Unwitting and Unwilling

John 11:49-52 tells us, “But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”

This is an amazing text. It demonstrates, quite emphatically the sovereignty of God over men’s wills – even over the wicked. Even enemies of God, who hate Him and wish to rebel against His will, are still under His sovereign power and cannot so much as move apart from Him. Moreover, they are often used, unwittingly and unwillingly, as instruments for the very plans of God they wish to frustrate.

But this was not the first time that unwilling lips have been made instruments in pronouncing God’s plans. Balaam, planning to curse God’s people, finds that all he can do is bless them! He even declares the unchangeableness of God’s blessing: “God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent” (Numbers 23:19) He further states, “Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it. He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel” (Numbers 23:20-21a).

Here’s where it gets interesting. How is Balaam’s unwitting and unwilling prophecy to take place? Caiaphas will supply the ground upon which Balaam’s blessing will come to pass. It is fascinating that Balaam, an unbeliever, was overruled by God and gave one of the most beautiful Messianic prophecies in all of Scripture. Then, centuries later, Caiaphas, a Christ-rejecter, was overruled by God to provide the fulfillment of Balaam’s prophecy.

Baptism is New Testament Circumcision

In theological discussion presuppositions must always be accounted for. It is foolishness to ignore presuppositions. This is why two people can read the same text and come away with two opposing interpretations. As a Covenant theologian, I do not for a second hide the fact that my presupposition is this: Covenant is the framework upon which everything in Scripture attaches. Everything which God has revealed, He has revealed through the grid of covenant. This seems like a fair conclusion. I do not believe this to be an artificial paradigm imposed upon Scripture. If we follow the Reformation principle of letting Scripture be its own interpreter, it seems clear that covenant is the underlying framework upon which all revelation is affixed.

Since the Baptist does not view covenant this way, he differs from the Reformed theologian when it comes to the administration of the covenant of grace. At the heart of the baptistic argument against infant baptism is the denial that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sacrament of entry into covenant with God. Reformed theology teaches that baptism is the New Testament version of circumcision. If this concept were clearly grasped, much confusion would be cleared away.

Having prefaced all that, let us now look at some Scriptural evidence for the contention that baptism is, in fact, Christian circumcision.

In Colossians 2:11, Paul tells us, “in Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ." Before we proceed, it is crucial to remember Paul’s constant invective against those who insist that circumcision is necessary for Christians. It should be obvious then that whatever Paul is referring to here, he does not mean physical circumcision. Let’s let Paul explain himself. How does he say we were circumcised by Christ? He says, “having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith.” The first word of verse 12 (συνταφεντες), is a participle described the circumstances in which believers are circumcised. In other words, Paul is saying that we are circumcised with a spiritual circumcision (made without hands) with the circumcision of Christ and this is done by being baptized. It is common (based on Romans 6) to use burial as an illustration of baptism. Notice here though, that Paul uses burial as an illustration of circumcision. He says, “You were circumcised by having been buried…”

Therefore Paul concludes that in the New covenant, our baptism is our circumcision. It identifies us with Christ’s death. This is why Paul so adamantly opposed the Judaizers who wished to impose circumcision upon Christians. Baptism is the sign of our having been circumcised in Christ. For this reason physical circumcision in the new covenant is unnecessary. Baptism identifies us with Christ's death and faith is the means by which we united to Christ.

Looking back on the first New Testament administration of the sacrament of baptism, we see Peter actually equate circumcision with baptism. How, you ask. Precisely because when Peter says, “the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off," he is using the exact same formula that God Himself used when He instituted the sacrament of circumcision in Genesis 17:7. And the Jews understood this clearly.

Preaching On The Psalms 2

In the previous post I referred to goofy exegesis of the Psalms. Actually, I wouldn’t be so riled if the preaching were merely goofy. But all too often principles are asserted in the common hermeneutic that if closely examined, and carried to their logical conclusions, would destroy inspiration as we know it. This is nowhere more evident than in the exegesis of the Imprecatory Psalms.

For the uninitiated, the Imprecatory Psalms are those Psalms wherein people are cursed. Psalm 35 is a case in point. There are several songs in which David curses enemies. And then there are statements against enemies scattered throughout many of the other psalms, such as 139: 21, 22, which read: “Do not I hate them, O LORD that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

Three proposed solutions to the ‘problem’ of the Imprecatory Psalms:

1. David is sinning. His sins are hatred, resentfulness, and vengeance. All God’s people are sinners, even the saints of the Old Testament. Christians are to love their enemies. Any statement of this kind is simply sinful.

This sentiment is clearly based upon the old “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” line. Is this true? Not at all. Before you rush to protest, let me ask: Is it the sin that God casts into Hell or the sinner? Look at these passages:

Psalm 5:4-6 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So it is clear that at some level God does indeed hate His enemies. Therefore this first solution is a red herring. As children of God we are to mirror His character, which includes His hatred of sin and the sinner. Scripture forbids bitterness, yes; but, this hatred of God’s which we are to reflect is neither vindictiveness nor self-centered resentfulness. It is a holy hatred of anything and anyone who opposes the righteous will of a holy God and is therefore His enemy. This may be confusing at times in practice, but it is nonetheless true.

2. The Old Testament period was one of Law, harshness and vengeance. But the New Testament era is one of grace, mercy, and forgiveness. So the hatred and vengeance David was expressing was perfectly acceptable in the Old Testament era. In the New Testament we follow the Law of Christ, but David the Law of Moses.

This is the approach of Dispensationalism because of its sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. While we acknowledge some things discontinued, these are only those which God has revealed by precept or by necessary inference. There is a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a redefined covenant people. But these are fuller expressions of the same Covenant of Grace. But when it comes to God’s moral character and the things He has professed hatred of, there can be no discontinuity or change. God is not a God who can change. What He hated in the Old Testament He still hates in the New Testament. In fact the New Testament expresses God’s hatred for sin more clearly than the Old, for He poured out His infinite wrath against sin on His own dear Son. The Sermon on the Mount is not a new Law contrasted with Old Testament ethics. It is an expression of what was intended by the Old Testament all along. Hence there is no discontinuity of ethics between the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, imprecations are not unique to the Old Testament. Peter curses Simon Magus in Acts 8:20. Paul imprecates the High Priest in Acts 23:3, Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4:14, and preachers of a false gospel in Galatians 1. Furthermore, the greatest woes pronounced by anyone on anyone anywhere in Scripture are from the lips of Jesus Himself in Matthew 23.

Not only is this true, but the supposed New Testament ethics of forgiveness and mercy are taught in the Old Testament. In fact, many times the VERY WORDS use in New Testament are merely quotations from the Old! When Jesus summarizes part of the Law as loving your neighbor as yourself, He was not creating a new principle. He was quoting Leviticus 19:18. Exodus 23:4-5 give us case laws wherein kindness to enemies is demanded. The familiar “Vengeance is Mine,” is from Deuteronomy. The same David who wrote Psalm, also penned these words RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of an Imprecatory Psalm: False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not. They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul. But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother. Psalm 35:11-14. And therefore, this second attempted solution fails.

3. The Liberals approach is unthinkable to any true Christian. They simply say that we have here a blatant contradiction in Scripture. This is such an abhorrent view that no Christian should give it the dignity of a response. It is a God-hating view developed by men who are God-haters. Period.

These are several ways in which these Psalms are handled. But not one of them is correct. The Reformed position, especial as it pertains to the doctrine of Inspiration, is the only way these texts can be treated correctly. If we wish to defend the traditional Reformed doctrine of Inspiration, then we must shun any interpretation which lets David, or the other authors of the Psalms, insert themselves into the text. Too often, much is made of David’s psychology and his emotions as revealed in the Psalms. While this may jump out at us in a shallow, surface reading of the text, it is incredibly dangerous to take this tack. To work, this approach would necessitate David’s having written a nasty song, fuming against his enemies, being vindictive and hateful. Yet we know from 139:23, 24 that this cannot be the case. It reads: “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” This approach assumes that God allowed David’s rotten sinful attitude to be inscripturated to teach us how not to act. This overlooks the rather obvious fact that the Imprecatory Psalms have no indications nor hints that there is anything wrong with what David has written. Furthermore, it almost requires assuming that David just wrote what he liked and then God, liking it, said, “Hey, that’s good. I think I’ll inspire it.” That, my friends is NOT inspiration. Allowing the text to be colored even in the slightest way by the author’s personal thoughts, feelings and character effectively destroys and denies the Reformed view of Inspiration.

As was said above, God clearly forbids vindictiveness and bitterness, but nonetheless, we must reconcile this with a faithful mirroring of His Divine character as His image-bearers; therefore, we too must hate what He hates. Furthermore, we must clarify that our hatred is precisely hatred because such are God’s enemies. We should never return evil for evil, nor refuse to extend forgiveness to one who repents. Notwithstanding, zeal for God’s glory should outweigh every other concern.

Admittedly, this is a difficult subject. And this is why, in my estimation, very few preachers expound the Psalms, and many of the few who do, do it poorly.

Preaching On The Psalms 1

At the beginning of his homily on Psalm 1, Hilary of Poitiers remarks that the most important thing to determine when reading the Psalms is: who’s talking.

It is no secret that many of the Psalms are Messianic; hence it is Christ who is speaking through the inspired prophetic utterance of David. Even when David is describing his own personal experience, the Psalm, though literally true of David, has a much fuller meaning and fulfillment in Christ. Psalm 22 is a prime example of this fact.

Often, when God speaks in the Psalms to David, it is clear that God is actually addressing Christ as David’s greater Son, and by addressing Christ in this way, God reiterates His covenant of grace to David as the representative king over God’s people. Psalm 89 is a case of this. Several verses can only apply to Christ as King over God’s people, while others clearly apply to David. In fact, verses 36-38 contrast Christ’s everlasting Kingdom with David’s which would come to an end.

It is also quote important to recognize the special status of the Psalms. They are not narrative: they are hymns. Indeed, the Psalms are the hymnal of the Old Testament Church (some would argue that they are the hymnal of the New Testament Church as well). As such, these Psalms were actually sung by God’s people. And because they were intended to be sung corporately, many of the Psalms are place in the mouth of Israel. In other words, it is Israel, God’s covenant people, who is speaking in some of the Psalms. See Psalm 130.

Considerations such as these go a long way, in my opinion to eradicating much of the subpar preaching that is done on the Psalms. Too often, the fact that someone besides David is the intended speaker in the Psalm is ignored, and therefore much goofy (for lack of a better word) preaching results.

Notable Quotes 3

There are phrases and title used in regard to Himself which argue that He was conscious of a quite uniquw relation to the world, or, more strictly, to a flock or people whom He acknowledges as His. Of these expressions we shall adduce a few. The terms commonly used in the doctrinal discussions of the atonement, and are drawn from Bible phraseology, such as SURETY, MEDIATOR, HIGH PRIEST, ADVOCATE - all representing Him as our substitute, who appears in the presence of God for us, and conducts our cause, - are not indeed found in the Lord's own words descriptive of Himself. But, beyond question, the thing is there; and He acts as fully conscious that, except through Himself, as Mediator, God could have no intercourse with man, nor man with God. He understands and consults the bests interests of His people in every respect: He took flesh, and knows the infirmities of human nature by personal experience, that He may sympathize with their condition, and compassionately conduct their concerns: He was lawfully called and appointed to that function. And not only so: the sacrificial languagee, which we find Him so frequently usinf, impies a Priest, though He does not expressly appropriate the term.

These title, both numerous and various, imply that He had a relation to manking which is unique; that He stood between God and man; that He was not an individual unit of the race, as all negative theology represents Him; but acting in a representative capacity for it. He assumes a position that no one but Himself could dare to occupy. Thus when He calls Himself THE WAY, in saying, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John xiv.6), He is the exclusive Way; not only paving the way for others, but constituting, in His own person and the work the only way by which any could have access to God. That this is the meaning is evident from the subjoined words, "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." Could Christ affirm this of Himself, if He were nothing more than a teacher, an example, or a merely human founder of a new religion? Certainly not.

George Smeaton, Christ's Doctrine of the Atonement, pg 51& 52