3

LEAVEN AND PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION

And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD. . . . It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. 3:1, 17).

And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning (Lev. 7:11-15).

The theocentric focus of these judicially unified passages is the presence of a state of war between God and fallen man. Man must seek peace on God's terms. God does not seek peace on man's terms. There are the terms of peace: unconditional surrender.⁽¹⁾ The question is: Must man surrender unconditionally to God, or must God surrender unconditionally to man? The irreconcilable conflicting answers to this question constitute the essence of the war between Christianity and humanism.

The Mosaic sacrificial system testified to the possibility of peace. The peace offering was the third of the five Levitical sacrifices. It corresponded to point three of the biblical covenant model because it dealt with boundaries: the boundary separating God from man. In Mosaic Israel, this boundary principle applied above all to the temple-tabernacle.

The goal of this sacrifice was peace with God: a goal for all seasons. When an Israelite sought to establish special peace with God, he brought a sacrificial animal to the priest. This offering had to be blemish-free, as was the case in the other offerings. The blemish-free animal was the mark of the best a man could offer God. As we shall see, this is also why leaven had to accompany the peace offering. But the offering had to include unleavened bread as well. This mixture of leaven and unleaven creates a problem for the commentator. What did each of these offerings symbolize? They seem contradictory, yet both were required in the same offering. Why? To answer, we need to understand the special nature of this sacrifice.

 

The Peace Offering

The peace offering was not tied to a vow or an oath. We know this because the Israelite was not allowed to eat this sacrifice over a period of two days (Lev. 7:15), unlike a votive (vow) offering, which could lawfully be eaten the second day (Lev. 7:16). An unclean person who ate the peace offering had to be excommunicated: cut off from the people (Lev. 7:20), i.e., the creation of a new boundary. This sacrifice, more than the other four, involved boundaries (point three): lawful and unlawful crossing into God's presence.

The peace offering was the third of the five Levitical sacrifices. It corresponded to point three of the biblical covenant model because it dealt with boundaries: the boundary separating God from man. In Mosaic Israel, this boundary principle applied above all to the temple-tabernacle.

This sacrifice is designated by the Hebrew word transliterated zehbakh. Milgrom says that this word always means "slain offering whose meat is eaten by the worshipper." He cites as particularly revealing Jeremiah 7:21: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices [zehbakh], and eat flesh."⁽²⁾ I conclude that the common person could eat part of this offering because of the laws governing uncleanness. The law stated that an unclean person could not lawfully eat this sacrifice (Lev. 7:20-21). But this law of uncleanness always applied to priests. If this law applied only to priests, there was no need to mention this requirement. By singling out the possibility that a clean person could enter the sacrifice (priestly) area, this law identified this sacrifice as a shared meal in which the common offerer could participate. This sacrifice was unique among the five in that it allowed a common Israelite or circumcised resident alien to eat a ritual meal in the presence of God.

The view that this sacrifice was a shared meal is conventional.⁽³⁾ This sacrifice was, in the words of Rabbi Hirsch, "a meal to be eaten in company with others; . . ."⁽⁴⁾ He referred to the sacrificer's desire of "getting nearer to God on account of the necessity to raise the standard of the holiness of one's activities. . . . [T]o enjoy this life on earth in the Presence of God is the highest service of God."⁽⁵⁾ The basis of this access to God, this "eternal bridge up to God," as Hirsch put it, is joy, not trouble.⁽⁶⁾

The priest collected part of this offering for his own use (Lev. 7:14). This indicates, though does not prove, that the priest ate the meal with the sacrificer and his family and friends.

Where was it eaten? Milgrom argues that it was eaten inside the sanctuary's boundaries. He refers to the sacrifice of the Shilonite sanctuary: "And the priest's custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice [zehbakh], the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; And he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither" (II Sam. 2:13-14). This sacrifice was a zehbakh: a shared meal. The offerer's sacrifice was boiled on the sanctuary premises. There were probably special halls for eating the sacrificial meal, he concludes (I Sam. 9:22; Jer. 35:2). This is why there were rules governing the offerer's uncleanness, he says.⁽⁷⁾

Neither Blood Nor Fat

One boundary involved the sacrificed animals. The Israelites were not allowed to eat fat or blood during this sacrifice. Unlike the prohibition against fat, the prohibition against drinking blood was universal: "Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people" (Lev. 7:27). Life is associated with blood (Gen. 9:4). "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh" (Deut. 12:23). In many pagan religions, drinking blood ritually is an affirmation of the continuity associated with a blood covenant.⁽⁸⁾ The drinker signifies his faith that the life, spirit, and power of the slain person or beast is transferred to him through the blood. Quite frequently, blood-drinking is associated with demonic possession.⁽⁹⁾ This Old Covenant prohibition exists in the New Covenant (Acts 15:29). Another ritual of covenantal blood-drinking is required, however: the drinking of symbolic blood (wine) in the communion meal.⁽¹⁰⁾

The prohibition against eating fat was not universal; it applied only during ritual sacrifices. In this shared ritual meal, fat was reserved to God because it was the most desirable portion. In their private feasting, Israelites were allowed to eat fat. Fat, including bulk carried on men's bodies, in the Bible is viewed as a sign of God's blessing. Rushdoony writes: "Fat in Scripture both literally and symbolically usually represented wealth. . . . In Scripture, fat is the sign of healthiness and vigor, of prosperity."⁽¹¹⁾ Of course, in pre-modern societies, hard physical labor was the rule. People burned off excessive fat. Their diets were heavy on grains and vegetables rather than meat, a luxury, and refined sugar, which was non-existent. In modern times, excessive fat is regarded (often incorrectly) as a sign of a person's insufficient self-discipline, not his prosperity. In fact, obesity today is a combination of genetic inheritance, nearly unbreakable eating habits begun in childhood, and historically unprecedented food supplies, including lots of animal fat. Such "inputs" were not affordable for most people prior to the late nineteenth century. Isaiah prophesied regarding the coming millennial era: "And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined" (Isa. 25:6). Moses sang of God's covenantal blessings to Israel:

So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock; Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape (Deut. 32:12-14).

When the Israelites returned to the land in Nehemiah's day, the priests read the law to them. Then they told the people that this was a time for rejoicing, a time to eat fat.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law. Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength. So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved (Neh. 8:8-11).

The prohibition against the ritual eating of fat was a way of separating the sacrificer's portion from God's portion during all the sacrifices. God placed a "no trespassing" sign around the fat during the peace offering when He came close to the sacrificer during this shared meal. Man was reminded once again that God's holiness is always marked off by a boundary. In Old Covenant Israel, the tabernacle-temple was the primary boundary. Crossing this boundary under the Mosaic Covenant was lawful for an Israelite during the peace offering, but another boundary immediately appeared, one that did not exist outside the boundary of the temple: the prohibition against eating fat. God refused to share fat with His holy people within His special dwelling place, but He gave fat to them as a blessing outside that boundary.

Offerings from the Field

The Israelite brought more than an animal to the priest for the peace offering; he brought the fruit of the field, too. He brought baked cakes, both leavened and unleavened. The peace offering testified publicly that God had blessed him in his fields and his barns; he was bringing to God representative samples of the best of his produce. This is why leaven had to be part of the sacrifice of the peace offering. Leaven is the symbol of expansion in history: God's blessings compounded over time. Leaven was the best that an Israelite was able to offer God from his field.

We discover here a very important theological principle: the close association between law and dominion. Leaven is a physical agent of expansion. The issue of boundaries, of holiness, in Leviticus is associated with the leaven of the peace offering, the third sacrifice. The message conveyed by this symbol is that God's leaven progressively replaces Satan's leaven in history. This cultural replacement process -- the dominion covenant's process -- is associated more closely with holiness (moral set-apartness) than it is with transcendence, hierarchy, sanctions, or inheritance. Point three of the biblical covenant model is law.⁽¹²⁾ Leaven, dominion, and biblical law were linked.

Because of the importance of this covenantal principle of growth, and because a common theological error in twentieth-century evangelicalism is the association of leaven with evil, I focus on the principle of leaven in this chapter. I need to explain why leaven is not a principle of evil; rather, it is the principle of compound growth in history. It is associated with progressive sanctification, both personal and corporate.

What of unleaven? It always symbolizes a discontinuity. In the context of the Passover meal, unleavened bread was mandatory. Unleavened bread marked the historical discontinuity between Egypt and the Promised Land. None of Egypt's leaven was to be carried out of Egypt. This discontinuity was specifically religious and cultural: the break with Egypt's religion and civilization. The Passover meal was to symbolize a covenantal break with Egyptian thought and culture, not a break from the establishment of culture as an outworking of God's covenant. This is why the peace offering required leaven. It reminded the Israelites of their kingdom requirements.

The Two Rival Leavens⁽¹³⁾

We can better understand the biblical meaning of leaven when we recognize that leavened bread was also offered as the firstfruits of the Lord, meaning the best of a family's productivity: "Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the first-fruits unto the LORD" (Lev. 23:17). Leaven is the best that man has to offer, the bread he eats with pleasure. It is man's offering to God. (The festival of firstfruits in the New Testament is associated with Pentecost: Acts 2.)

This has not been a common interpretation. A far more familiar interpretation teaches that leaven represents man's corruption. The rabbinical tradition has long associated leaven with man's evil propensities.⁽¹⁴⁾ Also, the high priest in Rome in Plutarch's day was forbidden to touch leaven.⁽¹⁵⁾ Milgrom refers to "an older and universal regard of leaven as the arch-symbol of fermentation, deterioration, and death and, hence, taboo on the altar of blessing and life."⁽¹⁶⁾

This traditional interpretation is incorrect, as I hope to show. The reason why leaven was prohibited is that it would have been a mature burnt offering, like honey, which was also prohibited (Lev. 2:11). Leaven symbolizes progressive sanctification through history. It does not symbolize definitive sanctification at a point in time, i.e., historical discontinuity. Leaven also does not symbolize final sanctification at the end of time, i.e., history's completion. As a symbol of growth through time with continuity, leaven was kept from the fiery altar because God will not bring His all-consuming fire until the end of time. Leaven was not burned on the altar because it was a symbol of growth moving toward completion. Leaven has no ethical connotation; it does not represent any taboo.

Passover

The Passover feast prohibited leaven. During the Passover, people ate bitter herbs with their unleavened bread (Ex. 12:8). This bread and the bitter herbs symbolized the hard times of captivity in Egypt, the world out of which God had delivered them. Baking unleavened bread on that first Passover night avoided the need for the additional time required for yeast to rise. Unleavened bread was therefore a symbol of a major historical discontinuity: God's overnight deliverance of His people from Egypt. Unleavened bread symbolized God's overnight deliverance, since it was not the best of what man can offer God under the best of circumstances. Leaven was. God broke into the daily affairs of His people and delivered them from Egypt's bitter herbs. God delivered them out of bondage overnight. He led them to a land flowing with milk and honey, a land in which men have the wealth and time to bake and eat leavened bread. Once in the promised land, they were to offer this bread to God in thankfulness. Unleavened bread was a symbol of discontinuity: from wrath to grace. Leaven was a symbol of continual growth through time: dominion.

Why were the Israelites required to get rid of all leavened bread in Israel for a week before the feast (Ex. 12:15)? Because the original Passover had been celebrated in Egypt. Again, it was Egypt's leaven that had to be purged out of their midst before they left the land. Leaven in the context of Passover was a symbol of Egypt's culture and therefore of Egypt's religion. Leavened bread was representative of the good life in Egypt: all the benefits in Egypt that might tempt them to return. So, God required them to celebrate a discontinuous event: their overnight deliverance from bondage. They were to take no leaven with them -- none of Egypt's gods, or religious practices, or diabolical culture -- to serve as "starter" in the Promised Land.

Once they entered the land of Canaan as conquerors, they were required to eat leavened bread and offer it as a peace offering to God. This was the reason for the leavened bread of the peace offering (Lev. 7:13) and the Firstfruits offering (Lev. 23:7). This is also why Christians are supposed to eat leavened bread when they celebrate Holy Communion. It is a symbol of conquest. We are now on the offensive, carrying the leaven of holiness back into Egypt, back into Babylon. We are the leaven of the world, not corrupting the unleavened dough, but "incorrupting" it -- bringing the message of salvation to Satan's troops, tearing down the idols in men's hearts. God's holy leaven is to replace Satan's unholy leaven in the dough of history.

Leaven is therefore not a symbol of sin and corruption, but a symbol of growth and dominion. It is not a question of an "unleavened" kingdom vs. a "leavened" kingdom; it is a question of which (whose) leaven. It is not a question of "dominion vs. no dominion"; it is a question of whose dominion. The dough (history) is here. Whose leaven will complete it, God's or Satan's?

The Kingdom as Righteous Leaven⁽¹⁷⁾

The kingdom of God is like leaven. Christianity is the yeast, and it has a leavening effect on the pagan, satanic culture around it. It is designed to permeate the whole of this culture, causing it to rise. The bread produced by this leaven is the preferred bread. In ancient times -- indeed, right up until the nineteenth century -- bread was considered the staff of life, the symbol of life. It was the source of men's nutrition. "Give us this day our daily bread," we are to ask God (Matt. 6:11). The kingdom of God is the force that produces the fine quality bread that men seek. The symbolism should be obvious: Christianity makes life a joy for man. It offers the cultural benefits that most men acknowledge as the best (Deut. 4:5-8).

Leaven takes time to produce its positive effect. Leaven requires historical continuity. Men can wait for their leavened bread, for God gives them time sufficient for the working of His spiritual leaven. They may not understand how it works, how its spiritual effects spread through their culture and make it a delight, any more than they understand how yeast works to produce leavened bread, but they can see the bread rising, and they can see the progressive effects of the leaven of the kingdom. They can look into the oven and see risen bread.

If we really push the analogy -- pound it, even -- we can point to the fact that the dough is pounded down several times before the final baking, almost as the world pounds the kingdom; but the yeast does its work, just so long as the fires of the oven are not lit prematurely. If the full heat of the oven is applied to the dough before the yeast has done its work, both the yeast and the dough are burnt, and the burnt mass must be thrown out. But given sufficient time, the yeast does its work, and the result is the bread that men prefer.

What a marvelous description of God's kingdom! Christians work with the cultural material available, seeking to refine it, to permeate it, to make it into something fine. They know that they will be successful, just as yeast is successful in the dough, if it is given enough time to do its work. That is what God implicitly promises us in the analogy of the leaven: enough time to accomplish our individual and our corporate tasks. He tells us that His kingdom will produce the desirable bread. This will take time. It may take several poundings, as God, through the hostility of the world, kneads the yeast-filled dough of man's cultures, but the end result is guaranteed.

Free-Will Offering and Covenant Renewal

The peace offering in Leviticus 7 was what in modern English phraseology would be called a free-will offering.⁽¹⁸⁾ This language is found in Psalm 119:108: "Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments." The peace offering was brought by the individual of his own free will; that is, he was not required by law to do this because of a particular sin. It was not a legal payment for sin. It was a token of his appreciation for the grace that God had shown to him. It was this Mosaic Covenant sacrifice that Paul had in mind when he wrote this injunction to Christians: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:1-2). Paul was not calling men to offer their lives as payments for their sins. This had been done by Jesus Christ at Calvary once and forever (Heb. 9). He was instead calling men to a life of peace with God through sacrificial service.

The peace offering was a public act. It renewed the special friendship between God and a particular individual. It was an acknowledgment on the part of the sacrificer that he was completely dependent on God for everything he had been given. It was a ritual confession that God is the sustainer of the covenant. As the covenant sovereign, God deserves tokens of subordination beyond the tithe and ransom payments for sin, yet He does not demand them. He places men under the terms of the covenant, and these requirements are light (Matt. 11:30). He lawfully could demand much more. He could demand more than everything a man possesses. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36). In His grace, however, He restricts His demands. God possesses the authority to compel men; therefore, we are warned, we should go the extra mile voluntarily. "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain" (Matt. 5:41). The person who "goes the extra mile" with God is publicly announcing his acceptance of God as the sovereign Lord of the covenant and himself as a covenant vassal.

One form of the peace offering involved a formal vow of some kind (Lev. 7:16). The other form did not (v. 15). Both involved a meal shared in the presence of God. Both required that the sacrificer be ritually clean (v. 20). Both involved boundaries: inclusive (a meal eaten in God's presence) and exclusive (no ritually unclean people). Both therefore were aspects of point three of the biblical covenant model -- holiness -- more than point four: oath/sanctions.

New Testament Applications

At this point, I shift from Old Covenant applications to New Covenant applications. The primary Old Covenant applications were these: the lawful crossing of a boundary (the temple sacrificial area), the shared meal (God, family, and [probably] priest), the prohibition of fat (a prohibition unique to this feast: God's assertion of primary ownership), the principle of unleaven (discontinuity from sin), the principle of the leaven (progressive sanctification), and the mark of the faithful vassal (performing service beyond what is required). I devote the remainder of this chapter to New Testament applications.

Conservative Protestants who have bothered to comment on economic and political theory have for over two centuries been adherents of right-wing Enlightenment thought, mainly Scottish rationalism. This was especially true of the Princeton theologians, from Archibald Alexander to Charles Hodge to J. Gresham Machen. They were Scottish common sense rationalists in their apologetic methodology.⁽¹⁹⁾ They began their social theory with the presupposition of methodological individualism.⁽²⁰⁾ They made no exegetical effort to show how their methodological individualism conformed to the Mosaic law's account of man's corporate responsibility. They rarely appealed to any Mosaic law when presenting their economic ideas.

In contrast, promoters of the liberal social gospel after 1890 did acknowledge corporate responsibility, but decade by decade, they interpreted this increasingly as State responsibility. They made no effort to show how their presupposition of collective responsibility conforms to the biblical account of exclusively individual responsibility on judgment day. They made no reference to the Mosaic law's defense of private property and Samuel's definition of a tyrant as a king who would collect ten percent of men's income. The two groups could not communicate with each other or persuade each other, for there was hermeneutical no point of contact between them. Neither side considered the third alternative: covenantalism.

The dualism between methodological individualism and methodological collectivism still persists in today's Protestant world. Meanwhile, nobody in the muddled middle offers exegetical solutions as to how either extreme can be avoided. Only the theonomists avoid both positions as well as the muddled middle because they appeal systematically to the texts of the Bible in order to derive their social and economic theories. Any appeal to the Mosaic law makes all of the other factions very nervous. Every member of every faction knows that if he were applying for a teaching position, and those with the authority to hire him knew that he not only defends the Mosaic law and its civil sanctions, he is ready to teach this in the classroom, he would never be hired. The employment factor has shaped the economic worldview that economists adopt. (Reward and response!) It did in my case, too. I decided to retain my theonomic worldview and earn my living outside of academia. That was the price I knew I had to pay. The problem is, those employed academics who write summaries of contemporary views of economics have been shaped by their choice of worldviews. Their worldviews determine who gets discussed in their essays and who gets conveniently blacked out. This is why my economic commentary on the Bible receives no support and very few footnotes from the rival economic factions within the Protestant community. It is tied too closely to the Mosaic law.⁽²¹⁾

My New Testament applications of the principle of the leaven are fundamental to an understanding of the dominion covenant. I dare not pass over them in silence on the assumption that most Christians will automatically make the theological connections between the principle of the leaven and the concept of Christendom's tasks in history. Most Christians have never even thought about such matters.⁽²²⁾

The Lord's Supper

Because the peace offering was a covenant act requiring the services of a priest, we need to ask this question: Is there a connection between this sacrifice and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? The Lord's Supper involves participants in a formal act of covenant renewal. It cannot be an offering for sin, since the taking of communion must be preceded by inner confession of personal sins of omission and commission, and also by formal acts of restitution for crimes involving a victim.⁽²³⁾ The emphasis is on self-examination: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (I Cor. 11:28-29).

The peace offering was a meal eaten by the donor, the only shared meal in the Levitical system's five sacrifices.⁽²⁴⁾ The Lord's Supper is also a shared meal. But is the Lord's Supper an act of covenant renewal analogous to the freewill offering of Leviticus 7? I think not. The Lord's Supper is judicial. It is an aspect of the covenant oath (point four).⁽²⁵⁾ Regular participation in the Lord's Supper is required from God's covenant vassals, just as the Passover feast was. It is not optional. It is a regularly scheduled public event. Any church member who refuses to take this sacrament, or who has been excluded from the table by the church, receives a formal declaration from God: "Guilty!" This public declaration takes place every time the Lord's Supper is served by the church. This is one reason why it should be offered weekly: to bring under God's judicial condemnation all those who are not participating, whether inside the church or outside. Calvin believed that the Lord's Supper should be offered at least weekly.⁽²⁶⁾

In contrast to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is analogous to the Mosaic Covenant's sacrament of Passover, the peace offering was optional. It was a self-conscious additional act of sacrifice, "beyond the call of duty."

 

Living Sacrifices

Extra sacrifice in the New Covenant is not morally optional. Paul calls men to present their bodies as living sacrifices. This is his concept of minimal service, not service beyond the call of duty. This is another piece of evidence that the New Testament's moral and legal requirements are more rigorous than the Old Testament's requirements. To those who have been given more by God, more is required by God (Luke 12:47-48).

It is a serious (but common) mistake today to imagine that Jesus somehow reduced the degree of responsibility of His followers in the New Covenant era. On the contrary, He increased it. Anyone who argues to the contrary had better have a good explanation for the fact that modern Christians are not supposed to become polygamists, which was permitted in the Old Covenant era. He had also better be ready to explain why the legal grounds for divorce are more rigorous in the New Covenant era. "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:7-8).⁽²⁷⁾ What was exceptional for the Mosaic Covenant saint -- the peace offering -- becomes the required way of life for the New Covenant saint. When the temple's barriers came down, the covenant-keeper's degree of responsibility went up.

The emphasis in Romans 12:1 is on the Christian way of life. It refers to the moral realm rather than to the judicial. Presenting one's body as a living sacrifice is fundamental to a life of progressive sanctification, not a discrete formal act of legal justification. In contrast to progressive sanctification, the Lord's Supper is specifically and uniquely judicial, a legal status shared only with the sacrament of baptism. The Western church has always regarded the sacraments as uniquely judicial.⁽²⁸⁾ The Lord's Supper is a formal announcement of "guilty" or "not guilty" in the name of God by God's representative agents, church elders. This is why personal confession of sin must be made in advance of the sacrament, a fact testified to by the churches' historic use of congregational prayers of public confession. People are required to confess "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" to God prior to taking communion.

Paul compares progressive sanctification to running a race: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible" (I Cor. 9:24-25). He says: "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:14). The Epistle to the Hebrews says: "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us" (Heb. 12:1). The imagery is that of a step-by-step lifetime race against runners who are not equally committed to obeying God. We beat them by persevering in the race.

The goal of progressive sanctification is to reduce one's level of sinfulness over time. This is the meaning of progressive sanctification: a progressive reduction of sinful thought and behavior. We are to conform ourselves progressively to Christ's example of perfect humanity (though of course not His divinity). "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). Paul introduced his discussion of communion with this imperative: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (I Cor. 11:1). By doing so, we are to reduce the number of evil thoughts and acts that we must confess prior to communion. The increase in progressive sanctification is therefore related to communion (legal justification), but the two are not the same.

One manifestation of our personal quest for peace with God is the presentation of gifts and offerings above the mandatory tithe. These constitute the New Covenant's version of the animal sacrifice of the peace offering. When the pastor calls publicly for "tithes and offerings," meaning money for the church, he is calling for the peace of God. Tithes are obligatory payments to the owner of the universe as our acknowledgment of our position as sharecroppers in His field, the world (Matt. 13:38).⁽²⁹⁾ Offerings in this context are peace offerings that are analogous to the sacrificial peace offering of Leviticus 7.

Progressive Corporate Sanctification

Sanctification in the modern pietistic church is understood as an exclusively personal spiritual transformation. When pressed, however, the defenders of this view will probably admit that there has been progressive sanctification of the church. They will assert that their favorite theological system is far superior to anything understood by the early church. It may or may not be superior, but at least they regard it as such. Except for those in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, most will admit freely that the church's confessions are more detailed and rigorous than the early creeds. Most Christians will also admit that science and technology have made the world a better place to live in, except for the threat of modern war, terrorism, and pollution.⁽³⁰⁾

Therein lies their theological problem. First, if the world is inevitably heading toward accelerating moral corruption -- the explicit view of most premillennialists and amillennialists⁽³¹⁾ -- then why should there have been so much progress in Western history? Are we to conclude that accelerating theological apostasy and moral rebellion produce economic, social, and political progress? Where is this taught in the Bible? Or, second, should we begin to look more closely at the relationship between the progress in Christian theology and church creeds and progress in society? Could these two seemingly independent developments be related positively rather than inversely?⁽³²⁾ This is a topic that is almost never discussed by Christians, including seminary professors. Why not? Because it raises major questions regarding Christians' corporate responsibility for external progress or retrogression in the wider community.

Pietistic Christians do not want to consider the practical implications in their lives of either of these possibilities, so they do their best to avoid thinking about the cultural aspects of the churches' progressive corporate sanctification. They define away the problem by limiting the Holy Spirit's process of sanctification over time to the human heart. This is the heart of pietism. If this process of progressive sanctification should ever escape this arbitrary boundary, there is no telling where it would stop. It might end up by encompassing everything. If it did, Christians as a corporate community would become responsible for everything.⁽³³⁾ This would mean that God's dominion covenant is still in force. This is precisely what they are trying to avoid.

The problem is, the Spirit's process of corporate sanctification keeps breaking pietism's arbitrary barriers. First, it spills over into the church and family. We baptize our children.⁽³⁴⁾ We catechize them. We are supposed to send them to Christian schools.⁽³⁵⁾ In doing these things, we admit that we have institutional responsibilities. But if we have these responsibilities before God, then He must be willing to impose sanctions in terms of our obedience to His laws. We must seek to change the world by imposing God's Bible-specified sanctions as His legal representatives in history. Few Christians today are willing to admit that all of God's directly imposed sanctions are exclusively limited to heaven and the day of final judgment. They want them exercised in the Christian family, for example. Nevertheless, the vast majority of contemporary Bible-believing Christians draw a defensive boundary against God's negative sanctions around the State and the external, "common grace" society.⁽³⁶⁾ The State and society generally, they insist, are to be protected from an invasion by the biblical covenant, with its revealed laws and negative civil sanctions.⁽³⁷⁾ "This far, but no farther!" they proclaim. But they cannot say exactly why, biblically speaking.

Restricting the State: Biblical Casuistry

If people believe that the political order is immune from God's negative sanctions in history, they will tolerate or even encourage the State's officers to impose the State's autonomous sanctions over all other institutions. The State will then seek to impose legal boundaries on every other institution.⁽³⁸⁾ It is never a question of "sanctions vs. no sanctions" in history. It is always a question of whose sanctions and which sanctions in terms of whose law.⁽³⁹⁾ There is no neutrality. There are no political vacuums.⁽⁴⁰⁾

The State, like every other institution, must be captured for God. It is to be restricted to its judicially proper boundaries by God's law and by other Christian institutions. The State is not to place its autonomous limits on the institutions of the world; the world's institutions are to place God's Bible-revealed limits on the State. This means that in order for political liberty to flourish, the whole world must be reformed by means of the preaching of the gospel and by the working out and application of the principles of God's law in history -- the ancient moral discipline of casuistry.⁽⁴¹⁾ This time, however, casuistry must be Bible-based, not Greek-philosophy based by way of Thomas Aquinas.

Modern Christian pietists reject such a notion of an explicitly biblical casuistry, just as modern humanists do. They say that the reform of this world is impossible, and therefore a waste of time even to try. They announce to the Christian world, as dispensational theologian John Walvoord announced: "We know that our efforts to make society Christianized is [sic] futile because the Bible doesn't teach it."⁽⁴²⁾ They announce, as amillennial theologian Herman Hanko announced, "In the first place, many who strongly advocate christian social involvement almost always fall into the error of post-millennialism. That is the error of teaching that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is realized here in this present world by a slow but steady process of social, economic and political evolution."⁽⁴³⁾ All that we can hope to accomplish, they insist, is to create pockets of resistance (Christian ghettos): defensive efforts that will inevitably be almost completely overcome by Satan's earthly kingdom, unless the Rapture takes place (pre-tribulational dispensationalism) or the final judgment does (amillennialism).⁽⁴⁴⁾ Legions of non-predestinarian Christians argue that Bible-based reform efforts are inevitably doomed to failure.⁽⁴⁵⁾ God has decreed this, we are assured -- just about the only decree that Arminians acknowledge. They are content to achieve a stalemate with humanism, Islam, and the other alternatives to Christianity. They have adopted the stalemate mentality.⁽⁴⁶⁾ They cannot successfully defend this culturally retreatist position in terms of the Bible -- especially by any literal reading of the confrontational lives and reform message of the Old Testament prophets -- but they still refuse to accept the idea that this world can significantly be reformed by Christians acting as Christians in society. All they can say is what Dallas Theological Seminary professor Harold Hoehner said in 1990: "I just can't buy their [the Coalition on Revival's] basic presupposition that we can do anything significant to change the world. And you can sure waste time trying."⁽⁴⁷⁾ It never occurs to them that they are wasting a significant part of their lives by not trying, and by openly discouraging others from trying. Having identified New Testament history as a sinking ship, they refuse to polish any brass. They huddle next to the lifeboats, praying that the Captain will issue the "abandon ship" order in time. There are two common forms of this affliction: Rapture fever (dispensational)⁽⁴⁸⁾ and pre-parousia paralysis (amillennial).⁽⁴⁹⁾

 

Covenant Sanctions and Social Progress

It is clear from the Old Covenant that there was a predictable relationship between 1) corporate obedience to the civil stipulations of the national covenant and 2) visible corporate progress -- so visible that even covenant-breaking nations would recognize it:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deut. 4:5-8).

What was the basis of this predictable relationship? God's covenantal promise. But what was its temporal judicial mechanism? It was the civil magistrate's enforcement of God's negative sanctions against public evil-doing. When civil rulers enforced God's law, they removed the judicial basis of God's corporate wrath against the nation. Then the positive acts of obedience to God's revealed law by millions of individuals could be blessed by God directly. Thus, a system of positive feedback over time was designed by God to overcome the negative effects of sin. The ultimate manifestation of this overcoming of the effects of sin was the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This is why the resurrection is supposed to be the model for all Christian social thought,⁽⁵⁰⁾ just as His ascension to the throne of judgment at the right hand of God is supposed to be the model for all Christian political thought. That neither of these doctrines is applied to modern social and political thought by Protestants is one major theological reason why there is no body of explicitly Protestant social and political thought.⁽⁵¹⁾ (The other major theological reason is Protestantism's rejection of the judicially binding character of biblical law.)

Pluralism

Modern conservative Christian thought, both Protestant and Catholic, rests on the presupposition that God does not bring His negative sanctions against evil nations in New Testament history, at least not after 70 A.D.⁽⁵²⁾ In wartime, predictably, this belief is conveniently forgotten by church members and even occasional attendees, but with the coming of peace, it invariably revives.⁽⁵³⁾ But if God does bring sanctions in history in terms of His revealed law, then there must be greater progress in those societies that uphold His social laws than in those that reject them. This would make progress in history a function of societies' adherence to the legal terms of God's covenant. The foundation of social progress would have to be understood in terms of a biblical covenantal standard. This would require a radical break with pluralism, the dominant political ideology of the West.⁽⁵⁴⁾ So far, the West has not considered such a possibility.⁽⁵⁵⁾

Economist and legal theorist F. A. Hayek (d. 1992) makes an exceedingly important admission in his multi-volume study, Law, Legislation and Liberty. As a classical liberal and a dedicated evolutionist, he rejects the legitimacy of specific civil laws that interfere with personal liberty. He proclaims the need for a system of civil courts in which only general rules that apply to everyone equally could receive the sanction of civil law. The very generality of abstract law will protect the rights of individuals, he insists, and civil courts in such a world would protect our liberties. This means that there should not be laws against private, immoral behavior that does not physically harm others, i.e., "victimless crimes." But he adds this proviso: "At least where it is not believed that the whole group may be punished by a supernatural power for the sins of individuals, there can arise no such rules from the limitation of conduct towards others, and therefore from the settlements of disputes."⁽⁵⁶⁾ He assumes, as all humanists must assume, that a sanctions-bringing supernatural power does not exist. This assumption is incorrect. If it were correct, an explicitly Christian social theory would be impossible to develop. Christian social theory in a world without God's predictable corporate sanctions would be merely some variety of baptized secularism. Unfortunately, for over three centuries, Christian theologians have assumed precisely this. They have accepted Hayek's presupposition: God brings no corporate covenantal sanctions in history. They have therefore rejected the whole of the Old Covenant's description of God's sanctions, from the Garden of Eden to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. They have agreed to an implicit alliance with the humanists based on a mutual rejection of God's sanctions in history.

Here is another reason why Christianity has lost so much influence. Its defenders -- and the very concept of "defenders" points to the problem -- cannot legitimately expect to beat something with nothing, yet they keep trying. They proclaim God's total sanctions at the end of time after having denied the existence of His sanctions in our own time. They have denied God's "earnest" (Eph. 1:14) in history. The humanist correctly assumes that any God who refuses to bring sanctions in history can hardly be taken seriously as the cosmic imposer of sanctions outside of history. Jesus understood this perspective. He offered proof to His contemporaries that He could pardon sin eternally by healing bodies historically: "And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house" (Matt. 9:4-7). What contemporary evidence of the coming final sanctions does today's church offer? Only its own self-proclaimed inevitable cultural defeat on this side of Jesus' Second Coming. In short, it seeks to prove God's eternal negative sanctions against covenant-breakers by proclaiming God's historic negative sanctions against covenant-keepers.⁽⁵⁷⁾

Some gospel! Some good news!

 

Total Victory: Final Judgment

Does God expect Christians to be culturally victorious? Yes. Does He expect to achieve perfect victory in time and on earth? No. He does not offer total victory in history to definitively redeemed mankind. Their progressive redemption will not become final in history. Only by transcending the historical process will God's great discontinuous event bring final redemption. Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church spells this out in considerable detail. Those living at Jesus Christ's final return will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye (I Cor. 15:52). The final discontinuous event -- the ascension of the saints (sometimes called the "Rapture" by those who do not regard its timing as final) and their instant transformation into perfect humanity -- brings the final judgment and the presentation of a cleansed and fully redeemed New Heaven and New Earth. (The New Heaven and New Earth definitively arrived in an imperfect, historical form with the kingdom of Christ.)⁽⁵⁸⁾ The final judgment is that final oven in which the leaven-filled, risen kingdom is baked. Peter writes:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? (II Pet. 3:10-12).

The whole earth is going to be burned up, thereby producing a new loaf. The whole earth is subject to that final, cataclysmic, discontinuous transformation. This implies that the whole earth will at that point have been filled with the leaven of the gospel -- not perfect, but ready for the oven. Then our bodies will be transformed, glorified, for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (I Cor. 15:50). The continuity of history is finally interrupted. This will mark the end of this world. But this is my point: it will be at the end of the whole world. Ask yourself: What area of life will avoid this final conflagration? None. Which part of the leavened dough will be untouched by the blinding heat of the oven? None. Which part of the loaf will be left unbaked? None of it.

 

Boundaries After Calvary

Who owns this world? God does (Ps. 24:1). But because of Adam's fall, Satan became Adam's legal heir: a rebellious, cheating leaseholder under God. From Joshua to Jesus, Satan controlled all parts of the earth that were not controlled by the Israelites. Ever since the defeat of Satan at Calvary, however, the legal boundaries of God's kingdom have been the boundaries of the whole earth. The second Adam, Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:45), has inherited the worldwide inheritance that had been transferred to Satan by the rebellion of the first Adam. Christ has delegated management responsibilities over this kingdom to His redeemed people. Their historical task is to buy back -- i.e., redeem -- the whole world. They are not to take it by physical force, except in historically unique cases (e.g., settling a nearly empty land when local tribes resist by force).⁽⁵⁹⁾ Extending these legal boundaries in history is a task that cannot legitimately be avoided. We cannot legitimately point to whole portions of the unleavened cultural dough and say: "Well, that's not the responsibility of Christians. The dominion covenant doesn't cover that zone. The law of God doesn't apply there. Neither do his sanctions. Satan owns that section: lock, stock, and barrel. His disciples will have to leaven it."

What does Satan own? Nothing. The very gates of hell cannot prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18). Satan does not hold legal title to anything. He lost legal title to this world at the cross. Or better put, his lease -- inherited from Adam -- was canceled. Jesus announced in the vision given to John: "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death" (Rev. 1:18). Satan is today a lawless squatter. The world belongs to God, and He has designated it as the inheritance of Christians. But Christians are told to subdue it, to lease it back from God, by demonstrating our commitment to the judicial terms of His peace treaty with us. We are to conquer the world progressively by the preaching of the gospel of salvation and either the purchase of the world from our opponents or their conversion to God's kingdom as fellow heirs. Our sword is the sword of the gospel.⁽⁶⁰⁾ (Surely the sword coming out of Christ's mouth is not literal: Rev. 19:15.) It is still our assignment to subdue the earth, and by the sword of the gospel we can and will conquer in history.

 

The Question of Continuity

What is the meaning of leaven? The imagery is obvious: growth and expansion. But the obviousness of this imagery has become a problem for theologians because of the debate over eschatology. The premillennialist affirms that leaven means growth, but then says that this applies only to Satan's kingdom. He also denies that leaven refers to the historical continuity of the visible kingdom of God in history. The amillennialist, in contrast, affirms historical continuity, but then he denies growth, if by growth we mean a visible expansion of the gospel's cultural effects outside of the narrow confines of the institutional church. Both hermeneutical schools are united with each other against the postmillennialists' interpretation that leaven symbolizes both visible growth and historical continuity, a position which only the postmillennialist can defend exegetically with respect to the visible kingdom of God in history.

Jesus spoke forthrightly of His kingdom in terms of leaven. "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened" (Matt. 13:33). What does leaven do in dough? It raises it. Then the risen dough is baked. But before it is baked, it must rise. There must be no premature removal of the yeast before the hour of baking.

The dispensationalist, because of the requirements of his premillennial theological system, cannot accept the parable of the leaven at face value. If he did, he would have to abandon premillennialism. He cannot allow the leavening process in history to apply to the kingdom of God. On the contrary, the only leavening process in history that he affirms is the kingdom of Satan. Leaven in the older dispensational system is exclusively evil. This is why Leviticus 7:13 and Matthew 13:33 are such painful thorns in the dispensationalist's side.⁽⁶¹⁾

Historical Continuity

Jesus in Matthew 13 gives a series of parables regarding the kingdom of God. They are parables that describe historical continuity. The parable of the leaven appears shortly after Jesus' parable of the wheat and tares.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (Matt. 13:24-30).

The disciples questioned Him about the meaning of this parable. He provided a literal explanation -- one so clear that anyone could understand it, except someone using dispensationalism's "literal" hermeneutic:

He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matt. 13:37-43).

But for dispensationalists to hear, they would have to abandon dispensationalism. They prefer not to hear.

When did the kingdom begin? According to this parable, it began with Jesus Christ's first advent: "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man." What is the field? Not the church, surely: "The field is the world." The institutional church is not even mentioned here. When does the co-mingling of wheat and tares end? At the end of history, Christ's second advent: "The harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world." There is no third advent. The events of the so-called Rapture must therefore correspond to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in final judgment. This is God's promise: the visible Kingdom of God will enjoy historical continuity. God's kingdom will expand over time.

There are two competing leavens: righteous and unrighteous. There are two competing kingdoms: God's and Satan's. Satan does not have to be physically present in history in order for his kingdom to be real in history. Neither does Jesus Christ. The expansion of one kingdom in history necessitates the contraction of the other. The question is: Whose kingdom expands in history? The dispensational premillennialists say "Satan's," at least in the so-called Church Age (pre-Second Coming). While this is incorrect, it is at least consistent. Amillennialists have not been equally consistent.⁽⁶²⁾ Members of the Dutch-American tradition have sometimes adopted the language of expansion and victory for Christ's kingdom while denying both with respect to history. They internalize and spiritualize the victory.⁽⁶³⁾

 

Settling Accounts With God: Definitively and Progressively

Men are supposed to seek peace with God. This peace comes only after they have settled their legal accounts with God by publicly proclaiming their faith in the death of His Son at Calvary as their representative wrath-bearer. In the Mosaic Covenant, there was a special tabernacle-temple sacrifice that expressed this quest for peace. In the New Covenant, this quest is expressed by one's lifelong service to God. We are supposed to become living sacrifices.

The distinction between legal justification and moral sanctification is seen here. Men cannot legitimately pay a ransom to God by means of their own works. This payment is available only through faith in Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement: an act of judicial restitution to God. This personal acceptance of Christ's substitutionary atonement must be manifested publicly: first, by a profession of faith in the saving judicial work of Christ; second, by his subsequent baptism;⁽⁶⁴⁾ and third, by his participation in the Lord's Supper. Justification is not earned; it is imputed judicially by God -- His declaration, "Not guilty." God declares a person legally justified in His sight on the basis of Christ's atoning work, and He then makes this transformation a reality. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (II Cor. 5:17). Sanctification, while also a gift of God, is not exclusively a product of God's imputation. Definitive sanctification is exclusively an act of God: the imputation of Christ's moral righteousness to an individual. Progressive sanctification in history is not imputed; it is the product of the individual's moral acts of righteousness.⁽⁶⁵⁾

The Bible makes it clear that this process of progressive sanctification overflows the boundary of the human heart. What a man is in his heart he will become externally.

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt. 7:17-20).

Thus, everything he does is supposed to mark him as a redeemed person. This means that institutions owned, controlled, and operated by redeemed people are supposed to be reformed as surely as individuals are. These institutions are to be visibly transformed over time. God promises to bless these institutions compared to institutions run by non-redeemed people by anti-biblical principles.⁽⁶⁶⁾

 

Conclusion

The peace offering involved the lawful crossing of a boundary. Man and God could eat a meal together. This meal required the eating of leaven. Leaven is the biblical symbol of growth. It represents the expansion of a kingdom in history. God calls His people to extent His kingdom, thereby replacing Satan's.

How is this to be done? First, by preaching the gospel. Second, by conforming ourselves to God's ethical standards: biblical law. The close association among biblical law, cultural dominion, and holiness is visible in the peace offering's requirement of leaven. Third, by imposing the civil law's required negative sanctions on law-breakers before God imposes negative sanctions on society.

This is why any consideration of God's law cannot legitimately avoid a consideration of the law's mandated sanctions. God brings His sanctions, positive and negative, in history. These sanctions are not limited to individual human beings. They affect every institution. Greg Bahnsen's assessment is correct: "The reign of Christ -- His Messianic kingdom -- is meant to subdue every enemy of righteousness, as Paradise is regained for fallen men by the Savior. As Isaac Watts poetically expressed it: `He comes to make His blessings flow, Far as the curse is found.' Everything touched by the guilt and pollution of sin is the object of the Messiah's kingly triumph -- everything. The kingdom of Christ not only brings forgiveness and new heart-love for God; it also brings concrete obedience to God in all walks of life. Those things which stand in opposition to God and His purposes and His character are to be overthrown by the dynamic reign of the Messianic King. The effects of Christ's dominion are to be evident on earth, among all nations, and throughout the range of human activity."⁽⁶⁷⁾

God progressively brings His kingdom to fruition over time in terms of His covenant's standards. He makes His kingdom visible in history as surely as He makes His people visible in history: through 1) their public professions of faith and subsequent actions and 2) His visible responses to them. The visible boundaries of Christ's earthly kingdom are progressively extended in history by means of the preaching of the gospel, by men's responses to this preaching, and by their subsequent external and internal obedience to the ethical boundaries of God's Bible-revealed law. This is all grace: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10).

The leaven of the Mosaic Testament sacrifices symbolized this process of progressive sanctification in history. Men brought the best of their fields to God in leavened form. This leavened offering symbolized the full development in history of the best gifts they had received from God. Today, we do the same with our lives. Representationally, this process of moral sanctification in history has an ecclesiastical manifestation in men's gifts and offerings above the ecclesiastically mandatory tithe. We no longer bring an animal to be sacrificed; we bring the fruits of our labor, embodied in the form of money. We bring our voluntary offerings.

God rewards this faithfulness in history. He brings positive sanctions to His covenant people in history. This is the basis of the expansion of His kingdom progressively over time. Any attempt to deny the covenantal relationship between faithfulness and blessing in history is necessarily an attack on the idea that God's kingdom steadily replaces Satan's in history. It does not deny the leavening process in history; it asserts instead that Satan's leaven triumphs in history. Any denial of the success of the leaven of the gospel in history is necessarily and inescapably also an assertion of the success of the leaven of satanic rebellion in history. There is no neutrality. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but beware also the hypothetical unleaven of pessimillennial eschatologies.⁽⁶⁸⁾

 

Summary

The peace offering related to the boundary separating God from man.

This offering was a zehbakh: a shared meal.

The peace offering allowed those who were ritually clean to cross certain boundaries and eat a meal in God's presence.

The peace offering was voluntary.

It was not tied to a vow.

The fat and the blood of sacrificed animals were reserved to God.

Blood drinking is universally prohibited; eating fat is not.

In the peace offering, a man brought the best of the fruit of his field.

Leaven was required, which means that leaven cannot be symbolic of evil.

There are two rival leavens in history: covenant-keeping and covenant-breaking.

Unleavened bread symbolized discontinuity in history: from wrath to grace.

Holy leaven symbolized progressive sanctification in history: development moving toward completion.

Holy leaven was mandatory at the peace offering and at the firstfruits festival (Pentecost).

Holy leaven was a symbol of spiritual and cultural conquest: the kingdom of God in history.

Leaven, symbolic of history, was not allowed on the altar, for the altar symbolized the final and eternal burning.

Amillennialists and premillennialists have problems when exegeting passages that compare the kingdom of God with leaven: the continuous growth of good.

Premillennialists predict the uprooting of godly leaven.

Amillennialists predict the triumph of Satan's leaven.

The peace offering was a free-will offering.

It allowed men to "go the extra mile" for God as covenant vassals, yet not consume all of their wealth.

The peace offering was not a type of the Lord's Supper, which is mandatory: failure to take the Lord's Supper is self-excommunication.

The peace offering was associated with the idea of men offering their lives as living sacrifices: progressive sanctification.

Sanctification is corporate as well as personal.

Long-term economic progress is a mark of corporate sanctification.

1) Churches do make progress; 2) families do make progress; 3) civil governments do make progress.

Pietistic Christians affirm the first two points, but they deny the third.

Pietists, denying God's historical, covenantal sanctions, cannot explain corporate economic progress in terms of God's law.

God's sanctions provide positive corporate feedback for righteousness over time, and negative corporate feedback for evil-doing over time.

The civil magistrate is required by God to bring the State's limited negative sanctions against public evil-doers.

If the magistrate refuses to do this, God then brings negative corporate sanctions in history.

Modern social theory denies that God still brings predictable sanctions in history.

To affirm that God does bring predictable sanctions in history is to deny the legitimacy of political pluralism.

The idea of "victimless crimes" (sexual or drug-related) rests on the presupposition that there is no God who brings corporate sanctions against societies that allow "victimless crimes."

The denial of God's predictable corporate sanctions in history makes impossible an explicitly Christian social theory.

The victory of the gospel will not be absolute prior to the final judgment: the ultimate discontinuity.

The kingdom's geographical boundaries after Calvary were definitively broken.

The leaven of the kingdom now operates internationally.

Christ's death and resurrection definitively reclaimed for Christians Adam's forfeited claim to the world.

Satan is now a lawless squatter.

Christians are to reclaim the world progressively through gospel preaching and righteous living.

The parables of Matthew 13 point to continuity: no "Rapture" and no defeat of Christ's kingdom.

We should seek peace with God by becoming living sacrifices.

Our definitive sanctification (conversion) should become progressive sanctification (the Christian walk).

Personal progressive sanctification is to have positive external effects.

This is the basis of progressive corporate sanctification in history.

The world will be transformed by means of the gospel: word-and-deed evangelism.

Footnotes:

1. Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God's Program for Victory (3rd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988).

2. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 218.

3. John E. Hartley, Leviticus, vol. 4 of Word Bible Commentary (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1992), p. 42.

4. Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch, 5 vols. (Gateshead, London: Judaica Press, [1962] 1989), III, pp. 73-74. He wrote this commentary in the mid-nineteenth century.

5. Ibid., III, p. 75.

6. Idem.

7. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 223.

8. Article on "Blood," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909), II, p. 716. The author cites Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, pp. 126-34.

9. Idem.

10. "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:53-54).

11. R. J. Rushdoony, "Fat," Encyclopedia of Christianity, edited by Philip E. Hughes (Marshallton, Delaware: National Foundation for Christian Education, 1972), IV, p. 179.

12. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), ch. 3.

13. This section is a modification of my book, Unconditional Surrender: God's Program for Victory (3rd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988), pp. 316-19; 325-29.

14. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 189.

15. Idem.

16. Idem.

17. For a more detailed exegesis, see Gary North, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), pp. 158-72.

18. Andrew A. Bonar, A Commentary on Leviticus (London: Banner of Truth Trust, [1846] 1966), p. 131.

19. Mark A. Noll, "Introduction," Noll (ed.), The Princeton Theology, 1812-1921 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1983), pp. 30-33.

20. See, for example, William Brenton Greene, Jr., "The Bible as the Text-Book in Sociology," Princeton Theological Review, XII (Jan. 1914). Greene was Professor of Apologetics from 1893 until 1928, when Cornelius Van Til replaced him for one year before leaving to join the faculty of Westminster Seminary.

21. The best recent example of the blackout strategy is Calvin College economist John Tiemstra, whose self-announced comprehensive 1993 review of recent literature in Christian economics refers to only one of my works, An Introduction to Christian Economics (1973), out of print since 1981. John P. Tiemstra, "Christianity and Economics: A Review of the Recent Literature," Christian Scholar's Review, XXII (1993), pp. 227, 228. This essay purports to be a survey of the literature from 1978 to 1993. Tiemstra is well aware of my later exegetical works, since he cites Craig M. Gay's 1992 essay in the same journal, which unfavorably cited The Sinai Strategy and Inherit the Earth, as well as David Chilton's Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators, and then dismissed them all as right-wing liberation theology in which "human existence has been reduced to the material and economic and the gospel has been thoroughly immanentized." Craig M. Gay, "When Evangelicals Take Capitalism Seriously," ibid., XXI (1992), p. 358. Gay offered no support for his rhetorical outburst: no Bible texts and no books that have offered biblical refutations.

Tiemstra refers repeatedly to Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, but he never mentions Chilton's detailed refutation. Blackout! He criticizes Ronald Nash's defense of Austrian economics as not being exegetically based, which is quite correct; it isn't, and self-consciously so. Nash denies that there can be an explicitly Christian economics, so why should he appeal to the Bible? I have criticized Nash for many years for just this epistemological weakness. Having dismissed Nash as the Austrian School's only cited representative, Tiemstra then announces: "The Christian writers who have opted for the Austrian approach have so far failed to connect their work very firmly with the basic biblical principles . . ." (p. 241). He does not mention my name in this context or in any other epistemological context. Blackout! This does the serious Christian reader a great disservice. It keeps him away from sources of biblical exegesis. Tiemstra's blackout strategy is representative of conservative Protestant scholarship generally, from Dallas Seminary to Calvin College, from fundamentalism to neo-evangelicalism. Refusing to take the Old Testament seriously, these men pretend that nobody else should either. They refuse to interact with the Pentateuch or anyone who does. The Mosaic law appalls them. They will not try to learn from it, let alone agree to submit to it.

22. Note to any Jews who are still with me: neither have most Jews.

23. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), ch. 7; see also Gary North, Victim's Rights: The Biblical View of Civil Justice (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).

24. R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), p. 79.

25. Sutton, That You May Prosper, ch. 4.

26. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), IV:XVII:43.

27. Ray R. Sutton, Second Chance: Biblical Blueprints for Divorce and Remarriage (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 79-80.

28. Notice, I did not write "solely judicial." There is an element of mystery in the sacraments, and no single attribute suffices to encompass their meaning. See Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Tyler, Texas: Geneva Divinity School Press, [1953] 1982). But the Western church has always called these rituals sacraments, not mysteries, which is what Eastern Orthodoxy calls them. The word sacrament was adopted by the church from the Latin word sacramentum, a military oath of enlistment. The judicial and covenantal aspect of these rites is emphasized by the Western church. The New Testament does not use the word sacrament, nor is the Greek word musterion applied to either rite or any outward observance. See "Sacrament," Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 12 vols., edited by John M'Clintock and James Strong (New York: Harper & Bros., 1894), IX, p. 212.

Calvin rejected as irrelevant of this Roman military view of the meaning of the word "sacrament." Calvin, Institutes, IV:XIV:13. He stressed the mystery aspect instead. But by ignoring the self-maledictory covenantal oath aspect of both sacraments, he was led to identify several Old Covenant manifestations of God's promises as sacraments: Noah's rainbow (a non-maledictory oath: no universal destruction by flood), Abraham's light in a smoking pot (Gen. 15:17), the watery fleece on dry ground and dry fleece on damp ground (Jud. 6:37-38), and the backward-moving shadow on Hezekiah's sundial (II Ki. 20:9-11). Institutes, IV:XIV:18. His interpretation of these events as sacraments has not generally been followed by Calvinists or other Protestants.

29. Gary North, Tithing and the Church (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), Part 1.

30. On pollution, see Appendix I's subsection, "The New Tower of Babel," and North, Tools of Dominion, Appendixes D, E.

31. Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), ch. 4.

32. R. J. Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, [1968] 1978).

33. This thought is too horrifying for modern schools of Protestant social thought to consider, with these exceptions: the social gospel, Christian Reconstruction, and liberation theology. The social gospel has been fading in popularity throughout the post-World War II era, although many of its tenets have been adopted by academic neo-evangelicals: the Sojourners, Evangelicals for Social Action, Wheaton College, Calvin College, Christianity Today axis. With the spectacular collapse of the ideology of Marxism, 1989-91, liberation theology has now had its ideological props knocked out from under it.

34. David Chilton, "Infant Baptism and Covenantal Responsibility," Journal of Christian Reconstruction, IV (Winter 1977-78), pp. 79-86.

35. Robert L. Thoburn, The Children Trap: The Biblical Blueprint for Education (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1986), co-published by Thomas Nelson Sons, Nashville, Tennessee.

36. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, ch. 7.

37. Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (New York: Touchstone-Simon & Schuster/American Enterprise Institute, 1982); Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984). For a critique of this position, see Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).

38. It is worth noting that the U.S. Congress long exempted itself from many of its laws, such as quotas (sexual or racial) on staff hiring and firing, and the U.S. Postal Service monopoly. Congress has its own post office system. Until early 1992, very few voters knew about this until a scandal regarding the House Post Office hit the front pages in 1992. Scandals in several areas led the voters in November, 1992, to stage a minor revolt against Congressional incumbents. This rarely happens in U.S. Congressional politics.

39. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, ch. 8.

40. North, Political Polytheism, p. xi.

41. Thomas Wood, English Casuistical Divinity in the Seventeenth Century (London: S.P.C.K., 1952); Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988); Kenneth E. Kirk, Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry (rev. ed.; London: Longmans, Green, [1936] 1948).

42. John Walvoord, symposium on "Our Future Hope: Eschatology and Its Role in the Church," Christianity Today (Feb. 6, 1987), p. 5-I. See my comments in North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993), ch. 3.

43. Herman Hanko, The Christian's Social Calling and the Second Coming of Christ (South Holland, Michigan: South Holland Protestant Reformed Church, 1970), pp. 1-2. For a critique of Hanko's position, see Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), Appendix A: "Cultural Antinomianism."

44. Gary North, "Ghetto Eschatologies," Biblical Economics Today, XIV (April/May 1992).

45. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, ch. 8.

46. Gary North, Backward, Christian Soldiers? A Manual for Christian Reconstruction (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), ch. 11.

47. "Is Christ or Satan Ruler of This World?" Christianity Today (March 5, 1990), p. 43.

48. Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993).

49. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, chaps. 4, 5, and 9.

50. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988).

51. Catholic social and political thought has disintegrated as a result of the rise of liberation theology in the Church since 1965. Catholic social theory was primarily a product of Thomism's natural law categories; it survived well into the twentieth century. It went through a slow transition after the turn of the century, with liberalism making constant inroads. The traditional American hostility to Catholicism in political life was voiced by a liberal Catholic, Paul Blanshard, in two best-selling books: American Freedom and Catholic Power (2nd ed.; 1958) and Communism, Democracy, and Catholic Power (1951), both published by the Unitarian publishing firm, Beacon Press, located in Boston. With the election to the Presidency in 1960 of John F. Kennedy, a charming secular humanist (and an almost daily adulterer, the public learned two decades later), the old hostility to Catholics in American politics faded rapidly. So did the old Catholicism. On the American Church's transformation see Garry Wills, Bare Ruined Choirs: Doubt, Prophecy, and Radical Religion (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1972). Wills was himself transformed from traditional Catholicism to political radicalism, 1965-69. Wills' statement on page one regarding the election of 1960 is to the point: "The Catholics' hour had come, though they did not seem to know it; had come, too late, just as their church was disintegrating." On the international Church's transformation, 1965-1970, see Malachi Martin, The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).

52. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, ch. 7.

53. That the unprecedented and rapid visible retreat of Soviet Communism from Eastern Europe in the second half of 1989 came in large part as a result of prayer by Christians and resistance by a handful of churches was not considered a serious possibility by the vast majority of political commentators. It was only Communism's incomparable economic failure -- itself a very recent discovery for liberals, though widely accepted by them astonishingly quickly -- that supposedly made this retreat inevitable.

54. North, Political Polytheism.

55. When Islam was literally at the gates of Europe in 732 (Arabs) and again in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Turks), Christians would have understood the inescapable implication of political pluralism: the opening of the gates to those who would then make Christianity illegal, as their heirs do in every Islamic country today. Now that the disciples of Islam are well inside the gates of Europe, and reproducing at high rates, the future of political pluralism is clear: the conquest of Western Europe by its most ancient foe, i.e., the overcoming of Charles Martel's successful defense of Europe in 732. The demographic war against Western civilization is being conducted in the bedrooms of Europe and those Islamic nations bordering Europe, and the physical heirs of Martel are losing. In Western Europe, only Ireland has a birthrate high enough to maintain a stable population: 2.1 children per family. Population growth will be restored in Western Europe if present trends continue within the Islamic ghettos, however; but then these nations will no longer be either Western or pluralist.

56. F. A. Hayek, Rules and Order, vol. 1 of Law, Legislation and Liberty, 3 vols. (University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 101.

57. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, ch. 9. See also Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, Appendix B.

58. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, pp. 96-106. On the historical reality of the New Heaven and New Earth, see Isaiah 65:17-20.

59. The biblical concept of private land ownership was steadily imposed on land that had been controlled by tribes whose concept of property was either nomadic or tribal-communal. North American Indians fought as tribes and lost as tribes, before and after the "white tribes" arrived. The whites understood this. The English and Dutch used the Iroquois as a buffer against the French, who had a treaty with the Algonquins, the implacable foes of the Iroquois. Individual Indians did not hold title to land; they did not buy and sell land to each other, certainly not irrespective of tribal loyalty. There were sometimes sales of land to whites by tribal chiefs, who may not have understood that the white settlers believed they were buying perpetual rights to the land, but surely the chiefs did not concern themselves about the non-existing property rights to land held by tribe members. The famous purchase by Dutch settlers in 1626 of the land that later became New York City was representative of the Dutch settlement strategy: purchase whenever possible. The settlers had received instructions from home stating this explicitly; the Indians "must not be expelled with violence or threats. . . ." Cited by Oscar Theodore Barck, Jr. and Hugh Talmage Leffler, Colonial America (New York: Macmillan, 1958), p. 176.

The English (except Roger Williams) were less scrupulous about existing tribal property rights to the land than the Dutch were. They simply imposed the Indians' view of the land on them: "The rules regarding land are lawfully made by those tribes that can successfully hold it by force." This military conquest of Indian land does not, of course, affirm the legitimacy of the U.S. government's subsequent breaking of peace treaties with them. The other major judicial failure of the North American whites was that they acquiesced to the Indians' concept of collective property on the Federal reservations. They did so as white chiefs, and so was born the longest experiment in compulsory socialism in U.S. history. That this has been the most notoriously corrupt bureaucratic failure in U.S. government history should surprise no one.

60. The following description is not to be taken literally: "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God (Rev. 19:15).

61. See Appendix C: "Leaven as Exclusively Evil."

62. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, chaps. 4, 7, 9.

63. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), pp. 123-26.

64. This includes the legally representative act by his parents in the case of a baptized infant.

65. North, Unconditional Surrender, pp. 70-72.

66. The problem of analysis comes when non-redeemed people run their institutions more closely to the external standards of the covenant, while Christians run their institutions by non-biblical standards. The work ethic of the Japanese compared with that of people in the United States is a case in point. God blesses Japan.

67. Greg L. Bahnsen, "This World and the Kingdom of God" (1982), in Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1988), p. 355.

68. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, chaps. 4, 7.

If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:

icetyler@juno.com

If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out.

icetylertx@aol.com

 

TOP

Table of Contents