News

Covenant PRC Ballymena, Northern Ireland

Covenant PRC Ballymena, Northern Ireland

Website

83 Clarence Street,

Ballymena BT43 5DR, Northern Ireland

Services: 11:00 A.M. & 6:00 P.M.

RevAStewart

Pastor: Rev. Angus Stewart

7 Lislunnan Rd.

Kells, Ballymena, Co. Antrim

Northern Ireland BT42 3NR

Phone: (from U.S.A.) 011 (44) 28 25 891 851

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Covenant Reformed News - December 2024

Covenant Reformed News
December 2024 • Volume XX, Issue 8


 

The Call to the Apostolic Office

After considering the nature of the apostolic office in the last issue of the Covenant Reformed News, we now turn to the call to the apostolic office. The call to the apostolate was a direct and wonderful call from Christ Himself. Early in the days of His public ministry, Jesus personally called the twelve apostles (cf. Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16). As for Paul, the risen Christ appeared to him in a bright light from heaven and commissioned him, as we read in Acts 9, 22 and 26.

But what about Matthias, the apostle who replaced Judas Iscariot the traitor (Acts 1:15-20)? Like Joseph, Matthias fulfilled the basic qualification of having spent three years with the Saviour from His baptism by John the Baptist to His ascension into heaven (21-23). Of these two brethren, Matthias was chosen not by an election, whether by the church or by the eleven remaining apostles, but by the sovereign Lord by means of the lot in answer to their prayer (24-26).

The call to the apostolate was through a direct and wonderful call from Christ Himself, since an extraordinary office requires an extraordinary call! For a man to occupy the highest New Testament office that involves the authority and power to preach infallibly and to perform miracles, and includes all the other New Testament church offices and is universal in scope, he needs a direct and wonderful call from the Lord Jesus.

Various chapters of Paul’s second canonical letter to the Corinthians explain many features of his apostolic office that are in perfect accord with its extraordinary nature and call. There we read of Paul’s zealous apostolic piety (4, 6) and abundant apostolic suffering (1, 4, 6, 11) in the service of his Herculean apostolic labours (6, 11) and bearing authenticating apostolic fruit (3, 10).

Paul repeatedly refers to his apostolic office in his scriptural epistles, often in their very first verses. He is not ashamed of the gospel of righteousness by faith alone, even in Rome the imperial capital (1:15-17), and he writes to the church in that great city his most systematic theological epistle, as one who was “called to be an apostle” (1).

Paul curses the Judaizers in the Roman province of Galatia who pervert the good news by teaching justification by faith and works (1:7-9), as one who is “an apostle” and that “not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ” (1).

In II Timothy, even though he is in prison and about to be executed as if he were a vile criminal (4:6), Paul begins with a reference to his apostolic office (1:1), since he knows that his impending death is due to his preaching the apostolic gospel and is part of his apostolic sufferings.

This scriptural teaching regarding the extraordinary nature of apostles and their direct call from Christ exposes all the false apostles of the last 2,000 years. This includes those against whom Paul battled (cf. II Cor. 10-13), as well as the Popes of Rome (deceitful claimants to Peter’s apostolic office), the Mormon apostles, and the many thousands of Pentecostal, Charismatic and neo-Charismatic apostles. Once one understands what a real apostle is, the counterfeits are easy to identify. Rev. Angus Stewart

 

Is the Fourth Commandment Still in Effect?

We return in this article to this request from a reader in Wales: “Many people believe that the moral law of God (summarized in the Ten Commandments) was rendered obsolete along with the Mosaic civil and ceremonial laws. I know this is error. Please address this in the Covenant Reformed News.”

One of the arguments against the Ten Commandments as law for New Testament Christians is that the fourth commandment is never repeated in the New Testament, though all the other commandments are repeated. It is part of their argument that only the precepts of the New Testament, which they identify as the law of Christ, are obligatory on New Testament Christians, and even though many of those precepts are also to be found in the Ten Commandments, the moral law, they are not proof that the Ten Commandments are still in effect. We wish to deal with that argument in this article.

The fourth commandment declares, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Ex. 20:8-11).

As the commandment itself reminds us, the sabbath was not merely instituted with the decalogue at Mount Sinai; it is a creation ordinance. Like marriage, the family (Gen. 1:28) and human government, the sabbath began with creation and not with the Mosaic law. It is not just a temporary Jewish institution or just a precept of the moral law. It is permanent, enduring as long as the creation itself, and belongs to those institutions that will last until Christ returns.

We are to remember the sabbath, not simply because God gave a command about it from Mount Sinai but for this reason: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” At creation, “the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it,” and did so for all time. Jesus meant that when He said, “The sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27). Of all the commandments, therefore, the fourth needed repeating less than any other.

Another argument for the all-time validity of the sabbath command is Jesus’ word to the Pharisees when disputing with them about the sabbath: “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (28). The sabbath, He states, belongs to Him as Lord and Creator of all, and not to Moses. This was the reason also why He was able to change the day, while preserving the institution. The sabbath is, most emphatically, “the Lord’s day” in Revelation 1:10. For this reason, Jesus was scrupulous about sabbath observance, through He had no time for the nonsense of the Pharisees. Indeed, God Himself kept the sabbath after creating all things.

That the sabbath command, rooted in the creation of the world itself, has not been made null and void, is also clear from Hebrews 4:8-9: “For if Jesus [i.e., Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest [literally, a sabbath or sabbath-keeping] to the people of God.”

Another argument against the permanence of the fourth commandment is that every day ought to be special to the Christian and every day he ought to “labour ... to enter into that rest” (11). We do not deny the truth of this. The Heidelberg Catechism, in its explanation of the fourth commandment, requires, “that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit in me; and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath” (A. 103). That is not an argument against a sabbath commandment, however. God’s ordinance that we live by our work and by the sweat of our face (Gen. 3:19) is not done away by His appointing special days in which work is forbidden.

Nevertheless, the opponents of the Ten Commandments argue that, because the command and creation itself specified the seventh day, and the day of worship in the New Testament is the first day of the week (many do not believe there is any special day of worship in the New Testament), the two cannot be the same. Thus, they say, the very fact that Christians worship on a different day is proof against the abiding validity of the Ten Commandments.

We believe that the change of day is not a change in the institution itself nor a voiding of the institution. It is a change only in the circumstances or details, not the essence of the commandment. When speed limits were reduced across America in 1973 in response to a world-wide oil crisis, the change in maximum speeds was not a change to the principle that there ought to be limits on the speed at which motorists drive.

The “first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2) is the day for preaching and breaking bread in the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7-12), and for taking collections for needy churches (I Cor. 16:1-2), a day known as “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10), for it has a special connection to the Person and work of the Lord Himself. This is the day when the church assembles for worship (e.g., I Cor. 11:17, 20; 14:23-26; Heb. 10:25; James 2:2).

But how can we even be sure that the day was changed, since there is no explicit command telling us to worship on the first, rather than on the seventh, day of the week?

The resurrection of Christ (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), and His appearances to the women and His disciples when assembled together (Matt. 28:2-10; Mark 16:2-14; Luke 24:2-49; John 20:2-29), and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-41; cf. Lev. 23:15-16) on the first day of the week, amount to a command. In other words, Jesus commands the observance of the first day of the week not by word but by example. These great works of redemption—Christ’s resurrection (and post-resurrection appearances) and the Spirit’s outpouring—all on the same day, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first day of the week is special.

The Westminster Larger Catechism declares, “The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath [Deut. 5:12-14; Gen. 2:2-3; I Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 5:17-18; Isa. 56:2, 4, 6-7], and in the New Testament called The Lord’s day [Rev. 1:10]” (A. 116).

Sabbath means “rest” and refers to the spiritual rest which Jesus promises in Matthew 11:28-30: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” If that is what Jesus promises, then it is not surprising that Hebrews 4:9 tells us that there remains a rest for the people of God. It should also be obvious that the day of the week is not essential to that rest but subject to change, as it was changed by the great works of redemption that took place on the first day of the week.

We agree with those who say that the change of days reflects the difference between the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, the promised rest lay still in the future and it was appropriate that the day of rest come at the end of the week, but now, in the New Testament, the Rest-giver Himself has come and by His saving work caused us to “enter into rest” (Heb. 4:3) through faith. It is appropriate, therefore, that the rest is at the beginning of the week and the remaining days be lived out of that accomplished rest.

All of this has been part of our argument for the permanence of the moral law, summed in the Ten Commandments. To the believing heart, the greatest argument for the permanence of the moral law is the blessedness promised in the Word of God to those who love and keep His commandments. They are those who say with the psalmist, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward” (19:7-11). They experience the truth of Psalm 119:1-2: “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.”  Rev. Ron Hanko

Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street, Ballymena, BT43 5DR • Lord’s Day services at 11 am & 6 pm
Website: https://cprc.co.uk/ • Live broadcast: cprc.co.uk/live-streaming/
Pastor: Angus Stewart, 7 Lislunnan Road, Kells, N. Ireland, BT42 3NR • (028) 25 891851  
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • www.youtube.com/cprcni • www.facebook.com/CovenantPRC
Read more...

Covenant Reformed News - November 2024

Covenant Reformed News
November 2024 • Volume XX, Issue 7


 

What Is the Apostolic Office?

Though the word “apostle” is frequently used in Christian circles, there exists a lot of error and confusion regarding its true import and significance.

Our English word “apostle” is a transliteration of a Greek verb which means “to send.” Thus an apostle is one who is sent by someone else. In a non-technical sense, anyone on any errand for another is an apostle. In its technical and theological sense, an apostle is one sent by the Lord Jesus Christ in the highest ecclesiastical office, such as “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (II Tim. 1:1). As one sent by the Saviour, Paul was authorized, equipped and owned by the Lord, and was obedient to Him.

What about the nature of the authority and power of the apostolic office? It includes the authority and power to preach and teach God’s Word regarding doctrine and life, sacraments and discipline, church government and worship, etc., with all centred on the cross of Christ. This is common to the temporary offices of prophet and evangelist, as well as the permanent office of pastor-teacher (Eph. 4:11). Unlike pastor-teachers but like prophets, apostles taught by direct revelation and infallibly.

Besides preaching and teaching authority and power, apostles also had the God-given authority and power to perform miracles in the service of the gospel of grace, including miraculous healings, exorcisms of demons and miracles of judgment, as with Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), and Paul upon Bar-Jesus or Elymas (13:6-12). In this, apostles are like and greater than prophets (cf. II Cor. 12:12), and unlike mere pastors and teachers.

Three further points about the apostolic office will help us understand it more fully. First, it is an inclusive office, that is, it embraces all the other church offices mentioned in the New Testament. Like prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers, apostles preach the Scriptures and administer the sacraments. Apostles also possess the authority and power of the offices of elder (I Pet. 5:1) and deacon (II Cor. 8-9).

Second, the office of apostle is the highest New Testament office. Apostles are listed “first” in I Corinthians 12:28 (cf. 29), the position they also occupy in Ephesians 4:11. The order in Ephesians is always “apostles and prophets” (2:20; 3:5; 4:11; cf. Rev. 18:20). The evangelists (Eph. 4:11) were assistants to the apostles, such as Philip (Acts 21:8) and Timothy (II Tim. 4:5). Obviously, the extraordinary office of apostle is higher than the ordinary offices of pastor-teacher, elder and deacon. For instance, the order in Acts 15 is always “apostles and elders” (2, 4, 6, 22, 23; cf. 16:4).

Third, the office of apostle is the universal New Testament office. By this, I mean that the apostles had the authority and power to institute churches, to receive remuneration from all churches (e.g., I Cor. 9) and to oversee all churches. Paul spoke of “that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches” (II Cor. 11:28), and Peter wrote to all the believers in five Roman provinces, which together constituted what is now most of Turkey. Thus the apostles had an itinerant ministry or were, at least, mobile and not called to a specific congregation or location. Rev. Angus  Stewart

 

What Does “Dead to the Law” Mean?

We continue in this article our answer to this request: “Many people believe that the moral law of God (summarized in the Ten Commandments) was rendered obsolete along with the Mosaic civil and ceremonial laws. I know this is error. Please address this in the Covenant Reformed News.”

Many assume that the Scripture passages, Romans 7:4 and Galatians 2:19, which describe the believer as “dead to the law” mean that the law, especially as embodied in the Ten Commandments, has no place in the life of the New Testament believer. Romans 7:4 says, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” Galatians 2:19 adds, “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.”

We believe that “dead to the law” does not mean “dead in every respect.” The believer may be dead to the law in some ways but not in others. Perhaps this sounds like playing with words to some but it is biblical.

When the Bible speaks of being “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2; cf. 11), it means that we are dead in some ways and not in others. We are dead, Scripture means, to the dominion or rule of sin: “For sin shall not have dominion over you” (14; cf. 12). We are not yet dead to the presence and pollution of sin in our lives, as everyone of us knows from bitter experience. We are dead to sin in one respect but not in another.

We understand the believer’s being dead to the law along the same lines. He is dead to the dominion of the law, to its power to curse and condemn him (Gal. 3:13), but his relationship to the law is not finished, only changed, changed fundamentally and for his good. He is also dead to the law as a way of earning righteousness, for he is righteous in Christ by faith, but that does not mean that the law has no role in his life.

Galatians 2:19 says that this being dead to the law is through the law. What a wonderful and concise statement of our relation to the law. By the law’s convicting us of sin (even that does not happen without the work of the Spirit), we die to the law’s condemnation, its curse, its insistence that we must keep it in order to live. Thus the law drives us to Christ for forgiveness and (imputed) righteousness. Only then do we live unto God.

This is what the Word of God says in Romans 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” The fact that we are justified by faith without the works of the law does not mean that the law is abolished. Instead, the law is established as the way in which we know our sin and so are convinced that our righteousness must come from Christ alone: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (20).

The Scripture verses which say that the believer is not under the law (Rom. 6:14-15; Gal. 5:18) must be understood along the same lines as we noted in the previous article. Galatians 3:23-4:7 uses the example of a child in relation to the law of his parents. Until he reaches maturity, he is no better than a slave being under tutors and governors though he is heir of all (4:1-3). When he reaches maturity, then he is freed from that “bondage” and enters the freedom which was always his but which he did not fully enjoy in his youth (cf. 4-7).

So it is with the believer in relation to the law. Until he reaches his place in Christ and in Christ receives the fullness of the adoption of sons, the law is a schoolmaster to bring him to Christ (3:24). Though in the purpose of God he is the heir of all things, he is under the law, until the tutorship and governorship of the law serves to bring him to Christ. Then his relationship to the law changes fundamentally, and the law, which appeared to be his master, becomes his servant, advising him in understanding his sin and in the way of thankful obedience to God.

The very fact that Paul describes the law as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ implies that the law is not absent in the life of a child of God. Even before he is saved, it has its function, though his relationship to the law is changed when, by God’s wonderful grace, he is brought into living fellowship with Christ. The law, however, continues to have a role even after we are saved, though it does so not as something that has rule over us but as a trusted adviser. So it is with tutors and governors and schoolmasters. Once we are no longer under their authority, they can and often do become trusted advisers and counsellors.

Galatians 2:19, one of the passages that speaks of being “dead to the law,” actually says that the law still has a place in the life of the child of God: “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.” It is the law itself which bring about my being dead to the law. This is sometimes described as the first use of the law, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).

This is to say, of course, that there is one thing the law cannot do. It cannot justify us before God: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (8:3-4). Even then the problem was not some deficiency or defect in the law. The problem was in us. The law was “weak through the flesh,” that is, on account of our sinful natures.

There are other things the law cannot do. It shows us our sin but it cannot keep us from sinning. It teaches us how to show our thankfulness to God but it cannot make us thankful. It reveals our need for Christ but we will not embrace Him except the Spirit also works in our hearts. It shows us who God is and what it means to live righteously, that is, in harmony with His glory and majesty, but it cannot write itself in our hearts and give us what we need to live righteously. It is only at best a servant of the redeemed and delivered Christian, and a servant with limited responsibilities and duties.

Romans 7 also establishes the place of the law in the life of the child of God, that is, if one understands, as we do, the man of Romans 7 to be the regenerated and renewed child of God. Paul, speaking as a one redeemed and renewed, says, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (7-12).

Paul’s statements about the law may not be brushed aside. The law is not sin; it is not evil. Paul himself admits that he did not know sin except by the law. The law is holy and just and good, he says, a very different opinion of the law than that of those who reject the law altogether. He says again at the end of the chapter, “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (22). It is impossible to understand this reference to the inward man, as speaking of something other than the new man in Christ, the regenerated and renewed child of God.

Our Heidelberg Catechism states the two main purposes of the law for Christians: “First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavour, and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us in a life to come” (A. 115).

Personally, I find it difficult to understand the opposition of some to the law. Read, studied, learned, it reminds me of the folly of sin when I am inclined to be careless. It reminds me of what God has done for me in Christ, who kept the law perfectly to provide a robe of righteousness for me, and to be a perfect atoning substitute for my disobedience and waywardness. The law also shows me how to express my gratitude to Him who delivered me from the Egypt of this world and the house of sin’s bondage.

But when I see my sin, and my need for correction and holiness, I do not turn to the law but to Christ. When I see in the law how thankful I ought to be, I find that I cannot even be thankful apart from the grace and Spirit of my Saviour. Though it serves to remind me of Christ’s perfect obedience, I find the only source of obedience in Him and not in the law. Rev. Ron Hanko

Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street, Ballymena, BT43 5DR • Lord’s Day services at 11 am & 6 pm
Website: https://cprc.co.uk/ • Live broadcast: cprc.co.uk/live-streaming/
Pastor: Angus Stewart, 7 Lislunnan Road, Kells, N. Ireland, BT42 3NR • (028) 25 891851  
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • www.youtube.com/cprcni • www.facebook.com/CovenantPRC
Read more...

Covenant Reformed News - October 2024

Covenant Reformed News
October 2024 • Volume XX, Issue 6


 

Opposition From Jehovah’s Enemies

Any and all true works of God always face opposition from His enemies. In Nehemiah 2, there is a reference to evil forces even before Nehemiah reached Jerusalem. On his journey from the east, Governor Nehemiah was granted a military escort for his own protection, plus letters of safe conduct (9).

However, the most serious enmity spoken of in Nehemiah 2:9-10 came not from bandits (9) but from two nasty individuals (10): Sanballat, the governor of Samaria (to the north of Judah), and Tobiah, his official from Ammon (to the east of Judah). Both of these ungodly civil rulers are mentioned as troublemakers throughout this book, especially in chapters 2, 4, 6 and 13.

At this stage, their hatred had not yet manifested itself in actions or even words. The animosity of Sanballat and Tobiah was experienced by them as internal pain, intense distress that anyone would want to help God’s church: “it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel” (2:10). These two extremely wicked men were hardened and self-conscious enemies of Jehovah’s covenant people. They understood that Nehemiah, the new governor of Judah, would assist the Jews but, as yet, they did not know that he planned to build Jerusalem’s perimeter wall.

Once word got out that the Jews under Nehemiah were going to rebuild the wall of their capital city, we read of three powerful enemies, for Geshem the Arabian is now added to the two opponents mentioned earlier (19). Thus Judah has adversaries from three sides: Sanballat in the north, Tobiah from the east and Geshem from the south.

The hostility against God’s church and covenant intensified. Before Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem, Sanballat and Tobiah were “exceedingly” “grieved” (10), but, after they heard of the Jews’ building project, the three enemies “despised” them (19). Thus we read of their mockery of God’s people: “they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king?” namely, Emperor Artaxerxes of Medo-Persia (19).

In every age and land, the true church of the Lord Jesus has enemies on every side. She is despised and derided, as was Christ Himself, especially as He hung upon the cross, where He paid the price of our redemption.

What was Nehemiah’s response to their taunts? It took the form of confident words uttered out of a strong faith in the living Lord: “The God of heaven, he will prosper us” (20). Thus Nehemiah stated his resolute purpose to construct the walls of Jerusalem: “therefore we his servants will arise and build” (20)!

Nehemiah’s rejoinder to his three powerful enemies was also sharply antithetical, for the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls was none of their business. Judah’s governor told them, “ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem” (20), since they had no legal or religious authority, portion or inheritance in the city of God! O that all church leaders would take such a no-nonsense, firm and unequivocal line against all syncretism with paganism and false ecumenism in our own day! Rev. A. Stewart

 

Is God’s Moral Law Permanent?

We have in this issue of the News another request for an article about the law: “Many people believe that the moral law of God (summarized in the Ten Commandments) was rendered obsolete along with the Mosaic civil and ceremonial laws. I know this is error. Please address this in the Covenant Reformed News.”

Many reckon that the Ten Commandments, sometimes referred to as the moral law, are not in effect in the New Testament era and so they do not think they are obligatory in their requirements. This opposition to the Ten Commandments usually rests on the belief that Israel and the church are two different groups with whom God has two different covenants with each covenant having a different sign (circumcision or baptism). These two groups may even have entirely different futures, as is the teaching of premillennialism and dispensationalism. The Ten Commandments, in this view, belong to Israel and the covenant that God made with them.

Matthew 5:17, where Jesus speaks of His fulfilling the law, is often used as proof for this rejection of the Ten Commandments. That, however, is a misunderstanding of the passage. Jesus does not mean that He has done away with the law or He would be contradicting Himself, for He immediately talks about the importance of doing and teaching, and not breaking, the precepts of the law, and goes on to explain and apply several of the commandments.

Romans 10:4, which says that Christ is the “end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” is also misused. “End,” in the minds of many, means that the moral law is finished and done away with, but that is not the meaning of the Greek word translated “end” in Romans 10:4. There are other Greek words for “end” that mean that something is finished, with nothing to follow (Matt. 24:31; 28:1; Heb. 6:16; II Pet. 2:20). The word used in Romans 10:4 and many other passages has the meaning of goal or purpose. Christ is the goal of the law. The word “end” in Romans 10:4 does not imply that the Ten Commandments are finished and done away with.

Another argument against the Ten Commandments is found by some in Romans 6:14: “for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” It is wrongly assumed that, because we are not under the law, we have no relationship to the law at all. But that is wrong. The fact that I am not “under” my wife does not mean I have no relationship at all to her. The fact of the matter is that, just as I am over my wife, so also I am over the law. The law, in God’s gracious saving will towards me, is now my servant, as a “schoolmaster to bring [me] unto Christ” (Gal. 3:24).

When asked whether this means that Christians have no law that must be obeyed, the answer is often that Christians obey “the law of Christ” (a phrase only found in Galatians 6:2), that is, the commands and precepts found in the New Testament, which may or may not be the same as the precepts of the Ten Commandments. This is classic Antinomianism, that is, a rejection of God’s law as embodied in the Ten Commandments.

That argument is nullified by Galatians 3:19: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” The Ten Commandments, from the time that God gave them at Sinai, were “the law of Christ,” our mediator, and were in His “hand.” To make a distinction between the Ten Commandments and another law of Christ is explicitly contrary to Scripture. To this Paul adds the important truth that the law is not “against the promises of God” (21), as those allege who find a dichotomy between His moral law and grace.

That the Ten Commandments are still in force follows from two arguments. First, the law as embodied in the Ten Commandments is called the law of God, and to say that it is different from the law of Christ comes very close to a denial of Christ’s divinity. Also the Ten Commandments are rooted in the very nature of God and it seems very difficult, therefore, to understand how they could go out of force.

A good example is the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). This command follows from the great truth that He is God alone and that there are no other gods beside Him. The other commandments are similar. The second flows from the truth that God is spirit (John 4:24), and the third from the truth that His name is holy and separate from all other names. The fourth rests upon the truth that He is the eternal Creator who made time, as well as space, and who worked six days and rested on the seventh. The fifth is based upon His sovereign authority, and so on.

If the commandments are not arbitrary rules but follow from the nature of God Himself, they must be still in force and we believe they are. We agree with Westminster Confession 19:5: “The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation” (Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:2; I John 2:3-4, 7-8; James 2:8, 10-11; Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31).

Those who do not believe that the Ten Commandments are in force for New Testament Christians will admit that almost all of the commandments are repeated in the New Testament. This we see as further evidence that the moral law is abiding. In Matthew 5:21-42, commandments 6, 7 and 3 are explained by Jesus, and He validates the whole second table of the law, commandments 5-10, in verses 43-48. He repeats commandments 5-9 in Matthew 19:18-19. What is more, these examples in Matthew 5 help us to identify the “law” that Jesus is talking about when He says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (17).

Commandments 7 and 6 are repeated in James 2:11, and James also refers to the rest of the second table when he speaks of loving our neighbour as ourselves (8). Commandment 10, “Thou shalt not covet,” is repeated in Romans 7:7 and Paul establishes the validity of the second table in Romans 13:8-9, where commandments 6-10 are repeated and reference is made to “any other commandment.”

The requirements of the first table are also permanent, according to the teaching of the New Testament. If “love thy neighbour as thyself” is a summary of the second table of the law and “love the Lord thy God” is a summary of the first table, then the New Testament clearly enjoins both. All idolatry and false worship (the first and second commandments) and blasphemy (the third commandment) are clearly forbidden in the New Testament (John 4:24; Gal. 5:20; Col. 3:8; I Tim. 6:1; I John 5:19-21). That leaves only the fourth commandment which is not explicitly repeated but, as we will see in another article, DV, that commandment is also still in force.

I and II John, in their repeated references to the importance of keeping the divine precepts, speak of the commandments of God and make no distinction between these and a “law of Christ” (I John 2:3-4; 3:22, 24; 5:2-3; II John 1:6). Revelation also speaks of the commandments of God and makes no mention of any law of Christ which is different (12:17; 14:12; 22:14). It is difficult to see how this can be anything else but a reference to God’s moral law.

For Paul, the “law” and the “commandment” are “holy, and just, and good” (Rom. 7:12; cf. 13:9), and he confesses that he “delight[s] in the law of God after the inward man” (7:22), which can mean nothing else but that he, regenerated and renewed by grace, a new man in Christ, finds that the law is not something to be despised but cherished.

That the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God in tables of stone also indicates the permanence of these regulations. That they were spoken by God Himself from Mount Sinai and the stone tables were placed in the ark confirms this, for it shows the difference between these commandments and all the rest of the Mosaic legislation.

John Calvin is right in his comments on Romans 7:12: “I consider that there is a peculiar force in the words, when he says, that the law itself and whatever is commanded in the law, is holy, and therefore to be regarded with the highest reverence—that it is just, and cannot therefore be charged with anything wrong—that it is good, and hence pure and free from everything that can do harm. He thus defends the law against every charge of blame, that no one should ascribe to it what is contrary to goodness, justice, and holiness.”

This leaves us with several matters that still need explanation. We need to look at what it means that we are “dead to the law” (Rom. 7:4; Gal. 2:19). We also must examine the reasons why the fourth commandment, regarding the sabbath, is not explicitly repeated in the New Testament. Rev. Ron Hanko

Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street, Ballymena, BT43 5DR • Lord’s Day services at 11 am & 6 pm
Website: https://cprc.co.uk/ • Live broadcast: cprc.co.uk/live-streaming/
Pastor: Angus Stewart, 7 Lislunnan Road, Kells, N. Ireland, BT42 3NR • (028) 25 891851  
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • www.youtube.com/cprcni • www.facebook.com/CovenantPRC
Read more...

Covenant Reformed News - September 2024

Covenant Reformed News
September 2024 • Volume XX, Issue 5


 

God’s People Resolve to Rebuild Jerusalem’s Walls

How did the people of God respond to Nehemiah’s call to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls (Neh. 2:17)? They agreed to it! The church totally and enthusiastically accepted their governor’s proposal.

Thus there are two exhortations in Nehemiah 2:17-18. First, Nehemiah exhorted the Jews, “come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach” (17). Then the people exhorted one another, “Let us rise up and build” (18).

This mutual exhortation was mutual encouragement to serve the cause of their covenant God: “So they strengthened their hands for this good work” (18). Similarly, on the other hand, mutual complaining is mutual discouragement of the persons involved so that good work is left undone.

Thus we see that Nehemiah 2 outlines the various steps that were taken. First, there was careful preparation by the leader (11-16). Second, the leader made a solid and winsome presentation, which included an explanation of the problem and its solution (17-18). Third, the people of God resolved to do the Lord’s work (18).

Regarding the first of these three steps, Matthew Henry comments, “[1] Good work is likely to be well done when it is first well considered. [2] It is the wisdom of those who are engaged in public business, as much as may be, to see with their own eyes, and not to proceed altogether upon the reports and representations of others, and yet to do this without noise, and if possible unobserved. [3] Those that would build up the church’s walls must first take notice of the ruins of those walls. Those that would know how to amend must enquire what is amiss, what needs reformation, and what may serve as it is.”

“We have liftoff!” That is the cry when a spacecraft leaves the launch pad. All the rockets need to fire or the shuttle will never leave the ground or else it will ascend only a short distance before crashing back to earth. So too a large measure of unity is required in the church, especially for a big project to succeed.

So why did the mission to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls prosper (whereas many other ventures in the ecclesiastical world fail)? First, there was godly and wise leadership, that of Nehemiah. This includes his judicious preparations in both Susa and Jerusalem, as well as his prayers in Susa for four months (1:4-11), his ejaculatory petition in the royal palace (2:4) and his intercessions during his journey from Susa to Jerusalem.

Second, the people of God were zealous (by and large). We read of their constant prayers (1:11) and their wise recognition of Nehemiah’s godly leadership (2:18).

Third, the faithfulness of both Nehemiah and the Jews was the result of God’s sovereign grace. Christ’s atoning cross was the defeat of Satan and the world, because He bore all the sins of His elect. In His love and mercy, Jesus worked in the hearts of His children by His Holy Spirit. In the preceding years and months and days, Christ had been preparing and moulding both Nehemiah and the people of Judah. Now God’s time had come for His work so it would most certainly be done! Rev. Angus Stewart

 

The Civil and Ceremonial Laws (3)

We continue to answer a question about the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws: “Is it true that the Lord Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:17-19 that all the laws of Moses, including the ceremonial and civil laws, are binding and must be ‘fulfilled’ by believers in the New Testament age?” Having spoken of the ceremonial laws in the last article, we focus on the civil laws in this article. Our answer has been long, because this is a matter to which we have given much thought and with which we have wrestled ourselves.

The Belgic Confession 25, “Of the Abolishing of the Ceremonial Law,” says this about those laws: “We believe that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to His will.”

The statement of the Belgic Confession that “the truth and substance” of the civil and ceremonial laws “remain with us in Jesus Christ” is the subject of this article. The Belgic Confession itself explains this to mean that “we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to His will.”

That the truth and substance of the civil and ceremonial laws remain with us in Jesus Christ must mean that those laws had to do with Him, “his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits” (Westminster Confession 19:3). It must also mean that there is a sense in which those laws are important for us, though we do not mean that Christians are bound by the explicit demands of those laws.

This is true of the ceremonial laws, for all the laws regarding priesthood, sacrifices and temple, etc., remain with us in Him, in that He is “the truth and substance of them.” He is priest, sacrifice and temple, the completion of all those Old Testament laws. We in Him are part of that priesthood, temple and sacrificial system: a spiritual temple (I Cor. 3:16), an holy priesthood (I Pet. 2:5), offering ourselves a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). As we have seen, those shadows must never again be resurrected as a substitute for Him. We must not be like the Jews who clung to the shadows and rejected the reality. Most Christians understand that. Reading these things in the Old Testament confirms us in the doctrine of the gospel, and shows us that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin (Heb. 10:4), that we need a better priest than Aaron who was himself a sinner and had first to offer for his own sins (cf. 5:1-4). They teach us that the true temple of God is a temple not built with hands, eternal in the heavens (cf. 8:2; 9:24). The book of Hebrews is Scripture’s great treatise on this subject.

What is true of the ceremonial laws is also true of the civil laws. They are not to be set aside as worthless, though they have expired. There is still truth in them for the New Testament Christian. A couple of examples from Scripture will serve.

The law of Deuteronomy 22:10, “Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together,” is applied to New Testament believers in II Corinthians 6:14, 16: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? ... what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them.” In this way, “the truth and substance” of the commandment remain with us in Christ, and “we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to His will.” Indeed, that was always “the truth and substance” of Deuteronomy 22:10. There is nothing inherently wrong with ploughing with an ox and an ass, though it might be unwise as far as getting any work done. The law was always meant to teach Israel not to join themselves to the heathen (Deut. 33:28).

It was an application of the first table of the law: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37), that is, we must have, hold and love no one or anything beside Him. An Israelite who knew this command could never go out to plough his field, even if an ox and an ass were the only animals he had, and they were of similar height, without being reminded of the first table of the law and its demands (Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 30:6). It is in this way that Deuteronomy 22:10 is still to be read with profit by Christians and in this way we “regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to His will.”

Another example is the law of Deuteronomy 25:4, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” Though perhaps unkind, there is nothing inherently wrong with muzzling the ox, especially if one treats his ox well and feeds him properly on other occasions. “The truth and substance” of that law, however, remains and that is what I Corinthians 9:7-10 teaches: “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.”

Though Paul refused any wages from the church in Corinth (II Cor. 11:7-9; 12:13-18), Scripture insists that “the workman is worthy of his meat” (Matt. 10:10). That is true of those who serve in the church but also of the hired man. Thus Colossians 4:1 is also an application of Deuteronomy 25:4: “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Those who broke the law of muzzling an ox in the Old Testament also, therefore, broke the tenth commandment, “Thou shalt not covet,” for Deuteronomy 25:4 is an application of that commandment and also of the eighth, “Thou shalt not steal.”

Thus the law about muzzling the ox has expired and cannot even be kept in those countries where threshing is done by combines. You cannot muzzle a combine harvester and it cannot be “partaker of ... hope.” God said that Israelites must not muzzle their oxen when threshing their wheat. However, He said it not out of care for the oxen but for our sakes, that is, to teach Israel the principles of the ten commandments, and to remind us also of the importance of justice, mercy and equity even in our daily dealings. Thus, though we do not thresh with oxen and though we do not need to follow the explicit requirement of Deuteronomy 25:4, “we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to His will.”

This is important in our use of the Old Testament. It is not to be set aside, though we might find the rules and regulations somewhat tedious. They are there “for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (I Cor. 10:11).

There is one other thing about the civil laws. There are so many rules and regulations that it must have been impossible, unless one were an Old Testament priest or rabbi, even to remember them all, much less obey them all. God had His saving purpose even in that. The sheer number of commandments and their requirements must have taught believing Israel that salvation could not come by the works of the law—that it was impossible for anyone to obey the law of God perfectly. In that way, the law was a “schoolmaster” to bring them to Christ (Gal. 3:24). It still functions that way and that is the first use of the law as well (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 3).

Question 115 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks, “Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?” The answer is, “First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavor, and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us in a life to come.” The moral law continues in force, though the applications of it to Israel’s life have expired. We do not remove the civil and ceremonial laws from our Bibles, however, but continue to read and study them.

May the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws continue to “confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to His will.” Rev. Ron Hanko

Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street, Ballymena, BT43 5DR • Lord’s Day services at 11 am & 6 pm
Website: https://cprc.co.uk/ • Live broadcast: cprc.co.uk/live-streaming/
Pastor: Angus Stewart, 7 Lislunnan Road, Kells, N. Ireland, BT42 3NR • (028) 25 891851  
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • www.youtube.com/cprcni • www.facebook.com/CovenantPRC
Read more...

Covenant Reformed News - August 2024

Covenant Reformed News
August 2024 • Volume XX, Issue 4


 

Let Us Rebuild Jerusalem’s Walls!

What did Nehemiah do after his earnest prayers, careful preparations and confidential investigations (Neh. 1:1-2:16)? He called God’s people to a public meeting.

At that assembly, Nehemiah first outlined the problem. In material terms, Jerusalem’s walls were mostly rubble and its gates were charred wood, as he had witnessed personally on his secret night ride around the city’s perimeter. In more emotional terms, Nehemiah reminded the people that they were ridiculed by their enemies.

But did the people themselves not know this? Of course they did! And Governor Nehemiah knew that they knew it: “Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire” (17). The leader clearly states the pressing issue so that all are agreed that this is the problem.

Second, Nehemiah presented the obvious solution. We must rebuild the walls and the gates. Then we will no longer be taunted and mocked, as if our God were unable to defend and care for His people. How did David put it? “Is there not a cause?” (I Sam. 17:29). The cause may be fighting Goliath or building up a local church or training our children in God’s glorious truth or battling against incessant discouragement or a larger scale project, such as establishing a Reformed day school.

Third, after stating the problem and its solution, Nehemiah exhorts, “come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach” (Neh. 2:17).

Fourth, this raises the issue of identification. Nehemiah did not say, “You have a problem and I will give orders to you and you must work to effect the solution.” Instead, Nehemiah identified himself with the problem and its solution, and included himself in his exhortation. Look out for “we” and “us” in the governor’s address: “Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach” (17). Nehemiah spoke of “we” and “us,” because he was a living and godly member in Israel, and he had gotten to know God’s people in Jerusalem.

Fifth, Nehemiah reinforced his exhortation by presenting his double authorization. In the first instance, Jehovah had called and led him: “Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me” (18). At this point, Nehemiah may have informed them of his persevering prayer in his closet (1:4-11) and his ejaculatory prayer in the palace (2:4). “I was Artaxerxes’ cupbearer and am now governor of Judah and I will rebuild Jerusalem’s walls, by our Lord’s good providence.”

In the second instance, Nehemiah appeals to his authority from Medo-Persian Emperor Artaxerxes: “Then I told them [1] of the hand of my God which was good upon me; [2] as also the king’s words that he had spoken unto me” (18). The governor informed them that Artaxerxes had granted him imperial authority to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls (5-6) and to requisition the necessary timber from the emperor’s forests (8). There are situations, even in our day, when the Lord’s work requires civil authorization, for example, permits to erect church buildings. Rev. Stewart

 

The Civil and Ceremonial Laws (2)

We continue our answer to the question: “Is it true that the Lord Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:17-19 that all the law of Moses, including the ceremonial and civil laws, are binding and must be ‘fulfilled’ by believers in the New Testament age?” Having spoken of the ceremonial laws last month, we focus on the civil laws in this article.

The civil laws of the Old Testament are those that had to do with Israel’s every-day life: food and cooking, bodily adornment and appearance, sanitation and health, work and possessions, government and taxes, crime and its punishment, marriage and family. There is not an absolute difference between these and the ceremonial laws, but it is these laws that are haled by Christian Reconstructionists and Theonomists as still in force and necessary for the establishment of their future post-millennial golden age.

These movements teach that, unless such laws are explicitly abrogated in the New Testament, they are still obligatory in the New Testament. Some of them even argue against particular passages of the New Testament that do abrogate various Old Testament laws. Peter’s vision of the unclean animals let down in a sheet from heaven, and the command given him to rise and eat, they say, does not do away with the Old Testament food laws, but was only a command to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Certainly God used a change in those Old Testament food laws to teach Peter and the church about preaching to the Gentiles. Yet God’s word to Peter did concern those formerly unclean animals. Peter was commanded to eat what he formerly was not allowed to eat: “And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:13-14; cf. 11:7-8).

One finds these Theonomists and Reconstructionists scrambling to explain how some of those civil laws apply in the New Testament. The law of Deuteronomy 22:8 required the Israelites to build a “battlement” or parapet around a flat roof that was used as living space. In societies where such roofs do not exist, this is applied to swimming pools and the necessity of a fence around them.

We use this example deliberately. The wisdom of the rule regarding flat roofs, and the wisdom of having a fence around a swimming pool that is accessible to children is unquestionable, so much so that some municipalities require a fenced pool. Such is, we believe, what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls the “general equity” of the Old Testament civil laws (19:4). This refers to legislative principles that are not arbitrary, but just and right. Nevertheless, a man does not break God’s law if he does not have a fence around his swimming pool. He may have to suffer the consequences of that decision but he does not sin simply by having an unfenced pool.

Along these same lines, there was a great deal of wisdom in the food laws which God gave Israel but there is no obligation in the New Testament to follow them. One may eat pork (and eat it much more safely) in the New Testament. Nevertheless, God’s word to Peter stands. One may even have his sons circumcised, though never as something necessary for salvation (Acts 16:1-3; Gal. 5:1-3). What is more, the application of these laws to modern society by way of establishing a Christian society comes very close to a denial of salvation by grace and by faith alone. Fenced swimming pools and a pigless diet do not make a Christian society. God’s sovereign grace alone makes a Christian society and that society is already in existence. Scripture calls it the church: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (I Pet. 2:9). That “society” exists within a society that is always and inimically opposed to the kingdom of God, and which cannot be transformed by the mere application of Old Testament civil law.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is correct when it says that these laws “expired together with the state of that people,” that is, with the expiration of Israel as God’s chosen nation came also an expiration of these laws. There is more that must be said, however, since all this raises the question of how God-given laws can be changed or abrogated.

Here the statement of the Belgic Confession 25 is important: “We believe that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion.”

This Reformed creed reminds us that there is, and always was, a difference between the precepts of God’s moral law on the one hand and the civil and ceremonial laws on the other. The moral law forbids things that are inherently sinful. Idol worship is always wicked because it is a denial of the great truth that there is no God beside Jehovah. The civil and ceremonial laws, however, were an application of the moral law to Israel’s life in the Old Testament. They command and forbid things that were not in themselves sinful or matters of life and death. There is nothing inherently wrong about eating pork, except that in the Old Testament it was forbidden by God. The example has been used of a fish in its watery environment. God’s law for a fish is that it stay in the water. It is a matter of life and death to the fish to “obey” that law. If I try to make the fish truly free by bringing it up onto dry land, the fish dies. So it is with the precepts of the moral law. They are life and death to me. Outside of them are bondage and death; within are liberty and life.

The addition of the civil and ceremonial laws to God’s people in Moses’ day was something like taking that fish out of the lake in which it lived and putting it in an aquarium. Then it is under another law which is much more restrictive, but it is not a matter of life and death, nor something which cannot be changed in the future.

The civil and ceremonial laws, different from the precepts of the moral law, were tools by which God taught Israel the fundamental and unchangeable principles of the moral law, just as a father might use a rule about not riding one’s bicycle on the Lord’s day to teach his children that the Lord’s day is different. There is, of course, nothing wrong in itself about riding a bicycle on the Lord’s day. Indeed, if that is the only way to get to church, it ought to be done, but the rule may nevertheless be useful until such a time as a child learns that the day belongs to the Lord in a special way, at which time the rule should expire.

That the civil and ceremonial laws were used to teach Israel is clear from passages like Leviticus 10:9-11 and 11:45-47, where various civil and ceremonial laws are described as teaching the difference between holy and unholy. They do not stand on the same level as the moral law.

We use the example of parental rules deliberately. In Galatians 4:1-7, the apostle Paul reminds us that the church of the Old Testament (Acts 7:38) was in its childhood and was, therefore, under a kind of bondage to parental rules that were used by God in the same way we make our rules, not all of them matters of sin and righteousness, to teach our children. Through the coming of Christ and His Spirit, Galatians tells us that the church entered its adulthood and now enjoys “the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (Gal. 5:1), liberty from the “bondage” of those Old Testament rules but also the liberty of spiritual maturity, a maturity which has learned the grace of God in Christ and obeys not just for the command’s sake, but out of love and no longer needing the endless rules of childhood.

That principle is applied to us in Galatians 5:1. We must stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and not be entangled again in a yoke of bondage, that is, in bondage to all those Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws. But we must also not confuse liberty with licence (13), as though our freedom in Christ means that we may live as we please without regard for God’s moral law. Freedom is always within the bounds of the moral law, as the example of a fish, used above, reminds us. All this discussion is useless unless we, as New Testament Christians, practise fervently our liberty in Christ, serving God faithfully out of love and gratitude for what the Lord Jesus has done in saving us.

There is one more thing I wish to address: the statement of Belgic Confession 25 that “the truth and substance” of the civil and ceremonial laws remain with us in Jesus Christ. The Confession applies this by saying: “we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to his will.” This needs explanation in the next issue of the News, DV. Rev. Ron Hanko

Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street, Ballymena, BT43 5DR • Lord’s Day services at 11 am & 6 pm
Website: https://cprc.co.uk/ • Live broadcast: cprc.co.uk/live-streaming/
Pastor: Angus Stewart, 7 Lislunnan Road, Kells, N. Ireland, BT42 3NR • (028) 25 891851  
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • www.youtube.com/cprcni • www.facebook.com/CovenantPRC
Read more...

Covenant Reformed News - July 2024

Covenant Reformed News
July 2024 • Volume XX, Issue 3


 

Nehemiah’s Secret Night Ride

The details of Nehemiah’s night ride around the outside of Jerusalem’s perimeter walls in Nehemiah 2 ought to be understood in light of the governor’s appropriate and good desire for secrecy.

What did Nehemiah do in Jerusalem during the first “three days” after his arrival (11)? Doubtless, he rested after his long journey from the east, he got settled into his new accommodation, and he familiarised himself with the city and its people. He also hoped that, with this passage of time, everyone would stop watching him so closely.

In verse 12, Nehemiah writes, “neither told I any man what my God had put in my heart to do at Jerusalem.” People knew that he had been appointed governor over Judah but they did not know that his special task was to rebuild its defensive walls. Nehemiah understood that it was not yet time to tell them about this.

Also in the interests of keeping it quiet, Nehemiah only brought “some few men with” him on his night ride (12), just enough for protection. None of the governor’s associates rode on a (potentially noisy) beast (12). Some suggest that Nehemiah’s animal was a donkey rather than a horse, reckoning that the former is easier to keep quiet.

Probably Nehemiah was staying near the valley gate, where he began and finished his night ride (13, 15). That way he would not have to risk detection by bringing his beast and party through a larger section of the city before and after his night ride.

The governor’s efforts at secrecy were successful. His night ride was not detected. There were no leakers in his small party.

Even after his night ride, Nehemiah did not immediately tell people what he had been up to and what his plans were: “the rulers knew not whither I went, or what I did; neither had I as yet told it to the Jews, nor to the priests, nor to the nobles, nor to the rulers, nor to the rest that did the work” (16). He used this time to think further about what he had seen regarding the walls and to plan the next stage in his programme.

There is an evil, shameful secrecy with wicked deeds being deliberately committed at night, such as robbery and adultery (Job 24:14-17). Nehemiah 2 speaks of a lawful and wise secrecy, not a sinful secrecy, as with duplicity or in a corrupt “cover up.”

Is there anything that Christians can learn from this? Our English word “secrecy” perhaps has too many negative connotations, so it is probably better to think of (a fitting) “confidentiality” or “discretion” (Prov. 1:4; 2:11; 3:21; 5:2).

Here are some general points. Believers and especially church office-bearers need to preserve (proper) confidentiality and not to breach trust through garrulity or indiscretion. There are certain things that particularly ought to be kept from the enemies of Christ (e.g., Josh. 2:1; Judg. 16:16-21). Sometimes there are good things that we do that ought not be trumpeted abroad, including charitable giving, prayer and fasting (Matt. 6:1-18). In some cases when church leaders are looking into matters in order to formulate a godly, biblical response, confidentiality should be preserved in the meantime—such was the case with Nehemiah’s secret night ride! Rev. Stewart

 

The Civil and Ceremonial Laws (1)

Our question for this issue of the News concerns the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws: “Is it true that the Lord Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:17-19 that all the laws of Moses, including the ceremonial and civil laws, are binding and must be ‘fulfilled’ by believers in the New Testament age?”

Generally speaking, the ceremonial laws are those laws of the Old Testament that have to do with Israel’s religious life: the priesthood, the sacrifices, the temple, the feasts, etc. The civil laws are those that have to do with its every-day life: food, clothing, diseases, marriage, work, crime, punishment and Israel’s relations to other nations. The latter are sometimes referred to as “judicial” laws but that term, in the opinion of this writer, is inadequate, since they do not all have to do with judicial matters. Nevertheless, the terms judicial and civil are used more or less interchangeably in the theological literature. The Ten Commandments and all the laws associated with them are usually referred to as God’s moral law.

The question is whether any or all of these laws are still binding on New Testament Christians, as some believe and as Matthew 5:17-19 might seem to teach. Matthew 5:17-19 reads, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Those who are familiar with the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity will know that neither of these groups of Reformed creeds recognize the civil and ceremonial laws as being binding on New Testament believers. In chapter 19, “Of the Law of God,” the Westminster Confession teaches,

3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits (Heb. 9; 10:1; Gal. 4:1-3; Col. 2:17); and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties (I Cor. 5:7; II Cor. 6:17; Jude 23). All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament (Col. 2:14, 16-17; Dan. 9:27; Eph. 2:15-16).
4. To them also, as a body politick, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require (Ex. 21; 22:1-29; Gen. 49:10; I Pet. 2:13-14; Matt. 5:17, 38-39; I Cor. 9:8-10).

Article 25 of the Belgic Confession is entitled, “The Abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.” It makes no distinction between civil and ceremonial laws: “We believe that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished; so that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion. In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets, to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honesty to the glory of God, according to His will.” Both the Reformed and the Presbyterian traditions, therefore, view these laws as non-binding. The Westminster Confession uses the words “abrogated” in relation to the ceremonial laws and the word “expired” in relation to the civil or judicial laws. The Belgic Confession uses the word “abolished,” and refers to these laws as “figures” and “shadows” that have “ceased” and “are accomplished” or fulfilled.

It is not the subject of this article but we believe that Christians are obligated to obey God’s moral law, not as a way of salvation but out of thankfulness for their salvation in Christ: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Jesus cannot be saying of these moral laws, “I am not come to destroy, but to bring them to an end” (cf. Matt. 5:17). He would then be contradicting Himself.

The word “fulfil,” however, is not a good word to use to describe the Christian’s obedience to the law. Matthew 5:17-19 is not talking about Christians fulfilling the law by obeying it but about Christ as the One who fulfils the whole law. Christians cannot fulfil the law. Only Christ could do that, and He did it by a sinless life of perfect obedience and by His sacrificial death on the cross. Fulfilled does not mean, though, that the moral law is abolished and done away as many teach, i.e., that Christians only obey what they call “the law of Christ” but not the Ten Commandments.

The question remains, however, whether Christians are also bound to obey some or all of the civil and ceremonial laws. This issue has been important for quite some time. Those who call themselves “Theonomists” or “Christian Reconstructionists” have been teaching that the civil laws must not only be obeyed by God’s children but must also become the foundation of a Christian postmillennial civil society. Society must be “reconstructed” not only on the basis of God’s moral law but even on the foundation of Old Testament civil law, which remains binding. These laws are to be imposed even on those who do not believe in the Son of God.

Generally, they believe that any law which is not explicitly abrogated in the New Testament is still in effect for Christians. One or another of them will insist that men must have beards, that Christians must not eat pork, that a house with a flat roof must have a parapet around it (Deut. 22:8) and, by extension, a swimming pool must be fenced, and so on and on. They disagree among themselves as to which laws are binding and how they apply to us in the New Testament, and the influence of the movement has declined. But the requirement of Old Testament civil law for the construction of a Christian society and for Christian dominion is still around.

This imposition of the civil laws on Christians and on others as the basis of a reconstructed Christian society is a new legalism insisted on by these modern Judaizers. It is a denial of everything Scripture says about salvation by grace alone.

We follow the teaching of the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession, and believe and teach that the civil and ceremonial laws are not binding on New Testament Christians. As the Belgic Confession says, they have their “completion” in Christ.

In the case of the ceremonial laws, this completion means that Jesus and those who are in Him have become all that those laws required. He is the high priest, the temple or tabernacle, the sacrifice and the altar. His prayers are the incense; His flesh the veil. He is the mercy seat, the budding rod, the manna, the passover lamb, the lamb of atonement and the scapegoat. The rest were only ever shadows and figures that vanished in the presence of the reality: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Col. 2:16-17). To attempt to resurrect these is not only to prefer the shadow to the reality but is to deny Christ’s saving work.

Those ceremonial laws were given, therefore, to point the Old Testament people of God to Jesus. To cling to these things now would be to do what the Pharisees did, when, having rejected and despised the true passover lamb, they went to eat lambs whose blood could not save them from the angel of death and whose flesh was no more than meat between their teeth. The use of these ceremonies “must be abolished amongst Christians” (Belgic Confession 25).

Thus few, outside so-called Messianic Jews and the Hebrew Roots movement, advocate the observance of the ceremonial laws. There have been charges that Rousas J. Rushdoony, the founder of the Christian Reconstruction movement, advocated animal sacrifices but his son, Mark, denies that his father ever taught such a thing. Generally, the focus of the Theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists has been on the civil law as a basis for a Christian civilization. That will be the subject of the next article, DV.

One thing more, however. That the Jews cleaved to things that were only shadows is a reminder to us of how easy it is to cling to observances, rituals and earthly things, and so miss the necessity of believing in Christ Himself. We must always remember Hebrews 10:1: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.” Instead, we must “see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (2:9). Rev. Ron Hanko

Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
83 Clarence Street, Ballymena, BT43 5DR • Lord’s Day services at 11 am & 6 pm
Website: https://cprc.co.uk/ • Live broadcast: cprc.co.uk/live-streaming/
Pastor: Angus Stewart, 7 Lislunnan Road, Kells, N. Ireland, BT42 3NR • (028) 25 891851  
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • www.youtube.com/cprcni • www.facebook.com/CovenantPRC
Read more...
Subscribe to this RSS feed

Contact Details

Denomination

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • Reading Sermon Library
  • Taped Sermon Library

Synodical Officers

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Synodical Committees

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Contact/Missions

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Classical Officers

Classis East
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Classis West
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.