The Law of God in Light of the Kingdom

New at Polemos
Audio Links
Dispensationalism
Law of God
New Covenant Theology

Another good and sound message from Voddie Baucham:

• The Law of God in Light of the Kingdom
  Voddie Baucham
  

The Church, Israel and Sovereign Election Pt. 3

(In the interest of being fair and honest, I tried to find this message on the Grace to You web site (gty.org) so anyone who would like to hear it could listen to it, but it apparently is not posted. I did find many other messages on the subject of Eschatology and I have no doubt that Pastor MacArthur says many of the same things in some of these other messages if you’re interested in hearing it for yourself.)

While dealing with the subject of Hermeneutics Pastor MacArthur compares the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1-3 with the interpretation of prophecy and asks; if we don’t want people tampering with the beginning of the Book, why do we tolerate tampering with the end of the book? He then adds “especially the book of Revelation.”

The clear implication is that we should interpret Genesis 1-3 in the exact same manner as we interpret the book of Revelation. This is the same thing that is so often implied when it is said that we must interpret everything literally or “read it like a newspaper.”

Does this even make sense? What about literary genre? Shouldn’t we take that into consideration? Should we really interpret an historical narrative of the days of creation in the exact same manner we interpret an apocalyptical vision? Should we interpret prose in the exact same manner that we interpret poetry or parables? Should we interpret Zechariah 5:1-11 in the exact same manner that we interpret Romans 5:1-11? Should we?

What about figures of speech? What about symbolism, metaphors, hyperbole, parables, poetry, irony, analogy, metonymy, oxymoron, paradox, personifications, anthropomorphisms, similes, synecdoche, and other such manners of speech?

Does the Bible teach us to interpret it all the same? Does it teach us to interpret each word in its most literalistic sense? Where does it do so? Does it always use words in their most literalistic sense?

Absolutely not! Jesus spoke to his disciples in figurative language until it exasperated them. They were thrilled when He finally spoke to them in plain (literalistic) language (John 16:29). Daniels visions needed to be interpreted (Daniel 7:16) indicating that they could not be taken in their most literalistic sense. And the New Testament frequently interprets the Old in ways that can hardly be called literalistic as we shall see.

To insist that we interpret everything in its most literalistic sense, or to say, as Pastor MacArthur does in this message, that all of the prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally and therefore we should interpret all those concerning His second coming in the same manner, is absolutely without any Biblical foundation at all.

The Church, Israel and Sovereign Election Pt. 2

Naturally, one of the things that Pastor MacArthur brings up on several occasions is the subject of Hermeneutics. He makes several accusations concerning those who do not hold to his own beliefs and mentions on several occasions that we must use the literal or “normal” hermeneutic.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing statements that he makes in this regard was something to this effect: if the Scriptural statement that “the dessert is going to blossom like a rose” does not literally mean that the dessert is going to blossom like a rose then he has nothing more to talk to such people about. Now I’m not going to argue about the dessert blossoming like a rose, but if he is not going to talk to those who do not share his view of hermeneutics then he has effectively shut down any debate right at the starting point.

As I have mentioned already I have listened to hundreds of Pastor MacArthur’s messages and when dealing with other subjects he has frequently taught that debate is good for the Church and that the Church will wither under false doctrine were there is no debate. So why the sudden change of attitude when it comes to Eschatology and more specifically hermeneutics? Such a statement seems very hypocritical to me.

Pastor MacArthur also declares that his opponents abandon the perspicuity of Scripture when it comes to Eschatology, that they set aside the tested and true rules of interpretation when it comes to texts dealing with Eschatology in order to protect a preconception. And he also asks who gets do decide the new rules of interpretation when we abandon the literal meaning of words and on what page of Scripture are they found.

His argument goes something like this: If we can’t take every last word of Scripture in its most literal sense, then how can we ever know exactly what any of the words of Scripture really mean? This is a very good question but we can’t shut down the debate without giving the other side the opportunity to answer the question.

So here is the first part of my answer: First of all, the so called “literal” hermeneutic is not the tested and true hermeneutic of the church. This is an erroneous and misleading statement. The “literal” hermeneutic seems to me to be a mythological hermeneutic brought forward at certain times by Dispensationalists to discredit their opponents.

When Dispensationalists talk about the literal hermeneutic they will often say that we must “read the Bible like we read the newspaper” and “take the words at face value according to the natural, normal sense of words.” Two examples that Pastor MacArthur mentions is that 1000 always means 1000 and Israel always means Israel.

I could ask Pastor MacArthur his own question here: Who decided this rule of interpretation and on what page of Scripture is it found?

The historic hermeneutic of the church is that the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures, this is often called the “Analogy of Faith.” This is the tested and true historical hermeneutic of the church and this is the hermeneutic (or something similar) that Dispensationalists themselves normally use unless it fits their purposes not to.

For instance, in Revelation 13:1 we are told of a beast with seven heads and ten horns. No Dispensationalist that I have ever listened to taught that this was a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns. Why not? Because this is found in a book full of symbolism and they let other parts of Scripture help them to interpret this passage. They use the analogy of faith at this point. They use my hermeneutic at this point and then deride me for using it in other parts of the same book.

Such examples could be multiplied all day long. Dispensationalists themselves will teach that the woman in Revelation 12:1,6 is not a literal woman but symbolic of Israel. The chain in Revelation 20 is not a literal chain with a literal lock on it and the pit with a door on it in the same verses is not a literal pit with a literal door. The woman in Revelation 17 is not a literal woman, Babylon in Chapter 18 is not literal Babylon and the weapons in Ezekiel 39:9 are not literally bows, arrows, swords and spears but are symbolic of modern weaponry. And we could go on and on and on. They frequently use their opponents hermeneutic and then blast their opponents for using it when they don’t like it.

The literal meaning of Scripture is that which God intended to convey, interpreting every word in its most literalistic sense does not necessarily help us to understand that meaning. And as we will see, the most literalistic interpretation of Eschatological passages in many cases is contrary to common sense and at odds with the hermeneutic that the Scriptures themselves force upon us.

As I think we will see, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Dispensational demand to use the “literal” hermeneutic, or rather to interpret every word in its most literalistic sense, is a sort of logical slight-of-hand trick. It might appear to make sense when phrased in a certain manner, but under some cross-examination it can be shown to be completely unbiblical, untenable and something they themselves often don't even use.

The Church, Israel and Sovereign Election

A Pastor of a local Church recently gave me a copy of a message from the 2007 Shepherds Conference put on by John MacArthur. The message was by Pastor MacArthur and it was on the subject of Israel, the Church and the Doctrine of Election. Knowing that I hold to more of an Amillennial Position, he asked me to listen to it, take some notes and explain to him why Pastor MacArthur could not be right.

So I’ve been listening to it repeatedly and taking notes and I thought it might be good to address some of the things that Pastor MacArthur says here as they are things that I commonly hear about those who reject the Dispensational/Premillennial view of Scripture.

As I have said before, I have a great deal of respect for Pastor MacArthur. I have literally listened to hundreds of his sermons, read a great many of his books and I learned a great deal from him as a new Christian. In fact I became Reformed in some measure because of his teaching and that of some of the elders at his Church. You might say he pointed the way but didn’t get on the bus with me.

I really do enjoy a great deal of Pastor MacArthur’s teaching but when it comes to Eschatology he seems to be too committed to Dispensational presuppositions to even think objectively through other points of view. If there is one thing I’ve learned about polemics it’s this: you better understand the position of those you are trying to correct and argue against or you completely discredit yourself in their eyes and you don’t even know it.

Personally I have found this message to be full of logical slight-of-hand and what seems to be a surprising lack of careful thought by a man who frequently urges his fellow Christians to pursue careful and critical thought. All I can figure is that Pastor MacArthur just hasn’t given his own views in this area a careful cross-examination.

So anyway, if you are one of those of the Dispensational persuasion who thinks that it is wrong to listen to other points of view on this subject you might want to close your eyes for the next dozen posts or so.

Gods Standard of Righteousness Part 2

New at Polemos
Law of God

The Law: Gods Standard of Righteousness Part 2
Jonathan Bunnett

Someone will always reply “we’re not under Law but under grace!” (Romans 6:14) I agree, but what does Paul mean when he says that we are not “under Law”? When Paul says that we are “not under Law” is he saying that we should no longer desire to keep the Law? Does he mean that being "under grace" is somehow opposed to obeying God's Law? Does he mean that those who are "under grace" should not desire to keep the Law? Such conclusions are untenable.

Take Moses for instance. Moses was saved in the same manner we are; by grace alone through faith alone in the Messiah alone. Whatever Paul means by “under Law” and “under grace” they are clearly opposed to each other, the unregenerate person being “under Law” and the regenerate person being “under grace”. Moses, therefore, as a regenerate child of God would have been “under grace”, yet he was given the Law and told to obey it. Moses was under grace yet he sought to obey God’s Law.

The same could be said of King David. He was a regenerate child of God, he was “under grace”, but yet he loved God’s Law and sought to obey it. Grant it they lived under the Old Covenant and some aspects of that Covenant have been done away with along with the Covenant itself, but the point is this: they were “under grace” but yet kept the Law and for this reason these two things (being “under grace” and desiring to keep the God’s Law) cannot be opposed to each other.

Clearly, being “under Law” does not speak of a person as being obliged to follow the Law but rather it speaks of how that person stands relationally to God. They relate to God by means of His Law or they relate to God by means of His grace. You are “under” Law or you are “under” grace. You relate to God based on your own deeds and merits (according to Law) and and stand condemned before Him for “there are none righteous…..” Romans 3:10-20. Or you relate to God in terms Christ's merits and finished work (according to Grace) and have Christ’s righteousness credited to your account, your sin forgiven and nothing to bar you from Gods favor and fellowship.

Being “under Law” has to do with being under its condemnation, under its curse and under its wrath. It speaks of the unregenerate heart which is provoked by the Law to commit further acts of sin. (Romans 7:7-12) The Law has a claim on those who are “under” it. It has something against them. They owe it a debt.

True Christians, on the other hand, are those who have been delivered from the Law. Their “certificate of debt” has been wiped out upon the cross (Colossians 2:14) and they no longer owe the Law anything; it has no claim on them! “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1) They are under grace, they relate to God in terms of grace but that does not mean that the Law no longer reveals sin and righteousness to them.

Someone else will respond: “But we have died to the Law.” (Romans 7:4) Again we have to ask, what does it mean to die to the Law? Does that mean we should no longer desire to keep it? Once again we could look at both Moses and David; both were regenerate children of God, both were saved just as we were and both loved the Law of God and desired to keep it. They too were “dead to the Law through the body of Christ”. (Romans 7:4) They were no longer in the flesh having their sinful passions aroused by the Law to bear fruit to death (Romans 7:5), but rather they were united to the Messiah. You are either in Adam or in Christ (Romans 5:14-19) and they were in Christ, yet at the same time they loved the Law of God and desired to keep it.

So what does it mean to “die to the Law”? Romans 7:6 tells us that it means to be delivered from the Law; we are removed from the former relationship that we had to it. We are delivered from its wrath, we are delivered from its curse, we are delivered from all the claims it had upon us and we are delivered from all the charges it had against us. It can no longer demand payment of debt because Christ satisfied it in full; our relationship to the Law has been radically altered.

Paul compares our relationship with the Law of God to the marriage relationship. When I die, the relationship I have with my wife will be radically altered. The relationship will not be over, but it will be different. We will see each other again and we will still love each other but the mutual obligations and the claims we had upon each other through marriage will be over with. Just so, when we die to the Law the claims that it rightly had upon us are over with and we are justified, or literally declared Just by God.

Christians are those who can stand guiltless before the Law and owe it nothing at all. And while the unbeliever’s relationship to God is contingent upon his Law keeping (but they cannot keep the Law so they stand condemned) the Christians relationship to his God is contingent upon grace for “we are not under Law but under grace.” But now, by the grace of God, we see the goodness and character of God reflected in His Law and we long to conform to it.

Brethren, while we Christians no longer relate to God on the basis of our own law keeping the Law is still a light to our feet and we should love to keep it!

The Precepts and Liberty

New at Polemos
The Law of God

THE PRECEPTS AND LIBERTY
A.W. Pink
From Studies in the Scriptures December 1946

"So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts" (Psa 119:44-45). But do not men at large—at least in the 'civilized' world—"walk at liberty"? The great majority think so, but they are much mistaken. The fact is that sin has thoroughly perverted the judgment of the natural man, so that he is wanting in any true sense of values; and hence, it is that the Word of truth says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20). So completely has sin blinded the unregenerate that they suppose that bondage is freedom; and freedom, bondage. The sinner imagines that he can only enjoy liberty while he is lord of himself, and that to surrender unto the claims of Christ and take His yoke upon him would be bringing him into captivity. That is why he sees in the Lord Jesus "no beauty that we should desire him" (Isa 53:2)!

A false notion of liberty possesses all of our hearts. Until the Holy Spirit takes us in hand, we want to be at our own disposal and do whatever we please, without any one to call us to account. Yet the impracticability of such a notion appears in the outworking of it in the natural world. If there were not government in the human sphere, every man doing that which was right in his own eyes, there would be a state of utter lawlessness—anarchy. Still more evident, to those with anointed eyes, is the untenability and wickedness of such a notion when applied to the spiritual realm. Since God be our Creator, since we are wholly dependent upon Him—even for every breath that we draw—it becomes us to be in subjection to Him, for to Him we are accountable for all of our actions. Manifestly, it is our duty both to will and to do that which is pleasing to our Maker, our Benefactor, our Judge.

"I will walk at liberty" (Psa 119:45). Note well, that statement is preceded by "I keep thy law continually," and is followed by "for I seek thy precepts." Rightly did Thomas Scott (1747-1821) point out, "The service of God is perfect freedom, and every deviation is proportional slavery to sin and Satan." Only in the path of God's precepts does the soul find true liberty—that is why God's Law (the expression of His will) is called "the perfect law of liberty" (Jam 1:25; 2:12)! By the Fall, we have come under the law of sin and death; and consequently, we are fettered by our corruptions and bound over to eternal misery. But God's Word makes known to us the way of deliverance from that bondage. Sin destroys man's liberty, for it prevents him prosecuting his chief end—which is to glorify God—as it equally hinders him from attaining his highest good, which is to be holy and happy. Only by heeding the Law of the Lord can emancipation be obtained.

License is not liberty, for true liberty is not the opportunity to do what we want, but it is the power to do what we ought. Freedom of heart lies in a course of obedience to God, for there is no satisfaction to the heart until it finds its satisfaction in the "good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God" (Rom 12:2). The difference between the license of the natural man and the liberty of the spiritual man is that of being the bond-slave of sin and "the Lord's freeman" (ICo 7:22); and that is determined by the chains of darkness being displaced by the cords of duty, the fetters of sin by the yoke of Christ. And Christ's yoke is "easy" (Mat 11:30), for it is lined with love. God's commandments "are not grievous" (Uo 5:3), for they are dictated by infinite wisdom and are designed for our highest good. Loving, pleasing, enjoying, praising God is the only real freedom and blessedness. God's precepts must be sought—desired and attended to—if we are to "walk at liberty."

The more whole-heartedly and constantly we "seek" God's precepts and order our lives by them, the more will we "walk at liberty."

1. Thereby we shall be delivered from the darkness of a sin-blinded understanding. "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple" (Psa 119:130). "Simple" there does not mean dull-witted, weak-minded, or illiterate, but one who is plain-hearted, sincere, and with an eye single to God's glory (compare 2Co 1:12). It is the words of God being received into an honest and good heart which dispels the mists of error, disperses the clouds of prejudice, exposes the lies of Satan, and illuminates the soul. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments" (Psa 111:10). The more we walk the path of obedience, the sounder becomes our judgment, and the keener our discernment in perceiving what would pro­mote or what would make against our best interests.

2. Thereby we are delivered from the bondage of our lusts. No man can serve two masters. In our unregenerate days, we were entirely dominated by our corruptions, for God had no place in our hearts and lives. But the more He possesses our hearts, and the more we are governed by His precepts, the less will sin tyrannize us. "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). To "walk in the Spirit" is to be governed by that Word of Truth which he dictated for us. Therefore, our daily prayer needs to be "Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me" (Psa 119:133). If some iniquity has "dominion" over me, it is because my steps are not ordered by the Word in all things.

3. Thereby we are delivered from a sin-enslaved will. We do not propose to enter here into a philosophical disquisition on the nature and exercises of the will. The natural man's will is quite free to choose, but what determines his choice? His inclinations: he always chooses that which, everything considered, is most agreeable to him. Being fallen, he prefers to serve self rather than God, the world more than Christ, the pleasures of sin above holiness; and therefore, always chooses the former. God makes His people willing in the day of His power to choose Christ by bringing them to feel their need of Him and giving them a desire for Him. The will of the sinner is "free from righteousness"; of
the saint, "free from sin" (Rom 6:18, 20)! The more we love God's law and the pleasanter obedience becomes to us, the more the will is emancipated from the power of our corruptions.

4. Thereby are we delivered from the accusations of a guilty conscience. Just so long as we lived in rebellion against God, that inward monitor condemned us; and though at times we succeeded in drowning its voice, there were moments and seasons when our rest was disturbed. But "great peace have they which love thy law" (Psa 119:165). The more we love God's law and the more we seek His precepts, the more freedom have we from convictions of guilt.

5. Thereby are we delivered from the snares of the Fowler. The unregenerate "are taken captive by him at his will" (2Ti 2:26), so that it is his behests they perform (Job 8:44). But "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (Joh 8:36).

6. Thereby we are freed from the disapprobation of God. If we be truly seeking His precepts, we shall enjoy the quickenings and comforts of the Spirit; it is our self-will which "grieves" Him and restrains His gracious operations within us. So too we shall escape God's chastenings, for it is when we forsake His Law and keep not His commandments that He visits our transgressions with the rod and His providences are against us (Psa 89:30-32).

7. Thereby are we delivered from the bondage of human opinions and customs. There are not a few professing Christians whose freedom is circumscribed by "the commandments and doctrines of men" with their "Touch not; taste not; handle not"
(Col 2:20-22), but the one who is regulated only by God's precepts will walk at liberty from such impositions.

The Moral Law of God -Part 11

Law of God
Audio Links

• The Moral Law of God -Part 11
  Albert N. Martin

The Moral Law of God -Part 10

New at Polemos
Audio Links
Law of God
Dispensationalism
New Covenant Theology

• The Moral Law of God -Part 10
  Albert N. Martin

One Return of Christ

New at Polemos
Eschatology
Dispensationalism
Audio Links

• The Day of the Lord #3 -One Return of Christ
  Albert N. Martin
  

Pre-Tribulationism Part 3

Eschatology
Audio Links

• Eschatology #41 Pre-Tribulationism Part 3
  Sam E. Waldron

Pre-Tribulationism Part 2

New at Polemos
Eschatology
Dispensationalism
Audio Links

• Eschatology #40 Pre-Tribulationism Part 2
  Sam E. Waldron
  

Pre-Tribulationism Part 1

New at Polemos
Eschatology
Dispensationalism
Audio Links

• Eschatology #39 Pre-Tribulationism Part 1
  Sam E. Waldron
  
  

The Wrath of God Revealed

Eschatology
Audio Links

• Eschatology #11- The Wrath of God Revealed
  Sam E. Waldron

The Law: Gods Standard of Righteousness Part 1

Sin is the transgression of the Law. 1 John 3:4
Sin is living your life without the Law. Matthew 7:23
Sin is refusing to subject yourself to the Law. Romans 8:7
Sin does not exist apart from the Law. Romans 4:15 and
Sin can only be known through the Law. Romans 3:20

The Gospel message in brief is this:

We have broken the Law of God and have incurred the penalty of condemnation. We now live under the Law’s curse (Galatians 3:10). We cannot now undo or erase what we have done, nor can we atone for it. The Law demands a flawlessly perfect life or an eternal death in payment for breaking it, and being imperfect and finite we are helpless to do either. This is the cursed and pathetic condition of mankind.

We need a savior. One who has lived a perfectly righteous life in obedience to the Law. One who is infinite and can pay an infinite penalty. And one who is willing to do these things in our place as a substitute; One who can satisfy the just demands of God’s Law.

Jesus Christ alone meets these conditions. He alone lived a perfectly holy life in obedience to the Law. He took on human flesh that He might die and yet He was God and could pay the infinite price that the Law demands must be paid. He is able to meet the Law’s demands and He was willing to do so as a substitute in His people’s stead.

Our human “righteousness” cannot meet the infinitely high demands of God’s Law and we must not trust in it to do so. Christ’s righteousness alone can satisfy the demands of God’s Law and it alone must be trusted in.

For the most part, Reformed Christians, those of the “New Covenant” persuasion and even many Dispensationalists believe that the Law of God must be used in evangelism “For by the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). We must use the Law to show people their sinful lost condition before we can point them to the Savior. People must know why they need salvation before they will seek salvation.

The Law reveals how short we have fallen from God’s standard of righteousness; that we have “all fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). It draws the line between sin and righteousness showing us that we are sinful. On the one side of the Law is sin and on the other side is righteousness. Breaking the Law is sin, keeping the Law is righteousness. There is no in between, there is no Grey area. There is nothing worse than sin and there is nothing better than righteousness. If we keep the law perfectly we are righteous and do not need to be saved but if we have broken the law at even the slightest point we are condemned as lawbreakers and stand in need of salvation.

Now while we all agree that the Law is to be used to define sin and righteousness in evangelism, many professing Christians in turn say that we Christians do not need to obey the Law. But brethren, how can we draw such a conclusion? If the Law defines sin it necessarily defines righteousness, for all that is not sin is righteous. If sin is breaking the Law, righteousness is keeping the Law. If the Law still defines sin in our day, then it still defines righteousness in our day. And if the Law defines righteousness in our day, it defines how we Christians are to live.

Scripture tells us that Christians are those who seek to live righteously in this present age (Titus 2:12). And if Christians are those who desire to live righteously, they are those who desire to keep God’s Law. And If Christians are those who love righteousness, they are those who love God’s Law (Psalms 119:97, Romans 7:22). While the unregenerate are lawless and live in disobedience to the Law, the regenerate are lawful and seek to live in obedience to the Law. We could put what we have said so far in the form of a syllogism:

Major premise – The Law defines sin and righteousness.
Minor premise – Christians are to live righteously.
Conclusion – Christians are to be law keepers.

Christians are those who love the Law of God and desire to keep it. NOT to be justified but because they have been born again and now want to be like their Father.

Such a conclusion is biblical, scriptural, logical and unavoidable.

The New Covenant Constitution of the Church

New at Polemos
New Covenant Theology
Dispensationalism

Here's another good message by a former pastor of mine, Pastor Sam Waldron. This message is part two of a four part series on the New Covenant Constitution of the Church which, if I'm not mistaken, was also compiled into a book entitled A Reformed Baptist Manifesto. It's a good message for those who wish to cross examine the recent theological phenomena of both Dispensationalism and the even more recent New Covenant Theology.

• The New Covenant Constitution of the Church #2
  The New Covenant and Antinomianism
  A Reformed Baptist Manifesto
  Sam E. Waldron

The Gospel Establishes the Law

New at Polemos
Audio Links
Dispensationalism
New Covenant Theology
Law of God

The anti-law wing of the Church has produced many things over the years, things such as: Easy Believism, "Carnal Christianity", a mystical Spirit-led Intuitionism and thousands of people who think they are Christians when they are not.

In this message from Romans 3:23 ("Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.") pastor Mark Chanski tries to clear up some of the fuzzy thinking out there. He brings us some good exposition and some awesome lines of application showing us the Laws relationship to the knowledge sin and righteousness, and the Laws relationship to the assurance of salvation.

• The Gospel Establishes the Law
  Mark Chanski
  

Sharpening Our Sabbath Convictions

Lord's Day, The
Audio Links

• Sharpening Our Sabbath Convictions
  Earl Shetler

The Founders of the SBC & Covenant Theology

A good message dispelling the ignorant assertions that either Dispensationalism or New Covenant Theology formed the historical belief of Baptist Churches.

• The Founders of the SBC & Covenant Theology
  Fred Malone
  

What do you mean by "literal"?

I was listening to a Bible teacher insisting that we must interpret the Bible “literally”. He was saying that we should “read the Bible like a newspaper” and “take the words at face value according to the natural, normal sense of words”. Israel always means Israel, 1000 always means 1000, etc.

I heard such things frequently as a new Christian, and for a time it seemed to make complete sense to me. My thinking went something like this: How could we ever hope to know for sure what the Scriptures were saying if we didn’t take them “at face value” or “literally”? How could we interpret them objectively? How could we ever test the interpretations of others? It seemed to me that if we were not going to interpret the Bible “literally” it would become a useless and confusing book and we could never know for certain if we had understood it correctly or not.

But yet these very same teachers who told me to interpret the Bible “literally” and “read it like a newspaper” would also tell me that the woman in Revelation 12:1,6 was not a literal woman but symbolic of Israel. The stars in 12:4 were not literal stars, but figurative or symbolic of fallen angels. They would tell me that when Christ said “this is My body” that it wasn’t literally His body, that the woman in Revelation 17 is not a literal woman, Babylon in chapter 18 is not literally Babylon and the weapons spoken of in Ezekiel 39:9 are not really bows and arrows, swords and spears but are really symbolic of modern instruments of war, and so on.

As I turned to Scripture, I saw that Jesus Himself spoke in non-literal terms until it exasperated His disciples! They were thrilled when He finally spoke in plain language (John 16:29). I saw that Daniel’s visions in Daniel 7 needed to be interpreted (7:16), indicating that He could not simply take them “literally”. And I saw the New Testament do strange non-literal things with the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 15:13-17 for example).

These things naturally led me to wonder, exactly what do my teachers mean by “literal”?

Is this really how we should approach the entire Bible? Did they really mean to tell me that I should not take literary genre into consideration? What about figurative language? What about symbolism, metaphors, hyperbole, parables, poetry, irony, analogy, metonymy, oxymoron, paradox, personifications, anthropomorphisms, similes, synecdoche, apocalyptic visions and other such manners of speech?

Did they really mean to tell me to interpret Zechariah 5:1-11 in the exact same manner that I interpret Romans 5:1-11? Were they really going to tell me that they are written in the exact same manner? Did they really mean to tell me that we should read a historical narrative in the exact same manner that we read poetry? Are we to interpret prose in the exact same manner we interpret a vision? Do we interpret a parable full of symbolism in the same manner we interpret the historical account of the six twenty-four hour days of creation?

It seemed to me that many of my teachers would often abandon their own hermeneutic in practice while at the same time demanding that it is the only legitimate hermeneutic. I was told that the key in the angel’s hand in Revelation 20:1 is not a literal key and the chain is not a literal chain and that the bottomless pit referred to in 20:1and 3 does not literally have a door on it with which to “shut“ the Devil in with. But yet these very same teachers insisted that the 1,000 years spoken of in these very same verses are literally one thousand, 365-day years and they would even ridicule anyone who would dare to interpret them in a figurative manner.

But brethren, if some words are not literally what they say, how can we make a blanket statement demanding that the Bible be interpreted “literally” or “read like a newspaper”? If we cannot take some of the words of Scripture at face value, how can we demand that all of Scripture should always be taken at face value “according to the normal sense of words“?

In an attempt to explain this obvious contradiction I have been told that “although the Bible occasionally uses figures of speech and symbolic language, they are literal figures of speech and literal symbols.” But what in the world does that mean? Whether you call them “literal figures of speech” or just plain old “figures of speech”, they are still figures of speech! You still do not take them according to the normal, natural sense of words. The true meaning of the figure or symbol must be searched out a little further.

Charles Ryrie, a popular defender of Dispensationalism, gives us a good example of just such an argument in chapter 16 of his “Basic Theology”, page 112. Here, while defending the idea of a literal hermeneutic, Ryrie tells us that “no one denies that the Bible uses figures of speech, but they convey literal truths and often more vividly and literally than if they were not used. They enhance rather than change the plain meaning behind the figures.”

While baffling double talk may confuse some, it still doesn’t change the fact that figures of speech are not interpreted literally. We are often told that we can take the Bible literally or non-literally, but we never stop to consider that there may be another more biblical option. Just because we are presented with two options, that doesn’t mean that that is all there is.

So what exactly do such teachers mean when they say we must take the Bible “literally’? It seems to me that what they really mean is that we must only interpret certain parts of Scripture literally; the parts that fit with what they want to believe.

The Law of God Part 1: The Covenantal Nature of Law

The Covenantal Nature of Law

Law defines the parameters of a relationship.

For instance, United States law defines ones relationship to the United States. If we as citizens begin to break the law and live outside the law, our privileges as citizens will be negatively affected; the law will have something against us. Citizens are those who agree to, and conform to, the Law. When a citizen breaks the law he is breaking the terms of his citizenship and must then suffer the consequences. For this reason men, like R. J. Rushdoony for instance, will sometimes speak of the law as a form of warfare; it guards and protects the State by defining a legitimate relationship to the state and the consequences of violating that relationship.

And because Law defines the basis and parameters of a relationship (its privileges, duties and consequences of violating the relationship) Law is inherently covenantal.

Scripture testifies to this understanding of law in places such as Romans chapter 7. Here Paul asks us:

“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” Romans 7:1-3

In the context Paul is discussing the Christians relationship to the Law and he uses the analogy of the marriage relationship to teach us about our relationship to the Law of God.

In verse two Paul speaks of the woman who is bound by law to her husband. He then speaks of her being released from the law of her husband and being free from that law if her husband dies. The specific privileges, duties, responsibilities and consequences of violating the terms of that relationship come to an abrupt end upon the death of the husband.

Notice Paul is speaking of the marriage covenant, but he is speaking of it in terms of law. You could just as easily substitute the word covenant for law and it would still make just as much sense:

“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the covenant to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the covenant of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that covenant; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

Covenants and law are in many ways similar to each other as they both deal with the parameters and obligations of relationships. Law cannot escape being covenantal in nature.

This is also brought out very clearly in the case of the Ten Commandments. God repeatedly singles out the Ten Commandments (that which we often call the Moral Law) and calls them a Covenant.

In Exodus 34 the Lord recounts the Ten Commandments and then says to Moses:

“…Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

In Deuteronomy 4 Moses is recalling the giving of the Ten Commandments to the nation of Israel and says this in verses 12-14:

“And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”

Again, a chapter later in Deuteronomy 5 Moses refers to the Covenant God made with them at Horeb and proceeds to recall the Ten Commandments once again. He finishes reciting the Commandments and says:

“These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.”

Clearly the Covenant spoken of in verse 2 is the Ten Commandments which follow with nothing else added to them; God spoke no more than that.

And in first Kings 8:9, speaking of the Ark of the Covenant we are told:

“There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.”

And in verse 21

“And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.”

Clearly the Ten Commandments written on the two tables of stone in verse 8 are the same as the Covenant spoken of in verse 21. In all these examples the Ten Commandments, what we often call the “Moral Law”, are clearly singled-out themselves as a covenant.

In these Scriptural examples we see something of the Covenantal nature of law, and this becomes very significant, I believe, as we struggle to obtain a Biblical understanding of Law.