God Sees to It

“If people must become the ultimate decisive cause of their own repentance, we have no hope of salvation. ”

— John Piper, Providence

In Providence, John Piper shines a light on the myriad of ways that God sees to it that all his decrees come to pass. Through verse after verse, he illuminates God’s sovereignty over all of creation. And he destroys every last vestige of the illusion of man’s autonomy. He addresses the notion of man’s ultimate self-determination and leaves this theory buried under Scripture, so as not to rise again. But the flesh doesn’t die easily. Pelagius rose up, only to be soundly refuted by Augustine. Erasmus wanted a shot at asserting the freedom of the will and Martin Luther destroyed his arguments with ammunition from the Bible. Jonathan Edwards did the same in his Freedom of the Will. So I have no illusions of Piper defeating the lies of the Enemy; both the false teaching and Satan are as old as the encounter in the Garden. But, as much as one book can, Providence has thrown the Articles of Remonstrance into a chest, locked it and thrown away the key, wrapped it in chains, encased it in concrete, and thrown it into the ocean.

All quotes in this article are John Piper’s, from Providence.

The Governor

“God governs what happens in the world, not only by holding sway over the decisions of human hearts, but also by giving success, or not, to the decisions he permits.”

Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of Yahweh; he turns it wherever he will.” So God directs the desires of men, he makes their attention to go in a certain direction. This much is crystal clear throughout God’s Word. Piper does an excellent job at also pointing out that God also determines the outcome of man’s decisions. From Genesis to Revelation, the Serpent has been seeking to destroy the seed of the woman. In each battle, God determines the success or failure of the Devil. God gives success to the Accuser in some skirmishes, and destroys him in other fights. But, rest assured that God will never give victory to demons or evil men to the extent that they eradicate the Church. The Second Adam said as much, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

Hardened

“In choosing whom to treat with hardening and whom to treat with mercy, God is not constrained by anything outside himself. Nothing in man, good or bad, past, present, or foreseen, determines who is hardened and who is shown mercy. ”

In Deuteronomy 7:7, God tells his people, “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples . . . “. In other words, God makes his decisions with absolute independence from any other being in the universe. Indeed, he decreed all that comes to pass before he created the world and everything in it. God states, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15) God doesn’t owe anyone anything, but as the Righteous Judge, he sees to it that “an evil person will not go unpunished”. (Proverbs 11:21) God is not ruling over a democracy, nor does he ever learn new information. The end has been “set in stone” from the beginning. He has created some men (like Pharaoh) as “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”. And he has created other men (like Joseph) as vessels of mercy.

Guilt Made Certain

“God‘s hardening does not make human fault impossible; it makes it certain. God decided who would be hardened and who would be rescued from it in mercy. God‘s hardening does not take away guilt; it renders it certain.”

Deuteronomy 2:30 reads, “But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.” When God hardens a man’s heart, the man will be at fault. Jesus explains why people don’t believe in him: “Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
 “He has blinded their eyes
    and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
    and understand with their heart, and turn,
    and I would heal them.” (John 12:39-40)
If God makes someone blind, they cannot see.

Limitless

“As Creator, God is never limited to managing what he finds at hand. The Creator never “finds“ what he has not first appointed to be put in place. ”

God is not bound or restrained by anything or anyone outside himself. For example, he cannot and will not lie (Numbers 23:19), but this is a constraint imposed by his character. Since his nature is holy, righteous and just, and he never acts against his nature, he doesn’t lie. He never changes. Man, however, is constantly changing. Man is limited to working within his environment and circumstances.

Infinite Outrage

“God is so insignificant in the hearts of fallen people that they do not lose any sleep over the infinite outrage that holds sway every day in the world in every human heart where God is not the supreme treasure. ”

Most people don’t make a point of saying that they hate God. They won’t tell you that they love their sin and reject God’s authority over their lives. But by excluding God from all of their conversation and actions, they attempt to render him insignificant. Just think of it! The Almighty God, the Lord of all of Heaven and Earth, ignored by his subjects! Fallen man treasures money, sports, fame, sex, leisure, entertainment. But they don’t place any value on God.

The Language of Pain

“While fallen people do not value God, they do value being pain-free. Therefore, to point them to the outrage of belittling God, God judges that belittling of God with physical pain and sorrow. In other words, God puts the call to repentance in the language everyone can understand – the language of pain and death.”

Why is their pain, sickness, depression, sadness and death in the world? It is God’s judgment on the human race and God uses this in men’s lives to bring them to him or to heap up judgment upon them. Left to ourselves, we are perfectly happy to go through life without acknowledging the infinite worth of God. One of the most harmful consequences of the charismatic teaching regarding health is that it seeks to rob people of one of God’s means of repentance. Of course, God will not be stymied; this only hurts the person putting their trust in the false teaching that God wants all people to be healthy all the time.

The Worst Form of Slavery

“We were slaves of our strongest preferences, and we preferred sin to Christ. ”

One of the concepts that Scripture uses to describe fallen man is that of slavery. Just as the Hebrews were enslaved to Pharaoh, the sinner is a slave to his sin. Jesus said that “everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.” Sinful man is enslaved by his own desire for lawlessness. He would rather follow the path of sin to death and eternal torment in hell than turn to Christ for refuge. Just as the Israelites couldn’t free themselves from Egypt, the rebel against God can’t extricate himself from sin’s shackles. In fact, he doesn’t even want to. God must give someone a new heart, new desires, before they will love his holy Law. Piper explains further: “Our bondage is the overwhelming force of our heart’s preference for self-exaltation over submission to God.” In refusing to submit to God, man does not remain neutral. No, he makes himself his own god. He forms an idol of a god in the image of man, rather than surrendering to the One who made man in his own image.

Sparing Traitors

“Jesus has every right to command me to be the kind of person who does what is right, even if my love for what is wrong keeps me from it. ”

Many people assume that if God commands man to keep his Law, then man must be able to obey his precepts on his own. It is love of sin that keeps people from obeying God’s dictates. Piper continues,

“God decided before the foundation of the world which traitors would be spared. If we bring the assumption to the Bible, that if God desires all people to be saved, he cannot refuse to gift of repentance to any, then we will misinterpret the Bible. That assumption is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Nor is it demanded by the laws of logic. On the contrary, Paul protects us from making that assumption by saying very plainly, “God may perhaps grant them repentance“ 2 Timothy 2:25.”

Mercy, by definition, is underserved. God is under no obligation to grant clemency to anyone.

The Sense of Belonging

“Whatever willingness humans have to come to Jesus is not the basis but the result of belonging to the Father beforehand. ”

It is crucial that we understand the order of salvation. Before time began, the Father chose a people who belong to him. In time, they would be born of a woman and be born again from above. Two thousand years ago, the Lord Jesus Christ took the punishment for these people who belong to the Father. Those who come to Jesus for forgiveness are those whom the Father chose. No one will come to Christ who the Father did not choose; all those that the Father chose will come. No exceptions. This is detailed in John 10. Piper puts it this way: “God chose some darkness lovers to be his.” 

The Struggle-Free Life

“If you find the Christian life to be untroubled, without struggle, and without warfare against your own sin, you may not be living the Christian life. If your view of the providence of God is that his promise and power to help us mean there are no commands, no warnings, no threatenings, then your view has probably been more shaped by dubious theological inferences then by specific biblical teachings. ”

The life of a Christian is a battle. It is a war against the world, the flesh and the Devil. If someone isn’t at enmity with their own sin, then they are at enmity with God. There is no neutrality, no middle ground. As Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me . . .” (Matthew 12:30). It is very popular to create a category of Christians who live like pagans. People who are saved, but don’t surrender to Christ as Lord. People who love Jesus, but don’t love his bride, the Church. The Bible says otherwise. God constantly issues commands to all men, for his glory and their good. Life goes better when people obey the Ten Commandments; this is the way God designed the world. And God consistently warns mankind of the consequences of forgetting, ignoring and resisting his Word. The life of the Christian is a package deal and God sets the terms. It is all in Christ. Piper explains:
“The blood of Christ purchased, or secured, sanctification as well as justification, faithful obedience as well as forgiveness, good work as well as eternal life, present transformation as well as final glorification. The practical holiness that leads to heaven Hebrews 12:14, the obedience that enters the kingdom of God 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, the fruit that marks every good tree Matthew 7:18, and the love for people that shows new birth 1 John 3:14 – these realities are not only predestined Romans 8:29 and promised Ezekiel 36:27, but also purchased.”
In other words, no one will end up in Heaven who God didn’t start preparing in this life. It might be just minutes, like it was for the thief on the cross. By God’s grace, it will be a lifetime for faithful saints. But when God saves a man, he empowers him to obey. God begins the transformation process. Not everyone will have a lot of fruit, but every believer will have some fruit. All those who have inherited eternal life will treasure God above all. Piper states it well: “God is not glorified by hearts that are more satisfied in his gifts than in him.”

The Decisive Cause

“People have been taught to a salvation with themselves as the decisive cause at the point of conversion. This view of their own decisive power obscures the glory of what God has actually done for them, strips them of stunned thankfulness for the gift of faith, dulls the intensity of their amazement that they were raised from the dead, it takes away the wonder that their perseverance is owing to the omnipotent, moment-by-moment keeping of God.”

Why are you a Christian and your neighbor isn’t? If you were to die today and God asked you why he should let you enter into Paradise, what would you say? If you answer in the first person, you may not be saved, or you may have a misunderstanding of conversion. There is only one answer that God accepts and that is that someone is saved because God chose them. If you think that your choice made the pivotal difference between Heaven and Hell, you are sadly mistaken. God will not be robbed of the glory to due him and his work. If God only helped you, but didn’t do all the work to bring you from death to life, then your gratefulness need be only partial. You could rightly thank God and congratulate yourself. If God only assisted you in loosing the shackles of sin, then you need not marvel at his awesome power. Rather, you can thank him for the help and go on your way. If you believe that you are “once saved, always saved” because you chose God, then you can “unchoose” him at any time from now throughout eternity and be lost to Hell.

Happy Inconsistencies

“Arminians must either give a praying that God would convert people or give up ultimate self–determination. Or go on acting inconsistently. ”

Those who adopted the Articles of Remonstrance came to be known as Arminians, named after Jacobus Arminius. Perhaps the most famous Arminian was John Wesley (Arminians can also be known as Wesleyans). Arminians believe that fallen man’s self-determination is intact to the extent that he can exercise faith prior to regeneration. Piper points out a glaring inconsistency for the praying Arminian. If he is to pray for someone’s conversion, what exactly is he asking God to do? Is he pleading with God to do everything he can without violating the potential convert’s “free will”? Is he begging God to arrange circumstances such that the sinner will, of his own volition, “realize” his predicament and cry out to God for mercy? If so, then it is still up to the man to respond. God has done everything he can (or will), and it’s in the hands of the God-hating rebel.
Or the Arminian prays that God will make a dead man alive, open a deaf man’s ears, set a prisoner free. Thank God for such inconsistencies. As Piper says, “The unthwartable providence of God is not a problem for evangelism; it is the only hope of success.” 

No Middle Ground

A review of Every Thought Captive by Richard L. Pratt, Jr.

Every Thought Captive is a book about Christian apologetics, which refers to arguing for the Christian faith. It involves reasoning and presenting the biblical worldview in order to persuade the unbeliever that his worldview is inconsistent. I found this book to be helpful, as it dispels a number of misconceptions about evangelism.

Don’t Let Go and Let God

“Peter wrote that we should ‘always be ready to make a defense’. So, he who is lax in these matters fails to submit to the Lordship of Christ and to depend on the Holy Spirit, for true submission and reliance will result in the careful study of apologetics.” 

Pratt addresses a couple of issues here. One is the idea that apologetics is only for those with special training or gifting. The other misnomer is that Christians don’t need to study and prepare for evangelism, since the Holy Spirit will give them the words to say when the time comes. One could just as well use the same justification for the refusal to memorize Scripture. While we firmly believe that regeneration is monergistic, we just as surely assert that sanctification is synergistic. Yes, the Holy Spirit can give us supernatural apologetic ability, but His ordinary means is to give us courage to apply what we’ve learned through study. He gives us the desire to learn about Him through His Word and the hunger to obey Him in fulfilling the dominion mandate. “Let go and let God” might appeal to sentiment and sell bumper stickers, but it is bad exegesis in this instance.

Dead, Deaf, Enslaved, Blind and Treasonous

(But other than that, he’s an ok guy)

“Sin has such a firm grip on fallen man that he is actually unable to submit himself to Scripture.”

This is a great example of how one’s view on fallen man directly affects his approach to apologetics. The majority opinion in America at this time among professing Christians is that sinners are not dead, but only “mostly dead”. Thus, they don’t need the Lord Jesus Christ, per se, since Miracle Max will do in a pinch. According to the Big Eva crowd, unbelievers are not totally unable to repent and believe without the preceding regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. They are not deaf to the Word of Life, they are not bound by sin, they are not children of Satan who do his will. They are mostly blind, but they are able to see a little bit of light. They are not enemies of God who do not seek the Truth. If you hold to these opinions, you will engage in evangelism by attempting to convince the individual that the evidence for God demands a verdict. By so doing, you put God in the dock, with the pagan man passing judgment as to the veracity of the truth claims of the Bible. Someone who holds to Pratt’s view uses a drastically different method. The biblical, historic, orthodox view is that fallen man is dead in trespasses and sin. He is utterly incapable of responding to God in any kind of attitude rather than rebellion. He cannot and will not seek God, love Him or submit to Him as Lord and King. His ears are stopped to the truth of God’s Word. He is enslaved by sin and is a child of the Devil. He is completely in the dark. How can someone in this state be made to hear the Gospel and respond in faith? Only through the Spirit, by the preaching of the Gospel. Therefore, we feel no need to defend Scripture as if God must answer to man. Rather, we start with the presupposition that the Bible is true and what it says about God and man is unassailable. We then proceed to show the unbeliever that his worldview is inconsistent and that the only true viewpoint is that of God’s.

No Switzerland

“To say that Christianity may be true is to say it may not be true.” 

One approach that apologists use in defending Christianity is to attempt neutrality, to put themselves in the same position as the non-christian. They will proceed to mount evidence that there may be a god, then that there is a god. They often stop there, thinking it is a bridge too far to insist that there is one God and one Lord, namely Jesus Christ. “Let’s examine the evidence together” is their catch-phrase. As you can see by Pratt’s quote above, this line of thinking is a loser. As Christians, we are not neutral and we are not fooled into thinking that the so-called atheist or agnostic has not chosen sides. We realize that there are only two categories of people according to the Bible, there are only two roads, only two ways. Our confidence in the truth claims of Scripture are not based on any inherent wisdom in ourselves; rather we are pointing people to the Source of all wisdom—the fear of the Lord.

Are You Sure?

“Since the unbeliever has not examined all the possible evidence for God‘s existence, he cannot be absolutely certain that He does not exist.” 

Now we get into one of the key distinctions that Pratt uses to argue for the Christian faith. The unbeliever will dogmatically state that God does not exist. However, we must show him that there is no way for him to know that with absolute certainty. Thus, the possibility of God’s existence must be left open. We have to be careful at this point to avoid putting God and His Word on trial; rather, we aim to show the unbeliever that he has no reason for confidence in his position. We then return to pushing the claims of King Jesus over all of creation.

The Case Against Christ

“From a non-Christian perspective, the ‘evidences’ for God’s existence are not convincing.” 

I think it’s important to understand what Pratt is saying here. If someone asks you why you are a Christian and you say that you examined the evidence and made a decision for Christ, then you believe that you can persuade others to do the same. Please notice that if you think that the reason that you’re a Christian and your pagan neighbor is not is because you made a logical decision, while the unbeliever did not, what are you saying? Aren’t you claiming that you are smarter than your neighbor? Doesn’t that give you something to boast about? In contrast, Pratt’s understanding is that the believer is not saved by being convinced of the evidence for God and independently exercising his will to believe. Instead, the Holy Spirit must regenerate a man before he has any ability or desire to believe in Christ. We must understand that all the evidence in the world will not change a sinner’s mind apart from being born again by the Spirit of God. Don’t we know this to be true from Scripture? Didn’t Christ do miracle after sign after wonder which only served to harden the rebels and solidify the faith of His those the Father had foreordained to eternal life?

Pratt continues,

“Not all unbelievers believe Jesus was a great moral teacher. Not all would agree that the unusual life which Jesus led is different in quality from lunacy. Not all non-Christians would accept the recent dating of the gospel records as convincing evidence of the factual nature of their content, especially in supernatural and miraculous matters. Unbelievers will certainly never be logically forced into believing Christ is truly the divine son of God.”

If you’ve engaged in apologetics with people for any length of time, you know this to be true by experience. While it is easy for the believer to agree with the supernatural quality of the teachings of Jesus and the manuscript evidence for the historical reliability of Scripture, billions of people have been, are not, and never will come to the conclusion that Christ is the Son of God and they must believe in Him to receive life. There is a great freedom in realizing that this is exactly as Jesus predicted and the Christian’s task is to courageously proclaim the Gospel. God will convert those He chooses.

Pratt goes on,

“If the unbeliever is going to question the accuracy of the biblical account regarding Christ’s death, it is hardly adequate to answer his view with other portions of the biblical account. That argument alone will not answer the objection of the non-Christian adequately.”

We are to be clear that everyone has a point of view, and we are basing our worldview on the Bible. The non-Christian is basing his worldview on his own thoughts, ideas and opinions. Nevertheless, we will use God’s Word as the foundation for all of our truth claims. Pratt expands on this idea: “If stripped of its biblical meaning, the resurrection proves nothing.” Again, if the unbeliever rejects the context of Christ’s resurrection from Scripture, proving that Jesus rose from the dead will not convince him. But, as Pratt points out, “Biblical authority must never depend on human verification for it is the unquestionable Word of God.” We have to be assured of this fact or we will find ourselves on the defensive, with a creature making demands of the Creator of the world!  Indeed, as Pratt says, “If belief in Christian truth comes only after the claims of Christ are run through the verification machine of independent human judgment, then human judgment is still thought to be the ultimate authority.”

“Most Christians do not know about the so-called scientific evidence for and against evolution. Yet, this in no way calls into question the certainty of the biblical record of creation.” 

Since the Bible is our ultimate Source of authority, we don’t need to learn all the details of every system that sets itself against God. While it can be helpful to take a deep dive into someone’s belief system, we see that Scripture gives us to tools to categorize all aberrant belief systems and respond from God’s Word. We know that Darwinians have made science their god, thus providing them with “evidence” from their god to support their theory. However, this “wisdom” of man is foolishness to God and to those who believe His Word. As Pratt says, “Every thought contrary to Christianity which the unbeliever has results from his desire to set himself up as the independent judge of truth.” So we recognize that Darwinism is just another way that man attempts to put God in the dock and act as his own judge. 

The author includes a number of questions that are helpful to think through and assess how well prepared one is for apologetics.

Review Questions

How would you argue by truth for:

• The Bible is the Word of God?

• The uniqueness of the Bible in distinction from other religious books?

• The sinfulness of all men?

• The sovereignty of God and human responsibility?

How would you argue by folly against these objections:

• “The Bible contradicts itself.”

• “The Bible contradicts history.”

• “The Bible is not the word of God, because it was written by men.”

• “The Bible is too mythological to be God’s word.”

• “The Bible is too ambiguous to be God’s word.”

• “The Bible has been lost through translation and transmission.”

• “There are so many religious books that the Bible is not unique.”

• “No religious books can have God’s authority.”

• “Only my religious book has authority.”

• “We should not say one religious book is better than another.”

• “I think all people are good at heart.”

• “Some people are good, and others are bad.”

• “I don’t think we should be so arrogant as to think anyone is evil.“

• “God is unfair if he holds guilty.”

• “A loving God would not hold men guilty.“

How would you argue by truth for:

• The origin of the world?

• The end of the world?

• The certainty of faith?

• The uncertainty of faith?

How would you argue by folly against these objections?

• “Evolution disproves Christianity.”

• “There is no judgment.”

• “Christianity is too naïve.”

• “Christianity is too dogmatic.“

Them’s Fightin’ Words

“ God never had the slightest intention of saving everyone.
”

— R.K. Mcgregor Wright, No Place For Sovereignty

If you’ve had any conversations about God with someone recently, it’s likely that the concept of “free will” has come up. No Place for Sovereignty by R. K. McGregor Wright provides an excellent analysis of this doctrine throughout Church history.

Erasmus was a contemporary of Martin Luther; it was Erasmus’s view of human nature that spurned Luther to write his magnificent volume The Bondage of the Will in 1525. Erasmus thought that human nature was no so damaged by the Fall that it is unable to make a decision of faith without God’s intervention. He posited that man is always free to choose between antithetical alternatives. He asserted that grace makes the right choice possible by helping man’s natural ability and the will of man determines the ultimate destiny of the individual.

The Articles of Remonstrance were written in 1610 by the followers of Jacobus Arminius (who died in 1609). Thus “Arminianism” was born, but this was simply a furtherance of the views of Erasmus. Over time, Arminians began to work out the implications of the theory of an essentially free will in man. If man’s decisions are not controlled by God’s decree, they cannot be known by God before the actions as a result of the decisions occur in time. Thus God must not only limit his power to as to give man freedom to act, but he must also be ignorant of a great deal of future events, since most of human history is determined by man’s will. As R. K. McGregor points out, “If a future event is known to God, it is either known certainly or not.” To know absolutely that an event will occur means that there is no other possibility. McGGregor sums it up, “God‘s omniscience eliminates a free will in the sense the Arminians understood.”

A Key Question

We need only ask, “What causes the will to choose one way rather than another?”—R.K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty

In contrast to Erasmus and Arminians, Martin Luther believed that the will is free only such that it expresses a man’s character and it must be regenerated before it is free to obey God. Thus, God never forces a man to act against his own nature. Rather, he gives the man a new nature.

John Calvin & Charles Spurgeon

John Calvin was a contemporary of Martin Luther, and he drew out the implications of God’s sovereignty in many writings. Those who adopted his views became known as Calvinists. One of the most influential preachers in the past two hundred years, Charles Spurgeon, was and is known for his Calvinism. As only Spurgeon could do, he presented the prayer of an Arminian:

Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”—Charles Spurgeon

Spurgeon puts his finger on a number of important points that highlight the difference between the Calvinist and Arminian views. The Calvinist believes that man has no inherent power to repent and turn to Christ for salvation. The Arminian thinks that man has enough ability to flee to Jesus for rescue from the wrath of God. The Calvinist says that the difference between the sinner and the saint is God’s election, God’s choosing, God’s predestination according to God’s good pleasure. The Arminian insists that the difference between the Christian and the pagan is found in the individuals choice to believe. The Calvinists points out that God choice a people for his own before he created the world, thus his choice is grounded in himself, not man. The Arminian declares that God’s choice is influenced by man’s decision. The Arminian posits that Christ, with his blood, bought the lives of every single man ever born. The Calvinist stands on the truth that if Christ paid the ransom for sin in full for a man, then that man’s debt is completely paid. Jesus did not bear the wrath of God for the sin of Judas Iscariot, only to have Judas pay the penalty for his own sin in hell forever.

What Do You Mean to Say?

What you mean, then is that when you heard the gospel, you managed, contrary to all your past habits, to so revolutionize the bent of your fallen character that while dead in trespasses and sins, at enmity with God, with a darkened understanding, and thinking the gospel foolishness, you managed to reconstruct your whole spiritual awareness around a new center, so as to realize that the gospel is your best bet, and so you embraced Christ as your Savior, whereupon God rewarded you for this wonderful effort of spiritual achievement by giving you everlasting life. Is that what you mean to say?—R.K. McGregor Wright

McGregor Wright provides us with a helpful summary of the Arminian position. He points out that the Apostle Paul describes unbelievers as “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Even Antony Flew, an atheist, understood the implications of the total inability of man in salvation. He said “If the first point of Dort is in (total depravity), autonomy is out.” In other words, if we agree that sin has affected man’s being to such an extent that he is unwilling and unable to respond to God on his own, then man is not autonomous.
McGregor Wright then offers a verse from And Can It Be by Charles Wesley from the Arminian standpoint:

Long my mistaken spirit lay,
Confused by sin and absent light. 
Thine eye diffused prevenient grace; 
I suddenly realized my plight. 
I had freewill, my autonomy! 
So I just got up and followed Thee.

The Design Behind the Death of Christ

Because John Owen believed the nature of the atonement is substitutionary, his conclusion that the extent of the atonement is limited to the elect is unavoidable. Because not all are saved, Christ could not have died as a satisfaction for the sins of all existing unbelievers, for that would require God to punish twice for the same sins in the case of those finally lost. A substitutionary atonement must either save everyone without exception or be seen as a limited atonement in the sense that it was designed to save only the elect.—McGregor Wright

The definitive work on the nature of Christ’s work on Calvary and the extent of his payment for sin is John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. J.I. Packer put it this way, “Arminians never seem to get around to reading John Owen. If they did, they would perhaps not be Arminians.” Foundational to Owen’s teaching on Christ’s propitiation for sin is it’s substitutionary component. If Christ died in the place of a man, then that man’s sin has been atoned for. The man’s sin is covered by the blood of Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of God. It is impossible that Jesus bore the punishment for sin for a man who then endures the punishment in eternal hell for the same sin. This is one of the reasons why people reject penal substitutionary atonement. By its very nature, it eliminates the concept of an unlimited atonement (unless one ventures into universalism). This is one of the areas where the Arminian must be inconsistent to avoid heresy. To quote Packer again, “Arminians never seem to get around to reading John Owen. If they did, they would perhaps not be Arminians.”

An Open Challenge

Nobody has a right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness of the atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he has refuted Owen’s proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text. And nobody has done that yet.—J.I. Packer

All kinds of accusations are leveled against Calvinism for its “demon doctrine”, yet using superlatives doesn’t bolster an argument. I have yet to hear or read anyone refute John Owen on the atonement; I would like to extend Packer’s invitation for anyone, anywhere to take the challenge.

Pleading Ignorance

Since many modern evangelicals have not seriously studied the matter, they would be advised at the outset to withhold judgment and plead ignorance. This is a lot safer than to believe someone who invites us to acquiesce in the notion that the Bible teaches contradictions and yet must be believed nevertheless.—McGregor Wright

When discussing the sovereignty of God, particularly as it relates to the salvation of man, emotions can run high. If we observe someone responding by raising their voice and saying things like “all means all!”, “man has free will!”, or “God loves everyone!”, then we know that individual is probably not responding based on serious study of the issues involved. Sadly, many professing Christians have even adopted the notion that the Bible teaches doctrine that directly contradicts itself. For example, they will say that the Bible states that man is dead in sin and must be made alive by God before he can be saved. They will also say that because God commands man to repent and believe, sinful man must be able to act autonomously to respond in faith. Logical fallacy aside, these two views are antithetical. Both cannot be true. Either fallen man is unwilling and unable to turn to God for salvation without God’s intervention or those who hate God have some ability and desire to seek God on their own. To say that the Bible teaches both is to assert that God speaks incoherently and it is a great way to lose a debate with an atheist, since that is one of atheism’s keystone arguments.

Joshua 6 in children's story Bibles

The Fall of Jericho in Joshua 6 is a popular and famous story. I looked at all the children's Bible story books in our house and the episode was in every single one. There are, however, significant variations in the way it is told.

It can be a helpful exercise to look at how a particular passage of Scripture is dealt with in children's story Bibles. There will be some interpretation necessary as biblical scenes are depicted visually. There will also be things added, omitted, and changed. These can all help us notice important things in the story.

This article looks at seven versions of the story: one is a stand-alone book, The Wall That Did Not Fall (1994) from the Me Too! series. The other six are from Bible story books: The Beginner's Bible (1997), The Big Picture Story Bible (2004), The Candle Bible for Toddlers (2006), The Jesus Storybook Bible (2007), The Biggest Story Bible Storybook (2022), and The Kingdom of God Bible Storybook (2022).

Title

Not all the children's story Bibles have chapter titles, but those that do show a variety in the emphasis they make: some make it about Joshua (e.g. The Jesus Storybook Bible has “The warrior leader”) while others focus on the walls of Jericho (e.g. The Beginner's Bible: “A Wall Falls Down”). The Kingdom of God Bible Storybook is unusual in having “Entering the Kingdom”.

Context

There are two different approaches used in setting the scene for this story. The Wall That Did Not Fall and The Beginner's Bible place it as part of the story of Rahab. Most books, on the other hand, place the story of Jericho in the context of the conquest of the Promised Land. For example, The Jesus Storybook Bible says, “And how happy they were to reach the edge of the desert and see their beautiful new home. Right there in front of them, all cool and green and lovely. There was only one problem. Jericho.” The Kingdom of God Bible Storybook does a good job of using both contexts.

Although all the children's story Bibles mention Joshua, not all of them picture him. Some books, like The Big Picture Story Bible and The Kingdom of God Bible Storybook, refer to God's words to Joshua in 1:9: “Be strong and courageous”.

Emphases

The role of the ark is sadly downplayed in most of these stories: only The Candle Bible for Toddlers (which calls it “the special box from God's tent”) and The Kingdom of God Bible Storybook mention the ark; The Big Picture Story Bible depicts it but does not refer to it in its text.

Instead, the children's story Bibles tend to focus on the marching and the noise that the Israelites make: “all the people would shout with great big outside voices” (The Biggest Story Bible Storybook). A number of them emphasize the numbers: marching around for six days, and seven times on the seventh day.

Most of the books highlight the Israelites' obedience: The Wall That Did Not Fall does this best with a repeated refrain, “Why did they do that? Because God told them to.” Faith doesn't receive the same emphasis, however, even though that was what prompted the obedience and is the thing that the New Testament highlights: “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days” (Hebrews 11:30). Only The Kingdom of God Bible Storybook says “Joshua believed God's promise”, while The Biggest Story Bible Storybook has “Israel had to trust God to do exactly what he told them to do.”

Not surprisingly, the conquest tends to be downplayed. The Wall That Did Not Fall comes closest to biblical accuracy when it notes how “Jericho went up in flames”, while The Biggest Story Bible Storybook says “God gave their enemies into their hands”. The emphasis in the biblical narrative, however, is on how the city of Jericho was “devoted to destruction”.

Conclusion

This brief study has demonstrated how it is easy to misread a biblical text by emphasizing some things and downplaying others. Obviously, when we tell (or preach from) a Bible story we don't have to include every detail, but we need to be careful in doing so that we do not skew the emphasis that the Bible itself has.

Of course, parents can still use these sorts of story Bibles. It is important, however, that we know the Bible stories ourselves, and be willing to expand on what is before us. The visual clues in the pictures can help us do that: some books, like The Big Picture Story Bible, seem in fact to be designed for this very purpose. So even if the ark is not mentioned, we can still talk to our kids about it.

For parents looking for a children's story Bible, The Kingdom of God Bible Storybook is the best available, followed by The Big Picture Story Bible.

A review of Living by God’s Promises by Joel R. Beeke & Lames A. La Belle.

A review of Living by God’s Promises by Joel R. Beeke & Lames A. La Belle.—Travis Daggett

This book is part of the Deepen Your Christian Life series published by Reformation Heritage Books. As with most books published by RHB, the series presents the writing of Puritans in contemporary language. Everything I’ve read to date by RHB has been first-rate and I can heartily recommend anything they publish.

“Apart from Christ, we have no right to any of God’s promises. But through our union with Christ, we have access to all of them.”

This is the central theme of the book, and is certainly one of the primary threads in the Bible. Unlike the universalist dribble from many false teachers today, this book affirms the Scriptural doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ. We are not all God’s children, who can call upon Him as a divine Santa Claus when we need something. No, if we are not in Christ, the only promises of God that we can expect are those for covenant-breakers. 

“If we hope for the things the Lord has promised us, our hope is solid.”

The TBN crowd, the prosperity preachers, the health-and-wealth, name-it-and-claim-it, word of faith hucksters offer a hope that is no hope at all. The Lord has not promised houses and cars and health. No, His promises are far superior. He promises eternal life, fullness of joy, peace that isn’t dependent on circumstances. He promises Himself. He is a solid rock. When we know God’s Word, we know what He has promised and what He hasn’t. This is biblical hope; hope that doesn’t disappoint because it’s rooted in the promises of a covenant-keeping God. 

Idolatry seeks the promises of God apart from God Himself. But consider, “Christ is the Head of the church who receives the promises and Christ is the Savior of sinners who apportions the promises to those He saves.” Thus, the one who finds the true riches of Christ is the man who seeks Christ Himself. He seeks His Kingdom and receives more than he could possibly ask or imagine. God is the giver of all good gifts for His children. 

Read this book. Then search the Scriptures for the promises of God made to Christ and rejoice that if you are in Christ, Christ is yours and all He has is yours as well.

Travis Daggett is the husband of Sharlene Daggett, who together are the parents of some children.

Additional notes:

The Puritan Thomas Goodwin says only two men stand before God, the first and second Adam, and we all hang from their girdles (or belts). Christ is the Son of Man and Head of the church, to whom God the Father has promised all blessings for us. We have a right to the promises of God only as we are found in Christ. . . . Moreover, Paul states plainly in Galatians 3:16 that the promises of the covenant of grace made to Abraham and his offspring were made to Christ, so that any benefits that the Israelites enjoyed from the promises were due to their belonging to Christ, to whom the promises rightfully and singularly belong.

As William Spurstowe says: “The manner of the fulfillment of it may be various, but the performance of it is most certain.”

Defects in our faith towards God’s promises:

Our faith in the promises is not specific. We believe the general truth of God’s promises, but we do not study His Word to make particular application of them.

All the objections you might summon as to why you cannot come to Christ can be cut in two with this knife: This is His commandment.

Spurstowe:
Were the way which leads to heave a ladder of duties, and not a golden chain of free grace, I could not but fear, that the higher I climb, the greater would my fall prove to be; every service being like a brittle [rung] that can bear no weight; and the whole frame and series of duties at the best, far short of the ladder in Jacob’s vision . . . .

Late repentance is seldom true repentance. 

His servants have ever found Him better and never worse than His Word.

When the Lord has placed conditions and exceptions on a promise, our prayers must be conditional. 

“God assures me, he will lay no more on me, than I shall be able to bear, either my burden shall be made lighter or my faith stronger.”

As a man will not lose what he buys with his own money, so Christ will not lose you, whom He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

Your endeavoring after holiness is how the Lord works His holiness in you (Phil. 2:12-13).

We have not waited so many years in the means of grace for comfort, as God has waited for our conversion.”

Offering in Worship

The Session of Christ the King has decided to have an offertory prayer in our worship service. This paper will look at whether an offering should be part of our worship service, and if so how it can be incorporated. I will not discuss the more general issue of tithes and other Christian giving.

Scripture

The key passage is 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. There Paul is urging the Corinthian Christians to financially support their fellow Christians in Jerusalem. He says to them, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.” This is clearly not talking about tithing out of one's paycheck: there is no reason to suppose that the Corinthians were paid weekly, on Sundays. Instead, he sees the giving as a regular activity and connects it to the weekly gathering. It appears to be part of worship.

A number of passages see giving as an act of sacrifice or worship. Hebrews 13:16 says, “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” In 1 Corinthians 9:12 Paul says, “For the ministry (diakonia) of this service (leitourgia) is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God.” Finally, when Paul talks about the “offering of the Gentiles” in Romans 15:16, it is in the context of financial contributions (verse 24).

Confessional background

The Westminster Confession of Faith does not include the offering in its list of the elements of worship (XXI.5). The Directory for the Publick Worship of God says “The collection for the poor is so to be ordered, that no part of the publick worship be thereby hindered.” This implies that the offering is not part of the worship (and seems to be saying that it should not be allowed to interfere with it) – perhaps similar to what we have with our collection box.

The Heidelberg Catechism, on the other hand, lists what should be done on the Lord's Day (Q & A 103): “I diligently attend the assembly of God’s people to learn what God’s Word teaches, to participate in the sacraments, to pray to God publicly, and to bring Christian offerings for the poor.”

Although it does not explicitly say this takes place in the “worship service”, it lists offerings alongside hearing the Word, prayer, and participation in the sacraments.

Theology and practice

The offering fits in well with our view of worship as dialog. God speaks to us in his Word (read and preached) and we respond in prayer and praise – and with the offering. This might lead us to conclude that the best position for it is either after the Bible reading or after the sermon.

How might the presentation of our tithes and offering fit into covenant renewal worship? Jeffrey Meyers sees it as corresponding to the tribute offering (sometimes called the “grain” or “meal offering”, Leviticus 2:1) which was customarily attached to the ascension offering (traditionally known as the “burnt” offering, Leviticus 1:3). In other words, it is part of our consecration to God, along with our hearing of the Word.

Steven Nicoletti points out that the tribute offering of Leviticus 2 did not itself involve the whole tithe: it involved only a symbolic portion of grain. In this way, it may be appropriate to collect a representative tithe: for example, a member may wish to give the bulk of their tithe electronically, but reserve a token amount to give in cash as part of corporate worship.

In the same way, it may not be necessary to actually collect an offering during the service with plates, bowls, or bags. Rather, it might be deemed appropriate to bring our offering box to the front as symbolic of the whole congregation's offering. This could be accompanied by an offertory prayer.

Conclusion

There are good reasons to include an offering in our service, although the theology and practice of Reformed churches is by no means uniform on this point. There would be a number of ways to do this, and we decided on the simplest of these: to have a deacon bring the offering box to the front and have a short prayer of dedication.

A Biblical Theology of Money #5: Blessings and Curses in the Law of Moses

Before we leave our survey of money and economics in the Pentateuch, we need to consider the concept of blessings and curses. We have already seen how possessions were included in the promise of blessing to Abraham. This concept of blessing is picked up again later in the Pentateuch:

If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. Your threshing shall last to the time of the grape harvest, and the grape harvest shall last to the time for sowing. And you shall eat your bread to the full and dwell in your land securely.

(Leviticus 26:3-5)

This blessing is conditional: it has an “if... then” structure. The blessings are largely physical, as seen in the agricultural prosperity mentioned here. There will be plenty to eat and to spare:

You shall eat old store long kept, and you shall clear out the old to make way for the new.

(Leviticus 26:10)

Leviticus 26 also lays out the consequences of disobedience, and this passage is twice as long as that which lays out the blessings of obedience. These include sickness, enemies, drought, cannibalism, exile, and fear. Many of them are the opposite of the blessings promised, including lack instead of plenty:

When I break your supply of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven and shall dole out your bread again by weight, and you shall eat and not be satisfied.

(Leviticus 26:26)

A similar list of blessings and curses is found in Deuteronomy 28:

And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.

(Deuteronomy 28:1-6)

What does it mean for a kneading bowl to be “blessed”? It doesn't refer to miraculous multiplication of loaves, but simply having plenty to eat. In an agricultural society, this means having good rains (plenty of it, and at the right times):

The Lord will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands. And you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.

(Deuteronomy 28:12)

Prosperity means having enough money to lend out, while lack means having to borrow money. (The opposite of how some people view debt today, where the capacity to borrow large amounts is seen as a sign of prosperity!)

Disobedience, however, brings a curse:

Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock.

(Deuteronomy 28:17-18)

Rain is a blessing, while drought is a curse:

And the heavens over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you shall be iron. The Lord will make the rain of your land powder. From heaven dust shall come down on you until you are destroyed.

(Deuteronomy 28:23-24)

How are we to understand these passages as Christians? Do the blessings and curses still apply to us?

On the one hand, Charles Spurgeon says, “Indeed, it has been said, with much truth, that the Old Testament promise was one of prosperity, but that the New Testament promise is one of tribulation.” On the other hand, the Westminster Confession of Faith appeals to Leviticus 26 to argue that the law is the rule of life for the Christian:

The threatenings of it [the law] serve to show what even their [the regenerate's] sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.

(WCF XIX.6)

The two uses of “although” are helpful and instructive here: we suffer afflictions in this life as a consequence of sin, but we are freed from the curse of the law; we receive blessing for our obedience, but not because we deserve it.

The way to resolve these tensions is to understand that Jesus has suffered the curse for us:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

(Galatians 3:13-14)

If Jesus took the curse for his elect, ultimately there is only blessing in store for them, no matter what persecution, affliction, or tribulation they suffer in this life. Conversely, for the reprobate there is ultimately only cursing, no matter what prosperity or wealth they enjoy in this life. The blessings and the curses of the covenant still apply: for covenant-keepers, everything ends up as blessing, since Jesus took the covenantal curse upon himself; for covenant-breakers, all these blessings are turned into a curse. In this way, we need to take a long-term – or eschatological – view of things. This is not so much “spiritualising” the promises as looking at the bigger picture – beyond this life.

We will explore this further when we look at relevant New Testament passages, but for now it should be clear that this provides the groundwork for a biblical view of wealth: it is never sure evidence that a person is right with God.

A Biblical Theology of Money #4: Tithes and offerings in the Law of Moses

The Israelites were commanded and encouraged to give various types of contributions. The first reference to giving in the Law of Moses is a comment about giving God the firstfruits:

You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

(Exodus 22:29-30)

This reflects the principle that the firstborn belongs to Yahweh (Exodus 13:1), which was also expressed in the tenth plague of Egypt: the Death of the Firstborn.

The last part of the Book of Exodus is concerned with the construction of the Tabernacle. This was to be funded by freewill offerings:

The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution. From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me. And this is the contribution that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze ... And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.

(Exodus 25:1-3, 8)

This is indeed what happened:

And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him, and brought the Lord's contribution to be used for the tent of meeting, and for all its service, and for the holy garments. So they came, both men and women. All who were of a willing heart brought brooches and earrings and signet rings and armlets, all sorts of gold objects, every man dedicating an offering of gold to the Lord.

(Exodus 35:21-22)

It is highly significant that the first offerings given were from peoples' hearts being stirred: this was meant to be a joyful response to the salvation they had just experienced. This is identified as a “freewill offering” (nedabah), a word used throughout the Mosaic law:

All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the Lord had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the Lord.

(Exodus 35:29)

Many of the sacrifices described in Leviticus were like this; they were not obligatory, but if they were offered, they had to be offered according to strict rules:

And when anyone offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering from the herd or from the flock, to be accepted it must be perfect; there shall be no blemish in it.

(Leviticus 22:21)

The law of the tithe comes right at the end of Leviticus, in the context of rules about vows.

Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord's; it is holy to the Lord. If a man wishes to redeem some of his tithe, he shall add a fifth to it. And every tithe of herds and flocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman's staff, shall be holy to the Lord. One shall not differentiate between good or bad, neither shall he make a substitute for it; and if he does substitute for it, then both it and the substitute shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

(Leviticus 27:30-33)

“Tithe” means a tenth (10%). Although many have been fixated with this number, it is a bit more complicated than this. It could be redeemed, so that instead of giving fruit, a man could give money instead – but in this case, it would be increased to 12%. Conversely, every tenth animal had to be given to Yahweh, so someone with 29 animals would give two, which works out to a bit less than 7%. Sometimes people have emphasized the tithe as giving the “first 10%” to God, but the text does not say this. Nor, indeed, does it suggest giving the “best 10%” to God – every tenth animal was to be given, regardless of condition.

In fact, the passage does not talk about “giving” the tithe to Yahweh at all – it says that it already belongs to him. And it doesn't explain what actually happens to the fruit and the animals. In Numbers 18, we learn that the tithe was given to the Levites:

To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting.

(Numbers 18:21)

The Levites were also obliged to tithe this income, this time to the priests:

When you take from the people of Israel the tithe that I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall present a contribution from it to the Lord, a tithe of the tithe. And your contribution shall be counted to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor, and as the fullness of the winepress. So you shall also present a contribution to the Lord from all your tithes, which you receive from the people of Israel. And from it you shall give the Lord's contribution to Aaron the priest.

(Numbers 18:26-28)

It should be noted that the Levites' work was not restricted to the tabernacle: they were also to function as teachers of God's law:

They shall teach Jacob your rules and Israel your law;
They shall put incense before you and whole burnt offerings on your altar.

(Deuteronomy 33:10).

A further set of commands regarding tithes is given in Deuteronomy:

You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household. And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.

(Deuteronomy 14:22-27)

This modifies the use of the tithe that we saw in Numbers 18:21; feasting and celebration are part of how the tithe would be spent. Once again, however, the Levites are mentioned as the recipients. Although many scholars have seen this as a second tithe, it is best to see this as the same tithe discussed in Leviticus 27, although wine and oil were not mentioned in that passage.

The verses that follow should similarly not be seen as an additional tithe:

At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.

(Deuteronomy 14:28-29)

This tithe also paid for feasting, but the differences are that it is local (“within your towns”) rather than national (“in the place that he will choose”) and that the poor are explicitly included in the feasting rather than just the Levites.

Thus, tithing in the Mosaic law is somewhat different to what is often assumed. It was for religious purposes, but that included both feasting before Yahweh, as well as financially supporting the Levitical ministry.

A Biblical Theology of Money #3: The Law of Moses

The Law of Moses (or “Mosaic law”) has a lot to say about money. It is best to see all the various laws given through Moses as applications of the Ten Commandments. In this way, most of the laws concerning money flow from the ninth commandment: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). This implies there is such a thing as personal property.

Thus, immediately following the Ten Commandments, in the body of laws that God gives to Moses (Exodus 20:22) are laws about restitution:

When a man opens a pit, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restoration. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his.

(Exodus 21:33-34)

Damaging another person's property is therefore viewed as being a form of stealing. However, intentional stealing is still worse than this, and the restitution was to be for a greater amount:

If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

(Exodus 22:1)

Different situations call for different levels of restitution: an ox requires greater restitution because of its status as a work animal; its loss would be felt more keenly.

However, this rule is only for someone who gets caught. If a thief were to confess of his own accord, the restitution was set at 120% rather than 500%:

If he has sinned and has realized his guilt and will restore what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit that was committed to him or the lost thing that he found or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt.

(Leviticus 6:4-5)

Later in Exodus 22 is a verse about lending money:

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.

(Exodus 22:25)

The same prohibition is given in a different form in Deuteronomy:

You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.

(Deuteronomy 23:19-20)

This has traditionally been taken to mean that that Christians should not charge interest on any loan made to another Christian, and in the Middle Ages this led to Jews becoming the sole money-lenders in Europe. When we look back at the Exodus verse, however, we see that the prohibition only extends to lending to poor brothers. We should probably read Deuteronomy 23:20 in the light of that: there is an implied contrast between the working Israelite poor and the foreign trader or merchant. Thus, we can conclude that it is wrong to charge interest on the money we loan to fellow Christians for necessities and emergencies, but it is permissible to charge interest on business loans.

In fact, many of the economic laws in the Pentateuch concern oppressing the poor. These obviously include the fatherless and widows, concerning whom the gleaning laws were established:

When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

(Deuteronomy 24:19)

The “poor”, however, also include hired labor:

You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin.

(Deuteronomy 24:14-15)

Recognizing the continued existence of the poor should lead to generosity:

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

(Deuteronomy 15:11)

This is in tension with Deuteronomy 15:4 which says almost the opposite thing, but makes it conditional:

But there will be no poor among you; for the Lord will bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess— if only you will strictly obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all this commandment that I command you today.

((Deuteronomy 15:4-5)

In this way, it is no sin to be poor, but for the Israelites in the Promised Land, the existence of poverty was the result of national disobedience.

Generous giving was to be above and beyond the tithe, offerings, and taxes that were required. We will look at these in more detail next time.

Finally, we should note that the laws about sabbaths and jubilees had a significant impact on the Israelite economy. Every seventh day was to be a day of rest, for animals as well as people:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

(Deuteronomy 5:13-14)

Then, every seven years was to be a sabbath year where the land would rest:

For six years you shall sow your field, and for six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its fruits, but in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath to the Lord. You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard.

(Leviticus 25:3-4)

All debts were canceled in the sabbath year:

At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord's release has been proclaimed.

(Deuteronomy 15:1-2)

In addition to this, after seven sabbath years (that is, in the 50th year), there was a special Jubilee year in which land was restored to its original owners:

And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan.

(Leviticus 25:10)

This is because the promised land could not be actually be bought and sold, but only given in leasehold agreements:

The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.

(Leviticus 25:23-24)

Because of the restoration of property in the jubilee year, prices were adjusted accordingly:

And if you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another. You shall pay your neighbor according to the number of years after the jubilee, and he shall sell to you according to the number of years for crops. If the years are many, you shall increase the price, and if the years are few, you shall reduce the price, for it is the number of the crops that he is selling to you.

(Leviticus 25:14-16)

That is, land with 40 years left on its lease is worth much more than the same land with two years left: the price of land would decline in value until the jubilee year, at which time it would be reset. However, prices were not merely to be set according to supply and demand, but were subject to certain price controls: overcharging was condemned. There is such a thing as a fair price.

A Biblical Theology of Money #2: Jacob and Joseph

In the first installment of this series we looked at Abraham, now we will finish off the Book of Genesis.

We saw how Abraham gave a tithe (or “tenth”) of the plunder to Melchizedek in Genesis 15; in Genesis 28 we have another reference to the tithe. After Jacob sees a ladder up to heaven at Bethel, he vows,

If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house. And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.(Genesis 28:20-22)

This appears to be a one-off tithe of all Jacob's possessions at a future unspecified date, but he is essentially tithing his increase in wealth.

Indeed, Jacob accumulates wealth in a significant way while he stays with his uncle (and father-in-law) Laban. We have here the first references in the Bible to wages (Genesis 29:16): Jacob works for Laban in exchange for the privilege of marrying his daughter(s), and then continues to serve him (Genesis 30:28) in exchange for every spotted and speckled animal (Genesis 30:32). Jacob accumulates flocks, but this is due to God's blessing rather than Jacob's cleverness (Genesis 31:12). Jacob says that Laban “changed my wages ten times” (Genesis 31:7), and Laban is portrayed negatively on this basis. Thus, one common manifestation of dishonesty and theft is not paying the wage that was agreed upon. This is something we also see in the New Testament:

Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

(James 5:4)

In the story of Joseph, we have a great example of financial planning: Joseph urges Pharoah to store grain during the seven years of plenty so that there is enough to eat in the seven years of famine.

This story also has the first occurrence of taxation in the Bible. In fact, Joseph twice taxes the Egyptians on Pharaoh's behalf. During the years of plenty, the Egyptians are required to give 20% of their grain to Pharaoh's storehouses:

“Let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land and take one-fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt during the seven plentiful years. And let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming and store up grain under the authority of Pharaoh for food in the cities, and let them keep it.”

(Genesis 41:34-35)

During the famine when the Egyptians run out of grain, Joseph buys both the people and their land on Pharaoh's behalf, in exchange for food. He then leases the land back to them in perpetuity in exchange for 20% of its yield:

Joseph said to the people, “Behold, I have this day bought you and your land for Pharaoh. Now here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land. And at the harvests you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh, and four fifths shall be your own, as seed for the field and as food for yourselves and your households, and as food for your little ones.”

(Genesis 47:23-24)

We can also note that there is a money shortage in Egypt as a result of the famine (and Joseph's policies):

And when the money was all spent in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? For our money is gone.”

(Genesis 47:15)

Also, the Egyptians are very happy to go into slavery in exchange for food. They appreciate the security that Joseph's government provides:

And they said, “You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh.”

(Genesis 47:25)

Joseph doesn't give free handouts, even to Egyptian citizens: he sells the grain to them. Joseph controls the flow of money, and the Egyptians are forced to trade long-term value (their land) for short-term relief.

What are we to make of Joseph's hunger relief program? Does this justify governments today acting in a similar way? Of course, Joseph's policy is quite different to that of modern governments. He doesn't borrow his way out of a recession, nor does he make stimulus payments. Quite the opposite, in fact: he sells grain to hungry people.

Throughout the narrative, Joseph is portrayed as a wise man. (More than a thousand years later his life will be mirrored by Daniel.) Therefore, the narrator must be seen to approve of his policy decisions. It simply will not do to conclude that Joseph's dreams are accurate but that his advice is poor.

However, we must also realize that Joseph's policies are driven by special revelation. There are a number of aspects of the story that present it as a unique occurrence, and so we need to be careful in the way we apply it to governments today. It is both an emergency situation, and something which was revealed beforehand.