s where this sin-sick culture is headed next.  Just you wait and see.  If sodomites can marry for “love,” then why can’t a man marry his mother on the same basis?  What’s wrong with bestiality to the mind so depraved that it cannot detect anything wrong with sodomy?  Only a supernatural deliverance given by the God who grants repentance can prevent what’s coming after this.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Every now and then…

04-Aug-10

Every now and then, take a moment to thank God for something.

If you can smell your dinner, and if it smells good, yeah… that.  Thank him for that.

I knew a kid who got a brain tumor, and it ruined her sense of smell.  The most delicious things stank to her, made her gag.  Thank God if yeast bread baking still smells good to you.  Thank him when you drive by the Burger King and they’ve got that fat smoking thing going on, and it smells so good.  Thank God for good smells, and do that especially when something else about life stinks.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com

Send General Joab to Afghanistan

30-Jul-10

The Bible tells the story of a man named Sheba and his confederates who rebelled against King David (2 Sam 20:1-22).  David’s forces under Joab defeated the rebellion, then Joab went after Sheba personally.  Sheba fled to a distant city called Abel of Beth-maachah with Joab in hot pursuit.  Upon arriving, Joab’s army began battering down the city wall to get their man.  A woman interceded with Joab for her city, and Joab agreed to spare the city if Sheba’s head were thrown over the city wall.  The head minus its body soon appeared, and the city was saved.

Right after 9-11, Mr. Bush said the United States would no longer distinguish between terrorists and governments that harbor them.  That might have been effective counsel had we followed it.  The war in Afghanistan might have ended in weeks had we identified the terrorists and Al Queda members we wanted, explained to the inhabitants of the region a clear choice: Deliver these and you’ll live.  Shelter them, and you’ll all die when we come after them.  You’re never quite sure what people will do, but the Taliban were never a popular movement in the region as Time magazine is showing this week.  I’m guessing that in something less than nine years, the population would have delivered up Osama and all his minions.

As General MacArthur famously said, “In war, there is no substitute for victory.”  The post-World War Two concept of nation-building doesn’t work unless the entire enemy population is so thoroughly defeated in its mind and national spirit that they are eager to accept anything their conquerors say as a condition of peace.  The Afghans and some of their Pakistani allies aren’t there yet, and if the horrors of the Taliban didn’t prepare them for it, the current American approach certainly won’t.

Another American general, William Tecumseh Sherman, noted that “War is hell.”  And it is.  It’s killing and maiming, it’s collateral damage and cities ablaze, it’s orphans and starving widows, it’s your own “victorious” young men and women coming back home dead, wounded, crippled, many mentally destroyed, some guilty of unspeakable crimes.  That’s what war is every time.  If your cause is not worth doing this, then skip the middle step and accept whatever it means not to fight.  In our case, that would have meant leaving the crimes of September 11, 2001 unavenged.  To a limited extent, that’s in fact what has happened.  Osama bin Laden and some of his henchmen are still alive.  Thousands of Afghans and Americans are dead, and we still haven’t evened the score with them.

Ho Chi Minh and his successors taught America an important lesson that we have yet to learn.  If your nation doesn’t have the stomach to pay the price of real victory, then you shouldn’t take on people who do.  America should either kill all the Taliban and Al Queda by any means necessary or else embrace defeat.  After nine years, it’s time to finish this business once and for all.  Killing and dying to maintain one more year of stalemate with these savages is equal parts madness and stupidity.

otherbrothersteve@gmail.com