Monthly Archives: April 2009

Midwives and husbands

Passage: Exodus 1 (ESV Bible Online).

So what were “the midwives”?  A nun-like order of unmarried women?  I’m assuming that Shiphrah and Puah were not the only two but were over many others serving the numerous Hebrews (or else serving all Egypt including the Hebrews).  When God gave the midwives families, does this only refer to the two?  I don’t see how.

Seems like the entire order got reorganized.  I can’t help but wonder if this was some sort of Lutheran-like reformation of the midwife system.  The midwifes at some point got to have a normal family life as wives and mothers.

It seems fairly likely that Pharaoh’s motive in killing sons but not daughters was to force the intermarriage of the Hebrews women with Egyptian men so that the Hebrews lost their separate identity.  In which case, God’s reward fits the act.  The midwives’ saved the future husbands of the future Hebrew women and God gave them their own husbands in return.  They spared the Hebrew babies and got to have their own.

Abel at the beginning and end of Genesis

Abel-Mizraim gets dropped into the narrative of the last chapter of Genesis. It is all about mourning the dead and burying them (rather than allowing blood to cry up from the ground). Also, immediately after the name is mentioned, we have the brothers approaching Joseph, fearful of revenge.

But Joseph is forgiving, and thus he is used at the end of the story to resolve problems that started early on in Genesis.

Does Boston offer proof of a Covenant of Works at Sinai? (1)

I’ve mentioned Boston’s attempt to add to Westminster’s doctrine.  We should look at his arguments.  Here’s the first:

Because of the apostle’s testimony, Gal. iv. 24, “These are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage.” For the children of this Sinai covenant the apostle here treats of, are excluded from the eternal inheritance, as Ishmael was from Canaan , the type of it, ver. 30, “Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman;” but this could never be said of the children of the covenant of grace under any dispensation, though both the law and the covenant from Sinai itself, and its children, were even before the coming of Christ under a sentence of exclusion, to be executed on them respectively in due time.

Paul contrasts Sinai to Abraham but where is the evidence that plugs this into the Covenant of Works?  His argument assumes that all reference to “bondage” means a system of demanding perfect perpetual obedience as a condition of eternal life.  But the Apostle Paul explains what he means by bondage and it is not what Boston presupposes:

I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

So, for Paul’s argument, the bondage is that of limitations due to immaturity.  The point is that now that the new has come we must leave behind the old.  Nothing is said about going all the way back to man’s state of innocence to where Adam, as a public person, was given a Covenant that demanded his perfect obedience to secure his own future and that of his posterity.  It looks as if Boston has his own theological paradigm and really isn’t interested in the details contained in Paul’s own argument.

Boston offers other arguments, I’ll look at them later as I have time.

The Preface to the Ten Commands and the Westminster Standards

Shorter Catechism

Q. 43. What is the preface to the ten commandments?
A. The preface to the ten commandments is in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which will bring thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, if you will obey me in all things and never sin.

Q. 44. What doth the preface to the ten commandments teach us?
A. The preface to the ten commandments teacheth us that because God is the Lord, and our God, and owner, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments without any sin whatsoever, as a condition for receiving eternal life, unless we are released from this obligation by a redeemer who obeys as our substitute.

Larger Catechism

Q. 101. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which will bring thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, if you will obey me in all things and never sin. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who must keep all his commandments without any sin, in order to inherit eternal life, unless another covenant is provided, by a redeemer, that allows us to escape the demands of the covenant given in the Ten Commandments.

If I stumbled through a cupboard into this strange world, and found this written in certain church documents, it would explain so much.

Theologia » Paul’s Use of the Decalogue in Ephesians 6.1-3

Many people today seem to believe that the Law of God, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, is somehow subchristian. To an extant this is true, as is shown by Paul’s exhortation to children in his letter to the Ephesians. Paul alters the Fifth Commandment in order to apply it. The original words as written by God’s own finger are, incredibly, no longer an accurate statement of God’s promise to His children in regard to how they act toward their earthly parents. The original command came with a promise for long life in the Promised Land of Canaan; the Pauline revision promises long life even to those in Ephesus—and to Christians living anywhere else on earth.

Paul has articulated his fundamental principle for making this alteration elsewhere. In the letter to the Romans, he states, “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world [Greek: kosmos) was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith” (4.13). God promised Abraham a particular piece of land, and the Law put boundaries around it, but Paul tells us that the piece of land actually was a token of the whole cosmos. Now that Christ has come, the token is no longer needed because the full inheritance has been given.

However, when most people treat the Decalogue as subchristian, they usually mean something very different from the Apostle Paul. Some say that the Law was not for the Church, but for Israel. Some say that the Ten Commandments taught salvation by works and, in a roundabout way, also communicated that salvation must be by grace because, once anyone attempted it, they would soon discover Law-keeping was impossible.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesian children should give us second thoughts about such suggestions. In the first place, the Apostle Paul states that Christian children are under obligation, according to the Mosaic Law, to obey both their parents. Secondly, the Apostle Paul explicitly motivates such children to do so by saying that God will reward them—a reward he finds in the original Fifth Commandment, even though he changes the scope of that reward (to include the whole earth including Ephesus, not just Palestine).

Read the rest at Theologia » Paul’s Use of the Decalogue in Ephesians 6.1-3.

The Ten Commandments as grace

The preface to the ten commandments deserves a particular notice in the matter of the Sinai transaction, Exod. xx. 2, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Hence it is evident to me, that the covenant of grace was delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. For the Son of God, the messenger of the covenant of grace, spoke these words to a select people, the natural seed of Abraham, typical of his whole spiritual seed. He avoucheth himself to be their God; namely, in virtue of the promise, or covenant made with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7, “I will establish my covenant – to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee:” and their God, and their God, which brought them out of the land of Egypt; according to the promise made to Abraham at the most solemn renewal of the covenant with him. – Gen. xv. 14, “Afterwards shall they come out with great substance.” And he first declares himself their God, and then requires obedience, according to the manner of the covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1; “I am the Almighty God, (i.e., in the language of the covenant, The Almighty God TO THEE, to make THEE for ever blest through the promised SEED,) walk thou before me, and be thou perfect.”

via Boston – Sinai Covenant.

What is noteworthy about this claim is that it is obviously taught in the Westminster documents, especially both catechisms as well as in Chapter 7 of the Confession.

What is also noteworthy is that virtually nothing else Boston says–where he attempt to backpedal and argue that “the covenant of works was also, for special ends, repeated and delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai” referring not simply to the content of God’s moral law, but also to a scheme of demanding perfect obedience as a condition for eternal life–is anywhere found in the Westminster Confession or Catechisms (though hints of it may be gleaned from the appended prooftexts, which are not considered part of the doctrinal standards).

Boston claims that “two covenants … have been both delivered on Mount Sinai.”  The Westminster Confession states explicitly that Sinai was the deliverance of the Covenant of Grace; it knows nothing of another covenant given by Moses.

Wilhelmus A Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. 3 pg. 43-44

The Law of the Ten Commandments: Not a Covenant of Works

Question: Is the law of the Ten Commandments a covenant of works?

Answer: No, we shall demonstrate this to be so for the following reasons:

First, God’s righteousness cannot permit a sinner to enter into a covenant of friendship without a Surety who bears the punishment of the broken covenant on behalf of the sinner. However, the Israelites were sinners and the Covenant of works is without surety. Thus, the law cannot be a covenant of works.

Secondly, the person with whom God would establish a covenant of works, ought to be able to satisfy the demands of the covenant of works, and to obtain life in consequence thereof, for God’s holiness, righteousness, and truth will not permit the establishment of a true covenant upon the basis of a dishonest promise of man…

Thirdly, if the law were a covenant of works, then Israel, and all believers of the New Testament (for they are all under obligation of the law), would simultaneously be in two opposite covenants. They were under the covenant of grace, or else no one could have been saved. “Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight.” (Rom 3:20). And if the the law were a covenant of works, they would be simultaneously under the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. This is Impossible…

Fourthly, if the law were a covenant of works,man would have had to seek salvation by works, for it is thus declared, “For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.” (Rom 10:5)…

Fifthly, there can be no manifestation of mercy in the covenant of works; however, there is room for mercy in the law of the ten commandments. “but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Ex.20:6). Thus, the law is not the covenant of works.

via The Law of the Ten Commandments: Not a Covenant of Works.

God suffers

God has always suffered ever since the point that humans began suffering and sinning.

The whole point of telling people not to grieve the Holy Spirit is because there are actions that cause God grief.  Furthermore, when God’s people are afflicted, then God is afflicted.  In fact, the idea that humans experience frustration and emotional painful pangs due to circumstances while God is above such things is precisely backwards, if the Bible is true.  The reason we groan “in the pains of childbirth” waiting for the resurrection world is precisely because God allows us to participate in his own frustration.  God is engaged and affected by fallen reality.  If it were not for His presence with us, we would be detached stoics.

Of course, God’s suffering takes on a new dimension in the incarnation.  Through the humanity of Jesus God suffered, bled, and died in a new way–one that accomplished our redemption.

But the important point here is that the incarnation did not obscure God’s nature, but perfectly revealed the character of God.  If God were incapable of suffering then the incarnation would be misleading.  That is totally backward.  And even though Jesus has entered resurrection life ahead of us, he still suffers with us.  Jesus did not suffer instead of God. Jesus and God the Son are not two different persons.  Rather, God the Son, Jesus, suffered through the humanity that he assumed.

This fact is both revealed in the Bible, and part of the unique offense of Christianity.  All the Christological heresies of the early church were attempts to protect God’s “transcendance” from being vulnerable to physical reality.  The whole doctrine of the incarnation is intended to cut off these non-christian metaphysical delusions.

The only way that theologians have found to evade the Bible’s clear teaching is to come up with a way of saying that the Bible teaches false doctrines that require a sophisticated theologian to correct (see Gerstner, for example).  Contrary to John Calvin, God does not “lisp” and require us to read the Institutes to correct his lisping.  God reveals himself clearly.  You should put your faith in Him.

Drop the taser!

I ate some cereal and saw a story on Fox New Network about a cop who was told he had to either take a desk job or receive a taser jolt so that he could then carry one. The cop had a metal plate in his neck and two doctors (one of them was the department’s) said that he should not risk it.

The cop quit just shy of 30 years of service and is suing. The people are debating the issue but completely missing the point. If there are some medical conditions that make tasing too risky, then why are cops given tasers and told to use them to subdue people?

Tasers are being distributed as some kind of “safe” device for subduing people when they are nothing of the kind. They are giving cops rationalizations for taking actions they should not take.