Home » Posts tagged 'holiness' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: holiness

Jehovah’s Mercy is Holy–Chesed to the Chasidim

A core term for Jehovah’s mercy or lovingkindness in the Old Testament is chesed (חֶסֶד).  This crucial term for the mercy Jehovah shows His people appears in texts such as:

 

Gen. 19:19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

 

Ex. 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Ex. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

 

Psa. 13:5 But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.

 

Psa. 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

 

Psa. 26:3 For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.

 

Psa. 118:1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever.

 

and many other texts.

 

The Hebrew chesed, “mercy/loving-kindness/goodness,” is related to the word chasid (חָסִיד), meaning “holy/godly/faithful.” The ultra-orthodox Jews who claim (falsely, unfortunately, as you cannot be holy and reject the Messiah, the Holy One that did not see corruption, but was raised from the realm of sin and death, Psalm 16:10, after His sacrificial death, Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) to be especially holy are called the Chasidim, practicing Hasidic Judaism. This word chasid appears in texts such as:

 

Deut. 33:8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;

1Sam. 2:9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.

2Sam. 22:26 With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright.

 

Mic. 7:2 The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.

Psa. 4:3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.

Psa. 12:1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.

Psa. 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

 

What is the significance of this connection? The man who is the recipient of Jehovah’s chesed–His covenantal mercy and loving-kindness–becomes one who is holy, chasid, and who himself practices chesed, mercy, towards others.  There is no such thing as someone who has received Jehovah’s saving chesed but is not a chasid, a holy man.  Are there degrees of holiness? Certainly. Can believers experience spiritual decays and backslidings? Sadly, yes.  Is there such a thing as one who has received Jehovah’s saving mercy who is not holy–one who has received chesed who is not chasid? No, emphatically not.

 

This fact should encourage those who have received Jehovah’s blessed chesed to pursue holiness in a greater way–it is what God saved you for. He has united you to the resurrected Holy One (Psalm 16:10) and you are judicially holy and certain to grow in practical holiness, practicing chesed yourself, being merciful as your heavenly Father has shown you mercy, since the Holy Spirit sweetly influences your mind, will, and affections.  You have received God’s chesed and have become a chasid.

 

If you are not a holy one, but are still a sinful, unchanged worldling, do not deceive yourself into thinking that you have received Jehovah’s chesed.  All who have received His chesed become chasidim, holy ones.  Mercy and holiness from the holy God of mercy are inextricably joined.

 

Someone who does not understand basic Bible teaching like this is not “apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3) and should learn the basics of Christianity before he has any business in the Christian ministry.

 

TDR

Postmodern “Grace”

The author of Hebrews in 12:15-17 warns:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

C. H. Spurgeon wrote concerning the failing of the grace of God:

Under the means of grace, there are many who do “fall short of the grace of God.” They get something that they think is like grace, but it is not the true grace of God, and they ultimately fall from it, and perish. . . . [I]n church fellowship we ought to be very watchful lest the church as a whole should fail through lack of the true grace of God, and especially lest any root of bitterness springing up among us should trouble us, and thereby many be defiled. We must remember that though we are saved by grace, yet grace does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action. Though salvation depends upon the merits of Christ, yet those who receive those merits receive with them a faith that produces holiness.

Spurgeon explains that this “failing” is “falling short,” and then “falling short” is not getting “the true grace of God” but “something that they think is like grace.”  He says the true grace of God “does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action.”   The placebo for the true grace of God does not produce holiness.

The true grace of God saves us.  Most people want salvation, but they also don’t want the holiness true grace produces.  Hebrews uses Esau as an example.  He allowed his fleshly desire to keep him from true grace, replacing it with something short of it.  God’s grace produces holiness.

Root of Bitterness

Through the years, I’ve read many different opinions about the “root of bitterness.”  In the context, it causes a failing of the grace of God.  Some say that the root of bitterness is an apostate in the church, like Esau, who then brings about further apostasy from others.  Others say that it is sin, which is bitter and defiling.  Rick Renner writes:

“It” pictures a person who is continually troubled, harassed, and annoyed by thoughts of how someone else wronged him. The offended person is now so troubled that he is almost emotionally immobilized. Instead of moving on in life, he gets stuck in the muck of that experience, where he wallows day after day in the memories of what happened to him. If that person doesn’t quickly get a grip on himself, he will eventually fulfill the next part of the verse.

Tozer explained it the same way:

The sad and depressing bitter soul will compile a list of slights at which it takes offense and will watch over itself like a mother bear over her cubs. And the figure is apt, for the resentful heart is always surly and suspicious like a she-bear!

Perhaps the preceding verse, verse 14, gives a clue:

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

Esau lacked peace between he and his father, Isaac, and his brother, Jacob.  So many especially today allow the slights, real and otherwise, and even actual sins against them to keep them from the grace of God.  They also often use these temporal affronts to justify their lusts, incongruous with the true grace of God.  It ultimately reflects on their view of God and His goodness to them.

Postmodern Grace

Spurgeon assessed failing of true grace comes by replacing it with something short of the grace of God.  I’m titling what I believe is the most common contemporary replacement for true grace, “postmodern grace” (Jesus Loves Me with postmodern lyrics).  It isn’t the grace of God, because it is short of the grace of God.

Postmodern truth is your truth.  Postmodern grace is your grace.  It doesn’t follow peace, because it allows a grudge and resentment to keep it from that.  It doesn’t follow holiness, because it sells holiness for temporal, carnal appetites, like the morsel of Esau.  Adherents though count this as the grace of God.  They remain bitter with those who reject their failing of the grace of God.  The bitterness fuels further rejection of true grace, accompanied, like Esau, by tears of grudge-filled resentment.

Postmodern grace isn’t about pleasing God, but about pleasing self.  Postmodern grace self-identifies as grace, which is in fact moral relativism.  It doesn’t follow after holiness, but after its own lust.

Is the Trinity Practical? by Ryan McGraw

Some time ago I reviewed on this blog Ryan McGraw’s fine book Knowing the Trinity: Practical Thoughts for Daily Life.

I recommend the book highly; too many Christians think that the Trinity is just a doctrine that one holds that has no impact on his life, when, in fact, the Trinity is at the heart of all of the believer’s relationship with God and is thus at the core of the Christian’s new birth, sanctification, glorification, and eternal heavenly fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If Dr. McGraw’s book (easy to read and not especially long) book is more than one wants to read, however, he has also written a short and helpful pamphlet called “Is the Trinity Practical?” which one can read quickly in just a few minutes, and which distills the truth in his longer book (which itself was a distillation of John Owen’s Christian classic Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a great treasure which I discuss in my Trinitarianism class here for several lectures.)

I purchased a number of copies of “Is the Trinity Practical?” to share with others.  While the links in this post are to Amazon as Amazon affiliate links (if you get things on Amazon, please consider using Amazon Smile as discussed here), where you can also see what other people have thought of the book in the relevant book review section at Amazon, the cheapest place that I found to get copies of McGraw’s pamphlet, at least as of writing this post, was with Reformation Heritage Books, which, at the time of my writing this, had a nice sale on McGraw’s pamphlet.

I believe McGraw’s pamphlet could be very helpful for practically all church members.  Perhaps you should consider getting some copies and sharing them with others in your congregation?  The only warning I would make is that as an orthodox Presbyterian with Puritan leanings McGraw uses the word “sacrament” a few times instead of the better Biblical term “ordinance.” for baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  But his Trinitarianism is completely orthodox, and other than the word “sacrament” there is nothing that points to Presbyterian ecclesiology in his pamphlet.  Dr. McGraw is to be commended for summarizing in short compass what far too many who have even graduated from Bible colleges do not know in our theologically loose day–that the Trinity is central to everything in the Christian life, and is therefore most eminently practical.

TDR

 

Why is the third Person in the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?

Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?

 

After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person.  So what is the distinction?

 

Also, the Father is the “holy Father” (John 17:11), and the Son is the “Holy One” (Acts 3:14).  The Holy Spirit is not in a higher degree morally pure or righteous than the Father or the Son–Father, Son, and Spirit are all infinitely righteous, possessing equal, immeasurable, infinite holiness.

 

So why “the Holy Spirit”?

 

What do you think?

 

It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3).  So why “the Holy Spirit”?

 

Lord willing, I’ll tell you what I think next Friday in my post then.  But you can share your thoughts now in the comment section.

 

Here’s a clue–why is the “Father” the “Father” and the “Son” the “Son”?

By the way, for a simple overview of the Biblical teaching on the Trinity, see Bible study #2 here; for something with more depth, see the college class here.

 

TDR

Are Christian Ministers “Reverend”?

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox religious organizations call their priests “reverend,” or “reverend Fathers.” So do the large majority of Protestants, and a surprising number of Baptists, even fundamental, independent Baptists. Are Catholic priests “reverend”? How about Christian ministers–are they the “Reverend John Doe” and the like?

 

There is only one verse in the King James Bible where the word “reverend” appears:

 

Psa. 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

 

In this passage Jehovah’s name is “holy and reverend,” because He is the Almighty Redeemer, who in faithfulness to His holy covenant promises, redeems His people by His power, chooses and sets them apart to Himself, and makes them like Himself, until He brings them to eternally be with Him in His holy presence.  Truly, Jehovah’s name is holy and reverend!

 

Psalm 111:9 holy reverend

 

But “Rev. Mr. Jones” does not do any of that. Mr. Jones does not have an infinitely holy name or character; Mr. Jones does not redeem God’s people by an almighty arm and by the blood of Jesus Christ. Simply looking at the English word, one would conclude that a minister calling himself “Rev.” is a form of blasphemy, taking the honor due to Jehovah’s name alone.

 

What about the Hebrew translated “reverend” in Psalm 111:9? The form is the Niphal (generally passive) participle of the verb “to fear,” nôrāʾ, hence, “to be feared.”  Jehovah’s name is “to be feared” and it is holy.

 

The Niphal participle appears in 34 verses in the Old Testament.  Significant examples include:

 

Ex. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

Deut. 7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.

Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;

Mal. 1:14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.

Psa. 47:2 For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.
Psa. 66:3 Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.
Psa. 66:5 Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.
Psa. 68:35 O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.
Psa. 76:7 Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry?
Psa. 76:12 He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.
Psa. 89:7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
Psa. 96:4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
Psa. 99:3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.

Job 37:22 Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.
Dan. 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
Neh. 1:5 And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
Neh. 4:14 And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.

Neh. 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.
1Chr. 16:25 For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods.

 

The strong majority of uses refers to Jehovah as the One who is to be feared / reverenced.  An examination of the complete list of texts (Gen. 28:17; Ex. 15:11; 34:10; Deut. 1:19; 7:21; 8:15; 10:17; 28:58; Judg. 13:6; Is. 18:2, 7; Ezek. 1:22; Joel 2:11; 3:4; Hab. 1:7; Zeph. 2:11; Mal. 1:14; 3:23; Psa. 47:3; 66:3, 5; 68:36; 76:8, 13; 89:8; 96:4; 99:3; 111:9; Job 37:22; Dan. 9:4; Neh. 1:5; 4:8; 9:32; 1 Chr. 16:25; note that the Hebrew versification is sometime slightly different than the English) reveals not a solitary text where a godly person, or a priest, or a minister, or anyone of the sort is called “reverend.”

 

Jehovah is reverend.  If you are a Christian minister, you are not reverend.

 

What about a Catholic priest? There are a small number of texts where “to be feared” or “terrible” has the sense of desolate judgment. Thus, in Habakkuk 1:7 the evil, pagan Babylonians, who come to lay waste, kill, and destroy the Lord’s people, are called “terrible” (Hab 1:7).  Likewise, a desolate, life-destroying desert is called a “terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water” (Deut 8:15).  So Catholic priests, as representatives of their pagan and Satanic false religion, in the sense that they are pagan, evil, destroyers of God’s people, are “reverend” in the sense that they are actually terrible, are life-destroying like a desolate desert full of serpents and scorpions, and are soul-murderers the way that the pagan Babylonians were “terrible.” After all, the pagan Baylonians are their ancestors as they are part of that great harlot sitting on many waters, the future one-world religion centered in Rome, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth (Revelation 17).

Woman Rides Beast Revelation 17

 

So let Catholic priests call themselves “reverend” or “terrible” if they wish–it is true, albeit not in the way that they intend, but in the same sort of way as when the Pope calls himself “vicar of Christ” he employs a title equivalent in Greek to “anti-Christ” (Latin vicarius = Greek anti).

 

So if you are a Baptist or a Protestant who claims to fear the true God, don’t call yourself reverend.  In the good sense, it is true for the one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, alone–He alone is holy and reverend.  In the bad sense, of something genuinely terrible and destructive, it is true of pagan murderers of God’s people, and so, in that sense, an appropriate title for a Roman Catholic priest or of other servants of religions that are drunk “with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6).  You are unworthy of “reverend” in the good sense, and I rather think you don’t want to be called “reverend” or “terrible” in the bad sense.

 

So Jehovah is “reverend”–Hallelujah–and Catholic priests are “terrible/reverend”–to their everlasting shame.  If you preach the true gospel and are a servant of Christ, you are emphatically not “reverend.”  So stop calling yourself or others “Rev.”  The title is either blasphemy, if intended as a compliment, or a statement that they are pagan enemies of God, in the bad sense.

 

Spurgeon well commented on Psalm 111:9:

 

“He sent redemption unto his people.” When they were in Egypt he sent not only a deliverer, but an actual deliverance; not only a redeemer, but complete redemption. He has done the like spiritually for all his people, having first by blood purchased them out of the hand of the enemy, and then by power rescued them from the bondage of their sins. Redemption we can sing of as an accomplished act: it has been wrought for us, sent to us, and enjoyed by us, and we are in very deed the Lord’s redeemed. “He hath commanded his covenant for ever.” His divine decree has made the covenant of his grace a settled and eternal institution: redemption by blood proves that the covenant cannot be altered, for it ratifies and establishes it beyond all recall. This, too, is reason for the loudest praise. Redemption is a fit theme for the heartiest music, and when it is seen to be connected with gracious engagements from which the Lord’s truth cannot swerve, it becomes a subject fitted to arouse the soul to an ecstacy of gratitude. Redemption and the covenant are enough to make the tongue of the dumb sing. “Holy and reverend is his name.” Well may he say this. The whole name or character of God is worthy of profoundest awe, for it is perfect and complete, whole or holy. It ought not to be spoken without solemn thought, and never heard without profound homage. His name is to be trembled at, it is something terrible; even those who know him best rejoice with trembling before him. How good men can endure to be called “reverend” we know not. Being unable to discover any reason why our fellow-men should reverence us, we half suspect that in other men there is not very much which can entitle them to be called reverend, very reverend, right reverend, and so on … we would urge that the foolish custom should be allowed to fall into disuse.

C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 111-119, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 4.

 

TDR

They Did Not Drive Out the Inhabitants of and from the Land

The idea of driving out anybody from almost anywhere is not acceptable in a woke world or does not work according to political correctness, the latter a softer, earlier iteration of wokeness.  The act of driving out inhabitants from the land is a major theme, however, of the Old Testament.  Israel is in bad shape at the beginning of Judges and a major, if not the major, reason is that the various tribes of Israel did not drive out the inhabitants of the land from the land.  You could add, “and keep them out.”

A prerequisite for Israel from God was to drive out the inhabitants of the land God would give them.  In fact, God would drive the inhabitants and He would use Israel to do it.  It wasn’t really even their driving out the inhabitants, but God using them to do it.

It was God’s will to drive out the various Canaanities.

Exodus 23:28, And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.

Exodus 33:2, And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

Exodus 34:11, Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Numbers 32:21, And will go all of you armed over Jordan before the LORD, until he hath driven out his enemies from before him,

Numbers 33:52, Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

Deuteronomy 4:38, To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.

Deuteronomy 11:23, Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.

Joshua 3:10, And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

Joshua 13:6, All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee.

Joshua 17:12, Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.

Joshua 17:18, But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine:: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.

1 Chronicles 17:21, And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?

If they did not drive them out, this was not good — very bad.

Numbers 33:55, But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Joshua 23:13, Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

This is still a general principle for the success of any people.  The general principle is separate from people, their culture, or their way of life.  Try to reach them and if they do not listen or won’t follow the scriptural way, separate from them.  They won’t like this, but this is the only way to preserve a godly people and culture in order to please God.  It is holiness, which is primary to the nature of God.

In the early history of Israel, one of Abraham’s family settled in Sodom and Gomorrah, and that ruined his family.  God of course destroyed those cities with fire and brimstone.  Just the opposite of driving out people is to join with them.  Psalm 1:1, obviously the first verse of the entire Psalter, says,

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Israel failed when they did not drive out the people from the land.  They disobeyed God in not doing this.

Judges 1:19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. 21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns:: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. 28 And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. 29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and of Bethanath became tributaries unto them.

This whole first chapter is about either destroying these inhabitants or not driving them out.  The first good and the latter bad.  Mixing with people, intermingling with them, or coexisting with them is not the will of God.  The rest of Judges testifies to the failure of not driving out or not separating.  They effect the people until they become more and more like the inhabitants.

The New Testament is the same.  You evangelize the lost.  If they won’t listen, you separate from them, especially those who call themselves brothers (1 Cor 5:11).

This principle of driving out inhabitants or separation is crucial to the preservation and practice of truth.  It’s in every New Testament book.  It is a principle that not only protects an individual, family, and church, but it also is crucial for a nation, like Israel.

This above principle applies to the United States, which relates to borders and immigration.  If there is an American way, it won’t be preserved without some form of separation to keep out those who won’t think the same way.  I’m afraid that ship has sailed or that practice won’t be able to be put back into the bottle.

Other nations might need to think about separating from the United States.  Even though the Taliban is godless and pagan, they have a way of life they are protecting by ejecting the United States.  They don’t want American culture to infiltrate their very specific view of the world.  They know that can’t happen without separation.

As an example of what God said and the implementation of this principle, I noticed today that European nations were considering a policy for Americans visiting there to stop the spread of Covid.  Quarantine is an extreme form of separation to stop disease from spreading.  It is the same principle.  People judge Covid to be dangerous.  They don’t want it.  A bubble, like the NBA bubble in 2020, was deemed necessary to continue the season.

The continuation of true doctrine and practice necessitates some kind of bubble.  Young people or a youth culture in general don’t want a bubble.  They want outside of it.  They want amalgamation, integration, and association.  They very often want to be like everyone else and be accepted by them.  It is a fools errand on their part, because it won’t end in acceptance.  It doesn’t work that way.  The cancel culture shows this.  However, it will result in their not being right with God, the most important consideration any of them should ever have.

Profane

Reading through the Bible for my second time this year, I arrived at Leviticus again and the word “profane” stood out to me.  It is found 26 times in the Old Testament of the King James Version and seven in the New.  Fifteen of those total times are in Leviticus.

In eighteenth century English dictionaries, to profane something is to violate something sacred.  The Universal English Dictionary in 1706 defines “profane”:

Ungodly, unholy, irreligious, wicked; unhallowed, common, ordinary:  It is often opposed to sacred.

The Hebrew word, translated “profane,” also many times means and is translated “to bore or to pierce.”  Something is added that is not natural to a thing when it is pierced.  It is violated.  I like to use the analogy of a dirty dish placed with the clean dishes.

Here are the fifteen usages of the English word “profane” in Leviticus, all found in five of the chapters.

Leviticus 18:21, And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:12, And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 20:3, And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

Leviticus 21:4, But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.

6, They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.

7, They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

9, And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

12, Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.

14, A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

15, Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

Leviticus 22:2, Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD.

9, They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them.

15, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD.

32, Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you.

Profane, you can see, is an adjective, noun, or verb.  As a verb, the Hebrew word (chalal) means, “to be commonly used.”  The Hebrew word is also translated in the King James Version, “pollute” (Numbers 18:32).  An understanding of “profane” must be taken in contrast to sacred, hallowed, or holy.

Something sacred is kept separate, not mixed with the common.  By mixing it with the common, it is profaned or becomes profane, which is the opposite of holy.  By adding something common to something sacred, the sacred is profaned.  It is no longer hallowed or kept separate.  The common is something not sacred, so it is of a different nature than the sacred or the holy.  For something to remain holy, it must be kept distinct, and a difference must be kept between the holy and the profane in order to keep sanctified that what is holy.  This is especially in important in worship and Leviticus is a guidebook for worship.

To keep something hallowed that is sacred, one must understand it’s nature.  What makes it holy?  What is this act, thing, or person in its essence?  Then only something of that essence or of the same kind can be associated with it, brought into contact with it, or linked with it or correlated to it.  It’s worth reading all the usages above from Leviticus.

The first usage in Leviticus of “profane” reads, “neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.”  It does not explain what that is.  It assumes the reader knows what that is.

“The name of God” is who God is.   It’s what characterizes Him in His Person and Work.  To profane His name is to associate or correlate with Him something that is contrary to His nature.  It disrespects Him.  It dishonors Him. It mischaracterizes Him, and this is very serious to do to God, so God adds, “I am the LORD.”  John Gill writes about this:  “I [am] the Lord; who would avenge such a profanation of his name.”  God isn’t going to allow someone to keep profaning His name.

I’m going to select a few of the above examples to give the sense or understanding of “profane.”  Leviticus 21:12 says, “Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God.”  To profane the sanctuary is to make it common.  It’s a sacred place and it is treated as a common place, not unique to God.  This is not just profaning God, but profaning God’s sanctuary, something closely associated with God.

Leviticus 22:1-2 say,

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD.

Those who had become common and, therefore, not holy, were not qualified to offer holy sacrifices.  God would be profaned by the unholy offering the holy.   The person himself could profane God and the worship of God and the thing offered could be profaned so as to profane God and the worship of Him.  Common things, which are unholy, are to be kept out of worship.  They may not even be evil — they’re just common.  Something is made common when it is not treated in a unique or sacred manner, but is treated like everything else.

How people understand God in their imagination comes in a major way through association.  Not only does God take offense at it, because it disrespects Him, but it also gives people as much as anything a wrong view of God.  Someone will have a lesser view of God, a diminished understanding of Him, and that will affect a person’s life.  He may not believe in the true God or live in accordance with the true God.

As much as anything today as an application of profane is the mixture in worship in the contemporary churches what is common with what it holy.  Professing churches give God profane worship and they profane God.  They give Him something worldly, lustful, and distorted so as to blaspheme God.  The people then become like their worship.  They themselves are profane and this just results in even further profanity of God and of their lives.  The world doesn’t know God because of the correlation of the common or the profane with God in professing churches.  The people of these professing churches are made common and profane as they blaspheme God with their profanity.

The Command to Worship the LORD in the Beauty of Holiness

Without doubt, scripture teaches that worship of God must be regulated by what God says.  The point of this post comes from Psalm 29:2

Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

I’ve seen this verse many times.  Many.  Yet, something occurred to me when I read it in my Bible reading this year that really struck me.  Since true worship of God is regulated by scripture, then worship should be regulated especially by this verse.  There are not many verses as stark as this one on worship of the LORD.  The teaching is also repeated three times.  It’s not a stand alone.

1 Chronicles 16:29, “Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.”
Psalm 96:9, “O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.”
I’ve written many times on the regulative principle of worship.  Scripture shows exclusively and through numerous examples that worship must be regulated by God’s Word.  Silence is not permission.  In this case, scripture says something.I’ve also written a lot about beauty.  It is among the topics or doctrines about which I’ve written the most (it is under “B” in my index).  I’ve also written about it recently in a three part series on the throne room of God (part onepart twopart three).  I’ve mainly written about beauty as one of the transcendentals, especially related to apostasy.  I don’t take any of that back, but in this case, I want to talk about how “beauty” relates to the regulation of worship according to this verse and the others like it.One point that caught my attention when reading Psalm 29 in my trip through psalms is the command.  It’s not just what scripture teaches on worship.  This is a commanded aspect of worship.  How many of those are there?  “Worship” as a verb is imperative.  It’s not that worship itself is imperative, which it is — “worship the LORD.”  Everyone knows that’s an imperative.  The imperative is that the LORD is worshiped in the beauty of holiness.  “The beauty of holiness” is a requirement in acceptable worship.I want to reiterate this point.  God does not accept worship that is not in the beauty of holiness.  He rejects it.  This is part of the regulative principle, but it’s more than that.  All worship must be in the beauty of holiness.  If not, it isn’t worship.  If what someone calls “worship” is not in the beauty of holiness, then it isn’t worship.Almost all evangelical and now even fundamentalist worship is not in the beauty of holiness.  Evangelicals and fundamentalists as a whole are not worshiping God.  I know that means that they are doing something else, worshiping themselves, and that sounds tough or seemingly impossible, but it is true.  They are disobeying this command and, therefore, offering God something that is against His nature.  It is more than this, which brings me to the second point that caught my attention.A second point is that beauty is assumed in the verse.  It is implied that the reader knows what beauty of holiness is.  It is obvious.  It cannot be obeyed if it cannot be understood.  A modern audience most of the time does not understand the beauty of holiness.  It is a completely foreign concept.  Yet, everyone is still required to worship God in the beauty of holiness.  This is an ignored requirement.  God commands it, and the apparent worshipers say, “Meh. Nope.  Gonna do what I want instead.”It’s not just what I’ve written so far. The so-called worshipers today don’t want to be critiqued for not worshiping God in the beauty of holiness.  They are angry if you do.  They want to treat it as not being able to be understood, a tertiary matter.  Even though beauty of holiness is non-optional, it is rejected by evangelicals and most fundamentalists.  One could say that the one thing required is the one thing the most offensive to evangelical and fundamentalist sensibility.  It must not be a part of their worship.  What is this all about?The main apostasy of the age in which we live is that the things of God are conformed to the world.  They must be accepted.  Evangelical and fundamentalists success, which amounts to getting bigger and having bigger budgets or at least translating into tangible results, even if they are fraudulent, requires elimination of beauty of holiness.  It has to at least be redefined and dumbed down until it isn’t even what it is.  This is all to be conformed to man, to his lust, which is what makes these churches popular.  Of course, it all leads to or just is false worship.  Their people don’t have the same God in their imaginations. That’s been ruined by their unwillingness to conform to what scripture says.There are many of these in scripture, but “beauty” is self-evident.  We already know it.  If we don’t know it, it’s not a knowledge problem, but a rebellion one.  The rebellion proceeds out of lust.  Beauty though is something that men can know like they can know what “corrupt communication” is and what “the attire of a harlot” is.  Ignorance is not a legitimate excuse.  It won’t be accepted by God.Since worship must be in the beauty of his holiness, then beauty is objective.  It can’t be subjective. That would be to command, worship the LORD in the whatever you want beauty of holiness to be.  People don’t want to be judged on beauty, because they want their own taste.You’re going to spend eternity somewhere, and that relates to what God knows about what you’re doing.  You should think seriously about whether He will be pleased.  Nothing that “you like” will be in God’s kingdom or in the eternal state, and that’s what you want to highlight in this life — what’s going to be in the next.  If you don’t care, then you should check whether you will be there or not, or whether the actual God of the Bible is your God.When readers see the title of this post, I suggest most just move on.  They don’t care.  They want something “practical.”  There is nothing more practical than God being worshiped.  If that is not your practice, you are not pleasing God, the whole purpose of your existence.  This is not a “controversial issue.”  People have already moved on.  They just smirk and say, “He’s one of those.”  Pause a moment.  If you don’t obey this command, you are not worshiping God.  That means you are not a “true worshiper of God” (John 4:23-24).Okay, so you may ask, “What is the beauty of holiness”?  “Holiness” is the perfections of God’s nature.  Beauty corresponds to or parallels with the manifestation or revelation of the character of God.  Much has been written on this through the centuries to the point where the church has agreed what this is.  Just because modernism and post-modernism has left it and even rejected it doesn’t mean that it isn’t still true.  Beauty is in accordance with the nature of God.  It cannot clash with who He is, and 90 to 100 percent of evangelical and fundamentalist worship does.Evangelical worship is ugly.  It is worldly.  It is carnal.  That’s what evangelicals like about their worship.  They disobey this command:  worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.  They are not worshiping the LORD.

Sanctification Summary: Christian Holiness or Sanctification—A Summary from Eternity Past to the Eternal State

 During the recent Word of Truth Conference at Bethel Baptist Church, I had the privilege of preaching a summary of what Scripture teaches on sanctification. It was suggested that this summary be made into a pamphlet.  You can now download the pamphlet on the FaithSaves website by clicking here; it is entitled “Christian Sanctification: A Summary from Eternity Past to the Eternal State.” The video is also live at FaithSaves; it can also be watched on YouTube by clicking here; if it is a blessing, I would encourage you to “like” it on YouTube and leave a comment. I have also embedded the video below for your viewing edification.

May it be a blessing to you, and with those with whom you can share it who want to understand what Scripture teaches about sanctification.

TDR

“Holy” Is Not Related to “Wholly”

Calvary Chapels multiplied here in the Rogue River Watershed beginning in the late 1970s, especially beginning with Applegate Christian Fellowship and Jon Courson, which is the largest congregation in all of Southern Oregon.   This was an outgrowth of the first Calvary Chapel started in Southern California in 1965 with Chuck Smith, proceeding from the Jesus Movement.  Very large other Calvary Chapels have divided off of Applegate here, one called Mountain Church in Medford.  They all have the “Jesus Movement” quality, which was an outlier in the history of Christianity, producing something syncretistic with the culture of the world at a much higher degree than had ever been seen.

Applegate has its own radio station, which plays non-stop here. When I jump in my car, I often turn it on, and almost always someone is teaching from somewhere in the Bible.  The teachers on the station are almost exclusively Courson, either the dad, Jon, or one of this two sons, Ben and Peter-John, the latter who died in 2019, but his replays continue.
Until I moved up here to Oregon, I knew of Calvary Chapel, but I had not been around it.  I did not know really what distinguished it.  Southern Oregon though has been heavily impacted by Calvary Chapel and I think it is the greatest religious influence in the area where we are evangelizing and starting a church.  Jon Courson left Oregon for a short while around 2002 to help Chuck Smith in the founding Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California, but came back around 2006 and has been here ever since.
With that introduction, coming home last night at about 5:30pm after evangelizing and passing out gospel tracts in town, I turned on KAPL, the Applegate station, and Jon Courson was teaching from Revelation 4.  When I listen, I’m not doing so with the idea that I want to find something wrong with teaching on that station.  Just the opposite, I know when I turn it on, someone is going to be teaching from the Bible.  I would rather listen to something from the Bible.  I would like it to be good.  Very often I agree.  However, I’m starting to get what the Calvary Chapel doctrine is.
Calvary Chapel doctrine is easy believism.  It is second blessing or keswick sanctification.  It is revivalistic.  It is mystical.  It is overtly positive to a fault, going out of the way so that people won’t feel guilty.  It is what I’ve heard termed (and used myself), cheap grace.  It is very often allegorical and especially in the Old Testament, seeing things in passages that are not there.  For all the time I’ve been listening, I don’t hear a true gospel.  They believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ, but it is mostly a less than saving faith preached.  I don’t hear repentance.  I’m sure they use the term when they get to those passages, but I still had not heard it after hours hearing it in the car.
I think people have been saved at Applegate, but it is so weak that it will give most people the false impression they’re saved, when they’re not.  It changes the nature of Christianity and a true imagination of God.  The doctrine produces worldly people, who call themselves Christians.  They use worldly music and mainly rock.  The sermons are not expository.  They are verse by verse, but they are not finding the point of the text and preaching the text then in its context, which is what expository preaching will do.
What I heard last night is just an example — understand that I’m writing here based on memory of what I was hearing.  Courson was commenting on “holy, holy, holy,” spoken by the angels to God.  He said that the word “holy” relates to “whole” or “wholeness,” related to sound, healthy, or complete.  That make sense to a hearer, because the word “holy” sounds like the word “wholly” (actually exactly like it).
Saying that’s what holy meant, “whole,” then he took off on some related passages, including worshiping God in the beauty of his holiness.  He said that holiness is lovely, that it is attractive to people, because there is a wholeness of completeness to it, as if someone has it all together.  Obviously, if someone gets the meaning of “holy” wrong, that will greatly influence the understanding of Revelation 4, God Himself, the gospel, and the entire Bible.
“Holy” does not mean “whole.”  At best, you get out a book of English etymology and you can find a related Old Scottish word, hale, which means “health, happiness, and wholeness.”  That’s not how you understand the meaning of a biblical word.  Both the Hebrew (qadosh) and Greek (hagios) words translated into the English, “holy,” in the King James Version mean “separate” or “sanctified.”  God’s holiness is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean that it is attractive to an ungodly or unsaved person; just the opposite according to Jesus.  He said men are turned away the light of God, that they hate it and love darkness instead.  Believers should worship God in the beauty of His holiness, because that is God’s standard of beauty.
Beauty to Applegate is what is “whole,” which is attractive to people.  Their “worship” is “attractive,” so it must be “beautiful.”  Actually, beauty is subjective to Applegate.  It isn’t based upon God’s holiness.  God’s holiness isn’t sensual, worldly, and fleshly, among other traits we know God doesn’t like and do not correspond to His nature.
Here’s how Courson explained what was happening then with the angels incessantly proclaiming, “holy, holy, holy,” in the presence of God.  I’m not making this up.  He said that the angels would be considering going back home for the night, but when they look at God, they are so overwhelmed with Him that it produces an ecstatic state, so that out of that impression, they bow down before Him.  They are just blown away by God and then they proceed to get up again to leave, see God again, and are affected again by seeing Him, so that they proclaim, “holy, holy, holy,” again.  They just keep doing this and then just never stop.  I’m not misrepresenting what he said.
Courson said these angels were not automatrons, like, he said, the characters on the Disney ride, Pirates of the Carribean, who just keep singing their refrain in a loop.  He tried to sing “holy, holy, holy” to the tune of the Disney ride.  He said, No, these angels are of greater intelligence then humans, so they are speaking out, “holy, holy, holy,” because of the effects of their seeing God.  Is that what you think?
Here’s a simpler explanation without reading into Revelation 4 this idea that the angels in heaven would go home for the night, but His wholeness is too inspiring to leave.  God created certain angels with the express purpose of praising Him like they do in the heavenly holy of holies.  I don’t doubt their intelligence, but I don’t think they are just blown away by the “wholeness” of God, that He’s just got it all together so much, that they can’t help but stay forever, continuing to say exactly the same thing.  They are fulfilling their duty out of fear of God, which is why they cover their face and feet with separate sets of wings.
“Wholeness” is an easy vessel in which to pour all sorts of ideas, especially for new age teaching.  It helps with cheap grace.  When God commands, “Be ye holy,” like in Leviticus and then 1 Peter, He then doesn’t mean, “be separate,” or distinct, in accordance with the character of God, but that someone has his life all together, whole, happy, and attractive.   People don’t like separation.  God’s holiness is a uniqueness of God, His majesty, the glories of the perfection of His attributes, but they are all maintained by His keeping separate from everything.  Nothing about God then is common or profane. The world will be blown away by this person, who is holy, because his life is so complete, thinking that it is beautiful.  To be holy, he could work on self-care and wellness, to present himself as an attractive person.  This is deceit about the holiness of God.  How could someone sincerely think this, I don’t know.
Another ride in the car two days before, I had KAPL on again, and someone not a Courson was teaching on Acts 10 and 11, and the entire time he was parking on Acts 10:15 (and 11:9):  “And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”  His exclusive point was the someone who believes in Jesus is not common, whether he’s even not doing what God doesn’t want him to do, since all of us still sin.  I bring this in, because it is related.  When someone isn’t living a righteous life, he is common (or profane).  He isn’t holy.    Sure, if he’s truly saved, he’s positionally holy, but not to sin, and if he is sinning, he is common and profane.
The passage was unrelated to the point this teacher was making.  The truth is that people are not unclean or common just because they are Gentiles or just because they don’t follow the dietary restrictions.  However, it doesn’t mean that people who are actually sinning are not common.  They are.  God doesn’t want believers living in a common or profane manner.  This is just another issue of personal holiness that is twisted that results in a different, unbiblical version of Christianity being presented, and again related to the holiness of God.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives