Kuyperian Commentary -

On January 6, 2025 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

What is Epiphany?

Happy Epiphany!

It doesn’t have the same ring as “Merry Christmas” or “Christ is risen!” but Epiphany carries significant repercussions for our Christmas and Easter theology. In some sense, Epiphany is the key that unlocks both classic Christian festivals. Epiphany secures the triumph of Jesus’ life and mission.

In Epiphany, we celebrate the “manifestation” of Jesus to the Gentiles. When the Magi came to give him gifts, they gave him gifts as a foretelling of the great gift the Son will give the Father at the end of history (I Cor. 15:24-26). When Christ returns, he returns with the kingdom as a gift to the Father. Jesus receives gifts, but he is the great gift-giver of history (Eph. 4:11-13).

Jesus introduces himself to the Gentile world as a fulfillment of Simeon’s song. He is a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of Israel (Matt 2:1-12). Jesus’ entire ministry is a ministry of gift-giving, which culminates as his body is given for his people (Lk. 22:19). Indeed, gift-giving is a crucial component of the revelation of Jesus to the world.

We can be sure of the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) because Epiphany’s gifts to Jesus are gifts that will be dispersed among men. Jesus is the unfailing gift-giver to the nations. He has never failed to provide for his people. He promises to be a “light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel” (Luke 2:32).

For the Christian, Epiphany signals a season of discipleship through gift-giving rituals. The entire biblical premise of sanctification entails a life of exchanges (my life for yours).

Christians are called to think through their ordinary rituals and adjust them accordingly to reveal Christ’s work to the nations. We can consider three questions to build a gift-giving environment in our homes and churches:

First, how can my home be a gift of refreshment to my children and those who enter it? Have I made my house a house of prayer? Is it perfumed with the aroma of heaven?

Second, how/what are my daily habits? In what ways are those rituals bringing life to my own soul and those around me? Am I refreshing my spirit to refresh others in the hope of the Gospel?

Third, how am I being an ambassador of Jesus in my endeavors? How is my private and public life sharing the mission of Messiah to the world? Is my life manifesting glory in my community?

Epiphany means to make known what was hidden. Christ’s presence was a mystery to the Gentiles, but now his life is made known to the nations as a babe and as the Creator of the cosmos.

Epiphany summons us to wrap our lives as gifts to those around us and to be constantly on the lookout to give of ourselves to others out of the abundance of gifts we have received from Christ, our manifested Lord.

On January 2, 2025 By Bill Smith In Church, Culture, Postmillenialism, Theology 3

Maturity & Mission

One of the major themes of Scripture concerns maturity. In the beginning, the world was created infantile, something to be developed and brought to a mature condition. This story of Scripture is written into every human being conceived in the womb of a woman.

Like the creation of which we are a part and represent, we mature. We mature physiologically as our bones, muscles, and organs grow. We mature psychologically and intellectually by learning new things and growing in wisdom. Scripture’s story is written into our existence as humans.

(more…)

On January 2, 2025 By Nathan Zekveld In Culture 1

Rome is not the Answer to the Ailments of Protestantism: The need for a Reformation in Ecclesiology in 2025

Protestantism is in shambles. Many historically Protestant churches have accepted radical gender ideology. Most Protestant denominations, if they haven’t adopted women’s ordination, probably will accept it in the next 25-50 years. Protestantism is radically divided, full of sectarianism.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t any better. The current pope of the Roman Catholic Church also has adopted a form of radical gender ideology. The Roman Catholic Church is still plagued with the idolatry of prayers to Mary & other saints as well as a confusion on the doctrines of salvation (soteriology). I could add more. Modern Roman Catholic theology has adopted a form of universalism, even in the writings of their more conservative theologians like John Paul II in his work the Splendour of Truth. As much as the Roman Catholic Church has a structural unity, it is divided in error. We must be united in truth, not in error.

There are a couple issues that both many Protestants as well as many Roman Catholics don’t understand. (1) The difference between the Reformation (Reformed theology) and the Radical Reformation (anabaptist theology); (2) The distinction and similarities between Calvinistic Baptist theology and historical anabaptist theology; (3) Some of the reforms in Roman Catholicism that have drifted towards Protestant critiques (many RC churches now do worship in the common tongue). (4) The way in which many Reformed and anabaptistic churches have lost their moorings in the theology that was taught at the time of the Reformation.

One of the fundamental points of the Reformation was the doctrine of sola Scriptura – that is, Scripture alone. The initial Reformers – John Calvin, John Knox, Martin Bucer, Martin Luther, etc – did not reject the work of the Spirit in the history of the church. But the fundamental thing that they did was build it on Scripture as the final rule for faith and life. This is what the orthodox church has done throughout history from Clement to Augustine. In this manner, the Reformers maintained catholicity with the church of all times and ages. Notice that when I speak of Reformed, I include Anglican (British Reformed), Presbyterian (Scottish Reformed), Lutheran (Norse Reformed), the Reformed in the Netherlands (Dutch Reformed). Various Reformed confessions arose in these countries to combat the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, and to defend themselves against charges of anabaptistic theology (read the Belgic Confession closely).

Here is where it gets confusing. I have more in common with a Baptist, a Pentecostal or a Roman Catholic guy who reads his Bible than a Reformed guy who doesn’t read his Bible. I have been blessed by the writings of Calvin Robinson, for example, but I stoutly disagree with him on his various teachings re Mariolatry and his belief that John Calvin was a heretic (he is old orders Catholic, not Roman Catholic). I agree with Calvin Robinson (and John Calvin) that we must dispose with the root of Marxism and Feminism in the Protestant world. He has a very important warning when he warns Protestants of this. Why? Because the message of the Bible is antithetical to all such ideologies that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. There are portions of the Protestant world fighting against these things and the prevalence of anabaptistic theology. The Roman Catholic Church has much bigger problems to deal with.

There are a lot of guys swimming the Tiber back to Rome. It’s a two-way bridge, yes. But as much of popular evangelicalism devolves into silliness, men are looking for a stable foundation in the midst of all the foment and revolution in North American ecclesiology. They are looking for order, even if it is only the appearance of order.

Therein lies the problem. Much of the church in North America does not have an ecclesiology. Those that do have an ecclesiology, all to often retreat into sectarianism in order to protect the order of their churches. Batten down the hatches! There’s a storm coming! No credobaptists allowed!

Well, that storm is upon us with the widespread dissemination of information with the internet and artificial intelligence. It’s time to face this problem head-on, to meet it with a grin and a firmness of faith and doctrine, because guys will be swimming back and forth over the Tiber whether we like it or not.

In 2025, we need a reformation in ecclesiology. What is a proper doctrine of the church? What does Christ desire of His Church, His blood-bought bride? The faltering courage that leads to churches locking their doors for 2+ years of lockdowns. The constant push for women’s ordination. In broader evangelicalism, the lack of church government, the Ted Talks, the fog machines and gaudy displays of kitschy pop Christianity.

It’s all in our Reformational documents. But the Reformation has experienced a mission drift. There are many faithful men and pastors who are braving it out in the wild, little islands in their almost entirely apostate denominations. Sure, I recognize that there are the two-office churches (Scottish Reformed) and the three-office churches (Dutch Reformed). The CREC is bringing them together. The Anglicans tend to be a bit more hierarchical. But even if we can’t figure it out right away, we can recognize each other’s ordinations.

You see, the Reformation was not united by a reductionistic gospel (like the TGC). The Reformation was not united by an institutionalism (like the Roman Catholic Church). The Reformation was not united by compromise (like modern liberal ecumenical movements). It was united by sound doctrine.

There were problems. Bucer lamented that churches struggled with knowing what were the minors and what were the majors. The Reformation was not a golden age in any sense of the word. But when the Reformers were driven out while seeking to reform Rome, they united around sound doctrine that can be found in the confessional documents of the Reformation. At the time they had to settle for national churches, and that has led to its own problems 500 years down the road. But praise God that some of the local magistrates did indeed protect them from the attacks of Rome.

As we look forward to the future, it would be foolish & sinful to go back to Rome. It is impossible to go back to the national ecumenical structures that were built at the time of the Reformation. Yes, we can and should learn from the ancient church. We should study the order of Dordt and Presbyterial order in Scotland and the order for the French churches. We should immerse ourselves in confessional and historic theology and in the teachings of the church fathers. Yes, we need scholars, young men who will boldly study these matters even in the face of mockery and persecution.

But if we can build again a bulwark of Reformed Catholic Christianity in North America, being humble about our sins and weaknesses in the contemporary church, always submitting to the words of Christ, then I am convinced we will see another Reformation grip the heart of the West. But in doing so, there is no skirting around issues of the doctrine of the Church.

I’m not so interested in controversies surrounding independent baptist or baptist/reformed churches like Right Response Ministries or Refuge Church in Ogden, Utah. I have found some of their content interesting over the years. But there are things happening in every town and city of this nation, next door, where Christians are reforming their churches according to the Word of God.

This is one of the reasons I love the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Committee. This is why I keep an eye on conservative Anglican and conservative Lutheran movements and conservative movements in liberal Presbyterian denominations. I keep an eye on churches in evangelicalism that are reading their Bibles and seeing the need for reforms in various places. I expect as this revolution in information and learning happens, we will see Roman Catholic priests and Eastern Orthodox priests considering the goodness of Reformed catholicity. This is one of the reasons I am in the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches.

I love the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. It is an article of faith, but it is also something Christ really is forming in the midst of this world of sin and misery.

Final Note: this was initially posted on my Substack on Dec. 30, 2024 – here. I posted another article in this vein on Kuyperian commentary back in April, 2024 – here.

Photo by Wim van ‘t Einde on Unsplash

On January 1, 2025 By Kuyperian In Culture 2

Paul and antisemitism in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 has been something of a flashpoint in New Testament studies because of its alleged antisemitism. The New Testament scholar Pieter van der Horst has even said that we should not preach on this text, only against it.

Paul says,

(14) For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, (15) who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind (16) by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last! (ESV)

Is this antisemitic? It might depend, of course, on how the term is defined. For our purposes we will define antisemitism as “hatred, disdain, or blanket denunciation of the Jewish people as a whole”. In this article, we will defend Paul against charges of antisemitism from enemies of Scripture, but also from friends, who, while not necessarily embracing the term, justify antisemitism on the basis of this passage. For example, in a recent podcast episode of The King’s Hall, Pastor Brian Sauvé suggested that the Jews are indeed “uniquely malevolent” and appealed to 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 to support his view. We will demonstrate, however, that such an appeal is misguided. We will address three questions concerning the passage and on the basis of the answers give three reasons why it leaves no room for antisemitism.

Who are the “Jews” in verse 14?

Paul is talking about the churches in Judea and how they suffered at the hands of “the Jews”. The ESV has a translators’ footnote here that the word Ioudaioi “can refer to Jewish religious leaders, and others under their influence, who opposed the Christian faith in that time”. While the wordusually refers to religious leaders in John’s gospel, it may not have that meaning here. The next phrase clarifies the meaning, however: as Gordon Fee points out, the word translated “who” is not a relative pronoun but a definite article with a participle. Literally, it is “the also killing Jesus ones”. Fee argues that this grammatical construction is restrictive: Paul is not talking about all Jews, but these particular Jews. (Though of course Paul is talking about different groups of Jews: those who killed the Old Testament prophets as well as those who are hindering him.)

Who are the Thessalonians’ “countrymen”?

Paul talks about the Thessalonians’ suffering in verse 14. This is most likely subsequent to Paul’s initial experience in Thessalonica, related in Acts 17. There the Jews took “some wicked men of the rabble” (verse 5) and formed a mob. It would appear that this mob consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. The word “countrymen” (sumphuletēs) in 1 Thessalonians 2:14 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament but comes from the word phulē (“tribe”). Since the Thessalonian Christians were at least mostly Gentiles (Paul reminds them in 1:9 that they turned “from idols to serve the living and true God”), the word “countrymen” cannot mean just Jews. In fact, it probably has more of a geographic than ethnic connotation: “the men of your own place”. The point Paul is making is that what the Thessalonian Christians suffered at the hand of unbelieving Gentile Thessalonians was the same as what Judean Christians suffered at the hands of unbelieving Jews.

When did the judgment occur?

Paul says, “wrath has come upon them at last” (verse 16). He uses the aorist verb, which is usually translated into English with a past tense. The aorist can, however, be used to express the certainty of a future event – this is called the proleptic (or futuristic) aorist. (The most famous occurrence is in Romans 8:30: “those whom he justified, these he also glorified”.) Most commentators interpret verse 16 in this way: for example, Leon Morris says, “It refers rather to its certainty, for Paul is thinking of wrath in an eschatological setting. It is at the last great day that his nation will receive the due reward of all its misdeeds.”

There is, however, another possibility. Paul could be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. (Some liberal scholars, such as Birger Pearson, even suggest that on this basis these verses constitute an interpolation, and were added after the fact.) In this way, the Jews responsible for Jesus’ death and Paul’s persecution have already been punished for those sins.

Why this passage leaves no room for antisemitism

We are now in a position to evaluate the charge that this passage supports antisemitism. Firstly, it is not talking about all Jews – or even the Jews as a whole – but particular Jews in the first century (though Paul goes further back to include the persecution of Old Testament prophets). Secondly, Paul makes the point that the Thessalonian Christians were suffering things from Gentiles just as Judean Christians had suffered from Jews: these Jews were not “uniquely malevolent”, since the Gentile unbelievers of Thessalonica were just as bad. It is not just Jews who “displease God and oppose all mankind”. Thirdly, the Jews who killed Jesus, persecuted Paul, and rejected the gospel have already been judged: both in the gospel going to the Gentiles (as related in Acts 28:28) and in the destruction of Jerusalem (and especially the temple) in 70 AD. Hence, the suffering of Jewish people throughout history cannot be seen as God’s judgment for first-century sins. 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 leaves no room for antisemitism.

John Dekker is married with six children and serves as pastor of Christ The King Church in Eugene, Oregon. He also teaches at Reformed Evangelical Seminary and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Christ College in Sydney, Australia.

On December 26, 2024 By Bill Smith In Church, History, Theology 1

The Covenant Story: The New Covenant

“For all the promises of God in him are ‘Yes,’ and in him ‘Amen,’….” ~2 Corinthians 1:20

“To be continued.” This is one of the most frustrating phrases ever to be used on screen. The author immerses you in the story, takes you to the point of anxiously desiring resolution, and then leaves you hanging, waiting for all the questions to be answered in the next installment … maybe. From a marketing perspective, it is brilliant because an audience is assured for the next episode (if the story is good enough). From a viewer’s perspective, the tension is unpleasant. (And this is why we now have streaming services and “binge-watching.”)

At the end of the Hebrew Scriptures (2 Chronicles in the Hebrew order), God put a big “to be continued.” The Jews are sent back to the land to rebuild the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. God’s people are in prominent places in the empire (such as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Esther, and Mordecai). These were golden years in some sense.

(more…)

On December 21, 2024 By Adam McIntosh In Culture, Film 1

The grace of hospitality in ‘Fargo’ Season 5

When starting Fargo Season 5, my expectations were extremely low. I had been disappointed with Season 4’s lack of biblical content, which was a departure from the first 3 seasons. Would Season 5 continue the disappointment, or would Fargo return to its former glory? It would take several episodes to know for sure, but former glory it was.

The main character is Dorothy Lyon (“Dot” for short), a housewife married to Wayne with a daughter named Scotty. Dot is being hunted by her abusive ex-husband, Sheriff Roy Tillman. The majority of the show follows Dot as she hides from Roy and defends herself against his henchmen.

Roy is presented as an arrogant, brash conservative-type. Roy says things like, “I am the law of the land” and “the Constitution was given by Almighty God” (Episode 2). He has a private chapel on his property, decorated with the American flag, where he lights candles to a large crucifix of Jesus (Episode 3). Roy talks to the crucifix and addresses Jesus as his “old friend” (Episode 4). He quotes from the book of Revelation (Episode 8); he references Lot’s wife and the walls of Jericho (Episode 9). Early on, you start to wonder if Season 5 has an agenda to paint Christians in a bad light. Thankfully, that is not the case at all.

(more…)

On December 19, 2024 By Bill Smith In History, Theology Like

The Covenant Story: David & Restoration

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; And the government will be upon his shoulder … Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.” ~Isaiah 9:6, 7

From the earliest days of history, God declared his intention for his kingdom to be established on the earth and ruled by man. The original dominion mandate in Genesis 1:28 tied dominion–the establishment and maturation of the kingdom–to seed, children, being fruitful and multiplying. Men would develop and rule over God’s kingdom on earth. “The heaven of heavens are Yahweh’s, but the earth he has given to the sons of men” (Ps 115:16).

When sin entered the world, the establishment of the kingdom would have to come through the defeat of the serpent and his seed. God promised in Genesis 3:15 that he would raise up the seed of the woman to accomplish this mission. Over the next several thousand years, the story of the seed and the kingdom unfold.

(more…)

On December 18, 2024 By Rick Davis In Podcast Like

KC Podcast – Episode 144: Race, Ethnicity, and the Jews

On December 14, 2024 By Kendall Lankford In Culture Like

King Saul, Stone Choir, And Antisemitism

DAVID AND HONORING A TYRANT

David’s world was no gentle pasture of ease and luxury. He dwelt in a realm of tension, uncertainty, and mortal danger. Though anointed by the prophet Samuel’s trembling hands and sealed with the oil of divine favor (1 Samuel 16:13), David found himself living more like a fugitive than a monarch. He slept in caves still damp with morning dew, hid behind jagged rocks in desolate valleys, and navigated a bleak landscape where every rustle in the brush might herald a band of men commissioned to kill him. His enemy was not some foreign marauder or nameless warlord; it was Saul, Israel’s first king—one who had once been “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 10:1) but had now devolved into a petty, paranoid tyrant. Saul’s mind teetered between past glories and present fears, and he clutched at his fading crown with a ferocity that deepened his disgrace.

David’s trials were not just an inconvenience. Consider the crushing psychological weight of it all: the one anointed by God as Israel’s true king was forced to crouch in the darkness, straining his ears for the footfall of armed men. David knew he was chosen to lead God’s people, guide them into righteousness, and establish a kingdom founded not on caprice but covenantal faithfulness. Yet he lived as a man hunted, slandered, and pressed on every side. He had every human reason to strike Saul down the moment an opportunity arose. Saul had hurled spears at him, driven him from royal courts, and invaded the sanctuary of his peace. When the king stumbled unknowingly into David’s hiding place (1 Samuel 24), vulnerable and alone, David’s men whispered in his ear that this was providence itself—God handing Saul over for judgment. One swift slash of steel would have ended the tyrant’s tyranny and brought David nearer to his rightful throne. Who could fault him for taking such a step?

But David was governed by a compass that defied the raw impulses of vengeance. He refused to raise his hand against “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24:6). Instead, he chose reverence over revenge, forbearance over fury. His blade did not drip with Saul’s blood; it bore only the memory of a garment’s corner, a silent testimony that David’s restraint was not weakness but faith. Faith that God’s justice did not need human rage to complete its course. Faith that a truly righteous king must refuse the paths of cruelty. Faith that the kingdom he would inherit must never be stained by the poison of personal vendetta.

THE CHURCH AS TYPOLOGICAL DAVID

This narrative—a story charged with tension and moral grandeur—is not just historical. It is also typological. It is a living parable for the Church and her posture toward secular Israel. Let me explain.

When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost (Acts 2), Christ’s Church emerged as the rightful heir of the covenantal promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Church became, in Christ, the faithful Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), endowed with the mandate to carry the Gospel to every tribe and tongue. She was anointed like David. The rightful heir to the throne of the world. Yet for decades, this ruddy Church found itself overshadowed by the tyrant whims of Saul — an Old Covenant Judah – who hurled spears at her, pressed her on every side and staggered toward its own covenantal destruction when it fell on its own sword in AD 70. Like Saul, who raged against David, first-century Judaism raged against the Church, flogging, maiming, and murdering Jesus’ bride in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and every diaspora synagogue scattered throughout the Roman world. Believers were hauled before councils, beaten, stoned, and scattered. And, these wounds were not inflicted by distant pagans, but by their own flesh and blood, their own kin according to the flesh (Romans 9:3). The paradox was heart-wrenching: How could the Church honor these persecutors—these spiritual forebears—who now sought its life?

Yet the apostles, like David, chose a path marked not by hatred but heartbreak. They did not resort to the vindictive fury being leveled at them but with tearful entreaty, humility, and honor, marking David as a man after God’s heart.

Consider Paul’s lament: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” (Romans 9:2). This is the cry of a man who would accept a curse upon himself if it could mean the salvation of his Jewish brethren. Was he naive? Hardly. He knew that the old covenant was passing away (Hebrews 8:13) and that there was no salvation outside of Christ.

Yet he also knew that bitterness would not bring redemption. This great pharisee, formerly named “Saul” (ironic?), once hunted down the Church with the same ferocity that his Benjaminite ancestor had for David. He oversaw murders. He chased Christians like dogs from city to city. But, unlike Saul, he laid down his arms in the light of the resurrected Christ. He repented. And he joined the ranks of Christ, becoming one of the persecuted, beaten, and abused in that first tumultuous century.

Yet, no matter how ruthlessly they beat him or the rest of the apostles, they simply heralded the truth with humility and grace. They were unafraid to call Judah to repentance with broken hearts and ribs, praying for their countrymen to repent rather than lusting after vengeance. Like David cutting off only a piece of Saul’s robe, they exposed Israel’s sin without succumbing to the dark allure of hatred, revenge, or indifference.

This is astounding! Usually, when someone is beaten in the cause of doing good, anger, resentment, and frustration will seep into the heart. Yet, just like David, the Lord’s Church, under the power of the Holy Spirit, would not raise a hand against the Lord’s anointed people. Even though they were barreling towards disaster in AD 70, the Church honored them, prayed for them, loved them, and worked tirelessly to evangelize them. This was the attitude of the first-century Church and must be the attitude of all who call upon the name of Christ today.

STONE CHOIR AND ANTISEMITIC TWITTER THUGS

Sadly, this God-glorifying attitude that David demonstrated to Saul, and what the early Church offered to the Jews who were murdering them, is precisely what I have not seen much of today. Sitting in the comfort of their living rooms, men like the rock heads from Stone Choir and the anons who follow them lob one disgusting comment after another onto Twitter, comparing the Jews to vermin, feces, and worse. All Christians, they argue, must hate with perfect hatred, misapplying Scripture to justify their vitriol.

Instead of the patience, long-suffering, and silence of Christ before His accusers, their poison is exposed by the very words they use. One tweet declares that the Holocaust is nothing more than a fabricated ‘anti-German blood libel,’ while another goes further, mocking Holocaust memorials as meaningless artifacts – sarcastically mocking the absence of bodies. They encourage Christians to respond to Jewish voices with the words ‘Shut up, Jew,’ as a weapon against the ‘enemy.’ Such vile cynicism not only dismisses the suffering of real people but exposes a heart that is devoid of compassion or the Gospel’s transformative power.

Even more shocking, they twist Scripture to promote racial hatred, alleging that ‘God made greater and more lasting promises to the White race than He ever made to the Jews.’ They mock Africans and claim that God’s grace does not elevate the African people to an IQ over mental retardation and refer to interracial marriage as “worse than murder.”

The heart of these comments (and countless more) reveals itself in their utter disdain for the Gospel’s message of hope, grace, and redemption. Instead of calling modern-day Jews, or anyone else for that matter, to repent and turn to Christ, they weaponize Scripture to justify their hatred and excuse their ignorance as virtue. This is not masculinity. This is not Christianity. It is a perverse, hollow shell of faith that replaces the Savior’s cross with a sword of malice.

This is the sad reality of many today who bear the name of Christ but replace His love with their moral putrescence. Rather than emulate the example of Stephen, who prayed for those stoning him, they wield their keyboards like clubs, pounding out hatred in Jesus’ name. May God rebuke this evil, and may these men repent of their sins before the judgment they so carelessly invoke comes upon them.

THE RIGHT APPROACH

The actions of David toward Saul and the early Church toward Old Covenant Israel present us with a profoundly biblical model: one of truth spoken with reverence, correction offered with humility, and confrontation undertaken with a heartbreaking for the lost. This is the model we are called to emulate, especially when dealing with those who are enemies of the Gospel.

Yet, tragically, this model is precisely what is absent in the venomous rhetoric of groups like Stone Choir and their Twitter acolytes. They embody the antithesis of David’s restraint and the apostles’ sorrowful love for their persecutors. Instead of wielding the delicate scalpel of truth with care, they thrash about with the blunt cudgel of tribal animus, delighting in disdain rather than grieving for the lost. Their proclamations do not carry the sorrowful weight of David’s refusal to harm Saul or Paul’s anguish for his Jewish brethren (Romans 9:2); instead, they echo Saul’s manic paranoia and fury—a ferocity that consumes both persecutors and persecuted alike.

David’s refusal to strike Saul was not weakness but faith—a trust in God’s justice that needed no human vengeance to complete its course. Similarly, the apostles, battered and bloodied by their Jewish persecutors, chose to herald the Gospel with tearful entreaty rather than seething rage. They exposed sin without hatred, called for repentance without cruelty, and mourned the spiritual blindness of their own kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:3).

Stone Choir and its ilk, however, offer no such model. Instead, they wield Scripture as a weapon for arrogance, not redemption. Their comments, rife with racial slurs and derisive mockery, expose a heart far removed from the Gospel’s transformative power. Rather than calling the Jewish people—or anyone else—to repentance in Christ, they use the language of Scripture to justify their hatred and veil their ignorance as virtue. This is not the way of David, the apostles, or our Lord. It is a hollow faith that trades the Savior’s cross for a sword of malice.

We must denounce such rhetoric for what it is: a betrayal of the Gospel. Yet, in doing so, we cannot abandon the biblical model of sorrowful correction. David did not exult in Saul’s downfall, nor did the apostles rejoice over the judgment that befell Old Covenant Israel in AD 70. Their hearts broke for their enemies, even as they stood firm in truth. And this must be our posture today.

Proclaiming Christ as the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises is not anti-Semitic; it is a faithful expression of the Gospel. Scripture affirms that while Israel played a profound role in redemptive history, the covenantal promises now find their complete realization in Christ alone (Acts 4:12; John 14:6). To deny this truth is to deny the Gospel itself. It is not slanderous to expose the sins of modern Judaism—such as its vehement rejection of Christ, the evils of the Talmud, its hatred of His Church, and its delusional claims to covenantal status apart from Him (John 14:6; Hebrews 8:13). Nor is it hateful to declare the truth: salvation is found in only one name under heaven, and that name is Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). To proclaim these truths boldly is not an act of hatred, but the most loving and biblical thing we can do. However, to proclaim them without the sorrowful longing seen in David, Paul, and even Jesus is to distort the very heart of the Gospel. Such arrogance replaces the healing balm of grace with a weapon of pride, leaving no room for redemption and inflicting only wounds.

David’s blade did not bathe itself in Saul’s blood, just as the apostles’ tongues did not drip with hatred for the Jews who persecuted them. Instead, both bore witness to the power of grace, the hope of redemption, and the justice of God. In an age where the temptation to simplify—either to silence false religion or attack it with scorn—is all too real, we must resist both extremes. We must follow the biblical model: proclaim the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to salvation while longing, fervently and earnestly, for the repentance and restoration of the lost.

This is the shape of true Gospel fidelity: truth spoken with reverence, correction offered with humility, and confrontation undertaken with a heart that weeps for those in darkness. May we, like David, refuse the paths of cruelty and vengeance. May we, like the apostles, bear witness to the power of grace even under persecution. And may we, like our Lord, love even those who reject Him, praying for light to break through their darkness.

On December 13, 2024 By Bill Smith In Culture Like

The Covenant Story: Mosaic Covenant

“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4-5). Jesus was born “under the Law.” Through the centuries, various views on the nature of the Mosaic Law have been bandied about in the church. Some have understood the Law in contrast to the Abrahamic covenant as God instituting an impossible meritorious system of salvation. If someone could keep the Law perfectly, he would be counted righteous and, therefore, earn his salvation. But God, knowing that no one could do this, sent Jesus to earn salvation with works of supererogation so that there is now an infinite treasury of merit for all who believe.

(more…)