Dear Friends, 

Despite the deplorable commercialization of Jesus’ birth, I am thankful that this season of the year at least gives some attention to His birth.  As we set the stage in this study for Paul’s explanation of several Old Testament prophecies dealing with the opening of the gospel and its related blessings to the Gentiles, we examine briefly a modern error regarding God’s design in the First Advent, as well as the implications of the modern error regarding God’s omniscience.  If God sincerely intended one thing in the First Advent and was surprised and disappointed at the actual unfolding events, He apparently does not fully know all things, including the future.   

Somewhat related to the contemporary error of dispensationalism is the companion error that Jesus is not presently the ruling King over His kingdom.  He must wait in frustration till a future era when He shall assume that position.  Consider just two of a large number of passages that contradict this notion. 

"Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." ( Matthew 2:2 , KJV ) 

"Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt." ( John 12:15 , KJV ) 

He was born “King of the Jews,” and He rode into Jerusalem just prior to His crucifixion as the King.  He is King of kings and Lord of lords!  

Let us worship this day at His feet and adore our King!

Joe Holder

New Testament Blessings to Gentiles:  Not a Divine Afterthought

 
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.  ( Romans 10:18-19 )

             One of the major tenets of contemporary dispensational eschatology proposes that God intended to set up an ideal world government under Jesus during the First Advent, but His rejection by the Jews forced God to resort to “Plan B.”  Their idea of “Plan B” is the establishing of the church until near the end of time when, depending on the view held relative to the exact timing of the “rapture,” that event occurs.  Typically this view holds that either during the “Great Tribulation,” before it, or after it, the saints will be raptured out of the earth, but God will eventually set up that ideal millennial kingdom on earth before He folds that kingdom into eternity.  If all of these ideas sound confusing, do not fret.  They are!  The whole modern concept of dispensational eschatology began with J. N. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren around 1827.  It in no way resembles historical Christian eschatology, even the historical views held regarding a final millennial era of spiritual dominion.(1)  

            As Paul wrestled with the ideas that challenged his teachings in the first generation of Christianity, a primary error seems to have been that the only way to embrace “true” Christianity was to first embrace Judaism.  Only after becoming a good practicing Jew could one graduate to become a good Christian.  It is indeed possible to interpret some of the passages dealing with this error as if Paul’s critics believed in salvation—going to heaven when you die—by compliance with the Law, plus Christian obedience.  It is my belief that this interpretation likely infuses too much subsequent historical error into the first century.  I rather hold that Paul’s critics accepted salvation by grace alone, but they firmly taught that “real blessings” and becoming a “real Christian” only occurs as one integrates legalism and faith into a hybrid belief system. 

            Why should we reject the common idea of Darby and contemporary dispensationalists such as Tim LaHaye who has attempted to popularize Darby’s errors though his Left Behind series of novels?  The reasons are numerous.  LaHaye wholly rejects the doctrines of grace, actually holding that at some future event all who died in their sins and spent the intermediate period in hell will be given a “second chance” to reverse their “decision” and choose salvation.  Thus LaHaye effectively believes that salvation stands on the human choice, not on God’s, wholly contradictory to the Bible doctrines of grace.  His literal interpretation of the thousand years of the twentieth chapter of Revelation largely ignores the chapter’s description of that event.  Participants in the thousand year period, according to John’s inspired words in this chapter, are dead martyrs, not righteous living saints ( Revelation 20:4 ), “…the souls of them that were beheaded….” 

            At its heart, modern dispensationalism rejects God’s omniscience.  If God intended to set up the ideal world kingdom at the First Advent, but was surprised and defeated by the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, apparently God didn’t know the future!  Thus modern dispensationalism laid the foundation for the modern heresy of “open theism,” denying that God knows the future at all, that He is as surprised as we are by the unfolding of events in time.  Abominable! 

            The historical background of dispensationalism prepares us to study Paul’s development of several Old Testament prophecies that refute both the ancient error that Paul opposed, as well as the contemporary errors mentioned above.  If God was surprised by the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, why do so many Old Testament prophecies deal with that fact in rather specific details, as well as with the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles and the establishment of the New Testament church? If God didn’t know anything about all these future events, why did He so precisely and repeatedly predict them in multiple Old Testament passages?  God is timeless, and His knowledge of human actions and events is comprehensive.  He is omniscient, knowing the last event of time as comfortably as He knows the first event of time.  He transcends time, as does His knowledge. 

            Paul asks two questions in our study verses.  First, “Have they not heard?”  He answers the question with a quote from the nineteenth Psalm.  Paul affirms that God “speaks” of His glory through His natural creation.  It matters little whether we study images from the Hubbell telescope or if we study micro-biological processes, God has imbedded the image of His power and glory into His creation.  Evolutionary scientists are increasingly challenged to explain the amazing reality of “intelligent design” apart from acknowledging the reality of nature’s intelligent Designer.  God shouts His glory and communicates knowledge of Himself thorough His natural creation.  That is the primary point of the nineteenth Psalm.  We know little of the geographic or historical setting of the Book of Job, but Bible historians generally agree that Job didn’t live among the Jews so that he could have benefitted from their familiarity with God.  At a time in all likelihood prior to Moses’ writing of the first five books of the Old Testament, Job experienced God, and an unnamed writer penned his experience for our knowledge and instruction.  Job understood the doctrine of the resurrection ( Job 14:14 , do not read this single verse but read the verses in the chapter leading up to it; Job 19:25-27 , not only did Job believe in the resurrection, but he also was aware of a future “Redeemer.”).  How did Job gain such knowledge?  I would not claim that he learned it all from observing nature, but his use of nature in the fourteenth chapter affirms David’s point in the nineteenth Psalm, as well as Paul’s point in our study verses.  No one can reject God’s existence and moral character on the claim of personal ignorance.  God has so revealed Himself as to leave them without excuse.  God will give no one a free ticket on Judgment Day based on their ignorance! 

            But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.  Paul’s second question becomes more refined and personal to the error that he is confronting.  Can these Jews for whom he so passionately prays in this context claim ignorance regarding Jesus’ clear identity as their true Messiah?  And Paul again rejects the notion of ignorance.  In fact Paul also asserts that God knew of their rejection and prophesied of it, as well as the consequences it would impose on the Jewish people of the first and subsequent centuries.  God not only knew the Jews would largely reject Jesus at the First Advent, but God also announced hundreds of years earlier in Jewish Scriptures that He would reject them for their treatment of His Son (How many of Jesus’ parables deal with an absent landlord who expects his stewards to continue managing his estate, but must return eventually to judge and to punish their failed stewardship? ).  Further, in many of these prophecies God simultaneously predicted His expansion of special blessings on Gentiles no less than His blessings on the Jews in the Old Testament.  In fact He actually promised that the blessings of the New Testament era, including all who walk the walk of faith, Jew or Gentile alike, would far transcend the blessings enjoyed by the Jews in the Old Testament.  While God’s promise of New Testament blessings appears in most of the Old Testament books, Isaiah contains a rather large number of concise prophecies regarding the New Testament era, God’s opening of special favor and blessings to the Gentiles, and the introduction of the New Testament church. 

            Historically some Christians have embraced the notion that in some way or another God will initiate a return of large numbers of Jews to the blessings of the gospel era near the end of time, but I have never found sufficient Biblical support to favor the idea.  Paul affirms in the second chapter of Ephesians that God tore down the “middle wall of partition” that divided Jews and proselyte Gentiles under Old Testament worship, effectively integrating Jew and Gentile alike under the rich blessings of the New Testament era.  I find no Biblical evidence that God ever intends to restore that dividing wall.  On what rationale would we embrace the idea that God will replace the superior way with the old, obsolete, and inferior way? 

            Paul’s words to first century Jewish Christians who favored some form of hybrid legalism-faith would have been far more jolting and confrontational than we can easily grasp.  “I will provoke you to jealousy” clearly reveals God’s disapproval for those so provoked.  The idea that a people who prided themselves as being God’s exclusive and favored people being rejected in favor of a “non-nation,” of a “nobody people” is at the heart of Paul’s message here.  Paul adds “insult to injury” by using this passage from Moses’ writings.  God’s angry judgment against these people provokes them to anger. 

            It is highly unlikely that a person in our time and culture would embrace a Judaism-faith hybrid error.  So how does this lesson translate to us and to our time and culture?  The similarity of mindsets then and now is surprising.  Rather often I have heard sincere Christians describe the ideal way to win a person to the faith in these words, “First you teach them the law.  Show them its demands.  Make sure they understand its uncompromising justice so they see themselves as hopelessly lost.  Only then should you take them to Calvary and talk to them about Jesus.”  Is not this law-first-then- Calvary a form of the same error that Paul confronted in both Romans and Galatians?  Every one of us to some extent possesses a legalistic attitude.  If we listen to our inner-legalist, we will start measuring our Christian performance by some self-formed law, some self-assembled set of rules and regulations.  Following that mindset leads us to measure our faith by how well we think we’ve complied with the rules that we’ve “carved in stone” in our minds. 

            Whether we forsake the fundamentals of the doctrines of grace and embrace the corrupt Arminian error of salvation by works, or whether we embrace a more subtle form of legalism, the results are similar.  Our spiritual contentment becomes increasingly measured by our personal performance.  Every performance based assessment will result in the same outcome.  We can never measure up!  We can never reach a perfect score, and the “law” of our performance evaluation spotlights our failures while ignoring our obedience.  The first and most obvious flaw in this dark mindset is obvious.  It is wholly self-centered.  “How am I doing?”  “How much assurance do I have?”  No person who has become the slave to this self-centered and self-serving criterion can pass the first and most basic criteria for Biblical discipleship, self-denial, not self-assessment.  The more we assess our performance the more we shall see the areas we’ve missed or failed.  We’ll focus on them with such self-disdain that a black, joyless cloud will begin to hang over our mood.  We may speak of Christian joy, but the turn of our mouth and the mood of our life will shout “Joyless!” not “Joyful.”  The more we sink into self-loathing misery the more we will become inclined to focus our attention on the failures of others—anything to escape the self-loathing, even briefly.  We are liable to become increasingly judgmental toward others, questioning their spiritual state and health, even as we have questioned our own condition.  Since, at its heart, this despicable mindset is self-focused and self-centered, it will follow the predictable pattern of the self-absorbed human condition of disobedience.  “I may not be perfect, but I’m better than you.”  A California legislator a few years ago was trying to convince a group of voters that he really embraced a high ethical standard of conduct.  To reinforce his self-assessed good nature, he commented, “I tell the truth—most of the time.”  Most of the time?  What did his confession actually reveal about him?  He was not above lying! 

            What is the point?  The major issue for Paul and for us should be simple.  The true measure of our life should not be legalism, regardless of the law by which we judge ourselves.  Any adoption of legalism for self-assessment will degenerate into a performance based attitude that is the antithesis, not the fulfillment, of Biblical discipleship.  It will drive you spiritually insane, if not mentally so! 

            The Biblical guide by which we should measure our life must begin with self-denial, not a performance assessment.  Building on self-denial, the walk of faith, not a scorecard based on whatever law or set of rules we might adopt and impose on self, should guide us to a life-changing, life-absorbing passion for the Lord Jesus Christ, our first building block.  As we follow His example, the focus of our life and energy looks to serve and bless others, not grade our personal performance.  Self-denial sweeps away all the clutter and interference from us that inevitably prevent the development of a healthy faith.  Once we have swept away that self-clutter we are free to grow our faith in the fertile soil of service to God through service to others.  God’s incredible order is simply amazing.  The less we focus on self, self-performance, and self-assessment, and invest our whole life in the service of others the more God will bless us with joyful contentment.  Contentment and joy are not the Christian objective but rather divinely framed and blessed by-products of the self-denied, other-serving Christian faith.  Forget about yourself!  Invest your all in learning “More, More About Jesus,” adoring and worshipping Him, and serving others.  Christian joy is just that simply profound and profoundly simple! 

            Given the depth of Old Testament prophecies dealing with God’s blessings on the Gentiles in the New Testament era, as well as the characteristics of God’s New Testament church, the idea that a person must embrace a hybrid of Judaism and faith becomes all the more preposterous.  The “walk of faith” that affirms in this context requires—needs—no supplement.  It is wholly sufficient to instruct, guide, and bless the family of God in this new and better era.  May we more fully appreciate the blessings that are ours to enjoy.  We live in the better day.  Enlightened by the gospel and the writings of the New Testament, we need no supplement from legalism to reinforce the walk of faith.  It is sufficient!